Re: NTL cap limit
 

Nah, in all honestly, you guys are right, people do actually really take the ****, if i was NTL i would do a similar thing, or charge more for unlimited usage, the ironic thing is, NTL (in the majority of cases) are paying for illegal activities. If this cap results in faster speeds in the future, then its a good thing.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

:tu: :tu:

Its so good to see a balanced post much better than the very few that just prefer They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

On a personal point and nothing to do with my work for NTL.

I would pay for a unlimited option myself. We will just have to wait and see if they are watching this site and if they take notice of the points customers have made here.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I do hope I haven't made myself out to be a leecher in the few posts I've made in this thread. In fact, I upload far more for my connection than I download (obviously I don't actually upload as much, but when you're uploading about 25GB per month on a 128Kbps upstream connection compared to a similar amount on a 750Kbps downstream connection, you get the impression that you're actually uploading more seeing as it's happening pretty much all the time). I guess I might be classed as an upstream leecher, I don't know.

I don't really have a problem with caps, and I think that GrahamD has quite a good idea (see below). I'd be happy with, say, a 50GB/month cap on a 2Mbps downstream connection, and when you hit it you'd drop to 300Kbps. What I'd really like is to have a 300Kbps upstream connection with the 2Mbps package and a 500Kbps upstream with the 3Mbps one.

Put it this way - I'd rather have a faster upstream and a downstream cap than a slower upstream and unlimited downstream transfer.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Try looking at it the other way around, why are NTL not offering as much as other companies. In my experience its because of poor management and people why work at NTL (especially call centre/billing staff) not doing their job right. :mad:

And before I get flamed, yes I know there are many people at NTL that do an excellent job, so put that flame thrower down Debs :p:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

:LOL:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

How'll I cope with 32 bps ??? :Yikes:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I myself confess to being a pretty high user and probably download in excess of 10GB per day. Obviously not every day but a good 3-4 days from the 7.

This means that I would hit the cap in less than 1 week! ! !

Now all I have to say is that I am not "Flaming" NTL for their introduction of a cap. And think that it is a "Good" thing to help them keep the systems in check and maintain a healthy speed for ALL of their customers.

If however NTL are reading any of this ( I know some employees are!) then I would like to suggest an "Uncapped" service for those that need it.

Many people in this thread have said that they would be willing to pay for the service so how hard would it be to include this option??

The only problem I can see is that many ADSL companies already offer an "Uncapped" service for the price we pay for the capped one at the moment so a price increase may not be advisable to achieve the "Uncapped" service.

Perhaps what is in order would be a slight reduction on the slower speeds that are capped??

But then if the "Heavy" user is in fact a minority they would lose out on profits with most people opting for the lower tiers...... Kinda more difficult to think of a solution when you get into it eh?? Hehehe.

Ahh got it.........How about a price increase of £2 on the 3MB and make it uncapped which would bring them into the pricing for the current ADSL "Uncapped" services. (Yeah ok I know there are 8MB lines out there but it is unfair to include these as such a small % can actually get the damn service), then a price reduction of £2 on the lower tiers from their Proposed pricing and keep them "Capped" as they are.

Also as NTL will be offering a 3MB line as apposed to the most common 2MB line perhaps another couple of £ on top of the £39.99 (ADSL) would not be to much to ask for the service??

£42.99 for 3MB "uncapped".......Who would go for it??

£22.99 for 2MB "Capped at 30GBp/m" (I think this is correct?).....Who??



Also @ Ignition.

I thought you gave some good answers and thank you for the time it took you to answer them. Althoug I must admit 1 or 2 did surprise me, Especially when you said you thought the 3MB was to slow and would like to see it faster still!!! Hehehe.
I kinda like the odd small increases throughout the year......Gives us something to look forward to!! ;-)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'd definitely go for 3Mbps uncapped at £42.99, but it won't happen.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Caps are introduced for a reason and over 95% of NTL customers will come nowhere near the caps. That leaves a small minority of customers that will be affected, some very much so. Amongst that small minority you have customers saying either that the caps should be much higher or that uncapped tiers should be introduced at a couple of pounds per month extra on top of the capped tiers. Both these ideas are non starters because they would take away the benefits gained by capping and for either no or very little extra revenue. NTL are not introducing caps for the fun of it nor to p-iss off their customers. They are introducing caps because the business and the vast majority of its customers will benefit by having them. Yes, they will lose some customers because of the caps and these may take other services, TV and telephone, away too but NTL may find that this loss increases the overall profit they make. I know that we all would like to pay less for broadband, have faster download and upload speeds and no caps at all, but this is the real world.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I see it that the vast majority of customers are not going to know what the cap is or is about. At least until bandwidth capping is understood by all, something like aol's adverts but bigger and more understandable.

And while that hasn't happened from a business perspective i guess capping is the option to get rid of the users ntl can afford to lose. The few complaints here obviously aren't a concern to ntl of a userbase of 1m users.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

They'd probably settle for actually making a profit at all to start with, obscene can come later.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

:rofl:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Just in case you had not realised we are in the UK.:D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Well said Bill honesty
:shrug: you are joking NTL chiefs taking not of customers refer my friend to MR Goodlands views on customers:LOL:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Having a quick look round it seems UK onlines cap limit is 500gig per month on the 8meg adsl, and the nearest in speed i can find is Nildram 2 meg, with no cap limits, and the young lady said they had no plans to introduce any.
Why you think would i pay £44 to Nildram for 2meg when i can have 8 meg for £39?
Not cos i'm rich [and i think 500gig pm is plenty] but because i dont want to have to monitor usage at all, i have 3 kids who all surf the net.
I would sooner go with somebody who i have heard good things about, unfortunately i dont know anybody on UK-online to give any feedback.
I just cancelled my ntl package today, so i can have adsl downstairs as my eldest lads upstairs line wont be free for a month or two.
Mainly cos i dont expect NTL to read this fine forum, nor do i think they will be bothered about losing a few customers, so i am keeping the cable broadband alone until the final outcome.
It would be nice to get an adsl service thats been as reliable and quick as ntl, ok its had small faults but on the whole its been a great service.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Well said rone echo your views:tu:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Then you need to switch your BB supplier to one that offers an uncapped service.

There are plenty to choose from on ADSL Guide, the ones that spring to mind immediately are Pipex/Zen/Nildram/Bulldog/UkOnline.

HTH.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Same applies to you too! ;)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

People realise that we're going to have to change ISPs. It's just a lot of hassle (and expense) getting sky and dsl installed, which I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say we could do without.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I know thats why i agree with rone :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I have to say that Neil had no problems with switching, as with all things NTL we will have to see what happens.

Seems a bit daft upgrading everyones speed then capping them but thats the NTL we know and love.

I wish someone could explain the logic of NTL why not keep the original speed uncapped but have a better upload speed.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Have you ever thought that some people want to get a job done quicker and are not interested in doing more jobs. How many times do you click on a link in a post and then have to wait two or three minutes for whatever to download. It's much nicer to have twice the speed and only have to wait one minute or so to see the result.

I think that what NTL is doing is very logical and that the vast majority of customers will welcome the extra speed and see the benefit of having it whilst going nowhere near the caps.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

"Have you ever thought that some people want to get a job done quicker and are not interested in doing more jobs. How many times do you click on a link in a post and then have to wait two or three minutes for whatever to download. It's much nicer to have twice the speed and only have to wait one minute or so to see the result."

If all you want to do is browse thats fantastic.
The internet should be more than that imo, first it was music companies letting you pay to download, soon it could be d\load your own dvds, then theres movie clips, software updates, streaming video, the list is endless, and then just as it all becomes within everyones reach at good speed, at a not unreasonable price, it comes to a point where i have to watch what i'm doing.
No offence ianathuth, you often make really good points, just that ntl's vision for the future seems a bit blind.

As for the comment its a load of aggro swapping packages, its now dead easy, BT are getting my old number transferred and inform ntl my phone package is being cancelled, Sky are on the way, boy are they eager, and Nildrams only clause is its a 1 month contract, now thats pretty fair.
They can activate the adsl within 10 days of getting a BT line.
Sorry to go off the cap bit, but theres lots of points need clearing up. ;)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Bill C I see you have resorted to personal remarks against me as you know I have made valid points.

Contrary to what people might thing a bigger network results on LOWER costs as the cost per user is lower.

1 - Buying bandwidth in larger amounts = more purchasing power so less price paid per mbit.
2 - Having bigger pipes results in less visible contention, eg. try doing 20:1 contention on a 2mbit pipe for 512kbit users, you would be lucky to get 8 on there without seeing issues and thats only 2:1 contention so when you have smaller pipes you are forced to lower contention to maintain qos this means higher cost per user.
3 - Ntl use transperent proxies again reducing costs, most of the isp's I mentioned if not all dont do this so their costs will be higher.

So in short if ntl do all this and they have to cap to make a profit then something is f**ked up somewhere, they are either making a obscene profit for their shareholders (i think some of you posting here own shares :D ) or their directors need replacing because they should be making a large profit with all the above practices.

I keep saying it again and again, although ntl dont compete with telewest it doesnt mean we cant ask questions why telewest are able to provide so much more then ntl and expect a good answer instead of abusive remarks made against those who dont like it.

The isp's I mentioned do I know if they have issues?, well I read adslguide regurly following the latest adsl news and I know which isp's have problems and which dont, and the ones I mentioned do not have problems related to contention and speed, nildram is the best example of this their customers consist of lots of online gamers and their pings will be very sensitive to contention so I am sure I would know about it if there was any issues there.

Finally why wasnt any of the following idea implemented.

Time of day cap - have cap for peak time usage and then make it unmetered for say 1am to 8am.

Unmetered package - unmetered 24/7 but speeds reduced to 150kbit at peak time.

Sell static ip's and other extras - It is proven on many adsl isp's that people want these things and they can have a high profit margin for isp's and as such subsidise other parts of the operation.

Reintroduce install fee - This free install has gone on for year's now when is it going to come back.

Introduce support tiering - For those who are newbies and will need tech support add £5 to monthly fee and provide 0800 (150) support, the experienced ones of us use premium rate support.

In short there are many sides of the argument, some of you may say you subisidise my bandwidth usage, whilst I could argue I subsidise you having to ring up tech support every day when you get confused as to why your drivers broken etc..

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Please quote the PERSONAL remark i made towards you. ?

But dont worry you will not get another so called PERSONAL remark from me.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

According to certain forum members, who would be in a position to know, the problem for NTL (and Telewest actually) is that they buy hardware in a niche market. A market small enough that economies of scale do not apply. As I understand it (and as I explained earlier) the bandwidth on NTL's backbone is fine. The problem comes at the UBRs, which may or may not be able to support the bandwidth required. Before you mention buying power again, bear in mind that (I believe) the only company that make UBRs & parts that NTL can use is Cisco. Cisco is far larger than NTL. Also, if Cisco is the only company that makes the upgrades needed, what are NTL going to say? "Reduce your prices or we won't upgrade"?.

Are we using the same definition of contention here? As far as I know, contention is the ratio of users' max bandwidth requirement vs the amount of bandwidth available. Basically if NTL had a 2Mbit pipe and put 20 1Mbit users on there, the contentention would be 10:1. It is true, however, that to add more users and keep contention down, they may need to add bandwidth.

Not sure they are making a large profit, but assuming they are, maybe they NEED to do this to keep the banks and venture capitalists who rescued the company a couple of years back happy? I have worked for a company financed by venture capitalists. If the VCs say you make a profit, you have to make a profit. If you don't, they pull their money out and you possibly fold.

The biggest mistake NTL made was taking out loans and buying loads of smaller cable companies then sitting back and watching while the whole comms market collapsed, but that's a topic for elsewhere.

True. I didn't think anyone was getting abusive though.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Chrysalis, Regarding point 2 that you have made in your post #125.

NTL may have a bigger network and big fat pipes all over the place but before you get to those big fat pipes you have to go through a UBR which has hundreds of customers using it and a relatively small amount of bandwidth available. The available bandwidth depends on the channel width, modulation type and modulation level in question. I am sure that one of the NTL peeps such as Ignition can tell you what bandwidth is available through a UBR card. You will see that it doesn't take many users maxing out their connections to bring all users on that card down to dial-up speeds.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Blimey I wander off for a while and it all goes pearshaped.

Th'Eng, nice glib remark, I'm aware we're in the UK, a poster mentioned an unmetered 4/1 ISP in the US and I asked which one it was. Turned out he was referring to Bell / Sympatico in Canada, which I was already aware of (moving out there soon I need to know these things ;) )

Now then...

Doesn't do much for costs on local HFC network though.

Doesn't do anything for the major cost, HFC upgrade, maintenance, resegmentation, etc.

Statistical contention yes. Shame that on an HFC network one needs to either improve the quality of the HFC or split nodes in order to increase bandwidth.

No idea what those beasties do for the bottom line, personally I'd get shot of them or use them for caching more bandwidth hungry traffic.

Actually no, Telewest are much more profitable operating wise.

Oki doki. A while ago there was this cable company, the biggest in the UK in terms of homes passed, called Consumer Co. Owned by Cable and Wireless. At this time Telewest were number 2 and ntl were number 3. Consumer Co. was put up for sale and both ntl and Telewest bid obscene amounts but ntl won as more of their bid was cash and less shares compared to TW. Due to the slower than expected take up of CATV (Sky took a much higher share of market than satellite in North America and more homes use CATV for standard analogue channels there rather than terrestrial antennae and aerials) essentially both cable companies crashed and burned. ntl were running on fumes for a while and were restructuring debt a full year before Telewest did. While ntl were restructuring Telewest were doing extensive resegmentation and upgrades on their (smaller and with no Ex-Videotron, Bell Cablemedia instead IIRC) hybrid networks.

In a sentence it comes down to cash. Had Telewest won the bidding for CoCo positions would probably be reversed.

Heh cba to read back + find said list. Nildram certainly aren't without issues though, Datastream customers complaining of poor pings / speeds, they traffic shaped at one point after running out of bandwidth amongst other things.

Most consistent traffic is upstream, which doesn't drop much between those times. If it's getting caned overnight as people don't have to worry about limitation late night gamers, maybe playing clan matches in the USA, will moan like hell.

Ummm. Because it's peak time, when people generally want to use their connections. People don't pay enough to be able to download @ 3Mbit for 18 hours a day all month either.

Because cable IPs delivered via standard means cannot be static. Without a static IP there goes the extras like IP blocks, custom reverse DNS, etc. Can I point out to you that ntl is the biggest retail ISP. Do BTBroadband or Wanadoo offer these extras? ntl as a company cannot be everything to everyone and have to tend to the majority like every other huge ISP. Most people don't give a monkey's about a static IP or rDNS, that's where ISPs like Zen, Nildram, A+A etc have their niche offering these services.

Is that any of your business? Presumably if you change back to BT you'll complain that part of your line rental is subsidising someone in the Outer Hebrides whose phone line costs several hundred a month to operate.

Because 95% or more of customers *are* newbies and nearly all customers will have to call support at some point. Less 'newbies' will sign up due to the extra fiver a month on the headline price, less 'experienced' ones of you will sign up due to the premium rate support, or will be peeved when you have to ring.

In EVERY company without exception some customers subsidise others. I will happily argue that those using extreme amounts of bandwidth are being heavily subsidised by others, yes even those 'newbies' who ring tech support from time to time (also known as pretty much everyone). I rang tech support 3 times while working for ntl several levels above them because I needed and engineer and they are the people who sort it, presumably that makes me a newbie?

Try and engage brain before fingers, most of your arguments are fatally flawed and take no consideration of any viewpoint other than you own, which is highly polarised and not very well informed of either the business or technical side of cable and telecomms.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Not quite - other companies do make UBRs (which are actually called CMTS - Cable Modem Termination Servers - uBR (Universal Broadband Router) is the Cisco term). In fact, ntl trialed a Juniper CMTS, but they didn't perform very well.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

They did actually :p: there were other reasons why it was never deployed :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Fair enough... I was trying to make the point that it's a limited market though. Not many people or companies need Cable Modem Termination Servers.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I was trying to avoid that subject, and put it in the most diplomatic way possible! :p:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Only when the NTL proxy routing is up the creak :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Thats good thought you was comparing lemons with apples lets only look at the UK please :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'll be thinking of you while surfing on my 10Mbit/1Mbit connection in Canada :)

Even if it does have a CAP

Re: NTL cap limit
 

:2up:

:erm: perchance does the impending move to CA have anything to do with your inate desires to be a lumberjack

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/lumberjk.mp3

:rolleyes:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You wish daxx. :Sprint:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Bill C I was reffering you to bringing up the british gas/centrica subject.

Ignition and others I take on your points about UBR contention and yes you are right that is a small choke point and as such is harder to manage contention level's, so you pointed out telewest are making more profit, could you perhaps point out why you think this is? Bad management from ntl perhaps or is it just Telewest's packages are more profitable.

To be quite frank I dont care if 95% of people want this and that its not all about the masses, your argument seems to be its ok if 5% subsidise the 95% but not ok the other way round and you conveniantly only compare to BT and wannadoo who are both a joke of an isp. 10mbit is overkill for surfing, if I was just surfing I would be on the 17.99 package and jumping for joy because the new tiers are awesome for web surfer's they have nothing to complain about, perhaps these are the people just been one sided? Its people who download large files who are shafted because they have no package available for them, and when I mentioned hard cap earlier I meant hard cap as in going over will not be ignored as it is now there will be some sort of action taken by the isp not necessarily been cut off.

The thing is going back to the 95% of users argument your point is also flawed, for example lets say 5% of users are using more traffic then NTL see as acceptable so the other 95% of users subsidise this, this cost is seperated between 95% of users and as such it will only be small per user maybe not even £1 on a monthly bill. However the other way round how much does it cost to provide weekly support for 95% if ntl's customer's??? this must be a fair amount and more then the extra bandwidth costs and only 5% of users are subsidising it to, so that cost split between 5% of users is a higher amount on each bill maybe £2 or £3 a month. So my argument is the bulk of users might be paying £1 to pay for my traffic (I use 30-50 gig a month) but I pay £2 to pay for them ringing up ntl on toll free lines.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Well you started that subject. please go ahead and report me i dont care really care anymore.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Now now people, lets play nice please.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

That argument is rather flawed in that it assumes that the 5% of heavy users are all experienced and never need support and the other 95% are inexperienced and are constantly ringing for support.

There are quite a few heavy users who are new to the internet, hear about P2P and dive straight in trying to download the whole internet overnight. You regularly see posts from them complaining about things like slow downloads which turn out to be caused by them maxing out their uploads instead of throttling them back to allow for download ACK packets to be sent. They have a new toy but don't know how to use it properly.

On the other side of the coin there are many users that are very experienced and never need support but have a usage well within the cap.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Can anybody tell me when the upgrade's are coming?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

*sigh*

The average usage for a broadband user in the UK is 6GB (This includes 'heavier' users).

5% of users are responsible for 65% of usage.

Remove that and the average drops below 5GB. I would hope that the caps make more sense. You can't please everyone all the time, however the majority that will be fine with 5GB along with the >95% that are fine with 30GB or 40GB will be pleased.

You can please some people all the time, all people some of the time, never everyone all the time.

With ADSL available to more than 96% of the population now according to BT and ntl being available in generally built up areas where there's also ADSL is there any reason to stay with ntl if the new services don't agree with your usage plans.

Conversation on this issue is futile, the facts are the caps are happening, on their way, if they don't appeal or suit usage do what you would do if your supermarket didn't suit you and use someone else. Nothing else to be said really. That's the way it is, like it or go elsewhere. When you cut through the PR, etc that's all that can be said.

That's all I have to say on it too, silly subject to debate (again) at depth, right or wrong it's happening, take it or go.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

all i can say is sooooooo true and to the point. :tu:

What gets me about this is.

Just because you double you download speed does not mean you have to double the amount you download. Gee some heavy users must have very very big drives.

sits back and waits for the normal heavy users to say how small there drives are :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

So when you moving :Sprint:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Suggestion, check out the RoadRunner Business packages (available to residences). 10Mbit/2.5Mbit for $80/month ;)

I've increased my knowledge of the overall NTL network somewhat from reading this thread, so thanks to all for the good information that's been passed around :)

So, the consensus on the network seems to be that the UBRs/CTMSs are the problem, rather than the national backbone. I assume this is either due to hardware limitations, lack of dynamically provided bandwidth or just plain overloading of the systems?

What's classed as a 'heavy' user?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

If it is down to the UBRs it's annoying that people in areas unaffected with oversubscription should be burdened with the same cap levels.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Minor issues:

1) RoadRunner = TimeWarner Cable = USA
2) There's no 10Mbit/2.5Mbit package, top package is 4Mbit/2Mbit, not available in all areas (presumably relies on DOCSIS 2, to give out a 2Mbit upstream without DOCSIS 2 is suicidal).

It's also a mere $409.95 a month.

RoadRunner Premium is the closest one in pricing I think, 6Mbps downstream (soon moving to 8), 512k upstream, $84.95/month.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I guess the issue of it being USA only is kind of big ;) To be honest, I don't really see why anyone would need anything faster than 4Mbps/0.8Mbps, if I think about it.

Perhaps it's offered to businesses only - my friend gets it through his employer. That wasn't the impression which I got from him, but anyway, before this thread turns into a PM conversation...

What exactly is the main problem with the UBRs?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'm a bit shocked the averages use is that high, after you take heavy users out of the equation.

This figure is taken while most ntl users are on 300k, which isn't proper broadband, i recall people saying they can't even sign up to Broadband Plus on this speed, as it doesn't support many of the multimedia streams.

So ntl are upgrading everyone that's on 300k, to 1mb. All those people who couldn't sign up to Broadband Plus, and had a limited internet experience, will now be able to do things they couldn't do before, just as people who move from dial up to 300k, it opens up new ways to enjoy the internet.

Now, if those people (however many hundred thousand of them) all get 1mb speeds in the next few weeks/months, they ARE going to try downloading things they wouldn't have before, they're gonna start listening to internet radio, watching internet tv, downloading bigger movie clips, etc.

I've seen people mention that just because you get a faster speed, you don't have to download more, but in this case it does mean that, because the new, faster speed opens up new possibilities.

So, ntl in their infinite wisdom (teehee) have decided to impose a cap, based on current use, taking the 'less than 5gb' average use of non-heavy users, and at the same time give those very people a connection which is over 3 times the speed. You can't honestly expect someone not to change their internet habits, while changing to a speed so much faster than the old one. Ntl have only introduced this much faster speed to lure the public with misleading advertising (they won't mention the cap in the ads, just that they have the fastest lower teir). Simple reason for this is, they're desperate to offer the fastest speeds, and keep ahead of ADSL, but can't actually support it.

Same with the 3mb line, they introduced it to keep up there with ADSL, but to offer a speed like this with a 40GB cap, is just ludicrous. People who will pay for a 3mb line, are going to be heavy users, people who use the internet a lot, and want to download BIG files, fast. And to give them a service that can only be used less than an hour a day is just pointless.

Regardless of how we all feel about caps, i really do think ntl have made a big mistake. AOL are already playing on the 'uncapped' ads, and with other ADSL companies moving into new area's, it won't be long before ntl are left behind, and losing their customers by the hundreds, and possibly thousands, to other providers, who will undoubtably play on a lot peoples fears of going over the cap, most people won't know how much 5gb is, and the sheer fear of it, will be enough to make them think twice about where they go.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I think the point being made was that the average would drop BELOW the 5GB cap, not that it would be as high as 5GB.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Wheresas Canada is just plain big, bigger than the USA and the second largest country by land area in the world behind Russia ;)

The RoadRunner service you alluded to doesn't exist, RR are advertising and having checked that there's no 10Mbit, 6Mbit = max, your mates may have been telling slight porkies.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'm pretty sure I've heard that said about most thing, CPUs in particular, but as things get faster people find new things do with increase. It seems bandwidth will be an exception to that rule if the ISPs get their way. As long as they keep their profits, the growth of the internet will be restricted.

It seems a little odd how a few people in here are very interested in NTL's profits, and doing everything they can to convince people caps are good for all of us...

Re: NTL cap limit
 

So let me get this straight you cannot make a convincing argument so you resort to accusations.

I would suggest you go read up on the subject and come back with good arguments instead of unsubstantiated accusations about members of this site.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Why is it odd ? If ntl do not make a profit then they will go out of business, who exactly would that help. :dozey:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

:confused:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Well obviously.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

So you would be happy for ntl to reduce your cap as they added more people to your ubr :erm: I don't think so. :rolleyes:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You see i have no problem with caps. Therefor if i read your post correctly i must therefor only be interested in profit.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Firstly I said "If" and secondly I've never experienced any slowdown at all from my max download speed so there's no reason to think my UBR is anywhere near full, if I ever did experience slowdown I may start thinking capping extreme heavy user was good for all of us.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Are those averages just of NTL users or are they of all broadband users in Britain?

Is the reason that they can't sign up for Broadband Plus because the lower tier connection is so slow or is it that NTL only provide it on the upper tiers in order to tempt those on the lowest tier to upgrade?

Why would giving customers an upgrade from 300k to 1 Mb tempt them to start listening to internet radio, watch internet tv, downloadbigger movie clips, etc? The only time that I have listened to internet radio was when it was the only way to listen to a football match commentry. Sounded exactly the same whether you had a 300k or 1.5Mb connection. I use my radio , TV and hi-fi for audio visual pleasure of a better quality than the internet supplies. Streaming media is just one of the many things that the anti cap brigade say takes you quickly over the cap but how many actually use it for extended periods.

If you look at NTLs Media reports you will see that besides increasing current speeds 300k / 750k / 1.5Mb to 1Mb / 2 Mb / 3 Mb they are also introducing a lower tier of 300k priced at £15.99. Rather destroys part of your argument.

Like your definition of the usage pattern of people on the highest tier the facts to back it up you got from where? My son-in-law has a top tier connection that he hardly uses at all but does want top performance and things to happen fast when he does use it.

Whilst I am on the lowest tier which is quite adequate for my needs, even with a cap, I will on occasion move to the highest tier for an odd month when I have a short term need for that speed but my bandwidth used will probably stay pretty much the same as normal whilst on that top tier.

Every NTL customer is given a service that can be used for 24 hours a day no matter what tier they are on and nobody is restricted to less than an hours use aa days.


Marketing can make any service appear to be very good but how effective is most of it? Yes, a lot of people do not know how much 5Gb is but it doesn't stop many thousand signing up for ADSL services with a 1 or 2 Gb per month cap. NTL will not lose customers by the thousand with the new tiers and caps, they are more likely to gain customers particularly when broadband is bundled with other services at a discount which will be happening. British people are very much stuck in their ways and do not change suppliers easily and I can't see them changing because of the caps because most of them will never be affected.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I didn't make any accusations directed at at anyone, I purely suggested it's possible some people on here don't fully have the customer as their first prority. I'm sorry if you thought this was aimed at you but it was not.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Just some everybody knows, my main problem with the cap is, as things get faster, people find more possibilities of how technology can be used. The next big thing in technology is high definition video, now there is no way using any kind of HD service is going to use small files. The only reason HD is now possible is due to faster internet services, but this will never catch on if we start capping usage.

Of course it is in the ISPs best interests to restrict what people can do, possibly so they can sell further subscription services at a later date. But for the good of the internet it is NOT good to restrict people usage. It seems the suggestion is anyone that uses over 40gb a month is a pirate that is no doubt funding terrorism. Which, currently, for the majority may be the case, but technology moves so fast this will not be true for long, but anyone using one of these new capped ISPs will not be able to experience this technology.

Once NTL realises how much bandwidth people really do need in the near future, what will they do? Remove the cap? Not likely if it's firmly in place. We will end up missing out on a huge part of the internet. Which is BAD.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

There will be many new applications coming in the future which will require much more bandwidth. The broadband speeds that NTL provide are not standing still, they are increasing rapidly. Both speeds and caps will increase over a period of time allowing those future applications to be run when they arrive.

High definition TV streams will eventually be available but money has to be invested in this area whether they are delivered via the internet, cable TV, satellite TV or Terrestrial TV.

Infrastructure and software have to be installed that will allow advancement in speeds and raising of caps and that can be time consuming and expensive. NTL have shown that they are making serious investment towards these ends.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Do you really want to have to wait for NTL to acknowledge these new technologies before you can make use of them?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Which new technologies?

If you are talking about High Definition video streaming have you got a PC powerful enough to process it correctly or enough storage to download it for later viewing? Some of the tests on satellite are using 19 Mbps at 1920x1080i resolution and another at the same resolution is using 34 Mbps.

NTL will know what is coming along and will take account of how things will affect their market position. They will not base their strategy on niche markets.

One rumour doing the rounds at the moment is that NTL will soon be replacing all customers broadband modems with new modems running DOCSIS2. Think of that what you will. ;)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Who knows what new techs might come along, but I'd like to be able to experience them without NTL dictating how I must receive them. And yeah my PC is fast enough to decode the files (well if the WM samples are anything to go by) :p

The fact is 40gb is not much by coming standards. If it was maybe a 6 month stop gap while NTL increased capacity, people could live with it. But from past experience companies don't remove restrictions once in place, if it means possible lower profit margins.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Isn't speed a restriction?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Dear Bill

Please can you help as ive now run out of space on my 500gig array of HDs.
Please can you fix it for me to get another 500gigs please as thats such a small capacity on its own :)

;)

PS.
You seem to be one NTLs top IT professionals so you must be on "Premium" wages, so you could afford it no problem!!!
Ill pm my delivery address later :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Sorry i need the money to buy more shares. :LOL:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Why is everyone assuming these caps will actively enforced? Has the current one?

NTL have not said what they will do with people that go over the cap. They may cut you off, they may charge for the extra download. The fact is that WE DON'T KNOW. All we have at the moment is speculation.

To be honest, if the cap is a problem, then most of us do have an answer: Find an uncapped broadband provider. If enough people do this, you can bet NTL will reconsider their position.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

:tu:

Now there is commonsense Well said.

But lets face it. People just love to debate about the unknown, which is what this is. The unknown until such time NTL give out more information.

I am buying a new dvd recorder but they are not sure until the day it is sent what time it will arrive. You can debate that if you want its the same thing in the end An unknown .

:LOL:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Ntl's own propoaganda suggests metering will be a real possibility: http://www.ntl.com/locales/gb/en/inv...-Final-UBS.pdf see page 11 shows references that they expect a luanch in 2005 after VOD. This story was pciked up on by CF in news article: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...adband-in-2005 . Although I will admit that it is unclear whether this would be an additional package to the exisitng (upgraded speed) lineups.

Agreed, but ntl do seem rather blinkered to the views of their customers, with high level management spouting the party line and generally preferring to provide what is good for ntl rather than what the customer might prefer.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You still owe me that :beer: if that works, Bill! :LOL:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Definitely :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I find it even more funny how we get treated like dumb idiots. How does 3mbit make web browsing faster then 750kbit, have you ran tests? becuase I have between 300kbit,750kbit and 1.5mbit and there is a subantial difference between 300kbit and 750kbit but next to nothing between 750kbit and 1.5mbit so going upto 3mbit will make under 5% difference. The only thing 3mbit helps on is downloading large files, even downloading small files such as virus defenitions is slower on the old speeds but its hardly unacceptable just a few seconds. 3mbit comes into play when you downloading things such as CD/DVD images, Large movie clips, game demos, multitasking between different internet apps, have large household using the internet all at once, HDTV (available abroad already and internet is a global market, and a 2ghz pc can handle it quite easily). To be quite frank 3mbit for web browsing is a waste of money you get a <%5 improvement so I guess its for the dumb and rich (waits for the flames). NTL are just like wannadoo and BT playing on the public's lack of knowledge, they advertising high speeds no mention of cap and hoping a low price lures the customers in. UK has a low average (6 gig is low) because our country is still behind in internet maturity.

My 95% 5% argument isnt flawed either as I never said the 5% who rarely use support are the same 5% who ntl claim they dont want as customers. 5% might not be anywhere near the true figure who dont use support but I am just assuming its a small percentage as ntl seem to be after the newbie customer's who dont know whats what and try to get them to think that 2mbit/3mbit is only used for web browsing/email.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Well what do you know yet another Cap thread with nothing new in it. The same crowds of cap supporters and cap detesters debating the same points. I've read nothing new in this thread that hasn't been said on here before.

When all is said and done it looks like a hard cap is coming. What we say or do on here will not change that fact. The only way this 'may' change is if enough people leave NTLs services post cap implementation and that simply will not happen.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Chysalis, the three tiers that we have with NTL each have a different upload speed and it can be that the highest tier is required by some customers because it has a much higher upload than the other two. These users may do very little downloading at all.

Some users may only want to download a few very high quality images each month but cannot afford the time to wait for the slower speed tiers to download them.

Web browsing may not be much different on the three tiers but many a time whilst just browsing you get a link which when clicked downloads a file to your computer. That file may take 6 minutes on a 1 meg connection, 3 minutes on a 2 meg connection and 2 minutes on a 3 meg connection but some people would rather not wait that extra 4 minutes and wouldn't mind paying the fiver a week extra to avoid it.

Or it could be that the majority of our country are mature enough to realise that they can get a much better quality audio visual experience using equipment made specifically for the purpose that doesn't use any bandwidth. They may be mature enough to realise that downloading everything under the sun 24/7, much of which will never be seen, heard or used is pretty pointless.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Rrright, so Canada which has had multi-megabit DSL since 1995 and uses similar or less is equally immature?

Don't equate 'immaturity' with low usage, you're insulting everyone who doesn't use the internet for warez. (Awaits the screams of innocence and the list of all the legit apps that while they are getting more popular still pale into comparison with the 60+% of your average ISP's traffic which is P2P, not including the Usenet traffic)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

So the only reason people will exceed the cap limit now is down to immaturtiy? Come on ianathuth, please don't go down that route.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Did I say that? No.

What I did infer was that there were a lot of users downloading anything and everything they could and would never listen to most of the mp3s they downloaded, never watch many of the videos that they downloaded and never play many of the games and game demos that they downloaded.

Think about it logically. If someone is downloading 24/7, when do they get the chance to listen, watch or play what they have downloaded? What do they do with all that material? How do they store it all?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Surely that is their business? People can do what they like with their time and money, it's really not for you to tell them what they should and shouldn't do. You need to understand not everyone is you.

And yes, you did say that. What has maturity got to do with what equiptment people use for their own personal entertainment?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I dont download 24/7 but I am not comfortable with a 40 gig limit, I am sure there is many others like me.

Be assured many will leave ntl because of this even if they are light users as the cap will simply scare them off they wont want to go back to the days where they have to worry about their usage.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Right shall I buy a dvd player and use my 14" tv with mono sound to watch dvd's instead of my pc which has 17" monitor and 4 speakers with subwoofer?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Why? Don't you have a DVD drive on your PC?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I would rather watch my DVDs on my 32" widescreen with home theatre system :) and still have my PC available to do other things whilst I am watching it.

I doubt that very much. There are millions of people paying too much for their gas, electricity, telephone calls, credit cards, mortgage, etc (the list goes on and on) because they can't be bothered to change even though they know they should.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

No, some will leave. The vast majority (through inertia or choice), will stay unless they find that they are regularly exceeding the cap - in which case, they can either change tier, or they might find a more specialist ISP would be a better choice for them. Most won't worry until they are informed by ntl that they should worry. I'm sure you'll find that the majority of customers are not yet aware of the forthcoming speed upgrades, and the downstream bandwidth cap that appears to be impending.

Remember, this forum, and others like it, are in no way representative of the Internet community these days. This forum, for example, currently has 6,380 members (which includes a number of members who do not use ntl's broadband service) - ntl has over 1.2 million broadband customers. The people who congregate here and discuss such matters are more likely to be heavier users, and that skews the discussion somewhat.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Well even if say %3 leave, %3 of 1million is a fair sized number, 30000 people leaving is many in my view.

Anyway, my next point in this discussion. After reading the responses of those who agree with the cap, I seem to be getting this message.

NTL seem content in having high customer turnover they don't mind if people leave as long as the people signing up is more then the people leaving so they continue growth of their userbase. This approach is fine in a way I guess as it does give them growth but its an expensive approach also as there is engineer costs in installlations and admin costs in account closures/setups also the cost of providing the install free adds to this. I am bringing this up because I am trying to work out why NTL are not making a profit without the capping/proxies/admin fees/top tier price hike etc. That is why I questioned NTL not bringing back the install fee's. NTL just seem to be throwing money away be it bad management decisions and the people who pay the price are us. It was also brought up that the contention is at ubr level and so the contention can come easier, this is a good point but dont telewest have the potential same problem? If not why is this, do they have different ubr's? or do they have more of them?

On the subject of profit I think the only people who will know if NTL are making an actual profit and how much (in the broadband sector only) are shareholders and high level management so the people posting on these forums are you one of the 2? I am aware NTL probably tell their staff we need X amount to make a profit but companies usually have a target profit level and if they are below it they make the staff believe they are not hitting profit at all and something nasty will happen if they dont reach it, its a way to motivate the staff to work harder. This I have experienced many times.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I don't think 30,000 people will leave the service as a direct result of this. We might be talking in the low thousands, but I doubt it.

The amount of profit or loss ntl makes is published in their quarterly and annual reports - which are available as PDF files on their website - so it's easy to find out. These reports also include a breakdown of how many subscribers take TV, telephone, dial-up or broadband services.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I think the real danger for NTL here is that they will become the next AOL.

AOL marketed themselves as good for newbies, with easy set-up, friendly software, parental controls etc. Also, AOL was everywhere, CDs in every shop and on every magazine, even on the default Windows desktop. At first, a lot of people signed up and loved it, but after a while those people started to get a bit more savvy and wanting to break away from the enforced AOL browser etc. Their techie friends didn't think much of AOL either, and never recommended it. So, they moved to a different provider.

AOL tried to counter, with less lock-in etc. NTL is in danger is going the same way. NTL is the default choice for anyone who already had NTL TV and phone packages. However, more and more people are getting into downloading media, be is via the Apple movie trailers site, Bittorrent, web radio etc. The BBCs new P2P app for distributing TV shows free of charge is likely to be massive in the comming year too. When people realise they can't use all this stuff on NTL, and their friends tell them how much better unlimited ADSL is, they will switch. Not only will they ditch their cable modem, but also their cable TV and phone. NTL won't just loose £25 a month, more like £55/month for someone with digital telly.

Even AOL are now doing unlimited (no cap) broadband, and BT/Sky would just love your business. There is even Freeview on the TV front. Keep in mind that NTL is already falling behind with both the TV (Sky has more channels available, better (working) interactive, HDTV in 2006) and phone (caller ID doesn't seem to be available in ex-C&W areas like mine). Don't think that ADSL ISPs won't match the speed/price of NTL either.

Personally, I like NTL as a provider, but if the cap is enforced I'd be forced to move. I know at least three people who I wouldn't consider particularly tech savvy who moved to NTL cable internet when they saw how much better is was than ADSL, but I have no doubt they would move back again. As the credit card companies offering 0% on balance transfers have found, people are getting more canny and will move when they have to.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Actually, I would have though 30000 out of 1 million would be lower than the normal quarterly turnover of customers..

Re: NTL cap limit
 

People will move, some out of morality of simply not wanting a cap no matter how much they use and other's who's usage doesnt fit with what ntl offer. Doesnt the report published by ntl show total profit not profit for the broadband sector only? if it does sorry I am wrong there.

Mojo you make a good point ntl seem to marketing themselves for the newbie type user, broadband medic and low usage accounts.

I forgot to say this in my last post as well, isp's such as nildram and pipex are not niche isp's they provide EVERYTHING that BT and wannadoo provide but they also provide more, the only reason why they dont have the same customer base is because of brand name and advertising. How many nildram TV ads do you see? none. What the customer don't know about they wont order. AOL is the only isp with no cap that advertises on tv. Simple fact is large isp's take advantage of this and exploit customer's they know most people are not aware of whats on offer out there and only provide the minimal needed.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Pipex and Nildram are the same company dude. Pipex don't provide any more than Wanadoo last I checked, dynamic IP, webspace, news server, email and that's about it. No doubt Wanadoo have various 'newbie' services that appeal more to the less experienced user. There are also various content services that BT / Wanadoo / Tiscali provide rather than leaving it all up to users and Bittorrent.

Actually I'm fairly insulted at your describing the mass market as being 'newbie' users. Why not go with Andrews and Arnold or another 'leet' ISP if ntl are too 'newbie' for you? What exactly do you do for a living, you're an IT guru presumably as you're quite happy to talk down to and describe as ignorant people who just want a cheap but quick internet connection with support there when they need it.

Sadly ntl will still be in business and will probably get a nice large net influx of customers as a result of these new packages. If I were you I'd get over it and find yourself an ISP leet enough to provide you services. Once again you provide nothing to back up your claims and insult the average user of high speed internet, that 95% who just want it to work rapidly when they want to browse, email, chat and download the odd file.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Not all customers who are on the lower tiers and have usage patterns that are well within the caps are newbies. A lot of them have a life outside of the internet but use it now and then.

I would suspect that many of the higher usage customers are newbies who have got a new toy and think it is their duty to download everything possible. Many of this type eventually wake up to the fact that they never use most of what they download.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I love the figures you keep quoting Ignition, after all:-

79.48% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Logic is a systematic method for getting the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Statistics is a systematic method for getting the wrong conclusion with 95% confidence.



I asked a statistician for her phone number... and she gave me an estimate.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Three percent exceeds 2 percent by 50 percent, not by 1 percent.
:D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

The unfortunate part in this case DVS is that they are true, based on easily measurable and quantifiable things reported reliably by electronic means.

Sign an NDA and I'll show you some stats on ntl subscribers proving out what I say about the UK industry as a whole.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

pipex own nildram but they still operate as different isp's, pipx offer unmetered bandwidth wannadoo doesnt.

I am into IT as you said but I am not wrong about the newbie argument, most people I speak to havent got a clue that ntl even have a cap and they certianly wouldnt know what I was on about if I said what would you do if you had a 5 gig cap. There are also other things such as people downloading at work because their work has a nice connection and then not downloading at home, but not everyone is lucky enough to be in that position. I would like someone to show me a website that needs a 3mbit connection and is quite slow on a 750kbit connection. Prove me wrong please.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

not to disagree, but 'statistics' is an ambiguous term - on one hand describing the result of analysis of real data, on the other, a technique for predicting probabilities, based on sampled data.

- which category the stats quoted by Ignition fall in to I leave to your own conclusion.... ;)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Most people that you speak to would make up a very (repeated many times) small percentage of NTLs customer base.

Most NTL customers don't know there is a cap because they have never been informed of one by the company.

Most NTL customers have never visited this or similar sites so will not know of the discussions about caps.

Lack of knowledge about the existance of caps on NTL does not make a customer a newbie.

There are many websites that contain links which if the user clicks on every one will take substantially more time on a 750k connection than on a 3 Mb connection. When a person visits a website they do tend to click on the links within it. I visit a website every now and then which is basically nothing but a list of links to very large PDF files and you can certainly see the difference that hish speed connections make.