BT Retail makes its unlimited products totally unlimited

[Qtx]

Even Plusnet say they traffic manage in that article. I see where you are coming from but it changes nothing in relation to BT being the only other totally limitless and net neutral broadband after their announcement today.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Originally Posted by ferretuk

No they don't for their Unlimited product, and this has been discussed to death previously. They use a 'QoS like' priority setup on your downstream but no STM.

Bit surprised that Qtx can't remember

The blog article clearly has plusnet saying they traffic manage. Your original reply in this thread which started this conversation was quoting Craig saying they traffic manage and claiming they don't. Now you have linked to plusnet saying they traffic manage. So I'm not sure why goalposts are moving

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Qtx

So I'm not sure why goalposts are moving

Goalposts firmly fixed where they were - Plusnet's management of traffic to implement beneficial prioritisation is not Subscriber Traffic Management aka STM.

We'll have to agree to differ, but I think it's important for readers who may stumble across this in the future to get the message that Plusnet's Unlimited service has no speed limits and no download limits!

The proof of the approach will be if/when BT or Sky customers complain that their video streaming performance is affected by their kids downloading huge games. If Plusnet's solution is working as advertised it won't be a problem for their customers...

[Qtx]

Subscriber traffic management being different from traffic management is wordplay in the same way as virgin broadband being unlimited...

You are right in that we will have to disagree and the future will be the proof of pudding. If Sky or BT got congested in the future then we will see if they continue their trend of upgrading equipment instead of relying on cheap workarounds to avoid upgrades, which is what plusnet have done and thus in advance shown us how they intend to deal with future congestion

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Think its a good idea on budget isp's by the way, I'm not knocking it.

Originally Posted by Qtx

Subscriber traffic management being different from traffic management is wordplay in the same way as virgin broadband being unlimited...

You are right in that we will have to disagree and the future will be the proof of pudding. If Sky or BT got congested in the future then we will see if they continue their trend of upgrading equipment instead of relying on cheap workarounds to avoid upgrades, which is what plusnet have done and thus in advance shown us how they intend to deal with future congestion

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Think its a good idea on budget isp's by the way, I'm not knocking it.

It's not a budget ISP though. It's BT with a different look and feel?

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Top banana

It's not a budget ISP though. It's BT with a different look and feel?

and different prices... cheaper ones.... budget ones

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

The blog article clearly has plusnet saying they traffic manage. Your original reply in this thread which started this conversation was quoting Craig saying they traffic manage and claiming they don't. Now you have linked to plusnet saying they traffic manage. So I'm not sure why goalposts are moving

This

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Subscriber traffic management being different from traffic management is wordplay

Nonsense - STM is a method of deliberately degrading a subscriber's service when they exceed a download threshold. Nothing like Plusnet's traffic management.

Google would suggest that the term originates from Cisco CMTS systems. If Craig wasn't referring to this then he shouldn't have said "STM", especially on this board!

Originally Posted by Qtx

If Sky or BT got congested in the future then we will see if they continue their trend of upgrading equipment instead of relying on cheap workarounds to avoid upgrades, which is what plusnet have done and thus in advance shown us how they intend to deal with future congestion.

Really? Doesn't look like "cheap workarounds" to me...

Originally Posted by Qtx

Think its a good idea on budget isp's by the way, I'm not knocking it.

And that one line confirms that you still don't understand what their management process is for!

[craigj2k12]

Well virgin dont throttle torrents, they set them as low priority, so does that mean Virgin are truely unlimited?

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

Really? Doesn't look like "cheap workarounds" to me...

And that one line confirms that you still don't understand what their management process is for!

I do, just looking at the full picture. Companies have got good at reducing what they offer yet making it seem they do it for the customers benefit (or making customers blame other customers) or sugar coat it in some other way. Not saying that is the case here but I wouldn't take anything ANY ISP says at face value

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:31 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Well virgin dont throttle torrents, they set them as low priority, so does that mean Virgin are truely unlimited?

Virgin do throttle torrents and newsgroups. Just more problematic throttling SSL/encrypted torrent and news traffic so that is a way to avoid the throttling.

The fact VM has data limits within set hours before slowing all your traffic is one limit that shows it is not unlimited.

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Well virgin dont throttle torrents, they set them as low priority, so does that mean Virgin are truely unlimited?

?????? Goal post moving ?????? What's Virgin got to do with this discussion?

P2P is slowed down aka Throttled BTW and they,as you well know, slow down all traffic when you download too much...



---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

Not saying that is the case here.

But that's precisely what you have been saying!

If it's now changing to you think there may be other motives then don't you think it's a bit presumptious to accuse a provider of not delivering what they say they will when you have no evidence to the contrary?

[Qtx]

Plusnet have not reduced what they have offerered is what I meant. Sugar coating their traffic management is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that BT and Sky are confident enough in their network to not need to fiddle with traffic but Plusnet are not as they do fiddle. So plusnet should not get the same status as the other two who are the ONLY traffic neutral isp's in the country.

Nothing more to say on this. Just respect to BT for following sky's example. It may force VM to do the same although I don't see their network handling it at present

Originally Posted by Qtx

Plusnet have not reduced what they have offerered is what I meant. Sugar coating their traffic management is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that BT and Sky are confident enough in their network to not need to fiddle with traffic but Plusnet are not as they do fiddle. So plusnet should not get the same status as the other two who are the ONLY traffic neutral isp's in the country.

Nothing more to say on this. Just respect to BT for following sky's example. It may force VM to do the same although I don't see their network handling it at present

But if its bt why can't they do the same as bt?

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Top banana

But if its bt why can't they do the same as bt?

Because Plusnet != BT

Just because Plusnet are owned by BT it doesn't make them the same company. They run as seperate entities with their own, discreet, products, competing in the same marketplace.

This isn't a unique setup - Just look at the car industry for example?

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Top banana

But if its bt why can't they do the same as bt?

All openreach based isp's have their own network beyond BT's openreach part as I understand it. So they have to manage that and their connections to the rest of the internet. VM congestion sometimes happens at LINX which is one of the main places isp's connect to the rest if the world.

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Qtx

So plusnet should not get the same status as the other two who are the ONLY traffic neutral isp's in the country.

Oh dear, another one for Ofcom to add to the list then:

• Unlimited - Download as much as you like but your speed may be throttled
• Truly Unlimited - Download as much as you like with no speed reduction (apart from the natural bottlekneck that is the low speed link from the ISP to the user). ISPs may use QoS type systems to optimise this link and provide the best service for their customer.
• Really and truly Unlimited (Honest) - Download as much as you like with no speed reduction (apart from the natural bottlekneck that is the low speed link from the ISP to the user). ISPs are not allowed to touch the traffic at all so if all falls apart for a user due the their own link being saturated, tough!

[Qtx]

Virgin should never have been allowed to use the unlimited term after it introduced traffic management. Has made broadband ads misleading and confusing ever since. If network geeks argue over the meaning then what hope does Jo Average have?

With your last post Ferret, I think we have the first mutual agreement, even if in jest

Plusnet fibre is still the best choice out of the other isp's for an average user who is not interested in a tv package imo. I can see a lot of casual users taking up TalkTalk fibre for the price but its not going to be as reliable.