RE: Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!

["Timothy Morris" <timothy.morris@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Calum Morrell [mailto:calum@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 February 2001 13:43
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!
>
>
>
>
> Timothy Morris wrote:
>
> > It isn't fraudulent. Their services are not advertised as 24x7,
they are
> > advertised as unmetered.
>
> erm, as others have already pointed out, yes they do. Therefore it is
both
> misrepresentative and fraudulent.

Point taken, I would be aggrieved (but not surprised - no such thing as a
free lunch and all that) if I had signed up to this service, and chucked
off.
>
>
>
> > It is obvious to anyone with an even limited
> > understanding of how ISPs work,
>
> Could we possibly stop the personal attacks it's rather unhelpful.

Sorry!
>
>
>
> > that there is no profit in allowing 24x7
> > connections for the prices charged by ISPs for unmetered
accounts.
>
> Then those services should not be advertised and offered. My
> objection is based
> on the fact that they advertise the service for this very
> purpose. If they made
> it clear that this activity would not be tolerated and  would
> result in a denial
> of service I would have no problem with them. Incidentally, do
> you think it's
> acceptable for the account to simply be terminated without
> offering the user the
> opportunity of simply reducing the time spent on the service. I
> agree ISP's need
> to make a profit, there's no point having a fantastic service if
> they go under
> [and I don't mean to Australia].

I think they should have given a 'reasonable time frame' for users to make
alternative arrangements. As another user has documented evidence that they
were prepared to accept connections on a semi-permanent basis, then a judge
would look very favourably on the side of the consumer in this case (though
as it would cost a fortune to take it to court, I doubt whether a judge
would ever get involved.) Unfortunately I jumped in with both feet without
being aware of their advertising, so you have now caught me back pedalling
fast.
>
>
>
> > > On to your final quote "So in answer to your post, I've
thought
> > > about it - and
> > > never gonna happen." Really? You state that the
bandwidth is a
> > > user problem and
> > > not BT's if too many people are on the same ATM switch ...
but
> > > that's not the
> > > case though. BT have to pay to provide bandwidth and sustain
> it at a level
> > > suitable for it's users [and remember, long term we're
talking
> > > businesses here
> > > as well]. Like any other service BT provide, it will
eventually
> > > have reasonable
> > > competition and they have to protect there shareholders.
What
> > > this comes down to
> > > is that is a group of people are using up a large percentage
> of available
> > > bandwidth on the network, that they may feel it is more cost
> > > effective to remove
> > > that group rather than pay for an upgrade.
> > >
> > > Never going to happen? I think if it can be done due to
modem
> > > contention, it can
> > > be done for bandwidth contention.
> > >
> >
> > You seem to forget that when you sign up for ADSL you are made
> aware of the
> > fact that there is a contention ratio of either 50 or 20 to 1
> depending on
> > the service
>
> I did not forget this, you don't know me so don't assume my level
> of knowledge.
>
>
>
> > If 50 users sign up at a local exchange and spend 24 hours
> > streaming media down from their selected ISP then each user is
> only going to
> > be able to get just over 10K of bandwidth. No more or less than
> they have
> > paid for.
>
> On a local scale I agree with the theory, with the exception that
> it is not
> acceptable to be reduced to such an extent. However, I am looking
> at this on a
> nation wide scale not a local one. BT does not have infinite
> bandwidth available
> and high bandwidth connections are going to stretch their
> capabilities more and
> more all the time. How long do you think it's going to be before
> we find 512Kbps
> slow and unusable? How long before WAN links reach speeds we're
> more used to on
> a LAN? The technology exists and will probably hit the Far East
> and the US in
> the next five years or so.

I fact as it scales up it becomes easier and easier to add in new routes
upstream to cope with increased demand for bandwidth. My business partners
in Houston are constantly monitoring bandwidth requirements on their
network. The ground rules vary between ISPs, but they use a 70% average
utilisation as a rough rule of thumb. Obviously if at peak times the
traffic
is utilising 100% of available bandwidth then something needs to be done.
For the sort on analysis backbone providers do, take a look at
http://west-boot.mfnx.net/traffic/#lhr.
With BT finally getting competition
through LLU, if they don't increase backbone capacity sufficiently
customers
will walk. I remember when I first started using the net ('94) that if you
wanted to surf US sites from the UK, and download any large files (5Mb
plus)
even at 28.8k, the only way to do so without interminable hold ups, was to
go on at about 7am in the morning. Even with huge increases in use (numbers
of users, plus individual connect speeds), the backbone has actually done
more than catch up. Even downloading at 7-8 o'clock in the evening now,
where traffic to East Coast sites is at its peak I achieve data rates which
are limited by my local connection speed.

>
>
>
> > In reality most internet traffic is burst which is why
> > 'overbooking' is feasible throughout the network. How else do
> you think that
> > ISPs can cope with only 155Mbps connections to the US?
>
> Most ISP's can cope with 155Mbps connections because the vast
> majority of users
> in the UK currently use no more than 56Kbps modems. That is
> starting to change,
> and when the majority use 512Kbps or greater connections and
> realise they can
> access far more content intensive media combined with web
> developers providing
> for a market with far greater bandwidth, this will fall far short
> of usable.
>
I have been monitoring Above-nets status for the past 6 months now which
takes a lot of corporate as well as consumer traffic, and although the
utilisation has increased so has network capacity! This is one of the main
reasons I took out my DSL contract with Iomart.

Sorry this turned into a pissing contest - I didn't intend it that way.
Makes a change from Epods, at least.

Tim.