=?iso-8859-1?q?8MB_ADSL_for_=A339.99_per_month?=

Details at http://www.ukonline.net/8000/

Connection fee is £50

Advertised contention ratio of 33:1. Upload is 400K

The service is based around the EasyNet LLU exchanges of which there
are just over 200.

The approximate range is around 2km which UK Online estimate to be
around 50% of homes on the exchanges. If your line does not manage the
8Mbps, they will install the service at the "best speed" possible, so
you may only see a 6MB or 4MB service.

There also appears to be a usage restriction of 4GB/day.

Regards
Sunil



Sunil Sood

On 15 Nov 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Sunil Sood" wrote:

>There also appears to be a usage restriction of 4GB/day.

I wonder if that is averaged over a week, or month ?
Perhaps Martin S or someone from Easynet can enlighten us... PGM


--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.

Peter M wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Sunil Sood" wrote:
>
> >There also appears to be a usage restriction of 4GB/day.
>
> I wonder if that is averaged over a week, or month ?
> Perhaps Martin S or someone from Easynet can enlighten us...

Well the web site(http://www.ukonline.net/8000/page4.php) actually
says:

---
Are there any usage restrictions?

We do not have a fixed bandwidth restriction. However we reserve the
right to suspend or restrict your use of the Service if we consider it
excessive.

We would consider regular or recurring data transfer in excess of 4
Gigabytes per day to be an example of excessive use of our Broadband
8000 service.
---

So I don't think this limit is fixed in stone as such - it was just me
summarising in a hurry (and still getting used to Google Groups!)

Still as UKOnline are advertising a 33:1 contention ratio, 4GB/day is
still over "fair use" (on a per user basis)

Regards
Sunil

On 15 Nov 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Sunil Sood" wrote:

>Well the web site(http://www.ukonline.net/8000/page4.php) says:
<snip>

Thanks for that... There will be some questions over who'll use it,
for that money, because the hardcore downloaders who would love the
speed but then immediately fall foul of 'fair use' and be miffed :-)


--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:06:08 +0000, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 15 Nov 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Sunil Sood" wrote:
>
>>Well the web site(http://www.ukonline.net/8000/page4.php) says:
><snip>
>
>Thanks for that... There will be some questions over who'll use it,
>for that money, because the hardcore downloaders who would love the
>speed but then immediately fall foul of 'fair use' and be miffed :-)

Have to agree with that! Just cant see the point of having a fast
connection you may only be able to use for 1 hour per day! Far better
to have a maxed out 512K one - at less than half the price and no
connection charge!




--
www.senaction.com

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:54:14 +0000, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I wonder if that is averaged over a week, or month ?

or at all ? why not account on a daily basis :-)

4 GB/day is a bit less than a 512k line at full tilt

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

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:54:14 +0000, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if that is averaged over a week, or month ?
>
> or at all ? why not account on a daily basis :-)
>
> 4 GB/day is a bit less than a 512k line at full tilt
>
> Phil
> --
> spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
> Come on down !

I think it makes perfect sense, just because its the same bandwidth a normal
512k uncapped service can do in 24 hours, this can do it 16x faster, and 4Gb
a day thats a nice size cap, how many people really download more than 120Gb
a month.

1 Gb a month caps, now thats f**king stupid, so is 15Gb a month via BT, but
120Gb a month, thats a cool cap if there there is one

guv wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:06:08 +0000, Peter M <us-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On 15 Nov 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Sunil Sood" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well the web site(http://www.ukonline.net/8000/page4.php) says:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Thanks for that... There will be some questions over who'll use it,
>>for that money, because the hardcore downloaders who would love the
>>speed but then immediately fall foul of 'fair use' and be miffed :-)
>
>
> Have to agree with that! Just cant see the point of having a fast
> connection you may only be able to use for 1 hour per day! Far better
> to have a maxed out 512K one - at less than half the price and no
> connection charge!
>

I disagree completely! However, I won't go down that route now :P

In addition to this cap, the service, as far as I know, comes with a
*dynamic IP*. That, I suspect, means I can't use it; I'd need to think
about it a bit more.

My point is, with a dynamic IP and usage restrctions, who are they
appealing to? Your average web surfer can get better value for money
with the lower speed packages and your average high user can grab more
using other ISPs...

*alex is confused*

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:05:04 +0000, Alex <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>who are they
>appealing to?

people with speed envy ?

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:05:04 +0000, Alex <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>Thanks for that... There will be some questions over who'll use it,
>>>for that money, because the hardcore downloaders who would love the
>>>speed but then immediately fall foul of 'fair use' and be miffed :-)
>>
>>
>> Have to agree with that! Just cant see the point of having a fast
>> connection you may only be able to use for 1 hour per day! Far better
>> to have a maxed out 512K one - at less than half the price and no
>> connection charge!
>>
>
>I disagree completely! However, I won't go down that route now :P
>
>In addition to this cap, the service, as far as I know, comes with a
>*dynamic IP*. That, I suspect, means I can't use it; I'd need to think
>about it a bit more.
>
>My point is, with a dynamic IP and usage restrctions, who are they
>appealing to? Your average web surfer can get better value for money
>with the lower speed packages and your average high user can grab more
>using other ISPs...

As you say, the average web surfer would not really see any benefit
for paying more. The only ones who will, would be downloaders. There
seems to be no point whatsoever in a speed as high as this, with the
capping drawback set as low as it has been on a daily basis.

As for dynamic IP, that personally doesnt bother me. However there are
ways around that with a virtual static IP. Dont have the details to
hand - but I am sure others will chip in! Basically when your IP does
change, all the pointers also change. I did use it for a while with an
FTP server package I used, but I couldnt be arsed in the end!



--
www.senaction.com