[Now Official] More ntl speed changes

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by blenky

Nice spot. I have my original Pace 1000 box taht I got in January 2000 and would be loathe to loose it - but there you go.

I suspect you are right and thats why ntl are charging a blanket £25 - as a shed load of people with STBs will need the new Samsung.

Tell them you want a SACM, it can be done, that way you'd keep your trusty old box!

In my case, my Pace box, on the old 1MB service, used to drop the connection at least one a day, requiring a reboot of the router and/or the STB nearly every evening. Since I got the Samsung, I have had ZERO dropouts. Well pleased!

[Ignition]

Or repetitive even :p

[DeadKenny]

Originally Posted by daxx

3 words to all detracors

WAIT AND SEE

Ah yes, NTL's catch phrase (with the emphasis on 'wait' ).

Originally Posted by JediMaster

NTL offer a GREAT package. (Maybe service is not 100%)

More like the service is about 10%. There's no point offering cheap fast speeds if the service is crap. I'm much rather NTL charged more to be honest and use the money to invest in the network.


As for 5Gb cap on 1Mbps, that's dead easy to break through without having to resort to "dodgy" downloads, particularly with more and more legitimate on-demand media content which will run into 100s of Mb per download, e.g. BBCi's service, and things like linux ISOs, game demos such as Star Wars Galaxies which is a 2Gb download and then there are the daily patches, legit game downloads by Steam are fairly chunky. Even more so if the cap counts both downstream and upstream (especially if you run a web server or use RemoteDesktop/VPN).

And then you've got home networks with multiple PC users, PS2s and Xbox's all consuming bandwidth with legitimate content.

Personally I think the solution is to offer tiered caps and/or PAYG elements if you go over the caps. You want a bigger cap, pay a bit more. Seems fair enough and would be in competition with the likes of PlusNet who offer a similar service. Given the low prices NTL are talking about I'm sure NTL can match PlusNet's uncapped prices if not beat them, or at least offer sufficiently high caps at a price to keep everyone happy (so long as they can keep modems from rebooting all the time).

Originally Posted by Ignition

Force9 / Plus.net ya.

My one concern about plus although I've heard a lot of good things about them is that since they switched their buying method from BT they are running their network bloody close to the wire now:

http://www.plus.net/support/adsl/adsl_utilisation.shtml

Bear in mind that last week they added another 155Mbps.

I was considering their services, 2Mbps, no limits for £40 a month is a good deal, I'm just rather nervous about how viable it is and how close to its' limits they are running their connectivity. They lose a single 622Mbps circuit from BT and it's congestion city, they lose a single 155Mbps and it's marginal

There's an article on it here...

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showflat...1425869&page=0

Of particular note...
"If you look at Plusnet's Bandwidth Utilisation graphs, this shows that they are not exceeding available capacity. To put it into perspective, although it may look a little bit "full", there is over 150Mbps of spare bandwidth at peak times; this is more than some ISPs run their whole business on! "

The important thing is that it's a BT problem and could effect any ISP, it's just that PlusNet's success has meant they have hit it first, but as they have far more investment they have the capacity to cope.

So far with a month on the service I've not seen any problems and I've had 100% reliability (never seen that on NTL), and vastly better ping times with no packet loss (haven't had the luxury zero packet loss on NTL for ages). Just browsing web sites is amazingly fast compared to NTL. I put it down to the zero packet loss, low pings, no transparent proxies and better backbone connectivity (or generally better infrastructure).

In ntl's case core network is more than capable of supporting twice the load it currently does, and very few users see congestion, the uBRs as a whole have a lot of overhead free now due to the big upgrades that have been done.

I'm not so convinced "very few" users see congestion. NTL seem to need to do resegmentation on a frequent basis and there are many UBRs which seem to struggle. Though one of the problems is few users realise what their problem is, most resorting to either putting up with it or attempting to phone NTL and when they eventually get through, get treated to the "all users are dumb, it must be their PC" routine. In my experience it takes a lot of complaints for NTL to even remotely believe there may be a problem somewhere.

Remembering that congestion is a little different with cable. It's less of an issue at the fat-pipe end and far more at the UBR end, especially in the upstream channels which is where there are major problems.

[slowcoach]

Originally Posted by madcap

About 15 Thai hookers lol

I guess I am totally out of touch, too much time spent reading this forum instead of getting out more.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by DeadKenny

There's an article on it here...

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showflat...1425869&page=0

Of particular note...
"If you look at Plusnet's Bandwidth Utilisation graphs, this shows that they are not exceeding available capacity. To put it into perspective, although it may look a little bit "full", there is over 150Mbps of spare bandwidth at peak times; this is more than some ISPs run their whole business on! "

The important thing is that it's a BT problem and could effect any ISP, it's just that PlusNet's success has meant they have hit it first, but as they have far more investment they have the capacity to cope.

Sorry, Plus buy their capacity from BT, BT deliver what Plus ask for. Plus are running their network to the extent where loss of a single BT link will cause congestion. BT's balancing issues not withstanding I was referring to how little overhead Plus have and how marginal they are running their network.

So far with a month on the service I've not seen any problems and I've had 100% reliability (never seen that on NTL), and vastly better ping times with no packet loss (haven't had the luxury zero packet loss on NTL for ages). Just browsing web sites is amazingly fast compared to NTL. I put it down to the zero packet loss, low pings, no transparent proxies and better backbone connectivity (or generally better infrastructure).

LOLOL @ better infrastructure. ntl have the best core IP network infrastructure in the UK bar none. Wonder how many feet of their own fibre Plus own. Last I checked ntl owned about 7,500km of the stuff and managed a further 2,500km.

Sorry I'm really quite amused, comparing ntl's infrastructure to Plus.net's is like comparing Dell to your local PC shop.

I used an ntl modem in Southampton a week ago and was astonished at how fast and responsive the browsing and pings were. Both the browsing blew my 2Mbit ADSL away (this was 1Mbit cable) and the pings were nearly 10ms faster than mine.

150Mbps of spare capacity is great I guess, considering it's considerably under 10% of utilisation. The loss of ONE fibre link and ONE central pipe and the majority of their customer base will experience congestion. Their service is running really close to max, regardless of how many ISPs run with 155Mbit not many run their capacity that close either. >90% is really really close to the mark, most ISPs would consider their network oversubscribed running that close to max.

I did mention in private that the issues that caused your substandard performance had been resolved and were a fault. As you've kinda brought this into the open I'll say again they are fixed. 99.99% of users see no packet loss and pings unmatched by an ADSL ISP without living next door to their datacentre. Plus give you the sub-10ms pings to LINX I used to see from Hampshire?

I'm not so convinced "very few" users see congestion. NTL seem to need to do resegmentation on a frequent basis and there are many UBRs which seem to struggle.

I have reports of uBR ports showing congestion, though you obviously seem to know better than me perhaps mine are wrong and you have the correct version.

Remembering that congestion is a little different with cable. It's less of an issue at the fat-pipe end and far more at the UBR end, especially in the upstream channels which is where there are major problems.

No there aren't major problems. Upgrades to 3.2MHz wide upstreams along with the massive uplift prep resegmentation program have all but eliminated these issues. I could count the number of ports classed as badly congested on my fingers and toes NATIONWIDE.

I really really really wish I could stick the report on a website just to show you how little fact there is in what you are saying, sadly I can't for confidentiality purposes. Either way a lot of people have worked long hours and damn hard to get the network into the condition it is in at the moment and are still banging capacity in to keep it good and prepare for the extra speeds coming soon.

By the way, while you are comparing ntl and Plus.net, most of ntl's Points of Presence could carry Plus's entire network traffic with room to spare to collect a couple of other medium size ADSL ISPs up while they are at it. Be fair and compare ntl and BT, the only other ISP in the UK with a network comparible.

I'm not saying Plus are pants, I am saying they run their network to the wire, that would make me a little concerned about using them.

Ah to be able to just order more capacity from BT and let them worry about it rather than having to worry about an IP network, an RF network that can require tens of thousands to upgrade a few hundred homes.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Ignition

I'm not saying Plus are pants, I am saying they run their network to the wire, that would make me a little concerned about using them.

Now who does that remind me of....

ntl have run their network(s) 'to the wire' for yonks m8.

Where there has been little or no cash (for several years in fact-except where the cash was available as bonuses to directors etc), so let's not forget that.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Neil

Now who does that remind me of....

ntl have run their network(s) 'to the wire' for yonks m8.

Where there has been little or no cash (for several years in fact-except where the cash was available as bonuses to directors etc), so let's not forget that.

Several hundred thousand customers throughout the years will disagree with you there mate

[ProfPete]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

Possibly a tactic used to get the lighter users to believe the heavier users are too blame for NTL's lacking network? Purely speculation, of course.

When will people stop accusing ntl of having a sub-standard network?! There is nothing WRONG with their network. Contention is a DESIGN FEATURE, if it goes slow, you are experiencing it. Infact, ntl have one of the best core networks in the country as far as shifting IP data goes. The only other on the same league as them is the Joint Academic NETwork, and both are well over-specced for the amount of data they carry. I believe telewest have a similar topology and speed, but on a smaller scale.

Stop moaning, do the sums, and get a life. 2mbps leased lines cost the best part of a grand a month, so that's what you should be expecting to pay for that level of service. You pay nowhere near that, you pay for a SHARED service. So get used to SHAREING it, and stop moaning.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Ignition

Several hundred thousand customers throughout the years will disagree with you there mate

Ok...

Let's say four hundred thousand disagreed with me?

What about the other six hundred thousand BB customers that ntl have!?

[BBKing]

I'm not so convinced "very few" users see congestion. NTL seem to need to do resegmentation on a frequent basis and there are many UBRs which seem to struggle.

Can't sit idly by on this one.

Are you going to produce any evidence to back this up, other than your own experience (admittedly poor, but unrepresentative)? Here's a clue for you - your personal experience cannot be scaled up to a network of 1.3m users and remain accurate - you have to have the information and view that people like Ignition and I have to get near that.

You've been told frequently that large amounts of investment has gone in, I can detail it for you if you like. There's vastly more capacity than there was this time last year even, there's a greater understanding of UBR congestion and imbalance issues (the latter was more of a problem than the former) and resegmentation is a weekly event - this is because we can predict and track incipient problems and fix them before they become apparent to users.

There's nothing bad about frequent maintenance, quite the reverse, what you shouldn't do is leave the thing untouched till it starts to struggle. Regular maintenance is better than irregular maintenance is better than no maintenance. Basic rule of network management.

Where there has been little or no cash

Pur-lease. MC28Us and new UBR chassis obviously grow on trees, something I hadn't realised.

BB (who found *six* new UBRs on his network scan last night)

Bah - Ig got in while I was typing this.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the change from nthellworld to cable forum was to get away from it being an NTL-bashing site?

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

I'm sure I read somewhere that the change from nthellworld to cable forum was to get away from it being an NTL-bashing site?

Your right. Now sits back and waits for it to get out of hand

[zovat]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

I'm sure I read somewhere that the change from nthellworld to cable forum was to get away from it being an NTL-bashing site?

don't remember that - I thought the change was so we could bash MORE than JUST NTL...

I could be wrong (It does happen )

Originally Posted by Bill C

Your right. Now sits back and waits for it to get out of hand

I hope not - because then we will have gone wayyyyyy off topic

Originally Posted by Bill C

Your right. Now sits back and waits for it to get out of hand

Sorry, I'm keeping an eye on my thread, it won't get out of hand