It will be interesting seeing the impact when more and more heavier downloaders migrate to BE having seen that they get full speed at any time. The problem you get then is the cost of providing a service which has a disproportionate number of heavier users compared to the rest of the industry. You can either charge more, limit peoples traffic or let the customers all fight for the same bandwidth. Various ISP's are strugglng with this problem at the moment.

Simon it seems you wish to continue to spin this and twist it into something it never was.

You continue to speculate and accuse despite having the situation explained not only by me but by the original poster last week.

You attempt to further your objectives by repeating the accusation that our employees have deliberately lied to these customers and that we have embarked on a path to deliberately deceive. This is intolerable.

You have clearly dismissed the explanation which I have given and chosen to disbelieve that.

Your weak accusation of whistle blowers in PlusNet might win you kudos with certain members of this community but they do not wash with me. The comments and suggestions contained in your post only go to prove that. The massive inaccuracies the post contains show simply that you are completely unaware of how we operate.

Simon you are wrong, totally and completely wrong and I will not engage further with you on this subject. Your inability or unwillingness to withdraw your false accusation speaks volumes to me.

I would ask simply that you move on. We have been hung out to dry for our sins of the past and not without just cause, but we are not intrinsically evil.

Judge us by what we do going forward. By that I mean our real actions, not those which you invent or dream up or spin.

And if Be should take a nosedive, their customers can move elsewhere. Your depiction of their impending fall from grace (and indeed the doom and gloom spread here by PlusNet about the future sustainability of other providers with whom they are compared) is exactly the kind of speculation that some other people get taken to task for. PlusNet's motives for doing so are obvious but what are yours? Perhaps you should put your sword back in its scabbard until Be actually do fulfil your/PlusNet's idea of their destiny? Until then, they appear to be one of the most recommended ISPs in the land and anyone who is lucky enough to have access to their service and is looking for a new provider will presumably look at the facts about Be rather than the self-interested scaremongering that PlusNet is peddling.

Simon

Which, specifically, are the "massive inaccuracies" in my post? What, precisely, did you step in and put a stop to last week? And why?

To explain specific falsehoods about one ISP's protocol throttling policy and another's speed being slower than PlusNet's as genuine mistakes is a mickey-take.

You were right to put a stop to it.

Simon

Simon,

Your quote (my bold):

And let's not get too sanctimonious. You, your boss and your boss's boss have all lied about me in the forums in a bid to salvage their own reputations. Would you like me to quote you chapter and verse?

That would be me. The only interaction that we have ever had was to discuss on this board the e-mail migration (which by the way is virtually complete with all Plusnet customers mail migrated so I'll look forward to posting that this has fully completed without the issues we had previously).

Therefore, please quote 'chapter and verse' where I have lied about you to salvage my own reputation?

Phil

In reply to:

---

Your assertion that these were the misguided, impromptu and unilateral tactics of one over-zealous employee don't ring true with me. Having heard the lies live or recorded, did a supervisor call back the customers concerned and apologise for this accidental disinformation? Or was this instead an ill-judged policy - hopefully short-lived - to disinform so as to retain customers?

---

You have used the word "lies" again without any qualification, you continue with wild speculation on the basis of very little information. This goes far beyond people have a reasoned debate, when you accuse people of lying it can be nothing other than acrimonious, and is no help to this BBS.

You need time to reflect.

Hi Andi,

Out of curiosity what does the speed on the portal here show:

https://portal.plus.net/my.html?action=data_transfer_speed

Your sync speed is showing as 6976kbps but the speedtest is showing around 4Mbps. I'm just wondering why this is. If the portal shows 4000kbps then that would explain things, maybe the line has resync'd around 4Mbps in the last few days (or does so quite a bit if it's always around 4000kbps). This page is quite a useful reference point for speed comparisons between ADSL and ADSL2+:

http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/graph/

The speed needs to be above about 4Mbps for ADSL2+ to offer a faster speed (or in some cases lower than 1Mbps).

It looks from Sadoldman's post that PR100 will not be able to respond to you for some time.

In reply to:

---

The speed needs to be above about 4Mbps for ADSL2+ to offer a faster speed

---

Is that synch speed or throughput speed?

In reply to:

---

This page is quite a useful reference point for speed comparisons between ADSL and ADSL2+:

http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/graph/

---

I don't agree. I would think that most people would find a graph that used the more readily available line attenuation rather than line lenth more useful.

I think the main culprit is BT Wholesale's pricing model which is based on pipes and segments. This forces ISPs to be overly worried about customer peak bandwidth usage.

It is apparent that many (all?) LLU ISPs are connected to the NTL backbone which works on an different pricing model that works out far cheaper than BT.