cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Business Customers - Discussion

JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

Business Customers - Discussion

This thread is for discssion of this announcement.
6 REPLIES
N/A

Business Customers - Discussion

as i said.

if you cant support all types of traffic, then upgrade your network so it CAN !
N/A

Business Customers - Discussion

Quote
as i said.

if you cant support all types of traffic, then upgrade your network so it CAN !


Why should they upgrade their network for the 1% of customers which in my words are abusing the service in which there paying for?

It would cost them loads of money to accommodate these users, and at the end of the day, you would have to pay for it in increase charges, is that fair!
N/A

Business Customers - Discussion

It isn't about the 1%, it's about the averages across the 100%.

If the average across the 100% require a new pipe - get a new pipe, if the 1% benefit from it - so do EVERYONE else.

There are always going to be customers who raise the average, and customers who lower the average.

Of course the 1% are getting more than their money's worth, but BT's ADSL is a contended system, someone is always going to benefit from the system verses some other users.

I have business customer's I recommended to F9 who use a tiny fraction of Gig per month, they want the permanent connect and the speed - but mainly only for e-mail. They pay over £30 per month, I don't hear anyone complaining they are using TOO LITTLE bandwidth per month!!!

Sorry, I see why F9 would rather see the back of the 1%, but it's financial incentive. Yes it will benefit customers if more of the 1% left, but only because bandwidth usage has increase at a higher rate than F9 have bought hardware for. F9's case would be that's the fault of the 1%, without the figures it's difficult to argue - but do I accept F9's word that F9 don't need to spend more money - not without proof.

Quote
Why should they upgrade their network ...


Because demand is exceeding supply.

Blaming the 1% is as over simplified as blaming the 2M upgrades everyone got.
JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

Business Customers - Discussion

Demand has certainly increased, however its increased at a higher rate than the number of customers who've signed up to the premier package. Most of this usage comes from p2p, which will squeeze out other traffic as it grows to fill as much space as possible. So simply lighting another segment of a 622 central isn't going to solve this problem. In order to protect the network, and improve the service for the majority of our customers, something else was needed.

With regards to the residential customers, the point of things like the Updated Vision, is to reward the light and moderate users. Simiarly this contacting a small number of business customers is being done in order to protect the majority of business customers from a handfull of residential customers who have chosen a business package in order to avoid the SUP.
N/A

Business Customers - Discussion

Quote
So simply lighting another segment of a 622 central isn't going to solve this problem.


Sorry, I didn't want to imply adding a new pipe was my only thought. My point was simply that blaming the 1% isn't the answer either. It's a cheap answer, and doesn't address the complexity of the issue. It gives the impression that the ONLY reason things like SUP exist is because of the 1%, and that is quite evidently not the case.

Put simply, the 1% overutilisation isn't an issue as long at the other 99% of customers underutilise a similar amount. And yes, I know it's not that simple.

There are always going to be a top 1%. so percentages don't matter. It's average bandwidth used -vs- average bandwidth per customer. Everyone has been concentrating on the "customer" side of the equation.
N/A

Business Customers - Discussion

Hi queeg500
I think that your notion of averages sounds easier than really it is. The point that F9 have been making is that there is a set of extreme users who skew the distribution so that averages no longer make sense. By an average we tend to think that for everyone who uses a bit more there will be someone who uses a bit less. The point that F9 have made is that there are some users who use so much more that it takes hundreds of people using a bit less to average them out.

So yes, I agree, in an ideal world there would be enough bandwidth that everyone could use whatever they wanted. But it costs money and without some sort of mechanism to prevent it the '1%' as you think of them would simply cost everyone else (that's you and me too) too much money.

Taking into account the skew distribution there's no reason to think that after the first 1% there will be another 1% and so on. The idea I think is to get the actual distribution a bit more normal so that it actually balances in the way you think it should.

I think that F9 need the odd kick in the pants too Wink , but in this case I'm right behind them.