cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

N/A

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Some peeps at work say i love a conspiracy theory, something i would argue about but all the same. Many qustions and jibes at plusnet have arisen concerning the loss of a central, not enough bandwidth and traffic managment going heywire.

Plusnet provide a response which is going to be truthful as it does not benefit them otherwise :shock: but its worth looking at from a different angle.

On xmas day and boxing day there where many posts in this forum concerning how fast plusnet was (like the good old days) in fact during peak times i was getting 3.1mb download speeds on usenet. web browsing was lightnening fast. an experience i briefly enjoyed.

Then in the new year it slowed down slightly but still very nice experience but as soon as buisiness wwere open again the experience once again dropped to ridiculous.

so my questions are this.

1) we know christmas would be a quiet time so more people had use of the full bandwidth. so does this mean when everyone is back on the claims there is not enough bandwidth are unfounded.for if there was enough bandwidth we would all see great speeds

2) we are all paying customers so is it fair if it is the case and i do not know, that buisness customers receive a far better experience.

3) Of the bandwidth availiable can plusnet do something to actively reduce spam to their email accounts (i know customers are at fault here also) bouncing known servers unless a customer request that server address be let through. this would reduce wasted bandwidth, and help the mail servers from creaking every other day.

4) A simple way i would think of reducing spam is put the onus on the customer. when setting up email accounts an option to enter acceptable email domains or addresses to an approved list, anything else is bounced or deleted. seeing as we normally hand out our email address for what ever reason we could add that domain to the list as and when needed ( i know this may not solve all b/w probs but would reduce stress loads)

I appreciate plusnet is a buisness model and has to protect its shareholders but maybe and it has been mentioned before that pricing policies could be amended. Dont make them cheaper make them more suited to the customer needs. Rather than selling one style package maybe a dell spec type system could be used, and therefore you pay for what you need. I know many people would not object to paying more than we do now if we could at least receive the service we have paid for.

I use usenet not heaviliy but would pay more to have a 20gb UNLIMITED speed account where no restrictions apply even at peak times because i have paid for that service.

Anyways probably gonna be flammed but the floors yours

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :roll: :roll: :roll:
13 REPLIES
N/A

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

The reduction in centrals MUST Have had an effect.

People are paying for 20gig on Prem 1 - Thats 20 gig of data (of any type!) The service must allow them to achieve this in a reasonable manner.
N/A

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

i know people are paying for 20gb as i am one of them what i meant was for those who want to download or use 20gb per month without being bound by a sustainable use policy. I know BB PAYG is one way but specific packages where you know what you are paying per month based on an enhanced rate would make more sense. then rather punishing those who are trying to use what they pay for. This could benefit those people who just use the net for browsing and are not inetersted in voip, gaming, usenet or p2p.

Plusnet will generate more revenue to purchase more bandwidth and as long as they DID increase bandwidth then customers would be happy, csc staff would have less problems and the forums would contain topics other than speed issues.

the days of cheap broadband are well and truly over in my books, and for once i hope prices creep back up. currently this system is not sustaiable, and rather than blame the isp everytime who are just trying to be competitive its time to review the whole system.
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 12,169
Thanks: 18
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-04-2007

Re: bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Quote
1) we know christmas would be a quiet time so more people had use of the full bandwidth. so does this mean when everyone is back on the claims there is not enough bandwidth are unfounded.for if there was enough bandwidth we would all see great speeds


Over Christmas the network was a lot quieter than normal, the amount of HTTP traffic was considerably lower than normal particularly on Christmas Day and Boxing Day which meant there was more bandwidth available for the lower priority traffic like Usenet and P2P at peak times on these days.

Quote
2) we are all paying customers so is it fair if it is the case and i do not know, that buisness customers receive a far better experience.


Business accounts generally cost more than residential accounts, part of the reasoning behind that cost difference is that overall experience is designed to be at a higher priority that a business would expect.

Quote
3) Of the bandwidth availiable can plusnet do something to actively reduce spam to their email accounts


Something that is high up on our priorities list and very much something we want to tackle. We've just started a project to change the way the default mailbox works (changing it so that the catch-all address will be off by default) as well as a few other things. I'll say watch this space.

Quote
4) A simple way i would think of reducing spam is put the onus on the customer. when setting up email accounts an option to enter acceptable email domains or addresses to an approved list, anything else is bounced or deleted.


Hmm, I'm not sure whether that would work in practice, worth thinking about though but I can easily see it causing problems.

Quote
Rather than selling one style package maybe a dell spec type system could be used, and therefore you pay for what you need.


We already offer PAYG broadband where you pay for the bandwidth you use, or do you want it to further so you can add other aspects to the account on a PAYG basis like webspace, fax2email, etc.?

Quote
I use usenet not heaviliy but would pay more to have a 20gb UNLIMITED speed account where no restrictions apply even at peak times because i have paid for that service.


Thing is, the two things don't quite go together unless all the customers are paying very high subscription fees. Without any traffic management you run the danger of all customers seeing ping spikes and packet loss across all types of traffic at peak times unless you're keeping way ahead of usage with your capacity. For that you need very deep pockets as the bandwidth prices come in at £1.75m per year per 622Mbps pipe.
long-gone
Grafter
Posts: 93
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Quote
Thing is, the two things don't quite go together unless all the customers are paying very high subscription fees. Without any traffic management you run the danger of all customers seeing ping spikes and packet loss across all types of traffic at peak times unless you're keeping way ahead of usage with your capacity. For that you need very deep pockets as the bandwidth prices come in at £1.75m per year per 622Mbps pipe.

I think that would work out to 2,418,336GB per year extra capacity. If you sell it for £1 per GB usage then you can make a reasonable profit on that.

Or you could charge 180,000 users an extra £1 per month become uncompetitive, not make so much profit, annoy the hell out of some of your users, but still pay for it.

You need extra capacity; Your user base is static; But usage is increasing. Charging for usage has surely got to be the sensible way forward.
N/A

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Quote
The reduction in centrals MUST Have had an effect.

People are paying for 20gig on Prem 1 - Thats 20 gig of data (of any type!) The service must allow them to achieve this in a reasonable manner.


This is true. Unfortunatly plusnet seem to think otherwise.
I have noticed that they are actually breaking their end of the deal although not in the legal sense they do not provide what they sell. From my point of view i am meant to be able to use 20GB peak rate and anything off peak. At a max contention ratio of 50:1 plusnet with their traffic shaping are currently providing me with around 100:1 ip transit. This has been tested against multiple servers i have remote access to and across multiple tcp ports. Intresting results about traffic shaping have been generated.
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,339
Thanks: 595
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Contention ratios went out of the window yonks ago. BT don't use them and nor do Plusnet.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
N/A

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

What is your bases for that information ?

Moderators note by John (johnessex) Full quote of preceding post removed as per the Link:rules
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,339
Thanks: 595
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

You try and find a place where contention ratios are specified - I can tell you places where they used to be.

It was obvious that contention ratios had to go when MaxDSL was in the offing, otherwise everybody (BT and ISP's) would have had to quadruple their capacity. Plusnet hung on to it after BT had ceased, and for some time after it had been proved that Plusnet had nowhere near enough capacity to provide the specified contention ratios. I'd guess it's at least a year since the last references disappeared.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 12,169
Thanks: 18
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-04-2007

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Quote
What is your bases for that information ?


It was part of the T's & C's from BT Wholesale to any ISPs that provide Max products. BT changed contention ratios to what they describe as end user experience:

Acceptable Speeds
Broadband Product Speed Acceptable Average Speed
256kb 50kbps or higher
512kb 100kbps or higher
1Mb 200kbps or higher
2Mb or higher 400kbps or higher
N/A

Re: bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Quote
Quote

You need extra capacity; Your user base is static; But usage is increasing. Charging for usage has surely got to be the sensible way forward.


Nail on the head there I think.

I'm currently looking to move to an ISP who has sufficient network capacity to allow you to do what people do on the internet in these modern day times.

Usage is only going to get higher as more and more people get MP3's players, use iTunes and start to buy video content over the internet. Plusnet HAS NO CHOICE but to increase capacity at some point in the time, however it seems they are going to hold off as long as possible and get just a few more new customers so that the new capacity seems worthwhile and won't eat too deeply into the companies profits.
James
Grafter
Posts: 21,036
Registered: 04-04-2007

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Granted that usage will increase and surely the onus has to be on the Wholesaler to make increasing capacity a more financially realistic move forward.

The drops in pricing from a customer/month will help somewhat, but capacity charges are set to rise, which is a bit of a kick in the teeth.
N/A

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

well to be honest thats a cop out, plusnet is in the same position as other isps. they have spent there money (prob not in every case) in increasing bandwidth and user experience, while i wonder how much was paid for the ellacoya system? considering there would of been consultancy costs, cost od purchasing or leasing, support costs, money wastede and yes i know the response will be we have to protect the interest of the average user well why dont you do the following

on signup ask the question will you use the net for digital downloads? if they answer yes then say sorry we cant accept your buisness.

rather than say yes welcome aboard oh by the way we never mentioned ellacoya and its annoying restrictions applied as raw as it actually is instead we flowered up the aup and fup.

luckily for me plusnet came through today, i spoke to a csc agent who was very helpful (must be a temp) and organised my MAC key over the phone there and then.

so now i look forward to emails that arent deleted or delayed, browsing to how it should be, and confirmed over the phone (we do not use a traffic managment system nor is there talk about such system being implemented you have 40gb allowance to use as you wish)

now thats what i call an isp, but promises arent promises until there delivered.

now if plusnet ran a supermarket would they get away with low stock levels and restricting each customer to just one item each so theres enough to go around. no they wouldnt they would cease trading.

this is why plusnets attitude is all wrong. they set up a buisness to provide internet access to customers. into that model they should of factored and budgeted into that cost increases for additional bandwidth something if there buisness was to grow they would need. blaming the cost of increased bandwidth being the reason is not good enough, the consumer has no interest in that, thats your problem, if you havent factored that in then that would be considered as your loss, and should never be the customers loss as it is now.
long-gone
Grafter
Posts: 93
Registered: 01-08-2007

bandwidth and traffic managment, comparison

Quote
now if plusnet ran a supermarket would they get away with low stock levels and restricting each customer to just one item each so theres enough to go around. no they wouldnt they would cease trading.

Plusnet are a supermarket with low stocks and only one commodity. The problem is that while some people take 5 items, others take 100 items – and they all get charged the same.

Using Ellacoyas to ‘regulate’ the shelf stacking is their only option because they can’t pay for extra deliveries.

But they could afford more deliveries if they charged per item at the checkout. :roll: