PlusNet Broadband Option 3

Hi,

My parents are thinking of switching their current ISP.... At the moment we are with AOL, no problems with them but as they are currently paying

Check the speeds for the different protocols;

http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/quality_broadband/speed.shtml#Option3speeds

If you are happy with AOL (or any ISP) then IMO best if you can stay.

What I would do is phone AOL asking for your MAC, normally they try to get you to stay, so tell them you will stay if the knock

Hi Craig,

Thank you for showing an interest in our Broadband Product.

Whilst I can't comment directly on what sort of P2P speeds you'll be seeing (that's best coming from our customers!) but Gaming traffic is prioritised as "Titanium" on the Option 3 product. This should give good speeds at all times except in a few cases where we have not identified gaming traffic correctly. This will happen in instances where there are new games or when games suddenly decide to change the ports that they use for online gaming.

Why not ask in our Community Site?

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-Jan-08 11:43:48)

In reply to:

---

Also what are p2p speeds like?

---

See here for P2P restrictions on BBYW 3

Link

When I left Plusnet 12 months ago I was getting 30Kbps on all P2P connections regardless of Peers/Seeds on an 8Mb connection due to traffic shaping/rate limiting. I have friends who are with Plusnet and they still get similar results.

Compared to my now unmanaged connection which regularly hits 16000Kbps, it is, quite frankly, pathetic.

Subscribe to an ISP who do not shape or rate limit traffic for the best P2P results.

Lots of good advice below, but POD's experience of 12 months ago is a bit different now. Yes I agree, that it is unlikely that P2P during peak time will run flat out, but off peak it will. I was on an older package and even during peak time on P2Ps I was get between 1/3 and 2/3 of my line speed (1.5meg). Recently switched to the Pro package and I get full speed when I what with a 10gig peak limit.

We schedule all our downloads off peak, that fits to what we want but it might not fit everyones useage. You can make P2P work with PN, we can comfortably download 50-100 gig in total a month with 90% of that off peak.

I take it you parents can't get Be*?

In reply to:

---

Subscribe to an ISP who do not shape or rate limit traffic for the best P2P results.

---

... and for not so good speeds on gaming and http.

Edited by jelv (Thu 10-Jan-08 08:39:56)

In reply to:

---

... and for not so good speeds on gaming and http.

---

If an ISP doesn't shape or rate limit traffic, how can your statement be true?.

Hi Wingco,

I think Jelv was suggesting that some ISPs that do not shape or rate traffic will see poorer speeds on HTTP and gaming than they would with PlusNet.

Could you explain how that is possible James. I assume that if no intervention is applied by an ISP the line would run at line speed, bearing in mind of course the usual restrictions beyond an ISP's control.

Course.

If the ISPs network is saturated and has no traffic management then all protocols will come down at a slower speed.

Even when our network is full, Gaming and HTTP are still prioritised, ensuring that they come down as quickly as possible.

In reply to:

---

Even when our network is full, Gaming and HTTP are still prioritised, ensuring that they come down as quickly as possible.

---

When your network is full, everything slows down. The volume of traffic attempting to use the network will therefore be slower across all protocols. It's safe to say in that case, that prioritisation of gaming and HTTP within a congested network won't necessarily make it any faster across the internet than an unprioritised network.

Yes it will.

Because the traffic is prioritised above other traffic, the network should adapt to ensure that titanium/gold traffic comes down faster. That's the entire point of traffic management.

some protocols will be hit to create bandwidth for the high priority ones. Congestion typically comes from small number of protocol not across the board. p2p is a bandwidth hog that can dramatically effect gaming/http etc but p2p isn't really time dependant so reduce that protocol for the period of congestion to allow the more important time dependant ones bandwidth

I must admit to not having a technical background, and therefore tend to work on logic.
To me it's logical that if a network is congested it can only accept a finite number of connections at any one time, or deal with a finite amount of bandwidth.

Am I right/wrong in believing a situation could arise whereby a congested network could drop traffic at it's access point, or delay traffic at the access point, before it even gets to the inspection phase?.

I appreciate this could also happen to a network that doesn't employ prioritisation/shaping.

You probably need to read up on TCP flow and congestion control to see why (at least for TCP traffic) this isn't the case. My connection to my router is 100Mb/s, as is yours (probably), but if the two machines are talking directly to each other over ADSL then the connection between them is only 512kb/s (max upload speed). The PCs don't send data out at 100Mb/s and let the router throw most of it away - they 'sense' the overall bandwidth available and adapt themselves to it. So if you (PlusNet) then throttle the bandwidth somewhere in the middle to (say) 10kb/s the two ends will adapt and slow down. Another connection (not throttled) can then use all that is left.

The same isn't true for UDP itself - though higher layers of protocol will often do something similar.

So in your example, rather than the access point dropping all the traffic the endpoint will sense something is wrong and slow down (but this is done on a per connection basis!).

.

Edited by deleted (Thu 10-Jan-08 15:29:56)

"I must admit to not having a technical background, and therefore tend to work on logic.
To me it's logical that if a network is congested it can only accept a finite number of connections at any one time, or deal with a finite amount of bandwidth.

Am I right/wrong in believing a situation could arise whereby a congested network could drop traffic at it's access point, or delay traffic at the access point, before it even gets to the inspection phase?.

I appreciate this could also happen to a network that doesn't employ prioritisation/shaping. "


Yes you are correct. At some point any heavily conjested network connect will first slow down and then eventually stop working. Usually what happens before this is applications that are time sensitive stop working anyway. To get round this issue most companies not just ISP's use what is called quality of service. This means if the connection is congested that business / service critical traffic such as EMail, Citrix etc will be given priority and traffic that is not business critical will be dropped if needed.

This is the same approach Plusnet seem to use. Quality of service would only drop low priority traffic as last restort and normally limit it to an designed minimum level so traffic of that kind still flows.

I visualize something along the lines of a funnel. The wide end being customer facing, the spout being the feed into a network. We all accept that ISP's have more customers than actual connections available.

What I'm trying to understand is, if the wide end gets full with requests for various protocols before it even gets into the network for prioritisation, what happens then?.

In reply to:

---

We all accept that ISP's have more customers than actual connections available

---

Yep. Every 622Mbps Pipe will allow 32,000 connections, but obviously not everyone will remain logged on at the same time.

We're going over my technical knowledge here, so I'll apologise if I'm not answering the right question. Because we're able to drop bronze and/or silver traffic to ensure that we're meeting the demand for gold and titanium traffic this will then allow us to sustain speed on those protocols.

I'll see if Tommo is about. He knows everything.

In reply to:

---

but obviously not everyone will remain logged on at the same time.

---

Even with routers?. I never switch mine off

I'm speaking hypothetically James, but all I'm trying to establish is, if a managed network becomes heavily congested is it possible that some traffic is dropped before being prioritized?.

I think we need to define the funnel first. If the funnel is the core network routers then the funnel opening is effectively all the transit and peering links as well as the cross site links for access to the portals, etc.

The amount of traffic these links can handle is several times the amount that central pipes can handle. For example, there's a 10Gbps link to LoNAP but there's ~4Gbps of central capacity.

So the chance of getting to the point where the funnel is full and it drops traffic before identifying it is very very low simply because of how much extra traffic that actually needs to be.

You then have two funnels within that funnel I guess, the first is the Ellacoya which applies the rate limits and tags the traffic, the rate limits will reduce the amount of traffic and the priorities and then used in the second funnel, the ERXs to allow the higher priority traffic through above the lower and all the rest.

Now don't get me started on the BT network and whether or not that looks like a sieve.

Thanks James and Dave for your time on this. It's definately more technical than I can take in
Basically PN guarantee fast HTTP and gaming by slowing down all non time sensitive traffic. Non managed networks let all protocols compete with each other.

Is it possible to determine what the lag could be between the two on a good day?

I recall a discussion, a couple of years ago, about disconnecting idle connections (after a set time) because there was a finite number of connections that a central could support.

I'm guessing to make it a fair comparison you would have to have the same conditions/loads on identical networks, one with management, one without to see any really differences

Yep.

As per my earlier post, this is 32,000 connections per central.

I'm assuming that "automatic disconnects" was just one of the ideas being tossed around as it's never happened to me and wouldn't have proved very popular, I suspect.

[Edit - Dave answered you, but here's what I wrote before he did]

We need one of Dave's analogies really, but as he's busy I think he'd give you something like this:

Imagine a 50 lane motorway (our connection to the Internet), changing to a normal 3 lane motorway (BTs ADSL Infrastructure), then widening up to a 6 lane motorway (Our customers networks at home).

Because the 3 lane motorway is the bottleneck, there isn't room for all the traffic that wants to get through. Instead of allowing a free for all though through the bottleneck, we have introduced a new by-law along the lines of 'any traffic on which is urgent can travel in a prioritised lane'. Slower traffic is assigned other lanes and we can vary the width of the lanes and choose how much traffic is allowed down each lane at any time to ensure there is always enough room for the priority traffic.

We decide what traffic is allowed to travel in the fast lane before it gets to the motorway and mark it by painting it with a coloured blob. Traffic with the right coloured blob is directed to the appropriate lane on the motorway and there are queues on the entrance to some lanes (but once it's travelling it all goes at the speed limit). Fortunately, IP is better behaved than humans or else this analogy wouldn't work!

Now, if the 50 lane motorway ever got full, then true enough there isn't any prioritisation before the prioritisation three lane motorway, but as has already been explained that isn't likely to happen due the nature of TCP/IP.

I'm not sure Dave would put his name to that, or if it's any help, but I thought it worth a try!

Ian

Edited by IanWild (Thu 10-Jan-08 18:20:24)

Really?

My connection on Sky is perfect for....

Gaming, P2P, and HTTP, VPN, RDP, and every thing else I have tried. As well as no limits or traffic shaping.

In reply to:

---

Because the 3 lane motorway is the bottleneck, there isn't room for all the traffic that wants to get through.

---

That's my point Ian, if hypothetically, the congestion occurs prior to reaching the PN network all traffic will be slower as it hasn't reached the point at which PN can mark it with a coloured blob yet.

I accept that applies to all ISP's. I now understand better how HTTP and games traverse PN's network faster than other protocols. I am trying to put the various claims into perspective.

To claim faster HTTP and gaming traffic than others without the caveat that this only applies on the host network is slightly misleading. Due to other circumstances outside of the particular networks control.

This is why I question what jelv wrote.

Yep, not something you could easily make a comparison of but one way of thinking, when a central pipe starts getting full you'll see ping spikes, packet loss and slowdowns.

On our network we control what gets affected by the priority so we say that lower priority traffic gets slowed down and higher priority doesn't.

So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP, 20ms pings on gaming and your VoIP call is perfect but your P2P is reduced to say 192kbps.

The same situation on the unmanaged pipe might reduce your speed to 512kbps which you get on both the P2P and HTTP but at the expense of a 50-250ms fluctuating in game ping and random packet loss cutting your VoIP call off every 30 seconds.

In reply to:

---

That's my point Ian, if hypothetically, the congestion occurs prior to reaching the PN network all traffic will be slower as it hasn't reached the point at which PN can mark it with a coloured blob yet.

---

Isn't that the effect that exchange congestion gives you?

In reply to:

---

... and for not so good speeds on gaming and http.

---

I have been with two different ISP's since leaving Plusnet 12 months ago.

Neither ISP uses any form of shaping or rate limiting at all.

All three are on a par regarding gaming with excellect pings and no lag.

Regarding HTTP, browsing with Plusnet may be fine but HTTP servers are rate limited on all but one account option.

All protocols are rate limited with Plusnet at some point during the day, including some HTTP websites at all times.

In this respect the two other ISP's outshine Plusnet by not rate limiting, and it certainly makes a lot of difference.

In reply to:

---

some protocols will be hit to create bandwidth for the high priority ones.

---

Which is why the Plusnet network drops Gold packets at peak times.

My parents sky connection is ok but not good for gaming, P2P etc. They used to be with BT and sync'ed at full speed for ADSL. Now with sky off peak gaming pings are 50ms and download speeds are not too hot. So what ever they are up to is not very good in their experience.

In reply to:

---

Because we're able to drop bronze and/or silver traffic to ensure that we're meeting the demand for gold and titanium traffic this will then allow us to sustain speed on those protocols.

---

Did you forget to mention that you also drop Gold traffic?

In reply to:

---

So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP

---

Though not on the various HTTP protocols that Plusnet rate limit.

Which ISP's were you with ?

In reply to:

---

Isn't that the effect that exchange congestion gives you?

---

Exactly, which affects all ISP's. So advertising low latency and low pings is something any ISP can only guarantee within their network.

The implication that just because an ISP manages/prioritizes traffic leads to a better gaming experience is misleading. Due to circumstances outside it's control this is not always the case. Exchange congestion, peering congestion, games server congestion all play a part.

I want to make it clear that this isn't a dig at PN. It's a response to jelv's post. He implies that because HTTP and gaming traffic are prioritized that they are faster than an ISP who doesn't manage the network in the same way.

In reply to:

---

Because the traffic is prioritised above other traffic, the network should adapt to ensure that titanium/gold traffic comes down faster.

---

In reality the titanium queue, the highest priority queue, can only accept a small amount of traffic. It is normally reserved for network management protocols, routing protocols and VoIP to guarantee latency. Traffic in other queues is slowed down as it passes through the Ellacoya switches and slowed again as it passes through the QoS implemented on the ERXs (I'm presuming you still use those devices). HTTP on PN will be slower than any uncontended ISP. If gaming traffic sits in titanium, it may be as quick as an uncontended ISP, if gold, it will be slower.

In reply to:

---

That's the entire point of traffic management.

---

The point of your traffic management is to manage the bandwidth, speed is only a factor when traffic sits in the titanium queue.

TT

In reply to:

---

I'm speaking hypothetically James, but all I'm trying to establish is, if a managed network becomes heavily congested is it possible that some traffic is dropped before being prioritized?

---

You need to remember that PN rate-limit the likes of p2p traffic during peak hours for a large majority of their users. Traffic is dropped at the Ellacoya and then again at the ERX if the BT centrals or the individual customer rate-limit is reached. If they're dropping traffic elsewhere, then it is not by design.

TT

In reply to:

---

Though not on the various HTTP protocols that Plusnet rate limit.

---

And certainly not for HTTP to the likes of EasyNews, GigaNews etc.

TT

I am sure i read somewhere that with sky you have to ask to be put on some sort of special tier or something to get better latency for gaming.

In reply to:

---

And certainly not for HTTP to the likes of EasyNews, GigaNews etc.

---

Plusnet also rate limit HTTP traffic from hosting peers such as Akamai which include a lot of very popular websites on their customer list and by no means includes all of the rate limited websites.
Popular rate limited sites include:

Amazon
Adobe
BBC
Grisoft
Logitech
McAfee
Nintendo
PC World
Reuters
Thomas Cook
Warner Music
Yahoo
etc etc etc

Edited by deleted (Thu 10-Jan-08 23:39:54)

I would suggest find out what it is like NOW - not what it used to be like.

HTTP is not rate limited - gold drops are about as common as hen's teeth!

If their gaming is poor, it can be improved by having your Max Delays lowered.

As for P2P maybe a rule in the router was missed or perhaps they are on the BT product that Sky offer, called Connect?

Sky block no ports whatsover, nor do they rate limit any protocol on the LLU Packages, Base, Mid or Max.

edit: typo

Edited by soundsystem (Fri 11-Jan-08 01:55:10)

I don't believe that's the reality of it but I accept it is possible because that is how the system is probably design. I'm not aware of gold packets dropping currently...do you have some evidence of this or is it just hearsay on your part?

PlusNet customers can see the packet drop statistics graphs for each pipe. It would not be true to say that there are no gold drops on any pipes. They show 0 on 3 out of 8 in the past 24 hours with the gold drops on the others between 0.0002% and 0.0226% on the other 5. That is between 2 and 226 per million.

This thread seems to have gone off track. The original poster was asking if Plusnet would meet their needs for gaming, P2P and customer service.

In my experience as a current customer the staff at Plusnet are helpfull and friendly. Them being based in the UK is a great help unlike the cheaply outsourced helpdesks such as BT and TalkTalk.

The gaming performance is very good with low and stable pings (20ms approx) for all games I play (COD4, BF2,CS,BF2142) at any time of the day. On UK gaming servers I normally have one of the lowest pings. The only issue is games not set as high priority will not perform well unless you are on the PRO package.

P2P works fine during off peak but can be slower at peak at times. This is not a major problem for me as I don't really use P2P. When I do I schedule it for off peak times. Other people may want to be able to download P2P at full speed any time of the day.

The above discusion about traffic management is interesting but what really matters is what current customers think of the service and that it is clearly explained for potential new customers on Plusnets website. It would be unfortunate if anyone thought the people who have posted in this thread that are not recent / current Plusnet customers are commenting on their current Plusnet experience for performance, reliablity and customer service.

I for one am a current customer who is very happy with my connection but do not play on-line games and could not therefore comment to the op. I was trying to provide real data on the sub-thread rather than people relying on outdated hearsay.

Sorry I just replied to you as you were the last poster

In reply to:

---

HTTP is not rate limited - gold drops are about as common as hen's teeth!

---

Not all HTTP is rate limited but as stated certain HTTP sites most definitely are. The majority of HTTP download servers are rate limited, as are all Akamai hosted sites.

Every peak time, every day Gold packets are dropped by the network as it becomes busier, this is a cap from last night for example:

Link

Check out this page tonight and see the Gold packets dropping:

Link

Thank you for proving my point - the graph show less than 0.05% of interactive (gold) packets dropped at peak but for most of the time it's too low to register (probably zero).

Popular rate limited sites include:

Amazon
Adobe
BBC
Grisoft
Logitech
McAfee
Nintendo
PC World
Reuters
Thomas Cook
Warner Music
Yahoo
etc etc etc
-----

Presumably this information is published on the PN portal somewhere but I'm finding it hard to reconcile the above with the unqualified statements by PN reps in this thread, viz:

"So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP, 20ms pings on gaming and your VoIP call is perfect but your P2P is reduced to say 192kbps."
Mr Tomlinson

"Even when our network is full, Gaming and HTTP are still prioritised, ensuring that they come down as quickly as possible."
Mr Bailey

The truth would appear to be that only low-traffic websites enjoy maximum throughput...or at least that many of the most popular websites don't enjoy the maximum throughput that PlusNet claim for HTTP.

Are customers being conned?

Simon

Simon, I think that this is the link that you are looking for.

What complete and utter twaddle!

I've just download the 22.32MB Adobe Acrobat Reader from Adobe in exactly 30 seconds. That's an average speed of 761.9 K/s.

Edit: Not directed particularly at you Simon. But I do get fed up with such blatant rubbish being posted. What matters most is the customer experience - when did you last see anyone complaining about browsing performance unless they either were having line problems, or they had reached a limit on their account and wee being restricted.

Edited by jelv (Fri 11-Jan-08 22:14:48)

In reply to:

---

But I do get fed up with such blatant rubbish being posted.

---

Like this you mean?
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plusnet&Number=3231704

are we being conned? it depends if POD is making it up or not and looking at Brightd link, it doesn't really back up his statement. I think he needs to provide some factual evidence rather than hearsay before as a customer I can make that choice......anyway I think we have gone OTT again !

You are not being conned, Plusnet staff openly admit that all Akamai servers are rate limited.

Why not ask them?

In reply to:

---

Are customers being conned?

---

Conned is a bit of a strong word as it has been openly admitted in the past.

The Plusnet network has become so convoluted that most subscribers will have no idea of the many restrictions in place on their connection.

But yes, I agree, statements such as this;

"So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP, 20ms pings on gaming and your VoIP call is perfect but your P2P is reduced to say 192kbps."

are inaccurate because of Plusnet rate limiting HTTP. You would have to do a lot of research to be able to refute a statement such as this and realise, in fact, it is not the case.

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 03:22:52)

Thanks. Is that a deceptive list then? The named sites are understandable and would not matter to the majority of customers but the unnamed/hidden sites lumped together under the unrecognisable (to most) "Akamai" server would be familiar to the majority of customers and - assuming that Pod is correct - would constitute a very significant exception to PlusNet's claims for top-speed HTTP.

If true, PlusNet must surely a) stop making unqualified claims about maximum speed HTTP and b) publish on their website the full list of popular sites, such as MySpace, which are rate limited.

Simon

In reply to:

---

The named sites are understandable and would not matter to the majority of customers but the unnamed/hidden sites lumped together under the unrecognisable (to most) "Akamai" server would be familiar to the majority of customers and - assuming that Pod is correct - would constitute a very significant exception to PlusNet's claims for top-speed HTTP.

---

Precisely.

"Akamai's customers include 29 of the top 30 media and entertainment companies, most of the top social networking Web sites, and more than half of the top 50 Internet retailers." [Business Week]

Microsoft - including Windows update, rate limited
iTunes - rate limited

The list goes on and on with a bit of research, several thousand major websites utilising Akamai hosting servers, equating to millions, potentially billions of webpages, all HTTP rate limited.

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 03:36:32)

Are you confusing people who use Akamai systems with the cryptic Akamai 1-5 in the list brightd linked.

At just after 10pm last night I downloaded from Adobe.com at 761K/s - only the tiniest fraction short of the speed I got on the TBB speedtester a few minutes later.

If that site is rate limited and that is the extent of the limiting then I think this is a total none issue!

I have used a variety of downloads from the microsoft web site at peak times and all came down at line speed.

I tried some of the others you mentioned in your list all came down at line speed.

If what you said was true I would not have seen these results.

Sorry but I'm not going to do the work to support a statement you made.. YOU provide the evidence

Alot of assumptions and if's there. You need to get some current real life experience of Plusnet's service rather than assume and if about theoretical problems and then state their impact on current users as fact.

Exactly, a poster that is taking us back to the bad old days. Its not like that in my experience, but hey we are only current customers, how would WE know what we are talking about

I would not feed him mate.

A lot of assumptions and if's there. You need to get some current real life experience of Plusnet's service rather than assume and if about theoretical problems and then state their impact on current users as fact.
-----
Thanks for the advice but I haven't stated anything "as fact" so please don't misquote me. However, here are a few facts:

1. PlusNet slows down selected websites during busy periods
2. PlusNet slows down web traffic on 'Akamai 1-5" hosted servers during busy periods
3. Akamai hosts many popular websites including MySpace, BBC, Yahoo, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, etc.

If I had a PlusNet account it wouldn't change these facts one iota.

Now, it may be that PlusNet doesn't slow down all Akamai hosted websites (and they will presumably be quick to say so if that is the case) but they should clarify which of those popular sites are slowed at busy times -- and they should stop making sweeping claims about top-speed HTTP without qualification.

Simon

Hi there,

There is a list of all the sites that are limited and as per the page this is only when the network is busy:

http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/quality_broadband/download_servers.shtml

Hope that helps,

Is PAYG rate limited at all?

The restrictions apply to accounts that rate limit download servers [Akamai hosts] during peak times, ie;

Option 1,2,3 and BB Plus, not sure about Option 4.

"Windows Update uses Akamai and as you'll see from the following page, this will means that speeds from there will be restricted to 1Mbps from 4pm until midnight." Metronet_James

"Certain download sites like Akamai and Rapidshare as well as FTP are rate limited at certain times but are treated as gold." DaveTomlinson

I do not need to prove anything, unless Plusnet decide to sue me for libel, I am not dumb enough to put myself in that situation knowing that Plusnet have threatened litigation in the past.

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 13:43:17)

Do you have any evidence that Akamai 1-5 host the BBC web pages? (I know that Akamai host BBC sites - but what does the 1-5 mean?).

Certainly under the list of sites there are a set of IP address ranges and if I set up wireshark to capture packets to/from these address ranges and browse the BBC site then I capture no packets at all - this includes watching video clips, listening to radio (live and previous shows). Note that if I download from Adobe then I do capture packets.

"I do not need to prove anything"

---

"I do not need to prove anything"

---

And?

Thanks Graham - You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The list of Akaimai servers there doesn't reflect the entire service provided by Akaima, and Akamai isn't used to serve all of the content supplied by their customers either. Dave covered this topic in some detail in one of his Blog entries:Akamai and the tale of the download servers.

The idea is to prevent an impact such as this. What we try to achieve is that non time critical traffic like big MS Updates is prevented from swamping higher priority time sensitive traffic, such as that used for streaming traffic.

That's not easy with Akamai but we do speak to them regularly and are working on ways we can make this process more transparent to avoid any confusion (I'd also welcome suggestions on how we can explain this better). If ANY customer can point to an example of where we've got this wrong and it causes an issue with delivery of any time sensitive content, we'd want to hear about it and would definitely make it a priority find an appropriate way to put that right.

Ian

Edited by IanWild (Sat 12-Jan-08 14:14:29)

Post deleted by wingco1

HI, THIS WAS IN REPLY TO THE POST THAT WINGCO1 HAS NOW DELETED WITH REFERENCE TO GAMING PERFORMANCE ON PLUSNET. (sorry for the edit)

Hi,

When I play BF2142, BF2 etc on UK servers that are well hosted rather than being on low spec hardware and behind congested links my pings vary from about 15ms to about 25ms and are normally around 20ms. When I had 4 of us on my 2Mb link playing BF2142 etc for a few hours the pings were slightly higher at around 20-25ms. That gives you an idea of the performance people can get on well hosted servers via Plusnet.

When I join gaming servers I always have one of the lowest pings on the servers. This means even if the server is badly hosted I still get a low ping relative to other players. This means via Plusnet I get consistently lower pings thaN other people playing on line gaming.

The other important thing for gaming is to have a stable connection as well. Having a ping that varies between 1ms and 200ms is not helpfull. Again with Plusnet I get a ping that is not only lower than other gamers but also very stable. This was even true with 4 of us gaming across my 2Mb link, there was no lag and no disconnections except when a gaming server died !

Thats means in my experience yes I do get low stable gaming pings which is what gamers want. Also yes the majority of the time unless I go on a server abroad I do have one of the lowest pings on the server.

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 16:05:23)

Replying to myself now but here a few quick tips to improve peoples gaming pings.

Your gaming ping is really made up of 3 parts. The place where the server is hosted, your ISP and your home PC setup. The first part you can do little about, the second you need to choose an ISP which provides good stable gaming pings such as Plusnet, an entanet reseller, Zen etc.

For your Home PC :-

(1) If you internet router has a firewall built in when gaming ONLY you can turn off any AV and Firewall type software on your PC. This reduces your ping and improves the games performance. DO NOT turn off any AV type software for anything else other than gaming

(2) Play on servers in the same country as you. The closer the server is all things being equal the lower and more stable your ping will be. For BF2142 this is easy enough but for COD4 try using XFire as the in game browser is not very good.

(3) Make sure no unneeded programs like P2P clients, autoupdaters and other programs are running in the backgrouns when you are on line gaming. They will impact the performance of your PC and increase your ping.

(4) Use a wired and not wireless connection as it will be more stable and reliable.

Hope that helps people out a bit

I don't believe there is any difference between the gold traffic on PAYG and gold on any other accounts (until after they reach the allowances).

That's not easy with Akamai but we do speak to them regularly and are working on ways we can make this process more transparent to avoid any confusion (I'd also welcome suggestions on how we can explain this better).
-----
By "not easy" do you mean that you don't know which of their hosted websites and services you are restricting or that you do know but have no way to refine your filtering so that busy-but-interactive sites such as MySpace and Amazon are excluded from your throttling?
-----
If ANY customer can point to an example of where we've got this wrong and it causes an issue with delivery of any time sensitive content, we'd want to hear about it and would definitely make it a priority find an appropriate way to put that right.
-----
What about potential new customers who soak up PlusNet's spin about top-speed HTTP without realising that there are some major exceptions? Are you able to list all the sites and services which you restrict - by name rather than IP address or range so that everyone can see the whole truth?

Simon

and out goes your credibility.........

In reply to:

---

I do not need to prove anything, unless Plusnet decide to sue me for libel, I am not dumb enough to put myself in that situation knowing that Plusnet have threatened litigation in the past.

---

But you said PN told you this information, if this is true they don't have a leg to stand on if the sue you for libel. Your just talking rubbish then and your not here to help PN customers just cause confusion, do you get a kick from PN baiting?

It would clear up much of the confusion is you explained what:

German Mirror site
Ireland Mirror site
Kent Mirror site

Akamai 1-5

mean in practice. How the [censored] [censored] is a user supposed to know if www.abc.com is on one of those?

It has been suggested that adobe.com is affected, yet I downloaded at 761K/s at 10pm.

Sorry about the deleted post, but I hadn't explained what I was trying to if that makes sense

My point was, as you have pointed out, low pings depends on a number of factors not all of which is under the control of the ISP. Therefore a claim that you will see 20ms pings to game servers is unrealistic. Due to my line length, location and point of access to the internet, I haven't seen a 20ms ping to anywhere, and I sync at 8128/448 with speeds of 6500+. The same applies to claims of "faster HTTP", faster than what/who?. It is only faster across the bit PN can control which is their network.

Exchange congestion, peering congestion outside server congestion is outside of PN's control.

Don't you think if there were 'major exceptions' and POD statement, that you are basing your line of discussion, was true, that the current set of customer would be complaining and highlighting the facts? I haven't seen it here and I don't see the HTTP issues POD has declared when using my connection.

Your looking for a major conspiracy that PN are trying to hide and I just don't think it's there

Your looking for a major conspiracy that PN are trying to hide and I just don't think it's there
-----
I'm looking for openness and honesty - for potential new customers as much as existing customers. It would appear not to be true that all HTTP traffic goes through PlusNet at top speed and yet new customers who read the forums are given the impression by PlusNet reps that all HTTP is top priority. Or is it your impression that these significant exceptions are made clear?

Simon

Your right its not true link
I have not got the impression ALL HTTP is top priority from PN reps. I agree the above page perhaps need to be clearer to avoid people muddying the waters, but it is an open and honest statement in my opinion

Okey dokey -- and is this an open and honest statement in your opinion:

""So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP, 20ms pings on gaming and your VoIP call is perfect but your P2P is reduced to say 192kbps." "?

Simon

"My point was, as you have pointed out, low pings depends on a number of factors not all of which is under the control of the ISP."

Very true e.g. servers abroad, badly hosted servers etc


"Therefore a claim that you will see 20ms pings to game servers is unrealistic."

Again very true if you offered a guarentee that all the connections to all game servers would be 20ms or better that would be untrue. But as I said with 4 people on my link we all connected to the same internet BF2142 gaming server with pings from 20-25ms. That is very good gaming performance.

"Due to my line length, location and point of access to the internet, I haven't seen a 20ms ping to anywhere, and I sync at 8128/448 with speeds of 6500+. "

If the tips in my previous post don't help and then you need to change ISP or raise a fault call with your current ISP to get low gaming pings. Ping is not related to what speed and sync you get unless you are on a very,very long line or you keep maxing out your link from your end. I get a 2Mb connection and get low / stable gaming pings. That is less than one third the speed you get but I get low stable gaming pings at any time of the day. I would speak to your ISP.

In reply to:

---

Again very true if you offered a guarentee that all the connections to all game servers would be 20ms or better that would be untrue.

---

Is that not what is being suggested?.

In reply to:

---

"So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP, 20ms pings on gaming and your VoIP call is perfect but your P2P is reduced to say 192kbps."

---

Whereas the BBPro blurb quite rightly says, "Low latency and pings".

In reply to:

---

If the tips in my previous post don't help and then you need to change ISP or raise a fault call with your current ISP to get low gaming pings.

---

If I was currently using PN I probably would raise a fault call on the strength of the above quote. However we both know what the outcome would be don't we

Kent Mirror site is what used to be mirror.ac.uk (The others are the same content hosted on the Irish and German mirrors). I will speak to Dave on Monday and see if we can find a way to describe that better. We will see what we can do to improve the description about Akamai too, although listing specific sites doesn't work because those servers are used to distribute download content rather than serve websites.

I don't disagree that as we've set out our stall to be the clearest ISP around, we should make sure we do that. If we end up stating that something affects a lot more than it actually does in practice then so be it, but I don't see how that helps anyone. The most important thing is that sites and services work for customers and that we meet customer expectations at all times. If there was ever an example of that not being the case it would be something we would go out of our way to resolve.

Another thing that matters in this discussion is that the difference between traffic priority and speed is recognised. They are not the same. A site like Myspace doesn't stream music at higher rates than the rate limits, so it will be much more affected if there were dropped packets than it would be by a rate limit at a speed higher than the bandwidth being served!! That makes a rate limit totally irrelevant for many of the other examples in this thread which don't serve their content faster than the speeds we are talking about either. It's also worth noting that as per Dave's blog post those rate limits are the most we would set rather than being what is always set.

The fact is that most people are not going to be very interested in a message about us having 'top http speeds' or similar. It's much more important that we can honestly say that everything our customers want to do online will work well and where there are speed restrictions (designed to apply to non time sensitive traffic) that we explain why that is the case. This is after all precisely how we can offer better value for a quality service than other ISPs, which makes a far more compelling message for most people.

The last thing we want to do is be accused of misleading anyone when we are working so hard to do precisely the opposite.

Ian

Edited by IanWild (Sat 12-Jan-08 17:51:19)

Lets put this into perpsective.

If you check the forums of ISP's such as Orange, Virgin, Talk Talk etc they have alot of different people complaining about issues around support and quality of service. You rarely if ever see any reps from those ISP's on the forums. There are also alot of posts about people trying to leave. Their websites vaguely promise unlimited broad band and how great their support is etc.

On the Plusnet forum here they do not have alot of different people complaining about issues around support and quality of service. The ISP's reps are frequent visitors and try to help people out and clear up anything that is not clear. There are not a lot of people coming to this forum asking to leave Plusnet. Plusnets website gives more information than most on how their products work and how they view the provision of their service. The main source for complaints is ex customers from a long time ago who no longer have any recent experience of the quality of service Plusnet provide.



When were you last a customer of Plusnet ?

Maybe a slightly amended version which includes the assumptions I made.

""So for a 2Mbps connection you still get 2Mbps on HTTP (assuming you are downloading from a web server that can supply you with 2Mbps of throughput that the server isn't one that is included in the HTTP download site/server list and a rate limit is applied at the time you are downloading, no exchange contention is affecting the speed of your connection and no other traffic is being used on your connection, 20ms pings on gaming assuming that you can ping the game server at 20ms and that you (very likely) don't have interleaving on the line and your VoIP call is perfect assuming the VoIP supplier has no problems with their service and your headset works fine but your P2P is reduced to say 192kbps assuming that the source you can download from can supply you with 192kbps." "?

I'm sure someone can come up with more assumptions that I've missed out

Edit: Made the first line clearer as to what I meant.

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 18:17:36)

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 18:47:35)

Just out of interest which ISP is it that is giving you poor gaming pings ?

Edited by deleted (Sat 12-Jan-08 18:56:48)

So a more considered reply would have been appropriate after all

There you go your all happy now

You're missing the point. My post wasn't about support or QoS. It was about telling the truth.

That may well be sufficient reason for you to list everything under the sun that you can think of which isn't, in your opinion, broken but I didn't want to discuss all those things ... in much the same way that you don't want to talk about PlusNet making misleading statements about HTTP management.

So since we each seem to have a complete lack of interest in what the other wants to discuss, how about you don't reply to my posts and I won't reply to yours?

Simon

It depends on the context from the rest of the post. I believe it was meant to answer about how gaming pings are managed low at the expense of non time dependent apps, not a post about HTTP management. So I think it was honest and open, David was not delibrately trying to mislead but yes if a new customer took that single sentence as gospel and not in context then there could be confusion.

The only way to avoid any confusion and PN Rep remarks being taken out of context is for them not to post or each of their posts be checked by marketing, legal etc which could take days.

I for one think they post openly and honestly about the subject/discussion they are getting involved in but they can make mistakes, but this I believe is not a delibrate act.

I have an interest in what you are trying to discuss and am just keen to make sure it is put into perspective and people are aware you are posting as someone who has not been a plusnet customer for a long time now. I would not want some one to see this forum and think you were a current customer giving them advise about the current service Plusnet provide.

You are as anyone else is free to post whatever you want within the forum rules. You just have to accept that posting on a fourm means some people will have differing views to you. If you chose to accept those views is up to you.The original poster was asking about how people found Plusnet and I gave him my experience as a current customer.

When were you last a plusnet customer ?

In reply to:

---

When were you last a plusnet customer ?

---

You're starting to sound like another poster who frequents this forum

We will be if PlusNet remain open and honest about their management of the HTTP protocol. Mr Tomlinson hides his omission under a cloak of a dozen other reasons why HTTP might not run at top speed but the only ones that matter in this context are the ones over which PlusNet have control. So there's no need to list every extraneous reason under the sun for HTTP slowdowns so as to bury PlusNet's HTTP management deep in a heap of other possible reasons.

So I'll drink to no more misleading or incomplete statements from PN reps about HTTP speed in the future.

Simon

Thats the one question you will never answer isn't it

I for one think they post openly and honestly about the subject/discussion they are getting involved in but they can make mistakes, but this I believe is not a delibrate act.
-----
So will you permit me to think otherwise?

Simon

Plusnet seem to be trying to explain things the best they can. It is a difficult task in IT as different people have different levels of knowledge and experience. I write technical designs as part of my job and have to make sure they contain all the needed technical design as well as enough information for the business to understand. You often have to generalise while trying to provide enough information.

This is not an easy job to provide enough detail but make things clear to understand. The basic Plusnet approach seems to be interactive / time critical services get top priority followed by service which are not P2P / download intensive. Finally comes the P2P and heavy download bits like rapidshare. This is not a secret to me and from reading their website was one of the main reasons along with the UK support I joined Plusnet.

Feel free, you present one argument and I present another, I think its call debate.

I apologise if you feel I have attempted to suppress you in any way. Just giving the countpoint to your discussions. I'm assuming you are happy to accept a countpoints if not then I will no longer respond to any of you posts.

When were you last a plusnet customer ?
-----
So did you, as a PlusNet customer, point out for the OP's benefit that the PlusNet statements about HTTP speed in this thread were incomplete and misleading; or that their web page about managed HTTP traffic disguises the extent to which HTTP traffic is managed?

Or perhaps you just didn't know?

Simon

Plusnet seem to be trying to explain things the best they can
-----
I'm not sure what you base that judgment on. I said in my initial post that it would be understandable if non-interactive heavy download websites were rate limited (although PN still should be upfront about it rather than make sweeping claims for all HTTP traffic), but much more serious if a number of interactive websites were tarred with the same HTTP management brush simply because these sites were buried alongside non-interactive sites on the Akamai servers.

PlusNet must know whether interactive sites are being managed in this way; in which case their explanation leaves rather a lot to be desired in my humble opinion (as an ex-customer).

Simon

I think perhaps the mistake is to refer to full speed http: when the message should be full speed browsing.

That Plusnet provide full speed browsing is undoubtedly true - everything discussed here has related to some limitations at times of unusually heavy demand on downloading from particular sites.

What matters to potential users is what that will actually experience. So with the ISP's who claim "unlimited broadband" it is good that current users post saying how "unlimited" it is. On Plusnet all the current users who have posted attest that it is a good experience specifically in relation to browsing.

It is a shame that the owners of this site continue to allow a group of ex-users (who left Plusnet many months, if not years ago and who, for various reasons, hold grudges against Plusnet) to make posts about theoretical problems with the service offered by Plusnet, when the current Plusnet users are saying it is not an issue. The forays we regularly get into totally misleading discussions from this group of trolls considerably devalues the value of this site for potential users wanting to find out what the service offered by Plusnet is like in practice.

Being a user of the rapidshare website I was aware of the limiting of the HTTP traffic for download sites. For me this is not a problem but it is mentioned on the website. My main measure of an ISP is does it provide what I need in a way I find acceptable. For the moment Plusnet does. If that changed I would look into changing ISP. I did not point this out to the original poster as like I said in my previous post I gave a rough over view of how I found Plusnet. The OP was free to ask any questions to clarify what I said.

"The forays we regularly get into totally misleading discussions from this group of trolls considerably devalues the value of this site for potential users wanting to find out what the service offered by Plusnet is like in practice."

WOW - what a sweeping statement. The thread has been fairly civil. Perhaps those who are ex customers can see the difference with other ISP's and so have a benchmark to compare old from new.

Why on earth should any customer be dictated to what they can surf, and at what speed? Beats me how a customer base put up with it.

Yes Plusnet have been better recently, but look at what you get for your money now compared to what you did when I was a member. I used to get UNLIMITED (although only ever advertised for 6 weeks and please don't drag up the past, although I have all the webpages saved on one of my hard drives somewhere) when I was with Plusnet, for 21.99

And at that time Plusnet did let you have unlimited without restriction, but of course they will not admit that.

It would appear from your posting pattern Jelv, anyone who has a different point of view to yours, (who can back it up as well) is labelled a TROLL.

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 12-Jan-08 20:03:19)

... and I'll drink to ex-users who have no current experience and who speculate on what they think the service may be like in theory shutting up and leaving current users who know what the service is like practice to let potential users know what they will actually experience.

Simon - you didn't answer the perfectly reasonable question at the end of the post.

When were you last a customer of Plusnet?

having read this thread it would seem that you are starting to nitpick. if there was loads of complaints about slow web pages etc then i could understand but for a while now its been very quiet. and if it wasnt for the cheapness of sky i would go with plusnet as at the time i changed plusnet were very poor . but i believe they have certainly turned the corner and the info you get on their web pages are certainly a lot more informative thatn others. and maybe that is the problem here , in that they may be too open and therefore it makes it easier for people to scrutinise with a fine tooth comb everything they say and do.

In reply to:

---

Perhaps those who are ex customers can see the difference with other ISP's and so have a benchmark to compare old from new.

---

Can you please explain the relevance of comparisons with the current performance of other ISP's with the performance of Plusnet one or two years ago?

When were you last a Plusnet user?

In reply to:

---

Why on earth should any customer be dictated to what they can surf, and at what speed?

---

That is exactly why current users of Plusnet are so happy. The network is optimised so that (barring restrictions outside of Plusnet's control) that is always full speed.

There you go talking about the theory again - why won't you accept the current experience of current users?

In reply to:

---

When were you last a plusnet customer ?
-----
So did you, as a PlusNet customer, point out for the OP's benefit that the PlusNet statements about HTTP speed in this thread were incomplete and misleading; or that their web page about managed HTTP traffic disguises the extent to which HTTP traffic is managed?

Or perhaps you just didn't know?

Simon

---

Politicians are notorious for not answering questions.

But quoting a very direct, simple question and then giving a reply which has no relevance to the question whatsoever really does take the biscuit!

(Where's Jeremy Paxman when you need him?) When were you last a plusnet customer ?

In reply to:

---

There you go talking about the theory again -

---

There you go slagging anyone off who doesn't support your opinion . As has been said until you arrived this thread was being conducted in a civil manner. Now you use language that you used to complain about in times gone by .

If you can't contribute in a reasonable manner don't contribute at all. Better still return to the PN forum and continue your rant about how poor the implementation of postini and how discracefull it was that the Spam filters weren't being trained over Christmas and New Year.

"When were you last a Plusnet user? "

Right up to the Wadev 4 Gate Scandal, I then went to F2S and then to Sky, out of all of them Sky beat PN and F2S on price performance and reliability. For more than half the price!

Having paid Plusnet 6 years of Broadband Subs I would have thought, that I could have a POV, that's of course if that is OK with yourself.

In reply to:

---

When were you last a plusnet customer ?

---

OMG it's catching Is this the battlecry that is used in an attempt to discredit a poster when all rational argument has failed???

Thank you for confirming what posters should be doing by highlighting a current issue which I have complained about.

If everybody followed your excellent recommendation and talked about the current state of the Plusnet service we wouldn't have these upsets!

Edited by jelv (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:05:59)

Yawn Yawn

After 6 years, Plusnet still haven't got the email right then?

are you going to let people know when you were last a Plusnet customer or keep dodging the question

In reply to:

---

"When were you last a Plusnet user? "

Right up to the Wadev 4 Gate Scandal

---

What year exactly was that?

Edited by jelv (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:07:44)

Dunno. Ask Plusnet when it was they kicked members off for criticising them? Surely you remember seems as you are on a burn Simon CRUSADE.

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:09:44)

Yes

It's a perfectly fair question so that visitors who are unfamiliar with the history of this forum can judge the relevance of the opinions expressed to the likely experience if they were to join Plusnet today.

Still avoiding answering the question

Can I ask you Jelv the reverse question?

When was the last time you were on a different ISP, so that you could actually compare different performances?

If PN had got their act together 3 or 4 years ago, we would not be ex customers or commonly referred to as Guinea Pigs, IE we were beta testers for todays customers. IE How far can we traffic manage or [censored] on our customers and give them crazy conditions, before they then leave?

edit: added more

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:15:38)

As you won't answer I'll take a guess.

I know it was a long time ago, and I'm pretty sure it pre-dated PUG being formed (April 2004) by some time - so I'd guess 2002 or 2003.

LOL

Is it really that long ago, that they upset us?

We helped PN build the stability they may have today, we were their special testers. Whether you like it or not PN changed because of feedback, otherwise they would have no customers left.

I really don't know in all reality

But I will take a guess.

I have been with Sky for 12 mths, Was with F2S for about 14 months, so all in all less than 30 months ago. So your theory would be wrong.

But they only removed my personal details about 6 months ago.

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:19:44)

In reply to:

---

It's a perfectly fair question so that visitors who are unfamiliar with the history of this forum can judge the relevance of the opinions expressed to the likely experience if they were to join Plusnet today.

---

1. There are plenty of posters who frequent here and are CURRENT customers of Plusnet who are well able to articulate an opinion on anything posted. Without reverting to the language you prefer to use.

2. Do you think for one moment anything posted here, which may in any shape or form be construed as anti Plusnet would be left unchallenged for long?.

3. Therefore your statement is, to quote you, "Complete and utter twaddle"
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plusnet&Number=3233591

In reply to:

---

Still avoiding answering the question

---

Yes

In reply to:

---

Can I ask you Jelv the reverse question?

When was the last time you were on a different ISP, so that you could actually compare different performances?

---

Thank you. Yet again you have highlighted exactly how people should behave in this forum.

It is a long time ago that I was a user of any other ISP (and then it was on dial-up). I therefore do not make posts on other ISP's based on totally out of date experience (I will however sometimes make reference to what current users of other ISPs are saying).

In soundsystems defence about three years ago whilst under its previous ownership Plusnet did treat its customers badly. Being a customer at that time would not have been pleasant.

I joined Plusnet just as things were getting back to normal in November 2006. Wingco1 and PR100 had both left Plusnet by this point so did not get a chance to see things improve. Having come from TalkTalk I found Plusnet much better even in its improving state. Currently Plusnet is alot better than it was in November 2006.

So by your own logic, you too are unqualified or not experienced into saying that PN are better than or inferring better than any other ISP. As you would not know.

Life is built on comparisons, good and bad, that's how people learn not to burn their hands.

All I can say, out of 4 ISP's within the last 8 or 9 years ago, not one, apart from Plusnet has treated me, as a paying customer like a piece of dog dirt, setting ridiculous caps, moving goal posts or doing U-Turns.

edit changed 3 to 4 as I have a NewNet account as well.

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:31:04)

In reply to:

---

Currently Plusnet is alot better than it was in November 2006.

---

You know that, I know that, and PN know that. Which is why I don't understand why people like Jelv have to leap to PN's defence, when they don't really need defending.

How can someone who slags them off on their own forum, come on here and defend them like they were whiter than white. I seem to remember another customer who did exactly the same thing.

In reply to:

---

We helped PN build the stability they may have today, we were their special testers. Whether you like it or not PN changed because of feedback, otherwise they would have no customers left.

---

It's not a case of like it or not. Nobody would deny that Plusnet has learned some pretty tough lessons and has changed dramatically. Losing a CEO who was milking the company for all it was worth was a good start. For some of us our usage pattern fitted well with the Plusnet model and we had belief on where they were headed - so we stuck it out. We are now seeing the benefits.

What TBB is (or at least it should be) about is helping people choose an ISP. Prejudiced views based on out of date experience which bear no relevance to the current performance are not helpful.

My views are not prejudiced, they are built from experience from having an account with PN.

I am entitled to post my view just as much as you are.

In reply to:

---

How can someone who slags them off on their own forum, come on here and defend them like they were whiter than white.

---

Yet again you are highlighting the way to make useful posts. I will "slag them off" when I have issues with the current performance. What you will not find me doing is harping on and on about the mess they made of the Postini implementation in 6 months, a year, two years or mores time.

When people make posts which have no relevance to the current experience I will defend them. The fact that I am prepared to "slag them off" when I think they deserve it I thinks adds considerable credibility when I defend them.

He only has opinions about matters covered by Companies of which he is a customer

How can you defend what has been corrected????

Two and a half years or 5 years, it doesn't matter - you have no recent experience.

(Why if you had some idea didn't you give an estimate until after I'd posted a guess which you thought was too long?)

"When people make posts which have no relevance to the current experience I will defend them. The fact that I am prepared to "slag them off" when I think they deserve it I thinks adds considerable credibility when I defend them. "

Fair comment, now on the other side of the coin, if Plusnet were to refund my subs from when they treated us like a GUINEA PIG, I too would defend them, as that would be the least they could do, and showed that they care. But as we all know that ain't going to happen.

Debate is good, yes I may be seen as having a chip on my shoulder, but tbh I really don't care what a virtual name on a forum may or not think about my opinion. It's an opinion, get over it.

You still have not answered my earlier question.

After at least 6 years is the Plusnet Email working properly or as a person would expect it to? Forgetting the fact that it has been deleted through incompetence several times over the years?

Why do you think that Plusnet have gone to Postini? Because to me Plusnet appear not to be confident or the technical expertise in running their own.

Because I genuinely couldn't remember, I thought that you would have known as you know everything?

edit: typo

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 12-Jan-08 21:44:37)

Will the last one out put the light out, bye

Which would give you the perfect right to make posts saying "3 years ago there were problems x, y and z with Plusnet". My issue is that you do not make clear that time gap and therefore the relevance of what you are saying to the current service.

Which would give you the perfect right to make posts saying "3 years ago there were problems x, y and z with Plusnet".

Yep you are right!

6 Years ago there were problems with PN and their email, and according to one current user Jelv there still are. Your Honour.

Going for a beer, good luck on your crusade of indemnity.

For a long, long time I've thought Plusnet ought to use an outside body to handle the mail (having come across MessageLabs professionally I had them in mind). For all the problems with lost emails etc. the impact on me has been minimal - I've had a Google email address as a backup when needed - and the number of emails that have failed to arrive has been negligible (I've never relied on IMAP & keeping them on the servers).

Recognising that they cannot do it themselves probably meant they started down the path towards Postini some time last summer, some 6 months after the dramatic organisational changes that occurred around a year ago.

BT got in bed with Yahoo many moons ago, I'm sure many other ISP's have similar arrangements. AOL seem to defend their inboxes well (perhaps too strongly at times as many people who have had trouble sending to AOL will attest).

Collectively spammers employ far more resources trying to get their rubbish through than Plusnet could ever employ trying to defend against the increasing tide. Outsourcing makes perfect sense to me. It is a another huge step forward along the path to progress that has taken place in the last year.

That's fine by me - when he posts we can point out that it is such a long time ago that he was a customer he refuses to say how long it was!

You could have answered my question in a more summarised way.

ie YES

But thank you for agreeing that not everything is perfect yet. No one is saying they have not improved, we can see that, but to paint it as if only a current customer can voice an opinion is a tad unfair, as Don would say

Anyway gotta go I listening to Hot Gossip and I Lost My Heart to a Starship Trooper, quality tune from when music was good and PN didn't exist

When were you last a plusnet customer ?
-----
Stop making yourself look ridiculous. I haven't made any comment about the current customer experience so, as you are well aware, my customer status is irrelevant. I have commented only on what looked to be misleading statements in this thread by PN personnel (which point they have since conceded) and now you ask totally irrelevant questions in a triumphant tone as if they prove something. Please pull yourself together, get off your high horse and ask yourself why this topic upsets you. You're behaving like a drowning man clutching at a straw.

Now, just for the record, I am quite happy to accept that you have seen no evidence of HTTP rate limiting by PlusNet and I am in no position to argue one way or the other whether their admitted rate limiting is noticeable or even whether it affects any of the sites you use. I only say that PlusNet should honestly declare the full list of sites - especially the interactive ones of course - which they rate limit; and that in light of that they should honourably stop claiming unqualified top speed for HTTP in the forums when, by their own admission it isn't true.

I hope that you would want to see the same openness and honesty since you will benefit more than I will; and prospective new customers will benefit even more.

Simon

If you seem to think your current customer status is irrelevant, I do not understand why you are so reluctant to admit how long it is since you were a customer. To anyone who is not aware of the history of Plusnet and yourself they will be totally baffled as to why you are so reticent - I guess they might suspect you have something to hide. So it is you who is making themselves look ridiculous.

I've since found out just when it was you ceased to be a Plusnet user. I'll be generous and give you another opportunity to openly admit when that was. Otherwise I'll be quietly sending PM's to new posters who have responses from yourself based on your out of date experience along the lines:

In reply to:

---

You may wish to bear in mind when considering the response given by pr100 that he ceased to be a Plusnet user in xxxx 200n - Plusnet have changed ownership and management since that time.

---

I'll be generous...
-----
ROFL! What a ludicrous post! For the last time, the date when I ceased to be a PlusNet customer is totally irrelevant to the topic I have been discussing. I hope you do send your little PMs ...although surely you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself. I suggest you stop working yourself up into a lather because I won't play your childish game. I make no claim or pretence to be a current PN customer and that's an end to it. My posts in this thread would have been no different, no more or less valid and no more or less insightful if I were a customer today, yesterday or 10 years ago. You'll just have to get a grip -- although I deduce that you would rather talk about anything apart from the subject I have been discussing... and you don't seem to want anyone else to talk about it either.

Simon

Absolute quality

Are PN paying you for the PM sending?

If not, then I would ask them to.

Are they really that desperate that they need you to PM people on Think Broadband......

That is the most ridiculous post that you have ever made and I hope you have time to edit it before looking a right PN charlie.

PR has at least experience of the service, albeit a bad one, albeit some two years ago.

I will stop this before I am forced to ban someone.

Too many egos in this thread I reckon and my reading of this HTTP issue is that it does not seem to have any practical everyday impact on the customer and if it does the ISP is asking customers to say where and when and how.

Best left for that I reckon rather than carry on with this thread that is getting more and more personal.