Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stu038
While I can fully appreciate the need to sometimes do these things to protect the network, I have to say that an official announcement or pre-warning would have been nice if only to reduce the amount of calls into already stretched call centres.
When mine appeared to die the other day I didn't even consider contacting tech support after a little basic fault finding. As far as I could tell my router had failed so it was down to me to replace it.
Fortunately for my wallet I didn't have the opportunity over the weekend to go out and buy a new one. I wouldn't have been impressed to be reading this thread if I had done so, especially as I would have probably bought another Sitecom one and then taken it back and ranted at the shop when it too failed.
|
I'm with you on this one mate...
I understand why NTL have done this, as it will have caused a loss of service to others in the same area, however, it is common sense to put some form of warning on their server status page, or to have Emailed those who were going to be affected.
As ever hindsight is 20/20, but surely NTL would realise that this would cause an influx of calls, and also that many more technical users would test without the router, discover that there was no fault with NTL, and then end up deciding that the router is faulty.
My test procedure would have been :
test with no router - works ok. = not a CM/NTL fault
test router at a mates (on NTL as all in the area are) - fails = duff router.
test mates router on my connection (not a sitecom) - works = duff router.
Only if my mate had a sitecom and said that his had failed at the same time would I smell the proverbial rat, and take the effort to contact support.
I would be mighty peeved if I then purchased a new router and it worked (assuming I changed brand) - only to discover that it was NTL blocking my router..