How DARE YOU use the company internet connection for work?
-
@PJH said:
@Kemp said:
Umlimited transfer? At up to 8MB?@Mole said:
As for internet cost, I pay £25 UKP per month for 30GB and "upto 4MB" connection speed. If I use up that 30GB, then it's £1.50 for each additional GB. Yes I know, I should move, but I'm planning a move to cable rather than this DSL trash.
No idea how you manage that. BT (the default choice until recently) will give you unlimited transfer for £25 a month, at up to 8MB. If a company is giving you less than BT do then they're doing it wrong.
I'm sure there should, at a minimum, two asterisks in that sentence, one pointing to a note about fair use, (which is not a fair definition of unlimited), and the other expanding on the "up to" and explaining why it doesn't say "at least."
Regardless, given the price plans displayed here, there is one such descibed as 20MB/Unlimited@£24.46 (with two such disclaimers, and other crud in with the offer) with, get this, on the same page another "heavy usage option." Now why - if the first mentioned is unlimited - can they offer such an option?
For the lazy (or if the link doesn't work), the 'heavy usage option' comes with an (apparent) absolute 20GB cap. No pricing details given for if you go over that cap. Which in itself implies interesting.cn things about the above 'unlimited' offering.
I'm not sure what your point is here. You have confirmed that yes they do have an unlimited option at about £25 (sorry, I don't care about the 54p). Other than that, you're just having a go at a slightly cheaper option which has a cap. My point still stands.
I have yet to see an ISP (in this country) which offers unlimited transfer without a fair use policy in the smallprint. In this case fair use means almost nothing because I don't know anyone who's fallen foul of it. Maybe if you max out the bandwidth all day every day then it's not for you, but then you'd be someone who isn't looking for ADSL to start with anyway. As for "up to", all ADSL here is listed as that (unless they're trying to trick you) because it depends on a lot of factors, including your distance from the exchange, the age of the lines, the amount of equipment attached to the line in your hous, the bandwidth consumption of nearby people, etc etc. Again, if you don't like it then you don't use ADSL.
-
@Kemp said:
I'm not sure what your point is here. You have confirmed that yes they do have an unlimited option at about £25
No, I've confirmed that they have something that they call unlimited, but which is, in fact, patently not unlimited.And that they have the temerity to offer something for those that are 'heavy users' that has only a 20GB cap. Which implies that the "unlimited" offering has a cap well below 20GB. Which by any definition of the word (except perhaps with the ISPs) is anything but unlimited.
@Kemp said:
I don't know anyone who's fallen foul of it.
You imply that they don't need the "fair use" policy for non-business users.If there's a cap, they should state it clearly instead of lying and calling it "unlimited*" I seem to recall the OFT looking into this a while back. They're either still doing so or they're being their usual spinless selves and have dropped it.
Of course, all the above not withstanding, I'd have nothing to do with BT anyway. All that business with Phorm which was a WTF in and of itself.
-
Apparently (and don't hold me to this or base your usage around it), the fair use on BT option 3 is 100GB a month. After that they just throttle rather than cut you off or charge you. Probably if you consistently go over that they may talk to you, but if you transfer over 100GB *every month* then you're back in "something other than ADSL" territory.
-
@PJH said:
@Kemp said:
I'm not sure what your point is here. You have confirmed that yes they do have an unlimited option at about £25
No, I've confirmed that they have something that they call unlimited, but which is, in fact, patently not unlimited.And that they have the temerity to offer something for those that are 'heavy users' that has only a 20GB cap. Which implies that the "unlimited" offering has a cap well below 20GB. Which by any definition of the word (except perhaps with the ISPs) is anything but unlimited.
Note the 20GB cap is option 2 and costs less than the unlimited option 3. They mean heavy usage *for a normal home user*, not the likes of us. Confusing to us, yes, but we're not their biggest user base :-P
-
@Kemp said:
Note the 20GB cap is option 2 and costs less than the unlimited option 3.
Hmm. Going (back) to my link shows a different page to the one I was looking at. They've changed the prices as well.
Should have taken a screenshot at the time I think.
-
@PJH said:
@Kemp said:
I'm not sure what your point is here. You have confirmed that yes they do have an unlimited option at about £25
No, I've confirmed that they have something that they call unlimited, but which is, in fact, patently not unlimited.And that they have the temerity to offer something for those that are 'heavy users' that has only a 20GB cap. Which implies that the "unlimited" offering has a cap well below 20GB. Which by any definition of the word (except perhaps with the ISPs) is anything but unlimited.
I can't quite follow your logic there. The "unlimited" plan costs more than "heavy usage", so what exactly is the fact that implies a lower cap?
-
@PJH said:
@Kemp said:
Note the 20GB cap is option 2 and costs less than the unlimited option 3.
Hmm. Going (back) to my link shows a different page to the one I was looking at. They've changed the prices as well.
Should have taken a screenshot at the time I think.Well I'm not quite sure what you saw, but the prices have been like this for at least a year now.
-
@tdb said:
I can't quite follow your logic there. The "unlimited" plan costs more than "heavy usage", so what exactly is the fact that implies a lower cap?
The indicated prices when I first linked to the page. Unlimited was less than heavy usage.As I pointed out in my earlier post, the page appears to have changed.
-
@PJH said:
@tdb said:
I can't quite follow your logic there. The "unlimited" plan costs more than "heavy usage", so what exactly is the fact that implies a lower cap?
The indicated prices when I first linked to the page. Unlimited was less than heavy usage.As I pointed out in my earlier post, the page appears to have changed.
Possibly you accidentally read the introductory price for unlimited and the normal price for capped? Anyway, I don't think this needs much more analysis, it's an easy mistake to make. Especially when we naturally read left to right and then top to bottom, whereas the options are ordered top to bottom and the left to right.
Pre-emptive comment: I know not all languages have reading in that direction, but we're talking in English, and the site is also in English :-P
-
@AndyCanfield said:
It is a real lake. That's why the phone lines are too long for ADSL - they have to go around the lake. We have a sister company a few km up the road, so I looked into wireless. Unfortunately there's a hill between us, so no line-of-sight is possible. And the radio spectrum is very tightly controlled here in Thailand.
Just get some fiber cable and two fiber-utp converters (about 60-100$ each) and go around the lake with fiber cable. Or, if it's not too deep, go straight over the lake with the fiber cable (but you'll have to insulate it properly)... The fiber is a bit more expensive, let's say 3-5$ per meter - it's been a while since I was working with this... I see on newegg 100 feet cable is 110 dollars.
Here's some links ..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156011 - up to 2 km , multi mode fiber
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156011 - up to 15km single mode fiber
http://www.telebyteusa.com/catalog/products/focab.htm - 700$ for 1000 feet of multi mode or single mode fiber (1850$ for exterior cable).
Once you make the investment, having 100 mbps makes it worth it.
-
Years ago the Thai CAT government monoply built a wireless CDMA mobile phone network which nobody ever uses. Recently some bright guy realized that they can sell Internet access through this network. This includes a wireless USB device from Novatel.So setup costs are about two hundred dollars, but the monthly charge is only slightly higher than an ADSL line.
We borrowed one and tested it. The signal is plenty strong enough to get across the lake. I got it to work with Ubuntu Linux 8.04, the operating system we use on our server. So we are going ahead with this option.
Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions.
-
@nixar said:
My ticket:
I often experience interruptions during long downloads, the TCP connection is just shut down. For example I've been trying for 2 days to download a RedHat ISO (>3G), without much success. FYI URL is xxx. wget restarts the download automatically but it eventually fails or the download is often corrupted.
Their awesome passive-aggressive reply:
I'm a bit surprised by your ticket
The connection is currently 8Mb/s
3GB would take about 1h if the line was only used by you, in the best case.
I'm reminding you that you are about 500 to use this link and that it is not dedicated to you.
For this kind of download, I would recommend using an external connection.It's not clear what they mean by "external connection;" I asked around and people told me to do the download at home. Which is what I did. I enjoy the amazing luxury of having 3 times more bandwidth for just one user.
How about upgrading the link? Yeah well, that would cost money, and those are the people who make you request a quote (from the one and only supplier) and a purchase order for $20 keyboard. I kid you not.
No, I'm really not kidding you.
I have to insist because I would not believe any of you if you made the same claim. Or at least, I wouldn't have until I started working here.
Lay off the http protocol. Use FTP. In fact, use ncftp which has that nifty "ncftpbatch" daemon you can run; one of the best features FTP has is the REST command. You know, that nifty option that lets you resume downloads when your connection gets reset. That way you'll be able to download w/o problem, as the TCP connection dying will only mean you have to reconnect. :)
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
Lay off the http protocol. Use FTP. In fact, use ncftp which has that nifty "ncftpbatch" daemon you can run; one of the best features FTP has is the REST command. You know, that nifty option that lets you resume downloads when your connection gets reset. That way you'll be able to download w/o problem, as the TCP connection dying will only mean you have to reconnect. :)
Or lftp, which will re-establish your connection and resume automagically, per your settings. Of course, ncftp may have caught up to lftp, but I know it had this feature for years before ncftp. (It's also possible ncftp doesn't have it yet - I haven't checked in a long time, because I am unaware of ncftp having any feature I want that lftp doesn't have.)
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
Lay off the http protocol. Use FTP. In fact, use ncftp which has that nifty "ncftpbatch" daemon you can run; one of the best features FTP has is the REST command. You know, that nifty option that lets you resume downloads when your connection gets reset. That way you'll be able to download w/o problem, as the TCP connection dying will only mean you have to reconnect. :)
HTTP/1.1 has supported resumable downloads for years.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Bullshit. HTTP/1.1 hasn't even been around for 20 years.@danixdefcon5 said:
Lay off the http protocol. Use FTP. In fact, use ncftp which has that nifty "ncftpbatch" daemon you can run; one of the best features FTP has is the REST command. You know, that nifty option that lets you resume downloads when your connection gets reset. That way you'll be able to download w/o problem, as the TCP connection dying will only mean you have to reconnect. :)
HTTP/1.1 has supported resumable downloads for years.
