Utv Letter in the post

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?

Moriarty

dub45, he actually answered all those (technical) questions in his post. Unfortunatly for you I just don't have the will to go through it with you step by step.

damien

I have to say well done to Scott for coming on to the forum and making a statement that should clear up a lot of confusion.

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

dub45, he actually answered all those (technical) questions in his post. Unfortunatly for you I just don't have the will to go through it with you step by step.

Moriarity,

I dont agree that he did.

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.

He gives us no idea of that the problem is and why was it never mentioned before now or why the bandwidth 'upgrade' conveniently solved it or why UTV were so specific in telling people it was a bandwidth upgrade.

UTV are continually coming up with new causes for this problem and I dont think they shold be allowed get away with that.

Moriarty

You're a quality act, I'll give you that.


Here's a hint: You just quoted the very answers you said he hasn't given.

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

You're a quality act, I'll give you that.


Here's a hint: You just quoted the very answers you said he hasn't given.

i want more details about that broadband pipe:)

I still think that UTV are trying to confuse contention generated by them with the contention at 48/1 and 24/1.

Moriarty

I promised myself I wouldn't. I really did.

OK. Step by step. (Feel free to correct me if I'm talking arse Scott, my knowledge of the bitstream service is rather.. patchy.. in areas.)

All traffic from eircom, IOL, UTV, netsource and every other DSL provider running over the bitstream service has all of their customers traffic carried from each exchange around the country via eircoms ATM network to one of 13(?) regional POPs (Points Of Presence - basically big intersections in eircoms network where lots of traffic passes through) that eircom have. As far as I know, all the ISPs are connected into the Dublin eircom POP.

Next, each ISP buys a dedicated link connecting eircoms regional POP to their own network. All of the ISPs DSL customer traffic for the entire country converges onto this one link to cross from eircoms network over to the individual ISPs network. This is where UTV encountered problems according to Scotts post above. Their link between eircom and themselves became saturated because so many people signed up for the service. Far more traffic was being pushed through a link that didn't get any bigger. The link between eircom and UTV wasn't large enough to cope with this increase in traffic which is why the service deteriorated. On top of this, eircom apparently dragged their heels in upgrading the bandwidth of this link, so the problems persisted for a while.

Is that any clearer now?

rash

Scott,

Has UTV come across a great new concept called CAPACITY PLANNING.
If so, your procedures completely failed and you need to some serious ass kicking.

Sounds like UTV were caught on the hop by the demand of the free trial period...... and your paying customers have taken the hit.

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

I promised myself I wouldn't. I really did.

. ....This is where UTV encountered problems according to Scotts post above. Their link between eircom and themselves became saturated because so many people signed up for the service. Far more traffic was being pushed through a link that didn't get any bigger. The link between eircom and UTV wasn't large enough to cope with this increase in traffic which is why the service deteriorated. On top of this, eircom apparently dragged their heels in upgrading the bandwidth of this link, so the problems persisted for a while.

Is that any clearer now?

Firstly Scott makes absolutely no mention of people signing up for the UTV service anywhere in his post as contributing to the problem.

So in simple terms, according to your precis there was a shortage of bandwidth (I presume that saturation is caused by a shortage of bandwidth) because for whatever reason UTV did not have enough for the amount of people they were taking on as well as their existing customers so the service to their existing customers suffered irrespective of what product they were on (i.e. 48/1 or 24/1 so for those supposedly paying a premium it was money down that pipe for all the difference it made)

The contention which UTV are quoting as the reason for the poor service (in Malcolm's letter but not anywhere prior to that) was a result of not having sufficient bandwith: but Malcolm's letter attempts to pass off that contention as what customers can normally expect on bb. And again can I emphasise that unlike Scott's post Malcolm's letter to customers who complained did not even acknowledge that there had been any problem at all. How does that square with Scott's claim that UTV aim to be up front?

And before it gathers wings there is no evidence anywhere that Eircom contributed to the problem by dragging their heels I dont know where you are getting that.

UTV have now introduced a second type of contention as being within 'acceptable limits' that I am sure most people did not know about when they signed up for and thats the contention at ISP level which in this case comes from not having enough bandwith so as well as having to content with our 47 or 23 neighbours we also have to contend with that bloody pipe! So I ask again whats the point in paying a premium for a supposedly reduced contention product?

dub45

rash wrote:

Scott,

Has UTV come across a great new concept called CAPACITY PLANNING.
If so, your procedures completely failed and you need to some serious ass kicking.

Sounds like UTV were caught on the hop by the demand of the free trial period...... and your paying customers have taken the hit.

Exactly except that UTV are trying to hide that behind 'contention'.

oscarBravo

I'll echo Moriarty: dub45, you're a class act.

Take a step back for a second: there was a problem. The managing director of the company concerned has come on here, in a public forum, and accepted there was a problem. He explained, in detail, what that problem was. And - get this! - he apologised for it.

Your response speaks volumes. You've invested so much in this, there's no way you can back down now. If you were offered a guided tour of the data centre, passwords to all the routers and shares in the company, you'd still be complaining.

Do yourself a favour: let it go.