Broadband choice: Wanado/Freeserve vs Plusnet: costs?

[Originally posted to wanadoouk.adsl.discuss until someone suggested I
post here]

I'm investigating a Broadband supplier. I've been with
Freeserve/Wanadoo Anytime for ages (nearly 5 years). For various
reasons, I'm deciding between Wanadoo & Plusnet. They both do 2Gb
broadband packages, yet Plusnet seems to be asking £14.99/month, whereas
Wanadoo is asking £17.99/month (although first 6 months @ £14.99). Am I
missing something? How can one ISP charge £3/month more than another
for what appears to be the same service? Comments/thoughts/feedback
welcome.

I see there's a discussion going on in this ng about Plusnet's
newsfeed. I do use news, but not heavily. There appear to be quite a
few strong opinions on the ng about Plusnet too (both good & bad).

TIA

Allan

Allan Gould wrote:
> [Originally posted to wanadoouk.adsl.discuss until someone suggested I
> post here]
>
> I'm investigating a Broadband supplier. I've been with
> Freeserve/Wanadoo Anytime for ages (nearly 5 years). For various
> reasons, I'm deciding between Wanadoo & Plusnet. They both do 2Gb
> broadband packages, yet Plusnet seems to be asking £14.99/month,
> whereas Wanadoo is asking £17.99/month (although first 6 months @
> £14.99). Am I missing something? How can one ISP charge £3/month
> more than another for what appears to be the same service?
> Comments/thoughts/feedback welcome.
>
> I see there's a discussion going on in this ng about Plusnet's
> newsfeed. I do use news, but not heavily. There appear to be quite a
> few strong opinions on the ng about Plusnet too (both good & bad).
>
> TIA
>
> Allan

I would never use Wanadoo, Plusnet or Tiscali. Look at ADSL guide for
alternatives, ther are plenty of better ones.
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/isps/compare.asp
--
Adrian A

On Friday, in article <(E-Mail Removed)>
(E-Mail Removed) "Allan Gould" wrote:

> [Originally posted to wanadoouk.adsl.discuss until someone suggested I
> post here]
>
> I'm investigating a Broadband supplier. I've been with
> Freeserve/Wanadoo Anytime for ages (nearly 5 years). For various
> reasons, I'm deciding between Wanadoo & Plusnet. They both do 2Gb
> broadband packages, yet Plusnet seems to be asking £14.99/month, whereas
> Wanadoo is asking £17.99/month (although first 6 months @ £14.99). Am I
> missing something? How can one ISP charge £3/month more than another
> for what appears to be the same service? Comments/thoughts/feedback
> welcome.

Assuming they all pay the same to BT for the connection between you and
them. that extra GBP 3 is all going to the ISP, and is a huge increase
in what they get to pay for their end of the deal -- connection to the
rest of the Internet, mail servers, that sort of stuff.

> I see there's a discussion going on in this ng about Plusnet's
> newsfeed. I do use news, but not heavily. There appear to be quite a
> few strong opinions on the ng about Plusnet too (both good & bad).

For news, consider paying extra for access to an external server. 10
Euro a year for news.individual.net is a pretty cheap backup, and a lot
of ISPs put news on a very low priority. If something does go wrong, I
think even the "good" ISPs might look awkward. Often the helpdesk
scripts seem to go straight to "Outlook Express". Anyone who wants
newsgroup binaries will probably have to pay extra for the access.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

> I'm investigating a Broadband supplier. I've been with
> Freeserve/Wanadoo Anytime for ages (nearly 5 years). For various
> reasons, I'm deciding between Wanadoo & Plusnet. They both do 2Gb
> broadband packages, yet Plusnet seems to be asking £14.99/month, whereas
> Wanadoo is asking £17.99/month (although first 6 months @ £14.99). Am I
> missing something? How can one ISP charge £3/month more than another
> for what appears to be the same service? Comments/thoughts/feedback
> welcome.
>
> I see there's a discussion going on in this ng about Plusnet's
> newsfeed. I do use news, but not heavily. There appear to be quite a
> few strong opinions on the ng about Plusnet too (both good & bad).
>

The problem with Plusnet NGs has been to do mainly with binaries. Now they
have a text only new server there is no problem with that. Otherwise it is
the usual suspects who want to download huge amounts of dats 24/7 that have
a problem. For normal use they are fine. The support is not perfect but even
so is far better than Tiscali or Wanadont!


Peter Crosland

On 18 Nov 2005 13:05, "Adrian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I would never use Wanadoo, Plusnet or Tiscali. Look at ADSL guide for
>alternatives, ther are plenty of better ones.

Good for you, but under what criteria do you class "better" ? The OP
seems to be keen on looking at competitively priced options, and many
ISPs have their negative comments, so it might be better to allow for
the OP having perhaps already been looking and wanting to compare the
two that have been mentioned, perhaps having rejected some others you
would deem eminently suitable (for your needs/use). Peter M.

On 18 Nov 2005 12:44, Allan Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Am I missing something? How can one ISP charge £3/month more than
>another for what appears to be the same service?

Plus.Net certainly has put severe restrictions on peer-to-peer traffic
on the Broadband Plus account (it's the account I use, and the one I'm
assuming you mean, since the PAYG at the same price has quota of 1 GB).

>I see there's a discussion going on in this ng about Plusnet's
>newsfeed. I do use news, but not heavily. There appear to be quite a
>few strong opinions on the ng about Plusnet too (both good & bad).

If you use binary newsgroups *at all* then there would be a problem using
the Plus.Net 14.99 account, as, at present, their *traffic calming* kit,
made by Ellacoya, has profiles set to make the speed of connection very
low, and even at off-peak times connections fail as a result. They do
have two names for access to news, text.usenet.plus.net (which, as the
name implies, is limited to text-only newsgroups) and usenet.plus.net

Unfortunately any access to any news service which allows binary groups
(whether using NNTP or HTTP access, which is available for some commercial
services) has been affected by this 'throttling' to the same extent, so do
not assume you could use Astraweb's news or Easynews without problems. If
you only use text groups, then all should be well. If you wish, I'll copy
my news groups list to some public webspace so you can check for groups of
interest. Overall the service works fine for me, but after many months in
which the off-peak speed of 20-30 kB/s and peak hours speed of about half,
the current speed of what seems to be below 1 MB/hour for binary groups is
rather wearing, especially as 100 to 200 kB/s is available from their text
news service, and full speed is possible when using other types of traffic
(I don't use peer-to-peer at all so my use is mostly webcams and streaming
films, since Plus.Net is making downloads of even small quantities of MP3s
practically impossible, and now they state that "while access may be possible
it is not guaranteed" which was not the way they previously or currently
describe the account on their website (for copyright reasons, even if I
had a PDF of the old description, I'd be unable to make it available,
as all content of their web portal is under their copyright). Peter M.
--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4>... Saving with Plus.Net.
50+ GB of traffic last month, on Broadband Plus at only 14.99.
Unsuitable for heavy downloaders, fine for video/audio streaming.

On 18 Nov 2005 13:39, "Peter Crosland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The problem with Plusnet NGs has been to do mainly with binaries. Now they
>have a text only new server there is no problem with that. Otherwise it is
>the usual suspects who want to download huge amounts of dats 24/7 that have
>a problem. For normal use they are fine. The support is not perfect but even
>so is far better than Tiscali or Wanadont!

Sorry Peter, part of that is rubbish - anyone wanting even small quantities of
binary material (and not everything is a copyright protection problem) is now
having difficulty in downloading. Compare, for example, the possibility I'm
looking for some graffiti images posted by the 'artist' where no copyright
problems exist (or other similar material, perhaps a band which posts one
MP3 as a sampler for others to want more)... OK, 10 MB, 20 MB, maybe 50 MB.
That might be "normal use" for someone, but is currently near to impossible.

Now look at what traffic one might cause, if viewing films (by "browsing the
web") using the CinemaNow.com web site... 400 to 500 MB for one film, up to
750 MB for a long film ? Heavy downloading (especially using peer-to-peer)
is certainly blocked, but so is even light downloading, if one happens to
be choosing a facility which Plus.Net has deemed unsuitable or unacceptable.

I'd like them to consider a compromise, where the first 5 GB or 10 GB for a
customer on Broadband Plus would not be *traffic calmed* and they could even
(in my case) make it a *hard limit* where nothing more in a month would be
possible, but they seem to want it to be so slow as to be unusable, thus
making a limit of < 100 MB but claiming 'access is possible but just is
not guaranteed' as if there is no limit at all, certainly not the case
in terms of *usability* from my experience, and that of others. Peter M.


--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/dghgq> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!

Unsuitable for heavy downloaders, but fine for video/audio streaming.

On 18 Nov 2005 13:57, I wrote:

>That might be "normal use" for someone, but is currently near to impossible.

I should add, it's pretty difficult to even get *headers* off any binary
groups so one cannot even go looking for posts where the bodies are wanted.
Are you on Broadband Plus, Peter ? Somehow I doubt it. Peter M.

--

UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/dghgq> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!

Unsuitable for heavy downloaders, but fine for video/audio streaming.

>>The problem with Plusnet NGs has been to do mainly with binaries. Now they
>>have a text only new server there is no problem with that. Otherwise it is
>>the usual suspects who want to download huge amounts of dats 24/7 that
>>have
>>a problem. For normal use they are fine. The support is not perfect but
>>even
>>so is far better than Tiscali or Wanadont!
>
> Sorry Peter, part of that is rubbish - anyone wanting even small
> quantities of
> binary material (and not everything is a copyright protection problem) is
> now
> having difficulty in downloading. Compare, for example, the possibility
> I'm
> looking for some graffiti images posted by the 'artist' where no copyright
> problems exist (or other similar material, perhaps a band which posts one
> MP3 as a sampler for others to want more)... OK, 10 MB, 20 MB, maybe 50
> MB.
> That might be "normal use" for someone, but is currently near to
> impossible.

All I can say is that I have had no problem at all downloading updates from
sites such as Microsoft, Symantec and PCtools. Neither have I had a problem
using the listen again facilities

> Now look at what traffic one might cause, if viewing films (by "browsing
> the
> web") using the CinemaNow.com web site... 400 to 500 MB for one film, up
> to
> 750 MB for a long film ? Heavy downloading (especially using
> peer-to-peer)
> is certainly blocked, but so is even light downloading, if one happens to
> be choosing a facility which Plus.Net has deemed unsuitable or
> unacceptable.

None of which seems to be relevant to the OP's question.

Peter Crosland

Allan Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

>
>
> I'm investigating a Broadband supplier. I've been with
> Freeserve/Wanadoo Anytime for ages (nearly 5 years). For various
> reasons, I'm deciding between Wanadoo & Plusnet. They both do 2Gb
> broadband packages, yet Plusnet seems to be asking £14.99/month, whereas
> Wanadoo is asking £17.99/month (although first 6 months @ £14.99). Am I
> missing something? How can one ISP charge £3/month more than another
> for what appears to be the same service?

It seems Plusnet have been asking themselves the same question.
About a month ago they effectively downgraded the Broadband Plus account to
exclude access to P2P and binary news (not even allowing access to third
party binary news-servers). Evidently they are looking to attract the
profitable 1GB/month brigade, and are trying to deter the 5-50GB/month type
of customer they have attracted up to now. Although there are no formal
bandwidth limits on the BB+ account, in practice it is now hard to exceed
about 5GB/month as protocols used for downloading continually time out.

The bitterness you will have seen on various newsgroups is from people like
me who signed up to a full internet service only to find it had been
redefined as a light user web & email-only account without any formal
notification, and thus with no right to cancel being given.

By way of illustration, prior to the reshaping of BB+, I used 15-30 GB
traffic a month (up+down), basically doing whatever I liked. Since shaping
was introduced, I have not managed to exceed 6GB/month. Good news for
Plusnet, but bad news for a pleasant broadband internet experience.

Bill Clinton once admitted he had smoked dope but claimed he never inhaled.
Plusnet want people to have broadband but never download. All I can say is,
what's the point?