adslguide speed reports Nov2004

What a shame :-P

QoS kept the bad boys from denting plusnet's ratings!
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2009

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41c18ae0$0$52974$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What a shame :-P
>
> QoS kept the bad boys from denting plusnet's ratings!
> http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2009

Errrr WTF are you on about, those figures are based on adslguides speed
tests, they are nothing to do with the QUALITY OF SERVICE.
Now run along back to the warm confines of Pusnets backside.
IDIOT FANBOY!

Dave wrote:

> Errrr WTF are you on about, those figures are based on adslguides speed
> tests,

Yes, which some of the bad boys though they would be able to skew by
registering slow speeds

> they are nothing to do with the QUALITY OF SERVICE.

Are you sure? As I understand it PlusNet used QoS to ensure that even
the bad boys got good speed to adslguide ...

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41c1944b$0$29733$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Errrr WTF are you on about, those figures are based on adslguides speed
> > tests,
>
> Yes, which some of the bad boys though they would be able to skew by
> registering slow speeds

Er... hardly, that was something someone suggested they could do, not what
they thought they could do. Most from my reading have either gone back to
the goodie pipe or have just left Pusnet altogether.

>
> > they are nothing to do with the QUALITY OF SERVICE.
>
> Are you sure? As I understand it PlusNet used QoS to ensure that even
> the bad boys got good speed to adslguide ...

Well thats not QUALITY OF SERVICE then is it, cos if they were getting slow
speeds but a review based site actually rates them at a higher speed then
what is actually achieved then i dont think i would call that a GOOD thing.
Still if your happy with you ISP that to all purposes gives an impression
they make rules up as they go along, and only enforces rules that are
cherry picked and even further, from a story on adslguide are now sucking
up to BT then i spose thats your choice.
Me.......... I will pass, thanks!
Enjoy your (once it reaches a certain point) technically limited service.

Dave wrote:

> Most from my reading have either gone back to
> the goodie pipe or have just left Pusnet altogether.

So one way or another PlusNet have achieved the desired effect, good on
them ...

> Well thats not QUALITY OF SERVICE then is it

I wasn't using "QoS" as a general phrase to mean "providing a good
quality service" but specifically to mean the technical term "QoS" which
is a specification for prioritising IP traffic based on criterea such as
source, destination or protocol, and I suspect you know that too but
choose to twist my meaning!

> Enjoy your (once it reaches a certain point) technically limited service.

I was fully aware of the technical limitations *before* I signed up,
nobody has changed the terms and conditions under my feet, just moved to
enforcing them, protecting the long term viability for all remaining
users and my service has always well performed in excess of those
limitations :-)

In article <41c1a3a5$0$78014$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a Andy Burns says...

> So one way or another PlusNet have achieved the desired effect, good on
> them ...

oh FFS, not this old chestnut again!?!? Red rag to a bull so far as
"Dave" and his sockpuppets are concerned.

He will always describe anyone who subscribes to Plusnet and is happy
with their services as a "Fanboy", as he has no other argument. He fails
to realise that over 95% of users will never reach the capacity he
wildly suggests cripples the service.

I urge you to killfile him and put an end to the ridiculous tittle
tattle. The man is an idiot with an opinion to match.

In MsgID<41c1944b$0$29733$(E-Mail Removed)> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Andy Burns' wrote:

>> they are nothing to do with the QUALITY OF SERVICE.
>
>Are you sure? As I understand it PlusNet used QoS to ensure that even
>the bad boys got good speed to adslguide ...

Or in other words, to blatantly cheat, by prioritising speed test traffic.

--
Dave Johnson - (E-Mail Removed)

Tx2 wrote:

> oh FFS, not this old chestnut again!?!? Red rag to a bull so far as
> "Dave" and his sockpuppets are concerned.

I couldn't resist a bit of rag waving ..

Dave J wrote:

> Or in other words, to blatantly cheat, by prioritising speed test traffic.

You could call it cheating the figures up, or keeping them the same as
the were without the explicit limits, but only to stop the avowed
intention of the bad boys cheating it down!

In MsgID<41c1ac7b$0$49718$(E-Mail Removed)> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Andy Burns' wrote:

>Dave J wrote:
>
>> Or in other words, to blatantly cheat, by prioritising speed test traffic.
>
>You could call it cheating the figures up, or keeping them the same as
>the were without the explicit limits, but only to stop the avowed
>intention of the bad boys cheating it down!

It's hardly a dishonest approach to take your crippled speed to adslguide
for them to include in their statistics.

Somewhat more dishonest to fiddle the priorities to ensure that your (the
ISP's) results always look good even on a deliberately overcrowded pipe.

--
Dave Johnson - (E-Mail Removed)