Utv Letter in the post

PowerHouseDan

Just recieved a Letter from utv about a complaint i made think it was to comreg,Yet in the letter i did not get an apoligy,All i got wasthere netwrok capacity has not fallen below industry specified service level(love to know wat is)And they were upgrading the service to provide a good service and they wish to continue to meet a high level of demand,

CyberGhost

what was the complaint about?

kin9pin

Yep, I got exactly the same.

damien

powerhousedan wrote:

All i got was there netwrok capacity has not fallen below industry specified service level(love to know wat is)

Ask them and ask Comreg. Keep asking.

_Kaiser_

Got the same - full text:

Dear xxxxxx,

With reference to your recent complaint regarding the ClickSilver service, we wish to advise that the ClickSilver broadband service, like all other DSL broadband services, is a contended product and therefore susceptible to variations in speed depending on user profiles and usage. UTV Internet continuously monitors the service and since the initial inception of the service the network capacity has not fallen below the industry specified service level. As a company that prides itself in delivering a high quality service we have recently upgraded the network to further enhance the speed for all customers and ensure we continue to meet the high level of demand.

Please be assured that we will continue to monitor the network, maintain our quality of service and keep our customers fully informed of any developments or required changes.

If you have any further queries or require additional information please contact me directly by e-mail at malcolm@u.tv.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Thompson
Operations Manager

Interesting read eh?

dub45

Talk about hard neck!!!! On their own admission they had not got enough bandwith to meet demand from their customers - did I imagine that they asked their customers to bear with them until they had?

The problem they had and which I presume the letter relates to had absolutely nothing to do with contention but everything to do with UTV not having enough bandwidth for their customers needs.

That letter is sooooo infuriating - do UTV think their customers are complete idiots?????

PowerHouseDan

there wasnt even a sorry in the letter,i just wrote a bitchy email

dub45

Actually UTV rarely seem to apologise as far as I can see. :rolleyes:

And after all didnt the MD say it was only a bit of inconvenience!

Stephen

got the same one here.

Stark

The cheek. I paid for 512kb/s, I want 512kb/s goddamnit. God knows they're being strict enough about enforcing the cap. Esat doesn't cut you off the byte you run over.

Stephen

How can they possibly do that? They only way they can monitor bandwidth usage per customer at the moment is through the RADIUS accounting packets that eircom's servers send back to them when you disconnect. Therefore it can't cut you off the second you hit the cap, but the next time you disconnect.
Anyways, they give you the option to pay for usage over the cap or agree to being cut off.

Ripwave

Stark wrote:

The cheek. I paid for 512kb/s, I want 512kb/s goddamnit. God knows they're being strict enough about enforcing the cap. Esat doesn't cut you off the byte you run over.

You paid for a service with a 48:1 contention ratio.

dub45

Ripwave wrote:

You paid for a service with a 48:1 contention ratio.

For all you know he may be on the 24:1. And whatever contention ratio he is on he is entitled to expect that his isp to at least have sufficient bandwidth at all stages to meet that potential.

In this case UTV on their own admission did not have sufficient bandwidth and requested their customers to bear with them until they did have.

I think most people regard contention as something that will hit them ocassionally and that it will vary from area to area. I dont think anyone expects that all customers will be contended at the same time of day as was happening regularly during this period.

It is bad enough for UTV not have sufficient bandwidth for their customers but then having imposed on our patience to claim to the regulator that this was contention is being disingenuous to put it mildly.

oscarBravo

Stark wrote:

The cheek. I paid for 512kb/s, I want 512kb/s goddamnit.

Have you priced a 512kb/s leased line lately?

dub45

oscarBravo wrote:

Have you priced a 512kb/s leased line lately?

Why is it that non UTV customers are so quick to pick up UTV customers who dont get it exactly right when criticising UTV?

It is blatantly obvious that the poster is not talking about a leased line.

Are you equally as fast to ´correct`eircom customers when they have a go?

In this case UTV were completely in the wrong and now perpetuate the wrong to their customers by patronising them in a response that is so far from satisfactory it beggars belief and yet you attack a UTV customer!

Ripwave

dub45 wrote:

In this case UTV were completely in the wrong and now perpetuate the wrong to their customers by patronising them in a response that is so far from satisfactory it beggars belief and yet you attack a UTV customer!

Look, Dub45, we all know that you never like to let the facts get in the way of your campaign to vilify UTV.

The fact is that the "industry specified service level" for a 48:1 contention ratio is 512k of bandwidth for every 48 customers signed up to the service. Unless you actually have some "facts" of your own, rather than unsubstantiated opinion, to suggest that the interconnect between eircoms network and UTV actually exceeded this ratio, then you really should stop making the sort of wild accusations that are your stock in trade.

UTV customers who talk a load of bollox don't get a free ride, just because they're UTV customers. Yes, some of them had a bad time of it for a couple of weeks. Some of them may regret having signed up with UTV. But the couple of UTV customers that I've actually spoken to face to face on this issue don't echo the sort of complaints that some people here have made. And given the clearly ill-informed and factually incorrect nature of some of the complaints, I'm not inclined to gave too much weight to those particular posters opinions.

FWIW, I've helped 3 people sign up for DSL in the last couple of weeks, and I've recommended IOLBB, rather than UTV, in each case. Not because of concerns about the UTV service, but because I don't believe that anyone should be allowed get Broadband these days without a NAT device to provide basic firewall functionality, and the modem supplied by UTV doesn't provide that.

kin9pin

I think dub45 is complaining more about the tone of the letter. There is no apology and they've been economical with the truth to put it mildly.

"As a company that prides itself in delivering a high quality service we have recently upgraded the network to further enhance the speed for all customers and ensure we continue to meet the high level of demand"
The key words here are "further enhance" and "continue". The upgrade FIXED UTV's bandwidth issue, which would have been avoided had they planned ahead. It did not ENHANCE it.
It wasn't to CONTINUE to meet demand, it was to allow them to finally meet demand.

With reference to your recent complaint regarding the ClickSilver service, we wish to advise that the ClickSilver broadband service, like all other DSL broadband services, is a contended product and therefore susceptible to variations in speed depending on user profiles and usage.
Complete rubbish. UTV said themselves that it wasn't a contention issue when they were blaming Eircom and everyone else instead of looking a bit closer to home.

Nietzschean

well realistically, you've no right to complain if u get 512/48 = 10.6k connection, so thats downloads of under 2k/sec....if u reach 2/ksec downloads u can't complain....it is what u signed up for. And yes it is enhance'n their connection above the required minimum, not fixing. if you don't find it a agreeable level of service then attempt to end your contract.......


and what utv's customer care/support people say is the problem has no real connection to what utv's engineer knew the problem to be....

oscarBravo

dub45 wrote:

Why is it that non UTV customers are so quick to pick up UTV customers who dont get it exactly right when criticising UTV?

Because the poster I "picked up" got it exactly wrong. The only people "paying for 512kbit/sec" are those paying (over the odds, but that's another day's work) for 512kbit/sec leased lines.

dub45 wrote:

It is blatantly obvious that the poster is not talking about a leased line.

On the contrary, it's blatantly obvious to me that that's exactly what he's talking about - see above.

dub45 wrote:

Are you equally as fast to ´correct`eircom customers when they have a go?

I'll be only too happy to point out factual errors in eircom customers' posts, if I spot them. I assume you'll be just as quick to pounce on me when I do, right?

dub45 wrote:

In this case UTV were completely in the wrong and now perpetuate the wrong to their customers by patronising them in a response that is so far from satisfactory it beggars belief and yet you attack a UTV customer!

You have a strange definition of attack.

dub45

Ripwave wrote:

Look, Dub45, we all know that you never like to let the facts get in the way of your campaign to vilify UTV.

The fact is that the "industry specified service level" for a 48:1 contention ratio is 512k of bandwidth for every 48 customers signed up to the service. Unless you actually have some "facts" of your own, rather than unsubstantiated opinion, to suggest that the interconnect between eircoms network and UTV actually exceeded this ratio, then you really should stop making the sort of wild accusations that are your stock in trade.

UTV customers who talk a load of bollox don't get a free ride, just because they're UTV customers. Yes, some of them had a bad time of it for a couple of weeks. Some of them may regret having signed up with UTV. But the couple of UTV customers that I've actually spoken to face to face on this issue don't echo the sort of complaints that some people here have made. And given the clearly ill-informed and factually incorrect nature of some of the complaints, I'm not inclined to gave too much weight to those particular posters opinions.

FWIW, I've helped 3 people sign up for DSL in the last couple of weeks, and I've recommended IOLBB, rather than UTV, in each case. Not because of concerns about the UTV service, but because I don't believe that anyone should be allowed get Broadband these days without a NAT device to provide basic firewall functionality, and the modem supplied by UTV doesn't provide that.

Unfortunately you are so concerned to defend UTV for some strange reason that you ignore the fact that UTV themselves admitted that they had not got sufficient bandwidth a matter which their MD chose to describe as 'inconvenience'. Are you aware of any other isp since bb was introduced that has asked their customers to bear with them until the proper level of service could be provided?

If you are to attack anyone over facts in this case it should be the person who wrote the letter on UTV's behalf.

Nietzschean

assuming this the same letter as stated above i fail to see where they say that

UTV themselves admitted that they had not got sufficient bandwidth

from my reading he goes at length to state that they never had insufficent bandwidth, but that to keep u moany lot happy they are always increasing their bandwidth.

dub45

Triceradon wrote:

assuming this the same letter as stated above i fail to see where they say that

from my reading he goes at length to state that they never had insufficent bandwidth, but that to keep u moany lot happy they are always increasing their bandwidth.

Just a little bit of history for you so that you will understand why that letter is so annoying to Clicksilver customers particularly as you put it yourself ¨from my reading he goes at length to state that they never had insufficent bandwidth, ¨


Here are some posts from a very lengthy
thread where UTV blamed their problems on bandwidth:

Scott Taunton MD UTV internet posted on 5th August:

I'd like to apologise for the delay in getting our bandwidth upgraded. Unfortunately this has taken much longer from the date of order than would normally be expected. As we are dealing with a number of providers it can be difficult to speed up the process but I can assure you that the team here have this as their highest priority.....................Again, apologies for any inconvenience during this upgrade process.

Posted by UTV in the support group around the beginning of August

Apologies for the delay in posting about the ongoing RoI bandwidth issues.

The bandwidth upgrade that I posted about at the start of last month took
place but due to ongoing demand did not resolve all the issues that have
been reported here and directly into support.

Today I have been given confirmation of further work that is scheduled to
start mid month and we expect that by the end of the month that we should
have a total resolution of the reported increased pings and slow downloads.

I appreciate that this issue has been causing major problems for users of
our ADSL service and I will try to keep everyone updated as the month
progresses.

Charles

And an excerpt from an email sent out by UTV and posted on boards:

Further to our telephone conversation and your further email to me yesterday.

Apologies for the ongoing slow speeds that you have been experiencing over the last couple of weeks, as I mentioned when we spoke yesterday we are implementing a bandwidth upgrade during the middle of this month that will address current speed and 'ping' issues.
While we try to ensure that our ClickSilver service is available for all our customers as and when it is needed there can be times that the service may be reduced or unavailable.

Additionally people were being told on the telephone that bandwidth was the problem.

I hope that makes it a little clearer as to why that letter from UTV is so annoying,

Ripwave

dub45 wrote:

Just a little bit of history for you so that you will understand why that letter is so annoying to Clicksilver customers particularly as you put it yourself ¨from my reading he goes at length to state that they never had insufficent bandwidth, ¨


Here are some posts from a very lengthy
thread where UTV blamed their problems on bandwidth:

So where's the quote where thay used the words that you so conveniently put in their mouths?

You said:
"UTV themselves admitted that they had not got sufficient bandwidth". The quotes you provide all state that a bandwidth upgrade was planned, or in process. That's not a statement that they had "insufficent bandwidth" to provide a 48:1 contention ratio, which is what their customers are paying for (let's just just stick with a single ratio for the sake of argument).

Once again, you are making up "facts" with the simple purpose of pursuing a personal vendetta against UTV. Is it any wonder that you have so little credibility on this issue?

kin9pin

Ripwave you're just picking non-existent holes in this. If you've got nothing better to do than wind people up (because that's all you seem to do) then start your own "Pedantic" thread.
Oh and I was told on the phone by a member of UTV support that the ongoing problems had nothing to do with contention, but that they required a bandwidth upgrade to cope. Not to enhance, just cope.

Ripwave

kin9pin wrote:

Ripwave you're just picking non-existent holes in this.

What, picking non-existent holes in Dub45's non-existent quotes?

Believe me, it's not very hard!

Blaster99

Does it matter what UTV's contention ratio is like? It seems the other providers for whatever reason can deliver a more performant and reliable solution.

kin9pin

Ripwave wrote:

What, picking non-existent holes in Dub45's non-existent quotes?

Believe me, it's not very hard!

Exactly!....I mean no....errr.....well maybe

jonski

Thank god I have left all this behind .

It is obvious that UTV did not have enough bandwidth and also that it was not a contention issue . To the people that are still with UTV , ye are only stressing ye're selves out looking for something that ye are not going to get , ie an apology .

To the people not with UTV , guys you have to go through it to understand the frustration .

John

kin9pin

How's life post UTV John?

jonski

kin9pin wrote:

How's life post UTV John?

Depends on how u look at it , gamin is fantastic , back in the main war team for all the clan matches , but have to go back to watchin what I d/l cause the cap is so tight and think the wife is considering divorce .

dub45

kin9pin wrote:

Ripwave you're just picking non-existent holes in this. If you've got nothing better to do than wind people up (because that's all you seem to do) then start your own "Pedantic" thread.
Oh and I was told on the phone by a member of UTV support that the ongoing problems had nothing to do with contention, but that they required a bandwidth upgrade to cope. Not to enhance, just cope.

Unfortunately Ripwave sees himself as some self appointed guardian of what I dont know.

To anyone who wants to see - UTV clearly had not got enough bandwidth to cope and calling it an upgrade as they did is just a way of disguising this.

It seems strange that if contention was the issue that UTV never referred to this in any of the explanations they offered for the poor performance customers were getting.

Like kin9pin I was told by UTV on the phone that they did not have enough bandwidth to cope with the demand at that time.

I dont 'make up' facts and I have no vendetta aganst UTV but I will criticise them when they do not provide the service we are paying for.

And what type of contention is it when all customers are affected at a predictable particular time of day?

I think most people would regard an 'upgrade' as something that improves the basic service. In this case when UTV installed their extra bandwidth it restored things to 'normal'.

Blaster99

Would that particular time of day be in the evening when UTV's primarily home user customer base all log on at the same time? If that's the case, does it not point towards contention? My understanding was that it happened at 4am as well, which is probably not when one would expect peak usage.

jonski

Blaster99 wrote:

Would that particular time of day be in the evening when UTV's primarily home user customer base all log on at the same time? If that's the case, does it not point towards contention? .

Now this is where I'm open for correction , but I always thought contention would be felt at the exchange , and therefore felt by more than one ISP's customer base .

curse my lack of knowledge !

dub45

jonski wrote:

Now this is where I'm open for correction , but I always thought contention would be felt at the exchange , and therefore felt by more than one ISP's customer base .

curse my lack of knowledge !

It seems most unlikely that a huge percentage of UTV's customer base will log on at more or less the same time (whatever about maybe over an hour or so) shouldn't contention happen gradually, and indeed, the impact on speed go up and down, as more people log on and off or commence big downloads and so on. Also more hapharzadly location wise rather than everyone being hit at the same time.

Moriarty

dub45 wrote:

... and I have no vendetta aganst UTV ...

Heh. You could have fooled the vast majority of people on this forum anyway

Despite what you may say, it almost certainly was contention. Simply increasing the bandwidth available 'solved' the 'problem'. Your connection is contended at multiple points along the line, not just in the exchange.

jonski

Moriarty wrote:

Despite what you may say, it almost certainly was contention. Simply increasing the bandwidth available 'solved' the 'problem'. Your connection is contended at multiple points along the line, not just in the exchange.

So where do you rekon it bottle necked , and who was to blame for it ?

Moriarty

I don't know. At a guess, it could have been bottlenecking on the link between eircoms atm network and whoever utv use for that part of their network (esat I think). Without actually knowing specifically where it happened you can only really make a few educated guesses.

dub45

jonski wrote:

So where do you rekon it bottle necked , and who was to blame for it ?

If it was contention which is an occupational hazard of bb as we know it then why did UTV not mention this in any of their posts in the support group - I was told categorically by a UTV rep on the phone that it was not contention.

UTV underestimated the success of the three month offer and even though it was affecting the quality of service to existing customers continued to sign up new customers even though they had not got sufficient bandwidth availiable for them- thats where the fault lay.

Do you seriously believe that UTV´s MD is going to post to boards just because theres a bit of contention?

UTV customers experienced exactly the same symptoms this time as they experienced when ESAT messed up bandwidth wise last time.

Moriarty

dub45, do you understand what contention actually is?

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

dub45, do you understand what contention actually is?

I hope so. As I understand it the basic meaning as far as the ordinary user is concerned is when a lot of the 48 or 24 people he shares with are on line and active and contending for that valuable 512 bit of bandwidth and therefore reduced performance can be expected. This is to be expected from time to time and we are warned of it in very small print somewhere in the T&C´s of all isps.

I presume that contention would also be experienced if an isp had not made sufficent provision for their customers regarding the total bandwith it had available to it and therefore at busy times customers experienced a poor quality of service. This type of contention is not what we are lead to expect and presumably should not happen.

However can I remind you yet again that I was told by UTV that contention was not the issue?

(And if I am completely wrong can I phone a friend? no not Ripwave )

Moriarty

dub45 wrote:

I hope so. As I understand it the basic meaning as far as the ordinary user is concerned is when a lot of the 48 or 24 people he shares with are on line and active and contending for that valuable 512 bit of bandwidth and therefore reduced performance can be expected. This is to be expected from time to time and we are warned of it in very small print somewhere in the T&C´s of all isps.

I presume that contention would also be experienced if an isp had not made sufficent provision for their customers regarding the total bandwith it had available to it and therefore at busy times customers experienced a poor quality of service.

Yeah, that's about the sum of it.

Now, when you take into account the following points, does it sound like contention somewhere in their network? (1) A number of users experience slow download rates at similar times each evening. (2) Evening times from 7-11pm are generally when most home internet use occurs. (3) UTV say that they're increasing bandwidth (without specifying where in their network exactly, unfortunatly). When this increase occurs, all service instantly returns to normal.

dub45 wrote:

This type of contention ... presumably should not happen.

That's entirely up to how the ISP want to run their service. Generally though, ISPs want to minimise the effects of contention where they can.

dub45 wrote:

However can I remind you yet again that I was told by UTV that contention was not the issue?

Did they give you another reason for the problems? I'd wager that it was and they just didn't want to confirm that to you for whatever reason.

jonski

But still , at the end of the day , it was UTV's fault then , no ?

Moriarty

Ultimately, it was almost certainly UTV's fault. Practically however, it could have been (esat/nevada/whoever else they use for parts of their network) arsing around. There's no real way to know, and it's very unlikely that any of the involved would tell the public what the story was.

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

Ultimately, it was almost certainly UTV's fault. Practically however, it could have been (esat/nevada/whoever else they use for parts of their network) arsing around. There's no real way to know, and it's very unlikely that any of the involved would tell the public what the story was.

Given that the MD posted, they phoned people etc etc and were very apologetic in the newsgroup for the acknowledged poor quality of service - it was down to them - no attempt was made to blame anyone else whereas it very quickly emerged that Esat was at fault last time there was a bandwidth problem and also on occasion UTV do refer to their mysterious ´provider´ as being at fault. As I understand it they underestimated the success of the three month free offer and continued to sign up people although they knew it would worsen the situation in the very short term.

Now I can understand that a shortage of bandwidth can lead to contention and therefore the overall problem can be described as contention but that is not the sort of contention we sign up for when we take out a contract.

We may have to put up with 47 or 23 intense downloaders affecting us from time to time and thats par for the course but I find it unacceptable for UTV to attempt to fob off this occurrence as contention of the type we sign up for. It is also annoying that the first time UTV officially as far as I know referred to this problem as being contention was in this letter having specifically told people it was not contention.

Moriarty

dub45 wrote:

Now I can understand that a shortage of bandwidth can lead to contention and therefore the overall problem can be described as contention but that is not the sort of contention we sign up for when we take out a contract.

What? It's exactly the 'sort' of contention that you sign up for. There's always contention at the exchange and there's also always contention at the ISP's internet link.

jonski

Moriarty wrote:

What? It's exactly the 'sort' of contention that you sign up for. There's always contention at the exchange and there's also always contention at the ISP's internet link.

I think we have already established my lack of knowledge on this subject but I never expected contention to be an issue beyond my exchange and certainly not within my ISP's network . I presume I am not alone on this .

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

What? It's exactly the 'sort' of contention that you sign up for. There's always contention at the exchange and there's also always contention at the ISP's internet link.

No definitely not. I dont think that anywhere in the terms and conditions a customer will be warned that there is isp contention beyond the 48 or 24 to 1.

And I dont think many customers woulds sign up to any isp if they knew that they would be asked to bear with them while they ´upgraded´their bandwidth so as to supply the quality of service that customers of other isps can take for granted.

What is the point of offering a 24 to 1 premum product if isp contention makes it irrelevant? Also how come none of the other isps with the exceptin of Esat when they got their bandwidth wrong were asked to ´bear with them´ until things were fixed? And on that occassion Esat came clean on the issue and according to posts on boards at the time arranged refunds for at least some customers.

And can I emphasise yet again that UTV stated they had not got enough bandwidth to meet demand.

Moriarty

dub45 wrote:

No definitely not. I dont think that anywhere in the terms and conditions a customer will be warned that there is isp contention beyond the 48 or 24 to 1.

Yes, definetly. Every ISP selling to your average joe contends their internet connections. It's how they're able to make money. You're obviously never going to change your mind though.

If this thread goes down the same predictable route that the last few UTV ones did (and it looks like it is at the moment), it's going to be locked. Soon.

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

Yes, definetly. Every ISP selling to your average joe contends their internet connections. It's how they're able to make money. You're obviously never going to change your mind though.

If this thread goes down the same predictable route that the last few UTV ones did (and it looks like it is at the moment), it's going to be locked. Soon.

So are you saying that they all contend beyone the 48 or 24 that we are supposed to be getting? And if that is the case then why dont more people experience it? And why would contention affect pings so drastically as it did in the UTV case?

Scott Taunton

While I should probably know better, I'd just like to clear up a few things. We do take a lot of pride in keeping our customers informed of our processes and aim to be up front. Customer service is one of the few differentiators that ISPs have these days and with that comes transparency of operations.

That was the very reason I posted during the difficulties to which this thread refers. While clearly some of you were angered by my use of the term 'inconvenience', I was merely attempting to inform, interact and apologise for the difficulties which were being experienced.

Despite Dub45's claim that UTV don't apologise, I can assure you that my intention was to do just that, indeed, following this post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1887500&postcount=8

Dub45 posted the following:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1889846&postcount=22

That doesn't get away from the fact that there was a problem. To clear the matter up, the problem was an issue related to the contended pipe, although bandwidth upgrades did take place at the same time. UTV's infrastructure is such that, should a node suffer from bandwidth loss, this will automatically be redirected via other connectivity on our network. Unfortunately the broadband pipe which feeds Eircom's DSL data to us is a single point connection and therefore was the cause of this problem. This problem was exacerbated by a delay in the upgrade of the circuit to us. Our service was still operating well within our advertised contention ratios but did slow down significantly during this period at peak times.

In case there is any doubt, UTV strives to keep all of our services well within contention limits as it is not in our interests to be seen to be offering anything but the best of ISP services. In this instance we failed to live up to that expectation and I sincerely apologise to those customers who were adversely affected.

With regard to the letter received in response to your complaint, I agree that we should have apologised, despite operating within our contended limits. We will be sure to correct this oversight going forward. I welcomed, however, the invitation offered to contact our Operations Manager directly to follow up on any concerns.

Hopefully our services have been restored to the high standard you should expect from UTV. If not, please let me know and I will be pleased to follow up on the issue.

Yours sincerely

Scott Taunton
Managing Director

dub45

Scott Taunton wrote:

While I should probably know better, I'd just like to clear up a few things. We do take a lot of pride in keeping our customers informed of our processes and aim to be up front. Customer service is one of the few differentiators that ISPs have these days and with that comes transparency of operations.

That was the very reason I posted during the difficulties to which this thread refers. While clearly some of you were angered by my use of the term 'inconvenience', I was merely attempting to inform, interact and apologise for the difficulties which were being experienced.

Despite Dub45's claim that UTV don't apologise, I can assure you that my intention was to do just that, indeed, following this post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1887500&postcount=8

Dub45 posted the following:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1889846&postcount=22

That doesn't get away from the fact that there was a problem. To clear the matter up, the problem was an issue related to the contended pipe, although bandwidth upgrades did take place at the same time. UTV's infrastructure is such that, should a node suffer from bandwidth loss, this will automatically be redirected via other connectivity on our network. Unfortunately the broadband pipe which feeds Eircom's DSL data to us is a single point connection and therefore was the cause of this problem. This problem was exacerbated by a delay in the upgrade of the circuit to us. Our service was still operating well within our advertised contention ratios but did slow down significantly during this period at peak times.

In case there is any doubt, UTV strives to keep all of our services well within contention limits as it is not in our interests to be seen to be offering anything but the best of ISP services. In this instance we failed to live up to that expectation and I sincerely apologise to those customers who were adversely affected.

With regard to the letter received in response to your complaint, I agree that we should have apologised, despite operating within our contended limits. We will be sure to correct this oversight going forward. I welcomed, however, the invitation offered to contact our Operations Manager directly to follow up on any concerns.

Hopefully our services have been restored to the high standard you should expect from UTV. If not, please let me know and I will be pleased to follow up on the issue.

Yours sincerely

Scott Taunton
Managing Director

Scott,

What I wrote was that UTV rarely seem to apologise and I stand by that.

I also asked for an update in the support group on the situation immediately after the 'upgrade' and that request was ignored by UTV in spite of your claim of keeping customers up to date.

Can you answer the following questions?

What was the exact problem? Why was this problem never mentioned before? and if was not due to a shortage of bandwidth (which was claimed by UTV reps to customers) why was it cleared up when you did your bw 'upgrade'?

Why was contention never mentioned as the cause of the problem by UTV during the 'crisis' and appeared for the first time in Malcolm's letter which is the basis of the this thread?

In fact I, and others according to posts here. were specifically told by UTV representatives that it was not a contention issue.

And can you please tell me why if every UTV customer who was on at busy times was experienceing very slow speeds what is the point in UTV offering a so called premium product of 24:1 at an additional monthly cost when it is patently of absolutely no benefit.

Is the contenion you are now quoting as a cause or consequnce of your problem the 48/1 or 24/1 we have to expect with bb or is it contention that was generated at ISP level and was going to affect UTV customers at peak times irrespective of what product they are on?

Surely if UTV have their act together then the only contention a customer should experience will depend on the number of the other 47 or 23 that he shares with who are on at any time and this should not affect all UTV customers who are on at the same time?