Seems from reading this some at Plusnet are either part time politicians or
just very good at wriggling like a worm.....
http://tinyurl.co.uk/46ff
Hmm come to think of it wriggling out of questions and facts is a bit like
some of its customers that post in here.
LOL Happy contended surfing heavy use (What ever that may be, ya just have
to take a wild guess LOL) Plusnet'ers, hohoho, just the early xmas pressie
some of you referral mob and contradicting PN posters deserve IMO. {gloats;
very happy }

"Dave" <not.valid.for@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:cnc42a$bdi$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
I think Plusnet are more than reasonable with their decision.

I notice that none of those who were asked what they did with all the
bandwidth they were chewing up could / would answer.

"Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote in message
news:zoGdnQE394xcJATcRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
What decision, the staff over in that forum thread cant/wont even define
exactly what a heavy user is.

They dont really have to do they? However PN should be answering what a
heavy user is exactly, see its customers then have a idea of what is and
isnt acceptable.

In MsgID<zoGdnQE394xcJATcRVn-oQ@giganews.com> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Gizmo' wrote:

LOL. I hate to be agreeing with the new resident garbage spewer, but
this has literally made me laugh out loud.

Once upon a time there was dialup.
Then there was unmetered (and unlimited) dialup. "Use Anytime etc"

Then, along come Freeswerve - "It's Unlimited (but only if you use it
less than we say, and we won't tell you how much is too much)"

Then, there was Broadband, and there was "High speed transfer"
(But only if you use it less than 2% of the time)

Then there was "Unlimited Uncapped" Broadband - "Really Really
Uncapped"

Then there was Plusnet. "Unlimited and Uncapped but we're going to put
anyone who uses more than an amount (that we won't specify) onto the
same pipe so they can only get a fraction of the bandwidth"

Ahh, DejaVu..

LOL

Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
don't trust them to stick to a contract.

Dave J.

In article <vt0qp0d8gq3i2d6m2v847s8les0hc6jcf4@4ax.com>,
requiem@freeuk.com, a.k.a Dave J says...

[...]

whooosh .... !!

There goes that Plusnet Bashing Bandwagon again ..... yeeeeehaaaaaw!!

In article <vt0qp0d8gq3i2d6m2v847s8les0hc6jcf4@4ax.com>,
requiem@freeuk.com says...
I'm sure it's been said before but if you d/l more than 3.2Gb a month on
512Kb/s 50/1 then you are getting more than you are contracted to get.

--
Alan LeHun

"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote
How is that exactly? How does bandwidth, throughput and contention define
your contract!?

Bandwidth defines the maximum data rate for the connection.
Throughput defines the cummulative data end to end for a prescribed period.
Contention defines the imposed subs per spur.

ISP's have been selling broadband on the basis of fast unlimited connections
and even go so far as to advertise the fact it is ideal for Music, Movies,
TV, Radio, etc etc. The fact that a great deal of the data being
transeferred is off-net and costs the provider more is neither here nor
there.

So now they are re-assessing the business model as Broadband is now a
consumer item and market share for the most part has been established.
That's fair enough but they need to define exactly what subscribers are
entitled to and not move the goal posts on and ad-hoc basis.

It's follow the leader out there 9i.e. BT) with ISP's imposing restrictions
to maximise profits instead of investing in technology to reduce their
overheads (Digital overheads). As I work for a major Provider I know that
Broadband is a savior and it makes money ... if memory serves me right it's
margin is far in excess of Voice and I hope not giving too much away Cable
TV.

All this said yes some users are data hogs and the impact is noticable but
it's simple enough to impose restrictions on a spur (UBR/DSLAM) based on
contention i.e. Hogs are restricted when non hogs are using the connection
then return the throughput to the hog when nobody else needs it. The fact is
it really has very little to do with impacting other users and everything to
do with off-net throughput.

Let's see some investment in caching systems, least cost routing for off-net
data sources, selective p2p which priorities on-net IP's for e2e connections
[although I'm not sure how this could be acheived].

Just my 2p worth ;-)

"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c071acdd9c80d45989712@news.clara.net...
LOL thats rubbish when words like... "Unlimited", "as much as you want",
"when you want", "Premier" and many other terms are banded about by not
only PN but also many others.

Dave <notvalid.for@privacy.net> wrote:

Not when those statements are read in the context of a 50:1 or
20:1 contention ratio.

It's like all advertising, designed to attract customers! People
rarely read the small print which states it is a contended service that
you are signing up for. Those customers that use it like a 1:1 uncontended
service should expect to have their wrists slapped, which is exactly what
PN have done.

But instead of cutting those customers off (which PN would have
been perfectly entitled to do) they are bundling them together so that at
busy times they may experience the contended service they are actually
paying for. Think of it like a "choke" collar on a dog, the more they
pull, the more uncomfortable it gets.

Steve

"Steve Wyles" <steve@inhouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cnkq2p$a59$1@sink.inhouse-solutions.net...
What are you blabbering about? Contention has nothing to do with amounts
you download, it to do with how many you share the connection with. Think
of it as telling this dog to fetch (ie download) and sit (ie not download)
at the same time, you cant say "download as much as you want" in one breath
and then mean "download only as much as the connection and contention will
allow you" in the next, the dog, like users just wouldnt know what to do.

Dave <notvalid.for@privacy.net> wrote:

In that case you are one of the ones that have been taken in by
the "unlimited" part of the advertising without reading the small print.

What is being offered as is exactly what you have yourself stated
"download only as much as the connection and contention will allow you".
It just happens that the 50:1 contention hasn't until now been enforced.

Put it another way. You walk into a shop and sitting on the
counter is a large fruit pie that has been conveniently cut into 50
slices, you pay the shop keeper for 1 slice, would you then be greedy and
take the whole pie just because it was within reach?

Steve

Steve Wyles <steve@inhouse.co.uk> wrote:

Not quite.

It's like letting 50 people help themselves in an "all you can
eat" buffet.

You let 50 people help themselves to the pie. Some might want, and take,
more than others.

But, yes, taking the entire pie might be construed as greedy if any of the
other 49 people wanted some

d.

"Steve Wyles" <steve@inhouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cnkvgu$ado$1@sink.inhouse-solutions.net...
Taken in!!!! Im not a customer of theirs.... Not read the small
print!!!.... OH you really have not read many of my posts have you.

That is not what is stated in their terms.

"Dave Reader" <dave@undone.org.uk> wrote in message
news:419e167e$0$1061$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Then the other 49 should have been a bit quicker of the mark

"Steve Wyles" <steve@inhouse.co.uk> wrote > >>
Contention is the maximum number of subscribers physically and/or logically
connected to an aggregate so it's a design philosophy.
Contention is designed to meet defined specifications but doesn't effect
your bandwidth or throughput this is dependant the usage by ALL users ... ok
... indirectly contention does have an effect but only insofar as the the
number of ACTIVE users.
The technology should introduce a restriction mechanism whereby
bandwidth/throughput is shared equally amongst all active users.

It seems everyone is screaming about bandwidth/throughput hogs so as an
example of the theory ...

If user A is using 1Mb/s
User B is using 1Mb/s
on a 2Mb/s aggregate
then user C wants 1Mb/s
the aggregate 2Mb/s *should be* divided more or less equally between A, B &
C

Individual users *should ideally* see no individual effect except where the
aggregate connection is full throttle and the resulting should effect all
users equally.
The idea that N number of users slows down connection for everyone is a
technological issue and ISP's should have intelligent mechanisms to share
bandwidth equally and ensure smooth operation.

ISP's are spending tons of money on the last mile to get your business but
very little at the back end (Backhaul/Transport/ATM/interconnects/caching).

Technology aside the major concern of ISP's is not the individual user it's
the cost of off-net data ... end of story.

2p worth ;-)

In MsgID<MPG.1c07185578acdd1c989d22@news.individual.n et> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Tx2' wrote:

Hey, behave. On the whole they are still better than most, and I have
not said otherwise. However the latest example is the second I have
seen of their attempts to 'get away' with wriggling around a deal.

Some honesty wouldn't go amiss. I would have no problem that way.

I remember being equally miffed at freeserve (or was it the bt one?)
wriggling their way out of their 'unlimited usage' contracts.

--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com