Plusnet download limits

Hi,

Me and 2 other friends signed up to Plusnet a few months ago on the £14.99
Plus tariff. It soon became apparent that using P2P was slower than dial-up
so we decided to pay the extra £6ish a month for premiere.

The service still appears to be slow compared to AOL broadband that we used
to have and now we have heard that there ARE download limits even though it
stated NO download limits on sign-up.

Having looked through the website I found something that states you receive
a warning if you exceed 30GB of peak downloads. So what exactly can you
download?

Why also don't they just tell the truth and put the usage limits like other
providers do such as BT Broadband?

On 30-Oct-2005, "Gareth :-\\\) voom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Me and 2 other friends signed up to Plusnet a few months ago on the £14.99
> Plus tariff. It soon became apparent that using P2P was slower than
> dial-up
> so we decided to pay the extra £6ish a month for premiere.
>
> The service still appears to be slow compared to AOL broadband that we
> used
> to have and now we have heard that there ARE download limits even though
> it
> stated NO download limits on sign-up.
>
> Having looked through the website I found something that states you
> receive
> a warning if you exceed 30GB of peak downloads. So what exactly can you
> download?
>
> Why also don't they just tell the truth and put the usage limits like
> other
> providers do such as BT Broadband?

I've recently migrated from PN to Zen because of the Usenet speed issues,
I've never had download limit problems, but I wasn't staying with PN once
they started limiting Usenet speed specially as I subscribe to Giganews.

PlusNet don't warn potential new customers about the restrictions they will
face once they're signed up because PlusNet think that will "confuse" new
customers.

All accounts are restricted in some way or other, even Premier accounts, so
you're no better off upgrading if you want to use p2p or Usenet.

What they're currently doing is "prioritizing" connections which puts p2p
and Usenet at them bottom of priorities. This means at busy times i.e. from
about 4 pm to midnight (when most folks return home and want to use their
PC) those connections will rapidly slow down to about dialup speed or below.

PlusNet support did post a message in their newsgroup about 5 weeks ago & I
kept a copy which you can read below. They'd been limiting Usenet speed for
about 2 weeks before admitting what they were doing --- users were thinking
it was a problem with their news server.

But basically you've been shafted by this outfit and you're probably locked
in for 12 months too.

<quote>USENET is not shaped on our Premier accounts, although it is subject
to
the prioritisation we have across our network.

There are three queues of traffic:

GOLD - HTTP etc.
BRONZE - USENET and P2P.
SILVER - Everything else.

(I've listed them in that order as it is easier to explain).

Under normal circumstances then these queues don't really mean anything,
all traffic is passed through with nothing dropped. However, if capacity
is reached, bronze traffic will start to be dropped. If all the bronze
traffic is dropped and capacity is still reached then silver traffic
will start to be dropped as well.

Since we introduced this system several months ago we have not dropped
any silver traffic and dropped no more than 10% of the broze traffic.

If you are having problems with USENET downloading then it will not be
this prioritisation that is causing your problems.

Regards,

--
|Ben Brown Broadband Solutions for
|Customer Support Home & Business @
|PlusNet plc. www.plus.net
+ ----- PlusNet - The smarter way to broadband ------<quote>

--
jpnews

"Gareth :-\\\) voom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> Hi,
>
> Me and 2 other friends signed up to Plusnet a few months ago on the £14.99
> Plus tariff. It soon became apparent that using P2P was slower than dial-up
> so we decided to pay the extra £6ish a month for premiere.

Whoops.

> The service still appears to be slow compared to AOL broadband that we used
> to have and now we have heard that there ARE download limits even though it
> stated NO download limits on sign-up.

Have you got a copy of the agreement you signed up to that says "no
download limits"?
If you have - tell 'em to fuck off.


> Having looked through the website I found something that states you receive
> a warning if you exceed 30GB of peak downloads. So what exactly can you
> download?

Something between "Not a lot and fuck all".
Pussnet define all downloads as *too much*.


> Why also don't they just tell the truth and put the usage limits like other
> providers do such as BT Broadband?
>

They are lying tyke bastards?

Gareth :-\) voom wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Me and 2 other friends signed up to Plusnet a few months ago on the £14.99
> Plus tariff. It soon became apparent that using P2P was slower than
> dial-up so we decided to pay the extra £6ish a month for premiere.
>
> The service still appears to be slow compared to AOL broadband that we
> used to have and now we have heard that there ARE download limits even
> though it stated NO download limits on sign-up.
>
> Having looked through the website I found something that states you
> receive a warning if you exceed 30GB of peak downloads. So what exactly
> can you download?
>
> Why also don't they just tell the truth and put the usage limits like
> other providers do such as BT Broadband?


The new companies are run by POTS management still trying
to get their heads around new technology.

The keyholes they have from their premises for
data leaving their buildings means all users are fucked
by the same internet that other service providers
are able to cope with.

Instead of upping the bandwidth, they just roll their
eyes, draw huge circles in the air and blame users
for their woes, whilst laughing all the way to their
bank. They spend more money on advertising than outgoing
bandwidth. Advertising authorities, if not ofcom
should introduce minimal rules about how much bandwidth you
as a telco should provide for any given number of users.

Its no good if a minusnet of this world spend 1 million
pounds and got 10,000 users and they are connected to the
outside world with a 56k modem. Don't laugh! It does
happen in some countries! UK regulator has a responsibility
that telcos are not copying the third world and third
rate examples. If you provide a 8mbit line, I expect
it to be useable at that speed for 99.99% of the time
all of the time. Thats what I'm paying for. It subtracts
from companies that provides quality services.
The ofcoms of this world have a responsibility to label
the products they regulate properly.
If your service is limited, then you should only be
allowed to advertise the sustained data transfer rate
and then in brackets put the highest speed available,
the brackets being there to remind the user they cannot
attain that speed under full loading.
So minusnet is a service that should be sold as 56k(8Mbit maybe).

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:10:59 -0000, in uk.telecom.broadband , MinusNet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Gareth :-\\\) voom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Hi,
>
>> The service still appears to be slow compared to AOL broadband that we used
>> to have and now we have heard that there ARE download limits even though it
>> stated NO download limits on sign-up.

Unfortunately, T&C can change.

>Have you got a copy of the agreement you signed up to that says "no
>download limits"?
>If you have - tell 'em to fuck off.

Actually, you have two choices - either accept the changed T&C, or
terminate the agreement. Telling them to fsck off would be pretty
counterproductive.

>> Having looked through the website I found something that states you receive
>> a warning if you exceed 30GB of peak downloads. So what exactly can you
>> download?

30GB of stuff.

>Something between "Not a lot and fuck all".

Minusnet is a dipstick. I'm with NTL who have similar (soft) limits, I
regularly listen to streaming audio nad I hit the binaries groups
pretty hard. I average 3-5GB/month.

>Pussnet define all downloads as *too much*.

Minusnet probably has an axe to grind mind you :-)

>> Why also don't they just tell the truth and put the usage limits like other
>> providers do such as BT Broadband?

Perhaps they believe htey /are/ telling the truth, and perhaps you
either missed the relevant bit of literature or misunderstood it.

I'd suggest you ask them tho, rather than posting to usenet and
inviting flames from both plusnet haters and those more balanced...

>They are lying tyke bastards?

Or alternatively, minusnet has a massive chip on his shoulder.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> Minusnet is a dipstick. I'm with NTL who have similar (soft) limits, I
> regularly listen to streaming audio nad I hit the binaries groups
> pretty hard. I average 3-5GB/month.

My housemate and I don't use binary newsgroups at all, or p2p and over
the last 3 months we've managed to download about 15Gb a month, just in
radio streams, updates to Ubuntu, and online gaming. I don't have a
problem with Plusnet managing their network - clearly if everyone
downloaded a serious amount (and I've seen figures of 80-100Gb quoted as
downloads mostly from usenet, so I don't think you really class as
hitting the binary groups hard at all) then they'd run out of headroom
and we'd all get about 10kbaud.

The only thing I don't like about Plusnet is that they seem determined
to make it difficult for the users to find out what the limits are,
especially pre-signup, on the grounds that they don't want to confuse
people. My opinion is that if you have a soft limit system, you should
be upfront about it and say so, not hide it behind a webpage about
contention, which is a different thing altogether, and even more likely
to confuse customers, IMO. My preference would be for a very clear
policy explained in terms everyone can understand and with examples of
usage for those who don't know anything about computers (the customers
they're afraid of scaring away). Have a look at their website from the
point of view of a potential customer and see if you think their policy
is as clear as it should be - not as clear as everyone elses, but ideal
world clear.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Mark McIntyre wrote

> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:10:59 -0000, in uk.telecom.broadband , MinusNet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"Gareth :-\\\) voom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >
> >> Hi,
> >
> >> The service still appears to be slow compared to AOL broadband that we used
> >> to have and now we have heard that there ARE download limits even though it
> >> stated NO download limits on sign-up.
>
> Unfortunately, T&C can change.
>
> >Have you got a copy of the agreement you signed up to that says "no
> >download limits"?
> >If you have - tell 'em to fuck off.
>
> Actually, you have two choices - either accept the changed T&C, or
> terminate the agreement. Telling them to fsck off would be pretty
> counterproductive.

All this nitpicking and you don't understand English.


> >> Having looked through the website I found something that states you receive
> >> a warning if you exceed 30GB of peak downloads. So what exactly can you
> >> download?
>
> 30GB of stuff.
>
> >Something between "Not a lot and fuck all".
>
> Minusnet is a dipstick. I'm with NTL who have similar (soft) limits, I
> regularly listen to streaming audio nad I hit the binaries groups
> pretty hard. I average 3-5GB/month.

Fuck a duck. A whole 5Gb in 4 weeks. You must be on a dialup. A slow
dialup at that.


> >Pussnet define all downloads as *too much*.
>
> Minusnet probably has an axe to grind mind you :-)


I don't want anything off anybody.


> >> Why also don't they just tell the truth and put the usage limits like other
> >> providers do such as BT Broadband?
>
> Perhaps they believe htey /are/ telling the truth, and perhaps you
> either missed the relevant bit of literature or misunderstood it.
>
> I'd suggest you ask them tho, rather than posting to usenet and
> inviting flames from both plusnet haters and those more balanced...
>
> >They are lying tyke bastards?
>
> Or alternatively, minusnet has a massive chip on his shoulder.
>

You can't read a map either.

Phil Newnham wrote:
> <snip>
> The only thing I don't like about Plusnet is that they seem determined
> to make it difficult for the users to find out what the limits are,
> especially pre-signup, on the grounds that they don't want to confuse
> people. My opinion is that if you have a soft limit system, you should
> be upfront about it and say so, not hide it behind a webpage about
> contention, which is a different thing altogether, and even more likely
> to confuse customers, IMO. <snip>
>
Neil Armstrong (Head of Marketing) posted the following to the Plusnet
forums on 28th October:

<quote>Links to the Sustainable Usage Policy are being added to the
product pages during the next week or so.</quote>

--
John

jelv wrote


> Neil Armstrong (Head of Marketing) posted the following to the Plusnet
> forums on 28th October:
>
> <quote>Links to the Sustainable Usage Policy are being added to the
> product pages during the next week or so.</quote>
>
>


One small step for pussnet ...

"MinusNet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:43654e71$0$95896$(E-Mail Removed) eenews.net...

>> Neil Armstrong (Head of Marketing) posted the following to the Plusnet
>> forums on 28th October:
>>
>> <quote>Links to the Sustainable Usage Policy are being added to the
>> product pages during the next week or so.</quote>
>>
>>
>
>
> One small step for pussnet ...

240,000 miles for Mankind?