Another dissatisfied Demon customer

I've been with Demon since 2001 (SDU), switching to HomeOffice 500 early in 2005, which they steadily upgraded via HomeOffice 8000 to HomeOffice 2+.

From 2005 I'd used an old PC running IPCop fitted with a Conexant AccessRunner PCI ADSL modem. This and a phone were upstairs connected to a microfilter on the end of an extension cable trailed up the stairs from the master socket.

It was reliable; the connection dropped infrequently, (less than once/month and seemingly overnight when it mattered less) and synced at around ~2700/500 (dropping during spells of wet weather.)

This is on a line which barely scraped 24k with a V90 modem on Demon SDU, and dropped several times/hour (and which BT couldn't find any fault with...)

I was content. It was reliable, if not fast.

Then, on 29 April 2009:

We are happy to inform you that your broadband service has
now been upgraded to Demon 2+

The connection began to drop several times a day and was generally syncing at a lower rate than before.

I knew that if I bothered to call, Demon would blame my equipment.

Last week I bought a DrayTek Vigor 120 and XTE-2005 faceplate, ran Cat5e from the IPCop box upstairs to the modem and plugged it straight into the new faceplate.

Similar downstream (~2700), better upstream (~900). I suppose that's an improvement but that's after spending money on my own upgrades.

I'm still getting random disconnections, at least once/day, usually more.

The modem disconnects whenever the 'phone rings, this is a new problem.

I've also seen sporadic routing delays; just yesterday, ping times to everywhere shot up to ~1200ms rendering the 'net radio station I was listening to unlistenable for the best part of an hour.

Then there's the fact that the upgrade was performed by unbundling the connection to C&W without Demon bothering to tell me.

Throw in the 60G/month download cap (which I only found out about when I hit it last November) and the suspicion that some (p2p) traffic is now being shaped/managed, not to mention the introduction of transparent proxying/filtering...

I don't think I could be bothered to complain. I think I'll ask for a MAC on Monday.

Kat.

Edited by KatM (Sat 27-Jun-09 22:16:57)

Oh, FYI, stats now:

> adsl status
  --------------------------- ATU-R Info (hw: annex A, f/w: annex A) -----------
   Running Mode            : ADSL2+(G.992.5)       State                : SHOWTIME
   DS Actual Rate          :  2478000 bps   US Actual Rate       :   963000 bps
   DS Attainable Rate      :  2536000 bps   US Attainable Rate   :   964000 bps
   DS Path Mode            :        Fast    US Path Mode         :        Fast 
   DS Interleave Depth     :        8       US Interleave Depth  :        1 
   NE Current Attenuation  :       55 dB    Cur SNR Margin       :        9  dB
   DS actual PSD           :    16. 0 dB    US actual PSD        :    12. 6   dB
   ADSL Firmware Version   : 332201_A 
  -------------------------------- ATU-C Info ---------------------------------
   Far Current Attenuation :       31 dB    Far SNR Margin       :        5  dB
   CO ITU Version[0]       : 00005000       CO ITU Version[1]    : 00000000
   DSLAM CHIPSET VENDOR    : < CTLM >
>

It's also managed to remain connected for a remarkable 7h 5m, I'd guess as the rate's fallen with every drop. What happened to SRA..?

I also get the line drops when the phone rings issue.

Before everyone says fit a filter i only have a master bt socket with a filter faceplate fitted which my 1 phone and 1 adsl connection plug into.

This has only started to happen since the adsl 2+ upgrade. I was pondering could it be a problem with the equipment in the exchange.

Cascading filters should improve overall slope rate and total attenuation. So an extra filter would theoretically reduce the amount of interference on the ADSL signal from a 'phone, if that were the problem.

I now have three filters between the incoming line and the 'phone. One in the faceplate, one plugged into that, then the extension lead, then another one, then the 'phone.

It's made no difference.

Is there anywhere to read about the "mention the introduction of transparent proxying/filtering" on the Demon website?

Anthony

THUS IWF Web Filter (Demon FAQ)

It's useful to read other opinions on the subject. It doesn't take long to find some.

Will the IWF make the Internet safer? (Entanet Opinion site, May 2009)

Real internet connection (AAISP Knowledge Base) - specifically the 'Censoring' section:

In reference to www.aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html:

[...] They are also the thin end of the wedge as once a system is in place then adding more is easy. Bear in mind most ISPs using such systems then have no control over what is censored or why. If we accept censorship for child abuse, then we have to accept it for terrorism, and then maybe political extremist views, and then maybe not so extreme views, and maybe wrong thinking [...]

In reply to a post by KatM:

It's useful to read other opinions on the subject. It doesn't take long to find some.

Interesting that Demon use the IWF filter. Wasn't there a fuss some time ago when the IWF blocked Wikipedia as it contained an image of a 1970s album cover deemed to be 'offensive'?

What really irritates me about the IWF and its proselytisers is their default response to any criticism is that the critic 'must support child porn'.

If ISPs could offer IWF filtering as optional and the government (et al.) acknowledged that all it can do is provide "a safer internet" for those who'd prefer it, not prevent crime; I'd not only support it but have it turned on. (I already use Google's optional 'SafeSearch' feature.)

It's not the filtering itself I object to. My concerns are with the way it's been implemented, what the government thinks it'll achieve and what this or successive governments may decide to use it for once it's firmly in place.

Demon have been using it for some time; if it weren't for the other issues I'd probably remain with them. But as I'm considering migration mainly to regain a reliable and stable service I'm likely to take the opportunity to migrate to an ISP who share my concerns.

If IWF filtering were optional I too *might* be inclined to let it pass. However once the principle of filtering is accepted the next stage is 'improved' filtering via deep packet inspection. And, since it's virtually impossible to determine what something is prior to inspecting it, the result is *all* traffic is subject to DPI.

What criteria are used for what is objectionable? Who gets to decide? The Government or somebody with an axe, of one sort or another, to grind? Some things may be pretty obvious, but it's in the grey areas where the difficulties start. Above all how do you know what is or isn't being blocked?

An on overview, on Demon 2000 Bus line, upgraded free to their 8000 service (business line).

After upgrade RUBBISH line, confirmed there was duff hardware there end (have that in writing), now told line is over 8km long so take my business elsewhere as they cant fix it.

The phone exchange is 1.5km walk away, so where did 6.5km of cable come from, also this was a the "free" upgrade which now means i have no internet, surely there�s an OFCOM issue here????

This was after i wrote to them telling them to give me a VPS while they resolve the issue, this sounds to me like a cover-up, surely "we did an upgrade and put to much cable in, sorry take a running jump it�s not our problem" can�t be the legal answer they can give here, especially as I didn�t ask for this upgrade????

Many Thanks
Ashley
© Copyright 2009 - www.ashleygriffin.co.uk

Edited by SFXGroup (Mon 29-Jun-09 00:11:47)