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

Well, when I went to sign up for broadband, I was told I could have just the broadband, and nothing else if I wanted...

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

Should be great till everyone started arguing about whether or not they actually d\loaded that much, and what they count as d\loads, i can just see it now. Tho i suppose as all the major d\loaders are going to leave, it will never arise as no "normal" customer should get near to their monthly "allowance".
If its that easy to monitor then they should be carrying it over, unless they are worried of course that binge downloading [as its now known] is going to upset the new system. :(

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

I've just got BB - when I signed up they did ask if I wanted phone & telly but there was no hard sell & they didn't raise an eyebrow whem I said no

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

I was wondering :dunce: do you think the TV channels will be next in line for capping?
With the new porn channel on the horizon some people are going to be hammering the bandwidth :erm:
And then there are those people who switch the TV on when they get up in a morning and leave it leeching away until they fall asleep next morning :sleeping:.
Or is the TV a light user :rolleyes: I've not heard much mention about how much some NTL cable TV users are abusing the system, just wondering.....
Or is it just that the BB users are a soft target :mad:

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

Point :D

but, the tv is fetched from ntl rather then the internet, where it is wherever it comes from.

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

Trying to decide if that's supposed to be funny.

As you probably know all TV channels are broadcast regardless on how many people are watching them, you don't need to add extra equipment and bandwidth because more people are watching TV at any one time, it's broadcasted.

Internet usage is usually unicast traffic (aimed at a single user) so in order for everyone's unicasts to get through capacity becomes an issue.

The only system where bandwidth may become an issue as far as TV goes is VoD as only a set amount of streams can be sent to customers off a particular hubiste. In return for using this bandiwdth let me think... Ah yes, for most content people have to PAY for what they use. I know this is an interesting concept paying for what they use considering how used we are to the unmetered system but it does work and assists in both ISPs traffic planning and quality of service, as well as making speed increases come more quickly, cheaply, and in larger increments.

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

Thanks Ignition, I wasn't thinking broadcasted in terms of cable... I understand now.
Much obliged, the capping seems more fair to me now, well, at least I don't feel that I have a target on my back as much.

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

What I am trying to work out is a simple thing really - They say Leechers (using there line way too much) are costing NTL money - can I ask how this is the case, which part of the comms is the part which makes them spend money? Is this the link between NTL and the rest of the Net?

Is it also not possible when data never leaves the NTL Network to allow faster speeds, so uploads for example or is the limit not on the network itself but rather the Technology we have? Im sure there is times on the network when Lots of Bandwidth is doing nothing, such as middle of the night - would be good if possible to have more if the system allows.

It sort of reminds me of a Company I worked at, they had 1000mbit lines to the servers but limited cards to 10mbit as they thought it would cause a slow down if they let people have 100Mbit speeds - yes they had switches etc installed!!

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

hope they dont start capping my sleep next dam!!! i dont upload, i download about 10 gig a week some week 1 gig or 2 gig all depends on whats about most time i play on line games which will use a lot of my bandwith so hope i dont get capet for playing on line games damn!1

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

Well if you work out that 40 gig a month out of a possible 900 gig is around 22.5:1 contention slightly above the quoted amount of 20:1 by some people (i got no idea if 20:1 is the actual contention ntl aim for). Here is contention levels for the 3 tiers download only.

bottom tier 60:1
middle tier 20:1
top tier 23:1

including upload bandwidth since capping is up+down
bottom tier 66:1
middle tier 22:1
top tier 25:1

bottom tier looks a harsh deal when looking at how the contention is done, but it is very cheap, middle tier is best value for money.

Now if you want to work out if ntl are been generous then consider this, most of their customers are on the bottom tier, after the upgrade you will be contended at 66:1, which is the highest I have ever seen in the broadband market and very profitable, ntl are onto a real winner here and they have cleverly masked it using the new speeds.

Here is the old contention levels based on a 30 gig a month for all.

bottom tier 3:1
middle tier 7:1
top tier 15:1

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

Would I be right to assume that it costs NTL more money to have for example:

A 300k connection using 30GB a month

instead of

A 3Mb connection using 5GB a month


-
Point im trying to make is does the level of service physically cost NTL more? or it is mostly bandiwdth which costs money? if so then surely the difference between the three tiers should be the amount of bandiwdth available since the speed doesnt cost NTL anything much more regardless.

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

Ouch.
Thats got to be hurting the customer. :(

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

:shrug: May be me, but that seems a very weird way of calculating contention ratios?

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

Well yes there is 2 different ways of defining contention ratio's I did it on the basis of how much bandwidth is available to use in a month 24/7. The method normally used is how many users it needs to max out the burst speed. So if there was 100 300kbit users on a 3mbit pipe that would be 10:1 contention.
__________________

They both cost money as you raise the burst speed you have to raise your own burst capacity to ensure the customer can use their's however if you are paying per mbit on your own pipe and capping your customers then the extra cost will be small, I think a 300k connection using 30 gig would cost ntl more then a 3mbit using 5 gig.

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

It calculates something - but not a contention ratio as I understand it.