Sponsored

Poor Service

Moonraker

Casual Member
OMG! Vawn I know what you mean know. I haven't played online for a while but fired up MOHAA: Spearhead demo ( ISDN ) . I usually was getting pings around 80-120. Now my lowest was 300+ with most 500-800 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> Man that is simply unplayable. I have tried on and off this evening and no difference. best traceroute:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Traceroute has started ...

traceroute to 194.117.138.226 (194.117.138.226), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 4.021 ms 3.813 ms 3.99 ms
2 cust-e1s031292-s1-0-5-5-1.kjc-1.kjc.lon.uk.colt.net (213.86.146.42) 232.559 ms 169.361 ms 257.028 ms
3 router.quik.co.uk (212.36.160.253) 158.138 ms 104.808 ms 132.437 ms
4 213.86.52.66 (213.86.52.66) 213.929 ms 345.048 ms 275.673 ms
5 g1-0.core-1.pct.lon.uk.colt.net (212.161.120.33) 307.091 ms 228.898 ms 251.638 ms
6 p0-0.core-2.pct.lon.uk.colt.net (212.161.120.254) 204.814 ms 189.818 ms 154.302 ms
7 p1-2.ibr-1.kjc.lon.uk.colt.net (195.110.65.177) 197.533 ms 264.346 ms 254.108 ms
8 pos2-0-roobarb.lon.router.colt.net (212.74.64.25) 198.441 ms 291.353 ms 314.104 ms
9 pos1-0-oscar.lon.router.colt.net (212.74.64.18) 226.325 ms 216.48 ms 210.71 ms
10 gig-gw2-uk.cableinet.net (195.66.226.34) 199.753 ms 254.663 ms 177.475 ms
11 ge31-hsd-gsr2-linx.cableinet.net (194.117.154.5) 170.078 ms 158.333 ms 112.038 ms
12 kno-rab-tele2-pos.telewest.net (194.117.136.69) 111.228 ms 121.257 ms 184.865 ms
13 guppy.gaming.blueyonder.co.uk (194.117.138.226) 109.898 ms 50.906 ms 86 ms</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's to a normally consistant UK server.

On the BBC I am getting high ping also and also some p/l:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Ping has started ...

PING www.bbc.net.uk (212.58.240.32): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=161.834 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=258.423 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=140.88 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=245.722 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=413.104 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=158.506 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=6 ttl=247 time=162.447 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=7 ttl=247 time=169.181 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=8 ttl=247 time=134.7 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.240.32: icmp_seq=9 ttl=247 time=293.003 ms

--- www.bbc.net.uk ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 134.7/213.78/413.104 ms </pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">These are really bad pings compared to when I first tried it in September and makes games unplayable, let alone the outages, engaged/ capacity issues. I wnated to stick with Quik but given all this I seriously think I will downgrade to BTI. Only 64k but at least I get first time connections and reasonable pings.
 

Vawn

Regular Member
yer m8 thats whats making me pull my heir out.
pings are so bad and at verry odd times, i was trying to play online at the weekend at 3am on sat night and i had a ping of 300 to start with then 5 mins later it was up to 700+ made it just imposible.

hope david comes good and sorts our connections out before we have no choice than to go easewhere. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
 
Vawn/Moonraker

We are about to bite the bullet and source some ports elsewhere from a major international player. We have carried out some tests and during the day our ping times to bbc was less than 50ms. I'm not a gamer, but when Quik was at 60/70 customers seemed satisfied.

The tests are due to finish on Tuesday, and by then we should also know lead times. If all is ok and I can get an emergency order through there is a possibility that we have a solution.

We will also be taking some ports from BT in late December, so we may be the only ISP with 3 suppliers.

Downside is slightly more expensive, but we are working on that as well.

Regards
 
Vawn/Moonraker

We are about to bite the bullet and source some ports elsewhere from a major international player. We have carried out some tests and during the day our ping times to bbc was less than 50ms. I'm not a gamer, but when Quik was at 60/70 customers seemed satisfied.

The tests are due to finish on Tuesday, and by then we should also know lead times. If all is ok and I can get an emergency order through there is a possibility that we have a solution.

We will also be taking some ports from BT in late December, so we may be the only ISP with 3 suppliers.

Downside is slightly more expensive, but we are working on that as well.

Regards
 

Nirm

Regular Member
Hello u all :)

It seems a distant memory in the age of comms, however, I am amazed Vawn has the patience to continue. Perhaps some of you, including David M, remember how much I moaned about the 128K service and I am disappointed to learn the problems persist :rolleyes: .

On the positive side the customer service at Quik remains good, however, it must be very frustrating for David coping with telcos that are not pulling their weight. I left Quik a few weeks ago and am waiting to join PlusNet's 128K service which is supposed to have started by now, however, having connected my father-in-law 3 months ago to their ADSL service I am seriously reconsidering not using them as their reliability has dived since the beginning of this month (having had a similar instance in October)... 260+ tickets (issues) and 61 hours to deal with - thats not customer service... the quandry goes on...

I will continue to monitor input here... <img border="0" alt="[Nod]" title="" src="graemlins/nod.gif" />
 

Vawn

Regular Member
3 TelCo's OMG <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Downside is slightly more expensive, but we are working on that as well. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">David:
If it is only slightly more exspensive and the pings are as good as they were when i 1st joined Quick, with the customer service that quick give, i will be more than happy to find the extra money even thaugh it will be tight for me.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I am amazed Vawn has the patience to continue. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nirm :
lol m8, i have faith in an isp that takes time to try and sort ppls problems, i have been online for 13 years now and i have never ever found a isp that will answer my phone calls, emails and even forums like David is dooing so i think Quick/David deserves my patiance and my loyalty to the end, so i will be happy to wait for the end results and hopefully prove Davids hard work was not invain.
btw Nirm i will test the service when its sorted and pm you the results so you can mabe return to what i consider to be the most people friendly isp there is. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Perhaps some of you, including David M, remember how much I moaned about the 128K service </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">haha i rember m8 but cant rember if it was this forum haha :)
 
Vawn

Your kind words about us are appreciated, but as Nirm says you are being patient. If we can get the new service on line and the pings are good you will be the very first to know. Initially we will put a few users on just to make sure all is ok (and still leave COLT up and running). The decision should be made by Tuesday and lead times agreed.

Regards
 

Vawn

Regular Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> If we can get the new service on line and the pings are good you will be the very first to know. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What more can i say than thank U :D
 

Nirm

Regular Member
Vawn, I totally agree :) with your sentiments, and having also been on line for almost a decade, I have gone through too many ISPs... there is little doubt that Quik felt very much like our business - small, personal and caring...

At the end of the day, desparate for speed (more for downloading loads of files from work) :rolleyes: , I have tried various options for a 128K service and for the past 8 or 9 months my monthly subscription bill with various ISPs is amounting to nearly £70 - er, thats crazy <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> , especially with what a reasonable ADSL service can now be purchased at...

Once the problems have been ironed out at Quik, I will more than likely reconsider them, even at a higher price. I would however prefer a 24/7 128K service, which watches total time spent per channel, so that I could use 64K at anytime and 128K when necessary without going over an allocated time quota. This would also solve a problem as I have networked PCs that are allowed to dial up via a server, however cannot connect automatically as an ISP has to be chosen dependent on time of day - or do you know of an XP fix for this :confused: ?

My only concern is that serious vetting of heavy users should take place, because if Quik becomes noted for reliability many heavy users will join netting in a snowball effect leading to an inevitable decrease in quality of service...

Any way down but not dead... I do have faith <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
 

Vawn

Regular Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Any way down but not dead... I do have faith </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nice to hear :) .
once aggain all i can say is good luck to us and Quik/David .
i know how frustrating it is for us Nirm / Moonraker with a service that costs us a lot of money that duz not work how it should. (btw £35 is a huge amount to me lol). But i can also see the other side of the situation with david pulling out all the stops and trying everything in his power to try to get the service back to the kind of service he would like, if you get it anywhere near the kind of levels of your customer service then Quik will truely be an amazing service for the money.
omg i sound like im sucking up aggain lol <img border="0" alt="[Laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" />
 
Moonraker

Further to my Crystal Ball predictions. According to .net magazine Christmas 2002 issue, the changes have started. ISP's generally have started tackling abusers with more enthusiasm. BT have recently introduced the 150 hrs limit. AOL has restricted its service to users with certain telephone lines.

In the same issue, its' reported that the ISP that was second cheapest for ADSL ceased trading on 25th October.

The reality is that if you buy 100 ports from BT and sign a one year deal the ports costs £ 87 per month. We operate officially at 10:1 but unofficially at 8:1, and users use more each month. If users want 100+ hours as a minimum then a 5:1 contention is needed (because core hours are about 450 hours per month 8.30 am to 23.30). £ 87/5 = £ 17.40 at cost. Add a small profit, allow for admin costs etc and the £ 15 per month single channel is simply not sustainable. We are constantly trying to source in more effective ways, but having spoken to 4 major telcos, and numerous small players, the scope to remain at £ 15 is limited.

On the positive side 100+ hours for £ 15 is still a fraction of Pay as You go prices.

In respect of Broadband, this is not going to be the solution that everyone thinks. The cheap product is single user 50:1 being sold for between £ 12.99 and £ 30+. But I know that people are sticking on routers, and some small businesses are using it for multi-user purposes. I am told that some ISP's are selling this product to businesses as the 20:1 business product but I hope that is a myth.

Anyway, lets say that 10 of the 50 people each add another 2 people, the contention is now close to 70:1. Then, as with all unmetered connections, especially when it's meant to be fast, total usage grows. People download more etc, the whole family starts using it. So if 70 people use 100 hours during 7 days and 7 evenings, then 7000 hours are needed, during the day and evening. That means that at anyone time the "active" contention ratio is 16:1 (i.e. 7000/450). The 512k divided by 16 = 32k, slower than a 56k modem. I already know of two areas in the UK where this is apparently happening at busy times.

The UK is a long way from the Broadband service everyone wants.

Regards
 

Vawn

Regular Member
Oh better watch myself then cause i think i use my 150 hrs or close to it :|.
as i dont have any internet timer i would not really know, suppose i will have to start timeing my internet connection, wouldnt want to get the boot :) .
I have to say that half of my time online is spent in 64k so mabe that will make a diference and i am online a lot at verry unsociable hours due to me being a shift worker so 1am till 5am is not unusual for me, so hopefully i wont be considerd an over heavy user.
mabe a rethink of my internet time is in order and also a bit more consideration to when to use 128k. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
 
Vawn

Re limits. We have already built a facility so that customers can see how many hours they have used, up to "today minus two days". This should help customer to monitor usage. The new page will be live later this week. The 150 hours limit is per channel, so a customer with the 128k package has a maximum limit of 300 hours single channel.

Regards
 

Vawn

Regular Member
ah Verry nice .
will be interesting to see how manny hours i use :)
also very usfull so that us users dont loose track of our uptime, in my exsperiance isp's dont seem to realize that we dont count our hours and seem to get carrid away haha :)
It can only make for a better service :)
 

Shaun

ULTIMATE Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Shaun. I emailed the address you quoted and it rejected. I will try again tomorrow. I did previously notify Mark Jackson at ISPR but I will do so again.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Grrr, it must be killzat@ispreview.co.uk, missed out an L, sorry :)

EDIT: Has it always been 13 servers just to get onto the net, as well as all the other servers on top of that?

I aint really into gaming, so can't think of servers to test 4 ya, I just join games with a good rating and get on fine :)

Shaun :)

<small>[ 17.11.2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: FiftySixKer ]</small>
 

Moonraker

Casual Member
Thanks for the detailed response David.

I guess BT have some advantage others do not then offering their Anytime service at £15.99 for 64k service. As I said my main point on that ius that regardless of published contention ( 50:1?) Over 2 years I was always able to connect first time ( a few downtimes excepted but these were very few). So they must be able to offer more bandwidth and I guess rely on the much larger capacity they have.

The simple question was if they can do it for 64k at 15.99 perhaps their 128k service at double that rate ( not sure what rate it will be yet) say around £36/ month with a similar level of service is a good looking option comapred to services that cost the same but with quite long periods of mutli-connection attempts/ downtime or those costing £60 plus. I await your BT 128k service with interest.
Of course the higher usage of 128k users has already been highlighted.

ADSL is not the answer to everyone of course but the take up figures are improving a lot now the advertising is going etc.

I would still contend that ISDN is a very expensive option for most SOHO users like me and given wires only options from most ISP's I can plug a DSL modem or router in.

But you are right that the UK is poorly serviced for broadband and especially for future technology like optical calbes which are common in Scandinavia etc. The stratergy to purely rely on the private sector to provide an efficient broadband service was simply wrong.

In the end, whether you have lower contention rates etc etc it is the user experience that matters. Therefore with capacity issues at peak times, not uncommon downtimes and other gremlins with COLT as the telco ( including high pings for gaming etc) it is this that matters.

As I said I wonder why 128k services limit their service to BoD and shorter cutoff periods to reduce the abuse of 'always on'. And also weed out persistant heavy users. I am pretty sure BT now cut off the service after their set amount of hours. Of course this requires an accurate method of checking hours used which is great that you are bringing this to 128k users on Quik.

Overall I like Quik, WHEN IT WORKS! With a home office I want a reliable service above all else.

And finally just to say that the servide over the weekend was good again. back to week days and day time access is patchy once more.
 
Moonraker

What can I say, except that I agree. We are taking action against the worst abusers this week. We added a small amount of extra capacity last week, and more is being added later in the month.

Re BT's "advantage". I think that they just had so many ports that it took a while to hit congestion and then they set the hours to 150.

I think that your main point is regardless of the rights and wrongs behind anything, it is the users experience that counts.

COLT are testing something tomorrow, which hopefully will make, not break the service.

However, we have already had discussions with BT and will be taking some of their ports. Also we are taking ports from another multi national telco, and test results on their 0845 service has seen pings of 40ms. We may soon be the only ISP using three telcos, so resilience should be good.

We may also be introducing some new packages to help match usage profiles to port availability.

We are working on some other aspects of our service that will also improve matters.

We have started on the users page (as you suggested) and something may be there this week, with luck.

Regards
 

Moonraker

Casual Member
It all sounds very promising David and it is great that, not only that there are measures being put in place to improve the customer experience but that you provide good feedback for us here. Even better when it is more personal and focussed in a Quik forum which I look forward to <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
 

Nirm

Regular Member
Yes, its sounds promising... I am keen to learn about the new products, especially on port usage <img border="0" alt="[Nod]" title="" src="graemlins/nod.gif" /> .
 

Vawn

Regular Member
Just thaught id let you all know todays ping and Tracert results.

as you can see looks like the hops take a diferent route :)

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a>

Pinging <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a> [212.58.240.121] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 212.58.240.121:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 145ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping 193.35.135.106

Pinging 193.35.135.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 193.35.135.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 85ms, Average = 71ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping 195.149.21.73

Pinging 195.149.21.73 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 195.149.21.73: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=121
Reply from 195.149.21.73: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=121
Reply from 195.149.21.73: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=121
Reply from 195.149.21.73: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=121

Ping statistics for 195.149.21.73:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 54ms, Maximum = 57ms, Average = 55ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>tracert 193.35.135.106

Tracing route to redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 58 ms 58 ms 55 ms cust-E1S031292-s1-0-5-5-1.kjc-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [213.86.146.42]
2 64 ms 55 ms 55 ms router.quik.co.uk [212.36.160.253]
3 58 ms 91 ms 56 ms 213.86.52.66
4 59 ms 55 ms 56 ms g1-0.core-1.pct.lon.UK.COLT.NET [212.161.120.33]
5 64 ms 55 ms 65 ms p1-2.ibr-2.ctf.lon.UK.COLT.NET [195.110.65.173]
6 54 ms 59 ms 61 ms s5-0.ibr-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [213.86.6.2]
7 57 ms 59 ms 55 ms pos2-0-roobarb.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.25]
8 55 ms 58 ms 58 ms pos1-0-oscar.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.18]
9 69 ms 56 ms 73 ms POS6-0.BR1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.57.97]
10 57 ms 67 ms 64 ms so-0-2-0.TR1.LND9.ALTER.NET [146.188.7.241]
11 62 ms 58 ms 59 ms so-5-0-0.XR1.LND9.Alter.Net [146.188.15.34]
12 97 ms 76 ms 58 ms POS3-0.cr1.lnd10.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.150.97]
13 70 ms 61 ms 76 ms ge2-0.cr1.lnd8.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.58]
14 81 ms 64 ms 67 ms pos4-0-0.cr1.brs1.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.254.181]
15 66 ms 71 ms 64 ms fe0-0-0.gw2.brs1.gbb.uk.uu.net [158.43.145.36]
16 119 ms 64 ms 91 ms oranpcsl01-gw.pipex.net [158.43.20.170]
17 66 ms 64 ms 64 ms 193.35.137.217
18 113 ms * 108 ms 193.35.135.9
19 109 ms 70 ms 91 ms 193.35.135.33
20 88 ms 109 ms 82 ms 193.35.135.35
21 80 ms 94 ms 82 ms 193.35.135.52
22 75 ms 73 ms 82 ms redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]

Trace complete.

lets hope its not just a 1 off.
Looks like your hard work payed off David.
verry nicley dun if it stays that way.
more results tomorrow as this week im on night shift .

<small>[ 19.11.2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Vawn ]</small>
 
Top
Promotion
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £19.95 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPER20
  • SSE £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.95 (*29.95)
    Avg. Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*35.98)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £75 Reward Card
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Promotion
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2724)
  2. FTTP (2619)
  3. FTTC (1759)
  4. Building Digital UK (1708)
  5. Politics (1614)
  6. Openreach (1574)
  7. Business (1391)
  8. FTTH (1317)
  9. Statistics (1209)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1179)
  11. Fibre Optic (1045)
  12. 4G (1017)
  13. Wireless Internet (1002)
  14. Ofcom Regulation (993)
  15. Virgin Media (981)
  16. EE (672)
  17. Sky Broadband (658)
  18. TalkTalk (645)
  19. Vodafone (643)
  20. 5G (476)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules