Talk:Be Un Limited

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

From the technical information section: "Be's connections are completely uncontended (1:1)". This is certainly not true and is contradicted by "Traffic is only limited by available bandwidth". An uncontended connection would have full bandwidth available regardless of other user traffic (they are also much more expensive than standard consumer connections for this reason). Edited. Bron101 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Bron101, I have read many times on the user forums that there is no such thing as contention on Be's network. My understanding is that, traditionally with ADSL connections, if the bandwidth is quoted as 8Mb/1Mb and there is a contention ratio of 50:1, then it means 50 people could be sharing that bandwidth at any given time. On Be, that isn't the case - all users have the given bandwidth between them and the local exchange, and they all fight for a part of the available bandwidth from the exchange onwards up the chain. I'm sure there is some load spreading going on when there are many users trying to use the bandwidth at the same time. But you don't "share" your connection with a given set of 50 other people. As I say, this is my understanding of it, but hopefully somebody with more definitive technical knowledge will jump in. Sibruk 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Sibruk, you understanding of contention is correct, however you are a bit confused about where contention can apply (that is, anywhere inside the ISP network). In ADSL connections (from any supplier) your connection from the modem to the exchange is completely uncontended, however from this point there are several points of contention before reaching the internet. For a typical ISP these are exchange to regional point of presence, point of presence to isp core network, isp core network to the internet (this is very simplified and some ISPs will have different setups). To provide an uncontended service Be would need to guarantee 25mbit/s bandwidth (24mbit downstream/1mbit upstream) available to every user even if every single user is maxing his connection at all of these points. This is extremely cost prohibitive and very much not required for consumer internet service as this situation is unlikely for any ISP. Therefore the ISP balances the available bandwidth with the number of users, this is the contention ratio. When you see a quoted contention ratio for an ISP this is the absolute maximum ratio (it is almost always lower) and varies from region to region and exchange to exchange (For example BT's quoted 50:1 ratio would result in _very_ poor performance if it was the typical contention ratio!). Sorry about the long winded explanation, hopefully this is a little clearer now.

      My understanding of Be's network (being a Be user myself) is that there is no *set* user to bandwidth contention ratio, instead contention is managed through upgrading when observed performance becomes unacceptable. This is certainly not uncontended network access (it could be argued that this is in fact worse than other ISPs who do quote contention ratios as there is no minimum guarantee). I could of course be mistaken about this but it is *extremely* unlikely the connection is uncontended - this is a feature more typically seen in very expensive business connections - an uncontended 24mbit down/1mbit up connection would cost many times the cost of Be unlimited to supply!.Bron101 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Obviously Be are not operating a 1:1 contention network, but perhaps it is more accurate to say that contention levels are well managed to the extent that I as a Be* Pro customer have NEVER felt the effects of contention. I live opposite the exchange and sync at 24,574/2,830, and I can keep my connection maxxed out at any time of day from newsgroups until I run out of bandwidth. Over the last 3 months, I have transferred an average of just over 1TB a month with no contact from Be regarding this. 87.194.193.49 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add a direct link to the irc channel pls. I can't seem to get it to fire up right on my machine for some reason. should be irc://irc.bethere.co.uk/Be* or possibly irc://irc.bethere.co.uk/#Be*. The server is according to the web client irc.bethere.co.uk and the channel is #Be*. thanks Tim Abell --84.9.148.89 (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

So I see I've been judged a vandal and my work has been rudely undone because I removed this BS and didn't use an account:

All three levels of ADSL service come provided with a leased "Be Box" (a branded Thomson SpeedTouch router) and an unlimited/uncapped bandwidth usage (subject to compliance with a Fair Usage Policy). Uncapped services are currently quite unusual from UK-based ISPs. Some ISPs claim to provide an "unlimited" service but have set bandwidth restrictions hidden away in their Fair Usage Policies. Be does not stipulate any such restrictions in their small print, and has only very rarely taken action against users[citation needed]. Their policy states they will only take action against users whose usage is '...so excessive that other members are detrimentally affected'."

Not that wikipedia editors are all bad, but this is easily the stupidist instance of wikipedia over-zealous editing that I've ever seen. Everyone qualified to talk about it knows full well that current ISP services are rarely unmetered, and that "uncapped" + FUP is simply lies, and should be considered blatantly illegally misrepresentation of a product. For wikipedia to repeat this misrepresentation is entirely WRONG, and for an editor to undo a correction regarding it is insane. This is not an attempt to insult Be or anything else, as they're probably one of the best UK ISPs out there at the minute. In fact, I'm interested in this article because I'm thinking of signing up with them. Still, their marketing details are untrue, and wikipedia should not willfully repeat those untruths. I'm really amazed that I even have to say this.

I've seen too much of this over-zealousness on wikipedia over the last few years (no, I'm not new, nor do I need to be hand-held, as the editor assumed simply because I didn't choose to log in). Fix the article, or spread lies and propaganda for an untruthful company's advertising department. Your choice, but wikipedia's standards will have slipped one step further if the correct choice is not made.

And no, I'm not signing in to play your "must be a good editor before he can have a point" game. Try using logic to judge things, not favoritism/elitism/reactionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.219.25 (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Be Un Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Be_Un_Limited&oldid=1199696892"