thinking of getting ADSL? 2MB ADSL offer finishes Sunday 31st Aug
Stella McArthur
450 exchanges in the uk now covered
Get PrimeTime 2000 now and enjoy its blistering 2Mb service for the same
price as PrimeTime 1000.
That's just £24.99 (ex VAT) per month (£29.36 inc VAT) for a service that
delivers 4 times the performance of many well-known 512K services at the
same price.
Offer only applies to new customers for orders placed from 17 July 2003 to
31 August 2003 (inclusive) and is subject to availability and survey.
Bulldog's standard Terms and Conditions apply. 12 month minimum term
applies. As at 1 September 2004, the then prevailing Primetime 2000 price
will be applied to your Service. Offer not available to existing customers.
MagicUK
will have to do lol
"Stella McArthur" <stella....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b28c$0$249$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
RCE Defiant
:: Some things to note:
I ordered last week and should be enable mid next week ;-) I can live with
the speed being 'normal' ADSL during the day as I work normal office hours.
Bring on the 2 meg goodness. If you miss the offer, I'll post here how good
it is and wind you up ;-)
--
RCE Defiant
Sunil Sood
news:3f50b28c$0$249$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Before anyone signs up to this, they should read the Bulldog forum at
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=bulldog to know
exactly what they are ordering
Generally speaking, their customers used to be very happy with the
service but for the last month or so have been having "speed issues"
However, Bulldog seem to have completed some network upgrades recently
so the position seems to have improved (but read the board and you will
see what I mean) and more upgrade work is continuing/planned ...
Also, there is/was an issue of some users on 2MB lines only getting a
max of 1.7MB - see the above forum and
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=1256 for details.
Though if anyone does plan to join Bulldog, feel free to mention my
referal code: bdol87431 if ordering by telephone or online.
I'm afraid you don't get anything but with luck I might:)
Sunil
RCE Defiant
:: On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:27:20 +0100, "Sunil Sood"
:: <ne...@soods.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
::
::: Also, there is/was an issue of some users on 2MB lines only getting
::: a max of 1.7MB
::
:: I could live with 1.7 ;-)
:: --
::
:: Lettuce spray for whirled peas...
::
:: Reply to usenet[at]miknik[dot]co[dot]uk
They've sorted that according to a post they made to adslguide and also a
notice on their site. I'm not sure why there were so many complaints
actually. Since when did anyone on a 56k modem get 56k? NEVER! My current
512/256 DSL get's me 60k/sec down stream, that isn't 512k.
--
RCE Defiant
Sunil Sood
"RCE Defiant" <uk_media_dv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bir8g2$vgm$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> They've sorted that according to a post they made to adslguide and
also a
> notice on their site. I'm not sure why there were so many complaints
> actually. Since when did anyone on a 56k modem get 56k? NEVER! My
current
> 512/256 DSL get's me 60k/sec down stream, that isn't 512k.
erm 60k = 480K and its possible to get the extra 20K(2.5k) if you tweak
your settings etc..
1k=8K approx (its the difference between bits/bytes, k/K etc)
Regards
Sunil
RCE Defiant
:: "RCE Defiant" <uk_media_dv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I know ;-) I should have kept it all the same but just thought I'd try and
confuse everyone. As you say 480 ain't 512. You can expect a bit of loss
of real speed due to overheads etc.
--
RCE Defiant
Peter
<ne...@soods.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Before anyone signs up to this, they should read the Bulldog forum at
>http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=bulldog to know
>exactly what they are ordering
>
>Generally speaking, their customers used to be very happy with the
>service but for the last month or so have been having "speed issues"
>
>Also, there is/was an issue of some users on 2MB lines only getting a
>max of 1.7MB - see the above forum and
>http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=1256 for details.
The most significant and revealing aspect of the above is not the
issue itself (slow speeds on 2mb lines). It's their attitude to
customer service. Three or four months ago Bulldog were falling over
themselves to provide customer feedback and support. They used to
contribute regularly to ADSLGUIDE.ORG forums and religiously answered
the most piddling of issues raised in there. They said (on numerous
occasions) that they 'prided themselves' on their commitment to
customer service and feedback.
In the last two months or so that's all changed. The specific problem
addressed above was raised initially in the ADSLGUIDE forum itself by
an ordinary user. Tens of posts and weeks later it was put on the
'front page' by a member of staff. The best that Bulldog could do was
to answer it by making one solitary post deep within a relatively
obscure thread (which had to be highlighted, by the same member of
staff, by locking it at the top of the forum).The content of the post
was lame in the extreme. Basically, their defence was that the service
was still good value, despite the speed being less that that
advertised. The Bulldog 'of old' would have said "Sorry guys, it's a
fair cop" and "we're dealing with it" and "we'll have it fixed by X
date". Or maybe they couldn't afford to fix it so they'd apologise and
give a small refund or contract extension to those affected; in the
interests of future business if nothing else. Threats of being
reported to the ASA wouldn't have been an issue.
The bottom line is that Bulldog, like so many organisations, started
with the typical enthusiasm of a start-up enterprise. Unfortunately
the cold light of market reality has dawned and they're running for
cover. I don't understand why really, but perhaps there's been a
change of management or something. It's so f**king f**king
disappointing, especially since at one point they were a potential
direct competitor to BT on the local loop. Unfortunately, the writing
is on the wall for their future. The local loop market seems to
attract the lame for some reason; BT, Easynet and now Bulldog.
I was going to move to them once my Pipex contract ran out but on the
basis of the above performance I wouldn't touch them with a forty foot
pole. Steer well clear and wait for the upcoming BT based (that was
'based' i.e. though an ISP, not BT themselves) offering.
Peter
RCE Defiant
:: On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:27:20 +0100, "Sunil Sood"
Some fair comments there. The package is still excellent value for the
price though, even if they haven't sorted the problem out, which apparently
they have. At the mo' I pay 28 quid for 512 DSL and will soon get the '2
meg' off them for 2 quid more ;-)
--
RCE Defiant
RCE Defiant
:: On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:01:54 +0100, "RCE Defiant"
:: <uk_media_dv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
:: <VERY big snip>
::
::: Some fair comments there.
::
:: Here's another one, please learn to SNIP.
::
:: Cheers,
::
:: Guy
::
:: "If you want to find out what is wrong
:: with democracy, spend five minutes with
:: the average voter." - Winston Churchill
No.
--
RCE Defiant
robert w hall
<ne...@soods.freeserve.co.uk> writes
er, what happened to the normal scientific convention that it's the
units-postfix which is altered (kb v kB), when you change the entity
you're talking about (bytes v bits), not the multiplier-prefix
(p,n,(mu),-,m,k,M,G...) which have been set out clearly for more than 50
years) - we have enough people already who don't/can't differentiate
between milliherz and Megaherz.
Bob
(Physicist, 3rd Grade, failed)
>
>Regards
>Sunil
>
>
--
robert w hall
Chris Croughton
<bo...@n-cantrell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>er, what happened to the normal scientific convention that it's the
>units-postfix which is altered (kb v kB), when you change the entity
>you're talking about (bytes v bits), not the multiplier-prefix
>(p,n,(mu),-,m,k,M,G...) which have been set out clearly for more than 50
>years) - we have enough people already who don't/can't differentiate
>between milliherz and Megaherz.
Indeed, I do wonder about these people who have a 'fast' 2 milli-bit per
second line <g>. Incidentally, K (capital) has for many years been
accepted as 2^10 (1024), although the standards authorities won't ratify
it, but the equivalents for Mega and Giga don't work because theyalready
use the capital letters.
Chris C
Chris Game
> er, what happened to the normal scientific convention that it's the
> units-postfix which is altered (kb v kB), when you change the entity
> you're talking about (bytes v bits),
There's no such convention. Type it as MBytes or Mbytes or Mbits to
avoid confusion.
--
=============================================
Chris Game <chrisgame@!yahoo!dotcodotuk>
=============================================
Tom Anderson
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:35:14 +0100, robert w hall
> <bo...@n-cantrell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >er, what happened to the normal scientific convention that it's the
> >units-postfix which is altered (kb v kB), when you change the entity
> >you're talking about (bytes v bits), not the multiplier-prefix
> >(p,n,(mu),-,m,k,M,G...) which have been set out clearly for more than 50
> >years) - we have enough people already who don't/can't differentiate
> >between milliherz and Megaherz.
>
> Incidentally, K (capital) has for many years been accepted as 2^10
> (1024),
'tolerated' more than 'accepted', isn't it? as far as i'm concerned, kb
and Kb are the same thing.
> although the standards authorities won't ratify it, but the equivalents
> for Mega and Giga don't work because theyalready use the capital
> letters.
what's more, the standards bods have proposed their own parallel but
too-comical-to-use system:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix (near the end)
tom
--
Think logical, act incremental
Chris Game
> > See here for a comparison of the old standard and IEC's new standard.
> > http://www.romulus2.com/articles/guides/misc/bitsbytes.shtml
This is all to do with binary numeric prefixes, nothing to do with
bits or bytes.
> For anybody who wants to look it up (but I think you have to
> pay for IEC standards) the document is
> International Standard IEC 60027-2, Letter symbols to be used in
> electrical technology ?
> Part 2: Telecommunications and Electronics, Amendment 2.
Well as I don't have a copy to hand, all I can say is that a quick
Google on that number turns up many references, which use bit, byte,
b, B totally indiscriminately and inconsistently, and again
concentrate on the names for multiples of 2. I'm not surprised that
there's no convention for bits and Bytes, because it would be silly.
Much better to write out bit and byte as necessary, no need for an
abbreviation.
Raj Rijhwani
<Pine.LNX.4.44.03090...@raven.linux.ox.ac.uk>
univ...@herald.ox.ac.uk "Tom Anderson" wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2003, Chris Croughton wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:35:14 +0100, robert w hall
> > <bo...@n-cantrell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Incidentally, K (capital) has for many years been accepted as 2^10
> > (1024),
> 'tolerated' more than 'accepted', isn't it? as far as i'm concerned, kb
> and Kb are the same thing.
The distinction was actually *taught* at Manchester Uni when I was there.
k is SI, for 10^3.
K is very distinctly CS jargon for the nearest approximation - 2^10.
--
Raj Rijhwani | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
r...@rijhwani.org | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/ | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"
Chris Croughton
<univ...@herald.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 1 Sep 2003, Chris Croughton wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, K (capital) has for many years been accepted as 2^10
>> (1024),
>
>'tolerated' more than 'accepted', isn't it? as far as i'm concerned, kb
>and Kb are the same thing.
Not only accepted but taught in a number of universities and published
in computing books. If you treat them as the same thing then you will
be wrong about 50% of the time (although only by 2.4%).
I tend to use engineering conventions, where the prefix is used instead
of a decimal point, as in a 1k8 ohm resistor, a 1M44 byte floppy disk, a
9k6 bps modem...
>> although the standards authorities won't ratify it, but the equivalents
>> for Mega and Giga don't work because theyalready use the capital
>> letters.
>
>what's more, the standards bods have proposed their own parallel but
>too-comical-to-use system:
>
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix (near the end)
Ah, that's where it is, I knew I'd seen one somewhere but unremembered
where. I think it's not unrerasonable, but getting it accepted and
generally used is another matter. It took the SI ones a long time to
get into general use in the UK and US (and you still get abominations
like 'kilo' being short for a 'kilogram(mme)').
Chris C
Tom Anderson
> On Monday, in article
> <Pine.LNX.4.44.03090...@raven.linux.ox.ac.uk>
> univ...@herald.ox.ac.uk "Tom Anderson" wrote:
>
> > On 1 Sep 2003, Chris Croughton wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:35:14 +0100, robert w hall
> > > <bo...@n-cantrell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Incidentally, K (capital) has for many years been accepted as 2^10
> > > (1024),
>
> > 'tolerated' more than 'accepted', isn't it? as far as i'm concerned, kb
> > and Kb are the same thing.
>
> The distinction was actually *taught* at Manchester Uni when I was there.
well, i sit corrected, then!
tom
--
... and the children still cry "Make mine a 99"
Graham Murray
> Well as I don't have a copy to hand, all I can say is that a quick
> Google on that number turns up many references, which use bit, byte,
> b, B totally indiscriminately and inconsistently, and again
> concentrate on the names for multiples of 2. I'm not surprised that
> there's no convention for bits and Bytes, because it would be silly.
> Much better to write out bit and byte as necessary, no need for an
> abbreviation.
There is a distinction. In some countries, Kb is bits and Ko (o for
octets) is bytes.
robert w hall
<news...@gmurray.org.uk> writes
>There is a distinction. In some countries, Kb is bits and Ko (o for
>octets) is bytes.
I hope you mean kb and ko :-)
but that's where we came in...
Bob
--
robert w hall