Countdown begins!

Finally got round to signing up to plusnet this morning Fibre Extra + Anytime calls. I don't like online sign ups, so I had been waiting for a day off to make a call and am now glad that I did.

Extremely polite and helpful sales guy went away and checked the traffic management policy for me (either that or a fag break as he took nearly 10 mins). I wanted to determine the difference between Value with a Pro add on or straight forward Extra Fibre, other than maximum bandwith which is not that important to me as I already receive 38Mpbs.

I was wanting to ensure I pre empted the auto renewal with BT in November. He assured me that BT could not auto renew my contract any longer and that I had to do nothing at all.

Hence countdown begins. I am confident everything will sail through connection wise, but I'm still half expecting some sort of cock up from BT in the billing department. That is the main reason for signing up with Plusnet instead of them.

And BigUp to Nathan in sales. Very helpful, extremely efficient. Well done.

The allowance?

Also, if you are on 38Mbps now, Extra is "up to 80Mbps" sync.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

I was wanting to ensure I pre empted the auto renewal with BT in November. He assured me that BT could not auto renew my contract any longer and that I had to do nothing at all.

He's right, BT made it so auto-renewing contracts would not auto-renew after last December, because of Ofcom rules.

A few links that might help you to compare products(just for future purposes) and see how our traffic management systems works.

http://usergroup.plus.net/prodcomp1.php
http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/br...
http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/tr...

I hope they help.

Any questions let me know.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The allowance?

250GB if I remember correctly.

Also, if you are on 38Mbps now, Extra is "up to 80Mbps" sync.

And it's funny you should mention it, because I already knew that so didn't notice when he didn't mention it to me on signing up. Then half an hour or so later, he rang back to tell me that he had forgotten to mention the speed increase and I should be in line for 56 Mbps. Excellent service already as far as I'm concerned.

And a BigUp to Aquiss as well for giving me a MAC code without hesitation, within the hour in fact.

'Twas a rhetorical question about the allowance. Rather major not to have been mentioned LOL.

I moved to PN with the same package as you in September and its been faultless. I am very pleased with the way the it was dealt with. I did an online sign up but had previously pm'd one of the staff through here.
My connection speed has been steadily rising since joining and I am now getting over 5Mb more down speed than with my previous supplier on fibre.

Well done PN

I appreciate that traffic can be slowed, and why, but when looking at Extra and Fibre Extra, saw

Level of speed reduction? : 256Kb/s across all traffic types

Now, I know this actually means that you're limiting traffic (peer-to-peer and USENET) to 256 kbps (though the usergroup link suggests 2 Mbps) but it sounds from the word reduction as if that's not the actual speed someone gets for such traffic, but a change from their original speed. Perhaps that needs to be explained with different wording?

Perhaps you can clarify whether one gets 2 Mbps or 256 kbps, and while I'm in a questioning frame of mind, was I mistaken to think the Premium account offered 80 GB/month (though maybe it started at 120 GB/month - the figures are on the usergroup comparison, so again, not directly a PlusNet plc problem).

I only ask about the 120 GB because from memory I think I got 'only' 80 GB before changing at a later date to the 60 GB 'Extra' account. Am looking forward to my exchange getting FTTC and 250 GB a month... have to be careful to stick within 60 GB a month even though I am often up all night!

I don't know where you got the 256kbps from as according to this it is 2Mb between 8 - 10pm and isn't restricted at other times http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/do...
The only time you are limited to 256kbps is if you set an extra spend limit and you have reached the usage limit for your product

Level of speed reduction? : 256Kb/s across all traffic types

That's only if you've reached the usage allowance on your account.

The only speed limits on Extra and Extra fibre are between 8pm and 10pm and they are set at 2Mb for some traffic.

Ah, OK, must have been half asleep as I was thinking it was reduction for particular types of use - on repeat viewing (and for Jim, it was the middle link of the three shown)


So, I misunderstood the circumstances, but my original comment still stands - it's not a reduction BY 256 kbps (implied by the text "Level of speed reduction?") but TO 256 kbps.

Therefore my "Perhaps that needs to be explained with different wording?" still stands.

How about "Level of speed reduction?" being replaced by "Overall data speed set to:" and then, "across all traffic types" will be superfluous - can see you mean it to be overall data, but someone might interpret it as 256 kbps per traffic type!

(I'm assuming it's 256 kbps for both upstream and downstream)


Thanks again to both for clarifying - my mistake/ misunderstanding.

In reply to a post by ultra:

Therefore my "Perhaps that needs to be explained with different wording?" still stands.

How about "Level of speed reduction?" being replaced by "Overall data speed set to:" and then, "across all traffic types" will be superfluous - can see you mean it to be overall data, but someone might interpret it as 256 kbps per traffic type!

Where does that wording occur please? All I've found after a couple of minutes is

If you do hit the usage limit you've set your speed will be rate limited to 256kb/s until your next billing date. You can change this by increasing your maximum extra monthly spend or removing your Manage My Usage limit.

which is FAQ (4) in "What happens if I go over my monthly usage allowance?".

In reply to a post by ultra:

Where does that wording occur please? All I've found after a couple of minutes is

If you do hit the usage limit you've set your speed will be rate limited to 256kb/s until your next billing date.

Amazingly, the search box on the Plusnet site works! If you go to http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/speed_guide/br... and expand one of the products you will see it. It would have been really handy if ultra had actually posted the URL(s).

Edited by kasg (Thu 01-Nov-12 08:26:39)

I used the search box and the page I gave was the first relevant one, (i.e.not business), .

From your link, I see it now. It could do with rewording, as he says. Also the line below needs something like "or you relax your spending limit".

Um, I mentioned Extra and Fibre Extra, and in my post yesterday night said it was the centre URL of the ones listed (though I didn't have Chris Purvey's name to hand to go back to exactly who had posted the three links). I guess Chris Parr had followed the correct link, and in truth, I had really meant to include a mention of "speed_guide/broadband_experience.shtml" so it was clearer.

Anyway, sorry for confusion, guys.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Also the line below needs something like "or you relax your spending limit".

Ha ! I'd suggest "or you stump up some extra cash" (but of course there'd need to be a "*" and a "* By the way, we'll take the fiver, even if you only use 100 MB of the extra 5 GB you paid for, and no, there are no refunds or carry overs to the next month!")

Shame, really, that the charge is so steep and the granularity so big. Metronet (admittedly before PlusNet took over) charged a flat rate minimum, then a per MB fee, with an upper maximum fee above which any further data use was not going to increase the cost.

I know it could work out as high as 100+ quid in a month if you were on some business account, but for a home user, I think it was around 35-40 quid a month (not that far from the initial 500 kbps service back in 2001, at least if you were daft enough to use BT Broadband back then).

Considering the amazing value for money that Plusnet offers, if people wish to object to the excess usage charge they aren't forced to join.

I suggest their throughput provision is closely budgeted, and therefore quite sensibly excess usage is strongly discouraged in the pricing mechanism. Other ISPs have different product structures - generally more expensive except on LLU. That's fine by me.

I'm sure you cannot disagree. Or if you do, then you have some other agenda. I've already agreed with you that the wording on one page is poor, and pointed out this second instance there.

And if people want it, unlimited is available on Plusnet via John Lewis, albeit only on ADSL2+ currently.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Considering the amazing value for money that Plusnet offers, if people wish to object to the excess usage charge they aren't forced to join.

My point was that the excess usage charge, while it may be reasonable (if one gets to use the full 5 GB), is less reasonable than a per MB charge (or, as could be done) rolling unused allowance into following months until it gets used, would be far more reasonable and for many customers, appear far better value for money. I don't think it worthwhile or value for money to allow PN to deduct a fiver for me going over by 10 MB (and watch what I use to avoid hitting the limit) but if someone didn't know (a) they get no refund of any part of their five quid, if they used say 5-10% and (b) the remaining 'allowance' is completely lost on next billing and is not carried forward, then I'd expect them to feel pretty angry, and even feel 'ripped off' whatever the description says about the facility.

Personally I have set the limit to 0 so I won't pay any excess, as I am aware of the consequences and unwilling to gift PN a few quid if I just happened to go 'over'.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I suggest their throughput provision is closely budgeted, and therefore quite sensibly excess usage is strongly discouraged in the pricing mechanism. ...snip...

I don't remember the exact cost of the 80 GB/month account but it definitely seemed worth my while to switch to the 60 GB account. As for being 'closely budgeted' I would not be so sure. I plan to switch to the Fibre Extra, when FTTC is available, and note the allowance has been increased to 250 GB, while the cost is less than double that of the ADSL 2+ Extra account.

I appreciate that part of the cost is rental of the connection from Openreach but suspect the 250 GB allowance is more generous and on a per GB cost, perhaps not charged the same as for someone on a 10 Mbps connection and limited to 60 GB/month.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I'm sure you cannot disagree. Or if you do, then you have some other agenda. I've already agreed with you ...

Today's earlier comment doesn't come down to whether we agree on wording, but on value for money, and a warning that the 'excess usage' fee of a fiver (or possibly more) has a nasty 'gotcha' for those who are unaware, and assume 'fair treatment'.

I remember a lot of discussion about this when the five pound fee came into being (while it was not applied to all account types, with some of the legacy accounts having lower costs, AFAICR). I was also (though did not state it) comparing PN's current approach (which I would like them to change, obviously) to that of Clara, where their FAQ page (I will find the web page after I am back from town) says that a 10 pound fee (possibly +VAT) is charged for 10 GB but unused allowance is carried forward (and if it hadn't been, I'd be saying their approach wasn't one I liked).

Here we go... from FAQ link
"Q: How can I top up if I reach my usage limit?

A: The portal at https://customer.clara.net allows you to see your usage and purchase a 10GB topup for £10 if necessary. Unused parts of any topups purchased will be rolled over into the following month."

I see it only rolls forward one month, but at least if one has paid for 10 GB one gets chance to use it...

The prices for Claranet's broadband products seem hard to find. Unless I'm missing something obvious. A link to a customer portal that requires a login seems rather pointless.

As I remember them, they are one of the upmarket niche ISPs, aiming principally at business customers.

The detail of your reply, faced with the simplicity of consumer choice as I explained, does suggest a hidden agenda. I too remember the mini-row when the charge was increased from, IIRC, £2 per GB to £5 per 5GB.

I don't recall any complaints since from any of the 600,000+ customer base. Do you? Maybe Plusnet customers are savvy enough to have understood the pricing and can live with it.

Unbelievable, isn't it, given the complexity and hiding of it!?

In reply to a post by ultra:

Personally I have set the limit to 0 so I won't pay any excess, as I am aware of the consequences and unwilling to gift PN a few quid if I just happened to go 'over'.

It is to Plusnet's credit that they offer a facility to cap extra spending to 0. BT, on the other hand, charge £5 per 5GB too, and offer no facility to cap it.

Agreed, glad they do offer the ability to block excess charges, so there are no nasty (bank related) shocks if I ever did slip over the limit.

One thing (on the one time I went over) I noticed was that the 'reset' is dependent on the billing system running past that user's account. Have to say that if they had incorporated one of my suggestions (send an e-mail with the past month's daily usage figures, then reset the counters) they might have also been able to 'reset' the 256 kbps limiter rule for anyone who went over, as a first task to apply changes to all 'billed this day' accounts (and there are surely around 20,000 to be billed so puzzled it took 4 hours before my speed was reset [once my payment was notified and I was classed as being in a new billing month]).

I always recommend Plusnet over BT in Market 1 areas, the price is much the same, but the ability to cap excess usage spending is a crucial feature I feel. Given that Plusnet are owned by BT you'd think BT could implement it, so perhaps they don't purely because it's profitable not to.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The prices for Claranet's broadband products seem hard to find. Unless I'm missing something obvious. A link to a customer portal that requires a login seems rather pointless.

It was to describe the mechanism for topping up that I was quoting - that it includes their portal was as shown on their FAQ page and the quote would have been incomplete without it. Not sure that the actual prices for products are needed, if one is just comparing topping-up or 'excess use' charges. As it happens, I get the impression they have an 'unlimited' policy but with the 'normal' 'we protect our network from excessive use' condition.

As I remember them, they are one of the upmarket niche ISPs, aiming principally at business customers.

Indeed, Clara.Net is aiming at business, but set up claranetsoho.co.uk (think it was used in the FAQ link) but they seem to have changed their accounts from ones I was familiar with early in the year. ThinkBroadband has news items in July concerning the launch of Childsafe under the Claranet SOHO 'business' (I suspect it is ex-VIA Networks staff as the SOHO people are based in Warrington, and Clara took over VIA a few years ago)

See www.claranetsoho.co.uk/broadband

The detail of your reply, faced with the simplicity of consumer choice as I explained, does suggest a hidden agenda. I too remember the mini-row when the charge was increased from, IIRC, £2 per GB to £5 per 5GB.

We'll have to agree to disagree - I've no 'agenda' - I just made the point the 5 quid fee might be a shock once someone finds the non-rollover policy, and flat fee, whether you use 5 MB or 5GB before billing cycle resets your allowance.

I don't recall any complaints since from any of the 600,000+ customer base. Do you? Maybe Plusnet customers are savvy enough to have understood the pricing and can live with it.

Unbelievable, isn't it, given the complexity and hiding of it!?

I've seen the 600,000+ number now and then (last I remember it was estimated at 400,000, but maybe that was before taking on Madasafish customers, so I am probably out of date!), but suspect the vast majority of customers never noticed the news of the change, and I suspect that something like 1-3% of users actually go to the various discussion areas. It's not uncommon to see the same people in the same places as the ISP reps such as Bob and so on.

There's mention on the Residential Broadband FAQ of the 2 quid for 2 GB charge.

"8. What happens if I go over my monthly usage allowance?

For the majority of customers an extra 5GB will be added to your allowance for the month. This costs £5 which will be added to your next bill. (Customers on some older products will be charged £2 per 2GB block)."

PN cited (AFAICR) something about it being more efficient for them to charge a higher sum (presumably so bank charges were a smaller portion of the amount charged, while customer was also less likely to use the full quantity, so there was more profit per GB used)

PN would not budge despite requests not to go that way (just as there were requests to notify Market 2 users when the costs were going lower) - seems PN staff are willing to read the requests but doing so rarely seems to lead to any changes.

(edit to remove nested quotes, caused by my mangling the original quoted post!)

Edited by deleted (Fri 02-Nov-12 12:54:20)

I'd like mirror this also.

Just ordered the Fibre extra only package (parents pay line rental). They asked if I'd like to switch to phone line aswell, I told them that my parents pay it and they where fine with that (not at all pushy).
Also they where fine with me booking a bit later than normal, 31st of December (work at a school and it would be easier for me in my holidays.

Something I noticed in T+C for Tesco brodband was that they mention a limit of 100 GB and in the small print can charge a fee (presumably per GB or MB) but don't specify it anywhere.

It may be that they just warn for small over-runs, or request a customer transfer away to another ISP, but I'm not sure where they stand under OFT rules on being 'fair' if they don't show explicitly what they charge, but have say a 10p per MB fee and implemented it if someone went over the 100 GB allowance (say to 200 GB, which is far from impossible these days on anything of reasonable (read 8+ Mbps) speed).

10p per MB is cheaper than some mobile networks charge for an excess over 20 MB in a day (!) Have even seen fees of 1.5p per kb in days gone by. But in the Tesco example, just keeping to round figures, an overrun of 100 GB = 100 x 1000 (MB) x 0.1 pounds = 100x100 = 10,000 pounds

I spoke to someone, to ask how much they charge, as it was "unclear" and got no sensible answers - ie we don't charge... when I pointed out their T+C clause means they 'might' charge, the call was dropped.

How is Tesco connected to PN? Are you thinking of John Lewis?

Where do you see a limit of 100 GB?

In reference to www.tescobroadband.com/help-and-support/articles/view/1891:

11. FAIR USE POLICY

11.1 So that we can provide Tesco Broadband With Calls and Tesco Broadband Only fairly for all our customers, you agree to comply with our Fair Use Policy set out in this paragraph 11. Although your internet use of Tesco Broadband With Calls and Tesco Broadband Only may be unlimited, we may impose a fair use limit on your broadband usage, beyond which additional charges may apply. Any such limit will be clearly set out at www.tescobroadband.com/terms (non-existent) or in our marketing materials

Ah, found it! There is no fee for for overrunning; you are just warned and then kicked off:

In reference to www.tescobroadband.com/Help-and-Support/Articles/View/2122:

We regularly monitor and review our customer�s collective and average monthly usage to set our fair usage limit (FUL) at a level that will not affect the majority (at least 95%) of our customers. Currently the FUL is set at 100GB per month. If a customer regularly downloads in excess of the FUL, we may take the following steps:

1. When we first notice that a customer has exceeded the FUL, we may contact the customer to bring the matter to their attention. We will ask the customer to modify their usage.

2. If the customer does not modify their usage but continues to exceed the FUL for a further two consecutive months, we may terminate the customer�s service.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Ah, found it! There is no fee for for overrunning

But your previous quote does say "beyond which additional charges may apply".

"May"! - keeping their options open in future?

It also says "Any such limit will be clearly set out at www.tescobroadband.com/terms (non-existent) or in our marketing materials"/

Not ideal tho'!

http://www.tescobroadband.com/help-and-support/artic...

Where? Please point out section where it says 100 GB?

I have already pointed at and quoted that doc w/out finding any mention of that.

We are in danger of going in circles.

I wasn't saying anything about content.

I was just replying to the bit about the non-existent Terms page, with the correct link.

We are being recursive!

That non-existent Terms link appears within the "correct" link that you posted (in section 11).

Hence you are contending that the non-existent Terms link in section 11 should have pointed to the doc in which it is contained. I'm getting giddy!

Not read it in detail - I have a "small print" 15-page T & Cs doc displayed within the page I gave. Looks fairly detailed?

No need to read! I already quoted it here: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4185704-r...

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

How is Tesco connected to PN? Are you thinking of John Lewis?

Sorry for delay. It was completely unrelated to PN, and more a 'compare and contrast' example.

PN (and a number of other ISPs) state fixed allowances, and may have 'unlimited' off-peak, while some other ISPs state 'unlimited' but do have limits sometimes only found in small print, other times unwritten and hidden, but masked in terms like 'Fair Use Policy'.

Tesco says 'unlimited' but clearly isn't, and while their FAQ says one thing, and staff may back it up on the phone or via online chat, their T+C says another (namely that they can charge, though they don't get detailed enough to explain what fees could be charged, and the FAQ ignores this possibility).

For a customer / potential customer, I think it is a crazy situation where there are 'truly' unlimited ISPs and others saying 'unlimited' but meaning 'we say it for marketing reasons, but have our own view and if you go over our limit, we'll warn that you broke our FUP and require you to limit your usage'.

PN makes it possible for someone to 'go over' and pay for it, or limit (as low as nil) how much extra they are willing to spend. I'm considering a complaint to some body such as OFCOM to see if claims of 'unlimited' can be banned unless the ISP really means it. It might mean an ISP will create a new account offering unlimited, with a really high monthly charge, but should bring clarity for customers as to what real world limits the ISPs have, whereas they say one thing but actually have hidden limits. Comparison sites often copy what they find, or use what they are told, without making any distinction about FUP limits vs unlimited accounts, all called 'unlimited'. Can understand that without the help/inside info from ISP staff, any unpublished limit is unclear, and if a customer is told they have exceeded a limit, there's no guarantee the same limit will apply the same day to any other customer of the same ISP, as an ISP might take note of previous instances when the customer went over an arbitrary limit and have a 'three strikes and you're out' policy or no actual policy and it depends on a whim, so which member of staff and what mood they are in that day might determine the action taken.

Back to the subject of charging for usage:
As another (dated, and academic) example of a charging method, Metronet (before PN took over) had accounts where a particular fee would provide a certain allowance. If that allowance was exceeded, there was a 'per MB' fee up to some upper monthly fee limit (but it seeemed to me to not have a restriction on traffic). I remember one account having a maximum monthly fee of approx 100 pounds, but it was probably competitive for a business if the alternative was a leased line and the usage levels could probably have been significantly higher at 100-odd quid (at up to 8 Mbps download speed on ADSL) than a 2 Mbps leased line...

The "unlimited" question was discussed [ad nauseam[/i] years ago. Everybody gave up, and it is pointless your thinking of complaining to officialdom.

It is the ASA that is relevant in this case, not OfCom, as it is the product advertising you are concerned about. Amongst the arguments the ASA and ISPs came back with was that you have an unlimited connection in that you can be connected as long as you like without incurring further costs, unlike most dialup.

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) advises:

�Unlimited� claims are likely to be acceptable provided that the legitimate user incurs no additional charge or suspension of service as a consequence of exceeding any usage threshold associated with an FUP, traffic management policy or the like

http://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes...

If Tesco were to charge customers for exceeding a FUP on an "unlimited" package, or cut them off, they would fall foul of ASA/CAP guidelines.

Ta .

Interesting though, that document is all a load of waffle. An important bit is the quote you give here, which basically says exceeding any FUP should not incur any charge.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

... and it is pointless your thinking of complaining to officialdom.

It is the ASA that is relevant in this case, not OfCom, as it is the product advertising you are concerned about.

I didn't respond back then, but remember specifically mentioning comparison sites, and the reason I mentioned OFCOM was because of those sites whose "comparison" is accredited by OFCOM (not the ASA) and that gives them some air of "recommendation".

I see that someone blogged not long ago (in their personal capacity, though employed by AAISP), about there being some barriers to inclusion and thus they compare only a subset of ISPs.

It does seem a pretty poor show that while the data is meant to be "accessible, accurate, up to date, transparent and comprehensive" (my bolding), according to the poster Edd Dawson of broadband.co.uk, it also seems pretty clear that unless they get commission they may not have bothered to include lots of the ISPs. (I know that TBB depends on ISPs to update them with changes, so cannot be blamed for any inaccuracies, but at least the comparison on TBB does show lots more of the smaller ISPs, somewhere in the list (depending on the criteria people use when searching, and low price is often in mind for, I suspect, a majority).

I actually found it hard to even see Plus.Net (despite trying to choose combinations of things which should make it show up) on one of the comparison sites (don't remember which one). The issue of which are "truly unlimited" and which have hidden limits (clouded by FUPs where one figure might be the limit one month and a different figure in a different month) won't go away while "unlimited" still gets used so widely, and these "accredited" comparison sites seem rarely to add any additional value (except to provide a call centre so their "advisors" can help the public choose a product that pays a commission - OK, perhaps harsh, but I suspect they all operate primarily to gather commission income rather than for altruistic reasons).

Not sure whether TBB is more of a "gift to the community" like open source is to programmers, than a "for profit" venture, but certainly a source of information I have a lot more faith in...

The same applies to any form of insurance. In general the comparison sites only include those that pay to advertise, or pay a commission - usually through an affiliate link.

On the few occasions I have been stupid enough to try one, (car/home/pet) I've found the suggested companies totally unsuitable, and been spammed by email for a while afterwards.

They should be forced to have large banner headings stating that they only consider a small selection of possibilities and receive direct remuneration from those. Along the lines of the regulations for Financial Advisers.