Plusnet's "Broadband Plus" package.

Is anyone on this? Reading the web page, it seems they have no cap, but
will throttle P2P at busy times.

I was wondering when the busy times are. Is it set to 6pm-midnight for
example, or is it just when usage goes up. And what kind of slowdown do you
experience?

Bob

Bob Smith (UK) wrote:
> Is anyone on this? Reading the web page, it seems they have no cap, but
> will throttle P2P at busy times.
>
> I was wondering when the busy times are. Is it set to 6pm-midnight for
> example, or is it just when usage goes up. And what kind of slowdown do you
> experience?
>
> Bob
>
>

It's not set to any particular time, it is done dynamically depending on
the usage at that time. The slowdown depends how many other users are
using the same applications at that time, so it's not possible to give
an accurate figure on how much it will be slowed down by.

Regards,

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:05:24 +0100, "Bob Smith \(UK\)"
<bob@nospamplease> wrote:

>Is anyone on this? Reading the web page, it seems they have no cap, but
>will throttle P2P at busy times.

it is also " Based on a 50:1 PlusNet network contention" which makes
me nervous, as they also offer a 30:1 product and for comparison Zen
say there is no contention on their network.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices.
AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:57:51 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>it is also " Based on a 50:1 PlusNet network contention" which makes
>me nervous, as they also offer a 30:1 product and for comparison Zen
>say there is no contention on their network.

Zen are talking bollocks then. There is no way that they have enough
bandwidth throughout their whole network from the BT Central line to
their Internet connections for all users to run at full speed (which
would be the implication of having no contention).

If there was no contention in their network then they would only be
able to get 77 2mb/s users on a 155mb/s BT Central line, rather than
the 2500+ 2mb/s users every other ISP will be running on the same
line. That would be completely uneconomical and uneccessary.

I see that they do indeed claim "no contention":

"We guarantee NO CONTENTION on our network."

http://www.zen.co.uk/default.asp

They clearly mean something different by the words "NO CONTENTION"
than I would understand...

Contention isn't a bad thing like some people seem to think it is.
Without contention very few of us would be able to afford 512kb
(essentially) unmetered Internet connections, let alone 1mb, 2mb, 4mb
and 8mb ones.
--
Andy Norman (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.norman.cx/
Replace the fish with my first name to reply

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:56:22 +0100, Andrew Norman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Zen are talking bollocks then. There is no way that they have enough
>bandwidth throughout their whole network from the BT Central line to
>their Internet connections for all users to run at full speed (which
>would be the implication of having no contention).

I see no reason why their internal network and internet connectivity
cannot exceed the capacity of the BT Centrals.

"for all users to run at full speed" is your interpretation and that
can't happen because there is contention on the exchange and on the BT
Central, so the Zen statement can be entirely true without having to
achieve your extension of it.

In other words the contention all happens on the BT Network, and Zen
don't add to it. Plusnet on the other hand say their is contention on
their network at 50:1 on some products and 30:1 on others. I wonder
what that means.

>If there was no contention in their network then they would only be
>able to get 77 2mb/s users on a 155mb/s BT Central line, rather than
>the 2500+ 2mb/s users every other ISP will be running on the same
>line. That would be completely uneconomical and uneccessary.

they are saying that irrespective of how many users are on an exchange
link and on a central the capacity of their network exceeds 155M per
155M central connected to it. Contention is most likely between
exchanges and the ATM network.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices.
AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

Andrew was right, phill you are wrong. All ISP's have contention on there
networks. Contention only becomes a problem when too many users are put on a
central pipe.

When you talk of no contention you are referring to a leased line or
similar. Search on google for prices

I bet even if a tenth of all zen's customers started downloading at full
speed at exactly the same time there network would come crashing down in an
instant. Just like other ISP's.

Dan

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:42:50 +0100, "Dan" <d.d.com> wrote:

>I bet even if a tenth of all zen's customers started downloading at full
>speed at exactly the same time there network would come crashing down in an
>instant. Just like other ISP's.

I doubt it somehow because that traffic load wouldn't get to them it
would be limited by the BT Central. The hypothesis is that Zen have no
contention *on their network* so whatever capacity you can achieve
between you and them is the limit, not what goes beyond there.

Others have claimed this in the past, with dialup. The network
capacity exceeded the total of dialup port capacity. Seems sensible to
me, why build something that is going to fall over at full load.

A leased line may be uncontended to the ISP and you can buy low
contention ADSL circuits too, but that is all about contention between
you and the ISP, not what happens at the ISP.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices.
AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

Bob Smith:
>Is anyone on this?
Yes, used it past two weeks, 2Mb/s works great, no problems whatever.
Updated two WinXp & OfficeXP computers, watched videos and listened to
radio,
240MB in one day, average of 80MB since.
I don't do any P2P though.
Happy to recommend it, please use my ID 'wester' as a referrer if you sign
up,
thanks,
regards,
Martin

On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:56:31 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I see no reason why their internal network and internet connectivity
>cannot exceed the capacity of the BT Centrals.

I'm sure it does, just like any half decent ISP.

>"for all users to run at full speed" is your interpretation and that
>can't happen because there is contention on the exchange and on the BT
>Central, so the Zen statement can be entirely true without having to
>achieve your extension of it.
>
>In other words the contention all happens on the BT Network, and Zen
>don't add to it. Plusnet on the other hand say their is contention on
>their network at 50:1 on some products and 30:1 on others. I wonder
>what that means.

I would argue though that while phyically supplied by BT the BT
Central line _is_ logically part of the ISP's network. It is the ISP
that chooses how highly contented their central lines are, just like
all the rest of the network.

All their users can't run at full speed because of the level that Zen
have choosen to content their BT Central lines at. If their network
really was not contented they would have one 155mb/s pipe for each 77
users.

The BT Central lines are no less part of their network than any
internal links within the rest of their network that are provided by a
third party or their peering to the Internet.

They are 100% responsible for choosing the the contention level. It
would be more informative to publish the contention level on their BT
Centrals than it is to claim that there is none.

>they are saying that irrespective of how many users are on an exchange
>link and on a central the capacity of their network exceeds 155M per
>155M central connected to it. Contention is most likely between
>exchanges and the ATM network.

That might be what they mean, but by claiming there is no contention
on their network anywhere that is not what they are saying.

P.S. I'm not suggesting that Zen are a bad ISP or that their
contention levels are too high, all the reports I have heard about
them have been good. But to advertise zero contention within their
network is just plain wrong.
--
Andy Norman (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.norman.cx/
Replace the fish with my first name to reply

On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:04:20 +0100, Andrew Norman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 May 2005 18:56:31 +0100, Phil Thompson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I see no reason why their internal network and internet connectivity
>>cannot exceed the capacity of the BT Centrals.
>
>I'm sure it does, just like any half decent ISP.
>
>>"for all users to run at full speed" is your interpretation and that
>>can't happen because there is contention on the exchange and on the BT
>>Central, so the Zen statement can be entirely true without having to
>>achieve your extension of it.
>>
>>In other words the contention all happens on the BT Network, and Zen
>>don't add to it. Plusnet on the other hand say their is contention on
>>their network at 50:1 on some products and 30:1 on others. I wonder
>>what that means.
>
>I would argue though that while phyically supplied by BT the BT
>Central line _is_ logically part of the ISP's network. It is the ISP
>that chooses how highly contented their central lines are, just like
>all the rest of the network.
>
>All their users can't run at full speed because of the level that Zen
>have choosen to content their BT Central lines at. If their network
>really was not contented they would have one 155mb/s pipe for each 77
>users.
>
>The BT Central lines are no less part of their network than any
>internal links within the rest of their network that are provided by a
>third party or their peering to the Internet.
>
>They are 100% responsible for choosing the the contention level. It
>would be more informative to publish the contention level on their BT
>Centrals than it is to claim that there is none.
>
>>they are saying that irrespective of how many users are on an exchange
>>link and on a central the capacity of their network exceeds 155M per
>>155M central connected to it. Contention is most likely between
>>exchanges and the ATM network.
>
>That might be what they mean, but by claiming there is no contention
>on their network anywhere that is not what they are saying.
>
>P.S. I'm not suggesting that Zen are a bad ISP or that their
>contention levels are too high, all the reports I have heard about
>them have been good. But to advertise zero contention within their
>network is just plain wrong.

Then report them to the advertising standards agency