[Merged] NTL Increasing BB Speeds Late Summer 2004

[Belfast_boi]

I thought that once you use your 1GB, you'd get cut off?

Originally Posted by Belfast_boi

I thought that once you use your 1GB, you'd get cut off?

nope, you (allegedly) get a threatening letter first, although as others have said, examples of these letters are very rare indeed.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Belfast_boi

I thought that once you use your 1GB, you'd get cut off?

Oooh, now that would be a cap. Then we could have a proper debate. No it's just reasonable useage (as stated in the contract), and this is NTLs definition of reasonable usage.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=12590

indicates that the Caps applied to some other products sold as limited use (NTL is sold as unlimited) are pretty damn tight, and they do cut you off.

A glance down at the small print on Tiscaliââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s entry-level ADSL product reveals that youââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢re limited to 50 hours of surfing a month. And the press and TV ads for BTââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s most recent ADSL service fail to spell out how frustrated youââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ll be when you realise that the monthly subscription allows you only 1GB of traffic (upload and download combined) per month. A typical Windows service pack download would eat 15% of your monthly BT quota.
Capped services such as these are probably best avoided, especially as it is possible to get an unlimited connection for almost the same price if you shop around. These restricted packages are the deals consumer columns in tabloid newspapers would refer to as rip-offs, designed to con unsuspecting technophobes who assume that big-name providers are a safe bet and offer the best value.

[Belfast_boi]

oh rite, thanx.

[Bugblatter]

Originally Posted by s1lv3r

From those figures, yes

If it was cached the numbers would be far higher.

What do you get from this speed test?: http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedtest.asp

**

Direction Actual Speed True Speed (estimated)

Downstream 241 Kbps (30.1 KB/sec) 260 Kbps (inc. overheads)
Upstream 122 Kbps (15.3 KB/sec) 131 Kbps (inc. overheads)

Interesting. BTW Thanks for the link.

[punky]

I have tried to search through this thread (i'm a good boy, honest), but has anyone heard either way about the speed increase for STB in ex C&W areas. Last I heard people were talking about wether the STB itself (mines a 4000) can handle data transfers above 1meg. Anyone heard any conclusion to this, either way?

I don't really want to beg anyone for anything, least of all NTL for a SACM. But if I have to, what are my chances, realistically? Some people seem to have more luck than others. And I don't want to enter into a new contract either.

[abailey152]

The possible increase in speeds is good news, but it would be better if,

a) NTL sort out the crappy email system to make it more reliable, and stop at least SOME spam.

b) They sort out why I have to reboot my STB at least twice a week.

c) Either remove or increase the cap.

d) Sort out the continuous issues with the "transparent" proxy servers.

All these problems, and all they do is a bit of tweaking of the d/l speeds. Of course, they can brag about their increased speeds in the usual marketing BS, whereas all these other issues would only mean better customer service, which is something that NTL puts right at the bottom of its list of priorities.

[baldy]

a) NTL sort out the crappy email system to make it more reliable, and stop at least SOME spam.

see here. You cannot please everyone when dealing with SPAM, some are in favour of blocking at server whilst others prefer to deal with it themselves. No matter what ntl do they will get slated by some people. ntl will never win this battle, I'd prefer tougher legislation therby taking 'ownership' away from ISP's.

b) They sort out why I have to reboot my STB at least twice a week.

probably power level related, have you called ntl faults?

c) Either remove or increase the cap.

Irrelevant to most users. The people I have seen affected by this clause have been extreme bandwidth hogs, well over the suggested limits. I would like to add that I disagree with the way it is worded and would like to see more emphasis on the upload as it causes more disruption.

d) Sort out the continuous issues with the "transparent" proxy servers.

Happening quite regularly. Luton caches were upgraded this week.

All these problems, and all they do is a bit of tweaking of the d/l speeds. Of course, they can brag about their increased speeds in the usual marketing BS, whereas all these other issues would only mean better customer service, which is something that NTL puts right at the bottom of its list of priorities.

Swings and roundabouts; you have to make money to spend money on improvements. Given the state ntl were in last year they are not doing to bad on the upgrade side. Admittedly, there are some areas that require substantial investment and planning.

[abailey152]

Originally Posted by baldy

see here. You cannot please everyone when dealing with SPAM, some are in favour of blocking at server whilst others prefer to deal with it themselves. No matter what ntl do they will get slated by some people. ntl will never win this battle, I'd prefer tougher legislation therby taking 'ownership' away from ISP's.

Something could be done. If spam filtering is so haphazard, why does my filtering software work so well? And without much user intervention. No, I think most of the anti-spam-blocking group feel that way because they just know what a total pigs-ear NTL will make of it.

probably power level related, have you called ntl faults?

This is my third STB. Each time it has been replaced, I've spent the evening telephoning CS as they seem to lose half of my channels. A friend of mine has been on a STB which he used to reboot regularly, but now he's on a CM which he still has to reboot. Another friend of mine on a CM....same there! This seems like a problem in the area. Are NTL interested? NO!

Irrelevant to most users. The people I have seen affected by this clause have been extreme bandwidth hogs, well over the suggested limits. I would like to add that I disagree with the way it is worded and would like to see more emphasis on the upload as it causes more disruption.

The levels are a problem. Check out this thread,

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=7849

For someone on 160k, 1Gb is plenty but it doesn't take long to rack up that amount of usage on 1Mb. If the speeds increase, it'll be worse. Granted, there does perhaps need a cap of some sort, but the current "fixed" level across the range of speeds is totally wrong. The cap should increase as the speed increases.

Happening quite regularly. Luton caches were upgraded this week.

Every time NTL does "load balancing" I lose access to sites. I have to change my proxy manually to get access back. Why? I know of no other ISP who regularly have this problem. NTL shouldn't be working on this, it should have been fixed long ago.

Swings and roundabouts; you have to make money to spend money on improvements. Given the state ntl were in last year they are not doing to bad on the upgrade side. Admittedly, there are some areas that require substantial investment and planning.

Yeah, NTL are doing great on the upgrade side aren't they? They have an email system which has been almost useless for the last week, a Usenet service which I gave up on quite some time ago, and a set of "transparent" proxy servers that are anything but. Yes, I agree they need to make money, but other ISP's seem to do alright, and don't seem to have the wide-spread problems NTL have. NTL didn't inherit an aged and creaking system. It was supposed to be state-of-the-art, so why is it broken all the time? Getting repairs done is a joke. It takes almost a week to get an engineer to call. For nearly £100 a month for the package, I think I'm justified in expecting a little better.

[DeadKenny]

On the spam issue, NTL could at least do what Freeserve do and just tag the messages that are likely to be spam. Then you can set up a rule to delete them.

I run my own mail server though and with my domain name(s), bypass NTL entirely. I get about 1 spam email every few months

[poolking]

Originally Posted by DeadKenny

On the spam issue, NTL could at least do what Freeserve do and just tag the messages that are likely to be spam. Then you can set up a rule to delete them.

I run my own mail server though and with my domain name(s), bypass NTL entirely. I get about 1 spam email every few months

What server software do you use, if you don't mind me asking?

[DeadKenny]

Originally Posted by poolking

What server software do you use, if you don't mind me asking?

Just the standard 'sendmail' you get with Fedora Core 1, combined with IMAP to let me retrieve the mail from Outlook on another machine, and I use Postfix to do a little extra processing on mails (virus scan, filter certain mail, etc), and then SquirrelMail to add a webmail interface for when I'm away from home. Everything is out of the box in Fedora, but I've added Webmin to make it much easier to manage sendmail.

Oh, for inbound mail I have a domain which I route (using the DNS MX record) via zoneedit.com to my mail server. Zoneedit is mainly just to cope with potential IP changes. My router updates zoneedit with the latest IP.

[poolking]

Thanks.

I've been thinking of dabbling with linux in the future, I'll try it then.

[Russ]

Ok, back on topic now

[baldy]

Originally Posted by abailey152

Something could be done. If spam filtering is so haphazard, why does my filtering software work so well? And without much user intervention. No, I think most of the anti-spam-blocking group feel that way because they just know what a total pigs-ear NTL will make of it.

Hopefully when the MX6 system quoted in the article comes online a lot of the current problems will disappear. At the moment, I agree, the mail system is crap. As for SPAM, I would rather deal with it myself. If I delete a mail by mistake due to over zealous rules I have myself to blame. Until the government gets tough on SPAM we have to deal with it. First point of attack should be with the originators not the delivery system. How many people take it out on the postman or Royal Mail when they receive junk mail?

This is my third STB. Each time it has been replaced, I've spent the evening telephoning CS as they seem to lose half of my channels. A friend of mine has been on a STB which he used to reboot regularly, but now he's on a CM which he still has to reboot. Another friend of mine on a CM....same there! This seems like a problem in the area. Are NTL interested? NO!

I can't really comment on this as I have no idea what area of the country you are in. As I stated earlier some areas require substantial investment, you may be in one. Personally I would move to ADSL if it was causing me so much grief. Not much interest in TV myself as it's mostly repeated junk, the wife would probably want SKY though

The levels are a problem. Check out this thread,

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=7849

For someone on 160k, 1Gb is plenty but it doesn't take long to rack up that amount of usage on 1Mb. If the speeds increase, it'll be worse. Granted, there does perhaps need a cap of some sort, but the current "fixed" level across the range of speeds is totally wrong. The cap should increase as the speed increases.

Read most of it a while back as well as others and as I previously stated needs to be rewritten as clearly it is causing grief. I download well in excess of the CAP and have not been bothered, neither has anyone that I know. Its primary purpose is to use against the *very limited* number of *heavy* users. To be honest it was fine the way it was originally worded.

Every time NTL does "load balancing" I lose access to sites. I have to change my proxy manually to get access back. Why? I know of no other ISP who regularly have this problem. NTL shouldn't be working on this, it should have been fixed long ago.

Do you loose connection every Tuesday? I cannot think of any reason why a rebalance would affect your ability to use a specific cache apart from a firewall. Rebalancing just moves you to a different upstream if needed, your IP should stay the same and all routing is the same. Personally, I would like to see cache access restricted to a users local area. The ability to bypass local proxies as a quick fix results in longer down time as fewer faults are reported. I would also prefer direct access but that will not happen but I do understand the reasons behind this technology (please do not infer that I suggest that others do not ) even if it is not perfect.

Yeah, NTL are doing great on the upgrade side aren't they? They have an email system which has been almost useless for the last week, a Usenet service which I gave up on quite some time ago, and a set of "transparent" proxy servers that are anything but. Yes, I agree they need to make money, but other ISP's seem to do alright, and don't seem to have the wide-spread problems NTL have. NTL didn't inherit an aged and creaking system. It was supposed to be state-of-the-art, so why is it broken all the time? Getting repairs done is a joke. It takes almost a week to get an engineer to call. For nearly £100 a month for the package, I think I'm justified in expecting a little better.

Mail is crap, agreed. MX6 upgrade should have a dramatic effect on performance. The current system was not designed to deal with the amount of throughput that we see now. Sadly it has taken ntl too long to realise this and have upset quite a few of their subscribers.

Usenet had been crap for a while but since the initial hickups of the server upgrades it has been very good. 95%+ completion & 10 days retention on the binary groups I use and able to sustain 115Kb+ download rates is good enough for me. If I want better then I expect to pay extra for it.

I have no problems with caching servers.

Never needed to call an engineer out since install in almost 3 years so can't comment.

The only fault I see with TV is the crappy EPG & Interactive component. I don't use them so no problem for me.


As with most products and services there are people who are happy and people who are not. Forums like this (no disrespect intended) generally give the impression that everything is bad with ntl. Just like working at any support centre they only here the bad side. What some fail to realise is that there are many many satisfied customers, myself included, I just thought I should put some balance into this debate . Yes I have the odd issue now and then but nothing is perfect in life and I accept that.

If I had the problems abailey152 refers to and it affected my enjoyment so much I would not hesitate in looking elsewhere for service.

edit:
Just like to add that my primary reason for selecting an ISP is to provide access. Services such as mail, usenet are secondary. I don't use ntl mail simply because I have my own domains and manage them myself and use Sendmail etc. as mentioned by others. It's a personal thing Many others have different views and I respect that. Perhaps ntl should do what many other ISPs do and offer a bare bones service with no additional services at a lower cost, it may benefit many users.