![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
You can never have enough Volvos!
You can never have enough Volvos!
cranz: Lucky for some I'm 3.5KM copper length and only get 3.5MBit! Bloody shonky wiring and cabinets i tells ya!
I'm pretty sick of it really. The speeds shouldn't be this slow. Pretty much all the international sites are crawling along at snail space for me at the moment.
cranz: Lucky for some I'm 3.5KM copper length and only get 3.5MBit! Bloody shonky wiring and cabinets i tells ya!
You can never have enough Volvos!
Of course if you're unhappy with the service Xnet is providing you can just pack up and leave. But I would be inclined to think that many would find that helpful suggestion to be in vain. Generally people move to Xnet for the amazing user pays structure, and the speed options availiable. Some may be motivated purely by the cost aspect but I'm not interested in being nit-picky.
I like using YouTube as a basic benchmark of most users peak time usage. The need to manually pre-buffer or give Xnet a 'head start' shouldn't be accepted. Especially when peak time speeds are so slow that pausing for 5 seconds only works if you do it every 15.
The crux of this is... there are users expecting the connections they paid for (YES! I know of the limitations posed by the subscriber's line, and the ADSL1 tech delivery of the data) and they are not receiving it, and if they are it is statistically during times they aren't using the internet anyway.
Either Xnet is incapable of determining the international allocation required (doubt it). Or they have underpriced their plans to the extent they can't afford for some of the allocation to go unused.
I would be happier to pay Xnet more for a connection, even faster than the current so called FS/FS Flood plan.
I can afford to go elsewhere (especially as I just pass my internet cost onto the business). But I want to support Xnet as they have shown the ability to realise people should be able to tailor an internet plan for themselves.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |