is Plusnet keeping up todate with legislation?

[#1]

I was asking myself the same question...

[#2]

Quote from: jelv

Why are people so keen to push for the price of broadband for all users to be increased?

Who are these people you speak of, or are you just asking a rhetorical question to spread a bit of FUD? 
Have you heard the phrase, save a penny today, spend a pound tomorrow?
You are asserting that a large corporation, given a way to create a margin, isn't actually going to use it! 
That's quite an assertion.  A naive one in view of recent history.  Can you explain the economics of it please.

[#3]

If all traffic is going to be given equal priority Plusnet would have to very, very considerably increase capacity to prevent VoIP and gaming being totally unusable at peak times. That would cost them a lot of money which would have to be passed on to the users. Prioritising traffic allows Plusnet to deliver a product that the vast majority of users like at a price they like. Anyone who doesn't understand that simple economic fact is just plain thick.
Andrews and Arnold deliver the sort of service people seem to be demanding: BT 20CN connection, 2GB Daytime usage (9am-6pm Mon-Fri), 10GB evenings and weekends, £23/month. Compare that to Plusnet Value which is only £12.99.

[#4]

Quote from: jelv

Andrews and Arnold deliver the sort of service people seem to be demanding: BT 20CN connection, 2GB Daytime usage (9am-6pm Mon-Fri), 10GB evenings and weekends, £23/month. Compare that to Plusnet Value which is only £12.99.

That's a self-limiting connection - it's for people who are prepared to pay a premium for a low-usage, high availability account.

[#5]

I would compare A&A's offering more  with PlusNet Extra in a Market 1 area  - as A&A's 20CN price point at £23 allows up to 50GB off-peak allowance.

[#6]

www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/05/05/uk-isp-plusnet-offers-traffic-prioritisation-bolt-on-for-broadb...

If you examine all the plusnet traffic mangemet tables including the bolt on table you might see very little difference.Its claimed streaming is always  line speed  without the bolt on.That is not true in my experience.
General consensus on majority of internet (too many to list here) forum sites is that add on is not worth the hassle

[#7]

For those who missed the original story.

http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/eu-launches-net-neutrality-probe-27169

[#8]

Quote from: thisoldman

If you examine all the plusnet traffic mangemet tables including the bolt on table you might see very little difference.Its claimed streaming is always  line speed  without the bolt on.That is not true in my experience.

Streaming is real time so the speed would be at a rate to be able to view the video feed without stuttering. Problems will arise if there's congestion and a User line rate is not sufficient to allow burst at high speed to catch up.

[#9]

Quote from: thisoldman

For those who missed the original story. http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/eu-launches-net-neutrality-probe-27169

After reading that I'm more of opinion that MP's and MEP's are completely out of touch with business. What they are saying is ISP's have to have an infrastructure to support unlimited traffic at peak times that only a small percentage will be used at other times. Increasing the cost to all users. Are they going to look at electricity and Economy 7 as this is an example how users usage is manipulated so that power stations run more efficiently. 

[#10]

I have been following the NN discussions for 18 months or so and there is quite clearly no general agreement about what Net Neutrality means.
The above link contains this:
"For example some ISPs in the UK are known to “throttle” back certain services, such as the BBC iPlayer or even Skype at peak times. ISPs argue that this is necessary to ensure that all their users receive an equal service."
Most ISPs will provide those services un-throttled if you wish but at a price.
I personally don't need those services and am happy to pay less.
May I even be so bold as to say that even the inventor of the WWW,  Sir Tim B-L, doesn't seem to be clear about what NN is.

[#11]

That looks like an article which is aimed at stirring the pot again. A case of "bad news sells"? The article talks about a principle of Net Neutrality, and brings out their champions. Then it mentions the law... which doesn't actually require Net Neutrality. Just access to services, transparency, Switchability, and Quality of Service - but without stating what service requires what quality!
In fact, where that article points out a link to Tim Berners-Lee, the linked article has a quote from him of “While transparency about traffic management policy is a good thing, best practices should also include the neutrality of the net,”
That quote (in the context of the article) suggests that Sir Tim understands the main thrust of the "Net Neutrality" issue to be about whether content providers can pay for fast-track service, and NOT about whether ISPs should do anything to manage traffic. I think he's clear - but doesn't define it as radically as some of the so-called "critics".
In fact, it sounds like he's very aware of the economics - and that unreasonable demands for the most extreme forms of "net neutrality" will actually make the net more expensive and more exclusive - driving it out of the hands of those who probably need it most.

[#12]

Quote from: jelv

Anyone who doesn't understand that simple economic fact is just plain thick.

LOL.  Ad-hominem abuse, what a great way to conduct yourself
With respect, you are presuming, that things will remain the way things are today.  Anyone with a simple understanding of economics, rather than an understanding of simple economics, knows that a competitive market remains in a constant state of flux.
Let's take that £12.99 figure of yours.  How much of it pays for capacity?  How much of it pays off the debt for the network equipment?  How much of it pays for the engineers that implement the traffic shaping policies?  How much of it pays for TV adverts?  How much of it goes to Ian Livingstone's £2.4M bonus?  Could any of these numbers be adjusted, well yes.  Cost + Margin is an inadequate explanation of ISP retail pricing and a long way from being an economic fact.
You see how your simple economics is already starting to collapse.  I have only listed a few but there are so many variables an ISP can adjust, to cover an increase in the cost of doing business, the retail price is already highly abstracted.  The price we are charged is, to a large degree, the price we are willing to pay.
All the forecasts show bandwidth use increasing significantly over the next 10 years.  Net Neutrality, is not going to stop that happening.

[#13]

Quote

Let's take that £12.99 figure of yours.  How much of it pays for capacity?  How much of it pays off the debt for the network equipment?  How much of it pays for the engineers that implement the traffic shaping policies?  How much of it pays for TV adverts?  How much of it goes to Ian Livingstone's £2.4M bonus?  Could any of these numbers be adjusted, well yes.  Cost + Margin is an inadequate explanation of ISP retail pricing and a long way from being an economic fact.

Bit of an old article, but may be of interest to some:
http://community.plus.net/blog/2007/08/17/broadband-your-way-blueprint/

[#14]

Is the cost of capacity on the 10GB host links published anywhere on a BT website?

[#15]

Quote from: mssystems

Quote from: jelv Anyone who doesn't understand that simple economic fact is just plain thick. All the forecasts show bandwidth use increasing significantly over the next 10 years.  Net Neutrality, is not going to stop that happening.

True.  But good general availability of network capacity might just have an impact  on all bar a limited No. of possible end points.