(ot) FAO ADSL users.

Why do I need evidence of what you or anyone else is downloading? I'm not the isp. I am just telling you why I think the people have been moved to the other PN pipe. You don't like the fact it's been done, I don't care the fact it's been done, all I care about is "my" connection that I pay money for, if you don't like the ISP, move. No one is stopping you infact plusnet most prob want this.

Make sure you close the door behind you.

There is sufficient fibre laid in the UK to meet all needs through to at least 2010. There's no current program to install more, because there's no profit to be had from installing more.

Linx don't have an oversupply because they only buy what they need, it's good business to run at the limits. That doesn't mean that there is a shortage of installed capacity though.

No you can't. You can tell me what your prejudice is, but there's no way that you can tell me with certainty what all those users are doign with their bandwidth.

I can see you believe it, but belief doesn't make it so.

It's not a fact, it's your best guess.

No, I'm tempted to serve papers on him becuase he's made an unfounded and untrue allegation that he refuses to retract.

So stay with them then

Hence why I typed what was above

And ISP's who quote "unlimited" are asking for trouble, Pipex removed the unlimited from there site because they can't provide you with unlimited bandwidth, So whats the problem?

When Pipex start harping on about you downloading all day, then perhaps your argument will hold.

I've noticed ^

The ISP can tell you with all certainty, its not hard for them to find out.

It must have some truth in it, or this would not have happened

Heh, willy waving is so silly on Usenet, especially when you know nothing about the person you are waving a willy at. Even more so when as in Ron's case it's such a small and deformed one.

Indeed, they offered a service they could not provide at a price they could not afford. The only party to the contract who could have know this was Plusnet.

It was in the hands of Plusnet to be fair and open about the nature of their service by stating that users must confine themselves to (X) volume of downloads. If they wanted to be fairer they could have stated that there was some flexibility in this approach, just as they used to do with dialup accounts.

Not only that, but Plusnet new, from the start, that they had encountered similar problems in the past, and that this policy would cause those problems to come to the fore again. It is not as Ron and Mason have tried to present it poor little old Plusnet being done to badly by its customers.

Plusnet has also compounded it's problems by attempting to remove the evidence of their claims from their website. When I saw the (silent) changes made to the broadband FAQ I really thought they were scraping the barrel.

And I repeat again, I'm not one of the customers that Plusnet refer to. I'm not outraged for myself, I'm outraged on the behalf of others who have been sold a pig in a poke only to find the seller trying to steal back the pig and the poke.

But fortunately not from Google or from the Wayback Machine.

Googling for "Steve Firth" and "Wanker" is even more entertaining

I just hate to see the "We can make whatever misleading advertisements we want" attitude, then the moaning that takes place when the customer believes those adverts.

Are you ready to grow up and apologise for claiming that I was one of the customers slandered by Plusnet yet?

They are now though Peter!

Ah your outraged because people who use tons of bandwidth are being moved to a connection dedicated to bandwidth hogs.

An act which they are well entitled to do, lets hope one day some kids move into your area and start raping your ISP's adsl connection, lets see how quick you start sticking up for them.

accept ?

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

I would say he is in the top 1.

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

I hope that you have proof of that.. er, actually I don't.

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

No, PIPEX have not removed the unlimited from their (see THEIR not THERE) site. Plus.net have as they are attempting to cover up their (again THEIR not THERE) fuckup.

Eh ? Again in English please.

Oh, the irony. Shame you cannot see it.

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

Care to explain why?

Nom is not, to the best of my knowledge a member of the staff of PLusnet, nor is he speaking in any official capacity for Plusnet. Indeed if he was the DPR would be *very* interested in what he has to say.

Can you really be this stupid? Do you really believe that if enough mud is thrown the person on the receiving end must have been guilty of "something"?

Illegal use of their service is strictly against Plusnet's T&Cs. They have adequate reason and the contractual right to drop that customer's connection without notice *if* they are making illegal use of their connaction. And the contract makes it clear that copyright theft is one damn good reason for dropping people.

Yet Plusnet have chosen not to do so. That spells out as clearly as it can be spelt out that Plusnet do not have a leg to stand on WRT claims that the use being made is illegal. And therefore you as a third party without access to network traffic records have even less justification to make such a claim.

Now, when are you going to grow up, be a man and apologise for the lies you told about me?