cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

N/A

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

I have just noticed this reported on the register


Nildram - which has 40,000 broadband punters - is introducing a usage limit of 50 Gig a month for non-business customers, which applies between 8.00am - 12.00 midnight. Outside of this time, no usage limit will apply.


So now we're goign to have fun and Games, while ISPs competitivley chop and change their FUP.

Has anyone done the maths on how much it costs to run the FUP system, as opposed to how much it costs to leave it unrestricted.

At the purported 22Mbits/s connections, the 30Gb allocation will be gone in 2 days. Surely the limits need to rise, as user connections speeds increase, and content demand grows. If the intention to set the FUP so low, that everyone ends upp paying per Gb regardless.
12 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 2,322
Registered: 01-08-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

I dont think the rates/download limits need to change in strict accordance with the available speeds. Allow me to explain...

If say you wanted to download shareware software, music and films (legaly) and some other stuff - its still the same size, the only thing is with a very fast connection you can get it quicker.

If I wanted to play Americas Army for example, and downloaded the full instalation, then I'd spend a fair few hours downloading the 800MB, then I can start playing - with an 8mb connection, the software would just be down muc quicker.

Sure you can download more if you want, as you can squeeze more bandwidth into the time - however, I think that faster speeds will lead to more "ease of access" than mega downloading.

Using the Americas Army example, downloading the full source takes ages on a 512k, so you have to "plan" when to download it. On a mega fast connection I could decide I wanted to download it now, then come and play it after dinner - faster speeds may lead to a slight increase in bandwidth being used, but not directly proportional to the increase in speeds though
N/A

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

im now sharing my ADSL via that router with my brother hes just left nildram
and can tell you for nowt the service sucks..i mean sucks.
he used to be a really heavy user when there and his 1mb connection @ times he was lucky if it went over 35 kb.
he would have on average 4-5 emails a week saying about problems with the service.
And have a guess when the service went down the pan?
about 3 months after Pipex took them over.
i think it all comes back to the issue
its all very well an ISP saying about an Unlimited service etc but in reality unless they are going to spend a load of money making sure they can cope
any service is going to be so slow it aint worth having.
i cannot stress to you how bad he found them i really mean that.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 2,553
Thanks: 239
Fixes: 5
Registered: 06-04-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

From what I have just read with Nildram, if you exceed you FUP limit in a month you are immediately limited to 64kbps downloads. At least with PlusNet you can exceed it for a couple of months before you need to do anything
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,983
Thanks: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

And is the 50gB including uploads or is it just downloads like PN ?Huh
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

Downloads only I believe. I wonder wher they got that idea from? Wink
N/A

missed the point.

The point wasn't specifically that that nildram were better or worse per se( who can tell things get in place yet)
The points was that other ISPs were also employing a FUP, and that their limits will be one of the only discernable differences between the service, because users get the max their line can handle, for the same wholesale price from BT regardless.

Content sizes will grow like average users connection rates, as they have historically done since the beginning of the internet. It would seem innapropriate to say that the 30Gb limit will be a suitable limit from now till the end of time.
What limits are set, will cause users to choose/move ISPs as suits that user.

The points was that ISP's will switch their usage policies, when they feel the market demands it. This is not good for consumers who've signed up for a specific level of service, and can have that changed on them.

People should look further than the actual figures and see what's really going on.
suec45
Grafter
Posts: 566
Registered: 02-10-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

But Nildram's 1mb connection is £5 a month more than Plusnets and they have no 512k product as far as I am aware.
Ianwild
Grafter
Posts: 3,835
Registered: 05-04-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

Surely, the big difference between Nildrams fair usage system is that it is a monthly system, whereby use of more than 50GB in one month will result in the connection being restricted to 64K, whereas our approach ahs been that we don;t need to provide people with monthly usage guidelines, because that isn't how a lot of peoples usage profiles work.

With PlusNet, you can exceed your fair usage level in two months out of three, and not have your connection or account affected in anyway.

Does anyone really think that is more restrictive than Nildram?

Regards,

Ian
N/A

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

Danm good point there.
the_norris
Grafter
Posts: 463
Registered: 02-08-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

Also if you did go over the limit 3 months in a row - you speed will drop to 150k. compared to 64k

Phil
N/A

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

whats that in actual download speed of that in real terms? 150k/8 = 18kbps?
Ianwild
Grafter
Posts: 3,835
Registered: 05-04-2007

Nildram FUP less restrictive than plusnet.

Sounds about right - The idea is that it is plenty good enough for surfing, email and general Internet use, but at the same time it protets our network by limiting the overall amount that can be downloaded for the period until the customer is next billed.

It should work pretty well, as will Nildrams - The bonus there is that they carry over unused GBs from the fair usage allowance, however I reckon our approach is vastly better than that.

Regards,

Ian