Various Topics on Internet

..n ..

biggeordie blurted on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:12:13 GMT:

> It took them long enough to decide on this one, they must have known
> this for long enough but decide to hammer it now probably because they
> are having bandwidth/contention problems.

Yep...now so many are on BB capacities on uncapped ISPs will be at breaking
point now I expect...that's why I think there'll be very few, if any,
uncapped services in the future...

--
Men are just the happiest people
Because Chocolate is just another snack.

..re..

*biggeordie* explained :
> I think it is time that the Oxford Dictionary was altered to suit the
> ISP's....
> Unlimited - was changed.
> Anytime - was changed.
> Now Always on - has been changed.
> they continually move the goalposts and Offcom does sweet F. A. about
> it.

Yep, you can be connected 24/7 but they don't want you to use it... :/

--
Gareth... ( email address invalid ) ......... O-\O
Birthdays: http://www.jechson.fsnet.co.uk/refugees.htm
Picture/Photo Sites: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chatterers2/
& http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chatterrefugeespics

..n ..

biggeordie blurted on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:12:13 GMT:

> It took them long enough to decide on this one, they must have known
> this for long enough but decide to hammer it now probably because they
> are having bandwidth/contention problems.

And I read in the BB NG that the PN people won't define what an heavy user
is...probably because they would have to say the service is capped
somewhere on their site, to whatever amount they mention...

--
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will
plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste
arguments where they will certainly be lost.
*William Lloyd Garrison*

..b

Ron S wrote:
> Gareth blurted on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:55:52 GMT:
>
>
>>They complained about people hogging the bandwidth and suggested that
>>they go over to broadband where they can have an 'always on' connection
>>without any limits and when they've got everybody transferred across,
>>they start imposing caps and limits again. :-(
>
>
> Is a shame they don't mention what amount these people are d/ling...if
> they're d/ling a couple of gigs an hour 24hrs a day they can't possibly be
> doing it for themselves because they would never have the time to listen
> and watch whatever it is...so they really need to rent a commercial server
> and pay commercial prices for the service...if they're d/ling 3 or 4GBs a
> day then I agree the ISPs are taking the Ron again...
>
>
Seem some of them are using over 100gig a day. Which is fairly steep.

..b

> Seem some of them are using over 100gig a day. Which is fairly steep.

Oops, 100 gig a month, not a day.

....

"Ron S" <newredward@gmx.invalid> wrote in message
news:71gaezv7kmtt.dlg@ronronronronronronron.com...
> biggeordie blurted on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:12:13 GMT:
>
>> It took them long enough to decide on this one, they must have known
>> this for long enough but decide to hammer it now probably because they
>> are having bandwidth/contention problems.
>
> And I read in the BB NG that the PN people won't define what an heavy user
> is...probably because they would have to say the service is capped
> somewhere on their site, to whatever amount they mention...
>
The heavy users are the ones that say there coming back to pipex.

At least the ones in the pipex news group who where going on about how much
better the change to plusnet was seamed to have changed there mind.

Maybe every body got one as a sort of warning

..n ..

Trev blurted on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:37:53 -0000:

> The heavy users are the ones that say there coming back to pipex.
>
> At least the ones in the pipex news group who where going on about how much
> better the change to plusnet was seamed to have changed there mind.
>
> Maybe every body got one as a sort of warning

Is unfair that they are trading as uncapped if they do in fact have an
hidden cap that they don't want to mention...their view of heavy use may be
500MBs a day for all we know and they get people signing with them because
they brag about not having caps like other ISPs...

--
They can because they think they can.
*Virgil*

..ggeord..

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:16:58 +0000, Ron S unleashed the following:

> Yep...now so many are on BB capacities on uncapped ISPs will be at breaking
> point now I expect...that's why I think there'll be very few, if any,
> uncapped services in the future...

Which really defeats the idea of BB....

--
Why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, ... you've seen
what food processors do to food, right?

..n ..

Rab blurted on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:36:02 +0000:

>> Is a shame they don't mention what amount these people are d/ling...if
>> they're d/ling a couple of gigs an hour 24hrs a day they can't possibly be
>> doing it for themselves because they would never have the time to listen
>> and watch whatever it is...so they really need to rent a commercial server
>> and pay commercial prices for the service...if they're d/ling 3 or 4GBs a
>> day then I agree the ISPs are taking the Ron again...
>>
>>
> Seem some of them are using over 100gig a day. Which is fairly steep.

Plusnet should make a point of mentioning it then, Rab, because that is
taking the Ron for sure...

--
Friends are relatives you make for yourself.
*Eustache Deschamps*

..ggeord..

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:22:52 +0000, Ron S unleashed the following:

> And I read in the BB NG that the PN people won't define what an heavy user
> is...probably because they would have to say the service is capped
> somewhere on their site, to whatever amount they mention...

If they are refusing to say what is their idea of a heavy user, then
Offcom should step in and demand it be made public....

--
The program is absolutely right; therefore the computer must be wrong.