New Zen Fibre Prices

[Tacitus]

Zen have revamped their Fibre/Phone offerings which may be worth a look for those who can get fibre.

http://www.zen.co.uk/home-office/broadband/fibre-optic-broadband/fibre-and-phone-packages.aspx#fibre1

[MisterW]

Interesting that they are offering the Technicolor TG789v3 router as an option for hardware, it has an integrated VDSL2 modem.

[Gary]

Interesting that they are offering the Technicolor TG789v3 router as an option for hardware, it has an integrated VDSL2 modem.

BT have a home hub 5 which also has integrated VDSL Modem. Personally I prefer just a modem so I can use what router I like. Also its useful to match up cab chipsets where possible, so ECI to ECI Huawei to Huawei. I have seen on some forums that a Draytek router with integrated VDSL does not sync as well as the BT modems and produces more errors as well, causing DLM to kick in and reduce speed. Its  a bit like the old ADSL system where certain chipsets performed better on certain lines and exchanges except now its cabs. The prices are very competitive compared with IDNet though, although truly unlimited always worries me.

[pctech]

Zen has apparently installed it's own kit in a lot of exchanges (with the backhaul provided by C&W or Vodafone as is now)

http://www.zen.co.uk/latest-news/zen-internet-invests-in-local-exchange-pop-network-to-deliver-ethernet-services.aspx

so that's prob how they can do it.

[Gary]

Zen has apparently installed it's own kit in a lot of exchanges (with the backhaul provided by C&W or Vodafone as is now)

http://www.zen.co.uk/latest-news/zen-internet-invests-in-local-exchange-pop-network-to-deliver-ethernet-services.aspx

so that's prob how they can do it.

Makes sense, tbh I keep clear of all you can eat simply because it does not work in the long term when you get people downloading 24/7 as it does slow others down.

[pctech]

That's when they have to get tough with those that abuse the network on the basis that they are degrading the service supplied to others.

Couple of my colleagues were booted from several uncapped ISPs on this basis.

[zappaDPJ]

That's when they have to get tough with those that abuse the network on the basis that they are degrading the service supplied to others.

Couple of my colleagues were booted from several uncapped ISPs on this basis.

That's always stuck me as utterly ridiculous, unlimited use subject to fair use polices.

[Simon]

I fail to see how, in that case, they can use the word 'unlimited', as it clearly isn't. 

[Technical Ben]

Zen has apparently installed it's own kit in a lot of exchanges (with the backhaul provided by C&W or Vodafone as is now)

http://www.zen.co.uk/latest-news/zen-internet-invests-in-local-exchange-pop-network-to-deliver-ethernet-services.aspx

so that's prob how they can do it.

Ah, TalkTalk (CPW) are on my exchange, not anything more than LLU though.

[pctech]

Certain use could slow down an MSAN's ability to process packets as there are limits so they could argue that a group of subscribers are degrading the service in a certain area.

I'd agree it is not unlimited but then again most people know there is no such thing as infinity in the physical world or at least that we've discovered yet.

[Simon]

Well, infinite means unending, so unless someone finds the end... 

[colirv]

I have no problem with "unlimited" if any FUP is clearly signposted. Can anyone think of another word, or couple of words, to describe where there is no fixed limit but the amount that can be downloaded isn't completely limitless (which in the real world it couldn't be and shouldn't need saying)?

[Simon]

"Almost Unlimited"? 

[colirv]

<like>

[Lance]

Few limitations.

[Steve]

TalkTalk 

[Technical Ben]

I have no problem with "unlimited" if any FUP is clearly signposted. Can anyone think of another word, or couple of words, to describe where there is no fixed limit but the amount that can be downloaded isn't completely limitless (which in the real world it couldn't be and shouldn't need saying)?

"500GB" or "not continuous"? Especially as most are around 300-500GB soft/hard limits. :/
Basically, only a fool would offer "unlimited" or use the word if they either 1) did not mean "unlimited" or 2) could not deliver "unlimited" service.

If they mean "continuous use" then post that. If they mean "all day", then use that. But if they do not provide "full speed all day", then it's not "unlimited" but "limited to 10mbps if you go over the 500GB limit".

By all means point out those hogging the net. But remember, their paying for the service, are they wrong to use it? Or would we give soup to someone who orders fish and chips?

[mervl]

  I wonder if there should always need to be some sort of cap specified which is the "guaranteed" minimum you can go up to without any restrictions being applied (unless any are specified); assuming of course your throughput allows it, a different matter entirely. The difference then becomes between those who impose a specified restriction after that cap, e.g. slowing speeds or extra charges or disconnection; and those that do not. Unlimited is not a defined term so to me is just meaningless. Surely the point is to enable consumers to make a meaningful comparison between providers, otherwise what's the purpose? Well, to confuse, I know.

[Technical Ben]

It is defined. It means "we do not impose a limit". If others do, it's called bait and switch, or dishonest. As in "This is 2kg of chicken" when it's 1.90kg and the rest is water that's been pumped in. Or if we put "Eat as much as you like* *limited to one serving". 

[pctech]

When I last checked most mobile phone contract terms include a clause along the lines of:
We reserve the right to disconnect any SIM card if a customer damages the network or puts it at risk.

along with a clause that allows them to disconnect a customer if their use degrades the service provided to others.

From a purely technical standpoint one could argue that fully loading a connection could cause one or the other or even both of the conditions.

I do agree unlimited should not be used and it should be made clear perhaps that while they are happy for most use they reserve the right to take network management measures where such use causes the above conditions.

[Technical Ben]

Who supplies the router? If you give a router that allows 24/7 connection and downput, who is to blame? (In the case of BT and the likes, I know it's different for IDNet, but IDNet is not an unmetered connection, so no false advertising there!)
I'll stick to an unthrottled product for now. But have no quams with IDNet throttling or charging for excessive use.
But until it's "9am-5pm internet only" or "2mb 20:1 contention only", I'm not considering it the customers responsibility to balance their download usage.
If it was, then people would suggest a solution to grid locked traffic is everyone leaving work at different times (which is a great idea) or for them to disconnect the cars battery until 10am.

But, as we realise, people need to get to work at 8-9am. Thus, the roads are gridlocked. Is this the fault of the car drivers (us broadband customers), the road makers (IDNet) or the employers (content creators of bandwidth intensive media/games/iplayer etc).

Most drivers would ask for bigger roads or better working conditions, as it's not in their power to dictate the time of commute.
Likewise, bandwidth is not the problem here (I seriously doubt 1gb costs much extra electric or ware on an exchange/circuit than 1billion gb), but throughput. Right? But the customer has little control on either in this instance. I'd argue in the past it was under the customers control. But now it's down to Sky, Apple, MS and BBC etc to change their services, or the infrastructure to change to support them.

[pctech]

I'm on the side of the ISPs on this one Ben, sorry.

The ones that are caught out know they are using their connection unreasonably by running µTorrent 24/7 and fully loading their connection, three colleagues of mine do this and have been booted from the likes of O2 and BT, they have all ended up on Sky but who knows how long Sky will tolerate it?

ISPs usually have two types of connections, peering and transit.

In a peering connection an ISP may rent one or more ports on a peering exchange such as the London Internet Exchange (LINX) or Amsterdam Internet Exchange (AMS-IX) and in IDNet's case that would be both along with others as well.

They can then set up peering sessions with other companies on that exchange at no charge and to each network it is seen as a direct link although the ports maybe on switched in different data centres where the exchange has equipment.

Where ISPs have kit in the same data room they can also agree to link their equipment directly to exchange traffic and are probably not likely to charge each other anything though some may, traffic routed over such connections usually (but not always) stays within a country's borders.

Transit connections are usually used for longer haul traffic such as that going to the States from the UK, these are I understand usually metered so the ISP maybe charged for how much traffic travels over them and as a lot of folks tend to look for films and American TV shows a lot of this material is seeded in the States so am sure you can see the issue as if there aren't a lot of copies in the UK they will be pulled from those in the States at least initially thus using the transit connections.

Also ISPs can only add capacity to a certain point, it isn't limitless and the routers they use are generally a couple of thousand pound minimum.

[Technical Ben]

But that's the point. In no way am I defending illegal activity. But if a company offers "unlimited phone calls", and the phone is left off the hook all week, granted the caller is to blame, but the phone company told them they could do it (in less than literal terms).

I use the example of children eating too many sweets. Some know not to, others require the rules to teach them. When given a crowd, we cannot just hope, because while we know "our friends know not to eat sweets till their sick" sadly some don't.

IDNet is not an unmetered "unlimited" service, so they can and should suggest usage. But if a company offers "unmetered and unlimited use", they are asking for trouble, irregardless of customer.

As an example, are there still unlimited text and mobile call services? What do they charge, and what are their overheads. Last time I looked O2s "unlimited" was 300mins and 500 texts. Why not just advertise it as "500 min, 300 txt" account/policy/contract? That's where sense and understanding for the companies needs fails. The company has no need to mislead a customer with the word "unlimited".

[Gary]

As an example, are there still unlimited text and mobile call services? What do they charge, and what are their overheads. Last time I looked O2s "unlimited" was 300mins and 500 texts.

People who pushed O2 got to 3000 minutes and 12000 texts a month, go over that and you get called out. O2 don't quote their fair usage at all from what I can see these days. No idea where you got your figures as there are tariffs with more minutes and texts than that though.

[nowster]

Peering and transit are not the usual problems for ISPs. Backhaul from the exchange is.