Plusnet to provide unlimited broadband

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

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

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think there's any confusion. Nobody except you thinks unlimited refers to any other aspect of the connection.

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

Unlimited never refers to speed. The throughput of everything is always deliberately limited by the ISP. Your line rate is limited by the provider, and your IP throughput is further limited by the IP profile. And sometimes certain protocols are de-prioritized but that's not a limit.

No connection in existence has unlimited throughput.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------


I don't think there's any confusion. Nobody except you thinks unlimited refers to any other aspect of the connection.

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------


Unlimited never refers to speed. The throughput of everything is always deliberately limited by the ISP. Your line rate is limited by the provider, and your IP throughput is further limited by the IP profile. And sometimes certain protocols are de-prioritized but that's not a limit.

No connection in existence has unlimited throughput.

Unlimited generally means unlimited except where defined. So eg. a unlimited 10mbit product would be considered by the average person to be unlimited usage at 10mbit throughput. The ASA have even added speeds in their regulations now and disallow significant throttling on unlimited services, not quite sure what counts as significant but I suspect if BT didnt have the p2p exclusion clearly shown on their product pages they would have been in trouble if a complaint went in. I am not even convinced they would be ok if a complaint went in now, noone has tested it yet. But my gut feeling says they would be ok.

I think the ASA were very leniant, personally I think any product which has deliberate throttling of any kind should not be sellable as a unlimited product, if isp's want the label then they pay the price for it. But I am not the ASA and its not my decision to make.

Quite how you comparing ip profiles and line speeds to deliberate brutal throttling of p2p I dont know.

[bpullen]

Originally Posted by Qtx

So is there a link to show what traffic Plusnet slow down and at what times of day, on this Unlimited package?

Link.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

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

Not if you don't worry yourself with the complexities. Rather than trying to make sense of the tables on our website (something we've done to satisfy a voluntary code of practice), you're probably better of reading the blog that's already been linked to.

Originally Posted by Qtx

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.

And probably end up with a worse experience if the line's ever at full utilisation. We've removed the Pro add-on from the sales/upgrade journey as it's largely irrelevant for customers choosing the new Unlimited package. I touched on this with the FAQ I wrote to coincide with the product's launch.

Hope everyone had a pleasant Christmas BTW

Best regards,

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think the ASA were very leniant, personally I think any product which has deliberate throttling of any kind should not be sellable as a unlimited product, if isp's want the label then they pay the price for it. But I am not the ASA and its not my decision to make.

ASA has only defined "Unlimited" in relation to usage limits. It has nothing to do with traffic shaping.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

ASA has only defined "Unlimited" in relation to usage limits. It has nothing to do with traffic shaping.

you missed the bit on traffic management? The bit where they say it cant be significant on unlimited products..

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

ASA has only defined "Unlimited" in relation to usage limits. It has nothing to do with traffic shaping.

You should use a dictionary

We should end the pain now. You want to say you have an unlimited connection but the reality is it is limited with P2P traffic shaping. You can argue industry allows unlimited to be used in these cases but at the same time you have to admit your isp limits in one similar way to how virgin media limit their customers

Sky = The only truly unlimited in all areas broadband
BT Option 2 = Unlimited data except....they limit the P2P data you can download for a large percentage of the week. So not really unlimited, but currently allowed to say it is unlimited by the advertising standards agency.

So when you say you have an unlimited connection from BT, expect others to point out it is only unlimited in name, not unlimited in reality.

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Sky = The only truly unlimited in all areas broadband

And to bring this thread back on topic...

The Plusnet offering is also unlimited with the advantage over Sky that there's prioritisation on your downlink to ensure that real time data (Video streaming, VOIP etc) is not adversely affected by other less critical data requested by users on your LAN.

If it works as advertised, I believe this to be superior to a service with no prioritisation, but then I would as I've signed up for the product

Cards on the table time, at the risk of driving the thread OT again - I think the concept of 'traffic management' is a good thing but the solutions used to date (i.e speed reductions no matter what's going on) are very poor. Despite what others have posted, I believe that there should be the concept xMb of streaming data is more important than xMb of download data as, for example, buffering and pausing while watching a film via Lovefilm is intrusive whereas taking a bit longer to download the latest Linux ISO(!!!) is not.

The Internet, and each ISP's network, is a shared, contended, resource and ISP will (and should) continue to evolve stategies to ensure the best 'experience' for their customers. In time I'd expect (and applaud) wider use of prioritisation (aka QoS) to achieve this.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

And to bring this thread back on topic...

The Plusnet offering is also unlimited with the advantage over Sky that there's prioritisation on your downlink to ensure that real time data (Video streaming, VOIP etc) is not adversely affected by other less critical data requested by users on your LAN.

That has been mentioned a few times in this thread yet I have not seen it documented anywhere yet. If it is a conclusion taken from the Plusnet blog then I think some have been confused or mislead by the description. The blog gives an example of how it would work on a homes individual traffic but nowhere states it is per customers line rather than all customers collectively.

It has been mentioned before that home routers can do the QoS on a users connection.

As bpullen said, traffic management has been given a bad name due to how it has been used in the past although it can actually be useful. But plusnets own graphs showed that by paying more you could have P2P and other traffic with the same priority as lower paying customers gaming traffic, which blew their credibility/honesty out of the water.

If they came along and said the traffic shaping is actually QoS and individual to each household, then fair enough. Otherwise its nothing more than telling customers we are limiting our unlimited product for your own good, so they don't seem so bad.

Traffic shaping has its benefits on congested networks, so maybe Plusnet will be congested?

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

Originally Posted by ferretuk

The Internet, and each ISP's network, is a shared, contended, resource and ISP will (and should) continue to evolve stategies to ensure the best 'experience' for their customers. In time I'd expect (and applaud) wider use of prioritisation (aka QoS) to achieve this.

In the future they will look back and laugh at the concept of individual ISP's not having enough bandwidth to handle all their customers. With all the advancements and low costs, there could be a point where all networks have 10 to 100x more bandwidth than they actually need for all their customers.

QoS is a good stop gap until then. ISP's will abuse it though by allowing you to pay more to have your traffic prioritised higher and net neutrality out the window.

I can't help wondering if the problem is that we all want something extra special for as limited payment as we can get..and that's just not possible.It's not possible whatever the product or service we could be talking about.

The fact is if we want the best then we may have to just pay more.If we pick the cheapest option every time we are just in danger of over subscribing that particular system.

And yes it could be argued that VM and others really shouldn't take on more subscribers than they can handle but in such a cut-throat business I thing we could be urinating in the wind to assume such a thing.

Perhaps it's down to the advertising but I think at the end of the day a lot of people want something that just isn't feasible given that people's expectations keep outpacing the realities.

Is there a danger that Plusnet will not be able to sustain this offer given that their customers will take them at their word? I suspect the answer is yes.

[Chrysalis]

Yeah to be fair to plusnet if they keep to their word their product is probably now the best BTw based FTTC product and only 2nd to sky on paper.

Arguably it beats sky if you believe the priotisation is beneficial on a per connection basis.

In practice I still think its a time will tell situation whether or not they get overwhelmed on bandwidth demands. Sky dont pay for their capacity the same way as plusnet do the maths are different and of course sky charge more for their product as well.

Maggy and of course you are right, the broadband market has been trashed for a number of years probably from when talktalk first came on the scene, not eveyrone is as you say but probably a big chunk of the market people just look for the cheapest service,

Proper regulation would go a long way to fixing some problems in the market, but as always the protection of profit is considered.

We not all like that tho, some of us dont mind paying extra, but then some will jump on that and think we should be paying for leased lines if we dont want over subscription.

With all due respect to all 3 FTTC isp's mentioned in this thread tho I think plusnet,BT and sky are all significant improvements over VM.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you missed the bit on traffic management? The bit where they say it cant be significant on unlimited products..

If there is a threshold based shaping policy then it cannot be severe. No threshold based shaping policy exists, therefore the strength of it is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Originally Posted by ferretuk

The Plusnet offering is also unlimited with the advantage over Sky that there's prioritisation on your downlink to ensure that real time data (Video streaming, VOIP etc) is not adversely affected by other less critical data requested by users on your LAN.

If it works as advertised, I believe this to be superior to a service with no prioritisation, but then I would as I've signed up for the product

I've always said DS propritisation on the ISP side is the only place it can work properly, the problem is any ISP that does it does not give you any control over it.

For example you have port 443 SSL traffic prioritized on the basis it's used for interactive, speed sensitive web browsing. Then you have a VPN or newsgroups connection on that same port that also gets prioritised, thus drowning out your gaming traffic because your game runs on an unrecognized port and protocol and gets classified as bulk.

Good if it works properly, not good if one-size-fits-all doesn't fit you.

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

If they came along and said the traffic shaping is actually QoS and individual to each household, then fair enough

But I thought they already did?

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

We not all like that tho, some of us dont mind paying extra, but then some will jump on that and think we should be paying for leased lines if we dont want over subscription.

Some of us don't pay attention to advertising and make decisions based on doing their own research. Course technical oversubscription is the only thing that allows your broadband connection to cost less than £100 a month.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

[/COLOR]
But I thought they already did[COLOR=Silver]?

I can't see anywhere that actually says they are doing QoS per line/customer. Can you?

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Qtx

That has been mentioned a few times in this thread yet I have not seen it documented anywhere yet. If it is a conclusion taken from the Plusnet blog then I think some have been confused or mislead by the description. The blog gives an example of how it would work on a homes individual traffic but nowhere states it is per customers line rather than all customers collectively.

I'm sure I've seen it somewhere but I can't find it either at the moment. I'll keep looking but, for the reasons I gave for being in favour of prioritisation, it would actually be better if the policy was used across the whole of Plusnet's network.

Edit 21:47 - See the post from Bob Pullen here

Originally Posted by Qtx

It has been mentioned before that home routers can do the QoS on a users connection.

Not effectively for downstream data and, for the best customer experience, the ISP is best placed to apply the policy, albeit with the caveat that they are then in control, not the customer.

Originally Posted by Qtx

As bpullen said, traffic management has been given a bad name due to how it has been used in the past although it can actually be useful. But plusnets own graphs showed that by paying more you could have P2P and other traffic with the same priority as lower paying customers gaming traffic, which blew their credibility/honesty out of the water.

He's also explained that the Pro add-on is a hangover from their 'limited' product, is liable to degrade performance and is no longer actively marketed.

Originally Posted by Qtx

In the future they will look back and laugh at the concept of individual ISP's not having enough bandwidth to handle all their customers. With all the advancements and low costs, there could be a point where all networks have 10 to 100x more bandwidth than they actually need for all their customers.

I don't believe that will be the case any time soon, if ever. I certainly wouldn't buy shares in a company that wastes its money by buying enough bandwidth to allow all customers to have full line speed 24x7 - It simply isn't good economics, regardless of cost reductions.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

If there is a threshold based shaping policy then it cannot be severe. No threshold based shaping policy exists, therefore the strength of it is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------


I've always said DS propritisation on the ISP side is the only place it can work properly, the problem is any ISP that does it does not give you any control over it.

For example you have port 443 SSL traffic prioritized on the basis it's used for interactive, speed sensitive web browsing. Then you have a VPN or newsgroups connection on that same port that also gets prioritised, thus drowning out your gaming traffic because your game runs on an unrecognized port and protocol and gets classified as bulk.

Good if it works properly, not good if one-size-fits-all doesn't fit you.

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------


But I thought they already did?

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------


Some of us don't pay attention to advertising and make decisions based on doing their own research. Course technical oversubscription is the only thing that allows your broadband connection to cost less than £100 a month.

I think it was quite obvious what I meant by oversubscription.

On discussions like this generally contending means having customers share capacity, but if performance isnt affected its considered not oversubscribed. Obviously I meant having too many customers sharing to the point the impact is visible.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

I'm sure I've seen it somewhere but I can't find it either at the moment. I'll keep looking but, for the reasons I gave for being in favour of prioritisation, it would actually be better if the policy was used across the whole of Plusnet's network.

Edit 21:47 - See the post from Bob Pullen here



Not effectively for downstream data and, for the best customer experience, the ISP is best placed to apply the policy, albeit with the caveat that they are then in control, not the customer.


He's also explained that the Pro add-on is a hangover from their 'limited' product, is liable to degrade performance and is no longer actively marketed.


I don't believe that will be the case any time soon, if ever. I certainly wouldn't buy shares in a company that wastes its money by buying enough bandwidth to allow all customers to have full line speed 24x7 - It simply isn't good economics, regardless of cost reductions.

The post you pointed out by BPullen doesn't mention QoS at all. Just wanted to confirm that it is incorrectly (or correctly) being repeated that there is QoS on each individual customers line. Obviously I would expect it to be done at a central location across all customers so it would be interesting if they were doing it per line like has been said a few times.

Not actively marketed means it is still available if you ask for it?

If Plusnet had no worries about bandwidth, they wouldn't have had to include the QoS stuff in their plan. If they had full confidence in the network for the next year they could have offered it as fully unlimited/unmanaged like sky. Maybe small print to say that they may add it at some point if needed so they could revisit it in a years time. So it just says to me that within a year Plusnet expect the network to be running hot and having congestion issues that require traffic prioritisation. QoS makes perfect sense as the best option in that situation. Just don't agree with them trying to imply it is for other reasons.

In the future we will probably come across some technology that makes bandwidth abundant with little cost, which is where I was coming from. If someone said to you 15 years ago that you will have a mobile phone that is more powerful than the computer on your desk in 15 years time.....