A voice in the wilderness?

[#1]

so please double  my  usage and half my 20MB  to a10MB speed  on the value package

[#2]

Wrong
If you are using your computer to visit say 1000 web sites in a day before the speed increase reducing the loading time for each site by half doesn't mean that you would want to or be able to visit 2000 web sites a day, unless you weren't bothering to read what was on the site, which would be needed to double the usage
Just to add I noticed you posted again while I was typing - you could have used the modify function to change the previous post instead of bumping the thread - the costs to Plusnet are per GB used not speed. It doesn't matter if you use it in 1 minute or 10 minutes it still costs the same

[#3]

so ATM  extra usage cost plusnet extra money
but extra increases in speed do not
why not?
My guess is that BT  and plusnet want more customers moved over onto 21cn (while  its still in its trials )
and hotting up the engine on a car to travel on 10GB track
is not as beneficial as providing more road for your existing car to drive on

[#4]

Quote from: Oldjim

the costs to Plusnet are per GB used not speed.

Well… not quite. The ultimate cost to Plusnet is capacity, which is a kind of amalgamation of both of those. So, for example, 10,000 Value customers on 20Mbps is likely to cost Plusnet more than 10,000 Value customers on 8Mbps because the likelihood is that, at busy times, they would altogether be using more of Plusnet's available capacity, even accounting for the strict rate limiting. It is therefore certainly possible that more usage could have been included with Value rather than increasing its speed, but I couldn't begin to guess how much extra could be included as it would depend on so many things (number of Value customers, number of other customers, usage patterns of all those customers, and probably many more things besides, which only Plusnet are only privy to).

[#5]

Quote from: Oldjim

If the total usage per month doesn't change then increasing the speed wouldn't increase the cost over a month

I beg to differ, Lets forget Webpages,  What about better streaming, etc..

[#6]

Because the whole costing is based on the cost of the equipment and infrastructure to carry the information.
21CN isn't in trials it is way beyond that and is now being progressively rolled out over the country.
The introduction of 21CN was intended to modernise the equipment in the exchange and as a side effect allow for more efficient transmission protocols which allowed for an increase in speeds for some of the users. The basic capacity was largely unaffected as the total throughput capability of the system wasn't directly affected.
The equipment in the exchanges and the central infrastructure has a capacity in Gb/s and in general terms it is loaded up to a percentage of capacity. If you want more capacity it needs more equipment and hence more cost.
The effect of ADSL2+ is to better utilise the copper link from the user to the exchange and has minimal effect on the speeds beyond that.
If you have a read here you will get a better appreciation of what is involved http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/equip2.htm

[#7]

Quote from: Be3G

Well… not quite. The ultimate cost to Plusnet is capacity, which is a kind of amalgamation of both of those. So, for example, 10,000 Value customers on 20Mbps is likely to cost Plusnet more than 10,000 Value customers on 8Mbps because the likelihood is that, at busy times, they would altogether be using more of Plusnet's available capacity, even accounting for the strict rate limiting.

This is too simplistic a view and assumes that the customers are able to benefit from the increased speed. A large proportion (I would guess a significant majority) are unlikely to get a big increase in speed. From the comparative speed graph to get a significant increase in speed you would need to have an ADSL1 speed in excess of 7,000kbps and we know from the OFCOM report that the average for Plusnet is way below that.http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4325-uk-broadband-speeds-increase-but-promise-to-delivery-gap-widens.html at somewhere under 4,000kbps on average
For this reason the extra cost of allowing ADSL2+ on Value will probably be minimal given that the average usage on Value is probably well under 5GB which would normally only be used for browsing where the extra speed wouldn't even be noticeable in terms of loading

[#8]

I've read somewhere that it's cheaper to have a customer on 21CN than 20CN assuming all other things are equal.
With 3 days to go I've used 4.26Gb which is in line with Oldjim's comments.

[#9]

its ridiculous - a faster constant usage capped  network

[#10]

Quote from: Steve

I beg to differ, Lets forget Webpages,  What about better streaming, etc..

The funny thing is it wouldn't give much better streaming in the vast majority of cases.
AFAIK  BT iPlayer will stream at highest quality at about 4000kbps IP profile and with ADSL2+ only a very small number will increase from a 3500kbps IP profile to a 4000kbps IP profile.
This is the greaph I am using to estimate speed improvements

[#11]

Quote from: giro

so ATM  extra usage cost plusnet extra money but extra increases in speed do not why not? My guess is that BT  and plusnet want more customers moved over onto 21cn (while  its still in its trials ) and hotting up the engine on a car to travel on 10GB track is not as beneficial as providing more road for your existing car to drive on

If you want to drive for the same time in your hotted up car at twice the speed you can do it but the fuel costs will more than double. So if you want to download twice as much in the same time your usage costs will increase - seems fair to me

[#12]

Hmmn agree with your final post Oldjim and see what your saying, TBH as you know Im on 24mbps at the mo ( when it works) till I come home to plusnet and regarding webpages etc I dont see any improvement, Although My throughput wirelessly around the home has improved.

[#13]

Quote

If you want to drive for the same time in your hotted up car at twice the speed you can do it but the fuel costs will more than double. So if you want to download twice as much in the same time your usage costs will increase - seems fair to me

but  i never said that
what would be  of more  value for me and i guess others
is to keep the car we have already and go out on  further distances
for  the same cost of our tank of petrol by reducing our speed

[#14]

Quote from: Oldjim

For this reason the extra cost of allowing ADSL2+ on Value will probably be minimal given that the average usage on Value is probably well under 5GB

Ah, but in saying that you have also just given me a counter-argument: that, because the average Value usage is 5GB, the cost of increasing the usage by a GB or two could be fairly minimal too (because those who use 5GB would continue to use roughly 5GB regardless). So I still maintain that my theory is correct… as I said last time, I have absolutely no idea how much extra usage could have been gleaned out of the money spent on offering 20Mbps to Value customers, but I think it's quite plausible that it could have been an amount that was useful (e.g. at least 1GB).
Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that 10GB at 20Mbps will probably sell a lot better than 11GB at 8Mbps, which is no doubt why Plusnet chose to do what they did.

Quote from: nadger

I've read somewhere that it's cheaper to have a customer on 21CN than 20CN assuming all other things are equal.

That is correct, but it doesn't have a bearing here, as Value customers were already being placed on ADSL1 over 21CN.

[#15]

Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that 10GB at 20Mbps will probably sell a lot better than 11GB at 8Mbps, which is no doubt why Plusnet chose to do what they did.
campaign gimmicks