Talk:BT Broadband

Advertistment
In my opinion I believe this sounds like an advert for BT. All we need to know is that they provide broadband services not an indepth description of every service they provide. 212.159.16.219 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

POV/Original research
I'm in two minds as to whether to keep the article and ask for a major rewrite or ask for the article to be deleted. There is nothing on the service BT provides apart from the bad stuff about throttling (which is a genuine concern), but we need third party reliable sources to verify the facts in the article. I'll read through the main BT Group article. If this article adds nothing, I'll suggest deletion or rewrite. --tgheretford (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a second look, and seeing other ISP articles, I won't ask for deletion, but it does need to be rewritten. One example, where is there any mention of BT Vision provided with BT Broadband? --tgheretford (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

--- BT are full of shit. Can we put that in the article. --- tgheretford,

I have taken your criticisms on board and will add additional details, with regard to BT Vision.

However, as I didn't want to violate any BT Copyright issue by simply pasting text from there site then duplicating this on wiki. I thought I would try and include original information or give citations which I have done for additional information on external websites.

I have given a balanced an neutral report, for instance I have not said that BT user on this website have said XYZ, I agree with XYZ which means they broadband is ABC.

Also, if you could state where you feel I have been saying"bad stuff" by which I mean a purely negative option, I would be happy to take a look.

Finally, I only provided information on the issues of this throttle BT does during Peak Times. As non Techies might find this a benefit as they might not understand about Non-Http or Non-Port 80 traffic, as mentioned in there “Fair Usage Policy”.... I have placed a balanced view as I have commented on “if you read websites”, there is no issue... for other such as non-http (port 80) there is a list of example of the problems they may experience…. anon

Thanks for give me a hand with this!

DarkNova
 * I've no problem with the fair use policy section (actually I agree with it being in the article, but then I don't like and don't support BT's FUP), where the problem is that according to No original research, you can't do your own research and publish it (ie. the speed tests you did) on Wikipedia. You could cite from a reliable third party source that BT does throttle traffic because of the fair usage policy. Note though, it needs to be a third party source and preferably, if possible, not from BT themselves. There are sources available from Digital Spy (but you can't use Digital Spy posts as a reference, because anyone could say anything without verification). If I get time, I shall do something, though it won't be tonight because I have other things to do sadly. --tgheretford (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as articles in WP go this must take the biscuit as being the most biassed. It seems to have only one purpose, to be a political medium for the perceived throttling of heavy users. There is no place for such things on WP. Even the prices quoted in the first paragraph are wrong, those are special offer introductory prices. For instance Option 3 is £24.99 per month for new customers and(not shown) £26.99 for existing customers - see http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=15764 If you can't get those facts right the rest of the article has no credence at all. Dsergeant 07:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that if this article is deleted (BT Broadband is probably the most famous of all ISP's in the UK), we would need to be consistent and also nominate PlusNet, Tiscali SpA, AOL LLC and everything here: Category:Internet service providers of the United Kingdom. No such mass deletion would stand, nor do I think would this article. I still suggest a complete rewrite of the article in a neutral stance. --tgheretford (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written the entry on BT broadband, fairly describing the features and capabilies and claims of the service. In addition, I have summarised the claims of port throttling and included BT's response to these claims on the understanding that stating that BT throttles particular ports is a claim, and is not verified by published, reliable external sources. Posts on broadband forums making claims of port throttling do not, I believe, count as reliable verifiable sources, and the views of the original poster could be viewed as 'original research', which again is not really in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Having said that, the claims themselves exist, and I don't believe I have been unfair in including them. Accordingly, I have represented the claims fairly and in proportion to the overall article during the edits. --Liversage (talk) 14:37GMT, 29 June 2007
 * I decided to remove the speed tests from the page, I am still convinced that they fail original research policy. --tgheretford (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect from BT broadband
I did a speedy merge of BT broadband with this article. The text within the other article was duplicated (apart from one categorisation, which has been merged into this article). --tgheretford (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
BT Broadband → BT Total Broadband — As per the citation on the main page, BT refer to their broadband service as BT Total Broadband. What stops me making a straightforward page move is that BT Broadband is the common usage in forums, discussion boards and news articles. I'm holding discussion here, if consensus can be obtained or no-one replies, I shall move the article in seven days. —tgheretford (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any Improvement - In 2 Years??
The article states a release from BT Broadband dated 13 June 2007 regarding the improvement in downloading speed....

"these initiatives will improve your experience and if you are amongst the small number of broadband users that have been experiencing slower speeds through congestion you should be noticing improvements shortly......"

Has there been any improvements in peoples experiences? Are there any newer statements to corroborate this?

Or can that statement now be seen as a lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.11.129 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)