Whether Cheddar gets a good deal or not ..... Or migrates..... Or not ?

Just wondered .....

Or should we stop tormenting the poor fellow?

Does anyone actually care?>
Sorry, am I posting off topic here?

Two posts started by me today, is that too much?

I didnt even mention how your post was formated either :-)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:51:02 -0000, "Cheddar" <whatnoemail@me.net>
wrote:

no, he's attempting to measure the sympathy level I think.

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

On 29/11/04 9:11 pm, in article i24nq09h5ab4arn5oks8lgrvrk5umebflo@4ax.com,
"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote:

potential downside for all of us, or OTOH, just poking someone whom may, or
may not, have deserved it.

I make no claims of belief either way BTW

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:29:23 +0000, Graham in Melton
<nota@nospamplease.net> wrote:

Speaking for myself, I've long since stopped caring, and now carry on
responding to Le Fromage merely to wind him up.

The point of whether or not any individual deserve sympathy is moot.
The nonsense about breach of contract is just that - nonsense. The
point about paying for something and not getting it is moot too.

The point really is, can any ISP much longer sustain the unlimited
traffic, fixed price model, given that their upstream model is pay per
meg and increasingly customers are hitting the accelerator?

"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:9h9nq0lllack32eskjq6v89psvk8ph53jk@4ax.com...

Mark,

Whilst it is a concern that ISP's are feeling the pinch as users of all
kinds (light/medium/heavy) use their broadband connections. Let us not
forget that these customers are simply doing what they are paying for (i.e.
using their connection how they want, when they want). An ISP should have
factored all kinds of users into their pricing structure - it's not like
there haven't been high users in the past.

I'm sure you have been around long enough to remember the first so-called
'unmetered' providers - most of which launched and went to the wall because
of this. Most of us remember the outrage when BT Internet changed from being
'Unlimited' to giving users 150 hours a month.

I'm not advocating a 'grab all you can, while you can' approach for users.
What i'm trying to explain is that in no other industry are customers
treated in this manner. Could you imagine buying a car which you can use as
much as you like (as long as you fill it with fuel) then being told you can
only drive it on weekends?

If a user subscribes to a package which advertises/offers unlimited use of
the service, then no-one (that means ISP's & other customers) have any right
to complain.

ADSL services have a contention ratio of (usually) 20:1 or 50:1 - all users
should know this before they accept a service. They should also accept the
implications of that. ADSL does not offer a permenant download at whatever
bandwidth you have. Of course, people want a happy medium. I wouldn't
profess to be any kind of expert on routing IP data but essentially, the
onus is on the ISP to provide the service they're selling, not the user to
change their use in accordance with a change of policy at said ISP.

Rgds,

Carl

"Carl" <cjohnson103@hotmailREMOVE.MEcom> wrote in
news:311oamF35majgU1@uni-berlin.de:

Well said and thought through. One question remains how in the world did
BT get away with the change in pricing model?

While in the US I hear of my friends getting free speed upgrades because
of competition, this whole thing smells of BT is ripping of the UK.

One2Go

"One2Go" <No@Mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B0EFF5DCBE6NoMailcom@212.159.2.87...
Good question. I'm not able to give a specific answer as i'm not aware of
the changes. I would point out, however, that that the cost of broadband has
fallen since it was launched.

I remember paying BTOW (my god!) around £30 per month. I now pay a good ISP
£20 for a better service.

Given time, LLU and regulatory pressure, I feel further reductions and
better services will continue for some years to come.

Regards,

Carl

Graham in Melton wrote:
Personally?

No.

Nor do I worry that this "bodes badly for the future".

Cheddar is, in my opinion, representative of a class of broadband user
who doesn't understand what the service he is paying for is, and in
general, provided. Who after being provided far more than was advertised
& then after negatively affecting the performance of the majority has
been forced to experience contention & reduced performance and now feels
the need to wail & thrash at the "injustice".

Have YOU ever hit a night where worst-case 50:1 or 20:1 was throttling
your connection? - my experience and research seems to have shown that
only those on heavily congested exchanges have experienced bad
contention, and that usually preceeds BT either upgrading, or committing
to upgrade the exchanges VP, with *actual* contention being far far
below that advertised.

Does Cheddar understand contention? unlikely given his responses in
various threads.

If 0.3% of a customer base affect the performance of the other 99.7%
then it is obviously sheer common business sense to look after the 99%+
and let the 0.3% "Go" - if that is done by refusing to provide anything
more than what was originally advertised (50:1 or 20:1) then so be it.

The really funny thing about this is that he and others think his
problem can be solved by migrating, truth is his problem is likely to
"migrate" with him, and yet he doesn't see it.

Krishna Murphy.

Does anyone actually care?
"Graham in Melton" <nota@nospamplease.net> wrote in message
news:BDD13AEE.2E34B%nota@nospamplease.net...
Whether Cheddar gets a good deal or not ..... Or migrates..... Or not ?

Just wondered .....

Or should we stop tormenting the poor fellow?

DONT CARE as long as Twats dont use html to post.

"Krishna Murphy" <krishna@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:de2dnRny54ukIDbcRVn-jg@nildram.net...

This response is so cold and uncaring that I am beginning to wonder if
Kris-omething is not working for -Net Tech support.Or Tiscali tech support.
Or BT tech support. Cmon, admit it!

If this is the attitude of you people, then what can I expect from Tech
support. They are also "the people" after all.

But don't worry, one day yall will get problems as well. Then you may
realise that Cheddar HAS a reason to moan. You are behaving exactly like a
person in a traffic, who does NOT want to let Ambulance go! Pathetic!

Gee wrote:

Truth told, I'm an ex-Telco contractor with a good knowledge of both the
technology *and* business behind telecoms/datacomms.

(Worked for ICL, contracted to BT, lost my car keys on Martlesham Heath
carpark once, anyone that knows of the site knows how stressful that can
be :P)

However that was a few years ago and now I'm just a humble touring sound
engineer, more fun, less stress & a damn sight more alcohol :P

Cold and uncaring? *shrug* - Like I care less what you think

Will I get problems from over-using a shared resource?

*checks bandwidth use for last 3 months*

No, not likely.

I use an *average* of 10-15Gb per month, with a peak of 21Gb once when a
few too many gentoo installs were necessary.

I'm expecting to get a contended connection sooner or later, I've always
expected it since the day I got ADSL in 2001 - I just consider myself,
and other ADSL users fortunate that the supposed contention ratios of
50:1 and 20:1 didn't materialize as such (in the main.)

Do I hold *any* allegiance to the Telcos and ISP's on this issue?

Hell No. - In fact some of the horror stories I have from BT would make
your hair curl, and are the reason I'm now in the music business instead
of telecoms & IT - some of those horror stories were too much for my
"principles" and I prefer to live a happy & stressfree life & be able to
sleep at night with those principles intact. But I do have a pragmatic
attitude to what is capable by the technology that is being sold to us.

The kind of figures that this "1.3%" are supposed to have used is
unsustainable should it become widespread. Personally I think it better
that expectations and etiquette are adjusted now rather than having
everyone suffer later.

Sooner or later "abusive" BB users are going to have to get it through
their heads that their kind of use is unwelcome at any ISP, regardless
of what "namby-pamby-must-not-upset-the-customer-base" CS's may say. And
sooner or later, wherever they migrate they are going to meet the same
kind of treatment "for the greater good".

Krishna Murphy

"Krishna Murphy" <krishna@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:7uidnXDK8KqsSzbcRVn-

Sure you don't. Which is why you wrote a whole essay in reply, which, btw,
cos of your above statement(s), I cant care less to read!

If you don't care about me,Cheddar or someone else, why would I care about
you. Its simple.

On 30 Nov 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Gee" wrote:

That's your loss then.

Indeed. Very simple.

"Carl" <cjohnson103@hotmailREMOVE.MEcom> wrote in message
news:311qe9F33mbeoU1@uni-berlin.de...

OpenWorld was originally almost £50 per month ;-)

P.

"PJB" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:RDRN089F74B9@roadrunner.wilecoyote.org...

So it was.

Well, there you go. Proves my point ;o)

Thanks

Carl

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:22:19 UTC, Krishna Murphy
<krishna@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

Very well said. The problem will, as you say, move with him. Not
immediately, perhaps, but soon. If his new ISP doesn't address the
problem, they will lose all of their "reasonable" customers instead.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Krishna Murphy wrote:

Chastising these people is considered acceptable at the moment, because
their usage is not perceived as being "strictly legal", but with
increasing legitimate services being provided online (i.e. TV, Video On
Demand, etc), do you honestly think "heavy use" won't become the norm
for a great deal more users and therefore be a problem if BT & the ISPs
aren't ready to accept it? For gods sake tell the BBC. They mention
these things and more in every BB related news-story.

I'd love to see the ad campaign for the service you think is being
offered. "Download your email faster on a 2mb connection... it's always
on, so...er... your email's always arriving on time! And with 2GB
included bandwidth, you can always receive photos of your grans pets." -
I wonder what the take up would be?

Explain? Even Plusnet have said these users did nothing wrong. They
didn't set any limits in their advertising, which is why their uncapped
"Premier" service was often considered to be "Unlimited".

Conjecture and, quite frankly, bollocks. There was hardly a glut of
speed complaints before and, as someone who was not in the naughty
group, I have to say the suggestions of improved service since are
simply bullshit.

Because nobody outside the "naughty" group has been subjected to this.
12kps? Never in 16 months of BB (though only 2 on PlusNet), have I
experienced that.

Good god you're right! All these years I thought the net slowed down in
the evening because every net user in the nation logged on after work,
but really it's all just Cheddar! THAT BASTARD!

A moment ago you were suggesting he was affecting the "majority", but
now it's just those on heavily congested pipes?

Only on usenet would someone be expected to have in-depth technical
knowledge of a business operation, before they could be allowed to
complain about a poor service or unfair treatment.

Yep and it's lovely living in a world like that, where pensioners and
people living near rivers can't get insurance. Pitty we have equality
laws, though, without those businesses could stop highering those damn
baby factories and make even more money.

Definitely an attitude to be encouraged.

Another advert I want to see. "12kps VROOOOM!"

The problem will be solved when BB services start living up to the hype.


higgy.

higgy wrote:

When high-bandwidth use becomes the expected norm then the ISP's will
have no choice but to increase capacity, as they will not be able to
pinpoint problems on a small abusive minority, as they will find it
difficult, if not impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm not going to defend their marketing & advertising, I agree that it
is lacking.

ADSL was originally advertised as a 50:1 or 20:1 ratio, they have in
general delivered far greater performance than that for the majority.

Yes, because a sample size of one represents such a statistical
certainty, no? :P

And that is why I said I consider UK ADSL customers generally lucky, we
have received performance *far* greater than what was originally
expected. (Actual contention figures bandied about have suggested an
average of 16:1 on the 50:1 product)

Now now, there is a difference between *some* contention, and BAD
contention rates.

Look at the bigger picture, There is more to bandwidth & congestion at
an ISP than just the VP from the exchange. Also, whether it is via
capping or via a "bad boy pipe" nearly ALL ISP's are having to act on
the small minority of users that use a disproportionate use of
bandwidth. Those that are not yet, will sooner or later.

Contention is hardly "in-depth" - it is a black-and-white limitation on
the service provided. I expect a customer using ADSL to understand at
least a passing grasp of this concept, in the same way a bus driver
would expect his passengers to understand a limitation of his vehicle is
that it cannot fly & is resricted to ground-based travel :P

Nice rant, bravo!

Encouraged? Hardly... Realistic? definitely. We live in the real world,
not some utopian paradise :P

For the majority of users they already do, for a small disproportionate
number of users it will never live up to the hype.

Krishna Murphy

"Krishna Murphy" <krishna@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:OZqdnR5Qd4iv0THcRVn-3g@nildram.net...
What can I say, i'm a Pioneer :-)