Does anyone actually care?

Whether Cheddar gets a good deal or not ..... Or migrates..... Or not ?

Just wondered .....

Or should we stop tormenting the poor fellow?

Does anyone actually care?>
>"Graham in Melton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:BDD13AEE.2E34B%(E-Mail Removed)...
>Whether Cheddar gets a good deal or not ..... Or migrates..... Or not ?
>
>Just wondered .....
>
>Or should we stop tormenting the poor fellow?

Sorry, am I posting off topic here?

Two posts started by me today, is that too much?

I didnt even mention how your post was formated either :-)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:51:02 -0000, "Cheddar" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Sorry, am I posting off topic here?

no, he's attempting to measure the sympathy level I think.

Phil
--
spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
Come on down !

On 29/11/04 9:11 pm, in article (E-Mail Removed),
"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:51:02 -0000, "Cheddar" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, am I posting off topic here?
>
> no, he's attempting to measure the sympathy level I think.
>
Spot on ... I just wondered whether people are genuinely concerned about the
potential downside for all of us, or OTOH, just poking someone whom may, or
may not, have deserved it.

I make no claims of belief either way BTW

Graham in Melton wrote:
> Whether Cheddar gets a good deal or not ..... Or migrates..... Or not ?
>
> Just wondered .....
>
> Or should we stop tormenting the poor fellow?

No. Does anyone care whether anyone cares? No. Does anyone care
whether anyone cares about anyone caring? No. Does...




*alex gets his coat*

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:29:23 +0000, Graham in Melton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 29/11/04 9:11 pm, in article (E-Mail Removed),
>"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:51:02 -0000, "Cheddar" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, am I posting off topic here?
>>
>> no, he's attempting to measure the sympathy level I think.
>>
>Spot on ... I just wondered whether people are genuinely concerned about the
>potential downside for all of us, or OTOH, just poking someone whom may, or
>may not, have deserved it.

Speaking for myself, I've long since stopped caring, and now carry on
responding to Le Fromage merely to wind him up.

The point of whether or not any individual deserve sympathy is moot.
The nonsense about breach of contract is just that - nonsense. The
point about paying for something and not getting it is moot too.

The point really is, can any ISP much longer sustain the unlimited
traffic, fixed price model, given that their upstream model is pay per
meg and increasingly customers are hitting the accelerator?

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:29:23 +0000, Graham in Melton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> Sorry, am I posting off topic here?
>>
>> no, he's attempting to measure the sympathy level I think.
>>
>Spot on ... I just wondered whether people are genuinely concerned about the
>potential downside for all of us, or OTOH, just poking someone whom may, or
>may not, have deserved it.
>
>I make no claims of belief either way BTW

Making a comment "Or should we stop tormenting the poor fellow?"
suggests otherwise.

BTW, the comments he has made would be of interest and completely on
topic, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on this Plusnet
fiasco. (And he is able to post correctly.)



--
www.senaction.com

"Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> The point really is, can any ISP much longer sustain the unlimited
> traffic, fixed price model, given that their upstream model is pay per
> meg and increasingly customers are hitting the accelerator?

Mark,

Whilst it is a concern that ISP's are feeling the pinch as users of all
kinds (light/medium/heavy) use their broadband connections. Let us not
forget that these customers are simply doing what they are paying for (i.e.
using their connection how they want, when they want). An ISP should have
factored all kinds of users into their pricing structure - it's not like
there haven't been high users in the past.

I'm sure you have been around long enough to remember the first so-called
'unmetered' providers - most of which launched and went to the wall because
of this. Most of us remember the outrage when BT Internet changed from being
'Unlimited' to giving users 150 hours a month.

I'm not advocating a 'grab all you can, while you can' approach for users.
What i'm trying to explain is that in no other industry are customers
treated in this manner. Could you imagine buying a car which you can use as
much as you like (as long as you fill it with fuel) then being told you can
only drive it on weekends?

If a user subscribes to a package which advertises/offers unlimited use of
the service, then no-one (that means ISP's & other customers) have any right
to complain.

ADSL services have a contention ratio of (usually) 20:1 or 50:1 - all users
should know this before they accept a service. They should also accept the
implications of that. ADSL does not offer a permenant download at whatever
bandwidth you have. Of course, people want a happy medium. I wouldn't
profess to be any kind of expert on routing IP data but essentially, the
onus is on the ISP to provide the service they're selling, not the user to
change their use in accordance with a change of policy at said ISP.

Rgds,

Carl

"Carl" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

>
> "Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> The point really is, can any ISP much longer sustain the unlimited
>> traffic, fixed price model, given that their upstream model is pay
>> per meg and increasingly customers are hitting the accelerator?
>
> Mark,
>
> Whilst it is a concern that ISP's are feeling the pinch as users of
> all kinds (light/medium/heavy) use their broadband connections. Let us
> not forget that these customers are simply doing what they are paying
> for (i.e. using their connection how they want, when they want). An
> ISP should have factored all kinds of users into their pricing
> structure - it's not like there haven't been high users in the past.
>
> I'm sure you have been around long enough to remember the first
> so-called 'unmetered' providers - most of which launched and went to
> the wall because of this. Most of us remember the outrage when BT
> Internet changed from being 'Unlimited' to giving users 150 hours a
> month.
>
> I'm not advocating a 'grab all you can, while you can' approach for
> users. What i'm trying to explain is that in no other industry are
> customers treated in this manner. Could you imagine buying a car which
> you can use as much as you like (as long as you fill it with fuel)
> then being told you can only drive it on weekends?
>
> If a user subscribes to a package which advertises/offers unlimited
> use of the service, then no-one (that means ISP's & other customers)
> have any right to complain.
>
> ADSL services have a contention ratio of (usually) 20:1 or 50:1 - all
> users should know this before they accept a service. They should also
> accept the implications of that. ADSL does not offer a permenant
> download at whatever bandwidth you have. Of course, people want a
> happy medium. I wouldn't profess to be any kind of expert on routing
> IP data but essentially, the onus is on the ISP to provide the service
> they're selling, not the user to change their use in accordance with a
> change of policy at said ISP.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Carl
>
>
>

Well said and thought through. One question remains how in the world did
BT get away with the change in pricing model?

While in the US I hear of my friends getting free speed upgrades because
of competition, this whole thing smells of BT is ripping of the UK.

One2Go

"One2Go" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns95B0EFF5DCBE6NoMailcom@212.159.2.87...
> Well said and thought through. One question remains how in the world did
> BT get away with the change in pricing model?
>
> While in the US I hear of my friends getting free speed upgrades because
> of competition, this whole thing smells of BT is ripping of the UK.

Good question. I'm not able to give a specific answer as i'm not aware of
the changes. I would point out, however, that that the cost of broadband has
fallen since it was launched.

I remember paying BTOW (my god!) around £30 per month. I now pay a good ISP
£20 for a better service.

Given time, LLU and regulatory pressure, I feel further reductions and
better services will continue for some years to come.

Regards,

Carl