ATTN: PLUSNET STAFF

Please search this group for a post titled...
Re: ATTN:PLUSNET STAFF Any PlusNet guys not on the slow pipe?

I would like a response, with regards to the above named post and as to
where you stand on this type of use of your service.
It is clear you invoke rules for heavy users, do you invoke the rules for
these users also??

Many thanks

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 20:24:50 -0000, Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Please search this group for a post titled...
> Re: ATTN:PLUSNET STAFF Any PlusNet guys not on the slow pipe?
>
> I would like a response, with regards to the above named post and as to
> where you stand on this type of use of your service.
> It is clear you invoke rules for heavy users, do you invoke the rules for
> these users also??
>
> Many thanks
>
>
>

Hi,

Let me take a look and see.

With Regards,

Dave,
--
| Dave Tomlinson Broadband Solutions For
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
+ ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -----

"Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cp538j$uqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Please search this group for a post titled...
> Re: ATTN:PLUSNET STAFF Any PlusNet guys not on the slow pipe?
>
> I would like a response, with regards to the above named post and as to
> where you stand on this type of use of your service.


Wouldn`t a simple email to Plusnet suffice?

"Meggahurtz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ZDqtd.494$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cp538j$uqa$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Please search this group for a post titled...
> > Re: ATTN:PLUSNET STAFF Any PlusNet guys not on the slow pipe?
> >
> > I would like a response, with regards to the above named post and as to
> > where you stand on this type of use of your service.
>
>
> Wouldn`t a simple email to Plusnet suffice?

No because that would mean the complaint is made official, which is not
something I wish to do.
This whole debate is about PN and them implementing certain sanctions
against certain users, the whole point of this is to show that they
implement they rules selectively and do not enforce them as a whole.

PlusNet Support Team wrote:

> Let me take a look and see.

[passes out from holding his breath]

Dave wrote:
> This whole debate is about PN and them implementing certain sanctions
> against certain users,

And believe it or not, I agree with you disliking what's happened to the
high users.

I replied to a question about speed on the non BBP, & yes, I've seen an
increase.

At no stage did I say I was pro or anti BBP & high users. I'm on 1 meg (full
29.99) but don't normally use more that 7 gig/month. I would be better off
on the lite user rate, but if I change, my son & his girlfriend would do
another big P2P session

Some of the high users were taking the mick, BUT the old T&C said unlimited,
so they did. With new content & more streaming, comming online all the time,
we're all going to need more bandwidth in the near future, so backhaul
charges must reduce.

The vidio on demand (homechoice I think) uses 2meg at 3:1 contension & with
loads of free content, must use 100's gig/month, but I believe they're on
the old standard charging & not Capacity based charging. Frankly, I'm all
for increasing the port charges & reducing the backhaul changes.


--
reply to news at nytoo dot co dot uk

"Nick" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dave wrote:
> > This whole debate is about PN and them implementing certain sanctions
> > against certain users,
>
> And believe it or not, I agree with you disliking what's happened to the
> high users.
>
> I replied to a question about speed on the non BBP, & yes, I've seen an
> increase.
>
> At no stage did I say I was pro or anti BBP & high users. I'm on 1 meg
(full
> 29.99) but don't normally use more that 7 gig/month. I would be better
off
> on the lite user rate, but if I change, my son & his girlfriend would do
> another big P2P session
>
> Some of the high users were taking the mick, BUT the old T&C said
unlimited,
> so they did. With new content & more streaming, comming online all the
time,
> we're all going to need more bandwidth in the near future, so backhaul
> charges must reduce.
>
> The vidio on demand (homechoice I think) uses 2meg at 3:1 contension &
with
> loads of free content, must use 100's gig/month, but I believe they're on
> the old standard charging & not Capacity based charging. Frankly, I'm
all
> for increasing the port charges & reducing the backhaul changes.

There you go Nick ) a constructive post, some points in that I agree upon
and some I don't, im not going to argue with you on the finer details, cos
I don't want to spoil it .
All I will say is IMO this post has redeemed the opinion I had of you and
it was nice for you to make a post in reply to me with no swear words in it
))
My whole point to the PN staff in here was that they have implemented the
rules for heavy users, which I personally do not agree with, but at the
same time they fail to invoke rules upon users posting content such as you
previously did, IMO that is a bit twofaced of them. It wasn't anything
aimed directly at you personally and basically your posts were the easiest
example to use to illustrate my point to the PN staff.
I was not at the time and will not be sending any type of official abuse
report to PN about you or your posts, that would be counter productive, and
indeed make me look a hypocrite for wanting them to limit your service,
when I already freely admit I am against PN limiting users services. It
would also make me just as bad as them with regards to cherry picking rules
when i felt like it.
The only time I would ever email any ISPs abuse department is if any type
of threat was made directly at me (which of course you have not done )
Its a pity the PN member of staff that replied done so in such a way that
they did, because all that it has done is make the feelings I and others
have against PN even worse, which is a shame. Anyway Nick, once again nice
to see a good post from you ) and in return........Just look, I didn't
use the "T" word once ;D

On 7 Dec 2004, in uk.telecom.broadband, "Dave" wrote:

>No because that would mean the complaint is made official,
>which is not something I wish to do.

That's odd, because some post you made (and forgive me not wading through
the many dozens you have made the last couple of weeks) on this subject
suggested that since Plus.Net was ready to (my words!) 'break the rules'
(over customer ADSL service) it would 'ignore' or 'turn a blind eye' to
someone breaking the AUP as it wasn't 'profit related'. Now, were you
wanting a 'formal warning' about swearing, which was what I assume you
were after, though the above about you not wanting it an official
complaint would suggest not, or just to point-score about Plus.Net ?

You know someone in an Abuse team is unlikely to make a public comment on
what action, if any, was taken about an individual's conduct.

I rarely consider swearing worthy of complaint, sometimes it just happens
in the course of a heated debate and while you've altered what you post to
remove any four-letter words the intention was there, and the word is as
good as written, just not quotable as evidence and actual obscenity, so
why not stop your own swearing, Dave, rather than "who the £$%^ put them
on that pipe £$%^ for brains" you could just write something coherent.



--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.

My other ISP is UK Free Software Network <www.ukfsn.org>
UKFSN passes all profits to Free Software projects in the UK.

On 08 Dec 2004 00:06, Anton Gÿsen wrote:

>PlusNet Support Team wrote:

>> Let me take a look and see.

>[passes out from holding his breath]

Seems like you need specs then, as there was a further post.
(Was in the thread concerned)... I won't send an ambulance.




--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.

My other ISP is UK Free Software Network <www.ukfsn.org>
UKFSN passes all profits to Free Software projects in the UK.

"Peter M" <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 7 Dec 2004, in uk.telecom.broadband, "Dave" wrote:
>
> >No because that would mean the complaint is made official,
> >which is not something I wish to do.
>
> That's odd, because some post you made (and forgive me not wading through
> the many dozens you have made the last couple of weeks) on this subject
> suggested that since Plus.Net was ready to (my words!) 'break the rules'

Thats right, they were shifting goal posts again, the full story is on
adslguide.
and hey PN sent the email not me.

> (over customer ADSL service) it would 'ignore' or 'turn a blind eye' to
> someone breaking the AUP as it wasn't 'profit related'. Now, were you

Thats right, and surprise of surprise, did or do they do anything about the
content of some users posts......errrr..........No they didnt.

> wanting a 'formal warning' about swearing, which was what I assume you
> were after, though the above about you not wanting it an official

Nope all i wanted was them to make a post asking their users was to try not
to swear in newsgroups, i didnt want any one to lose their account as i
have explained elsewhere in here.
Swearing however is against the AUP, but it appears i was right and they
aint willing to do anything about it. So at this moment in time we have a
situation where PN ignore some rules, whilst implementing rules for certain
other users.......that IMO is hypocritical at the worse and making rules up
as you go along at the least.

> complaint would suggest not, or just to point-score about Plus.Net ?

Point-score... Call it what ever you want referral fanboy

>
> You know someone in an Abuse team is unlikely to make a public comment on
> what action, if any, was taken about an individual's conduct.

Quiet correct and i wouldnt want them to, i also wouldnt want to make a
report to their abuse team, i asked a simple question as to whether a
certain user was in breach of the AUP, and the PN staff that post in here
couldnt/wouldnt answer.

>
> I rarely consider swearing worthy of complaint, sometimes it just happens

I agree, that wasnt really the point, the point i was making is that while
plusnet implement the rules for some, they dont implements the rules for
all.

> in the course of a heated debate and while you've altered what you post
to
> remove any four-letter words the intention was there, and the word is as
> good as written, just not quotable as evidence and actual obscenity, so

So it that case i have not posted "obscene" content and therefore no matter
what your assumption about the intention being there, it can not be proved,
and thus i have done nothing wrong (Oh and btw in the past ive discussed
this with my isp)

> why not stop your own swearing, Dave, rather than "who the £$%^ put them
> on that pipe £$%^ for brains" you could just write something coherent.

Nope, by writing like that i technically do not violate my terms with my
isp. You can say the intention was their, and i will ask for prove of that
intention, which you can not provide.
I dont believe in swearing in a full unedited way in a newsgroup anyway,
and if you do perhaps you should swap ISPs as according to the plusnet AUP
they dont approve of it either, and seeing as how wonderful you think it is
that they have implemented rules for some, dont you think they should
implement the rules for all??? After all that would be the fair and
consistant thing to do. Then again this is PN we are talking about so
fairness and consistancy doesnt enter the equation, only profit matters eh?