Idnet offer ADSL2+ at same price as Max

There are conditions which may make me consider this carefully but for
exchanges so equipped, Idnet are indeed making the above offer.

BE suggested I'd get ~ 15Mbps at my distance from the exchange but I
would need a new router of course.

Any recommendations ? Preferably good value but reliable, as my Origo
router has been. I don't need wi-fi btw.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

Eeyore wrote:
> There are conditions which may make me consider this carefully but for
> exchanges so equipped, Idnet are indeed making the above offer.
>

I would be interested to hear how this goes. I left Idnet in Jan to get
WBC/ADSL2+ from Entanet. It was a total disaster. I never actually got
ADSL2+ and my experience with Entanet was unbelievably bad (no
connection at all for 10 days).

Entanet seem to be in meltdown, possibly associated with their move to
this WBC/Adsl2+ technology.

The question in my mind is was it all Entanet's fault or were BT also to
blame?


> BE suggested I'd get ~ 15Mbps at my distance from the exchange but I
> would need a new router of course.
>

After my disaster with Entanet I went with BE. Their initial estimate of
10 Mbps was over optimistic, actual speed 6 Mbps (compared to 4Mbps on
Adsl). Apart for the speed overestimate everything else with BE is
astonishingly good, low pings, constant peek speeds.

> Any recommendations ? Preferably good value but reliable, as my Origo
> router has been. I don't need wi-fi btw.
>

I use a netgear dg834v3 which is ok. I think the current version is
dg834v5 which I can't vouch for (I also have a netgear dg834Nv1 which is
a turkey).

"Nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:006569bb$0$12443$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Eeyore wrote:
>> There are conditions which may make me consider this carefully but for
>> exchanges so equipped, Idnet are indeed making the above offer.
>>
>
> I would be interested to hear how this goes. I left Idnet in Jan to get
> WBC/ADSL2+ from Entanet. It was a total disaster. I never actually got
> ADSL2+ and my experience with Entanet was unbelievably bad (no connection
> at all for 10 days).
>
> Entanet seem to be in meltdown, possibly associated with their move to
> this WBC/Adsl2+ technology.
>
> The question in my mind is was it all Entanet's fault or were BT also to
> blame?
>
>
>> BE suggested I'd get ~ 15Mbps at my distance from the exchange but I
>> would need a new router of course.
>>
>
> After my disaster with Entanet I went with BE. Their initial estimate of
> 10 Mbps was over optimistic, actual speed 6 Mbps (compared to 4Mbps on
> Adsl). Apart for the speed overestimate everything else with BE is
> astonishingly good, low pings, constant peek speeds.
>
>> Any recommendations ? Preferably good value but reliable, as my Origo
>> router has been. I don't need wi-fi btw.
>>
>
> I use a netgear dg834v3 which is ok. I think the current version is
> dg834v5 which I can't vouch for (I also have a netgear dg834Nv1 which is a
> turkey).


I too left Entanet last year for undescribable poor service.
I am with Be Unlimited up to 24 Mbps.
Be said 14 but I get just over 12, you can in your Be Profile change a
couple of settings to get increase, Be do not recommend this as it can cause
slight problems, but the choice is ours.
I use a Netgear DG834GT, ex- Sky one, but if you talk to BE Support you
have to connect the one they supply, I confirm Be DO supply a router. If
you leave it as to be returned or pay £90. Be Unlimited is a 3 month
notice contract should they not work out for you. I'm very happy.

O2 are a sister company to Be.

--
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD as it is now it is a joke.

if you can get BE its definitely the way to go, I cane my connection
constantly but never had any complaints from them.

TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> In my experience BT are always to blame. They are the worst company in
> the entire universe.
>

There are some companies currently offering service on Mars that are
worse. Trust me, I've been there ...

--
Alien C

Adrian C wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>>
>> In my experience BT are always to blame. They are the worst company in
>> the entire universe.
>>
>
> There are some companies currently offering service on Mars that are
> worse. Trust me, I've been there ...
>

Try australia, actually most countries have had state owned/funded
telecoms that have been later privatised, so most countries have their
own equivalent of BT.

Australia is particularly bad because the technical challenges are much
greater than elsewhere.

eps wrote:

>
> Australia is particularly bad because the technical challenges are much
> greater than elsewhere.

Seriously, O2's parent Telefónica in Spain just outside Seville is
particulary bad - for very probably the same reasons of remote
environments and trying to provide customer services to very unhappy
people - who now are used to very low expectations. It's terrible :-(

Try residing 'exPat' over there from the UK, and expecting the same ADSL
speedy broadband services we have here.

No chance - my colleage had to resort to Orange HSDPA Mobile Broadband
after the 'wet string' phone cable suffered too many drops and losses
trying to maintain 512kbps and same with normal voice phone calls.
Telefónica SA are not the most responsive organisation to deal with,
things don't get resolved for weeks and they still screw ye into staying
within costly terms of the service contract :-(

--
Adrian C

TheOldFellow wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2009 07:28:17 +0100
> Nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > The question in my mind is was it all Entanet's fault or were BT also to
> > blame?
>
> In my experience BT are always to blame. They are the worst company in
> the entire universe.

Not my experience thankfully. Virgin or Talk Talk IME but not BT.


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 07:28:17 +0100
>> Nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> > The question in my mind is was it all Entanet's fault or were BT also
>> > to
>> > blame?
>>
>> In my experience BT are always to blame. They are the worst company in
>> the entire universe.
>
> Not my experience thankfully. Virgin or Talk Talk IME but not BT.

BT staff do as well as they can under the current (and recent past)
management, who continue to alienate staff and customers by reducing staff
numbers and outsourcing core activities, in order to make up for losses
incurred by their bumbling Worldwide business, which has never been truly
successful.
The outsourced, Indian call-centre was one of the main reasons I migrated
away from BT-the-ISP, the other one being the high monthly broadband charge,
which remains high for what you get.
I've stayed with BT-the-phone-company, however, for the reason that it's
easier to report and track faults, and to get them fixed.

George

George Weston wrote:
> "Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> TheOldFellow wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 07:28:17 +0100
>>> Nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> The question in my mind is was it all Entanet's fault or were BT also
>>>> to
>>>> blame?
>>> In my experience BT are always to blame. They are the worst company in
>>> the entire universe.
>> Not my experience thankfully. Virgin or Talk Talk IME but not BT.
>
> BT staff do as well as they can under the current (and recent past)
> management, who continue to alienate staff and customers by reducing staff
> numbers and outsourcing core activities, in order to make up for losses
> incurred by their bumbling Worldwide business, which has never been truly
> successful.
> The outsourced, Indian call-centre was one of the main reasons I migrated
> away from BT-the-ISP, the other one being the high monthly broadband charge,
> which remains high for what you get.
> I've stayed with BT-the-phone-company, however, for the reason that it's
> easier to report and track faults, and to get them fixed.
>
> George

BT are in a tricky position, they have public responsibilities as a
hangover from when they were state owned but they also want behave like
any other capitalist company would.

21CN is a good example, the government asked BT to build a new next
generation network so we can all have super fast broadband. BT said "Ok
but we are not going to bother unless we own the infrastructure and you
don't make us share it like you did with DSL". The government then agreed.

I am not a socialist by any means but really the network building and
maintenance (effectively openreach) should be contracted out by the
government in the same way the goverment manages road building. There
can't be many people now who don't want or couldn't use internet access
and that probably won't change in the future.