NTL - Fantastic if u can get it!

DW

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 2:37:33 PM11/27/01

to

Sorry to all those who cant get cable :-(, but I just had to share my excitement
with my new NTL connection.

check this out

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.31]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.15.96.1
2 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.0.92.162
3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.0.92.19
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 10.0.186.19
5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms man-bb-a-so-210-0.inet.ntl.com [213.105.172.113]

6 10 ms 10 ms 20 ms lee-bb-b-so-700-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.194]

7 10 ms 10 ms 20 ms lee-bb-a-so-210-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.187.249]

8 40 ms 20 ms 10 ms pop-bb-b-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.238]

9 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms linx-ic-1-so-000-0.inet.ntl.com [62.253.185.82]

10 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms rt-linx-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [195.66.225.103]
11 20 ms 20 ms 20 ms www1.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.31]

Trace complete.

C:\>

If your thinking of getting NTL - get it its fantastic!
Ive been with BTO 3 weeks and the frog is in the bin already!

DW

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 2:44:51 PM11/27/01

to

same test on btopenworld

on a supposedly upgraded HG17

Microsoft(R) Windows DOS
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-1999.

C:\>tracert www.bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.31]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 30 ms 20 ms 30 ms 217.32.60.161
2 40 ms 60 ms 60 ms 217.32.60.234
3 30 ms 30 ms 40 ms 62.7.251.129
4 * * 110 ms 172.16.109.98
5 40 ms 50 ms 40 ms 172.16.100.50
6 40 ms 40 ms 30 ms 172.16.93.210
7 * 50 ms 50 ms 172.16.93.66
8 * 50 ms 60 ms 213.120.207.221
9 100 ms 90 ms 70 ms core1-gig2-1.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.197.1
]
10 * 101 ms 70 ms core1-pos13-3.ilford.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.218
]
11 * 40 ms 40 ms core1-pos9-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.
5]
12 51 ms 60 ms * rt-linx-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [195.66.225.103]
13 30 ms 31 ms * www1.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.31]
14 31 ms 30 ms 30 ms www1.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.31]

Trace complete.

C:\>^C

C:\>

Paul

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 3:44:06 PM11/27/01

to

"DW" <dave_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1006889736.24404.1@eos...

>
> Sorry to all those who cant get cable :-(, but I just had to share my
excitement
> with my new NTL connection.

I've done the same thing as you here and have OW and Blueyonder working
together at the moment. Openworld should have been disconnected but they've
messed up the order.Are you seriously going to pay for 2 providers for the
next year?

Results of the same tests as you did are below. BT are truly a disgrace

Blueyonder test:

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.55]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 10.95.0.1
2 6 ms 7 ms 7 ms gsr01-hy.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.32.33]
3 7 ms 7 ms 8 ms atm6-0-hay-hsd-gsr-linx.cableinet.net
[194.117.1
40.146]
4 7 ms 8 ms 7 ms e41-isp1-gw1-uk.cableinet.net
[194.117.140.9]
5 7 ms 8 ms 7 ms rt-linx-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [195.66.225.103]
6 8 ms 8 ms 10 ms 212.58.224.55

Trace complete.

Openworld test:

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.35]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 118 ms 139 ms 139 ms 62.7.251.1
2 150 ms 159 ms 169 ms 62.7.251.1
3 170 ms 169 ms 209 ms 172.16.109.22
4 79 ms 99 ms 109 ms 172.16.100.42
5 140 ms 180 ms 129 ms 172.16.93.214
6 149 ms 169 ms 190 ms 172.16.93.68
7 120 ms 139 ms 139 ms 217.32.244.225
8 160 ms 179 ms 169 ms core2-gig10-1.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net
[62.6.197.
34]
9 170 ms 169 ms * core2-pos5-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net
[194.74.65.225
]
10 279 ms 310 ms 310 ms core2-pos10-0.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net
[194.74.65
.21]
11 280 ms 260 ms 320 ms rt-linx-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [195.66.225.103]
12 270 ms 280 ms 270 ms 212.58.224.35

Trace complete.

Paul

DW

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 4:04:22 PM11/27/01

to

>
> I've done the same thing as you here and have OW and Blueyonder working
> together at the moment. Openworld should have been disconnected but they've
> messed up the order.Are you seriously going to pay for 2 providers for the
> next year?

Well that is the worst case scenario!! and it just goes to show how p*ssed I was with BT as it
caused my temporary insanity!!
anyway according to billing at BTO I can cancel as I have been without "service" for over 14days, At
the very least they have offered me a refund on the whole month but im going to push for a cancel -
sale of goods and services act!

I have 2 similar broadband services BTO = 576/256 & NTL=512/128 they should be roughly the same, but
as you know they are poles apart! BTO is useless - way toooooo muuuch packet loss and soooo
sloooowww, where as NTL offers the service I wanted a fast reliable connection - it is fantastic.

with this evidence I should be able to get disconnected, as they should be comparable.

I haven't got a bad word for NTL at the minute, the set-up could have been easier - (but now im
picking at it) :-))

BT come and get yer frog!! and why your at it you can take the phone out as well !!!
someone shoot me if I ever go near a BT product ever again!!!

DW.

Adrian Kennard

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 5:52:58 PM11/27/01

to

From my AAISP ADSL line at home :-

traceroute to 212.58.224.31 (212.58.224.31), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 firebrand (217.169.0.6) 2.280 ms 2.084 ms 2.182 ms
2 gate (217.169.0.7) 4.992 ms 5.420 ms 4.973 ms
3 aimless.redbus.aaisp.net (213.161.69.150) 18.513 ms 18.253 ms 17.768 ms
4 213.161.69.147 (213.161.69.147) 17.532 ms 17.236 ms 19.244 ms
5 core1-main2-stm4.lhr4.above.net (208.184.231.137) 19.282 ms 18.452 ms 17.477 ms
6 core1-lhr4-stm4.lhr1.above.net (208.184.231.165) 19.097 ms 18.767 ms 17.428 ms
7 rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk (193.203.5.90) 19.682 ms 19.088 ms 18.264 ms
8 www1.thdo.bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.31) 19.154 ms * 18.408 ms

I also did a ping time to 212.58.224.31 and got, get this, 9ms.
Not sure why the traceroute was not showing the same.. Odd.
Could be the way traceroute works on unix, which I think is UDP
not ICMP. This includes 1ms roughly for my firewall !

PING 212.58.224.31 (212.58.224.31) from 217.169.0.30 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=18.167 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=9.962 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=4 ttl=246 time=9.950 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=5 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=6 ttl=246 time=9.952 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=7 ttl=246 time=9.949 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=8 ttl=246 time=9.965 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=9 ttl=246 time=9.965 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=10 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=11 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=12 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=13 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=14 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=15 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=16 ttl=246 time=9.956 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=17 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=18 ttl=246 time=9.967 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=19 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=20 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=21 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=22 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=23 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=24 ttl=246 time=9.960 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=25 ttl=246 time=9.967 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=26 ttl=246 time=9.965 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=27 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=28 ttl=246 time=9.967 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=29 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=30 ttl=246 time=19.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=31 ttl=246 time=9.968 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=32 ttl=246 time=9.956 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=33 ttl=246 time=9.966 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=34 ttl=246 time=9.965 msec

--- 212.58.224.31 ping statistics ---
35 packets transmitted, 35 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 9.949/10.484/19.968/2.126 ms

For some reason on this kernel, pings tend to be roughly 10ms
granularity, which is a pain. I have a rapid ping test program
which is more reliable, and it gave a 9ms average, so it looks
real.

Pinging from our gateway (at the other end of the ADSL) I get

PING 212.58.224.31 (212.58.224.31) from 213.161.69.150 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=0 ttl=250 time=787 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=758 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=2 ttl=250 time=767 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=3 ttl=250 time=1.125 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=4 ttl=250 time=1.076 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=5 ttl=250 time=1.694 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=6 ttl=250 time=771 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=7 ttl=250 time=946 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=8 ttl=250 time=1.169 msec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=9 ttl=250 time=932 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=10 ttl=250 time=771 usec
64 bytes from 212.58.224.31: icmp_seq=11 ttl=250 time=857 usec

--- 212.58.224.31 ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/mdev = 0.758/0.971/1.694/0.260 ms

As the ADSL is about 9ms normally, a 9 to 10ms average
is about right.

So, I would not want your slow cable line <-:

--
_ Andrews & Arnold Ltd, 0871 871 4444 http://aa.nu/
(_) _| _ . _ _ Talk to us about cheaper business calls, via BT !
( )(_|( |(_|| ) FAST ADSL: Want linux friendly ISP http://sod.ms/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a good firewall: http://www.FireBrick.info/

Paul

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 6:22:53 PM11/27/01

to

"Adrian Kennard" <PleaseUseR...@sod.ms> wrote in message
news:3C04194A...@sod.ms...

> As the ADSL is about 9ms normally, a 9 to 10ms average
> is about right.
>
> So, I would not want your slow cable line <-:

But we were talking about BTO not AAISP. Blueyonder is happily managing a
ping of 9 to 10 for just over a third of the price of AAISP

Paul

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 6:38:13 PM11/27/01

to

"Adrian Kennard" <PleaseUseR...@sod.ms> wrote in message
news:3C04194A...@sod.ms...

> As the ADSL is about 9ms normally, a 9 to 10ms average
> is about right.
>
> So, I would not want your slow cable line <-:

But AAISP is nearly 3 tiomes the price of Blueyonder or NTL

Paul

Sgt. Bilko.

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 7:00:38 PM11/27/01

to

"Adrian Kennard" wrote ...

<snip>

> As the ADSL is about 9ms normally, a 9 to 10ms average
> is about right.
>
> So, I would not want your slow cable line <-:
>

<snip>

I hope this isn't too stupid a question and you are able to write the answer
on one side of paper. What are you, A&A, doing so differently to
BTopenworld, who unfortunately provide my line.

--
The Sgt.

DW

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 7:06:40 PM11/27/01

to

> So, I would not want your slow cable line <-:
>
> --
> _ Andrews & Arnold Ltd, 0871 871 4444 http://aa.nu/
> (_) _| _ . _ _ Talk to us about cheaper business calls, via BT !
> ( )(_|( |(_|| ) FAST ADSL: Want linux friendly ISP http://sod.ms/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a good firewall: http://www.FireBrick.info/

what is your point exactly?

I was pointing out what a huge mess BTO is in, NTL has far more subscribers than BTO but can deliver
the product!
and I doubt you could match the price/performance.

did I fail to mention I also get a phone line and digital TV?
.. thats just a bonus

DW

Paul Cummins

unread,

Nov 27, 2001, 9:02:00 PM11/27/01

to

In article <hfVM7.283$rT1....@news2.blueyonder.co.uk>, use...@ukmax.com
(Paul) wrote:

> Blueyonder is happily managing a
> ping of 9 to 10 for just over a third of the price of AAISP

But they aren't managing to run an RFC-compliant system. What's the point
in 9-10msec pings to routers that drop your traffic?

:->

--
Dr Paul Cummins - Internet Engineer | /"\ ASCII RIBBON
Tel: 07021 117179 Fax: 07092 105150 + \ / CAMPAIGN
Email: paul(at)cummins.ie.eu.org | X AGAINST HTML MAIL
UCE not welcome, £50 charge applies | / \ AND POSTINGS

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCC d+ s-:+ a C++ UV+ U*+ P L+ !E W+++$ N+++ o? K w++++ O- M-- V-- PS+
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5? X+ R- tv+ b++++ DI++ D+ G e* h++ r++ x+(?)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Adrian Kennard

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 3:46:21 AM11/28/01

to

Fair comment, I suppose.

Adrian Kennard

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 3:48:50 AM11/28/01

to

Well, for a start, we allow 20:1 contention even for the 50:1
users at our end. We also have planning rules allowing 100% extra
capacity for short peaks and bursts.

Also, we don't go for economy transit bandwidth - we pay a lot for
good quality. However, this is not likely to be BT's problem as they
have a good network generally.

Basically, we don't try and fill up all of the pipes until the start
slowing down. That's why we cost more as this costs more money to
provide.

Zane Wilson

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 5:43:51 AM11/28/01

to

In article <3C04194A...@sod.ms>,

Adrian Kennard <adrian....@sod.ms> wrote:
>From my AAISP ADSL line at home :-

> 8 www1.thdo.bbc.co.uk (212.58.224.31) 19.154 ms * 18.408 ms
>
>I also did a ping time to 212.58.224.31 and got, get this, 9ms.
>Not sure why the traceroute was not showing the same.. Odd.
>Could be the way traceroute works on unix, which I think is UDP
>not ICMP. This includes 1ms roughly for my firewall !

Linux traceroute is UDP by default, but by putting -I in the parms, it
will use ICMP. Ping uses ICMP only.

Here's my result (ntl: cable):

64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=0 ttl=248 time=13.6 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=1 ttl=248 time=14.1 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=2 ttl=248 time=13.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=3 ttl=248 time=11.8 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=4 ttl=248 time=18.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=5 ttl=248 time=13.3 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=6 ttl=248 time=12.2 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=7 ttl=248 time=13.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=8 ttl=248 time=11.5 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.224.55: icmp_seq=9 ttl=248 time=13.1 ms

>So, I would not want your slow cable line <-:

It's acceptable for £19.99 a month! ;-) I couldn't justify another
£50/month to shave 3ms off a ping, nor to get double the upload b/w.
Here's hoping ntl: will roll out a 1Mbps connection like they were
trialling last year in Teesside.

Zane.

Harry

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 5:12:59 PM11/28/01

to

I live in an NTL cabled area and was informed the broadband was launched. So
I rung them up and subscribed hopinf that I could connect in minutes since I
had a 10/100 nic installed and the modem is inside my cable box. I was wrong
after calling the faults several times, speaking to the support people no
effect. They raised a fault last Friday and I was told that they would call
me Saturday morning to solve it. I wasnt called so I called back only to be
toldthat the service in my area was rolledback and that I should not have
been signed on.
Well btopenworld is not the only crapy company there could be worse.

Regards,

Bioharry

"DW" <dave_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:1006894947.25415.1@iapetus...

Paul

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 5:50:03 PM11/28/01

to

"Adrian Kennard" <PleaseUseR...@sod.ms> wrote in message

news:3C04A45D...@sod.ms...
> Fair comment, I suppose.

Don't get me wrong. Your service looks to be probably the best ADSL home 500
available. It would just be too expensive for me to justify. Especially
having a reasonable (quite good actually compared to BTO) alternative
available with Blueyonder

Paul

ShakeyJake

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 7:49:46 PM11/28/01

to

this is from my 56k on ntl world...

C:\>tracert www.bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.55]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 * * * Request timed out.
2 90 ms 80 ms 80 ms nth-dam1-a-fa10.inet.ntl.com [62.253.33.197]
3 90 ms 80 ms 80 ms nth-core-a-pos200.inet.ntl.com
[62.253.32.129]
4 90 ms 80 ms 80 ms nth-bb-a-so-230-0.inet.ntl.com
[62.253.185.109]

5 91 ms 80 ms 90 ms gfd-bb-b-so-400-0.inet.ntl.com
[62.253.185.98]
6 90 ms 81 ms 90 ms linx-ic-2-so-100-0.inet.ntl.com
[62.253.185.74]

7 90 ms 80 ms 91 ms rt-linx-b.thdo.bbc.co.uk [195.66.225.103]
8 90 ms 80 ms 90 ms 212.58.224.55

Trace complete.

not bad, but i want cable :(

"DW" <dave_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:1006889736.24404.1@eos...

Adrian Kennard

unread,

Nov 29, 2001, 10:00:15 AM11/29/01

to

Fair enough.

We do have a low usage option by the way. Its really for people
that work all day and use the ADSL off peak, and is only 40/month.
You have to pay annually though.