(ot) FAO ADSL users.

Doesn't it make Karoo look good Tim?

--=20 Conor

America: A democracy so successful, even the Ukranians copy it.

Reply to
Conor
Loading thread data ...

Doesn't it make Karoo look good Tim?

Reply to
Mason

:o) i also can't type today. Outstanding.

Mason

Reply to
Mason

BT aren't the only provider of backhaul. Kingston have no problems with

18,000 users in a small localised area hammering away at their broadband with no implemented contention. (T/C allow for 20:1 - 50:1 contention). And they recently removed the 1 gig/day caps from the lower services, and increased the 512 and 1024k plans to 768/1580k FOC.

The issue is not over right or wrong, it's over potential breach of contract or application of unfair and discriminatory contract terms. I sincerely doubt the few people it has affected will do anything other than move to a better ISP for their usage - pipex, openworld, whatever.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Yeah - we have customer services that answer in under 20 minutes and don't pass you to four other drpartments. We have uncapped and unlimited connections. The only problem with Karoo is the aggressive disconnections policy.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

You asked for opinion, you got it. The fact that you don't like the opinion is IMO irrelevant. No doubt you hoped for lots of saps all bleating "good one Plusnet".

You are of course tackling the problem at the wrong end, A&A are taking the approach of talking to their customers well in advance, exploring the options and of thrashing at BT who are obviously the ones taking the piss, not the customers.

Despite your claim that Plusnet have been open about this, the truth is that they have not. The only mail that they have put out is marketing spam suggesting customers move to a 2Mb conenction. Why, when the infrastructure obviously can't provide any benefit for the extra outlay?

Reply to
Steve Firth

Shysters.

Reply to
Johnny

I have neither disagreed with or tryed to rubbish anyones opinion neither have I said i dont like anyones opinon indeed I dont even disagree with some of them. I think that with all the anger in this thread you've lost that slightly :o)

I knew there would be a split of opinion and there has been. My expectations when posting this where no unrealistic.

Mason

Reply to
Mason

Hardly likely my clueless friend seeing as Karoo is limited to the Kingston Communications Telco network and is also the only ADSL provider on said network.

Reply to
Conor

I'm doing well. Only kicked twice this year, second time I didn't even notice.

Reply to
Conor

*rolls eyes*

No as in you accused me of spamming...and yet here you are :o)

Reply to
Mason

How am I spamming? I'm expressing an opinion about my ISP with a fellow subscriber of that ISP.

Reply to
Conor

*yawn*
Reply to
Ronny

Lol look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary, Oh wait I will do it for you hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

Shame they dont yet have the word "smacktard" in there.

Reply to
Ronny

That's what I said then..?

It's surprising that the 243 people's usage, can't be balanced by 80,000 light users. Seems to work this way with other ISPs, generally speaking. After all, they only represent about one in four hundred. If each was using 400 gigabytes, that's only an extra 1GB per user, on average.

But I can see how it is cheaper to supply the needs of light users. British Rail, for example, would be quite keen on having lots and lots of customers willing to buy season tickets, who then only made only one return trip to town each month, or so.

This is why I see it as highly dodgy, on your part. And why the 1GB a month usage on broadband indicates a pitifully low expectation and if your costing was based on that as a maximum usage, either you grotesquely misjudged how it works in the real world or you wanted to make claims you couldn't deliver to get customers in prior to reducing them to the cheapest sort to satisfy. I've no idea what best describes your company's attitude there, if either, but I'd certainly be annoyed and look into switching ISPs if I was being told mine was doing that.

Suit yourself. All it does is raise hackles and hurt your reputation.

It's just so much easier to allow download (and upload) speeds to go according to bandwidth used. If people use the system normally, they get fast downloads. If they have Bit Torrent quadrupling their bandwidth, after a few hours, the system slows down for them and by the end of the day, has slowed to something a few times faster than dialup instead.

That way, you're delivering all that you are promising, but would have to be reasonably clear about what that service will be. Would be "unlimited", also "unmetered", and the speeds quoted would be valid. Course, if you then set it up to deliver up to 0.03 GB a day while your competitors were offering a GB or more, you'd look like cheapskates anyway and the throttling would be really obvious and restrictive, so it might not be a good solution.

If you were marketing it at hardcore music and video downloaders as a service that can let them run 24/7 at full speed, the only reason you would have only

243 people using it the way it was marketed, would be because very few believed you except for the 80,000 with no real need for it.
Reply to
Questions

Yes, but define "impact our network" - one might be mistaken for thinking that by offering an "unlimited" service, the network would be designed to cope with all the users using it do the max bandwidth for as much time as they like. As it stands, plusnet are relying on the majority of users not doing this, and this is the only way they'll make a profit.

Peter

-- "The humble bic biro draws 13 beards, 9 devil moustaches and 49 penises on newspapers in it's lifetime."

Reply to
AstraVanMan

If they had enforced a sensible but realistic cap in the first place all this kerfuffle would never have needed to happen. If PlusNet had, say, offered an 80GB monthly download limit, which for the majority of users probably would be as good as unlimited (in terms of their usage), then the

243 users taking full advantage of the "unlimited"-ness of your service would either go elsewhere, or stop at the limit and pay for extra bandwidth.

Personally, an 80GB/month cap wouldn't put me off, and I'd probably be prepared to pay almost as much per month as for a so-called "unlimited" services. I'd guess 79,757 of your customers would feel the same way.

At the end of the day if these 640GB/month users are doing it for financial gain i.e. pirating DVDs etc., then surely they can rethink their strategy and factor in extra bandwidth charges into their costs. They'd still make plenty, until they're found out, that is.

Peter

-- "The humble bic biro draws 13 beards, 9 devil moustaches and 49 penises on newspapers in it's lifetime."

Reply to
AstraVanMan

What I don't get is that, at the end of the day, ecah of these 243 customers are costing PlusNet around £700/month each, which is just over £170k. The remaining 79757 customers are paying £22/month (this might not be right, but just for this, let's say it is), so in total revenue from them, they take in around £1.75 million. Surely it's better to just look at the overall figures, and if a decent profit is still being made, just let it be.

Peter

-- "The humble bic biro draws 13 beards, 9 devil moustaches and 49 penises on newspapers in it's lifetime."

Reply to
AstraVanMan

By dumping the 243 users they make an extra 170k / mth. That's another merc in the company car park and another ferrari in a directors garage.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

to be honest i dont know. The industry average is circa seven Gb per month.

Reply to
Mason

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.