 
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 | |
|  | 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone
| Re: Plusnet is in big trouble this doesent make sense:
11. So will PlusNet’s fixed cost broadband products allow unlimited downloads?
No. Downloading 24/7 365 is using the service on a 1:1 contention ratio and is unsustainable on a consumer broadband.
[TOP]
12. Is there a monthly download limit?
No, it is not necessary to set a fixed limit because the contention system prevents those unsustainable customers from using the service
its not unlimited, but theres no limit. lol I believe that gets the coveted 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag award | |
| | | 
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. | |
| | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Re: Going down hill said by joesmoked  :Who writes these FAQ things, amazing. lawyers??? | |
| 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. | |
| | | 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | 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? | |
| | | 
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs: | Re: Oddly, I like it Sandvines I believe. | |
| | | | 
pnuser
@plus.com
| The Magic Elacoya no elacoya we have been told about thier magic "elacoya" equipment too many times without being told how it works! :-(
now i will just wait for my promised upgrade to 8MB (i confirmed it with them this morning, when it's available will get upgraded at no extra cost) | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits | 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 | |
| | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: Oddly, I like it The other thing I like about PlusNet's policy: it's not derogatory. | |
| | 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
| The way they explain it, it sounds like contention ratio is just how many people are sharing the bandwidth (wasn't one of DSL's big supposed advantages over cable no line sharing?). If I understand correctly, this means you can only use 2% of your total bandwidth if transferring continuously? | |
|
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. | |
| | frankie9999
join:2005-04-22
Jeffersonton, VA | 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... | |
| 
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). | |
| |
PlusnetterUK
@co.u
| Re: So there is a speed guarentee? There is no Plusnet 10 megabit/second product - the introduction of 8 megabit/second is slated for later this year. The highest speed product for customers is currently 2 megabits/second which is contended at the local exchange by BT at up to (a maximum of) 50:1 . Speeds of over 8 megabits/second will require the roll out of ADSL2+ - which I think is being trialled soon.
The entry level Plusnet product, 2Mb at £21.99, is excellent value in the U.K. (though the current poor U.S. dollar exchange rate probably makes it seem less attractive to U.S. observers at the moment).  | |
| 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? | |
| | 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
3 edits | 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
| Re: unfortunate 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. | |
| | | |
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | Re: unfortunate It is sad that immediate gratification drives the publicly owned companies and the expertise of the people who actually work for them and make the money is so often ignored. What happened to risk taking and innovation? | |
| jekler
join:2000-11-23
Cincinnati, OH
clubs:
|  What about plain old honesty?
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
| Re: What about plain old honesty? 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. | |
| | | Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA
| Re: What about plain old honesty? But perhaps the point is to limit the traffic for what they feel is "pirate activity". If the media (movie/music) would get off their asses and deliver services.. we wouldn't have this issue. The internet rolled out before the bastards who have us over the barrel of a gun could catch up.
So it must be assumed that any high volume traffic is most likely the transmission of illegal content. Therefore the pipes must be constrained so as to limit non-authorized content.. or rather content that is not being BILLED FOR.
So.. if we have hard caps on the trasmission of data we as a result will curtail users who Tx/Rx large files. i.e. MOVIES, MUSIC, GAMES, APPS, etc.
Well that at least makes sense to me. Always remember people. It all boils down to money. Everytime. Whether the auto-industry is rolling out next year's gas guzzling autos or if a president decides to invade a foreign country.
My two cents.
~~~~~~~~~~~
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
– George Orwell | |
|
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
| Re: Hmm.....Gotta say, I like it. 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. | |
| Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA
| Ideal ISP scenario You pay for no services rendered.
My way or the highway so they think. So with that I'm in favor of municipal networks. Established by communities. Grown and expanded. All we need to do is build out the hardware. Go wireless. Eventually if it overlaps the planet we'll have no need for ISPs.
But you know that will just use the government to be their enforcers and knock down any networks in the name of Anti-Terrorism. | |
| 
danza
Premium
join:2002-08-23 | Uncapped? I prefer ISPs to just buys more bandwidth when their network is getting congested, or selling them at a lower speed, or else they are just limiting their customers by thowing them into a pool of congested network while saying 'unlimited'. | |
|
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
1 edit | Sounds like something out of Monty Python quote:
2. If you are not implementing Fair Usage, what are you doing instead?
We are implementing contention ratio-based broadband platform management.
...or something like that. Probably not, but I can't think of what it sounds like. Except maybe that it's synonymous with super-irrigation. (Yay Mark Twain)
They need to have a question 19: Ok, WTF does this all mean? | |
| 
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | What? im i the only person here who doesnt beleive in caps or "limits" i thought broadband was to take advantange of the net? even if you are downloading 24/7 SO WHAT you pay for it you desever it if the isp cant keep up then get out of my way | |
| | timoteo21
join:2002-05-14
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: What? No, the purpose of broadband is so you can get what you want quickly when you want it. This is accomplished by having many people share a much higher bandwidth connection than any could afford by themselves. Taking turns using a a high speed connection is better for most applications than having continuous access to a slow speed connection. | |
|
Rich_T
@plus.com
| plusnet, contention, caps and Brittish Telecom Im a Plusnet customer in the UK, and this has totaly confused me.
At the moment im on what was an unlimited ( no download cap) 512kbs service for £21.99 ( price of 'unlimited' 512kbs aDSL in the UK is around £18-£27)
the Plusnet anounced that they will be moving everyone over to a Fair usuage policy, basicly your monthly subscription would determine your 'download cap' except it wasnt a cap more of a limitation, understand?
for £21.99 per month i would get a 30GB per month limit, but Plusnet would only take action when i exceeded this limit for three consecutive months, after three months of excess usage, my speed will be throttled down to 128kbs, for one month, after that i can use 30GB+ and the cycle would repeat.
Now they have decided to scrap that and use contention.
almost all DSL ISPs are being forced to introduce capped/contention managed services because of Brittish Telecom.
Brittish Telecoms (BT) part in all this...
BT was once a State Owned Company who had almost 100% control and ownership over the UK telecomunications market.
BT were privatised ( governement sold its entire 100% holding off in shares on the london stock exchange)during the late 1980's.
Instead of introducing competiion a single company found itself with an almmost 100% monopoly and control over the the entire UK telecoms infrastructure which it was/is more than happy to keep for itself, the only other option to BT was the Cable Networks (cable TV services) who are only interested in Large areas of population density.
To help other telecom companys offer a service, BT is split into two basic parts, BT Wholesale, and BT Retail, however basicly they remain one and the same.
If an ISP wants to start up a DSL service, in almost all cases they have to go through BT Wholesale, as they own the telephone Exchange, the equipment and the physical line to the end customer.
BT Wholesale bulk sell DSL conections, to ISPs who base a product around the BTwholesale price.
BT Wholesale offer three basic options:
Standard charging - no charge for data transfer, only per line, and line speed.
Capacity based charging/Usage based charging, ie capped/contention managed services, as the ISP is charged for data transfer but can have any speed they like ( upto 2mb depending upon line quality speds of upto 8mb later this year)
BT are scrapping the standard charging and forcing ISPs to adopt either usage based or capacity based service to sell the the customer.
| |
| |
RickUK
@plus.com
| Re: plusnet, contention, caps and Brittish Telecom Pretty good description.
It all boils down to the Way BT handle things. The only other options for people are:
Cable: Usually a company called Telewest. Quite possibly the WORST company i've ever had the misfortune to deal with from a CS point of view. If a router/modem reboot doesn't fix your connection expect to wait 7-28 days for an engineer to turn up.
NTL: Enough Said, vile customer service and to go with that they have pitiful coverage
LLU Exchanges: Some ISPs and independant phone companies have Loop Unbundled some exchanges. This means an easy and cheap 8Mb ADSL. Quite often with included phoneline for free or at minmal cost. Downside being it is STRICTLY for large cities such as London and Birmingham. Lower populaiton density areas are ignored completely.
Dail-Up: Not really and alternative, but it does allow you to use another company's infrastructure. However none of these companies have Broadband capability in the exchanges.
That pretty much leaves you with BT as the basic service provider. Each ISP then resells a BT product with its own add-ins and and prices to suit its preferred market. We are at the mercy of a company that is money hungry due to cock-ups in the past.
While the USA has reaped the benefits of the breakup of Bell Telecom we haven't had anything near that level of shakeup. God knows we need it, but for now we have to deal with what we have. I'll stay with PlusNet unless something better comes along. But in the meantime i can't afford £1200 a month(ish) for a T1 | |
| | |
rich_T
@plus.com
| Re: plusnet, contention, caps and Brittish Telecom All the stuff thats happening at plusnet in regards to Fair usgae, no fair usage, contention, and so on will take a while to calm down.
As it stands at the moment, it wont affect me, as i use under 30Gb per month anyway, and my speed will go upto 2mb in a month or so ( depending on BT)
The only way it might affect me is when the 4-8MB speeds come in, as it was plusnet would have charged me the same for 8MB as they do for 512kbs under the defuinct fair use policy, now i might have to pay more for a higher speed. | |
| | | |
Gwyn
@plus.com
| Re: plusnet, contention, caps and Brittish Telecom The underlying point, which is often overlooked on the boards, in that the average PlusNet customer is going to be getting a free upgrade to 2MB (subject to their line supporting it) for no more (and potentially less) than they currently pay. They won't be affected by the 5/1 'limit' as they use significantly less than they anyway.
As an aside, PlusNet haven't explicitly stated it (yet) but they traditionally attempt to discuss options with their users, so I'm sure that any users who were affected by contention would have a number of options to adject their behaviour and would not just have their access terminated, which has been seen at other ISPs. | |
| |
Rich_USA
@bulldogdsl.com | After reading all that still confused. Seems plusnet needs to set 3-4 products and simplify things for the customers, because im sure not all are tech savvy. | |
| pp05
join:2006-01-07
UK
| plusnet My usage is around 50gb on average. I have seen my bandwidth really slowed down (possibly throttled). Speed tests have shown 63kbps little more than 56k dial up service i received 10 years ago.
I thought the fair usage policy sounded ok and would be practical. The problem is 50:1 contention.
I have used Zen and currently on Plusnet, I jumped from zen to plusNet purely on price. I now regret it because Zen has no caps. So you get what you pay for even if it is 50:1.
Both ISP do offer a 'reliable' service from my time with them. But broadband or the jump to adsl was marketed as " un-metered service".. How far have we moved away from that slogan? | |
| | | |
|
|
It's Not a Cap!
·
·
·
Oddly, I like it