Much of the M25 was increased from 3 lanes to 4 lanes - a 25% increase and within weeks around the Heathrow area was as bad if not worse than ever.

Recently the M3 to M4 stretch was upped to 5 lanes - a 20% increase - and the last few times I've headed that way it seemed significantly improved.

I think the increased capacity will be much the same, it may do diddly squat, it may make a hugh difference.

>The tendency is always for Internet usage to expand to fill almost any amount of capacity that is thrown at it.

Totally agree with that.
That makes the problem bigger when an ISP reduces capacity.

In reply to:

---

The tendency is always for Internet usage to expand to fill almost any amount of capacity that is thrown at it.

---

Unless the allowances offered are in proportion to capacity.

There will still be days when more people decide to download more material at the same time but it should not be a problem on a daily or frequent basis - just as an accident on the a motorway doesn't occur every hour at peak times or even daily thereby causing tailbacks. If the connection does slow frequently it is because the ISP have either got the allowances per package wrong or they don't have sufficient capacity to what they have sold.

In reply to:

---

Much of the M25 was increased from 3 lanes to 4 lanes - a 25% increase and within weeks around the Heathrow area was as bad if not worse than ever.

---

That has more to do with lane discipline than increased traffic.

... and you think the discipline amongst the BB+ users for only using the product as described is much better?

There are variable speed limits and speed cameras along those sections. They say 50, I drive at 50 and everybody is passing me.

The product is described as not suitable for P2P and people complain about the speed of P2P.

Go figure!

The product is described as not suitable for P2P and people complain about the speed of P2P.
-----
The product description gives the strong impression that BB+ isn't suitable for shifting a lot of data, ie more than 4GB -- regardless of which protocol is used. The warning is about not needing more than 4GB of data rather than not using p2p. Indeed, PN say that BB+ wouldn't suit regular users of p2p but they nonetheless give the impression that modest use of p2p within the 4GB allowance should work fine. Had they made it clear that p2p would be severely throttled under any circumstance, the word "regular" is misleading, as is the inference that the suitability of the product is governed by total data need rather than any particular protocol.

Simon

Hang on - are you saying it's the fault of the users now?

The majority of people are not complaining about P2P speeds though, are they? If someone was told to move to PAYG to use P2P and Usenet then I would not put forward objections but let's be clear here that this is not what is happening.

Anyway, this thread is discussing BB+ once again so perhaps we should carry on in the previous one: Link

So a flat denial now becomes
"I'm not going to get involved in your petty games, rsharma."

If you can't win or deal with facts any more just try blustering, spin or some more smoke and mirrors. Well at least we know that PN are good at that.

or insults

Edited by soundsystem (Tue 20-Feb-07 16:44:37)