View Full Version : A Hypothetical Moral Question About Speed
cllp1975
24-10-2009, 14:24
So you have your 50meg broadband. It works, on a wired connection, however with the supplied router (which is part of the package and supported by the company - let's call them "Flurgin"), your coverage and speed is down to that of dial-up, often.
After much craziness, and the repair of several other faults, the conclusion is reached that the congestion on 2.4ghz band is so saturated, that achieving reasonable speeds is not likely.
So the question is this, really - both legally and morally:
Given that Flurgin don't supply a dual-band router, which they could quite easily do, are they doing everything they can to provide you with the service you are paying for. And I guess more fundamentally, given that Flurgin (or whoever) supply and support the router, is it therefore reasonable to accept in nearly 2010, that the only way one will get a good speed is to wire every machine?
Don't get me wrong.... wireless speeds drop over wired speeds. That's fine. But a drop of 48meg.... Equally I accept that the wifi network is open, and there's not a lot one can do if it's crammed - but given that there ARE alternative bands (which are damn near empty right now), then don't Flurgin have a duty to customers to exhaust every opportunity to get the customer what they are paying for?
I'd welcome your thoughts....
Any similarity to any similarly named cable company is purely coincidental...
webcrawler2050
24-10-2009, 14:39
So you have your 50meg broadband. It works, on a wired connection, however with the supplied router (which is part of the package and supported by the company - let's call them "Flurgin"), your coverage and speed is down to that of dial-up, often.
After much craziness, and the repair of several other faults, the conclusion is reached that the congestion on 2.4ghz band is so saturated, that achieving reasonable speeds is not likely.
So the question is this, really - both legally and morally:
Given that Flurgin don't supply a dual-band router, which they could quite easily do, are they doing everything they can to provide you with the service you are paying for. And I guess more fundamentally, given that Flurgin (or whoever) supply and support the router, is it therefore reasonable to accept in nearly 2010, that the only way one will get a good speed is to wire every machine?
Don't get me wrong.... wireless speeds drop over wired speeds. That's fine. But a drop of 48meg.... Equally I accept that the wifi network is open, and there's not a lot one can do if it's crammed - but given that there ARE alternative bands (which are damn near empty right now), then don't Flurgin have a duty to customers to exhaust every opportunity to get the customer what they are paying for?
I'd welcome your thoughts....
Any similarity to any similarly named cable company is purely coincidental...
What you have to remember, it's not about morals etc here - it's simple a business decison about cost. Thats all.
If you want a better router then the are plenty available out there, if you expect your ISP to supply a high end piece of kit then expect to pay more for the service and for the 0800 50Mb support number to go to 25ppm.
They supply kit at a price and if you want better you are able to upgrade it, I bought a PC but I upgraded that to the spec that I wanted.
cllp1975
24-10-2009, 15:45
I take your point - but I don't expect a freephone customer service number. I've only ever rung it once.
I do expect to be able to get 42-43meg wirelessly, on a 50meg service, and I expect the company to do what they have to in order to get that - and price their offer accordingly from the outset.
"Up to 8meg" is one thing. But when you're paying for a premium service, I do expect to get what I pay for, for a fair price. If Flurgin can't offer me that service at that price, they either need a different offer, or a different price structure.
Give it a few years and wifi problems will be chronic, especially in London - and expectations of a good wifi connection are only going to get higher.
50Mb support line number is actually free though 0800 052 0431
cllp1975
24-10-2009, 17:02
50Mb support line number is actually free though 0800 052 0431
I know it's free. My point is, I don't really care if my customer service is free or not - I care if my service works as advertised. If I have to pay 0845 or 0870 for a call to do that, bring it on - priorities way out of wack.
As I said if you want a better router the are plenty out there and most people will either stick with the supplied kit or buy a better one.
cllp1975
24-10-2009, 19:19
Who or what is Flurgin?
Non litigious rhyming slang...
Always said and will continue to do so, if you want speed and reliability, used a wired connection.
Also, what is with this "nearly 2010" rubbish? What has the year got to do with what a hypothetical company should or should not be expected to do?
the congestion on 2.4ghz band is so saturated, that achieving reasonable speeds is not likely
Have you checked this?
Download and run InSSIDer and check exactly what is on the 2.4GHz band in your area. You may find a sweet spot you can change channel to...
---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------
Always said and will continue to do so, if you want speed and reliability, used a wired connection.
I use 802.11g on a 20Mb connection and the lowest speed I get at all times is 19.5Mbit with average ping times of around 16ms. There is no problem with wireless speed and reliability if you get a good channel and a good UBR. Wired is loads better for LAN, but currently in the UK it makes sod all difference for cable WAN access.
Have you checked this?
Download and run InSSIDer and check exactly what is on the 2.4GHz band in your area. You may find a sweet spot you can change channel to...
Presumably this doesn't identify networks that have turned of their SSID broadcast?
cllp1975
25-10-2009, 20:30
Thanks - this is much better than the other network stumbers I have used.
As for it being nearly 2010 - my point is... a maximum speed for a wired connection in this day and age is meaningless - and yes, I accept that there will be some drop in speed - but today's consumers work wirelessly.... I use wired connections where possible, but what about the netbook, the wii, the media streamer? They have to work wirelessly, and right now, they're acting as doorstops because they don't work.
And the reason they don't work is that I am not being offered the equipment I need to make it work in my premises. And as far as I am concerned, that means I am not being offered the service I am paying for. QED.
You are getting a cable modem, which provides you with your 50Mb broadband with wired ethernet presentation. I'd say your getting exactly the service your paying for. If Virgin were to offer equipment taylored to every customer's requirements then they'd end up doing a site survey before every order.
If you feel you need a 5Ghz router and accomanying dongles/PCI cards, then do what us 2.4Ghz/non 50Mb lesser mortals do, go and buy some kit.
i don't aggree with your hyperthetical question at all simply because they are suppling a router that is "fit for purpose"maybe not as fit as some but still fit ,given the choice which i have i will always supply my own router because then i know what i'm getting
Flurgin are only supplying a base model that is cost effective because otherwise the cost would be too great and you'd end up buying one anyway cos they wouldn't supply one ...and they don't have too
I use 802.11g on a 20Mb connection and the lowest speed I get at all times is 19.5Mbit with average ping times of around 16ms. There is no problem with wireless speed and reliability if you get a good channel and a good UBR. Wired is loads better for LAN, but currently in the UK it makes sod all difference for cable WAN access.
Although it is worth noting that there *are* other factors that will affect Wifi performance. These can be other radio/electrical sources, the presence of metal structures (such as electricity pylons), and even the makeup of the building the WiFi is in. If the building has thick walls, or a lot of metal in the construction, it can severely cripple Wifi. For instance, we are rolling WiFi out across the buildings where I work. The buildings are several hundred years old and have walls up to 4 feet thick. Where we get coverage, we get good speed (tested by downloading files). But, the average range of each access point (we have several) is about 10-20 metres.
It's worth noting that at home, I have two wireless networks. One, operating at 2.4GHz for any devices limited to G class, and one operating at 5GHz for any devices capable of N class speed. While I can get 20 megs relatively easily from either my LAN or the Internet, I can only download stuff at the same speed from the router hosted the N network (an Apple Time Capsule) or from the PC hooked up to the Time Capsule via a gig ethernet connection.
The same router will happily send stuff out via the Ethenet connection at speeds a lot higher than it will via wireless, so I know it's not the router CPU slowing the connection.
My point is that whatever protocol is in use, it may not be feasable to expect high speeds from wireless networks. There are too many variables. You want high speed? Go for Ethenet. You want High Speed without the hassle of having to run cables throughout your house, go for powerline Ethernet.
And the reason they don't work is that I am not being offered the equipment I need to make it work in my premises. And as far as I am concerned, that means I am not being offered the service I am paying for. QED.
The service you are paying for is a 50meg internet connection.
The router is a free benefit given as part of that package, that you are not paying for.
Therefore you're getting exactly what you're paying for. QED.
Presumably this doesn't identify networks that have turned of their SSID broadcast?
Hmm, I don't know. I would assume so though. Networks that don't broadcast an SSID still broadcast their presence, just not the SSID. They appear on my phone and my PSP as an available wireless access point, the only difference being I have to enter the SSID manually before I can connect.
[QUOTE=Stuart C;34897942]
It's worth noting that at home, I have two wireless networks. One, operating at 2.4GHz for any devices limited to G class, and one operating at 5GHz for any devices capable of N class speed. While I can get 20 megs relatively easily from either my LAN or the Internet, I can only download stuff at the same speed from the router hosted the N network (an Apple Time Capsule) or from the PC hooked up to the Time Capsule via a gig ethernet connection.QUOTE]
same network as me stuart only i use the netgear wndr3300 ,i had issues with speed drop from the router but a slight reconfig of the channels used and all is fine .My point is (to the OP)that alot of speed issues will be caused by poor config and not dodgy equipment as the equipment supplied is of a certain standard .The router supplied WILL do what it is required to do or it just wouldn't be on the market .Also it's in nobody's interest to supply equipment that doesn't work ,"Flurgin" or netgear
While I can get 20 megs relatively easily from either my LAN or the Internet, I can only download stuff at the same speed from the router hosted the N network (an Apple Time Capsule) or from the PC hooked up to the Time Capsule via a gig ethernet connection.
You've got a problem somewhere. You should easily be able to max out your 20Mb connection on a wireless G access point. Without fail at any time of the day I get this from either of mine:-
Date of Speed Test: 2009-10-25 22:53:30
Download Speed: 19536 kbps (2442 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 676 kbps (84.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
I take your point about work environments. I was talking about residential environments.
You've got a problem somewhere. You should easily be able to max out your 20Mb connection on a wireless G access point. Without fail at any time of the day I get this from either of mine:-
Date of Speed Test: 2009-10-25 22:53:30
Download Speed: 19536 kbps (2442 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 676 kbps (84.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
I take your point about work environments. I was talking about residential environments.
agreed ,just tested mine out of curiosity and got 20.36megabit
used vm games site and this converter
http://easycalculation.com/bandwidth-calculator.php
maxed out my connection in 30secs
cllp1975
27-10-2009, 21:10
Well there you go - all of you who criticised my stand on this issue will be delighted to know that Virgin have given me notice that, seemingly they would rather chuck me off the network than recompense me for the last 6 weeks of hell (and it wasn't all about the wifi - I can't emphasise that enough, there were a lot of other faults, documented elsewhere on this forum, completely unconnected with the wifi)....
So there you go.... that's how much Virgin value their 50meg customers. If a problem is too difficult, they get rid of it. I feel like a kitten who was sick on the carpet, and so got chucked in the river.
Whichever way you look at it - either the service isn't ready for the public, or the public isn't ready for the service... this country is not ready for high-speed internet - and I can proudly say, I am an accidental martyr.
I'm not done with this yet. Watch this space.
Sephiroth
27-10-2009, 22:02
Well there you go - all of you who criticised my stand on this issue will be delighted to know that Virgin have given me notice that, seemingly they would rather chuck me off the network than recompense me for the last 6 weeks of hell (and it wasn't all about the wifi - I can't emphasise that enough, there were a lot of other faults, documented elsewhere on this forum, completely unconnected with the wifi)....
.....I can proudly say, I am an accidental martyr.
I'm not done with this yet. Watch this space.
You were plain wrong in your assertion in this thread.
We don't know exactly what went on between you and VM and particularly whether they have given you notice under their contract.
But "accidental martyrs" often have more to answer for than gets uncovered here.
Ignitionnet
27-10-2009, 22:10
I'm not done with this yet. Watch this space.
I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences but it's within Virgin's right to give you notice of their intention to end the contract and I'm not sure what recourse you might think you have.
I would consider exploring other options rather than expending time and energy trying to get into some kind of crusade. You aren't the first person released by their ISP and won't be the last.
cllp1975
27-10-2009, 22:23
There's a suggestion here that this might in some way be my fault.... You can read the whole story unfold here...
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33655976-another-please-help-me-modem-readings.html
You will notice that the engineers were replicating the speed drops at the cabinet. Nothing to do with my wifi.
The only thing that I did was insist on a reasonable compensation for the endless tech visits, the waiting around, the aggrevation and cock ups. I asked reasonably, I asked nicely. I got offered 2 months free broadband, which was cancelled out because my direct debit including my install fee was taken out the same day.
As for crusades... my alternative arrangements are already sorted out thank you. I don't want to come across as "bitter ex-customer" which I am sure is probably how I sound, but the way I have been treated and indeed accused is phenomenal for a company that carries Branson's name and reputation. And I don't give a crap if everyone on this forum thinks its the wrong thing to do, but I WON'T let this drop.
Ignitionnet
27-10-2009, 22:27
Nah it's your choice, and good luck with your endeavour wherever it takes you :)
cllp1975
27-10-2009, 22:32
Thank you Broadbandings. I appreciate that. And congratulations on the fine work you do for people on this forum.
You've got a problem somewhere. You should easily be able to max out your 20Mb connection on a wireless G access point. Without fail at any time of the day I get this from either of mine:-
Date of Speed Test: 2009-10-25 22:53:30
Download Speed: 19536 kbps (2442 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 676 kbps (84.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
I take your point about work environments. I was talking about residential environments.
No problem anywhere with speed externally. I am on a Be 24 meg connection that averages around 20 meg (bad phone line, but BT wanted too much money to investigate the problem for a 4 meg improvement to be worth it). I average around 20 meg via wireless and wired.
Actually, my point about work environments was to illustrate that the structure of the building could have an impact..
It does raise a point on wireless though, Wifi saturation is pretty much inevitable, helped by the lousy channel planning.
Devices have channels 1-11 or 1-13 if they actually bother with the full UK spec.
The actual widt of the signal channel means that there are only a few really good setups with no or minimal overlap:
1, 6, 11
1, 5, 9, 13 (but 9 is centre for microwave oven interference)
1, 4, 7, 11 (4 channel compromise, 3 spacing is not entirely clear of cross channel spread)
1, 4, 7, 10, 13 (maybe the best comprose, a 3 channel spacing with 4 channels possible in 1-11, 5 in 1-13.
The situation of wireless congestion is only going to get worse, and unless there is some regulation or clear recommendation, the 2.4G band is going to end up unusable, the congestion is added to by other 2.4G devices such as video senders and 2.4G cordless devices.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.