In article <41ac562b.7478632@news.btinternet.com>, du@hotmail.com
says...
service to be very good indeed. I use the e-mail and host a web site
with Plusnet, again no problems. The Usenet service has been a bit of a
problem, one of the reasons I went with them was because of the binary
Usenet access. This has been less than ideal and I have taken out a
subscription with a news service provider. However I'm more than happy
with the Broadband service and see no reason to look round for an
alternative.

In MsgID<taWdnb3q6op0LDDcRVnyiA@giganews.com> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Gizmo' wrote:

Don't worry about it, we didn't get a list, we got one maybe..

--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com

"Eric Parker" <newsnet@thedrossericparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:315hthF36pbsdU1@individual.net...

Agreed

Neither do I

Maybe not, but if thats completely true, why not just dump them or actually
impose a limit they understand?

I doubt that, look at pipex, one of the largest, and they have their fair
share of what the PN kiddies call 'leechers'

Id say more like heavy users will have to read terms more carefully

Well if you are a light user they may still be ok for what you need

Thats fine with me, i dont have a prob with that

"Somebody" <somebody@anonymous.null> wrote in message
news:41ad8b9e$0$564$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
You would consider them even though you are already a customer of
theirs?????????

"Somebody" <somebody@anonymous.null> wrote in message
news:41ad8efa$0$53002$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
There is nothing wrong with any of them, they are to all intensive purposes
as good (or bad depends how you look at things) as Pusnet

Oh really, 4 providers mentioned for the 200 odd heavy mob from Pusnet, an
average of 50 new customers per ISP mentioned, i dont see how that will
make any difference to any of the ISPs mentioned.

Rubbish, What you fail to realise is that the heavy mob from Pusnet arnt
all gonna go sign up to the same new ISPs are they

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:58:33 -0000, "Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote:

Nope, I went up to 4Gb/day (for 2 24 hour periods) and didn't get any
kind of cut off or communication.

Richard

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:43:10 -0000, "Dave" <not.valid.for@privacy.net>
wrote:

Of course, that's the crux of this whole situation. I can see exactly
where you, Cheddar et all are coming from - uncapped means uncapped,
but there should be some sort of acceptable usage policy somewhere.
The fact that's it's still not capped, rather that these users on the
PoD are now experincing a slower service to one they're used to, is a
nice, indirect method of telling them to "go away"

"Richard Sobey" <spam@rasobey.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bkttq0t08slec921q0n1p51ri2lcdlmq0k@4ax.com...
Exactly, Pusnet were too cowardly IMO to just dump them, and so they had to
come up with a ridiculous scheme that has easily been ripped to shreds.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:48:49 UTC, "Dave" <not.valid.for@privacy.net>
wrote:

What, precisely, is an 'intensive purpose'? Mangled again...we'd love to
know what it means...
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Bob Eager" <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-mvLwvrKp8ddz@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
What's the attachment on your posting Bob ?

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:02:58 UTC, "Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote:

Aha! Haven't caught anyone for a long time!

There is no attachment...! Just harmless fun....

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

"Bob Eager" <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-mvLwvrKp8ddz@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
Er maybe i could tell you what it meant if you hadnt killfiled me.

"Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote in message
news:BKKdnbzKrsa5-jLcRVnyhA@giganews.com...
Its an exploit he takes advantage of, no doubt to try to yank OE users
chains.
Part of his regular poor baiting technique.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 04:33:16 -0000, "Dave" <not.valid.for@privacy.net>
wrote:

That was probably one of the most stupid posts you have ever made Dave
(and that takes some doing).

There is NO WAY they are making a net profit from those customers. So
to describe them as still being happy to "grab the cash" for them is
really the exact reverse of the truth. They are still willing (however
reluctantly) to pay the cash for these users.

It has been stated elsewhere that their plans are predicated on an
average of 10GB/month, which is still quite high IMO.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:36:11 UTC, "Dave" <not.valid.for@privacy.net>
wrote:

I haven't, and I never said I had. Must be the voices in your head, or
your mum hasn't given you your medication.

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

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:cahvq0p49fia651b3k92pbnfcl1t77nosq@4ax.com...
Oh really, well like i have said to you in the past, you should read a bit
further outside of this group

According to you in earlier posts many ISPs are not making a profit anyway

They are, and if they were more forthcoming they would admit it, some of
there so called heavy users around the 120Gb mark were banished to the bad
boy pipe, yet it seems UKOnline are happy for people to use 120Gb a month
with their new 8meg service. Which BTW is cheaper then some of PN
services.

10Gb high LOL dont make me laugh, even the sad NTL story in the past
allowed 1Gb a day.
Face it fanboy, they have stuffed up big time, the sooner you realise that
fact the better

"Bob Eager" <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-SkghGzFdWbxr@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
LOL, idiot Bob cant even remember when he wrote <plonk>

On 2 Dec 2004, in uk.telecom.broadband, "Dave" wrote:

Yes, Dave, consider them (for ADSL) as the same servers get used for
both ADSL and any Dial-up users... so an existing customer, who didn't
just automatically consider PN for ADSL without comparing with others!


--
runbox.com - 1000 MB of mail storage and 100 MB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>

"Peter M" <us-mail@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6m1r016s09j15jjbmp1f69aspct2hfa88@4ax.com...
How can you consider a service when you already have it????????

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:44:28 -0000, "Dave" <not.valid.for@privacy.net>
wrote:

And just why would that make you post any more accurate?

It wouldn't of course, that was just another red herring to try to
discredit me.


Yes.

Your point is?

Or was that just another red herring to distract from your stupidity?


It *is* quite high.

And yes, I know the *limit* on NTL was 1GB/day. So what?

I am not saying they are ever likely to introduce any sort of limits
anywhere close to that. I am saying that their plans (according to a
completely unverified posting) are predicated on an *average* of
10GB/month.

I know quite a few people with BB, and I am the heaviest user among
them, but I have never got near 10GB in a month yet.

I probably will, occasionally, and I am certainly not saying nobody
"should" be using more, even quite a lot more.

But 10Gb is quite high usage, so if they are basing their average on
that, they are allowing for a reasonable number of people using quite
a bit more than that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Do steam rollers really roll steam?

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom