In article ,
tony sayer writes:
In article ,
scribeth thus
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:25:42 +0000, Lobster
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster
wrote:


What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Because in my opinion BT and GPO before them have always provided me
with good service never tried to over charge me bills have always been
correct and have never in the last fifty+ years have I picked up the
phone and found it not to be working .
Has people say if something is working don't try to fix it if BT are
ever able to provide the Internet speeds that Virgin provide then it
will be Virgin that gets dumped not BT .

Someone there who deals with telecoms very infrequently...

.. A lucky person indeed....

BTW if Virgin we're not around do you think that BT would have been
bothered to improve anything other then what Ofcom might want them to
do?..

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:38:58 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article , Andrew Gabriel
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer writes:
In article ,
scribeth thus
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:25:42 +0000, Lobster
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster
wrote:


What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Because in my opinion BT and GPO before them have always provided me
with good service never tried to over charge me bills have always been
correct and have never in the last fifty+ years have I picked up the
phone and found it not to be working .
Has people say if something is working don't try to fix it if BT are
ever able to provide the Internet speeds that Virgin provide then it
will be Virgin that gets dumped not BT .

Someone there who deals with telecoms very infrequently...

.. A lucky person indeed....

BTW if Virgin we're not around do you think that BT would have been
bothered to improve anything other then what Ofcom might want them to
do?..

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.


No it was telecoms in general..

As to the latter thats why Two of our accounts are with Zen now, not the
cheapest but U get what U pay for..

FWIW I would have had VM in those two locations but the cable network
doesn't extend where they are located..
--
Tony Sayer

Fastmoggy wrote:
wrote in message
...
Is there another kat lurking on here?

meow?

Meow2222 cautiously approaches Fastmoggy, claws ready just in case...

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:38:58 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html


One month! ... what use is that.

Makes me wonder if they've implemented that famous RFC for data
packets for internet connection via carrier pigeon.


NT

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:18 GMT, wrote:

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

OK so £17.57 a month isn't the cheapest but it's not overly expensive and
at least they are open about what you get for your money. No endless * # !
against almost every "fact" in the marketing material.

The basic BT deal is £15.85/month but that has a 10GB monthly limit that
includes all down *and* upload 24/7. The AA basic is 101GB (100GB off
peak, 1GB peak (download only), peak being (M-F 0900-1800) and you are
totally unmetered 0200 to 0600 should 100GB the rest of the time not be
enough.

On BT 15GB (soon to be 20GB), total up and down/month is £20.54/month.
"Unlimited" on BT is £24.46/month. I can't find out from their web site if
"unlimited" really does mean I can fill the connection, up and down 24/7,
and not incur any extra charges or any service restriction.

Oh and with BT you are tied in for 12 months minimum or 18 months if you
take the "price reduction" for the first three months. AA just have a 30
notice period. AA also know how and where to kick BT to get faults sorted
rather than bounce you about between "customer service" departments that
insist a fault has been fixed when it hasn't or only partially.

When you start looking properly buying broadband is no where near as
simple as it first appears. Yes I am an AA customer but only a customer
I'm not getting any kick back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:18 UTC, wrote:

On 25 Mar 2009 07:45:58 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:38:58 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html
AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

A predictable response.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:06:30 UTC, wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:38:58 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html

One month! ... what use is that.

If you've been struggling for months trying to get anything done....

Makes me wonder if they've implemented that famous RFC for data
packets for internet connection via carrier pigeon.

Been done.

http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:18 GMT, wrote:
|
| AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are
| very expensive they can afford to offer the above considering
| what they are charging their customers .
|
| OK so £17.57 a month isn't the cheapest but it's not overly
| expensive and at least they are open about what you get for your
| money. No endless * # ! against almost every "fact" in the
| marketing material.
|
| The basic BT deal is £15.85/month but that has a 10GB monthly limit
| that includes all down *and* upload 24/7. The AA basic is 101GB
| (100GB off peak, 1GB peak (download only), peak being (M-F
| 0900-1800) and you are totally unmetered 0200 to 0600 should 100GB
| the rest of the time not be enough.
|
| On BT 15GB (soon to be 20GB), total up and down/month is
| £20.54/month. "Unlimited" on BT is £24.46/month. I can't find out
| from their web site if "unlimited" really does mean I can fill the
| connection, up and down 24/7, and not incur any extra charges or
| any service restriction.
|
| Oh and with BT you are tied in for 12 months minimum or 18 months
| if you take the "price reduction" for the first three months. AA
| just have a 30 notice period. AA also know how and where to kick BT
| to get faults sorted rather than bounce you about between "customer
| service" departments that insist a fault has been fixed when it
| hasn't or only partially.
|
| When you start looking properly buying broadband is no where near as
| simple as it first appears. Yes I am an AA customer but only a
| customer I'm not getting any kick back.

Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about it...

wrote in message

| Fastmoggy wrote:
| wrote in message
|
...
| Is there another kat lurking on here?
|
| meow?
|
| Meow2222 cautiously approaches Fastmoggy, claws ready just in
| case...

Don't go there......you'll never be the same again. I should know I
still shudder when I look in a mirror, that's when it's tied down so
it can't run out the room first....

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:06:18 -0000, Kr*ft wrote:

Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about it...

Who BT or A&A?

Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit failure and
then they open and honest about it. Unlike other ISPs who say "Problem?
What problem? We have no problem." With teletubbies who are stuck in
Scripty Land and don't understand if you start to say I can ping X but not
Y, or traceroute stops at... or there is no DNS.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Kráftéé" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

| Fastmoggy wrote:
| wrote in message
|
...
| Is there another kat lurking on here?
|
| meow?
|
| Meow2222 cautiously approaches Fastmoggy, claws ready just in
| case...

Don't go there......you'll never be the same again. I should know I
still shudder when I look in a mirror, that's when it's tied down so
it can't run out the room first....

Oh Mr K, You say the nicest things, Oh do you want that ball of wool back?
Ive started chasing buses instead, lookout for the new super duper 48's in
April. 4 Pushchairs or 2 wheelchairs. Bet they all still argue with the
driver to overload!
Hissssssssssssssssssssssss ( one deflated moggy)

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:38:29 UTC, wrote:

On 25 Mar 2009 17:28:44 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:18 UTC, wrote:

On 25 Mar 2009 07:45:58 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:38:58 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html
AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

A predictable response.
None the less a truthful one .

No, a subjective one.

I posted the reply to give some useful information, not to get into a
****ing contest about ISPs, and people who have an axe to grind. Unless
you're an ex customer, you can't judge whether it's worth it or not.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:06:18 -0000, Kr ft wrote:
|
| Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
| recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about
| it...
|
| Who BT or A&A?
|
| Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit
| failure and then they open and honest about it. Unlike other ISPs
| who say "Problem? What problem? We have no problem." With
| teletubbies who are stuck in Scripty Land and don't understand if
| you start to say I can ping X but not Y, or traceroute stops at...
| or there is no DNS.

They have appeared retisent when there has been thru put issues in the
past even when provided with ping traces showing where the bottleneck
is...

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:18 GMT, wrote:

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

OK so £17.57 a month isn't the cheapest but it's not overly expensive and
at least they are open about what you get for your money. No endless * # !
against almost every "fact" in the marketing material.

The basic BT deal is £15.85/month but that has a 10GB monthly limit that
includes all down *and* upload 24/7. The AA basic is 101GB (100GB off
peak, 1GB peak (download only), peak being (M-F 0900-1800) and you are
totally unmetered 0200 to 0600 should 100GB the rest of the time not be
enough.

On BT 15GB (soon to be 20GB), total up and down/month is £20.54/month.
"Unlimited" on BT is £24.46/month. I can't find out from their web site if
"unlimited" really does mean I can fill the connection, up and down 24/7,
and not incur any extra charges or any service restriction.

Oh and with BT you are tied in for 12 months minimum or 18 months if you
take the "price reduction" for the first three months. AA just have a 30
notice period. AA also know how and where to kick BT to get faults sorted
rather than bounce you about between "customer service" departments that
insist a fault has been fixed when it hasn't or only partially.

When you start looking properly buying broadband is no where near as
simple as it first appears. Yes I am an AA customer but only a customer
I'm not getting any kick back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL" offerings
AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair useage policy' which in
my opinion, rather flies in the face of using the word "unlimited" ...

That said, my connection on Virgin is very heavily used, and they have never
tried to invoke any kind of temporary cap.

Arfa

"Kráftéé" wrote in message
...
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:06:18 -0000, Kr ft wrote:
|
| Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
| recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about
| it...
|
| Who BT or A&A?
|
| Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit
| failure and then they open and honest about it. Unlike other ISPs
| who say "Problem? What problem? We have no problem." With
| teletubbies who are stuck in Scripty Land and don't understand if
| you start to say I can ping X but not Y, or traceroute stops at...
| or there is no DNS.

They have appeared retisent when there has been thru put issues in the
past even when provided with ping traces showing where the bottleneck
is...

Oh No...don't tell THEM about pings! just because they can ping you they
think everything's alright ( see page whatever of prompt cards) I had a
simple problem with THEIR modem but they wouldn't acknowledge it until i
asked for someone who understood English!

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:

Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL" offerings
AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair useage policy' which
in my opinion, rather flies in the face of using the word "unlimited"

Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I could
find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away from "without
limit".

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
|
| Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".

Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).

I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..

Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.

"Fastmoggy" wrote in message

| "Kráftéé" wrote in message
| ...
| "Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
| ll.net
| | On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:06:18 -0000, Kr ft wrote:
| |
| | Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
| | recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about
| | it...
| |
| | Who BT or A&A?
| |
| | Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit
| | failure and then they open and honest about it. Unlike other
| | ISPs who say "Problem? What problem? We have no problem." With
| | teletubbies who are stuck in Scripty Land and don't understand
| | if you start to say I can ping X but not Y, or traceroute stops
| | at... or there is no DNS.
|
| They have appeared retisent when there has been thru put issues
| in the past even when provided with ping traces showing where the
| bottleneck is...
|
| Oh No...don't tell THEM about pings! just because they can ping you
| they think everything's alright ( see page whatever of prompt
| cards) I had a simple problem with THEIR modem but they wouldn't
| acknowledge it until i asked for someone who understood English!

But surely you wanted someone who could talk catish

"Kráftéé" wrote in message
...
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
|
| Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".

Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).

I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..

Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.



Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He then
just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He
then just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)

How often have you had to do that?

In article , Arfa Daily
scribeth thus

"Kráftéé" wrote in message
...
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
|
| Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".

Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).

I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..

Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.



Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He then
just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)

Arfa


Same here .. problem is if he leaves the whole lot it seems will grind
to a halt, there are precious few people who know what there're doing
with this sort of equipment!...
--
Tony Sayer

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He
then just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down
to street cab level. :-)

How often have you had to do that?


On average perhaps once a year or 18 months over the however-many I've had
it now - since NTL put the cable into my village, when the g'ment was having
that big 'let's cable up the whole country' thing anyway, so I dunno - going
on 10 years, I should think. He has sorted out one dud modem, one modem
upgrade, one dud power supply, which interestingly caused a substantial
reduction in speed, and a fault at my tap in the street cab, that I can
remember. There has been a couple of occasions when I've reported problems
to him that have turned out to be 'global' on the village's trunk, which is
where his connections to internal technical people come in useful, both for
knowing what the problem is, and for getting it sorted in short order.

All in all, I think it has given me a pretty good service in terms of what
it has provided to my house, if being a little on the expensive side now.
Whether I would have thought the same if I had had to fight with a foreign
call centre on the few occasions that I have had trouble, I really don't
know.

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some bright
spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more depending on your
supply speed or useage. That really would knock the cost of a VMBB
connection firmly on the head ...

Arfa

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some bright
spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more depending on your
supply speed or useage. That really would knock the cost of a VMBB
connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get
up my nose though.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

| "Kráftéé" wrote in message
| ...
| "Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
| ll.net
| | On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
| |
| | Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| | offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| | useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face
| | of using the word "unlimited"
| |
| | Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small
| | print including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was
| | nothing that I could find that altered the meaning of the word
| | "unlimited" away from "without limit".
|
| Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from
| the slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over
| a 2-3 day period has not been unheard of a few times).
|
| I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
| death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used
| to be 50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new.
| Unfortunately Torrents just don't want to work for me, different
| story sorry..
|
| Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of
| anybody being told that they have abused their unlimited service.
| So it's pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you
| need unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them
| to, instead of them playing up because you've done something like
| turn the wifi off. They also have problems with words like
| contention but if a firm hand is used they can be guided, without
| to much, if any, swearing.
|
|
|
| Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems
| with my Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field
| service. He then just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as
| he has access to technical people who listen to what the problem
| is, and are then able to check stuff for him, right up to switch
| and trunk level, and right down to street cab level. :-)
|
| Arfa

Had the same thing when I first had Diamond Cable, but with the switch
to NTHell he was moved to another part of the midlands so I lost the
chance of support. Infact the only time, after he moved, when I di
get him involved was when one of their TV repeaters on a bloc of flats
in Leicester was broadcasting a signal into one of the amateur radio
bands, which was quickly, very quickly, looked into but then dropped
after they discovered how much it would cost to rectify the problem..

"Stuart Noble" wrote:

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

--
altheim

altheim wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote:
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.


I'd rather have a pay-per-view system. Wouldn't cost me anything

"altheim" wrote in message

| "Stuart Noble" wrote:
|
| What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start
| taxing internet supply as they have said they will, because
| doubtless some bright spark will then work out that they can
| hammer you for more depending on your supply speed or useage.
| That really would knock the cost of a VMBB connection firmly on
| the head ...
|
|
| As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain.
| Being charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen
| to, does get up my nose though.
|
| I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
| irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
| via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying
| for
| a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes
| set-top boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like
| Windows
| Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be
| liable even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

You try explaining that to some of the dullards on the groups. Had a
complete froup gang up on me because I stated that a student in digs
with a DVD player attacthed to a TV would require a licence even if
the tuner was detuned & no aeriel present. Isn't it funny how the
noise level tends to rise as they insist that they are right & the law
is wrong...

Never mind it helped to pass the time for a few nights & I don't
bother with the froup any more as they do appear to be up each others
crack....

In article ,
writes:
On 25 Mar 2009 07:45:58 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:38:58 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html
AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

They aren't very expensive, and neither are they very cheap.
However, their service level is what I expect, and so I use them.
Their full honesty and openness when they have problems are
excellent. (Demon used to be quite good in this respect when they
first started, but lost any such claims years ago now, not evem
acknowledging faults for days, if at all nowadays.)

I also had excellent service from BT Openworld Business, but at
over £60/month 4 years ago (and colleagues still on it are now
over £100/month), I couldn't justify the cost.

BT Openworld Business were excellent at identifying faults (usually
before I noticed them), letting me know, and getting them fixed. A&A
let me know automatically if the link goes down completely (but not if
it's just getting poor, although they provide me the full data to see
that if I look). A&A are excellent at getting BT to fix things, and
are very flexible and responsive to any configuration change requests.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"altheim" writes:

"Stuart Noble" wrote:

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).

No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. For VCR's, making sure it's
not tuned in to any stations and it has no easy way to connect up
an aerial would usually be a defense, unless the detector van
actually picked up the intermediate frequency from your set.
(I sat through weeks of these cases end-to-end, waiting each time
for a case to come up where a local vandal had damaged my car.
Fortunately, I found them quite entertaining, particularly where
someone tried to defend themselves, never successfully.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message


Here we go let the bun fight start:----

| In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
| only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.

Incorrect as the VCR has an inbuilt TV tuner, now if you had just a
video player (es there were some available not so many years ago)that
would be another matter, exactly the same as todays DVD players.
Except, what would you play it thru.


| However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
| courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
| have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
| apparatus if you are found with it. For VCR's, making sure it's
| not tuned in to any stations and it has no easy way to connect up
| an aerial would usually be a defense, unless the detector van
| actually picked up the intermediate frequency from your set.

You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence. Even today in theory you can be
arrested for the ownership of certain other radio receivers as well,
although this generally gets ignored as the really interesting stuff
is now, under most circumstances,encrypted.

| (I sat through weeks of these cases end-to-end, waiting each time
| for a case to come up where a local vandal had damaged my car.
| Fortunately, I found them quite entertaining, particularly where
| someone tried to defend themselves, never successfully.)

"altheim" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Noble" wrote:

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in TV
watching.

Ken Ward.

In article ,
"Kráftéé" writes:
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

to ALL on this thread!

Look Virgin are pants BUT
Virgin are BEST and they know it.
Pitty they abuse thier loyal customers in the way they do because of that!

Oh well looks like 14k4 modem for me if they hate me OUCH!

I wonder if anyone remembers the 'good ole days before cable?
For some of us it started on bulletin boards using BT at mega rates! on
crappy home computers.
We've gone a long way since then so shut yer moaning . What virgin offer
aint that bad compared to 'others' just the crappy 'help line' which lets it
down.

Just heard that virgin are to do a deluxe kat fud so im not swayed on my
opinion!
Just looking at cross postings here...hows the water you narrow boat land
lubbers?
meiowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Ships kat at the ready Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in TV
watching.


I am told by someone who works in TV/internet
that a tv licence is needed to watch it Live over the internet,
but its OK to watch old programmes on BBC iplayer without a TV licence.

[g]

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfa Daily
scribeth thus

"Kráftéé" wrote in message
.. .
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net
| On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
|
| Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".

Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).

I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..

Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.



Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He
then
just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)

Arfa


Same here .. problem is if he leaves the whole lot it seems will grind
to a halt, there are precious few people who know what there're doing
with this sort of equipment!...
--
Tony Sayer



I must admit that I do live in fear of him leaving them. He doesn't like his
job any more, but he is a couple of years older than me, and would stand
zero chance of getting employed elsewhere in today's economic climate,
because of his age, so I figure that unless they get rid of him, he's there
for the duration. He actually knows what he is about, but is a little too
conscientious about getting customers' problems sorted, often carrying out
work that he really ought to be calling other departments out to do. He has
worked in most of those departments over the years, so has collected the
expertise and equipment to do the remedial work, but it tends to put him
behind on jobs, which then leaves him working late. He is very 'old school'
on the customer service and satisfaction angle, as am I. I fear we are a
dying breed ...

Arfa

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"altheim" writes:
"Stuart Noble" wrote:

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get
up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).

No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. [...]

Exactly my point. It is virtually impossible to prove that you
have never used your equipment to watch TV (you cannot
prove a negative) therefore you cannot win.

Clearly the prosecutors would not take their claims to court
if the law was not on their side therefore we can assume
that the law relates to ownership of equipment and not how
it is used.

--
altheim

In article ,
"altheim" writes:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote:
"altheim" writes:
"Stuart Noble" wrote:

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...


As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get
up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).

No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. [...]

Exactly my point. It is virtually impossible to prove that you
have never used your equipment to watch TV (you cannot
prove a negative) therefore you cannot win.

Oh, it was easy if you genuinely hadn't, e.g. there was no
way to plug an aerial in.

Clearly the prosecutors would not take their claims to court
if the law was not on their side therefore we can assume
that the law relates to ownership of equipment and not how
it is used.

I would guess about 40% of the not guilty plea cases were found
not guilty. This is probably more than should have been, but the
prosecution were not very competent, and sometimes didn't offer
any evidence at all, particularly if the defendant had a solicitor.
I never saw a case which was caught by detector van.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kráftéé" writes:
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.


OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

--
altheim

In article , altheim
scribeth thus

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Kráftéé" writes:
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.


OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?


Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

No mention of wireless telephony but telegraphy could mean digital...

suppose a wi-fi point could be construed a wireless telegraph
transmitter)..

The old 1949 act has been updated since..
--
Tony Sayer