Home   Help Search Groups Login Register  
You are not logged in. To get the full experience of these forums, we recommend you log in or register
Plusnet Usergroup » All Users - The Open Forum » Announcements » BT announce sucessful acquisition of PlusNet PLC
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: BT announce sucessful acquisition of PlusNet PLC  (Read 29615 times)
Tam

Posts: 1188


100Mb via Enta.net :D

« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2007, 08:15:24 pm »

Hi Tam,

What do you think will happen to the majority of ISPs, especially those that use IPStream once they all have a similar proprtion of their customers on IPStream Max?  Their usage will increase considerly, and I'm fairly certain that they won't be investing £xm in new central capacity to cover for the increased usage.  It's simply not profitable.

We've seen other ISP's, most recently Entanet implementing solutions to managed traffic.  This will be the continuing trend, as essentially, the amount of usage per customer will continue to rise.  We don't make a massive profit, maybe £1 per customer per month, and with the removal of YSWP, our gains are gong to be less.

Entanet are a perfect example of why traffic management is essential.

You public state on TB that your not for spin, then post the above.

Want to actually explain the entanet traffic shaping??? Do you understand it???

I'm sorry, but no, traffic shaping is not going to be a major change for future internetwork services, sure it will play its part (for example keeping P2P under control), but its not going to be used just to allow the ISP to run all their bandwidth at max all the time (as per PN's installation of traffic shaping).


dtomlinson
Plusnet Staff

Posts: 2156


« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2007, 01:52:33 pm »

Riiight. Entanet are implementing traffic shaping because of the long lead times on BTw centrals.

You think that's really the only reason?

Quote
You could blame them for that but considering they've only very recently had another one installed I don't think they can be totally for blame.

Didn't take long to fill it up.

Quote
At the end of the day, Entanet's network is a trillion times better for their customers than yours is for your customers.

Really? What do you think's going to happen when they fill up the next central? Will they buy another one? Maybe, but then another and another and another? Provisioning bandwidth based entirely on usage doesn't work. How much more bandwidth can they buy before the cost exceeds the revenue? I don't know the exact point but it will come.


Quote
Bit of professionalism really wouldn't go amiss to be honest.

All we're doing is discussing the wider ISP industry, people are always going to compare what we do with other ISPs and think "isn't that better?". There are reasons why we haven't adopted what other ISPs are doing and we feel that customers should know why we are doing what we are doing and not what others are.

Regards,

Dave Tomlinson
PlusNet Support
dtomlinson
Plusnet Staff

Posts: 2156


« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2007, 02:04:23 pm »

Want to actually explain the entanet traffic shaping??? Do you understand it???

I understand it, when a central reaches 96% utilisation (at which point customers will already be seeing some levels of ping spikes and packet loss because of the design of a 622 pipe) they will gradually apply a global rate limit on all protocols across each customer on that pipe, dropping by 500kbps a time with the global rate limit not dropping below 2Mbps.

If utilisation decreases then the rate limit goes back up again, if it doesn't it stays in place until it does. Of course if the utilisation doesn't decrease then customers are just going to see the effects of natural contention on the pipe, which means ping spikes and packet loss across all protocols, if utilisation continues to go up past 96% then the ping spikes and packet loss would get worse and affect pretty much every customer whatever they were doing making game and voip and interactive traffic unusable.

Quote
I'm sorry, but no, traffic shaping is not going to be a major change for future internetwork services, sure it will play its part (for example keeping P2P under control), but its not going to be used just to allow the ISP to run all their bandwidth at max all the time (as per PN's installation of traffic shaping).


Beg to differ here, but traffic management is entirely the future for ISPs. Think about what people will be using their connections for in 2-3 years time. Video on demand, VoIP, gaming, browsing and other stuff. People are going to want quality of service on these applications, they'll want priority for the things they want to do and that means traffic management.

Regards,

Dave Tomlinson
PlusNet Support
mrmojo

Posts: 126

« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2007, 07:01:36 pm »

Dave - they have another 3 or 4 622 centrals on order. Think about that for a second. While you're reinstating a whopping 310mpbs (which you already removed, so really it's no net improvement to where you were), entanet has 2-3gbps to be installed for the first half of the year.
jelv1

Posts: 2130

« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2007, 09:38:39 pm »

Putting in and and activating centrals to meet rapidly expanding demand is where Plusnet were three years ago. Plusnet did the sums and the costs didn't balance. If I were to consider moving to Entanet I definitely have a backup plan in place because at some point something will have to give.

jelv
Tam

Posts: 1188


100Mb via Enta.net :D

« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2007, 09:57:44 pm »

Dave - they have another 3 or 4 622 centrals on order.

Thats easy to do, i can do that now myself!

Its converting the "order" to installation is where it gets expensive!... Of course just cancelling the order at installation stage means its cost you nothing.

Most ISP's do this too, purely to save 1 month of contract negotiations / planning before the installation stage just incase they really do need it.

You'll find the 3 / 4 pipes have probably been on "order" since this time last year, and more than likely they'll still be on order in 6 months time.


mrmojo

Posts: 126

« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2007, 11:37:31 pm »

Dave - they have another 3 or 4 622 centrals on order.

Thats easy to do, i can do that now myself!

Its converting the "order" to installation is where it gets expensive!... Of course just cancelling the order at installation stage means its cost you nothing.

Most ISP's do this too, purely to save 1 month of contract negotiations / planning before the installation stage just incase they really do need it.

You'll find the 3 / 4 pipes have probably been on "order" since this time last year, and more than likely they'll still be on order in 6 months time.



No, they  have concrete plans to install at least another 3 centrals. They have added the ones they have on order (grey circle next to them) to http://noc.enta.net/ and there's another one (or two?) going in march and/or may.

dtomlinson
Plusnet Staff

Posts: 2156


« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2007, 02:44:40 pm »

Dave - they have another 3 or 4 622 centrals on order. Think about that for a second. While you're reinstating a whopping 310mpbs (which you already removed, so really it's no net improvement to where you were), entanet has 2-3gbps to be installed for the first half of the year.

First correction, as has been explained a number of times, the 2 segments that were deactivated last year were met by an increase in LLU capacity because the number of customers on the BT Centrals had decreased by about 18,000 as customers were moved to LLU. So combining the existing 16 centrals plus the extra two plus the LLU bandwidth it's clear that this is a net increase over the 18 segments it was before we started the move to LLU.

Second thing is what does that increased cost of these extra pipes do? Seven 622Mbps pipes under the new pricing would cost

7 x £1,162,600 + £7.56 x number of customers

while the port cost per year would be £7.63 x 12 x number of customers

How many customers do Enta have? 50,000? 60,000?

Plug the figures in

6 x £1,162,600 + £7.56 x 50,000 + £7.63 x 12 x 50,000 = £11,931,600 or £19.89 per month per customer
6 x £1,162,600 + £7.56 x 60,000 + £7.63 x 12 x 60,000 = £12,922,800 or £17.95 per month per customer

7 x £1,162,600 + £7.56 x 50,000 + £7.63 x 12 x 50,000 = £13,094,200 or £21.82 per month per customer
7 x £1,162,600 + £7.56 x 60,000 + £7.63 x 12 x 60,000 = £14,085,400 or £19.56 per month per customer

That's quite a big cost factor per customer, and doesn't include VAT, staff, building, infrasture, profit, billing, etc.

It's quite easy to see that if you were to grow your capacity faster than your customer base then that cost per customer is going to go up rather than down.

Regards,

Dave Tomlinson
PlusNet Support
playmistyforme

Posts: 3

« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2007, 06:22:57 pm »

I wonder if this was a BT idea.
I think it's a bit mean that people have to get someone to join up before people can enter the 10th birthday competition, why couldn't the competition be for customers, you know a bit of a thank you for staying loyal instead of them wanting something else from us before we can take part in this so called celebration. They have taken something that could have been fun and made it cheep.
dtomlinson
Plusnet Staff

Posts: 2156


« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2007, 06:38:20 pm »

Hi,

The idea behind this is do a number of things, to bring attention to our Vision for 2007, the things that we are doing, what we have done to put things right that once went wrong, what we have learnt and where we are going as well as 10 year milestone and how we've evolved over that time.

2007 is going to see big changes in the broadband marketplace (I know I say that every year) but we want to set out and show what we intend to do and ensure that the service we provide is one that you want to recommend to people and we want you to refer. You don't though have to refer to stand a chance of winning, point 7 in the link below gives the postal option too:

http://www.plus.net/features/10th-birthday.shtml

Regards,

Dave Tomlinson
PlusNet Support
jelv1

Posts: 2130

« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2007, 10:44:53 pm »

Never mind the big vision about the future, I for one would just like what we have got now to work properly.

jelv
lmartin

Posts: 1404


Comms Team

« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2007, 11:19:08 pm »

...and I think our plans make it clear that our biggest priority before anything else is fixing what went wrong and stabalising the platform first and foremost.

Liam Martin
PlusNet Comms Team
Tam

Posts: 1188


100Mb via Enta.net :D

« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2007, 09:32:08 am »

...and I think our plans make it clear that our biggest priority before anything else is fixing what went wrong and stabalising the platform first and foremost.

By adding a whole 310mb of bandwidth ... steady on..  dont want to go over the top now do you!. Sad

lmartin

Posts: 1404


Comms Team

« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2007, 10:06:31 am »

Absolutely Tam. No... we don't.  wink

It's not all about throwing unsustainable capacity at the platform.  If other ISPs want to take that risk then that is up to them - but they'll feel the pain eventually.

And stabalising the platform is not just about managing traffic on the centrals.  It's not just about capacity and speeds, it's about the platform as a whole.  Servers and Services.  E-Mail for example.

Liam Martin
PlusNet Comms Team
Matt_2k34

Posts: 387

« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2007, 07:32:49 pm »

if traffic management is 'not necessary' how come 'big' businesses are now building it into networks (linux servers) to cope. ?

i cant remember who it was, but i seem to remember reading they wanted some deep packet inspection stuff, for a number of reasons - 1 was to give priority for http traffic, and the other was so that they could see who was using how much bandwidth, and on what.

Quote
By adding a whole 310mb of bandwidth ... steady on..  dont want to go over the top now do you!.

Think about it, 310mb/s is quite alot of bandwidth for saying theres what, 200,00 customers ? how many of these use p2p/usenet/spend endless hours on a computer.

PN have something like 18% of traffic dedicated to Broadband Plus, yes ? we'll the package is for 'light users' really, low caps and a good price. if you think entranet is so good, why dont you keep your eye on the news over the next year ?

Personally i think PlusNets venture into LLU was a bit of a mistake (being on LLU and having quite a few problems with it), i'd of rather seen this go to Be* (now O2, who want their own BB product in the summer, so i don't think they are going to be offering wholesale again any time soon).

Traffic shaping in my opinions is (one of) the best benefits of PN, if you dont like that you get 2kbps download on a p2p, dont use p2p ?

im sure everything you can legally get off p2p is pretty small anyway right ?  grin :mrgreen:

Quote
It's not just about capacity and speeds, it's about the platform as a whole.  Servers and Services.  E-Mail for example.

Agreed, i set myself up a 'home' mailserver to collect all my emails when PN was having a few 'issues' with their platform, not a problem it downloaded most of my emails overnight, and delivered them to me on demand smiley

i feel sorry for alot of PN staff when people start complaining about 'slow speeds' yet you can clearly see the benefits it is bringing.


And another gripe, people moaning about speed "im synced at 8mb but im only getting 300kbps download" - - - 1) the package is 'up to 8mb' and 2) how about thinking about the people who aren't as close to the telephone exchange, and are "Stuck" with the package they have... i can only get 1mb, and its just about stable now thanks to some jiggery pokery by plusnet. If it wasn't for traffic shaping, i think that id be much worse off for instance...


And when i saw BT were buying out plusnet i was horrified to start (BT left me without a working phoneline for weeks because we switched to PN, this was when BT were giving away '14 day trials on BB' -- but seen as BT just got voted Best ISP i'd have to say it can't be that bad... can it ? (and after seeing tiscali wholesale's attempt, i'd say no smiley )

[/EndRant] smiley
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 07:34:37 pm by Matt_2k34 »

-----------
=)
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to: