Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

I can only reply to that with something that has been said 362436 times already, so is there really any point?

There are 2 sides to this arguement, neither side will back down. We'll have to agree to disagree :)

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

I would say that there are two things that ISPs are looking at, making a profit and building up market share. By and large the making a profit is less important to some ISPs as building up market share. Realism has to take over at some point though and then making a profit will have to come first. Guess what that will mean?

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

if they must have a cap make it sensible at least.

I think caps of 30 gig, 50 gig and 70 gig across the 3 services should cover it!

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

The problem with sensible is that everyones definition of it is different. ;)

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

The situation here is NTL claim they need to cap to maintain a good quality of service for their customers and to make a profit, as explained earlier the making a profit part really confuses me as they already take many other measures to maximise profit but I wont repeat what I said earlier. On the quality of service I think their argument doesnt stick, only since the last few weeks has my area been able to sustain 1.5mbit on my broadband before then it was simply over congested/subscribed, contrary to what they make believe I think the real reason behind this is profits and QOS will not improve in the slightest NTL seem to have a habit of upgrading AFTER congestion occurs and no preempting it and I think this habit will continue.

A leased line is more expensive for a ton of reason's here are some.

Commercial hosting off the line is allowed.
Uncontended full duplex connection, garantueeing maximum throughput at any time of the day.
It allows for reselling of services.
SLA garantueeing uptime usually 95%+


Contrary to what people think a leased line doesnt mean unlimited bandwidth, it is quite often the case to have a leased line with a 95% percentile to charge per kbit used.

Likewise a consumer connection shouldnt need to be able to maintain full speeds 24/7 and expect contention at peak times, they tend to be more generous on traffic then leased lines and will usually have no SLA and be forbidden for commercial purposes, these are the reasons for the price difference. It is also cheaper for isp's to provide a smooth bandwidth pattern then to provide for bursty type traffic this is why 95% is used as a billing method so customers with spiky graphs are penalised more. I may provide an example later if I get the time for it.

Coming back to NTL I just wish they stopped playing games with us and admit they want high profits off the broadband sector to subsidise their failing tv sector, its quite absurd to expect a residental user to pay a 3 figure price for a unmetered connection, the price is low for high contention not high traffic which are 2 different things.

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

If every NTL broadband customer decided to try to maximise their connection 24/7 what would be the result?

How should NTL deal wit that result?

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

If they did. As you say the majority of broadband users don't. So it's really a non-issue.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I know someone who would argue :D

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

Go to give it to you they find it hard enough to deal with customers not using it :D

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

OK then. In your opinion, at what point does the number of customers maxing out their connection 24/7 become an issue that needs dealing with and how do NTL deal with that issue.

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

In my opinion, if and when it becomes an issue, they should either upgrade the bottleneck, or if it is down to HUGE downloaders (100gb+) they should ask them to cut back or find a new ISP. Or possibly impose a cap on the offending parties. But then in my opinion a 40gb cap on a £37.99 p/m servies is stupidly low. But as I say that is only my opinion.

There's also the possibility that someone on a 3mbit connection won't be able to find enough to download 24/7 anyway.

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

I think a sensible cap could be arranged. Most people would realise what sensible would be. Of course there would be those that want more and more, people who download 200gb a month etc, but i think most people would agree something like 50gb on 2mb would be sensible, and maybe 100gb on 3mb would be fair. it would allow people around 2 and a half hours full useage a day on 3mb, but still limit enough to keep the UBR's running smoothly, taking into consideration how many low users there are. It would also be enough to keep customers, and in turn gain customers that 'heavy users' recommend ntl to, which i reckon would be a lot, cos if you don't know much about the internet, who are you going to ask? Someone who has 300k and doesn't really use it, or someone who has a fast connection, and uses it a lot? I've recommended a LOT of people to ntl, but now i find myself telling them ANYONE BUT ntl.

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

Well I wont be upgrading to the new speeds so will continue to enjoy 750K uncapped(or soft capped that isnt enforced) and guess many others will do too!

But I think 50 gig cap on the middle tier should cover it!

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

Lots of reasonable suggestions coming out now, noone here is asking for a 3mbit unmetered connection for 37.99 a month, but are willing to compromise.

1 - Lower max speed with higher limit or unmetered. (stay on current package??)
2 - Have higher limit but accept that if they are affecting other customers they may be asked to cut back. (I think this is how most isps work, if qos isnt affected no reason to cap, of course isp's who dont have headroom on their capacity are less capable of this option)
3 - Pay for a higher package eg. £50 for unmetered 2mbit

I think nightmare scenarios are been thought of as well, as speeds increase it will become much harder to use the max speed 24/7, its not that easy to burst to 3mbit never mind sustain it 24/7. Common sense is all thats needed this is why I really think its someone who hasnt a clue on technical aspects of the internet who has created these new packages, they have just looked at the financial side and thats it.

To the money crunchers :) I will pay a 3 figure sum for a unmetered connection if I get a SDSL type level of service to go with it, you cant take without giving :)

Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-*ALL* Discussion In Here Please.
 

NTL really could learn some PR lessons from this, instead of all their staff basically telling people to go away who dont like it, they should be saying yeah ok I will take your feedback to my manager and mention it at next meeting, customer relations really does go a long way you know :)