No *fixed* download limits. More honest than "No download limits."

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by Fred, Feb 11, 2007.

  1. Fred

    Fred Guest

    More honest?
     
    Fred, Feb 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Fred

    Dev Guest

    NO! They still have a fair use or acceptable use policy which goes against
    the Unfair Contract Terms Act. The ASA are instructed not to get involved.
    The ISP enforces a contract that is unfair under the above act and Virgin
    are currently being investigated for false and misleading claims on TV about
    "no limits" when there clearly are. The contradictory statements appear on
    their own website.
    No fixed download limits only applies up to a fair usage which has a limit.
    Getting the ISP to say what that is might be a job. Most ISPs are in breach
    of contract, so if anyone fancies joining me in a no win no fee joint legal
    action we could see most of them having to pay out compensation.
    Most now restrict everything apart from web browsing which is unfair and not
    in their contract.

    Most ISPs like Tiscali can't provide the service they would like to offer so
    employ network shaping to cover the fact they haven't invested in the
    network ! The other con is "up to 8Mbps" - that depends on the network and
    time of day. More often than not with Tiscali in the UK they manage
    throughput much lower, but can get away with it because of the wording of
    the contract.
    It exposes how slow the systems in the UK really are from most ISPs.

    When the going gets tough they kick you off or restrict you. If ISPs were
    more honest they might get more business. Whoever offers "true unlimited
    data use without restrictions" will make a fortune as most of us would pay
    more. I certainly would as Tiscali is crap after they changed their
    contract.
     
    Dev, Feb 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Fred

    Eeyore Guest

    Who exactly instructs them so ?

    Graham
     
    Eeyore, Feb 12, 2007
    #3
  4. Why aren't you using a business account which is unlimited.
    You are prepared to pay more!
     
    [email protected], Feb 12, 2007
    #4
  5. No, it is always a con! With all of the fixed rate (512k, 1M, 2M)
    offerings, the quoted rate is that after the ATM overhead has been
    taken into account and the actual ADSL sync rate is higher than the
    quoted rate. With 'up to 8M', this is the ADSL syn rate and the rate
    using the same criteria as used for the fixed speed services is only
    upto 7.15M. So claiming up to 8M when comparing with the fixes rate
    services is a con as they are comparing apples and oranges.
     
    Graham Murray, Feb 12, 2007
    #5
  6. If this is the case, then take them to court, you are guaranteed to
    win.
    By whom?
    By whom?
     
    Mark McIntyre, Feb 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Nearly every UK ISP falls into this category. Everyone oversells
    bandwidth at ridiculous levels (to the point that if everyone maxed
    their connection simultaneously, you'd see sub-dialup speeds) on the
    increasingly shaky assumption that people don't need that much bandwidth.

    The first natural step is to apply data caps where there were previously
    none. Heavy users then migrate among all the remaining ISPs until
    everyone has applied similar caps. I'm not sure what you're hoping to
    achieve by highlighting the holes in an ISP's ToS. Great, hit them with
    false advertising and they'll pay a fine. It'll make absolutely no
    difference to the service you receive.

    The sooner people realise they're living on other people's subsidies and
    that those other people are now starting to use their connections more,
    the sooner we can get over this "unlimited" fallacy and start building
    the infrastructure needed to sustain heavy use.
     
    Jay L. T. Cornwall, Feb 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Fred

    PhilT Guest

    BT were comparing with Bulldog and UKOnline 8000 services when
    following the established path of including the ATM and other
    overheads, rather than comparing with their own fixed speed services.

    Phil
     
    PhilT, Feb 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Fred

    bob Guest

    Telecoms has always worked this way, and it would be absurd not to do it.
    It's actually good for heavy users, because they are subsidized by light
    users.
     
    bob, Feb 13, 2007
    #9
  10. Sure, but it's the "increasingly shaky" part of my quote that's
    important here. If the infrastructure doesn't grow to reflect increases
    in both individual peak bandwidth usage and group usage, then speeds
    deteriorate over time.

    As it stands, many ISPs (mine included, Demon) have trouble feeding
    Youtube at peak times where there were no problems a year or two ago.
    And that's for a low bitrate service. BT have done their job admirably
    in reducing contention at exchanges where it arises. (I can pull 2Mbit
    consistently at any time of the day to peered sites, and that's capped.)

    A lot of the ISPs, however, are not keeping up and I'm not sure I can
    blame them. Transit is a lot more expensive than the current pricing
    model of most ADSL connections could sustain. Throw in stable pricing
    with an increasing interest in services like BitTorrent and you have a
    bandwidth disaster on your hands.

    For the most part, I use Demon to connect me from my house to LINX and
    then proxy through a peered server with uncongested uplinks to attain
    decent speeds. Costs a fortune but it's a better service than most
    business ADSL packages could provide.
     
    Jay L. T. Cornwall, Feb 13, 2007
    #10
  11. Fred

    NoNeedToKnow Guest

    Indeed. There's been an article on ISP Review (www.ispreview.co.uk)
    where Entanet, Firenet and Vispa have commented about pricing...
    Just curious as to what it's costing you, and what you're doing from the
    peered server that allows /you/ to see higher speed traffic - surely if
    a set of data is what you're after, then downloading it back to you via
    Demon is still going to see limits on speed... I guess one could use
    web hosting (with ssh access) to "pull" traffic from remote servers,
    and the built-in FTP within the ssh client to drag any files back
    to one's PC... unless you're running applications which process
    the data on the remote server, and just viewing from home?
     
    NoNeedToKnow, Feb 13, 2007
    #11
  12. Demon has excellent connectivity to LINX because it's cheap (free? I
    forget how peering arrangements work exactly). So by using my server
    with uncongested international transit and a peered link from the server
    to me, I can receive the full 2Mbit from any destination at any time of
    day. If I had my connection uncapped I've no doubt that would extend to
    the limit of my local connection. The actual setup is 'wget' for large
    files to the server and then back to me, though for things like Youtube
    I sometimes use a proper HTTP proxy.

    It's expensive. My server costs are about £190/month but that's
    primarily supporting other projects. Maxing Demon's (estimated)
    50GB/month limit through the server translates to about £8/month of
    data, partially subsidised by server/space/power rental costs. Maybe
    £15/month extra as a realistic estimate for Demon to provide that level
    of connectivity themselves?
     
    Jay L. T. Cornwall, Feb 13, 2007
    #12
  13. Its probably unnecessary..
    I can pull 10+Mbit/sec nearly all the time from sites around the world.
    Thats on Sky £10pm.
     
    [email protected], Feb 13, 2007
    #13
  14. Fred

    NoNeedToKnow Guest

    Lucky if you're on a suitably equipped exchange, but many are not.
     
    NoNeedToKnow, Feb 14, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.