Plusnet in meltdown?

Note a thread asking is PN's speeds were in meltdown, but I wonder if PN is back to the bad old days and going into meltdown.

Raised a ticket and it said aim to reply in 24 hours, 4 days later still waiting.

Tell me I need an engineer to the premises, I agree, then an email tells me that if the fault is in the house it will cost me £60, no mention of this when I was talking to them on the phone.

Raise a complaint and it seems to have got lost.

Feels like the bad old days and after I have told many people to sign up with them. But after this what's the best good price provider that can deal with customers in a sensible and prompt way?

In reply to a post by RogN:

... But after this what's the best good price provider that can deal with customers in a sensible and prompt way?

Probably not the best forum to ask that .

Sky, from what I see on here. If you can manage on 50GB then maybe AAISP.

In reply to a post by RogN:

Raised a ticket and it said aim to reply in 24 hours, 4 days later still waiting.

Plusnet will be very busy at the moment due to issues with G.INP being applied on line and reducing users speeds as BT Openreach have made a bit of a balls up.

Theirs forums are flooded with speeds complaints and most those complaints have tickets attached to them.

They say a new broom sweeps ................ ?

http://community.plus.net/blog/2013/12/02/plusnet-ap...


Shirley "Which" don't need to go to Specsavers ?

http://community.plus.net/blog/2015/03/25/plusnet-wi...


Fortunately I have no problems with PN at this moment in time [everything crossed smiley]

Problem is that it is when you do have a problem that you discover how bad they are. I have been commending them, but then having a problem has changed all that for ever.

Their new packages offer 100GB anytime.

In reply to a post by RogN:

Problem is that it is when you do have a problem that you discover how bad they are. I have been commending them, but then having a problem has changed all that for ever.

Yes, I'm also starting to feel a bit insecure regarding my provider and have put all plans for transferring a further 3 ADSL & 1 FTTC line on hold until further notice due to issues with capacity and constant requirement to reset PPP session to jump from jumpy Gateways.

But talk talk have a worse record than PN with customer relations and how they deal with problems. My brother rued the day he signed for TT.

That was two weeks ago that I was waiting

As I've said two or three times, when and since the new CEO was appointed, something is going to give. It looks as though it just did.

It's a bit hard for me to tell, because as well as the downstream being all over the place my upstream seems to have halved on tbb speed test since regaining my connection with G.INP applied. Fine on BT Wholesale test, as is the downstream. Also fine on speedtest.net.

I think the single-stream tbb protocol on the unusual port may be getting hit by the traffic management, when it used to be going through with no trouble.

Re the BT Wholesale test, I've had two or three tests today at around 55Mbps. (IP Profile 58.01 and sync 60,000). But my PN Current line speed has been stuck at 46.6Mbps due to connections around 49Mbps when the modem firmware was out of date and couldn't handle the G.INP.

So how did I get high speeds on the BT Test, 10Mbps greater than my Current line speed? It has to be by-passing that limiter, so what else does it bypass?

/me smells a rat.

In reply to a post by epyon:

Their new packages offer 100GB anytime.

At £40pm. (Home::1 £25 + £15 for 80/20). No thanks.

I noticed major slow downs at peak (which they confirmed by my bt speed tests), showed up on my ping chart too.

After investigating with their supplier (i assume BT) they ruled exchange issues and gave me no solution or ETA for a fix that well they deny is an issue in the first place.
This is with a business account, so can only wonder what retail customers with less priority are experiencing.

I'm just way to move address (within the same exchange footprint, no FTTC here) and i've cancelled with Plusnet and will be taking service with Fluency for my ADSL. Only time will tell but one thing is for sure, things are not quite right at Plusnet. Reminds me of the time Be* were having capacity issues and they also denied the issue for a long time....

It's seems you are having the same issues as me which seem to be congested gateways.

Also thanks for answering my question about Business customers.. It really does seem switching may be the answer if they don't pull their finger out and do some upgrading.

I've just sent of a message to Plusnet complaints guy, will see what he comes back with...

Had a small problem last night while watching something on You tube via the now box, it started to buffer and yet when i done a speed test, I still had 37Mb/s, so it may have been a you tube problem.

This was around 9pm.
apart from that, plusnet been fine, my main problem is finding out why my computer keep disconnecting from my network.

I have had an FTTC connection with them for 17 months. I have always had about 73mbps throughput.

2 weeks ago my speed suddenly dropped to a solid 55mbps. I went on the PN forums & a PN staff member told me to raise a fault.

It took a week for any response.

They phoned said my profile had been stuck at 55mpbs and so they have raised it to 65mbps and everything should be fine. I pointed out that I used to get 73mbps throughput and now after their 'fix' I am still getting a much reduced speed of 60mpbs throughput.

They told me they would send an engineer, and like you they didn't mention any potential costs until sending an engineer.

The engineer said my line was perfect and would support 80mbps no problem.

However since his visit my speed has dropped to 50mbps.

It was at this point I get a response from PN saying

"We've tested your line it is stable & the speed (50mbps) is great. Issue resolved"

I've asked them how a further 5mbps speed reduction can possibly be considered a resolution. I am still awaiting a reply.

The charge for an internal fault is surely common knowledge?

not to me.

Same with phone issues. If it's your own extensions causing the issue you would be charged.

well, anyway. The engineer didn't identify any problem on my equipment.

The main issue for is that I reported a drop in speed from 73mbps to 55mbps

Plusnet did something to my profile which got me back to 60mbps. I said why am I not getting the 73mbps I have had for 17 months. They sent an engineer

After the engineer's visit (who said my line was absolutely perfect and could support full speeds) I am now getting 50mbps

Plusnet then tell me my "line is stable and speeds are great and the issue is resolved"

If a drop to 55mbps was enough to be able to create a fault ticket how can a further drop of 5mbps be considered a satisfactory resolution? Especially when they have offered no reason or suggestion for further action?

Edited by deleted (Wed 01-Apr-15 17:25:49)

Which modem do you have?

It really depends what the problem is.

Crosstalk is the dominant disturber for FTTC services, but it only appears, and then increases further, as take-up increases.

If that is the cause of your problem, then it isn't going away. It is a natural result of getting more subscribers onto your cabinet - and is the reason why BT specify a speed range, rather than just a single speed.

This behaviour means we cannot expect to get a single speed, and for that speed to be achievable forever.

Unfortunately, neither BT nor the ISPs educate people that this can, and will, happen. To everyone.

Or, of course, your problem can be caused by something else, such as a line fault. Depending on the symptoms, an engineer may be sent to investigate your line in detail, as happened in your case. He can fix faults (if he can find one), but he can't fix crosstalk.

I have been made aware of crosstalk since my speed dropped, but the line tests (to my uneducated eyes) seem to suggest none was detected

Test Outcome Pass
Test Outcome Code GTC_FTTC_SERVICE_0003
Description No problem found, OAM test is not currently supported on this line.
Main Fault Location OK
Sync Status In Sync
Downstream Speed 55.2 Mbps
Upstream Speed 19.8 Mbps
Appointment Required N
Fault Report Advised N
NTE Power Status PowerOn
Voice Line Test Result Pass
Bridge Tap Not Detected
Radio Frequency Ingress Not Detected
Repetitive Electrical Impulse Noise Not Detected
Cross Talk Not Detected
Profile Name 0.128M-80M Downstream, Interleaving Low - 0.128M-20M Upstream, Interleaving On
Time Stamp

In the past my linespeed was always 76.4 now the plusnet member page says

Estimated line speed:
There's no speed estimate currently held on your account.
Current line speed:
53.2 Mb

I would like some sort of response from PN, but both on the ticket & on the forums, they are not being very responsive.

PS. The engineer said there was nothing wrong with the line and that my limited speed was a result of plusnet 'capping' it.

Someone on the plusnet forums said that was not possible, however plusnet staff have not responded either way. I'm not a techie, I have no idea what is possible or who to believe.

Edited by deleted (Wed 01-Apr-15 17:58:10)

apparently it is a Huawei

Try common knowledge as a defense in court. I know the safety procedure on an airplane lke the back of my hand, but they always give it, isn't it common knowledge?

In reply to a post by janimal:

I have been made aware of crosstalk since my speed dropped, but the line tests (to my uneducated eyes) seem to suggest none was detected

Test Outcome Pass
Test Outcome Code GTC_FTTC_SERVICE_0003
Description No problem found, OAM test is not currently supported on this line.
Main Fault Location OK
Sync Status In Sync
Downstream Speed 55.2 Mbps
Upstream Speed 19.8 Mbps
Appointment Required N
Fault Report Advised N
NTE Power Status PowerOn
Voice Line Test Result Pass
Bridge Tap Not Detected
Radio Frequency Ingress Not Detected
Repetitive Electrical Impulse Noise Not Detected
Cross Talk Not Detected
Profile Name 0.128M-80M Downstream, Interleaving Low - 0.128M-20M Upstream, Interleaving On
Time Stamp

The result of "Crosstalk not detected" is laughable on that result, IMHO. Crosstalk is an infinitely variable affair, creating noise of different levels at different frequencies.

It is caused by having two or more VDSL2 subscribers in the same cable for some distance; if the twisted pairs are closer within the cable, then more crosstalk results.

But the design employed by BT - having tie pairs that run from FTTC cabinet to the PCP - guarantees that once there are two customers, then there is some shared cable, so there is crosstalk. Beyond the PCP, the shared cables spread out, reducing the likelihood of further "contamination", but it doesn't eliminate it.

The amount of crosstalk added by each subscriber might vary, but its existence doesn't. Add each subscriber, then you add crosstalk - sometimes tiny, sometimes small, sometimes large.

When you see the graphs, you realise that, in the absolute worst case, more than half your speed can disappear from the extra noise and interference. Seeing 10Mbps over 2 years isn't that bad a result.

Worse, there is a double-whammy. As well as causing reduced SNR levels (so lower speeds), crosstalk causes more errors to appear on the line. Eventually, the higher error level trips DLM into action; the old-style DLM solution was to turn on FEC and interleaving ... which would reduce speeds by 10-15% in one hit (on top of any reductions from raw crosstalk) and add 8-16ms onto latency.

From the result quoted above, DLM has intervened on your line, and set this kind of old-style solution. You will have lost a chunk of your sync speed to this.

Right now, BT are deploying G.INP retransmission, which is an alternative approach for DLM to choose to correct errors; this should not have such a large impact on sync speed or latency - so that chunk of performance can be recovered. However, it doesn't overcome crosstalk.

To properly overcome crosstalk requires BT to deploy vectoring. That acts as noise cancellation for subscribers, so it ought to undo the effect of crosstalk, restoring speed back to your starting speed.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

What I am really annoyed about is PN support (and I guess point of sale as well)

1) They make no mention at the point of sale ff the fact that speed will reduce over time.
2) They make no effort to explain the possible cause of the loss of speed in response to the fault.
3) They see no irony in declaring my current throughput of 50 mbps as a satisfactory resolution to a reported drop of speed from 73 mbps to 55mbps. In fact the quote was "Your speeds are great" just 23 mbps less great than they were 10 days ago and the previous 17 months before that.

4) Surely someone must know if extra customers have been added to the cab since the speed dropped so that they could say with confidence if it was likely to be crosstalk.

One question...
I am about 90 -100m from the cab, my friend is 20 - 25m closer. If crosstalk was the issue would we expect to see his sync speed reduce as well? (It hasn't) Or is it simply a case of where exactly your connection is placed in the cab?

In reply to a post by janimal:

apparently it is a Huawei

Is it unlocked?

I don't know.

I certainly haven't done anything to it myself.

Is there a telnet or web interface to the thing or do I have to do anything to unlock it?

Yes, you have to load the unlocked firmware which basically lowers the firewall allowing access from the local LAN.

Unfortunately, neither BT nor the ISPs educate people that this can, and will, happen. To everyone

I guess they don't want to loose potential customers and revenue

I'll do a bit of research on that then.

On the plusnet side I finally managed to get a response ("I agree we need to look at this again") from PN staff after hijacking another unhappy customer's thread!

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

{snip}congested gateways{snip}

Certainly seems to be my problem a few minutes ago I got under 4Mbps on TTBx1 and

"Download speedachieved during the test was - 11.62 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 32.83 Mbps-46.9 Mbps .
Additional Information:
IP Profile for your line is - 46.9 Mbps" from BTW.

That was on pcl-bng01 so I hopped and landed on pcl-ag06 where I immediately got 35Mbps on TBBx1

I feel your pain, I was sync'd at 77Mb for almost 24months and in the last few weeks been at 37Mb!

Raised ticket few days ago, no response either....... yet.

My sync is OK, but (wired) getting a RED graph and below acceptable in the BT Wholesale Performance test .

Something is seriously up.

We are back to the PN that hid such issues and denied them and all the time they were true.

In reply to a post by RogN:

We are back to the PN that hid such issues and denied them and all the time they were true.

Oh yes, I remember

In reply to a post by KellyD:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

However, there's a lingering suspicion that you will run out of bandwidth and the emergency situation will become the norm.

Yep. Totally accept that. If it happened, it would be Dave and I getting it in the neck, so we're invested!

And the threats to members on here and the suspensions in PN forums, because they did not like being told the truth.

Back to the old shower, have they still got some of the top staff on board, leopards really cannot change their spots, can they?

I jumped ship a couple of days ago. Switching to Sky Fibre Pro Unlimited. Bored of having to jump from gateway to gateway. I accept there is crosstalk, I accept there can be line faults and faulty equipment.

plusnet are grabbing market share with their offers but they seem to be having capacity issues at certain points of the day. As a consumer why should I be having to gateway hop to get the speed my line is capable of?

With Sky I have been given a minimum guaranteed speed of 54mb/s, if it falls below that and they cannot improve it then I am free to leave my contract.

I would check your contract to see if it mentions anything about a certain percentage drop.

I am also considering change, since I want ipv6 tho my only realistic choice is probably aaisp.

whilst BT infinity was very good when I was on it (flatlined tbb and very rarely visible congestion) as its run by the same company that owns plusnet I am hesitant to go back there. So sky or aaisp (the latter if I want ipv6), a second reason to be put off sky is their weird auth system.

I very nearly went to BT but Sky managed to beat their offer and Sky have UK based support which swung it in the end.

ISP uptake of IPV6 does seem to be excruciatingly slow.

Yeah Sky use MER, I have an Asus RT-N66U router so will be following this.

In reply to a post by Skilty:

I very nearly went to BT but Sky managed to beat their offer and Sky have UK based support which swung it in the end.

ISP uptake of IPV6 does seem to be excruciatingly slow.

Yeah Sky use MER, I have an Asus RT-N66U router so will be following this.

I phoned BT a couple of days back for a neighbour and got through to Engilsh support. He was pretty good to be honest, shocked me after all it is BT.

Wanted to change from Infnity 1 limited to Infinty one unlimited and because my neighbour was charged for excessive use and I said that they should have emailed and be told that a better option would be unlimitted, he put them on Unlimited for a extra 39p a month.

Over the 18 months they will gain, so they do not get their money back as such, but then they are not paying for the full unlimited price. so halfway through the contract it will catch up with what they have spent and they will then save money.

Normally with BT, it is a hassle, but this time it was not.

Myself, I am having a couple of small problems with plusnet, ping have gone through the roof sometimes and it makes hell of a difference to the web. Speed is ok, just the ping.

In reply to a post by RogN:

And the threats to members on here and the suspensions in PN forums, because they did not like being told the truth.

Back to the old shower, have they still got some of the top staff on board, leopards really cannot change their spots, can they?

They threatened customers did they, It wouldn't go good for them if they had or do try that approach on me,lol i would firstly shout it on every place i could, as for their forum ,who cares,

it's often a waste of your time posting on their with their shills who will always attempt to derail any negative thread by posting bovine excrement or other unconfirmed info

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 02-Apr-15 12:01:03)

removed someone from being a customer, they did not like the truth being told. Looks like there are a lot of people again with a lot of issues with them. They were once a good supplier, then rubbish, then good and now back to rubbish, pity.

Could you give a link please ? There are several similar threads and the main G.INP one is huge.

Sorry as far as I can see the archives do not go back earlier than 2011, there were sparks flying everywhere. It was only when PN were taken over by BT that they again became a worthwhile bet and I joined them again, but looks like they are going backwards.

In reply to a post by Skilty:

With Sky I have been given a minimum guaranteed speed of 54mb/s, if it falls below that and they cannot improve it then I am free to leave my contract.

I would check your contract to see if it mentions anything about a certain percentage drop.

Just a warning that applies to the speed you're connecting at only, not to the actual download performance.

No ISP can or will guarantee that you will be able to download at full speed from everywhere 24x7.

EDIT: Just to clarify that the guarantee refers to http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/codes-of-p...

Note the references refer to 'access line speed' not 'download speed' or 'throughput'.

http://help.sky.com/articles/glossary-of-broadband-s...

The Throughput Speed is the speed that you experience when using your broadband connection.

Edited by deleted (Thu 02-Apr-15 13:19:54)

Eeee .

It might be a helpful change to edit your post to point out you are referring to the apparent removal of a customer before 2011, when we are discussing current issues.

Are you sure it wasn't the removal of the customer from the forum? I seem to remember that. Not the dropping of the customer by Plusnet, which is how your post reads.

Have been with Madasafish for several years now with a rock solid 6.3Mbits, which admitted isn't super fast but adequate for my needs. Last four days have been a nightmare, not too bad by day, virtually useless 0-1 Mbits in evening. Raised ticket on Monday, no reponse as yet. Madasafish always had a good service history, but it seems they're just another room in PlusNet now.

Paying this sort of money for a couple of Mbits means I think it's time to move on.

Edited by deleted (Thu 02-Apr-15 13:43:10)

That's interesting, as it can't be anything to do with the G.INP rollout on FTTC. If it's affecting ADSLx as well then it's really bad news.

Ping is UP, speed is DOWN, like for many others after many months of solid connection. The additional gateway palaver is simply ridiculous. Two months left on my contract and I would be following very closely all the latest development with Plusnet and whatever technology is being implemented at the moment.

Oh yes, it affects 20CN ADSL 1 users as well.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

then later after changing gateway:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

That is fine and understood but I don't see something similar in my plusnet T&Cs, could be there but I have only seen something covering the first 90 days.

In reply to a post by Skilty:

That is fine and understood but I don't see something similar in my plusnet T&Cs, could be there but I have only seen something covering the first 90 days.

I wonder if Sky's speed guarantee is a hold-over from their ADSL service? It's a reasonable thing to offer when they own the DSLAM. But with FTTC no ISP owns the DSLAM so I don't see how any ISP can guarantee the connection speed. It seems a curiously pointless get-out-free clause. If your connection speed drops (as it likely will over time) there's nothing Sky can do about it and whatever FTTC ISP you move to will have the same speed.

Edited by Andrue (Thu 02-Apr-15 16:45:13)

There is only one to avoid silly G.INP issues on both ADSL/ADSL2+ and FTTC is to go onto Virgin Media Cable!

Edited by adslmax (Thu 02-Apr-15 16:48:28)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That's interesting, as it can't be anything to do with the G.INP rollout on FTTC. If it's affecting ADSLx as well then it's really bad news.

The slow peak time throughput / High latency & the G.inp rollout are completely different issues for a start the G.inp issue where the ECI modem that is unable to recognise G.inp rolls back to a interleaved state,
so high latency and a lower throughput level will be 24/7 not only during peak times, and also checking the BTW ip profile may confirm DLM activity ,
I'm not sure how people could get confused by the two issues

In reply to a post by adslmax:

There is only one to avoid silly G.INP issues on both ADSL/ADSL2+ and FTTC is to go onto Virgin Media Cable!

but only if it happens to be avaiable at the property you want bb, and then that too is far from perfect in some areas,

Some of us were banned from PN forums, but my memory is that one was told PN did not want his business anymore and terminated him. There is a way to settle it, a PN staff from those days can come on and confirm or deny my memory.

It's still more than four years ago, and you posted as though it was a recent happening.

All I basically complained about was that you should have made that clear when posting it.

It has to be said, Sky Fibre Pro has been nothing short of stunningly reliable in my experience - much against the expectations - it always achieves the full 80/20 it offers, anytime, all the time, and hasn't let me down.

Of course, it costs a lot more than PlusNet, but you get what you pay for...

In reply to a post by adslmax:

There is only one to avoid silly G.INP issues on both ADSL/ADSL2+ and FTTC is to go onto Virgin Media Cable!

Don't tell that to my colleague who lives in a shared house with Virgin Media - even with nobody else using it, latency is horrible in the evening, every evening. And this week, it's mostly been so bad on speed he can't stream a 360p level Netflix.

In reply to a post by therioman:

It has to be said, Sky Fibre Pro has been nothing short of stunningly reliable in my experience - much against the expectations - it always achieves the full 80/20 it offers, anytime, all the time, and hasn't let me down.

Of course, it costs a lot more than PlusNet, but you get what you pay for...

Also Sky gives your details out to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I was looking at it myself until I heard they gave user details out.

In reply to a post by therioman:

Don't tell that to my colleague who lives in a shared house with Virgin Media - even with nobody else using it, latency is horrible in the evening, every evening. And this week, it's mostly been so bad on speed he can't stream a 360p level Netflix.

My nephew lives in Moseley and uses Virgin, he seems happy enough with it. He only got broadband, no phone or TV, and use Netflix for video use.

He even uses it for facetime to his parents at the same time netflix is on and no problem at all.

In what way do they give details out ?

Had sky fttc for 2 years with full 80 meg profile with no issues. If you mean they don't give you the username and password ? well yes that's true but wireshark can get you the info in 10 mins. If you mean give details out that you get unsolicited texts/emails/postal spam ? then no ive not had that either.

In reply to a post by therioman:

Of course, it costs a lot more than PlusNet, but you get what you pay for...

No static IP, no reverse DNS and higher costs? er, not sure that's a good deal :-0

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by therioman:

Of course, it costs a lot more than PlusNet, but you get what you pay for...

No static IP, no reverse DNS and higher costs? er, not sure that's a good deal :-0

Sky Fibre Pro has static IP.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by therioman:

Of course, it costs a lot more than PlusNet, but you get what you pay for...

No static IP, no reverse DNS and higher costs? er, not sure that's a good deal :-0

You get a Static IP on Sky Fibre Pro, as you do on Sky Unlimited Pro.

However, given this is a residential only service, I see no compelling reason to have a need for Reverse DNS (nice to have, not necessary). I quite happily have a number of services and servers in my "home lab" at home and it's never bothered me yet.

Higher cost - yes, but it always works. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth it. No micro management of usage profiles, no worrying if my data will be miscategorised, it just all flows 24/7.

So far with the PN line I find that latency is pathetic in the evenings, it has occasionally miscategorised my traffic resulting in undesirable "management" for my good supposedly.

Given I've got access to lines on pretty much all the main providers, I'm pretty familiar with the pro's and con's of them all. Goes with my job.

Also Sky gives your details out to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I was looking at it myself until I heard they gave user details out.

Can't say I've been made aware of such an issue, but hopefully if it does, someone else will also get my bill

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by therioman:

Don't tell that to my colleague who lives in a shared house with Virgin Media - even with nobody else using it, latency is horrible in the evening, every evening. And this week, it's mostly been so bad on speed he can't stream a 360p level Netflix.

My nephew lives in Moseley and uses Virgin, he seems happy enough with it. He only got broadband, no phone or TV, and use Netflix for video use.

He even uses it for facetime to his parents at the same time netflix is on and no problem at all.

I can believe it. Virgin Media performance and service levels depend a lot on local usage and congestion - heavily student filled areas tend to suck at peak student times, whereas people in less congested areas have fewer complaints. It's far more variable at a local level than xDSL variants.

In reply to a post by therioman:

You get a Static IP on Sky Fibre Pro, as you do on Sky Unlimited Pro.

Handy - I did try to get Sky Fibre but on the day of installation they failed to let me know they couldn't supply, so I got an apology and a discount of my TV bill ! I currently don't have an issue with PN but keeping eye on options. I'm in min contract until Jan 2016. The Sky Pro services were always "non competitive" for the 80/20 openreach profile previously.

However, given this is a residential only service, I see no compelling reason to have a need for Reverse DNS (nice to have, not necessary). I quite happily have a number of services and servers in my "home lab" at home and it's never bothered me yet.

Yes, I'd be happy with static IP and a generic rDNS but its nice to have. Static IP saves me hassle.

Higher cost - yes, but it always works. If it didn't, it wouldn't be worth it. No micro management of usage profiles, no worrying if my data will be miscategorised, it just all flows 24/7.

I've not seen any issues on PN for my usage here, but its obvious there are problems. (My Samknows box hasn't shown any issues either).

So far with the PN line I find that latency is pathetic in the evenings, it has occasionally miscategorised my traffic resulting in undesirable "management" for my good supposedly.

Given I've got access to lines on pretty much all the main providers, I'm pretty familiar with the pro's and con's of them all. Goes with my job.

Not seen the latency changes but I'm still convinced its regional and something to do with the BTw network.

Yes thought 4 years had made a difference, but they are reverting back to the PN they were in those days, deception, look at the time they tell you about ticket closure, poor speeds and tickets left open and no real answers. General poor customer service and through all of that they claimed they had won some awards!!! But customers were leaving in droves. If they had not been taken over I think the y would have gone to the wall.

Not seen the latency changes but I'm still convinced its regional and something to do with the BTw network.

Don't see it on any other ISP using BTW on the same exchange as the one I see issues with on PN, so I'm not convinced.

In reply to a post by fibrecereal:

In what way do they give details out ?

Had sky fttc for 2 years with full 80 meg profile with no issues. If you mean they don't give you the username and password ? well yes that's true but wireshark can get you the info in 10 mins. If you mean give details out that you get unsolicited texts/emails/postal spam ? then no ive not had that either.

Here.

I think Sky could have fought it a bit more to be honest, but they seem to just allow it.

That would have been in contempt of court.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by fibrecereal:

In what way do they give details out ?

Here.

I think Sky could have fought it a bit more to be honest, but they seem to just allow it.

There really isn't a lot an ISP can do to fight against an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order.


A copyright holder bringing an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order should have no problem establishing ownership of copyright, and would be in possession of some sort of logs indicating potential copyright infringement, otherwise they have no basis to bring any claims for copyright infringement. As such, the copyright holder should have no problem demonstrating to the court that they have a bona fide claim.

The technical elements of a Norwich application are fairly easy to establish in a case involving online activities - the ISP is clearly involved (albeit an innocent party) in any infringement as the provider of connectivity, the ISP is the only source of information linking IP addresses to individuals, and the copyright holder can defray the ISP's costs in complying with an order if granted.

This just leaves the matter of whether the interests of justice favour granting the requested order. As the copyright holder is alleging tortious interference with their intellectual property rights and the only way to identify the alleged tortfeasors is the granting of a Norwich order, it is overwhelmingly likely that the court will grant the order. The copyright holder does have to show that they will use the disclosed details to seek redress in the courts or via another route (a requirement since British Steel Corp v Granada Television [1981] AC 1096 and the subsequent codification in s. 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981), though the sole intent of a copyright holder is to seek redress. What the British Steel v Granada requirement does is prevent Norwich orders from being used for purposes other than seeking redress, such as identifying a journalist's sources (for example, by alleging the source has libelled or slandered you) or to carry out a court sanctioned exercise of fishing for information.

As such, there is not much an ISP fighting against the grant of a Norwich order in a case of alleged copyright infringement. Once the order is issued, the ISP must comply to the best of its ability or it risks being found in contempt. The same factors apply to all ISPs, not just Sky, though greater number of potential infringers' details obtained per Norwich order means copyright holders are more likely to go after customers of the larger ISPs.


The problems that arise are not so much to do with the granting of the Norwich order, but the use that is made of the disclosed data. The copyright holder really does not want to go to court - the costs are likely to outweigh any damages recovered, even if they attempt to argue that a peer to peer user went on to disseminate the infringing material, compounding damage caused (I haven't been following peer to peer case law well enough to know how that argument has fared in court). In any event, the Civil Procedure Rules require parties to take reasonable steps to settle before issuing court proceedings.


The copyright holder will use details disclosed pursuant to a Norwich order to write to the identified individuals, threatening legal proceedings but offering to settle for a reasonably high sum of money. They know that many will settle, and will reach a view on how much resources to put into pursuing those who refuse to pay up. It's a bit like private parking claims - the parking companies know that a stiffly worded letter with threats of legal action and arguably exaggerated statements of the consequences will result in a significant proportion of recipients paying up, even though the basis of their claim may well be legally rather shaky as there are several viable defences.


As an aside, if you defend a civil claim in the courts of England and Wales and you lose, the details will not appear on the public register if you settle in full within thirty days. A judgment against you only becomes an issue for creditworthiness if it goes unsettled for more than thirty days, as it then appears on the register for six years even if you subsequently pay in full and have the judgment marked as satisfied.

The risk in going to court is that if you lose, you will almost certainly have to pay more than if you settle out of court, as there will be court fees and legal fees to pay. However, it is possible that the out of court settlement offer is seeking damages higher that a judge would award if you lost in court.


Much as I dislike the way that intellectual property rights are sometimes used, I believe that copyright is there to be respected. I only stream media from licensed sources such as Spotify.

However, I believe online copyright infringement claims are amongst the areas of tort law where the inequality of arms between the parties acts against the interests of the individual. The copyright holder might seek a sum far beyond what a court is likely to award them in damages, backing their claim by exaggerating the strength of their legal position and the consequences of non-settlement. The recipients of a one of these letters probably lack the legal knowledge needed to evaluate the merits of the claim and may well be economically excluded from seeking qualified legal advice, not least as unless a recipient you can persuade a solicitor to advise them fully in a fixed fee interview, the costs of taking advice could approach the costs of settling.

The inequality of arms gives considerable power to the copyright holder - once they have the ISP's disclosure pursuant to the Norwich order, they merely need to send out a mailshot, possibly with the help of a law firm who has minimal scruples about trampling over the individual in the pursuit of profit, and the money potentially comes rolling in.


At least the infamous ACS:Law, who specialised in pursuing alleged copyright infringers, is no more. Andrew Crossley, the solicitor behind that firm, was suspended from the Roll of Solicitors for two years.

Things seem to be much better this weekend, especially at peak time. For me anyway.

Thanks David for yet another interesting post on BB and the law. Compared to these legal tangles, sorting out a slow connection is easy

In reply to a post by mirage4802:

Things seem to be much better this weekend, especially at peak time. For me anyway.

Not for me.

4 gateway hops before i got a connection that was almost good.


Plusnet are a joke and i think i may soon be departing.

I would rather pay off my existing contract and go back to Sky.

I still have not had a single problem throughout this "meltdown."

In reply to a post by therioman:

However, given this is a residential only service, I see no compelling reason to have a need for Reverse DNS (nice to have, not necessary).

You don't run a mail server, then?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Also Sky gives your details out to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I was looking at it myself until I heard they gave user details out.

Well their TV service department doesn't seem to. I've been a subscriber to that for over a decade and have never received any spam to my Sky email address.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

You don't run a mail server, then?

I run a mail server on a dynamic address - no need for RDNS, so not a compelling reason, no.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

You don't run a mail server, then?

I run a mail server on a dynamic address - no need for RDNS, so not a compelling reason, no.

Surprising you don't have problems with messages you send being accepted. Residential IP range, dynamic and no RDNS would be quite high "probable spam" scores. (The anti-spam systems assume your machine has been hacked, and is being an unwitting relay).

No, I use a Smarthost. I thought everyone did these days - except for hobbyists.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

No, I use a Smarthost. I thought everyone did these days - except for hobbyists.

ahh, I never saw the point of having a local mail server and then forwarding through a smarthost, so I bought a VPS and cut my electric bill at home

A Raspberry Pi is cheaper and uses a minute amount of electricity.

In reply to a post by Malwaremike:

Thanks David for yet another interesting post on BB and the law. Compared to these legal tangles, sorting out a slow connection is easy

If anyone is interested, there was some stinging judicial criticism of the practice of sending letters demanding several hundred pounds to alleged copyright infringers (known as "speculative invoicing") in Golden Eye (International) Ltd & Anor v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch). In that case, the judge granted the Norwich Pharmacal order sought by Golden Eye in relation to content where they had an exclusive licence, but rejected the Norwich Pharmacal orders sought by Golden Eye on behalf of other rights holders who had engaged Golden Eye to enforce their copyrights in return for a proportion of any money received.

I haven't been following the case law in this area, so I'm not up to date with the latest developments. What Golden Eye shows is that not every request for a Norwich Pharmacal order in relation to online copyright infringement succeeds, but any failures are likely to relate to the way the data is likely to be used, rather than due to any action by the ISP. Indeed, in Golden Eye, O2 had agreed to disclose if a court order was made and were not represented in the proceedings. The proceedings resulting in the judgment I linked to were primarily between the claimants and Consumer Focus, intervening on behalf of the (at that point unknown and unaware) defendants in any actions resulting from the Norwich Pharmacal disclosure of data.

After 7 days of waiting I got my first reply from Plusnet. They want another speed test done (as I had used my connection during the same hour of the last test )

We are only able to check usage on an hour by hour basis so I kindly request a speed test to be completed again, but one minute before the hour until on minute after the hour (for example 08:59 - 10:01) please don't download or upload anything on any device connected to your broadband.

How would I do this test?

* complete 1 speed test at 8:59 and then a second at 10:01
* or download a file from a fast host from 8:59 to 10:01

I've disabled the Wifi interface and using wired only so no other device is interfering and still consistently get <40Mps (sync'd at 77), all day, everyday, any time, anywhere, any device, any settings, any config, reset, reboot, restart, etc etc.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

A Raspberry Pi is cheaper and uses a minute amount of electricity.

Very true, they weren't available when I was doing this. Now I often need my mail etc from outside,so a hosted provider has better bandwidth

I think it's a typo, but even then it makes no sense at all.

Edit - Unless they mean don't use the computer for anything between 8:59 and 10:01 except for a speed test between 9:01 and ending before 9:59.

But what usage has to do with speed tests is beyond me. Unless they mean do not do a speed test between those times. It's just gibberish and nonsense however you try to understand it.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 06-Apr-15 18:02:13)

Not easy to know for sure but maybe PN want a speedtest done before the hour kicks in at 9.00 then no internet usage at all for the full hour until 10.00 then another speedtest completed just after that hour, plus whose speedtester do they want used?

Can PN use/identify the speedtests as markers for the OP's no internet usage for an hour at the given times?

Unless they mean don't use the computer for anything between 8:59 and 10:01 except for a speed test between 9:01 and ending before 9:59.

I suspect they mean dont use any/ internet connected machine whilst the test is carried out - the reason being is they want an accurate report without any computer using the internet and giving suspect results.

In reply to a post by MrTAToad2:

I suspect they mean dont use any/ internet connected machine whilst the test is carried out - the reason being is they want an accurate report without any computer using the internet and giving suspect results.

This is my end interpretation too, will complete this after midnight.

It's all a shame really, my experience on PN had been great thus far, but will try every avenue to fix it before jumping ship.

We are only able to check usage on an hour by hour basis so I kindly request a speed test to be completed again, but one minute before the hour until on minute after the hour (for example 08:59 - 10:01) please don't download or upload anything on any device connected to your broadband.

Apart from the obvious "on" that should be "one", if the word "excluding" has been accidentally omitted, (as in "... but excluding one minute before...") it begins to be understandable.

Plus it should be 08:59 - 09:01, which could be simple confusion of "subtract 1 from the hour and 1 from 60 with (wrongly) add 1 to the hour and (correctly) 1 to zero.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 06-Apr-15 20:43:53)

To me 0859-1001 reads correct. If you test at 0859, leave an hour, then retest at 1001.
Ensures only one test in 1 hour cycle.

Edited by flippery (Mon 06-Apr-15 21:12:09)

That is a possible explanation, but what has "usage" got to do with in either case? The poster's problem is the speed, not the usage.

ISPs normally count usage by hh:00:00-hh:59:59.

Assuming the BT Wholesale speedtest is what is required, there is no "hourly" stipulation about that any more. Even the Further Diagnostics can be repeated after 10 minutes.

The one thing that is certain is the message is basically incomprehensible.

Back to the topic Yes would the answer to that question they certainly are and have been in meltdown for months
My Broadband Ping and that speedtest is after a hopped gateway and endpoint

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 06-Apr-15 21:22:54)

Another possibility is that usage is exactly what support want to see when the poster is not using the connection, and that they want speedtests excluding as well as normal usage. That would pick up any leeching that could screw the poster's performance.

I don't suppose you've noticed that speedtest is showing 70 Mbps?

I've recently discovered that a tbb speedtest on my Win 8.1 machine, wired or wireless, give that sort of garbage or worse, whereas tests run immediately before, interspersed and after on my Vista one are perfect.

Win 8.1
Vista.

Consecutive tests one minute apart, in a set of six over nine minutes.

I've kind of pointed this out to people.

Your tests in 8.1 were not with Chrome were they, by any chance?

Well it will because it's (multi threaded,) but i did a tap 3 test and got near/closer to max throughput, (but again multi threaded) but the POS web page would only display some tomcat Apache error so another bit of BT that doesn't f'nng work So another waste of time changing log on credentials and DNS server IP's in order to run a test that is unable to display results

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 06-Apr-15 22:43:08)

IE 11. I think I also use IE 11 on the Vista machine - just switched it on to check. The Vista machine is IE 9.

I'm sure I've done many OK tests on this one until G.INP recently. I have a new laptop coming soon with 8.1 on it, so we'll see how that gets on. This one has been getting dodgier and dodgier in several ways for weeks.

Have you found others with the same problem, or just thee and me?

Whatever, it isn't Plusnet causing the pattern in my case, which is why I told told tommy about it.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 06-Apr-15 22:55:29)

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

You don't run a mail server, then?

I run a mail server on a dynamic address - no need for RDNS, so not a compelling reason, no.

No, I send via my company SMTP Service.

Running a mail server is a niche activity for a "residential" user - it's not something the vast majority of normal residential users would do.

I've seen others with test results showing the bursts higher than it should be physically possible. When this happens to me, my CPU usage goes crazy so I was suspecting an issue with Flash/Chrome/the actual applet.

I do also get inconsistent test results - if I run it 5 times in a row, I'll get one or two with strange looking throughout. I kind of also put this down to the above.

Is that using an ISP in the Czech Republic?

Strange results with speeds well above what is possible (100Mbps on a 20Mbps line) used often to be associated with Kaspersky. That was a few years ago, though; there don't seem to be any issues now. Some put it down to odd interactions between Kaspersky buffering to get enough data to do a reliable check on and the way the tester worked. It didn't seem to have any effect on real internet traffic.

Still, worth trying with firewall and antivirus (temporarily) switched off to see if it makes any difference.

This is with OSX and a brand new iMac. Same thing appears on an older Windows machine though (even with AV disabled).

Nope, Plusnet FTTP connection.

That brings a whole new range of what is physically possible.

And it's a trial.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

That brings a whole new range of what is physically possible.

Such as?!

It's only a trial because Plusnet cannot call it anything else because they've not launched the product yet. 5 years and it's still going...

In terms of everything else, it's identical (Plusnet's end) to FTTC.

It's not identical, it's similar. It's a trial.

In what way is it a trial?

In what way does it bring a whole new range of what is physically possible. ?

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

That brings a whole new range of what is physically possible.

Such as?!

Some Hyperoptic users are seeing 1Gbps up and 1Gbps down on fibre. What are you seeing?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I don't suppose you've noticed that speedtest is showing 70 Mbps?

Yes but only when multi-threaded, and even then throughput over a longer time still shows lower levels of throughput and is inconsistent during peak times
But is consistent outside peak times and the test result shows that the single threaded throughput is consistent too,and is near the max what i should be getting, unlike at peak times

Out side peak time

And these peak time issues such as last night, rendered my connection not fit for purpose for over 1hr , video streaming was interrupted frequently, not buffering but would stall instead ,and flag up some error message

Hello Roberto

You are right - it means don't use the connection between 8.59 and 10.01 except for one speedtest. Plusnet have a breakdown of usage per hour, upload and download.

They check you did the test when you said you did it, and that no other activity "skewed the result".

I was asked to do the same when dealing my parents' slow speeds on Plusnet.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

Hello Roberto

You are right - it means don't use the connection between 8.59 and 10.01 except for one speedtest. Plusnet have a breakdown of usage per hour, upload and download.

They check you did the test when you said you did it, and that no other activity "skewed the result".

I was asked to do the same when dealing my parents' slow speeds on Plusnet.

So they assume that the end user does'nt have a clue,?when most do ,
As anyone who knows what is attached to their home network, knows how to ensure that nothing else is using bandwidth ,when the speedtest is carried out , Certainly no need not to use what you have paid for for several hrs, that's total nonsense Unless they are thinking that your bandwidth is being shared without your knowledge, but even then

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 07-Apr-15 20:30:47)

I'm not with Hyperoptic, I'm with Plusnet.

I have FTTP, not FTTB.

Yes, you already said you have FTTP. I'm asking what speeds are you seeing on the TBB speedtester?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Yes, you already said you have FTTP. I'm asking what speeds are you seeing on the TBB speedtester?

If on a Mac then chrome browser needed for Flash based tester. HTML tester seems okay on Safari and Firefox.

Yes, he's already said that.

They want to look at usage during the hour the speedtest occurred.

Therefore, if the speedtest is to be done at 9:30 they want nothing using the line during that hour (so nothing doing anything between 8:59 and 10:01 apart from the speedtest itself).

But, the only way to guarantee that would be to turn everything off.

I can't see what that would get them though. All it will show is the amount of data downloaded during the speedtest but that seems pretty worthless info to me.

EDIT : Just seen vimto_girl already confirmed this and why.

Edited by ian72 (Thu 09-Apr-15 10:35:21)

Crikey, i was thinking of joining Plusnet again after FTTC was made available recently in my village. But i was not expecting to see threads like this after the recommendations and feedback i've received so far about their fibre services!

Is the general consensus to steer clear of Plusnet at the moment then?

What is the main reason you were thinking of joining Plusnet again?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

What is the main reason you were thinking of joining Plusnet again?

Not sure really as i had bad experiences on ADSL with them in the past before BT owned them, with their crazy throttling/traffic management etc. Obviously FTTC is a completely different product.

I guess price is the main thing for me and as their customer support is UK based that appealed. I was also thinking of using Sky or BT infinity but from feedback i've had most people recommended Plusnet. After reading some of these threads on here though i'm not sure anymore.

You realise they are BT? Their management is from BT and BT own all their shares?

Edited by deleted (Thu 09-Apr-15 12:45:18)

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You realise they are BT? Their management is from BT and BT own all their shares?

Of course yes, again the cheaper price was the driver.

They go through peaks and troughs. When they are on form they provide what seems to be an excellent service. At the moment they seem to be having issues. Started some time back with support issues - long queues, etc which I think have largely now been sorted. Now we seem to be back to performance issues which have also happened before (years back they were having difficulty keeping up with buying new pipes).

I almost moved back to them at the start of this year but held off to see what happened with the support issues. Kind of glad I didn't move now - might go back in future but somehow they need to sort this rollercoaster they have been on for over a decade.

mmm i remember those days, so it seems they haven't moved on much then even under the wing of BT. Really not sure what to do now, as Sky also get mixed reviews and of course a fair bit more expensive.

Edited by bIOforger (Thu 09-Apr-15 14:11:48)

I think they did move on. But have hit a new rocky patch. They had been good for the last couple of years but things don't look so rosy at the moment

They've been great these last 2 years I've been with them. But I'm getting dismal single thread performance now. 2-5Mb on a 50Mb connection if I'm lucky. I can't watch youtube @ 720p anymore without it buffering 1/2 the time. I haven't contacted support yet as I want to verify my hardware is working correctly. But I'm 99% sure it's not on my end as it only just recently started happening (last 2-3 weeks).

Edited by LeJimster (Thu 09-Apr-15 14:46:46)

I've had 2yrs of good FTTC service until recently and have previously recommended Plusnet to several family members.

However strongly suggest staying away until they sort the issues out.

The question is who else is there to go to. The competition is limited really unless you pay through the nose to the likes of Zen. The other thing is i've been stuck on 4.5MB ADSL for ever! so i would like to get onto fibre as soon as is physically possible and not have to wait

I would be interested to know what percentage of customers were experiencing this level of performance degradation. Is it geographical? I have found reviews for any product on the internet will often be skewed to the negative. (People are very quick to complain on a public forum, but rarely post anything when it just works.)
I'm not saying there aren't problems, There certainly seem to be enough reports to indicate some routing/congestion issues but is it representative of the whole Plusnet customer base?

The people who recommended it to me, have had zero issues with latency, speed or sync currently.

Very true point though about how forums usually only highlight issues and can skew your opinions. But like you say there is a lot of people reporting the same issues at the moment.

In reply to a post by bIOforger:

The question is who else is there to go to.

I'm personally considering BT infinity or Sky Pro as I've heard good things. If Plusnet wasn't an 18 month contract id say it was worth a punt first as its GVFM.

In reply to a post by frogfoot1:

I would be interested to know what percentage of customers were experiencing this level of performance degradation. Is it geographical? I have found reviews for any product on the internet will often be skewed to the negative. (People are very quick to complain on a public forum, but rarely post anything when it just works.)
I'm not saying there aren't problems, There certainly seem to be enough reports to indicate some routing/congestion issues but is it representative of the whole Plusnet customer base?

That's a fair and important question. The average user who notices a problem I don't think will post on a forum, but calls/emails the ISP directly.

Then there are users who might be suffering from problems such as mine (Getting <40Mbps instead of 80) but will be happy with their connection because they are oblivious to the issue or satisfied as long as web pages load/vids stream fast enough.

Only Plusnet can truly answer the impact of the recent issues, but even then folk will probably be sceptical. Its hard one.

Edited by narz (Thu 09-Apr-15 16:31:55)

In reply to a post by narz:

I'm personally considering BT infinity or Sky Pro as I've heard good things. If Plusnet wasn't an 18 month contract id say it was worth a punt first as its GVFM.

BT will have the same issues won't it though? If you have issues currently with Plusnet that is.

Sky has it own "issues" with the locked down router and poor wireless connectivity, yes you can get around it, but that breaks their T&C's. And you're still limited to what you can use and that can be expensive.

I probably will go with Plusnet i guess and just suck it and see.

Edited by bIOforger (Thu 09-Apr-15 16:57:39)

TalkTalk is the other option, not too expensive (consumer vs business version) but they have a good core network but with the obvious poor customer service.

In reply to a post by bIOforger:

In reply to a post by narz:

I'm personally considering BT infinity or Sky Pro as I've heard good things. If Plusnet wasn't an 18 month contract id say it was worth a punt first as its GVFM.

BT will have the same issues won't it though? If you have issues currently with Plusnet that is.

Sky has it own "issues" with the locked down router and poor wireless connectivity, yes you can get around it, but that breaks their T&C's. And you're still limited to what you can use and that can be expensive.

I probably will go with Plusnet i guess and just suck it and see.

Not seeing BT retail customers or customers of smaller isp's that provide FTTC via BTWholesale complaining as frequently as plusnet customers are

In reply to a post by bIOforger:

The people who recommended it to me, have had zero issues with latency, speed or sync currently.

Same here, no problems whatsoever during the "meltdown." Make of that what you will.

And my problems with the similar poor single-stream and OK multi-stream download on tbb speed test, with very poor upload, turned out to be my laptop with Win 8.1 and IE 11. A Vista laptop with IE9 is fine.

Edit: I have a new Win8.1 Intel i7 laptop arriving soon, so an early test before I load anything onto it will be interesting.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 09-Apr-15 21:57:12)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

And my problems with the similar poor single-stream and OK multi-stream download on tbb speed test, with very poor upload, turned out to be my laptop with Win 8.1 and IE 11. A Vista laptop with IE9 is fine.

Edit: I have a new Win8.1 Intel i7 laptop arriving soon, so an early test before I load anything onto it will be interesting.

And the problem continues for me, though currently not quite as severe as it has been, but still noticeable & the connection still isn't fit for purpose

And i know it isnt my pc or the o/s or my AV firewall ect ect ect, it's congestion and only occurs at peak times as regular as clockwork

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 09-Apr-15 22:03:58)

In reply to a post by RogN:

Note a thread asking is PN's speeds were in meltdown, but I wonder if PN is back to the bad old days and going into meltdown.

Raised a ticket and it said aim to reply in 24 hours, 4 days later still waiting.

Tell me I need an engineer to the premises, I agree, then an email tells me that if the fault is in the house it will cost me £60, no mention of this when I was talking to them on the phone.

Raise a complaint and it seems to have got lost.

Feels like the bad old days and after I have told many people to sign up with them. But after this what's the best good price provider that can deal with customers in a sensible and prompt way?

Dito on the engineer lol, how is an BTOR SFI engineer going to test for congestion from the NTE? when thoughput and latency and even packet loss aren't in their remit (sin???)

So, how easy is it to cancel the contract without having to pay any cancellation charges?

I'm with PN and have serious ongoing problems with slow-downs in the evening. Daytime in upper 50s, through the evening anything as low as 2.

PlusNet took a week to pick up the job ticket, and have since been extremely sluggish in reacting. When they do react they talk-the-talk, but seem unwilling or unable to do much. I've had to go through 3 Openreach visits, and I'm still waiting to hear what the outcome is.

I'm on a rural exchange with only BT, and I'm far from alone in having the problems - which aren't of PlusNet's making as far as I can tell (others having problems are with BT).

What annoys us is that we have to go through the crazy Openreach protocol, wasting 12 hours of Openreach engineer time. It's a bit like running out of petrol and being forced to have an engineer call-out to diagnose it.

A friend off the same exchange has had the same problems with BT, and I've been very surprised at how attentive they have been (although spending 90 minutes on the phone going through the usual tests).

I've been with PlusNet since dial-up days (barring a brief switch during a house move), and have always been impressed with their service - but in the past 18 months it has deteriorated. Calls to the help desk were once answered in a few minutes, now it's typically 30+ minutes - job tickets (and responses) get ignored for days on end. Even their presence in the forums is deteriorating into "I'm sorry you've had a problem but our engineers are aware", or other platitudes.

As soon as my existing contract is up I will be moving (joining 4 of 5 friends who were on PlusNet and who have now moved).

"PlusNet in Meltdown?" ... yes ....definitely.

In reply to a post by gotty:

"PlusNet in Meltdown?" ... yes ....definitely.

But you say you have friends on the same rural exchange with other ISPs who are also having problems?

surely the topic should be "BT wholesale in Meltdown".

Unless you have Virgin Media cable, or Talk Talk or Sky LLU at that exchange, you don't have any other choice of wholesaler.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

[surely the topic should be "BT wholesale in Meltdown".
[/quote]

No - the meltdown is in the way that PlusNet handles things.

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by bIOforger:

The people who recommended it to me, have had zero issues with latency, speed or sync currently.

Same here, no problems whatsoever during the "meltdown." Make of that what you will.

I am not experiencing any problems either, other than interlacing being on but that just seems to be a problem with my line.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

And my problems with the similar poor single-stream and OK multi-stream download on tbb speed test, with very poor upload, turned out to be my laptop with Win 8.1 and IE 11. A Vista laptop with IE9 is fine.

Edit: I have a new Win8.1 Intel i7 laptop arriving soon, so an early test before I load anything onto it will be interesting.

I had a similar problem a few months ago with poor single thread download, multi was fine, tried on various different machines with same result. Just seemed to clear up itself ???

Been checking recently both at peak & off peak times. Not noticed any slow down here (Aberdeen) maybe just local problems for some people

My point was the opposite of that .

Ignorance is no defence!

Will you try upgrading to W10 if problem persists?

I'm hoping it won't ! That there is something else up with the laptop.

One problem about upgrading the new one to W10 could be disk space. It has a 256GB SSD and no hard drive. We shall see .

W10 has small footprint like Win7 so that shouldn't be an issue. The preview requirement is 16GB.

Yes, but I don't think upgrades like that remove the original OS. Or do they?

I don't yet know if part of the 256 is also swallowed by a restore partition for Win 8.1, which would complicate things.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Yes, but I don't think upgrades like that remove the original OS. Or do they?

I don't yet know if part of the 256 is also swallowed by a restore partition for Win 8.1, which would complicate things.

Upgrade? upgrade?!? you should always be doing a fresh install

You have the choice, it will upgrade the existing windows 8.1 installation, unless you specify that you want it installed separately into another Windows directory, which would create a dual boot scenario between w8.1 and w10. So if you don't do that and just upgrade 8.1 in place it will effectively wipe it and the restore partition would just be ignored, as that's something that was created by the supplier of your desktop/laptop. I believe its just the bootblock that's updated in both cases, so it will either boot to a menu, so you can choose between using w8.1 or w10 or it will boot directly into w10.

However it's done, it's an upgrade . You obviously cannot upgrade the Win 8.1 product itself by patches, it has to be a fresh install.

Yes I would want it booting direct into W10 and ignoring the other, but how much of the disk is released I have my doubts about. Having done several older Win version updates. IIRC most of it stays where it was.

neither is not informing people of what is entailed, it is the suppliers responsibility to give all necessary information and they are liable if they do not do so, even if that information is common knowledge, they have to ensure you have that you are in possession of it.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

However it's done, it's an upgrade . You obviously cannot upgrade the Win 8.1 product itself by patches, it has to be a fresh install.

When the preview upgrades to a new release it keeps the old version compressed. Using "Disk cleanup" wizard you can then remove the "older version of windows" and it releases about 4GB.

Win8 may not have a recovery partition, as the OS has similar tools built in, depends on the laptop maker.

Yes I would want it booting direct into W10 and ignoring the other, but how much of the disk is released I have my doubts about. Having done several older Win version updates. IIRC most of it stays where it was.

Disk cleanup works better from W7 to 8 etc, than it did from 2000 to XP or XP to Vista - but yes, if you can get a full ISO downloaded, burned to DVD or USB stick, and install from there that is generally more efficient use of disk space. That way however you have to find all your drivers and reinstall software again

That's another thing . No way do I want to install a preview - the instruction list for moving to the pukka release of such from MS used to run to over a page.

I have installed the Windows 10 preview in a VM on my main PC and as the only OS (upgraded in-place from 8.1) on a spare laptop and had no problems at all. I am led to believe that the upgrade from the preview to the full release will this time be relatively painless.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That's another thing . No way do I want to install a preview - the instruction list for moving to the pukka release of such from MS used to run to over a page.

Try the server OSes ! No, I run in a VMware virtual machine on my Mac

Take National Speed limit sign. The information is different for different types of road.

Sometimes YOU have to look for the info' and not rely on others to hold your hand and explain every little nuance.

Edited by broadband66 (Tue 14-Apr-15 10:14:46)

And you get instructions about such things and w hat to look for BEFORE being given the chance to look for yourself. Or did you not have instruction and you are driving without a license?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

The charge for an internal fault is surely common knowledge?

From a legal perspective, what matters are the terms of the contract between the service provider and the consumer.

There are certain terms implied into a contract by statute - the fairly well known consumer rights created by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 fall into this category.

Terms can be implied in certain other circumstances, but these are relatively narrow. There are four scenarios that come to mind:

1. when the term is customary in a certain locality or trade
2. when the term is a consistent part of dealings between the parties
3. when the meaning of a contract is unclear to an observer, but the parties were in agreement over what was intended at the time of contract formation
4. when the contract is silent over necessary customary terms

Scenario 1 is concerned with common knowledge, but really only covers matters that are so well known within the locality or trade in question that there should be little doubt in the minds of both parties that the term is incorporated even in the absence of an explicit term covering the matter.

It is hard to see how scenario 2 could apply to a residential ISP, as few consumers will take out enough contracts in a year to be regarded as consistent dealings.

Scenario 3 doesn't apply here, as it would be impossible to show the customer agreed to visit charges in 'no fault found' scenarios if the contract was silent on the matter. The case law here is clear that this scenario is only about resolving disputes about the meaning of the contract as it stands, and it is not possible to improve upon the contract (so the ISP couldn't use this scenario to argue 'we left out mention of visit charges, but the customer should have known they would be levied in some scenarios').

Scenario 4 doesn't apply here, as there is nothing necessary about passing on a visit charge. The case law here relates to a landlord arguing they had no responsibility to make reasonable efforts to maintain the stairs, lifts and rubbish chutes in a block of flats. The court held that an easement to use the stairs, lifts and rubbish chutes was necessary for the tenant to use their flat, so the landlord had a contractual repair obligation over these necessary areas.


I would expect that the only legally enforceable way a residential ISP could pass on a visit charge is via an explicit contractual term - either in the contract to provide service, or a contract relating to the visit (for example, if the customer agreed to the visit on the basis that a charge would be levied if no fault is found). A contract can be formed verbally, though the party attempting to rely on that contract would have to be able to demonstrate a contract more likely than not existed, for example by producing a recording of a telephone call.

To my mind, an ISP saying on the phone "We can send an engineer, but if the engineer reports no fault is found, or the only faults are on your internal wiring, we will charge you £150. Do you agree?" and the customer responding "Yes" forms a valid contract that allows the visit charge to be passed on.

And what is the national speed limit on a dual carriageway with one lane?

Assuming there is no central reservation then I assume it is half the speed limit of a dual carriageway with 2 lanes - so must be 30. If there is a central reservation then 35.

When agreeing to a telephone line with BT you are allowed to install an extension to that master socket.

If the phone on the extension stopped working, due to a fault in the extension, I wouldn't expect BT to fix my work free of charge.

As a clue. A dual carriageway is a dual carriageway whether 1 or 2 lanes either side.

They asked me that question on my test, it is in the Highway Code which you are tested on when taking a test and which your driving instructor takes you through. You are not expected to know as 'common knowledge', which is the case you are trying to make. You should be a member of PN staff they seem to able to duck and dodge and debate how many angels on a pin head, much better than trying to answer any questions that might be difficult because they relate to PN's poor services.

A dual carriageway by definition has a central reservation.

Correct. A dual carriageway can be anything from 1 to many lanes. The maximum speed limit, unless signed otherwise or a lower limit applies for the type of vehicle, is 60mph.

Note a motorway is not classified as a dual carriageway and special regulations apply. There is (I think) still one single carriageway stretch of motorway.

Strictly it has a central divide, may be little more than a raised kerb. Paint markings are insufficient.

In reply to a post by cheshire_man:

Correct. A dual carriageway can be anything from 1 to many lanes. The maximum speed limit, unless signed otherwise or a lower limit applies for the type of vehicle, is 60mph.

Note a motorway is not classified as a dual carriageway and special regulations apply. There is (I think) still one single carriageway stretch of motorway.

Since when has the speed limit for a Category B vehicle been 60mph on a dual carriageway?

Sorry, my bad. You are quite correct, it's 70mph on dual carriageways and 60 on single carriageways.

It's been a long day...

As a side issue. I knew the single carriageway limit for goods vehicles >7.5 tonnes MLW had gone up to 50mph earlier this month (and to 60 on dual carriageways). I hadn't realised that was only the case in England & Wales. In Scotland it's still 40 on single and 50 on dual. Details here.

That's what I call a reservation . Paint markings do not, by definition, create two carriageways.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

A dual carriageway by definition has a central reservation.

Ah, I did get slightly confused by the definition of "dual carriageway". However, in practice I know that if there is a central reservation then national speed restriction is 70mph and if not then it is 60mph. In practice it doesn't matter what you call it as long as you know the limits.

The point is that many people think, wrongly, that it is 60 when in fact it is 70. The driving instructor is NOT required to inform you, it is up to you as a driver to read and keep up to date with the highway code. How many drivers on this forum know the current highway code.

Again - ignorance is no defence. "I'm sorry officer my driving instructor didn't notify me about that" won't wash.

Read your terms and conditions and use a little common sense as it goes a long way.

You are right.

there is no ignorance. The Officer would say that the driving instructor told you that these were the limits and they are set out in the highway code and you would be told that you ne e d to regularly update yourself to keep within the law. I was told that, I was instructed, as to how to stay within the law. But if no one had bothered to tell me there was a Highway Code or that it was ignored now, then I would have to rely on 2common knowledge". Gladly if you are expected to know then you are so instructed. Same at work if you use equipment, you must be instructed in its use and if you are not and you injure yourself, your work is responsible because they have not shown you how to use the equipment. You are now trying to defend the indefensible. PN have to inform you if the re is a possible cost for a service BEFORE they perform it and if they do not inform you BEFORE then you are not liable to pay it. My last post on this offtopic rubbish you keep raising.

But what was really sneaky and unacceptable was that PN did not inform me when booking the appointment, they slipped it into an email sent AFTER the booking but BEFORE the appointment, thereby hoping that I, and others because they do this to others, would not notice.

They say a leopard does not change its spots, I thought that was not true of PN, but it clearly is. They have gone back to the sneaky, hiding things PN that I left because of last time, some years ago, and why I will leave again, when it suits me.

I know someone that decided to take a leak after having climbed over some scaffolding and fell off. His employer didn't specifically say don't do that. He didn't have a leg to stand on (excuse the pun).

And is it not your responsibility to use common sense and think. If YOU add an extension to your phone line and in some way the wiring is wrong and causes a broadband or phone issue then who should pay to have it fixed?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

As a clue. A dual carriageway is a dual carriageway whether 1 or 2 lanes either side.

70mph is only the Official Speed Limit for dual carriageways and motorways.

What really matters for the vigilant petrolhead is the Speeding Enforcement Policy Guidance.

Issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Guidance indicates a threshold of 10% + 2mph.

10% + 2mph is the threshold above the Speed Limit before a penalty is likely to be imposed for excess speed. The cameras are only calibrated to an accuracy of 3% above 66mph, so there's a generous margin to play with.

Don't tell your wives this, but the prudent motorist can comfortably do 79mph on a dual carriageway or motorway without real risk of censure.

My mate asbo swears by the ACPO Guidelines. Wiith just four driving bans to his name - he knows his stuff when it comes to speeding. As ever, it's a case of follow by example.

That rule-of-thumb of {10% + 2mph} above the Official Speed Limit serves well as a benchmark in today's cautious world of modern motoring.


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ACPO+Speed+Enforcem...

But you also have to take into account the accuracy of your speedo. It is also your speedo will be under reading and so could get a fine because you thought you were following the guidelines.

But then on every comparative measure I have (like those signs that tell you how fast you are going and the TomTom that gives my speed) it looks like my car reads about 2 mph over (ie doing 28mph it reads 30mph).

Regarding the 10% + 2mph
I am not sure that is still valid with automatic ticket generation by speed cameras as I have heard of several people being done at 33mph in a 30mph limit

I had to laugh..
Only 4 driving bans..
He really must know his stuff... Did he learn about speed limits after his 4th ban.

That said it seems this thread has gone into meltdown.

Anyway made me smile this morning.

Car Speedo's are allowed to and commonly do over read by 10%
One on of my cars while in tolerance at 30 to 40 mph by 70mph the over read is higher than 10% (as checked against a aviation standard quality grade GPS)
Speedos are not permitted to under read.

So for example if you are speeding in a 30 mph limit
the 10% plus 2 mph ACPO guide lines will give you 35 real speed before you are 'done'
if your speedo is over reading by 10% then it will be indicating 39mph at 35 real.
...and by rights it seems quite reasonable that you should in this example be given a ticket.

So I tend to ignore the "i was only doing 32 in a 30 zone and I got caught by a camera" claims

Yes most if not all car speedometers read over the actual speed your traveling at
As they are not calibrated(Except traffic police cars) like Lgv/Psv's or any onther vehicle fitted with a tachograph are, So when you are in roadworks on the motorway you know those 40 or 50mph limits and you have a lorry or coach chewing off your rear bumbper check your speedo chances are that your only doing under the speed limit by 5-7mph but your speedo will tell you 40 or 50 , this inacuracy increases the faster you drive ,

Also if you seriously think that almost every lorry driver is going to risk his /her vocational licence through speeding then you must be very dumb, like the muppets that try and play policemen by pulling in front of a 44t lorry and purposly slowing down,to prevent the lorry making progress, When the lorry wasn't speeding in the first place, there's far too many looney's with driving licences these days on our roads
So what i describe happens to you maybe you should increase and mantain your speed a little so your doing 50, or hang up your keys

Just a thought what has this got to do with the title of this thread?

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 17-Apr-15 12:56:04)