Re: Announcement: PlusNet to Launch 'Broadband Plus'

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...

uk.t.b added

> The Broadband Plus account won't be marketed using the term "unlimited".
> It will still be subject to existing our T's & C's and will be sold as a
> contended service.

FWIW, I think your existing T&C's are laughable, but that's my own
opinion. You know you are in an almost unchallengable position on them,
so please don't insult my intelligence by referring me to them simply to
say they cover yet another Plusnet connection scenario. Even the word
"ambiguous" doesn't do thier meaning justice ...

"no download limits"

That means no cap, no additional restrictions. It is widely accepted
that contention will/may (eventually) play a part.

Therefore, it might not be marketed as such, but it is undoubtedly an
unlimited service whereby users can download as much as they want, how
they want within the constraints of the product specifications.

Isn't this the same as the current Premier packages that Plusnet have
had to impose a FUP on, with the exception of P2P? The same package
where heavy users were filed onto a 'bad boy' pipe?

Of course, the moment Plusnet (again) realise how much is being
downloaded via this new type of account, they can move the goalposts on
the conditions, and impose restrictions. Smart move.

> The traffic shaping that will be applied will mean that pretty much all
> forms of file sharing would be subject to the QoS, so whether you'll find
> that this fits your needs better than Premier would be difficult to say.

How will you police it?

How can you monitor traffic over say, MSN Messenger as opposed to Kazaa?
You say elsewhere it won't all be port related - are you going to be
spying on customer data? How will you know I'm using a web cam and not
sending an MP3 to a peer?

Hurrah to Plusnet for introducing an "unlimited" account where P2P is
restriced, but I stick by my view that Plusnet are opening the
floodgates for the unlimited argument to rise up once again.

P2P file sharing via Kazaa et al might be the most popular methods of
file sharing, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can
bet your life, it will be used by those in the know who wish to extract
as much bandwidth as possible out of such an account.

But, we'll wait and see.

At less than £20 a month, who gives a shit, so long as it works.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:09:41 -0000, Rolyat
<newsaccount@-removethis-hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>
> uk.t.b added
>
>> The Broadband Plus account won't be marketed using the term "unlimited".
>> It will still be subject to existing our T's & C's and will be sold as a
>> contended service.
>
> FWIW, I think your existing T&C's are laughable, but that's my own
> opinion. You know you are in an almost unchallengable position on them,
> so please don't insult my intelligence by referring me to them simply to
> say they cover yet another Plusnet connection scenario. Even the word
> "ambiguous" doesn't do thier meaning justice ...
>
> "no download limits"
>
> That means no cap, no additional restrictions. It is widely accepted
> that contention will/may (eventually) play a part.
>
> Therefore, it might not be marketed as such, but it is undoubtedly an
> unlimited service whereby users can download as much as they want, how
> they want within the constraints of the product specifications.
>
> Isn't this the same as the current Premier packages that Plusnet have
> had to impose a FUP on, with the exception of P2P? The same package
> where heavy users were filed onto a 'bad boy' pipe?
>
> Of course, the moment Plusnet (again) realise how much is being
> downloaded via this new type of account, they can move the goalposts on
> the conditions, and impose restrictions. Smart move.
>
>> The traffic shaping that will be applied will mean that pretty much all
>> forms of file sharing would be subject to the QoS, so whether you'll
>> find
>> that this fits your needs better than Premier would be difficult to say.
>
> How will you police it?
>
> How can you monitor traffic over say, MSN Messenger as opposed to Kazaa?
> You say elsewhere it won't all be port related - are you going to be
> spying on customer data? How will you know I'm using a web cam and not
> sending an MP3 to a peer?
>
> Hurrah to Plusnet for introducing an "unlimited" account where P2P is
> restriced, but I stick by my view that Plusnet are opening the
> floodgates for the unlimited argument to rise up once again.
>
> P2P file sharing via Kazaa et al might be the most popular methods of
> file sharing, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can
> bet your life, it will be used by those in the know who wish to extract
> as much bandwidth as possible out of such an account.
>
> But, we'll wait and see.
>
> At less than £20 a month, who gives a shit, so long as it works.

Hi,

You may want to take a look at the hardware that we will be using to do
the deep packet inspection

http://www.ellacoya.com/products/e30.shtml

but essentially under Broadband Plus no matter how you choose to do it we
reserve the right to manage or traffic shape any high bandwidth
applications like P2P in all of its forms.

We won't be "spying" on customer's data, we'll have no idea what content
you are downloading just the delivering mechanism you are utilising.


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 -----

"PlusNet Support Team" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Hi,
>
> You may want to take a look at the hardware that we will be using to do
> the deep packet inspection
>
> http://www.ellacoya.com/products/e30.shtml
>
> but essentially under Broadband Plus no matter how you choose to do it we
> reserve the right to manage or traffic shape any high bandwidth
> applications like P2P in all of its forms.
>
> We won't be "spying" on customer's data, we'll have no idea what content
> you are downloading just the delivering mechanism you are utilising.
>
>
> With Regards,
>
> Dave,
> --
> | Dave Tomlinson Broadband Solutions For
> | Customer Support for Home & Business
> | PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net


So would that include large transfers over FTP - ie ports 21/22??

What about large transfers using HTTP?????


Dave

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
(PlusNet Support Team) wrote:

> no matter how you choose to do it we
> reserve the right to manage or traffic shape any high bandwidth
> applications like P2P in all of its forms.

And Email, Usenet and Web one assumes?

I could, for example, route all of my P2P out on port 80...

--
Paul Cummins, Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...

> You may want to take a look at the hardware that we will be using to do
> the deep packet inspection
>
> http://www.ellacoya.com/products/e30.shtml

No thanks .... over my level of interest to be honest, seeing as I can't
recall the last time I P2P'd.

Like you say elsewhere though, you have no idea how this is going to
work in practice, so will wait and see. Let's hope Plusnet customers
have no objection to being guinea pigs in the early stages of course?

One might imagine there will some 'unrest' when the 'thing' starts
affecting folks ability to use the internet in a 'normal' manner because
of a configuration error ...

Of course, you might like to invite 100+ of your users to participate in
trials for the next 3 months or so, the reward being free access, before
you switch this 'thing' on, and screw up everyone's access whilst you
wait and see? Ah, Piggies with wings.

> but essentially under Broadband Plus no matter how you choose to do it we
> reserve the right to manage or traffic shape any high bandwidth
> applications like P2P in all of its forms.

Yes of course you do, and rightfully so, but please don't tell me that
this week I have "no download limit" then next week that you will be
imposing fair usage on me, as you have done with the Premier products.

And will you also manage high bandwidth use such as web cams, internet
radio, streaming video and so on? They aren't P2P when talking in the
same category as file sharing apps, but are bandwidth hungry. I'm going
to love listening to the radio stations I enjoy all day, without fear of
capping. But of course, i'll be eating away at bandwidth like there's no
tomorrow, so how will you handle that?

I have no issue with any ISP controlling how it's network is used, BTW.
But, do it in an open and fair manner, and not shout "this package has
no download limits" then whisper "but we will put a stop to that if it
costs us in profits", which of course you have the right to do if such a
scenario arises.

> We won't be "spying" on customer's data, we'll have no idea what content
> you are downloading just the delivering mechanism you are utilising.

I imagine you will have an idea, because Ellacoya will tell you. You
(it) can target traits, so you will clearly be able to identify the
content type if not the inner specifics.

Indeed, the leading line of the Ellacoya pages say "gain unprecedented
visibility into application and subscriber usage". So you'll know I'm
using my web cam a lot then....

Yep, it looks good, and I welcome any measures that improve how I
personally use the Internet, and what it costs me, but how well it works
is yet to be seen.

Shall we "wait and see"?

Dave Gibson wrote:

>
> So would that include large transfers over FTP - ie ports 21/22??
>


Picky - but ftp is either:

active: client initiates connection for control out on port >1024 to
server port 21, & receives ack back. Data initiated from server on port
20 to client different port >1024, client sends ack back

passive: client initiates both connections to the server, one from >
1024 to server port 21 for control, server tells the client what port it
is expecting the data connection on (>1024). Client connects from
different >1024 to that port the server specified.

22 is SSH, not FTP

Bet you're glad you never asked ))

"johnydeath" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42388b56$0$2768$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dave Gibson wrote:
>
>>
>> So would that include large transfers over FTP - ie ports 21/22??
>>
>
>
> Picky - but ftp is either:
>
> active: client initiates connection for control out on port >1024 to
> server port 21, & receives ack back. Data initiated from server on port 20
> to client different port >1024, client sends ack back
>
> passive: client initiates both connections to the server, one from > 1024
> to server port 21 for control, server tells the client what port it is
> expecting the data connection on (>1024). Client connects from different
> >1024 to that port the server specified.
>
> 22 is SSH, not FTP
>
> Bet you're glad you never asked ))

Even more picky ---
Ahhh but FTP can be on any port - its only convention that its on 21

Same as HTTP - they are only port independent protocols.

Dave

Dave Gibson wrote:

> "johnydeath" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:42388b56$0$2768$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Dave Gibson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So would that include large transfers over FTP - ie ports 21/22??
>>>
>>
>>
>>Picky - but ftp is either:
>>
>>active: client initiates connection for control out on port >1024 to
>>server port 21, & receives ack back. Data initiated from server on port 20
>>to client different port >1024, client sends ack back
>>
>>passive: client initiates both connections to the server, one from > 1024
>>to server port 21 for control, server tells the client what port it is
>>expecting the data connection on (>1024). Client connects from different
>> >1024 to that port the server specified.
>>
>>22 is SSH, not FTP
>>
>>Bet you're glad you never asked ))
>
>
> Even more picky ---
> Ahhh but FTP can be on any port - its only convention that its on 21
>
> Same as HTTP - they are only port independent protocols.
>
> Dave
>
>

Zounds! I am undone! ))

"Paul Cummins" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> (PlusNet Support Team) wrote:
>
> > no matter how you choose to do it we
> > reserve the right to manage or traffic shape any high bandwidth
> > applications like P2P in all of its forms.
>
> And Email, Usenet and Web one assumes?
>
> I could, for example, route all of my P2P out on port 80...
>
> --
> Paul Cummins, Always a NetHead
> Wasting Bandwidth since 1981


Hi,

You could route your P2P over port 80, but the Ellacoya hardware we will be
using will use deep packet inspection and won't just rely on the port you
use so it doesn't matter which port you use for Peer-2-Peer. The hardware
will still be able to detect the use of P2P and shape the traffic
accordingly.

In all reality the Broadband Plus product isn't designed for those customers
who want to download large amounts of data particularly via P2P, binary
newsgroups and similar. It is designed in mind for the vast majority of
today's Internet users, people who want fast web browsing, went to send and
receive large emails to and from friends and family, chat online and maybe
dip into the odd MP3 download or small use of P2P now and again.



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 -----

PlusNet Support Team wrote:

> You could route your P2P over port 80, but the Ellacoya hardware we will be
> using will use deep packet inspection and won't just rely on the port you
> use so it doesn't matter which port you use for Peer-2-Peer. The hardware
> will still be able to detect the use of P2P and shape the traffic
> accordingly.

Have you investigated how this fits in with the provisions of the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? This sort of packet inspection
could be viewed as interception.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address