Re: Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!

["Neil F" <automated@xxxxxxx>]

Don't know if any of you know of this site, www.ispreview.co.uk   it list's
all freecall isp's ...you might find a cheaper option than 40 quid for a
dial up!! I get 512k/128k cable connection for 33 quid.

Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Harrison" <mark.harrison@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!


>
****************************************************************************
> Kingfisher plc
> Registered Office: North West House, 119 Marylebone Road, London NW1
5PX
> Registered in England, Number 1664812
>
> This e-mail is only intended for the person(s) to whom it is addressed
and
> may contain confidential information.  Unless stated to the contrary,
any
> opinions or comments are personal to the writer and do not represent
the
> official view of the company.  If you have received this e-mail in
error,
> please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this
message
> from your system.  Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes,
or
> disclose its contents to any other person.  Thank you for your
co-operation.
>
****************************************************************************
>
> Tim,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > It isn't fraudulent. Their services are not advertised as 24x7...
>
> Erm... this is the PlusNet "Surf 24x7" product, yes???
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Morris [mailto:timothy.morris@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:21 PM
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Calum Morrell [mailto:calum@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 01 February 2001 12:00
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!
> >
> >
>
> > kicked off an ISP
> > but the pathetic [and clearly fraudulent] activity of the various
> > 24x7 ISP's
> > sickens me. If a service is advertised as 24x7 then it should
damn well
be
> > usable by it's customers 24x7 - if it's not, then calling it 24x7
> > cannot be
> > legal as all the ISP's I know of are physically available for use
> > 24x7 and they
> > are using this term to distinguish between an off the shelf
> > service and their
> > own.
>
> It isn't fraudulent. Their services are not advertised as 24x7, they
are
> advertised as unmetered. It is obvious to anyone with an even limited
> understanding of how ISPs work, that there is no profit in allowing
24x7
> connections for the prices charged by ISPs for unmetered accounts. If
you
> want 24x7 access you have to pay for it - in the order of ?40 a month
plus
> (cable users excepted, as their network infrastructure is totally
> different).
>
> >
> > On to your final quote "So in answer to your post, I've
thought
> > about it - and
> > never gonna happen." Really? You state that the bandwidth is
a
> > user problem and
> > not BT's if too many people are on the same ATM switch ... but
> > that's not the
> > case though. BT have to pay to provide bandwidth and sustain it
at a
level
> > suitable for it's users [and remember, long term we're talking
> > businesses here
> > as well]. Like any other service BT provide, it will eventually
> > have reasonable
> > competition and they have to protect there shareholders. What
> > this comes down to
> > is that is a group of people are using up a large percentage of
available
> > bandwidth on the network, that they may feel it is more cost
> > effective to remove
> > that group rather than pay for an upgrade.
> >
> > Never going to happen? I think if it can be done due to modem
> > contention, it can
> > be done for bandwidth contention.
> >
>
> You seem to forget that when you sign up for ADSL you are made aware
of
the
> fact that there is a contention ratio of either 50 or 20 to 1
depending on
> the service. If 50 users sign up at a local exchange and spend 24
hours
> streaming media down from their selected ISP then each user is only
going
to
> be able to get just over 10K of bandwidth. No more or less than they
have
> paid for. In reality most internet traffic is burst which is why
> 'overbooking' is feasible throughout the network. How else do you
think
that
> ISPs can cope with only 155Mbps connections to the US?
>
> Tim.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>