cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

Community Veteran
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 106
Fixes: 20
Registered: 14-07-2009

Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

I am proposing a "No" option that would allow Plusnet clients to opt out of traffic prioritization in the event of overloaded capacity and opt out of the Plusnet Profile.  If you choose the "No" option you will get raw download speed (limited by your BT IP Profile) and no sophistication.  That won't be right for everybody but offered as an option it may be right for you.  I don't know if the "No" option is feasible but Plusnet offered a "Pro" option for gamers so I'm hoping it may be.

Lets be clear.  Your download speed is limited by your line and the speed at which your router connects.  Based on that speed BT applies a limit called your IP Profile which is the fastest download speed your line can achieve.  That is NOT going to change.  On some contracts (like Essentials) Plusnet apply speed limits to certain traffic types at busy times of day.  That is NOT going to change
Plusnet tries to track your BT IP Profile and the value it has in its records is shown here https://portal.plus.net/my.html?action=data_transfer_speed as your Current Line Speed.  The reason Plusnet does this is so that it can prioritise your traffic in the event that you are trying to use your download link beyond its capacity for different things.  This is very clever and beneficial under those circumstances but those circumstances may rarely if ever apply to some Plusnet clients.
Unfortunately your Plusnet Profile (Current Line Speed) often lags several days behind the BT IP Profile that it is meant to track.  If you have managed to connect at a higher download speed than previously this means that Plusnet limits your speed unnecessarily.  For a lot of people (like myself) the router download speed goes up and down each time it loses sync and re-established the connection so you may find your speed is often limited unnecessarily by Plusnet failing to keep up with an increase in my BT IP Profile.
So vote for the "No" option if you always want the fastest download speed your line can manage and you don't care about traffic prioritization when your line is overloaded by different traffic types. 

         
13 REPLIES
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 1,926
Fixes: 19
Registered: 22-08-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

There must be good reasons for the traffic prioitorisation and the IP profile lag s a known issue with the BTw data feed, therefore outside of PN's control.
There are more important issues which PN's resources need to focus on than developing opt-in opt-out facilities simply to address BTw failures.
Community Veteran
Posts: 19,099
Thanks: 434
Fixes: 21
Registered: 31-08-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

RR I really do wonder whether you have actually understood the benefits of Traffic Management http://community.plus.net/blog/2012/12/21/its-unlimited-why-is-it-still-traffic-managed/
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,439
Thanks: 1,017
Fixes: 61
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

I do and in general for me it is a waste of time as what I do on my connection is under my control
The benefits of traffic management don't really apply when there is only one user in the property as the prioritisation is  under their control.
Also if all you use the internet for is browsing, email and streaming plus gaming on Value the traffic management is irrelevant as they are all in the Gold queue and in my opinion that is the majority of the customers
In general the only effect of traffic management for me is that my download speeds are reduced by about 150kbps plus the difference between the IP profile and Plusnet's rounded down figure
I haven't removed the above post but I have to ask anotherone why he thought it necessary to take such a confrontational attitude to the original poster as it is almost guaranteed to cause an argument
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 1,926
Fixes: 19
Registered: 22-08-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

Oldjim,
Your rather strong rather strong post confuses me.  The referred to article quotes you as saying...
Quote from: While

“It actually works despite many of my earlier disparaging comments
I am downloading Assassins Creed 3 (came free with my new graphics card – about 15GB total) and it is saturating my connection but browsing and streaming aren’t significantly affected.”

So does it work for you or does it not?
If there is only one user n the service, then indeed TP as no bearing in that the one activity they choose to do will se all available capacity.  The residual issue is the BT PN profile lag. If any effort is to be invested in change, I suggest that it should be applied to fixing the update lag, not developing new bels and whistles, each with their own opportunity  for failure.
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,439
Thanks: 1,017
Fixes: 61
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

That was a one off
If there had been a problem I would have just paused the download
My post - which was put there - was specifically in relation to the system working as intended which it does.
The position I take is that I don't need it as I can control my own internet activities
There are two problems at present
The first is that the addition of the Plusnet profile can drop the effective speeds by over 200kbps just by it being there. This is significant if you have a low speed connection or are just above the speed for smooth streaming and this knocks it down to below it.
The second is that with the old system (still used on 20CN I believe) the IP profile dropped almost immediately and took a relatively long time to increase. This made the Plusnet 12/24 hour delay in changing their value less of a concern. But with the new system on 21CN the IP profile changes instantly but the delta reports don't follow as quickly. We don't know how quickly they are supposed to be generated but my experience is that they certainly don't happen immediately and hence there are two delays before the user gets his speed back (the delta report delay and the Plusnet 12/24 hour delay)
Note I have referred to the Plusnet delay as 12/24 hours because I have no idea what it actually is but as an example the delay from my profile changing on the website (Current Line Speed) to being changed on my connection was over 12 hours. The fact that the IP profile had changed several days before that is the other problem.
If Plusnet had changed to the system used by Andrews and Arnold as I suggested at the time where they generate the profile dynamically from the change in sync speed (detected by a drop in the PPP connection) then we wouldn't even be having this discussion
Community Veteran
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 106
Fixes: 20
Registered: 14-07-2009

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

Plusnet has a "Pro" option for gamers.
My proposed "No" option is for people who download but don't multi-task.
I am only proposing this as an option, something that you could opt into if you wanted it.  The "Pro" option is something I would never need or want myself but that does not make me against Plusnet offering it to those that do.
pwatson
Rising Star
Posts: 2,468
Thanks: 8
Fixes: 1
Registered: 26-11-2012

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

Voted 'Leave things as they are' as the option for 'implement a better profile tracking mechanism' is not offered.
If delays in updating profiles are causing issues then fixing this would benefit everyone rather than just bodging it by removing the profile on request.
Community Gaffer
Community Gaffer
Posts: 5,013
Thanks: 301
Fixes: 4
Registered: 04-04-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

It's a reasonable discussion to be honest.  Lets be clear, we have a problem with our implementation at the minute with the line profile tracking.  It shouldn't lag this much.  I'm actually working with Dave on a solution which would set that profile at connection time, rather than relying on the delta profiles from BT.  I think this would remove the issue?
I'm not entirely how possible it would be to do has Reedrichards suggests, but I'll have a ponder about it.
Kelly Dorset
Broadband Service Manager
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,439
Thanks: 1,017
Fixes: 61
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

One option - for implementing the original suggestion would be to allocate an unrestricted profile as was done in the early stages of the fibre trials
HughA
Grafter
Posts: 142
Registered: 30-07-2011

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

I like Oldjim's suggestion.  After upgrading to unlimited the PlusNet profile for my 2.5Mbps connection was set to 8.15Mbps!  The improvement in performance was noticeable as I got the full line speed. Sadly a correct PlusNet profile is now in place reducing my speed by about 150Kbps.  Not much I hear you say, but its a relatively large proportion of an already slow connection.  I only stream and browse so an unrestricted profile would enable me to get the most possible from my slow line.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 9,153
Thanks: 558
Fixes: 46
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

Quote from: Kelly
Lets be clear, we have a problem with our implementation at the minute with the line profile tracking.   It shouldn't lag this much.  I'm actually working with Dave on a solution which would set that profile at connection time, rather than relying on the delta profiles from BT.  I think this would remove the issue?

In my opinion delayed line profile tracking is the main problem and making that "instant" would remove the major cause for complaint. However my perception by comparing measured speeds from the Thinkbroadband tester (at non-busy times) is that download speed reduces by around 150kbps when Current line speed drops from "too high" to the "correct" (21CN) value. (Which I think ties in with what Oldjim said.)
From that I infer that the bRAS is able to fit more packets onto the copper line than it is given when Current line speed is set "correctly". That is traffic prioritisation is too conservative. Perhaps if a bit more was allowed down the line, occasionally a "titanium packet" might be dropped by the bRAS but is that completely unacceptable? My suspicion is that happens anyway in a real data stream.
David
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,433
Thanks: 657
Registered: 23-09-2010

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

If you only have one PC and usually only do one thing at a time, or you're not a house full of students then I see little point in traffic prioritisation.
The long delays in the Plusnet profile updates do more to hold me up than any lack of prioritisation would.
A definite yes for the NO option.
Quote from: pwatson
then fixing this would benefit everyone

With over a year gone by since the "*21CN ONLY* Do you think your PN profile is not updating as it should?" post I think the idea of "fixing it" is pretty much a lost cause.
Community Veteran
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 106
Fixes: 20
Registered: 14-07-2009

Re: Poll campaigning for a Plusnet "No" Option.

Thank you for all the comments; I particularly appreciate the frank response from Kelly.  Obviously, if the plan to set the profile at connection time succeeds then the need for a "No" option would be superseded (excepting for Oldjim/spraxyt's observation of a 200kbps drop).  For that matter, the need for the "Pro" option has been essentially superseded by the new "Unlimited" contracts.  But the "Pro" option was valuable to some for a time.  If it turned out there was an easy means of implementing the "No" option, perhaps by allocating an unrestricted profile as Oldjim suggests, that could be valuable as a stopgap until Plusnet perfect something better.