PlusNet do the worm LOL

Seems from reading this some at Plusnet are either part time politicians or
just very good at wriggling like a worm.....
http://tinyurl.co.uk/46ff
Hmm come to think of it wriggling out of questions and facts is a bit like
some of its customers that post in here.
LOL Happy contended surfing heavy use (What ever that may be, ya just have
to take a wild guess LOL) Plusnet'ers, hohoho, just the early xmas pressie
some of you referral mob and contradicting PN posters deserve IMO. {gloats;
very happy }






Dave

"Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cnc42a$bdi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Seems from reading this some at Plusnet are either part time politicians
or
> just very good at wriggling like a worm.....
> http://tinyurl.co.uk/46ff
> Hmm come to think of it wriggling out of questions and facts is a bit like
> some of its customers that post in here.
> LOL Happy contended surfing heavy use (What ever that may be, ya just have
> to take a wild guess LOL) Plusnet'ers, hohoho, just the early xmas pressie
> some of you referral mob and contradicting PN posters deserve IMO.
{gloats;
> very happy }

I think Plusnet are more than reasonable with their decision.

I notice that none of those who were asked what they did with all the
bandwidth they were chewing up could / would answer.

"Gizmo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:zoGdnQE394xcJATcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:cnc42a$bdi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Seems from reading this some at Plusnet are either part time
politicians
> or
> > just very good at wriggling like a worm.....
> > http://tinyurl.co.uk/46ff
> > Hmm come to think of it wriggling out of questions and facts is a bit
like
> > some of its customers that post in here.
> > LOL Happy contended surfing heavy use (What ever that may be, ya just
have
> > to take a wild guess LOL) Plusnet'ers, hohoho, just the early xmas
pressie
> > some of you referral mob and contradicting PN posters deserve IMO.
> {gloats;
> > very happy }
>
> I think Plusnet are more than reasonable with their decision.

What decision, the staff over in that forum thread cant/wont even define
exactly what a heavy user is.

>
> I notice that none of those who were asked what they did with all the
> bandwidth they were chewing up could / would answer.

They dont really have to do they? However PN should be answering what a
heavy user is exactly, see its customers then have a idea of what is and
isnt acceptable.

In MsgID<zoGdnQE394xcJATcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Gizmo' wrote:

>I think Plusnet are more than reasonable with their decision.

LOL. I hate to be agreeing with the new resident garbage spewer, but
this has literally made me laugh out loud.

Once upon a time there was dialup.
Then there was unmetered (and unlimited) dialup. "Use Anytime etc"

Then, along come Freeswerve - "It's Unlimited (but only if you use it
less than we say, and we won't tell you how much is too much)"

Then, there was Broadband, and there was "High speed transfer"
(But only if you use it less than 2% of the time)

Then there was "Unlimited Uncapped" Broadband - "Really Really
Uncapped"

Then there was Plusnet. "Unlimited and Uncapped but we're going to put
anyone who uses more than an amount (that we won't specify) onto the
same pipe so they can only get a fraction of the bandwidth"

Ahh, DejaVu..

LOL

Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
don't trust them to stick to a contract.

Dave J.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a Dave J says...

[...]

> Just don't trust them to stick to a contract

whooosh .... !!

There goes that Plusnet Bashing Bandwagon again ..... yeeeeehaaaaaw!!

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
> don't trust them to stick to a contract.
>

I'm sure it's been said before but if you d/l more than 3.2Gb a month on
512Kb/s 50/1 then you are getting more than you are contracted to get.

--
Alan LeHun

"Alan LeHun" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
> > don't trust them to stick to a contract.
>
> I'm sure it's been said before but if you d/l more than 3.2Gb a month on
> 512Kb/s 50/1 then you are getting more than you are contracted to get.

How is that exactly? How does bandwidth, throughput and contention define
your contract!?

Bandwidth defines the maximum data rate for the connection.
Throughput defines the cummulative data end to end for a prescribed period.
Contention defines the imposed subs per spur.

ISP's have been selling broadband on the basis of fast unlimited connections
and even go so far as to advertise the fact it is ideal for Music, Movies,
TV, Radio, etc etc. The fact that a great deal of the data being
transeferred is off-net and costs the provider more is neither here nor
there.

So now they are re-assessing the business model as Broadband is now a
consumer item and market share for the most part has been established.
That's fair enough but they need to define exactly what subscribers are
entitled to and not move the goal posts on and ad-hoc basis.

It's follow the leader out there 9i.e. BT) with ISP's imposing restrictions
to maximise profits instead of investing in technology to reduce their
overheads (Digital overheads). As I work for a major Provider I know that
Broadband is a savior and it makes money ... if memory serves me right it's
margin is far in excess of Voice and I hope not giving too much away Cable
TV.

All this said yes some users are data hogs and the impact is noticable but
it's simple enough to impose restrictions on a spur (UBR/DSLAM) based on
contention i.e. Hogs are restricted when non hogs are using the connection
then return the throughput to the hog when nobody else needs it. The fact is
it really has very little to do with impacting other users and everything to
do with off-net throughput.

Let's see some investment in caching systems, least cost routing for off-net
data sources, selective p2p which priorities on-net IP's for e2e connections
[although I'm not sure how this could be acheived].

Just my 2p worth ;-)

"Alan LeHun" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
> > don't trust them to stick to a contract.
> >
>
> I'm sure it's been said before but if you d/l more than 3.2Gb a month on
> 512Kb/s 50/1 then you are getting more than you are contracted to get.
>

LOL thats rubbish when words like... "Unlimited", "as much as you want",
"when you want", "Premier" and many other terms are banded about by not
only PN but also many others.

Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Alan LeHun" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> > Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
>> > don't trust them to stick to a contract.
>> >
>>
>> I'm sure it's been said before but if you d/l more than 3.2Gb a month on
>> 512Kb/s 50/1 then you are getting more than you are contracted to get.
>>

> LOL thats rubbish when words like... "Unlimited", "as much as you want",
> "when you want", "Premier" and many other terms are banded about by not
> only PN but also many others.

Not when those statements are read in the context of a 50:1 or
20:1 contention ratio.

It's like all advertising, designed to attract customers! People
rarely read the small print which states it is a contended service that
you are signing up for. Those customers that use it like a 1:1 uncontended
service should expect to have their wrists slapped, which is exactly what
PN have done.

But instead of cutting those customers off (which PN would have
been perfectly entitled to do) they are bundling them together so that at
busy times they may experience the contended service they are actually
paying for. Think of it like a "choke" collar on a dog, the more they
pull, the more uncomfortable it gets.

Steve

"Steve Wyles" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cnkq2p$a59$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > "Alan LeHun" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> > Oh, and connection wise, they are still one of the better ISPs, just
> >> > don't trust them to stick to a contract.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm sure it's been said before but if you d/l more than 3.2Gb a month
on
> >> 512Kb/s 50/1 then you are getting more than you are contracted to get.
> >>
>
> > LOL thats rubbish when words like... "Unlimited", "as much as you
want",
> > "when you want", "Premier" and many other terms are banded about by not
> > only PN but also many others.
>
> Not when those statements are read in the context of a 50:1 or
> 20:1 contention ratio.
>
> It's like all advertising, designed to attract customers! People
> rarely read the small print which states it is a contended service that
> you are signing up for. Those customers that use it like a 1:1
uncontended
> service should expect to have their wrists slapped, which is exactly what
> PN have done.
>
> But instead of cutting those customers off (which PN would have
> been perfectly entitled to do) they are bundling them together so that at
> busy times they may experience the contended service they are actually
> paying for. Think of it like a "choke" collar on a dog, the more they
> pull, the more uncomfortable it gets.
>

What are you blabbering about? Contention has nothing to do with amounts
you download, it to do with how many you share the connection with. Think
of it as telling this dog to fetch (ie download) and sit (ie not download)
at the same time, you cant say "download as much as you want" in one breath
and then mean "download only as much as the connection and contention will
allow you" in the next, the dog, like users just wouldnt know what to do.