New 38/2 discussion

My original thread has been badly sidetracked so many will have given up on it.

A few useful posts came early on, and it has been confirmed over in the Community thread that it isn't a typo on the web pages.

That thread as well has got rather long, but in essence the change is similar to all in the past. Those on the 38/20 will stay on it until they change of their own volition to another product.

What will happen with retention deals hasn't been resolved. I doubt if it can be, as only the Customer Options Team can decide, possibly on a case by case basis. I think past history shows they may be able to get one and stay on 38/20, (or the earlier 38/10 even if that's what they are on), or they may have to move to the then current product to get a retention deal. It seems to vary.

Another 'unique' product gone. Slowly they transmogrify into BT.

Plusnet used to be a low-cost, with frills ISP. They seem to be turning into a cheap-rate, no frills also-ran. Obviously some heavy uploaders flocked to Plusnet with these cheap-rate, high upload packages, and Plusnet have been feeling the bandwidth costs. Otherwise, why change?

Tried logging into their site these days? Slow...always has been. Guess it always will be while they focus on cutting services.

38/2 isn't gone yet!! I moved house last Friday and got new line/fibre installed today.

Guess what they've provisioned me on instead of the 80/20 I was on at old house?

Yep you guessed it - 38/2!!

I should add that in this day and age, Annex M should be at no extra cost if a user can utilise it. They still offer up to 17Mb on ADSL2+, although said service should be good for up to 21Mb. Peeps are getting stiffed there too.

All in all they are trading on low cost products and are having to strip them to the bone to make them profitable. Which is pretty [censored] for long-term users that actually stay.

Interesting you say that.

I warned a few minutes ago in this thread that might happen and would need to be prevented for any pre-existing move orders.

Let's hope you get it resolved.

So is WBC Annex M not an extra cost option with BT Wholesale any more?

Me too - I let Plusnet know as soon as I found out (my dad was at the house for the installation and wouldn't have known how to test lol) and they said the job hadn't been signed off by the engineer yet and could take until the engineer closes his days' work at 6pm. The CS rep was then going to check on what profile they put me on. I'll let you know once this happens later. Interestingly, my line speed in the portal is still on 62.5 as it was before we left the old house last Friday.

Just noticed a LOT of clicking on the line too so may have to report that later too

Any ISP can offer any product mix they choose. The same applies to chocolate bar and car manufacturers. I really don't see the problem.

If the best combination of products could be combined at a low price and made profitable, then someone, somewhere would be doing it.

For instance - look at Pulse8. How long they will survive with their current prices and staffing is another matter - but let's take that as an example rather than another loss of topic here.

Annex M is only on Plusnet Business anyway isn't it?

Did you intend to stay on 78/20 then? If so it's just a silly cock-up (again ) somewhere. I only expected 38/20 house moves to be a problem.

What I mean is that with fibre products making 2Meg or 20 Meg upload available as standard, why not make Annex M available to non-fibre users at no extra cost where available to users? Is it really all that more expensive if adopted universally?

Yes intended to stay on it and it's confirmed in the ticket they opened 3 weeks ago when I ordered the move so fingers crossed just some silly mistake on their part.

I'm still concerned that the noisy line is going to prove a problem. I'm only approx. 160m from cab so should get close to 76Mbps down I'm hoping.

Chocolate bar eaters do have the right to tell the manufacturer when they diminish their product that they feel it is a bad idea.

I really don't see the problem with consumers voicing their dislike of their suppliers changes to a product or range of products.

I expected a debate on whether or not 2Meg upload was good / bad otherwise, but not a debate on whether consumers should be allowed to voice displeasure of supplied service. Is this an "Agree with Rob" thread?

I really don't see the problem with consumers voicing their dislike of their suppliers changes to a product or range of products.

Quite.

I too expected a discussion of the change of this FTTC product. Which is why I started this thread after the side-tracking of the previous one.

What has your introduction of a completely irrelevant issue of Annex M on ADSL2+ go to do with it. That is what merited the reply about choc bars and cars. There hasn't even been a change to that Plusnet Business product so far as I know.

Please go and start a discussion elsewhere on Annex M if you want one. I don't want to have to start a third thread.

Remember Annex M only helps those with downloads over 16 Mbps generally, and you trade download for upload, and is only available on WBC exchanges. So adds to the complexity of who can get it, and who benefits.

An extra £7 per month to BT Wholesale does not stack up on a £2.50 to £9.99 per month product.

NOTE: The saving of going from 80/20 to 40/2 is £3 per month on standard pricing, but PlusNet may have specially negotiated pricing.

The £44 I pay is not cheap Bob, certainly not a loss leader, but the low low call costs are real cheap and I love no contract and good customer service, so there for a while.
https://pulse8broadband.co.uk/fibreoptic-packages?ty...

Edited by professor973 (Wed 17-Jun-15 20:47:44)

Stop being petulant Rob. It's a discussion on Plusnet's products. We will naturally debate and discuss what we would like to see.

There was a time that we could post on here and a PN rep would pop up to discuss things too. Please don't start a third thread. No really.

Agree to all that. Just saying it shouldn't be extra for those that can utilise it. Not with today's speeds and bandwidths.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

It's a discussion on Plusnet's products.

Can you try reading the subject? Works for me...

Did it? Didn't spot you discussing anything.

/well you didn't

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Stop being petulant Rob. It's a discussion on Plusnet's products. We will naturally debate and discuss what we would like to see.

There was a time that we could post on here and a PN rep would pop up to discuss things too. Please don't start a third thread. No really.

Please don't be so pestilential.

It is not a discussion of a Plusnet Business niche variant on ADSL2+ where you want a price reduction. It is a discussion of the replacement today of a popular Plusnet FTTC product that had a USP with a far inferior one at the same price.

The Subject is not "A discussion of miscellaneous Plusnet product prices".

Your hijacking is one of the most obvious examples I have ever seen of something that is so irrelevant to a thread that it needs one all to itself.

This is not petulance. It is utter frustration at pig-headed hijacking of a thread that was clearly stated to have been opened because the previous one had been wrecked by similar.

The first thread had seven normal posts before trouble arose. After that, only two. This thread had three normal posts, including your perfectly OK first one. A few of us have since managed posts related to the subject, but as in the first thread most people just moved on.

Thank you ever so much for your contributions, help and co-operation . I hope you feel very proud of yourself.

Still happy to discuss the 38/2. It's just that you want to control the content of the thread too much. I did discuss it as part of a broader problem.

Not my fault if you want a thread to go in one direction and can't find others to oblige. Be less rigid.

2Mbps upload in proportion to 38Mbps download is stupid, 4Mbps would be much more sensible.

I can think of a few applications which will bottleneck on the upload even though they are primarily download oriented.

Even if Plusnet had went back to the plain old 38/10 product, it would still be good buy but the TalkTalk-ification of it and Plusnet as a whole really puts me off. Pity, I was considering switching to the 38/20 one once my contract had expired, it really was a nice and unique package.

The problem with the 38/20 was that Plusnet were paying for the 80/20 product to supply it. Which made no real sense to me. Also as has been said in a few places, it's very likely that people unable to get more than 55-60 on 78/20 would either join on or downgrade to it. As you were thinking of.

There's not a lot of point in offering a product that automatically cuts your number of top-end buyers but costs you the same. I expect the "clever" marketing guys didn't think of that. Just that 38/20 would sell well. Which it did, and no doubt made a small profit on paper.

Then the loss of top-end buyers was realised.

Openreach should have three products line up on FTTC:

80/40
40/20
20/10

Rant over!

Edited by adslmax (Fri 19-Jun-15 02:06:52)

Post deleted by RobertoS

I would be inclined to say upload a quarter of download so 80/20, 40/10, 20/5. The first two are existing products, the last would give the majority of ADSL users a significant improvement with a sensible upgrade path if in time they needed higher speeds. It's the current 40/2 that makes no sense to me.

Agree with that. 20/5 is a sensible option for a slower line or for people that don't stream content as much as others. 5 Meg upload would be a nice increase on the 1 Meg too.

To be honest, being on 11 / 1 (ADSL2+), I find it fine most of the time. I don't need HD quality streams, but it would be nice to have say 15 Meg and 3-5 Meg uploads for when I do the odd big upload.

In that sense, your 'quarter of download' rule would give me 2.75 Meg upload on my current D/L speeds. I would love that.

Now if Plusnet would increase their monthly usage limits to 100 Gig on their legacy products, that would be perfect.

I know, really annoying when someone posts unrelated replies on a thread potentially changing the discussion.

I disagree with 20/5. The BTw & BTo should have 80/40, 60/30, 40/20 and 20/10 instead.

Edited by adslmax (Fri 19-Jun-15 12:04:02)

I think it should be

15/5
30/10
60/20
90/30
120/40 (at a push)

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I think it should be

15/5
30/10
60/20
90/30
120/40 (at a push)

I can understand that BTWholesale only limit with two or three products to all isp's. (I be very surprise if BTw and BTo will bring in 120/40. (but I don't think it will not gonna to happen) More likely 500/250 on G.Fast soon if the cabinet are 150-200 metre away,

Edited by adslmax (Fri 19-Jun-15 12:12:47)

Oh no its too late for any of the above now...

The above is the products they should released or had available..

They also should have had the configurations so that connections could achieve the full speed of their package... so 80 and 74 ...

In reply to a post by adslmax:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I think it should be

15/5
30/10
60/20
90/30
120/40 (at a push)

I can understand that BTWholesale only limit with two or three products to all isp's. (I be very surprise if BTw and BTo will bring in 120/40. (but I don't think it will not gonna to happen) More likely 500/250 on G.Fast soon if the cabinet are 150-200 metre away,

Whilst you post some spectacular [censored]. I do hope your right as 500/250 would make my juicy.

you're

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

They also should have had the configurations so that connections could achieve the full speed of their package... so 80 and 74 ...

What do you mean by that? Example?

It's a shame they have dropped the 40/20 product but I understand why they have done that. I think they should have gone with 40/10 though as dropping all the way to 40/2 is [censored].

I will probably remain with Plusnet once fibre is available though, I have no complaints and recently got a nice retention deal

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

They also should have had the configurations so that connections could achieve the full speed of their package... so 80 and 74 ...

What do you mean by that? Example?

So a line that can sync at full 80000/20000 Kbps can only get a throughput of around 74-76Mbps, it should be configured so that the line can sync at a higher rate... maybe 88000/22000 so it can test at 80/20 instead of 74/18

Without trying to come across pedantic, they sell 38 and 76 downstream.

I guess the switch from 38/20 to 38/2 was all about "buying market" and differentiating against the likes of TalkTalk.

I wonder if this is coincidence, but this seems to have happened quite quickly after they've offered their TV package to unlimited extra customers - they really want more people on the more expensive package, since presumably the margins are better?

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

So a line that can sync at full 80000/20000 Kbps can only get a throughput of around 74-76Mbps, it should be configured so that the line can sync at a higher rate... maybe 88000/22000 so it can test at 80/20 instead of 74/18

Ah, I see what you mean. The problem is you open a can of worms there. VDSL2 data rates are defined by a standard, so we can set an exact figure and know what it means, and that is all Openreach are selling to ISPs/wholesalers. It is protocol and application agnostic and does not vary with network configurations like MTU or IPv6. "Throughput" or "download" however comes in all sorts of flavours, what are you going to use because for each one you would have a different number. Presumably you would stick to something coming out of the modem, but that still leaves PPP data rate, IP data rate, IP payload, TCP payload, UDP payload, application payload... why should one be picked over another, it is somewhat arbitrary. Probably the most sensible is to plump for IP payload, as this leaves things open and agnostic to the variable end-user protocol and application (but also their variable overheads), and is how ISPs currently arrive at 76 Mb/s. We still have network variables that can change this at any time, so I don't think it's a good idea personally. Just stick with the old plan IMO

Edited by deleted (Sat 20-Jun-15 16:33:15)

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Another 'unique' product gone. Slowly they transmogrify into BT.

Plusnet used to be a low-cost, with frills ISP. They seem to be turning into a cheap-rate, no frills also-ran. Obviously some heavy uploaders flocked to Plusnet with these cheap-rate, high upload packages, and Plusnet have been feeling the bandwidth costs. Otherwise, why change?

Tried logging into their site these days? Slow...always has been. Guess it always will be while they focus on cutting services.

Depends if they are billed for IN + OUT or just the greater of the 2 which on a residential ISP will be the Inbound.

I can't see it being capacity since backhaul links tend to be synchronous which means most provider using Asynchronous access circuits usually have an excess of unused upstream capacity on their cores.

Where do you get the bit about Plusnet TV only being on the more expensive fibre package as that isn't what is stated here https://www.plus.net/tv/

What you'll need

Plusnet Unlimited Fibre or Plusnet Unlimited Fibre Extra, with a minimum estimated line speed of 15Mb.

I'm on 40/20 and have plusnet TV.

The advantage of having it on the 40/20 is that I connect at 70/20, the plusnet TV can use capacity above the 40Mbps that plusnet cap my line at. So I can watch TV and still download at 40Mbps.

Now that's interesting, I didn't know that!

Also, my assumption about TV being only available to unlimited extra peeps was mainly down to the the criteria for the trial.

But I guess what I'm trying to say (badly!) was they "bought" additional revenue/subscribers with 40/20, and now they have TV to get revenue (just like TT) they don't need that carrot - they have feature parity/compete on the same features.

I dislike the inference that plusnet is the low-rent version of BT - in many respects it is superior to BT Retail and TalkTalk (and Sky for that matter).

The price they pay in rental is far less for the 40/2 product than the 80/20 one. The 40/20 was made using throttling at their end, but they were still paying Openreach for their 80/20 product.

Saving a few quid per month per subscriber on that rental alone must add up across the board - even if they weren't noticing the 20mbit uploads on their network links.

In reply to a post by blueacid:

The price they pay in rental is far less for the 40/2 product than the 80/20 one. The 40/20 was made using throttling at their end, but they were still paying Openreach for their 80/20 product.

Saving a few quid per month per subscriber on that rental alone must add up across the board - even if they weren't noticing the 20mbit uploads on their network links.

You'd have thought the 40/10 was a more sensible middle ground.

In reply to a post by dragon2611:

You'd have thought the 40/10 was a more sensible middle ground.

Agree. Guess they must really want to push as many people as possible onto 80/20, in my case it will probably work. 40/20 or 40/10 would do me fine but not sure I'd go for only 2 upload.

I think 40/2 is ideal for people who just want to stream movies, watch TV, browse the web and send/receive emails. What good would 10 Mbps be to them?

I expect the majority of broadband users don't even know (a) what their product upstream speed is, (b) what their upstream sync is, especially on FTTC, and (c) what their upstream throughput speed is.

They won't even know what Mbps and MBps mean, and don't care. It either streams their videos and catchup TV, or it doesn't.

What has surprised me, and may be part of possible UK capacity problems, is the number of silver surfers who traditionally use just browsing and emails and have adopted catchup TV. I know a few within half a mile of me. Even more use Skype, no doubt initially to talk to their children and even more likely their grandchildren, then expand their usage to include friends.

All will work fine for them on 40/2. They haven't got a house full of kids saturating the connection.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 21-Jun-15 10:58:14)

Some of the 'silver surfers' (as well as all ages) are using webcams for long-distance family or friend contact. A decent quality might require more than 2 Meg. A 5 Meg upload should cover it though.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Some of the 'silver surfers' (as well as all ages) are using webcams for long-distance family or friend contact. A decent quality might require more than 2 Meg. A 5 Meg upload should cover it though.

You'd be surprised at how little bandwidth some of these modern codecs actually need to deliver reasonable quality video.

Probably. I used to get by on the old 8000 / 400 speeds, but the window was probably 320 x 240 and it was generally of a 240p-like quality.

With demand for 720p-like quality and a display are of 640 x 480 or greater...

I'm sure there's a simple calc for working it out, but I'll guess at 3-4 Meg, and say 2-3 Meg with compression.

There's a test for Andrew and his bag of many gadgets.

The ability of the PC to compress the stream is as much of a bottleneck 1 to 2 Mbps will provide a video quality that most will be very pleased with - or put another way as good or better than the FreeView SD everyone watches.

If more is needed, then you are talking people willing to spend money on good camera/PC so buying 80/20 or a competitors 40/10 will be no hassle.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The ability of the PC to compress the stream is as much of a bottleneck 1 to 2 Mbps will provide a video quality that most will be very pleased with - or put another way as good or better than the FreeView SD everyone watches.

Have you seen / tried the Logitech C920? Video processing done in the webcam, so CPU load is reduced. It seems that the larger settings (1080p) and greater FPS are the main issues. As you say, 2 Meg should be enough.

Buy two C920s and send me one and we'll chat n test.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

I should add that in this day and age, Annex M should be at no extra cost if a user can utilise it. They still offer up to 17Mb on ADSL2+, although said service should be good for up to 21Mb. Peeps are getting stiffed there too.

Why? Not all users would benefit - they'd lose downstream for upstream they may not need or want.

Plus, it's not a free option at wholesale level on BTs side.

Yes seen the C920 and yes much better hardware and lens and again very good streams at 1 to 2 Mbps

The C920 has been the recommended webcam for a long time now.

Shame PN have done this. I was thinking of moving to PN when my contact is up in a few months. I'd have no problem with 40/10, but 40/2 means a big fat no from me.

As someone else said on here recently (I cannot recall who it was), they made a very good point regarding FTTC type speeds and cloud based services. Basically, with a 2 MB upload, any kind of cloud service you may want to use (Dropbox, for example) is going to be rendered unusable. Or at least heavily hindered. I don't think 2 MB is even as fast as the highest possible upload you could get on ADSL2+ with Annex M, and personally, if I was considering the 38/2 package, I would also probably be considering a step backwards to an ADSL line running good old ADSL2+ (which would run at around 8 Mb at my current property).

I do not know who makes the marketing decisions within PlusNet, but this seems backward and it would not surprise me in the slightest if they do a u-turn with this sooner rather than later.

Yes, that's my main problem. I back up just about everything to the cloud. Photos, videos, documents, my CD/MP3 collection, etc etc. A 2Mb upload would be just too much of a pain for me.

Edited by _Resonance_ (Tue 23-Jun-15 07:59:43)

Luckily it's only PN doing this and none of the decent providers.

Many sites have stopped recommending PN and many people who advocated them are starting to look sheepish. It's a rapid decline and sad to see.

Yes, it seems to be just PN and Talk Talk afaik and even then TT offer an 80/20 connection for £11.25/month for 12 months (£15/month thereafter).

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

Many sites have stopped recommending PN and many people who advocated them are starting to look sheepish. It's a rapid decline and sad to see.

I've experience of them over 24 months with their 80/20 fibre product, the only "decline" I've noted is they struggle a bit with their massive growth of customer numbers e.g. phone waiting times. Please do enlighten me further ...

Edited by Spud2003 (Tue 23-Jun-15 09:39:26)

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

"decline" I've noted is they struggle a bit with their massive growth of customer numbers e.g. phone waiting times. Please do enlighten me further ...

Yes Plusnet's issues with Phone waiting times could well be to do with the surge of customers who signed up, But Plusnet haven't moved in line with their additions as they should've and have left their "previously loyal customers" in the shadows with service performance issues and then a very reduced support presence as none of us can actually get in touch with reasonable ease to discuss our issues, never mind actually getting them resolved.

Now I understand that not all folk will see the issues but I asked a question recently of users on this forum and if they where happy or not and the response from that was that most where happy but a lot of the happy customers were concerned, there was a significant amount of people who are "no longer" happy with Plusnet... some have left.. I must also note that most happy customers noted they like the pricing at Plusnet and where very happy to make note that nobody else offers as good a price as Plusnet...

So to me this says that Plusnet is a provider popular amongst those who like to keep their utility costs low and no longer appealing to the advanced users like myself and others..

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Yes Plusnet's issues with Phone waiting times could well be to do with the surge of customers who signed up,

We've been hearing that for years, it started roughly around the time Plusnet started selling unlimited broadband again.

Have PN reduced the price to the customer or is it the same as the previous?

The same as previous.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

Many sites have stopped recommending PN and many people who advocated them are starting to look sheepish. It's a rapid decline and sad to see.

I've experience of them over 24 months with their 80/20 fibre product, the only "decline" I've noted is they struggle a bit with their massive growth of customer numbers e.g. phone waiting times. Please do enlighten me further ...

Worked there for many years before the decline. RIP the old and quite frankly better PN. one where people used to be proud to say they worked for and we would even chip in our own time from home or by going in to help with customer tickets etc

Enough for you?

I see they no longer publish their call waiting stats.. I'd be ashamed too if I was them. You KNOW they are in trouble when business calls start waiting also. They used to be ruthless over that.

Edited by deleted (Tue 23-Jun-15 12:02:26)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Yes Plusnet's issues with Phone waiting times could well be to do with the surge of customers who signed up,

We've been hearing that for years, it started roughly around the time Plusnet started selling unlimited broadband again.

They were not that bad when that happened - It was in 2007 I recall the meeting very very well.

Infact when I left in 2012 call waiting times were still reasonable.

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

They were not that bad when that happened - It was in 2007 I recall the meeting very very well.

It was early in 2009: http://community.plus.net/blog/2009/02/17/plusnet-un...

Yeah I think I remember up to 10 minutes waiting time was the complaint back in early 2013...

I still have the call summary from EE somewhere that shows my collection if 3 calls to Plusnet in December 2014... 2 hours 47 minutes and I don't remember the conversations being so long either... though I'm sure I would of been shouting!

Should we send him to Coventry for a fail like that?

Heh!

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

I see they no longer publish their call waiting stats.. I'd be ashamed too if I was them. You KNOW they are in trouble when business calls start waiting also. They used to be ruthless over that.

What unpublished stats are you referring to?

Residential call stats

Current calls waiting Longest call waiting now Average answer time today
23.18 Currently unavailable 8 minutes and 53 seconds

Last updated: June 23, 2015, 1:05 pm

http://www.plus.net/supportpages.html?a=212

I wonder why the "Longest call waiting now" isn't available ?

I also see Plusnet are outside of their targets too... how things change ... :/

EDIT: Just started a Live Chat to get ETF's, been on hold for over 10 mins now!

Edited by mlmclaren (Tue 23-Jun-15 13:33:36)

So to answer - yes the stats are still available - conspiracy narrative over.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I wonder why the "Longest call waiting now" isn't available ?

They'd be more inclined to remove the average if they consistently had very long wait times and wanted to remove evidence ....

Sorry guys I'll buy into the "growing pains" aspect of Plusnet not being perfect, but I still rank them as the best, low cost, mass market, BT based ISP.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

So to answer - yes the stats are still available - conspiracy narrative over.

Well the stats aren't available as I pointed out above... and what conspiracy...

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

They'd be more inclined to remove the average if they consistently had very long wait times and wanted to remove evidence ....

What's saying that they are correct... there is data missing so it can't be confirmed they are correct.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Sorry guys I'll buy into the "growing pains" aspect of Plusnet not being perfect, but I still rank them as the best, low cost, mass market, BT based ISP.

There you go... you like them for the cost... and think its ok because of the cost...

I tell you what, McDonalds do a cheap burger on their savers menu, so I'll tell them it's OK to forget the bun sometimes, because it is cheap afterall

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

They were not that bad when that happened - It was in 2007 I recall the meeting very very well.

It was early in 2009: http://community.plus.net/blog/2009/02/17/plusnet-un...

PN did unlimited before then. I remember having a 2mbps unlimited ADSL connection with PN in 2003! (it was £65 a month though)

So do keep up.. I am talking before BT bought and ruined them. Before it was such a harmonious place

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Should we send him to Coventry for a fail like that?

No, as it wasn't a fail. Your stupid comment deserves it however.

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

PN did unlimited before then

I said: "it started roughly around the time Plusnet started selling unlimited broadband again."

Note the word "again". Do keep up.

Post deleted by MrSaffron

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

So do keep up.. I am talking before BT bought and ruined them.

Oh and just before BT bought them, Plusnet's traffic management policies were horrendous, they made them up as they went along infuriating many customers, myself included. If anything, BT rescued Plusnet from the gutter.

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

Not hard to keep up after you - you dunce

Oh, name calling, I guess you win the argument then.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

So do keep up.. I am talking before BT bought and ruined them.

Oh and just before BT bought them, Plusnet's traffic management policies were horrendous, they made them up as they went along infuriating many customers, myself included. If anything, BT rescued Plusnet from the gutter.

I am aware of this - I took years of ear ache over it.

Post deleted by MrSaffron

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

hurts don't it

Actually it just makes you look foolish.

Post deleted by MrSaffron

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Should we send him to Coventry for a fail like that?

No, as it wasn't a fail. Your stupid comment deserves it however.

Did you change usernames to avoid a ban, perchance?

In reply to a post by AAuser27:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Should we send him to Coventry for a fail like that?

No, but hey I have a few days free so if you feel like it Mr Spencer's house (you know the one he tries to hide on-line so he can shout his gob off and think he is safe) would be a much much better location. Only an hour from me too - lovely! (thanks T for the database access

I take it you are aware that making online threats can result in police action?

finell only went off to do some ironing !

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Well the stats aren't available as I pointed out above... and what conspiracy...

snip ...

The key stats are there by any reasonable interpretation. But now you're implying they could be inaccurate? Evidence? None.

Conspiracy? One user wrongly suggesting they had been removed showing Plusnet's decline, you implied the missing longest call time was suspicious even though long calls form part of the average. Now you're saying how can we trust the figures at all? That's not an argument you have a factual basis for or one I'm going to engage in.

I'm with Plusnet for the UK support, not absolute cost, otherwise I'd be with TalkTalk ...

You seem to be displaying a degree of discontent on these forums, and Plusnet's, that is not shared by any substantial part of Plusnet's 850,000 subscribers .... there are lots of other ISPs ...

Edited by Spud2003 (Tue 23-Jun-15 14:42:17)

Plenty of better prices than Plusnet, especially for those on a Market 1 exchange. As for Customer service and tickets being ignored for a week, it was like that when I was with them two yeas ago. It has only got worse with BT bods pushing out the PN bods that helped here, they were the only decent help ever. The new call centre was supposed to sort problems but has not. I still see so many cockups when folk switch connection to Plusnet (I was hooked to another persons line) that don't happen to the likes of BT with all their customers. I remember getting flamed here for suggesting it was deliberate from OR, a view I still hold. Nothing has changed other than for the worse. Too many loss leading deals to haul in the mug-punters screwing the bottom line, which is what is now limiting VDSL upload - Saves them many pounds per month per customer.

Some of us get Talktalk Business service with decent UK support from a reseller at a decent price.

he will keep trapping till he gets banned again, or at least he will if he tangles with me. best to ignore the rudeness.

Yes, I nearly went with Pulse8 - they're local to me - maybe next time(would have had to have spent a couple of weeks on ADSL).

he will soon be banned again if rude to me, I am happy to take a ban myself to take him out again ... i can get by lol

first of all the stats where unavailable the other days and thats what I think AAuser was referring too... was he accurate in his suggestion.. no he wasn't.

I don't have any evidence to support PLusnet's figure being incorrect but does anyone have any to support they are... I didn't suggest they where wrong but did rightly point out that a figure was "Unavailable" and so I do question if one figure is incorrect then the current of future figures quoted by Plusnet may be incorrect.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that many of Plusnet's 850,000 customers aren't just a dissatisfied as myself... they might be on hold after all.

Well I am very happy with their service, especially still being able to keep tie-in free even for fibre. Customer service very good and I think a few others here have found the same. I appreciate though that some will be restricted by finances and will settle for a budget ISP - A little like buying a car I expect ... Lada or Roller lol

I hope that isn't TLM you are thanking, the only "T signature" I know of here. As for my surname, that's easily available through a lookup on my domain name. My approximate location is public knowledge on here. Well done, sleuth.

A poster pointed out that something and calling them a name is bullying tactics to try and after similar medium level infractions time to take action once more.

Threats to other users including hinting you know their home location breaks site rules at the very least.

+1 extra reason for suspension

I wonder if ISPs are favouring these lower upload speeds to slow down seeding of torrents.

I doubt it or wouldn't all packages be cut!

I don't think so - I'll go with mlmclaren on that.

The 40/20 was a very strange beast for a budget-priced ISP, unless they got some limited period high discount on 80/20 to provide it. Even that's unlikely as they must have picked up tens of thousands on it, most of whom will stay for a long time.

The 40/2, as someone who had a brainwave suggested, may be the result of analysing the customer base and upload usage. If that were the case, I wouldn't be sure they've thought it through. At signing up time, which is all that matters, the natural preference is to go for the highest speeds you can get.

The counter-argument I nearly put to that is that possibly few (non-forumgeeks) look at the upstream speed when signing up. The reason I don't advance it is that it would remove any reason for offering 40/20 in the first place.

Oh wait ...!

For someone getting a decent download speed of say over 12 meg on ADSL2+, but frustrated with 1 meg upload speeds for things like cloud backup, ftp, picture uploads and video calling, the 40/10 package can make a lot of sense. 40/2 makes a lot less sense, so they may just decide to stick with ADSL2+ in that scenario.

I probably fall into that camp actually. I hope eventually the 40/2 product is scrapped at wholesale level, especially given the very marginal cost difference to the ISP between 40/2 and 40/10.

I'm sure 6-12 months ago there was talk of OR dropping it. TalkTalk may have jumped on that of course.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

TalkTalk may have jumped on that of course.

Yep. Maybe TalkTalk are happy now that another ISP has mediocre upload speeds on 40 meg fibre!

If the word on the vine regarding the competition between BT and TalkTalk is true, we are about to witness a game of limbo....

"How Low Can They Gooooo!"

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

For someone getting a decent download speed of say over 12 meg on ADSL2+, but frustrated with 1 meg upload speeds for things like cloud backup, ftp, picture uploads and video calling, the 40/10 package can make a lot of sense. 40/2 makes a lot less sense, so they may just decide to stick with ADSL2+ in that scenario.

Yup. I'm on 12 Meg / 1 Meg and I don't need 40 Meg or more download speeds. What I want is something like 20 Meg down and 5 Meg up, no DL limits (well maybe 100GB peak) and reliable and at a reasonable price.

Time to shop around. I will not upgrade to a 2 Meg upload when my neighbour can get a 60-70 Meg downloads with no limits.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Time to shop around. I will not upgrade to a 2 Meg upload when my neighbour can get a 60-70 Meg downloads with no limits.

I think you're comparing apples with oranges - PN still offer Unlimited 80/20 (for £5/month more than 40/2)

PN still offer Unlimited 80/20 (for £5/month more than 40/2)

and for about the same that most providers offer 40/10 (subject to special offers, discounts, etc etc)

The point is I don't need 80 Meg. 20 Meg would do. I'll settle for 40 Meg. What I do want is an increase in upload but in addition, I don't download more than 50-75GB per month. So what I'm after is a connection more tailored to me, and one which will not eat up all the bandwidth. I'm on 12 / 1 and I want a little bit more download speed, but a decent increase in upload speed. So for me 20 / 5 would be more than enough in both directions. 40 / 10 would be wonderful, but overkill. 40 / 2 is too much one way and not enough the other way.

I can't understand why upload is always so guarded, and especially nowadays.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

I can't understand why upload is always so guarded, and especially nowadays.

This is baffling me too... Broadband doesn't seem to be making any useful advances any more!

I can't understand why upload is always so guarded, and especially nowadays. Because the industry is driven by marketing, and high download speeds sell. Most customers don't yet realize they need (or soon will need) higher upload.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

I can't understand why upload is always so guarded, and especially nowadays.

I assumed it was expectations management. Upload is always harder as the CPE in our homes is a different level of price/quality than the DSLAM.

e.g. I pay for 80/20 with Plusnet but sync at 59618kbps down, 9035kbps up. I was getting over 10000 up with G.INP on the upload. I think this has now gone. Real world throughput is 53 Mbps down, 8.2 Mbps upload. I did try 40/10 but that gave a throughput of 37Mbps down, and I often download large files (IT self training) and the delta in price was not much.

I would prefer 50 with 20 upload though - but unless G.FAST or similar appears, no hope.

Cable is in town, but equally useless. 50mbps download, with 2mbps upload. :-/

I can understand PN dropping the 40/20 product, for many (longer lines) there was no point in paying the extra for 80/20 and it cost PN the same.

The only reason I can see for them going for 40/2 rather than 40/10 is to encourage people to go for 80/20 even if they can only achieve 30 on the downstream, just to get a bit more up.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

The only reason I can see for them going for 40/2 rather than 40/10 is to encourage people to go for 80/20 even if they can only achieve 30 on the downstream, just to get a bit more up.

I suspect that 40/20 attracts a certain kind of user (i.e. someone who uses their connection!) - whereas 40/2 probably appeals to a different kind of customer; the low use kind.

Since there are usually "capacity" style threads floating around, I wonder if this is to combat the issue?

On a more technical note, does anyone know if 40/2 changes SNRM or anything like that?

e.g. If I swtiched from my 80/20 (which is 50/10 in reality) down to 40/2 would my error rate change, would less power be required, what would happen to attenuation, crosstalk etc?

Genuinely interested if anyone knows anything. I'm wondering if this could help with line stability for the masses (rather than the enthusiasts that inhabit forums), and therefore help with support costs.

Lower sync (applies to down and / or up) = higher SNR margin = less errors generally

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

The only reason I can see for them going for 40/2 rather than 40/10 is to encourage people to go for 80/20 even if they can only achieve 30 on the downstream, just to get a bit more up.

Except Plusnet are usually very reluctant to provision 80/20 on lines with a (lower) BTw DS estimate of less than 40.

In reply to a post by Al1264:

Except Plusnet are usually very reluctant to provision 80/20 on lines with a (lower) BTw DS estimate of less than 40.

I wonder if that will change now that they are only offering 40/2 as an alternative. It shouldn't matter to them now anyway as both options are unlimited and the customer pays £5/month more for 80/20, so they might as well provision it.

Edited by kasg (Fri 26-Jun-15 13:21:34)

Your attenuation would almost certainly stay the same, as it is based on the line characteristics between the modem you have and the one in the cabinet. Independent of the product. That negotiation doesn't have a clue what ISP product, or even ISP, you are using. It's only when you log in that is determined, by which time the connection to the cabinet has been long-established. It does of course know which Openreach product has been ordered by the ISP.

I believe your noise margin will be around 6dB, set by Openreach according to the product ordered for the line. It's a complex subject and I don't recall seeing any stats. (Thinks - maybe I have some of my own, I was once on 40/2 .... No time to look now).

Although the line would still be able to sync at 50Mbps or so, (it's unclear whether you 50/10 is sync or throughput), it will be capped at 40Mbps by Openreach.

Because your sync is lower, than now your error rate will fall. On both downstream and upstream.

The big difference between the 40/20, which is sync'ing as if it were 70/20, is that it was Plusnet limited the throughput, probably via the Current line speed, to 40Mbps.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 26-Jun-15 15:30:34)

I think they will still be reluctant. For the same reason as BT Consumer will not supply Infinity on lines estimated below 15Mbps. They need to keep the 10% level of customers at or above the headline speed for the specific product.

You'd have thought so but, for example: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1409...

So I then asked if I could have the 76mb package at the extra cost as that comes with up to 9.5mb upload. I was told I couldn't order that as my line will only support 22.4mb

Yes, it doesn't look too hopeful from that. Personal intervention by one of the reps would have sorted that out in the past, whether that will still work I do not know. I am glad I am on 80/20 and on a line with an estimate well above 40.

Thanks for this Roberto - so basically the attainable rate will still say whatever it says on 80/20.

I was wondering whether it used some kind of different profile, or if (because not as many tones are required) whether it would ramp back on power - I guess it's not nearly as sophisticated as I thought it might be!

I'm not absolutely sure that's true. I think it is.

I've just added some clarification to the earlier post.

It does of course know which Openreach product has been ordered by the ISP.

At the end of the first paragraph.

That appears to one of the most bonkers situations to emerge recently: the customer wants faster uploads, they are prepared to pay for 80/20, a product that is absolutely spot on for their needs is available from BTw (40/10) but Plusnet say no, only 40/2 is available as BTw won't accept an order for 80/20. End result the customer is moving to Zen.

Plusnet really are losing the plot!

Edited by jelv (Fri 26-Jun-15 16:39:43)

In reply to a post by jelv:

as BTw won't accept an order for 80/20.

I don't think that bit is true.