jerichohol
join:2002-05-12
UK
| Plusnet is in big trouble
You would think with 100,000 subscribers they would be able to sort out what their company problems.
Visit their forums and you will see people frustrated with what is going to happen.
Hopefully next week it should be all clear but in the end, they are still one of the better ISP's here in the UK, thats why I use them |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | It's Not a Cap!
It's CRAP! |
|
joesmoked
join:2002-10-24
Herrin, IL | Going down hill
Who writes these FAQ things, amazing. |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
2 edits | Give them some credit
That is genius in my opinion. Just listen to it:
"contention ratio-based broadband platform management"
If I was an ISP, I would put it in all my ads, like:
"Comcast uses the latest in contention ratio-based broadband platform management to provide you with the fastest, most reliable internet access. Our team of techs works round the clock to ensure optimum network resources are available, even during peak hours."
I am impressed in spite of myself. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
|  Oddly, I like it
It's fair, clearly stated, and honest. This policy allows customers to buy what they need, or seek service elsewhere if PlusNet is not designed for their use.
The only thing missing, is how customers who consistently contend at 1:1 - 5:1 will be notified. Does everyone (or at least the leading contenders) get a personal contention ratio with their monthly statement so they have a chance to better manage their use before termination ensues? |
|
frankie1965
@adelphia.net
| Crying wolf
Before Adelphia HSI came to our area I had DirecPC, and they implented a similar policy. They sold a premium-priced product in a market that had quickly become a commodity and complained when their user base wasn't all in the center of the bell curve. Sounds more like bad planning than anything else. If their users are using what's sold to that degree, they need to buy more bandwidth on the back end.
This is like complaining that too many people are buying plastic widgets and they're running low at the warehouse. Wake up and buy more, faster, or go out of biz. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | reply to JTRockville
Re: Oddly, I like it
So, to manage the users with excess contention ratio, what are they actually doing? I would presume they must be implementing a traffic management system, like Sandvines, or Elacoya? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits | reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville  :It's fair, clearly stated, and honest. This policy allows customers to buy what they need, or seek service elsewhere if PlusNet is not designed for their use. The only thing missing, is how customers who consistently contend at 1:1 - 5:1 will be notified. Does everyone (or at least the leading contenders) get a personal contention ratio with their monthly statement so they have a chance to better manage their use before termination ensues? I agree with your assessment. It sounds like a fair method to determine who the bandwidth hogs(non-stop downloading at max speed 24/7) are. But you are right that they need some way for a customer to track how they are doing. Are they 10 to 1, or 30 to 1, or 5 to 1. It could give them a warning if they are overusing the link.
And a good way to limit the hogs would be to force a lower max download speed if they venture into the bandwidth hog category.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum |
|
frankie9999
join:2005-04-22
Jeffersonton, VA | reply to frankie1965
Re: Crying wolf
Looks like I got edited there, should be
This is like your fav big-box store is complaining that people are buying plastic... |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Oddly, I like it
The other thing I like about PlusNet's policy: it's not derogatory. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs: | reply to sbrook
Sandvines I believe. |
|
ScottMo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY
1 edit | So there is a speed guarentee?
Reading the Beginners guide to Contention it seems that if I'm on a node that supports 10 MB/sec, instead of the ISP telling me I'll get "up to" 10 mb/sec, they're telling me I'm buying 2 MB/sec (with minor flucations) since that's my 50:1 ratio.
Which given the speeds they're advertising (2 Mb for £24.99) doesn't seem that cheap (like $50.00). |
|
sago
join:2001-12-19
4 edits | unfortunate
If a contention ratio of 1:1 means that you can use your connection 24 hours a day, then a contention ration of 50:1 means that your service plan is designed to allow you to use the full speed of your connection 28.8 minutes a day.
If they police starting at 5:1, that means that you will have problems with them if you use your connection 4.8 hours per day.
On a two megabit line, that's the same as being able to download approximately 125 gigabytes per month without having problems with them.
It's kind of low, although not unlike limits other services around the world might place. Perhaps the contention ratio is a way of forcing people to stop creeping up to the "cap", trying to get as close to it without going over - in other words, if you are a troublemaker, you will be asked to "stick to your contention ratio", which means "don't download anything", as opposed to saying "stay under the cap", which means "download less than 125 gigabytes per month".
If the ISP has a crappy infrastructure, it may need to exert some kind of control, but if the ISP designs its system around the concept that no one is going to download anything, I think that they miss the whole point of internet. Who is an ISP to say that it is "wrong" for a customer to use their internet connection for something other than browsing, email, and the occasional software or Linux ISO download? If it's a financial issue, why not just charge the users who want to use a higher ratio of bandwith a higher monthly fee? Why not? Because if they did that, then they would have to charge those who don't use their internet connections for anything but surfing and e-mail so much less that they would probably go out of business. It's the flat rates that make it possible; if they charged "per-byte", 99% of their customers would be paying less than the montly fee that they pay now.
The current price for their offering is 24.99 pounds, which translates into 47.86 USD today. A contention ratio of 50:1 on that 2 Mbit connection is approximately 12.66 gigabytes per month. That means the system is "designed for" $3.78 US per gigabyte. That's kind of high. On the other hand, at a contention ration of 5:1, you are looking at 38 cents per gigabyte, which might a little on the low side for retail prices. If the truth is somewhere inbetween, they ought to be offering that internet connection for 9.99 pounds or 14.99 pounds, not 24.99 pounds, right? My hunch is that ISPs love that flat rate just as much as a small percentage of heavy users do - if they actually started billing everyone according to the amount of data transfered, they would probably lose a significant amount of their revenue. You sell the "speed", and the customer either uses it or doesn't. What could be easier?
The up side of the contention ratio is that a 4 megabyte pipe would have you top out at 250 gigs a month, and a 8 megabyte pipe would have you top out at half a terabyte by the time you reach a contention ratio of 5:1. The part that hurts is the "designed-for" contention ratio - it's a way, essentially, to get people to stop trying to download as much as they can yet stay under the cap, it seems. Although, I think most people could live with half a terabyte per month.
P.S. - it also brings in the question of granularity - at what frequency are the contention ratios checked? Once a month? Once a week? Once a day? Once an hour? Once a minute? |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | reply to joesmoked
Re: Going down hill
said by joesmoked :Who writes these FAQ things, amazing. lawyers??? |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
3 edits | reply to sago
Re: unfortunate
I think you just exceeded your contention ratio by uploading your comment. This automatically bumps you into the "small business" category and increases your bill in the order of two magnitudes, have a nice browsing day 
As it appears to me quite often these days, the ISPs are not in business to provide a good service, they are in business to make money. As long as they can do the second without the first we, the customers are screwed, or left fighting their lobbyists for a municipal alternative. |
|
frankie9999
join:2005-04-22
Jeffersonton, VA
| said by verolom :As it appears to me quite often these days, the ISPs are not in business to provide a good service, they are in business to make money. As long as they can do the second without the first we, the customers are screwed, or left fighting their lobbyists for a municipal alternative. ALL businesses are in it to make money. Anything else is called a charity, or non-profit. Owner enthusiasm, commitment and pride can ultimately take second chair to the bottom line, because any business that ignores the bottom line is OUT of business. The small minority that insist upon those values to the exclusion of all else either find a small niche in which they can survive or they perish.
Most smaller businesses strike a balance by giving as much service and pricing as they can while maintaining a going concern.
When you have shareholders, however, the table turns. Shareholders truly run the show by unloading executives that don't boost shareholder value (by increasing stock and dividend results) and rewarding executives that provide maximal return for minimal expense. That's where huge layoffs, off-shoring and skimping on upgrades come from, and that's where many of the big ISPs are. Their performance won't improve because the shareholders largely don't require it to. |
|
jekler
join:2000-11-23
Cincinnati, OH
clubs:
|  What about plain old honesty?
Instead of adopting new buzz phrases, what about just flat-out telling people like it is. Tell them exactly what you'll give them for the cost, don't play word games.
Something along the lines of:
"We provide you with an internet account that allows you to download upto 100gb of data per month at speeds of upto 2Mbits/sec."
Then there's no confusion as to what bracket you fall in. You always fall exactly within the monthly bandwidth allowance you pay for. Almost like the model of ISPs of yesterday went by (except they didn't meter bandwidth they simply charged time brackets without regard to usage).
Point being, lets stop playing cards, everybody show their hands. |
|
frankie9999
join:2005-04-22
Jeffersonton, VA
| That's a great idea. The USENET news providers are doing just that now: you pay for a certain monthly volume. Most let you re-start your next month early (by paying for it early) so you never hit a hard limit, you just pay more. Those who want the big, never-dry pipe pay for it and get it. No questions about what you're getting. |
|
Wireless Major
@adelphia.net | Hmm.....Gotta say, I like it.
At least they are being honest. Although it sucks, the company is being honest and upfront. I admire that. |
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| said by Wireless Major:
At least they are being honest. Although it sucks, the company is being honest and upfront. I admire that.
Honest and upfront?
I'd have a better clue what they were talking about if they encrypted the page and wrote it in plain English.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
