Plusnet to provide unlimited broadband

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

There is no link to this information as they don't!

If they are taking bandwidth from one protocol or application to give it to another, they are slowing it down.

---------- Post added at 21:53 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------


http://www.plus.net/support/broadban...nagement.shtml



---------- Post added at 21:57 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------

I was asking the question after seeing the Plusnet blog post you mentioned entitled It's Unlimited! Why is it still traffic managed?

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Qtx

If they are taking bandwidth from one protocol or application to give it to another, they are slowing it down.

Only in the event of your link saturating. Their system is QoS like in that protocols that need to be 'real time' have a higher priority.

That's not the same as implementing fix speed/time limits.

[qasdfdsaq]

Wow, if there's anything more complicated than VM's traffic management this has to be it.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

Only in the event of your link saturating. Their system is QoS like in that protocols that need to be 'real time' have a higher priority.

Their own graph shows that priority is given to customers who want to pay more rather than for protocols that need a higher priority. Its a pay tier system.

P2P is best effort on their lowest product, yet they also will class it as Gold traffic which is their second highest priority if you spend more with them. On a standard package only VOIP has a higher priority than gold.

So any arguments about it being for protocols that need higher priority are made null and void if customers can pay more to have their P2P traffic the same priority as other customers gaming or streaming packets.

Doesn't look like net neutrality to me.

[Chrysalis]

Plusnet staff claim that there will be no isp side slow down of lower priority traffic eg. torrents on their network. They are basically saying they will always upgrade capacity to keep up with demand. This is ambitious of them as usually BT wholesale based isp's cant do this, but of course they are now owned by BT. If they keep to their word then it will potentially be a good service.

The priorities listed they now say only apply on a per connection basis so is in affect a isp supplied QoS for the end user replacing what people would configure on their routers.

It seems complex compared to VM but I have long suspected VM deprioritise streaming etc. anyway except they just dont publish it.

On paper plusnet a cheaper service is now far superior to infinity, in practice only time will tell.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The priorities listed they now say only apply on a per connection basis so is in affect a isp supplied QoS for the end user replacing what people would configure on their routers.

That can't be right.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Qtx

That can't be right.

As I said on tbb, only time will tell if this works out for plusnet, because they are likely now to get swamped with orders from heavy users.

[qasdfdsaq]

What, like BT and VM and Sky haven't been?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

What, like BT and VM and Sky haven't been?

Well BT isnt true unlimited.

Sky use their own backhaul which is a lot cheaper than BT wholesale backhaul.

Personally I think the numbers wont add up on this as plusnet not only has more expensive backhaul it is also very cheap, I think either they will backdown and let it congest or it will be a loss leader by BT (the owners).

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

What, like BT and VM and Sky haven't been?

Plusnet is such a small company compared to BT and Sky.

Virgin Media gives the impression of being a wealthier company through advertising and borrowing someone else's big brand name, but they shouldn't really be put in the same category as the other two.

Don't think BT or Sky have any local or central capacity issues that are apparent. Virgin on the other hand have many. Do you really think Plusnet will hold up as well as the main two players, let alone do better than VM's congestion?

[Chrysalis]

I agree VM arent in the same league as BT and sky financially.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Well BT isnt true unlimited.

Uhh yes it is.

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Uhh yes it is.

Don't you just love panto season!

Let's just settle on Plusnet, BT and Sky offering 'differently' unlimited products...

[Chrysalis]

My opinion is the ASA have been soft on the term unlimited and been forced in that position because they have a duty to not damage the profitiability of the sector, this in turn also shows why they leniant on most advertising that many companies use and usually only clamp down when its a single company standing out. This is also why the "up to" ruling turned out to be a farce, they had to settle on something that would ultimately not discredit the sector and damage sales.

If we talking about the defenition of unlimited then BT's product is not unlimited, as the throughput of p2p is limited deliberatly by the isp. VM the same as well since they also deliberatly throttle throughput.

If we talking about 'legal' terms of how the regulators have decided then the way BT sell their product is fine.

However its also worth pointing out isp's can be very devious on this eg. an isp can say they dont throttle any protocols but still decide to route undesirable traffic via congested links and as such slowing that traffic down.

Me and Qas (and others) probably will never agree. The way I class a service that limits usage but never bills more than the set amount is not unlimited but instead as unmetered.

[ferretuk]

I think a lot of the confusion stems from Unlimited packages being sold along side other products that have set download quantity limits. In that context they are correctly described.