ntl still nthell?

Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they were crap. way
too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still blocking ports?
has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but heh this is NTL)
and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard to see NTL beating this)
also are they port throttling or using traffic management.

"nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:443d47fc$0$9234$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they were crap.
> way
> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still blocking
> ports?

I've never found a blocked port.

> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but heh this is
> NTL)

No it's still totaly crap but now it's crap at "Lo-call" premium rates.

> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard to see
> NTL beating this)

Still not great and the billing department still can't get anything right they
keep double billing quite a lot of people it would seem (though it's only ever
us that they have made the mistake with if you believe them)

nick wrote:
> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they were crap. way
> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still blocking ports?
> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but heh this is NTL)
> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard to see NTL beating this)
> also are they port throttling or using traffic management.
>
>
>
>


i was with ntl for years, only reason i left is because they dont supply
my new house. They never blocked any ports and I always has decent
speeds and no downtime that i can remember, though I suppose it depends
where you are, I'm in south manchester

In article <443d47fc$0$9234$(E-Mail Removed)>, Nick wrote:
> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they were crap. way
> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still blocking ports?
> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but heh this is NTL)
> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard to see NTL beating this)
> also are they port throttling or using traffic management.
>

I've been with ntl for 3-4 years now (just broadband, currently 1MB). I've had no faults or
billing problems or other reason to contact customer service. I don't go in for any high-usage
activities and have had no problems.

--

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

On 2006-04-12, nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they were crap. way
> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still blocking ports?
> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but heh this is NTL)
> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard to see NTL beating this)
> also are they port throttling or using traffic management.

Well, I've got their 10Mbit/sec product.
Recently I've had a few days (maybe 1 a week) when their service
just dropped between 6 - 7 am for hours at a time. I haven't bothered
trying to report this for obvious reasons, if you know NTL.

I've not seen any blocked ports, though my usage is strictly "normal"

Be aware that the 10MBit link is only _downstream_ from NTL to you.
They do seem to have some sort of bandwidth limiting taking
place to popular upstream providers, so don't expect to be able to
download gigabytes at this rate.
I'm a firm beleiver in cock-up rather than conspiracy where NTL
are concerned, so I'd expect this to be due to poor investment
in networking fabric, than explict "let's screw the customers".
(Though the effect is the same :-(

No billing problems or difficulties upgrading from their slower
service - which I did online, seamlessly.

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

barry wrote:
> nick wrote:
>> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they
>> were crap. way
>> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
>> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still
>> blocking ports?
>> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but
>> heh this is NTL)
>> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard
>> to see NTL beating this) also are they port throttling or using
>> traffic management.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> i was with ntl for years, only reason i left is because they dont
> supply my new house. They never blocked any ports and I always has
> decent speeds and no downtime that i can remember, though I suppose
> it depends where you are, I'm in south manchester

I think NTL block ports 135, 139 and 440 meaning that certain servers cannot
be run and causing problems with VPN's (I think those are the port numbers).

"Resident Drunk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> barry wrote:
> > nick wrote:
> >> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they
> >> were crap. way
> >> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
> >> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still
> >> blocking ports?
> >> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but
> >> heh this is NTL)
> >> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard
> >> to see NTL beating this) also are they port throttling or using
> >> traffic management.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > i was with ntl for years, only reason i left is because they dont
> > supply my new house. They never blocked any ports and I always has
> > decent speeds and no downtime that i can remember, though I suppose
> > it depends where you are, I'm in south manchester
>
> I think NTL block ports 135, 139 and 440 meaning that certain servers
cannot
> be run and causing problems with VPN's (I think those are the port
numbers).

135 / 139 are M$oft NetBIOS over IP. They are blocking it so that your PC
cant be accessed across broadband via workgroup file sharing (if you dont
have a router or firewall).

i think they blocked various ports in the past which were used by trojans
and worms "out in the wild" on the Internet - mainly to prevent PCs getting
hijacked. Not sure what the current state is, but i would be surprised if
they ever got around to getting rid of old traffic filters.

there may be a VPN server that uses 440 by default - although most let you
change the port number, so that shouldnt be a show stopper.

i run a VPN client (Cisco) to work from home fairly frequently - works fine
on NTL as well as various other ISPs.

--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

Resident Drunk wrote:
> barry wrote:
>> nick wrote:
>>> Thinking of going back to ntl. when i left, 3-4 years ago now, they
>>> were crap. way
>>> too much downtime, appalling CS, inaccurate/rip off billing.
>>> But 10mbit is too tempting. What i need to know is, are they still
>>> blocking ports?
>>> has their CS improved? (hopefully ill never have to call them but
>>> heh this is NTL)
>>> and how much downtime these days? (3 days with BT over 3 years, hard
>>> to see NTL beating this) also are they port throttling or using
>>> traffic management.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> i was with ntl for years, only reason i left is because they dont
>> supply my new house. They never blocked any ports and I always has
>> decent speeds and no downtime that i can remember, though I suppose
>> it depends where you are, I'm in south manchester
>
> I think NTL block ports 135, 139 and 440 meaning that certain servers cannot
> be run and causing problems with VPN's (I think those are the port numbers).
>
>
>

i used it with a VPN into my place of work with no problems. Those
aren't VPN ports anyway, Can't see anything bad about them blocking port
135 and 139 myself, there's no real reason to have them open on the
internet. Not sure what 440 is mind.

barry wrote:

> i used it with a VPN into my place of work with no problems. Those
> aren't VPN ports anyway, Can't see anything bad about them blocking
> port 135 and 139 myself, there's no real reason to have them open
> on the internet. Not sure what 440 is mind.

I personally found that any of the more exotic ports (14088 for
instance) was always severely choked if not blocked over my period of
usage with NTL...

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:14:45 +0100, in uk.telecom.broadband ,
"kráftéé" <kraftee@dontspamkrafteeunless you know
what'sgoodforu.pus.com> wrote:

>barry wrote:
>
>> i used it with a VPN into my place of work with no problems. Those
>> aren't VPN ports anyway, Can't see anything bad about them blocking
>> port 135 and 139 myself, there's no real reason to have them open
>> on the internet. Not sure what 440 is mind.
>
>I personally found that any of the more exotic ports (14088 for
>instance) was always severely choked if not blocked over my period of
>usage with NTL...

I have no problems at all with my company's VPN on ntl cable, and
indeed I have few problems at all (other than sticking a spade
through the figure-eight cable last weekend, yike).

440 is sgcp, I suspect hte OP meant 445 which is one of the ports used
by Microsoft's implementation of SMB over TCP. Like 137 & 139, its not
required to be open over the internet.
Mark McIntyre
--