Re: NTL cap limit
 

Bill just reiterating my view from the original cap have not changed my view thats one consistancy .

:LOL:

What happens Bill if NTL lose customers through introducing a cap.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

And those 'very large' PDF files are going to eat into your cap. So, either you use your new 3mb connection to view normal websites, get email, etc, and don't notice much difference in speed, OR you use the speed for bigger files, notice the difference, but use up your cap much faster.

The thing i'm most looking forward to, is finding out if newsgroups, email, and outages improve any after the caps, i personally don't think they will, as ntl are still made up of the blind leading the blind, and mis-management is mis-management, however low you make the caps. :D

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

Yeah, its just like you could clock up 40gbs worth of pdfs a month :rolleyes:

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

Unless he has a stall down the market selling dodgy books :p

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

If you think of 'large' PDF's as 50mb or there abouts, then it would only take 20 to make up 1gb. I used to download the tutorial ones, for Macromedia Flash, Photoshop, etc. They're all quite big files, some reaching over 150mb. :D And that's nothing compared to some of the tutorials for the likes of 3D rendering, including video's, they can be over 1GB (2 cd's worth). :erm:

Metered Broadband---For the benefit of the ISP's ONLY?
 

Is metered broadband really the way forward? And are telcos only implementing it to save their own bacon with the implementation of newer apps such as VOIP and VOD over IP which would take money AWAY from their own services. If in say a years time when VOIP is established, if I decide to use NTL's service, im sure they will waive the bandwith charge (seeing as im paying for the call anyway), although if I was to use Skype, im sure they would not be as generous.

My concerns is will the above technologies be able to take off if we are asked to pay once for the bandwith and then PAY again for the service? Kind of defeats the object of the exercise.

Were basically going back to the dial up culture where you will logon to get your emails, browse for a few minutes then log off under the fair of a huge internet bill.

Will I pay my bills online if im having to pay extra when it can be done at my bank for free... will I shop online when I can "browse" the shops in town for free considering all the sites which load oodles of multimedia content.. do I want to pay for that?

I just feel that PAYG broadband is a bad move and appears to be a step backwards considering the advances being made in IP technology and feel as though the only people who are going to benefit is the Telcos.

Do you think BT are going to let some company offer an un-metered service on their lines when they only offer a metered service which costs more?

Re: Metered Broadband---For the benefit of the ISP's ONLY?
 

Ten years is a very long time in internet terms. Technology and software will alter the speeds at which broadband operates and the levels at which services are capped, if indeed they are capped. In my eyes, capping is not being done to increase ISPs revenue but to ensure that the majority of customers get a reasonable internet experience. I don't think that there is anything to worry about for the vast majority of users and they will be able to continue doing their internet shopping, banking, etc as they do now.

I tried earlier today to get some interest in this topic but have had no takers so far. http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=22421

Re: Metered Broadband---For the benefit of the ISP's ONLY?
 

To me that's the reason they are introducing caps. If they cap the service before these services take off NTL can charge what they like once they start running their own services. People will be none the wiser that these kind of services previously existed freely and will just assume they'd have to pay NTL to use them.

We're coming to a point where the internet is being governed by the ISPs profits. It is in no way of any benefit for the customer.

What I don't get it why people, who claim to go nowhere near the limit, are so pro-cap. Surely it won't affect them one way or the other? Overloaded areas will still be overloaded, and other areas will still have plenty of bandwidth to go round. If you live in a bad area now, just wait till people are downloading at 3mbit.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Doesn't your own argument defeat that? Surely the "average" user, whoever that is, isn't going to be downloading many large PDF files. No, NTL are doing this is they can put a big number on their adverts and claim to be faster/cheaper than everyone else.

That's generally fine for the "standard" 2Mb package, but the point is that there isn't going to be a package for high bandwidth users. The 3Mb is still capped. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to order it, since the difference it would make to anyone who stays within the cap limit will be nill.

The problem for NTL is that something like this is enough to push people away, since BT and Sky offer better stuff anyway. I think it will scare a lot of people off too, since they will know that if they get ADSL they can switch provider fairly easily if their ISP suddenly becomes rubbish.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Why wouldn't the average user do just that?

Any user, no matter how experienced or how little they use the internet can go to a site that may have been thrown up by a Google search, find the content interesting and download all the PDFs on the site. A new user may be browsing the net for the first time and come across a site containing thumbnails of pictures and decide to download the very large BMPs from there. Inexperience doesn't mean that you just browse sites with little content on them.

Re: Metered Broadband---For the benefit of the ISP's ONLY?
 

Right, I don't go anywhere near the cap and I have no problems with my connection. If you accept the fact that 5% of customers use over 60% of bandwidth, as verified by members here that have the black and white stats in front of them, then that 5% is costing NTL more than the revenue they receive from them. This is not just in pure transit costs but also in providing infrastructure to minimise the effect of those heavy users on other customers. Capping the heavy users can reduce or eliminate this drain on profits and make more cash available to improve the network for everyone.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

An inexperienced user wouldn't want 3mb, especially not for 37.99 a month. People who will justify that amount of money a month, will be people who want the speed for a reason. People who download a lot of big files, and wish to do it quicker. A few gamers might also do it, thinking (wrongly) it will give them better pings. Etc. I honestly think anyone who doesn't see through ntl's reasons for doing this, are fooling only themselves.

This is meant to be an advertising ploy. 'We have the fastest "national" speeds' - 'even our lowest teir customers are on 1mb' - 'Our cable tv service is very unreliable, our email servers work when they feel like it, our newsgroup servers are missing in action, and our transparent proxies will see to it that some of your favourite websites just can't be found'... oh hang on, they never use the truth in adverts, my bad. :D :D :D

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You show quite a lack of understanding of human nature with those statements.

Some people want the biggest and fastest no matter what the cost or what their usage is like. £37.99 is a lot of money to some people and small change to others. Experience has nothing at all to do with the speeds people want, the amount that they are willing to pay or the volume that they download. Both experienced users and newbies download small files and very big files. They both can use well below the caps or well above them.

A few gamers know the pings are no better but use 3Mb because of the upload speed

Re: NTL cap limit
 

How about not one website, but opening 7 at once? I use firefox and use group tab bookmarks, some total 7 websites, Im pretty sure a 3Mb connection would totally outstrip a 750k one at opening them.

However, you are quite right about most people not knowing about NTL's "cap", mainly because they didnt check the agreement they signed. (either by registering online or physically signing up). That is not NTL's fault and it is mentioned somewhere in ntlworld.com, I think :P

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Yes, Like BT dont tell people about their 1GB a month cap in their "fast broadband" adverts, Like AOL doesnt tell you that there is an AUP (and thus a form of cap) On their "unlimited" service, Like Pipex dont tell you that their support sucks, their microfilters manage to randomly bugger up the phone or adsl modem (Friends personal experience), Like bulldogs advertising didnt make it clear that their 4Mb was available to 10 people, like BMW didnt tell people that their fuel tanks could explode....may I go on?

Advertising is well, supposed to lure people in, you wouldnt see an atkins diet ad saying "well weight watches is proven to be easier to stick to, and more effective" would you? the point of advertising is to get people interested, not to scare people off :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You forgot to mention all those credit ads that don't mention that although they do lower your monthly payments, you end up with a loan term so long your grandchildren's grandchildren are still paying it off. Or some where you use your house as collateral, end up paying 300% interest, losing your house, family, friends and the use of your knees and/or legs. And still having to pay back 300% more than you took out.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

They do-it says "usage limits apply" at the end of the radio ads.

There is no "cap" as such, but if what you're doing affects others they will act on it, that's not unreasonable.

It doesn't in my experience.
They don't.

It was clearly advertised as a service being offered to those living in Central London (a few more than 10 methinks)

Not sure what you're referring to here, but you are making very sweeping & generic comments.

Please do. :)

Advertising something is one thing, but changing the AUP for it late on a Friday afternoon without actively telling your customers is another.

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

BT DID email it's customers informing them of the changes, i know a few people on BT, and they were all emailed and told that they were introducing caps in 2005, the email also informed them if they had anything to worry about, based on their past use.

Ntl have never emailed me informing me of caps, in fact they've never even replied to my emails, some of which were very important issues.

Most big companies have problems, and you can't please all of the people all of the time, but out of all the big companies i've ever been with, Ntl are by FAR the worst. The only reason i stay with them, is as people have mentioned, the hassle of changing the phones over. But, once the cap comes in, i'm taking my £100+ a month account to BT, and my broadband to AOL. Hopefully a lot of other people, who've seen the problems, will do the same, and maybe for once, ntl will actually start caring.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

<------SO quickly it hurts, Its misleading


<---You mean like on ntl? ah yes but when ntl do that its evil isnt it...


EXACTLY!!!! Ive seen the fallout of the service of pipex, and how inadaquate is was.

Then explain why my freind cant use his, with it in the adsl modem or the phone randomly doesnt work, and this is the reason for the support nightmare, because they wont accept the problem.

Not all, and certainly not in the ads I heard.


BMW had a known issue where the fuel tanks of the first batch of new minis had a flaw where it wasnt earthed properly, thus a spark could cause an exlposion when being filled with petrol, it was rare, but possible, and there was a recall on it.


J

Ah, but i wasnt talking about that, was i?

Re: NTL cap limit
 

But that's totally different from your original statement that they don't mention it at all.


There's a big difference between actively advertising a capped service, & changing your AUP late on a Friday night & not telling anyone.

"Seen it" where & how??

A faulty adaptor maybe?

Again, different from your original statement. Central London is a small area, & having been involved with Bulldog at that point, I remember clearly how the adverts were shown, & they specificall mentioned Central London, so for someone living in Birmingham (for example) it would be pointless applying.

So they made a product with a fault & recalled it-what's the problem there? :shrug:

Then why post in a thread about the ntl cap? ;)

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

Im sure its been mentioned 5000 times but after experiences family and friends ref the "internet" - here is how they work !!!

Most people I know are new to both computers and the internet - they look at whats on offer and they look at ONE thing - the price - they would not even know what the word CAP meant, never mind Useage Restrictions. Its hard for someone who is new to all of this to understand how much they would use over a month etc as its all computer Jargon - Megabytes, GigaBytes - Wahhh

9/10 people stick with the biggest/most advertised thing out there - such as BT, AOL, Freeserve, NTL and Telewest. Here is a mad example of my very own sister and tell me shes not insane. She had a BT line installed and also a Telewest phone line. She paid for the dial up service and over all a month, came to quite a bit let me tell you.

I could not see her for example going for a 3mbit line as she would be happy with either BT (adsl) or NTL/Telewest (300, soon to be 1mbit). Even my Mate who plays online games went for the Cheapest BT Lock you in for 12 months deal even though there was a CAP which again he never understood, after all he does not download does he !!!

This is another area though, perception - if the Average user thinks its only clocks up when they DOWNLOAD things when in reality anything he does online is adding up the monthly figure - not saying the advertising is not saying this, just people will switch off to the things they dont want to hear.

Ive said this once and I shall say this again - NTL should really think about 3 diff type of users, LITE, Home and Power and gear the products around that, having a CAP across the board is bad, I dont know of any other company that does this, if you do, post and let me know :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

What about those who did read (or at least skim through) the agreement I signed and was aware of the AUP AT THE TIME THEY SIGNED (when there was no "cap"), which NTL then changed from under us, last thing on a friday then buggered off home in order to avoid the flak??

That IS NTL's fault.

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

It comes down to something I have been banging on about for ages when it comes to ntl.....

Choice (or lack of it where ntl are concerned)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

What cap? So far as I'm aware, nobody who signed up with NTL before the 'cap' was introduced has ever been sent a letter accusing them of exceeding it. This is possibly because they did not announce it properly to existing customers in accordance with the contract, so it's not enforceable.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Hence the reason I put "cap" in inverted comma's.

But what people seem to overlook is that a lot of people signed up for a service with no specific usage limits in the T&C's or the AUP at the time, reading the contract they signed, would not do them any good whatsoever in that case (which was answering the post I quoted).

I've never maintained that the cap was actively enforced at the moment. If NTL can't enforce it due to the sneaky and underhand way it was introduced, then that's their problem.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

But the same AUP allows them to change the AUP at any time, & says that it's your responsibility to check the AUP for changes!

Legally, they are probably within the law initially, but I think morally they are totally wrong, & I would like to see them make that 'we can change the AUP to whatever we want" clause stand up in court.

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

they can enforce a cap if they want to - if they dont want your business for whatever reason they like they can ask you to sling your hook provided they give you contractual notice.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

No Towny, that's not the reason. It IS enforceable, because as part of the T&Cs states that it is the CUSTOMERS responsibility to check the AUP regularly themselves, not ntls to announce every change. Like it or not, that's the LEGAL and BINDING way it is :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'd be interested to see them defend that clause in Court, were it ever to come to that. There is such an offence as Unfair Term in a Contract. The fact that NTL gets you to sign something doesn't mean that it's legally fair and enforceable.

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

:tu: well said OB, i would rep you but can't from work :confused:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You're right. Back in the days when 56Kbps modems were fast, my cousin who hardly ever used the net had ISDN just to show off. Another of my friends who would be absolutely fine with the 300Kbps package has the 1.5Mbps one, just because they can afford it!

The main reason I'm planning on upgrading to 3Mbps is for the doubled upload speed from the 2Mbps package. I've wanted to do this for a long time, but now at least I have the cap to justify my action ;)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'd be even more interested to see a customer be able to take ntl to court because of a clause in a contract they never knew about because they couldn't be arsed to read it....

Re: NTL cap limit
 

<Devil's Advocate>Just because it's there doesn't make it legal or legally enforceable.

ntl could (without telling you) change your T's & C's of employment, & alter whatever they wanted about your job role. They could then argue that your original contract stated that they could change the Ts & Cs at will, & that is was your responsibility to check for updates.

Doesn't make it legal or legally enforceable though. </Devil's Advocate>

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

^ what he said. :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

ntl don't do that though.

And do you honestly think that ntl would spend 10s of thousands of pounds a year on legally qualified people to write this stuff just for sport?

:dozey:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Yes they do-they did just that with the AUP.

Would that be the same qualified people that helped put together the contract for the Met Police that ntl just lost? :rolleyes:

All I'm saying is that just because ntl slip it in doesn't make it legal. :shrug:

And just because they have highly qualified people doesn't mean they get things right (same applies to any company), & that's what would be down to a court of law to decide should it ever come to that (whether the term in the AUP was legally enforceable) :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

But you were referring to employment t&cs... :confused:



And how exactly can those that negotiate contracts be held responsible for those that screw up the said negiotiated service? :dozey:

Only when it suits eh?

It's not about the t&c's being right or wrong or legal at the end of the day Neil. It's about abiding by what you (the company and the customer)agree to when the services are accepted. Why can't people take responsibility for themselves? :shrug:

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Calm down dear, it's only a discussion forum! :D :angel:

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be responsible for their actions, just that ntl moved the goalposts, & that's not what people signed up for. :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

LOL, any change in terms and conditions is a moving of the goalpoasts and not what people signed up for. :)

The speeds that NTL broadband customers are getting now are, for the majority of its customers, not what they signed for but are welcomed by them.

The terms and conditions that people did sign for contained details of how those terms and conditions could be altered in the future.

Whether any term or condition is legally binding is a matter for the courts. It does not matter how much NTL or anyone else pay for legal opinion and representation, it is a matter of what the courts decide.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Agreed. :)

Agreed again!

And again!

That's exactly the point I have been making. :angel:

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

so i guess we will never find out, as none of you are taking ntl to court :angel:

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

I'm willing to bet that ntl will not be taking anyone to court either. ;)

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

:erm: why would they :confused:

they would just cut you off surely?

Re: Metered Broadband---For the benefit of the ISP's ONLY?
 

Good point, if you in a congested area the cap wont make any difference you will still suffer and have a cap to add to it, all a cap will do is decrease early morning activity peak time usage will stay the same. Seems to me recent changes are governed for the shareholders, my last 3 email's sent to ntl customer feedback have had no reply, I have had no email notification of ntl pre warning me about future caps (BT issued emails to its customers as stated earlier in thread), I just feel unwanted by ntl and they want my money and dont care. Forgive me if this offends you but I have very low satisfaction of my service at the moment, I pay my money to ntl and I have the right to feel this way. I also think people leaving will hurt ntl, these people leaving may be paying for sky sports and movies every month as well and a premium pone package so a 3 figure sum monthly, 50-100k of these wiped of the turnover sheet makes ntl a weaker company, weaker in credit, weaker in contract negotiations and weaker in publicity. Thats why so many people have worked out here that these packages really havent been thought though, even if they are making a loss on some customers its good business practice to accomodate them so why the power package only offers a 40 gig limit is down to the shareholders and their pockets.

You think pipex,nildram,plusnet and others make a profit on all their users then you are wrong, but what is important is they make a profit on their userbase as a whole and keep a good reputation while they at by keeping their customers happy.

I run a webhosting company and for £3.50 a month a customer can potentially use 15 gig traffic a month, and if they do use it I will make a loss on that customer but what happens if the customer uses that 15 gig? do I kick them off for making me a loss or do I accept it, I accept it and be glad they are happy with the service because I know 1 happy customer is likely to tell his friends and bring me more customers and I get high retention this is proper business practice. I hope ntl executives are reading and learning. :)

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

Well said Chrysalis. I remember when Demon were having mail problems (a rare occourance, they are no NTL) they posted almost hourly status reports. One mentioned "mad pop3ers" who checked their email every five minutes (this was pre-broadband). They also said that was fine. I had a friend who used to stay connected 24/7 on dial-up to them. His bills used to show 100+ hour phone calls costing £0.00, and they didn't mind. I only left them because it took them so long to get the free calls thing going. If I hadn't, I'd be on ADSL now...

Chrysalis hit the nail on the head. Sadly, NTL seems to be at the mercy of shareholders. All companies that answer to shareholders seem to turn "evil" pretty quickly :(

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

The way ntl are introducing the caps says it all really, when they changed the AUP in the first place, they did it in secret, overnight, sneakily, and now with these caps, there's no information made available to the cumstomers, most people will probably never even know there's a cap being enforced, it won't be mentioned in the adverts, there won't be any letters or emails, we'll only find out on here, because some people know where to find information like this out. Bt send out their letters/emails in November (i think it was november), stating that caps would be introduced in 2005.

Ntl's cap is apparently being introduced in the first quarter of 2005, yet there's nothing being mentioned. So they're happy enough to take on all the new customers, not telling them of any caps that are planned, then any new customer that joins, only to find out their useage is capped, can't really complain, as ntl reserve the right to change the T&C any time they wish.

Would new customers be different, as they'll have signed into an initial 12 month contract, and thus their T&C can't be changed in that time?

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

NTL have given no information to customers because the new service has not started yet. There is plenty of time to notify customers before the new service starts. Existing customers will not be automatically put on the new service but will have to apply for it, terms and conditions being given to them at that time so that they can either agree to them and go ahead or disagree and stay as they are now. I would imagine that eventually customers who have not asked to move to the new service will be moved on to it with adequate notice and they would then have the option to agree the new terms or cancel their service.

Customers within their 12 month contract CAN have their terms and conditions altered but they then have the right to cancel that contract if the changes are substantial

A point that Chrysalis was making that "even if they are making a loss on some customers its good business practice to accomodate them" is flawed if that accomodation of them results in massive expenditure or massive disruption to other users. If you consider a UBR with several really heavy users on it that are disrupting every users service on that UBR you have the coice of getting the heavy users to modify their usage or upgrading the infrastructure to cater for them. If the necessary infrastructure upgrade will cost several thousand pounds is that a choice that should be made. Someone has to pay for that upgrade.

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

I disagree. BT informed their customers BEFORE it happened, a few months in advance. THey were told in November, of changes that would take place in the first quarter of 2005.

And we can only judge ntl by it's history, it didn't tell customers of the AUP change,

The idea that people could stay as they are, is flawed. If I was a heavy user, and was downloading as much as i possibly could, of course i'd stay on the old contract, getting 1.5mb with only a guide of how much i should download. So, if ntl are indeed trying to get rid of / slowdown heavy users, then this wouldn't help at all. Although, saying that, ntl aren't renowned for doing things 'right'. :erm:

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

The speed increases and "hard" caps haven't happened yet. NTL can still inform its customers before they happen.
Have you read the terms and conditions regarding changes in the AUP?

There can be at least two possibilities here. The current "soft" cap could be hardened for customers staying on the old contract or other sections of the T&Cs could be applied. Also the old contract could be altered to provide "hard" caps.

NTL seem to be offering the majority of its customers an excellent deal. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out.

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

That's a very short sighted view to take. Eventually, the upgrade will have to be done anyway. Broadband speeds will keep increasing and NTL will have to keep up. I don't think people really understand what broadband is about in this country. Video on demand, downloadable video rentals, the BBCs back catalogue... these are just the tip of the iceberg. Already, I don't want the news on TV any more, I just watch it on the BBC web site so I can pick the stories I'm interested in. With 2mb the quality could be better, but assuming it uses 75% of the available bandwidth you could only watch for about an hour and a half a day, less if you surf.

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

The main point that most people are tending to forget is the cost of broadband services. Yes, there is a lot that you can do with broadband that may be a problem with having a cap. The question you should be asking yourself is "am I prepared to pay a realistic amount for the service level of broadband that I require". Some customers expect the equivalent of a leased line service at a budget price which can never happen.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Thats if you accepted that version of the terms and conditions on sign up not applicable to people who signed up prior to the terms changing

Prior to the 7th of Febuary 2003 seems to be the time

Thank you

Re: NTL cap limit
 

That's me in the clear then :)

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

Even if you signed up on 01/01/03, you agreed to a set of T's & C's that could be changed at any given time-that is what you agreed to like it or not.

Now I'm not saying that is right, but to imply that people who signed up prior is nothing short of midsleading (you don't work for ntl do you? :erm: ;) )

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Not at all-see my post above.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

You realise I was joking right?

I couldn't care less about the cap any more, when and IF NTL contact me regarding use, I will simply cancel all the services I have with them and go to another ISP.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Dont you be cheeky now, but would contest it in court as being outside the fair contractual terms and conditions.
NTL did not officially informed in writing all existing customers within one month of the change.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Thats my current view as well. Customer services contacted me about my switch back to BT etc. I told them i was keeping the broadband until i knew more. He seemed to think it was short sighted of ntl, but he agreed most people wont be affected. [Not until all their kids get older and discover peer to peer etc]. Neither did he think it was going to be a very immediate speed increase.
I told him the phone was the most urgent in case i required adsl sooner or later, and thats the current state of play.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that you are not in a position to say that all peeps who registered pre Feb 03 are unnaffected. :nono:

As you know, I'm totally against the way they have gone about it, & would also like to see ntl (or any company for that matter) make it stick in court.

Re: NTL cap limit
 

Whether the terms & conditions were fair or not would have to be decided in the courts but who would risk the expense of a court hearing if their broadband service was terminated?

If a customers broadband contract was cancelled because of the breach of the "soft" cap there is every chance that it could be terminated because of the breach of other sections of the T&Cs which have existed from the start of broadband.

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

I think the soft cap breach probably wouldn't stick in court mainly because NTL didn't notify customers in the proper manner but to be honest if it came to a court case I am sure NTL could bring up some other part of their AUP to force breach of contract.

I just wish it was as easy to change providers as a lot of people make out, there is reasons why people dont simply move from ntl, stress of moving, lack of adsl in area, landlord restrictions. Its not like changing adsl providers it involves changing landline provider, changing tv provider as well as having a new isp and to a lot of people they probably just cant be bothered. I think this is what saves ntl from mass walkout. I have a new question tho.

Lets say this scenario occurs.

NTL have a cap in place to maintain QOS, but lots of AOL cable customers in area downloading 150 gig a month and congestion issues, would this affect NTL customers on same ubr or are they seperatly allocated bandwidth.

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

Would ntl risk taking it to court? I can just see the headlines... 'ntl change T's & C's without informing customers' - 'customer taken to court because of ntl's mis-management', etc. :D

I really don't think ntl would want it as news, it might put off future customers. Regardless of it being right or wrong.

IF something like this were to happen, i think it would be a media hot spot, certainly in the communications industry. It's the case that would set a precident for future cases. And i'm sure whoever the person was going to court would have his costs paid for, by some anti-cap group, or media company, wanting their story.

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

NTL wouldn't take anyone to court would they? All they would do is cease the customers account. If any court action was to take place it would have to be the customer suing NTL for breach of contract and I would hazard a good guess as to who would win.

I would say that they were on the same UBR as NTL customers and their usage may affect NTL customers. How many AOL via cable customers are there though and how are AOL charged for their use?

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

Leased lines are expensive for many reasons. You get a business level service, with guaruntees about reliability and bandwidth. You expect the email servers to be working, for example. Also, leased lines tend to be higher speed than comsumer broadband. In effect they are subsidising the technology until it drops in price enough for consumers. Leased lines have better contention ratios too.

Many ADSL providers seem to be able to supply an unlimited service and make a profit. NTL service is nowhere near a lased line, but to be honest I'd be happy to have a "bare bones" connection without email and news servers if it was unlimited. They are useless anyway, I have Gmail and ClaraNews. How's that for a trade?

One other problem with the cap that no-one has mentioned is DOS attacks. My IP hasn't changed for months. If someone wanted to DOS me, they could flood my downstream overnight. By doing that for a few hours a night (when I wouldn't notice) they could easily run me over the 30GB limit in a few days.

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

I agree with all that but that is what some customers expect for their budget price.

Who says they are making a profit? Not much of a trade is it, why not pay the going rate for the kind of service that you want.

Are you that important that you think you are in danger of a DOS attack. Many customers would pay extra for a fixed IP. Another point is do you know what traffic NTL will count towards the cap. It all won't count.

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

ianathuth will all your posts on this thread count towards the cap? If they do I think we're all in trouble.

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

Unless you spend your life winding up script and packet kiddies, the chances are you won't be DOS'd.

If you are, NTL are likely to get in touch regardless of any cap.

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

The leased lines I used to sell did not come with any additional services like email or news. It was a straight connection with possibly a domain attached. Speeds started from 64k up to several MB. A single IP and router usually came with the connection. Prices were quite a lot more than consumer broadband, the price dependent on the distance to your property. Put it this way, A 256kb leased line to, say Cardiff, would cost in excess of £10,000 for the first year. Most of that cost went to BT.

*Disclaimer: I haven't sold Leased Lines for a couple of years but I do recall a rather large difference in price (and service level).

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

And that will be the last personal remark you make here.

Thank you.

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

This is in reply to a post in another thread, as all posts to do wtih capping are supposed to go in here:

I would very very much disagree, people as a whole are now very used to low bills for their internet and various surveys have shown that the vast majority of people aren't interested in how fast but how cheap their internet is.

Also the same people who want the uncapped services tend to be the same who download lots - check out Supanet, Bulldog, various Telefonica resellers on ADSLGuide, issues presently with Supanet and Telefonica resellers, BD have had nightmares in the past.

Cheap bandwidth attracts heavy usage which causes problems due to abnormally high expenditure being required to support services.

Times have changed, there's a big difference between wanting any sort of internet service and an uncapped one.

Of course if people are really interested in uncapped services I imagine a few hundred quid a month would cover as much as you wish.

Or of course just go to DSL and find a provider that will let you download as much as you like. Just don't complain when they go the way of Plusnet or Supanet and end up traffic shaping you because they can't make enough money to support your usage in their business model.

Or there's the Bulldog option of just letting the network go into meltdown of course.

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 :)

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

That would be a nice idea, but i dont think the senior management give a flying f*** about customers.
Its just a business to them and theres no need to worry about customer satisfaction. And yes i appreciate they have to run a business and make a profit, i'm not against that in the slightest, but a little thought about keeping customers happy cannot be that wrong surely?

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

but they must be keeping customers happy cos they are gaining customers in the thousands each week. and in terms of broadband they have over 1million now and growing.

where is your evidence to suggest they arent keeping customers happy?

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

I'm a customer and I'm not happy ;)

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

Who knows what lessons NTL may have learnt or what the situation will be when the new speeds are available. NTL have only released details of their intentions regarding increased speeds and have plenty of opportunity to modify those before or when the new products are launched. We can talk and theorise as much as we like about what may come, when it is coming and how it will work but will have to wait and see how it pans out.

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

well this is interesting

http://www.ukonline.net/8000/
8meg BB
Only £39.99 a month!
download allowance of up to 500GB per month!

makes NTL rather pathtic 40gig at 3mb allowance seem silly.

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

How easily we all forget the e-mail fiasco that lasted how long?
Or the proxy fiascos that dont go away?
Customer service that you cant speak to?
Cant say they will cheer many preople up.
Ok most are sorted as we speak at this momement in time.
If they are gaining all the adsl customers, its going to be worth switching to adsl for a better contention ratio.
Like a few others on here, its going to be a better alternative than the choice ntl are leaving us ie: take it or leave it.

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

There's a very well quoted paragraph.

Off you go then, hope you enjoy the 8Mbit service, and thanks for the custom.

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

I dont know how long they will last in the market [i hope they do] but theres also Nildram 2mbit at £44 , no cap at all.
And they will be bound to move forward with speed and pricing as times change. ;)

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

Or would be if they weren't relying on BT for wholesale connectivity (in the case of Nildram) or restricted to 8Mbit by the ANFP (Access Network Frequency Plan) in the UK in the case of UKOnline.

Neither can move in speed, or price as they both depend on BT's pricing which is in turn in the case of the IPStream product Nildram use actively regulated upwards by OfCom to avoid competition issues with bitstream wholesale services. UKOnline have already factored into their pricing OfCom enforced price cuts, they also require customers to buy a £70 wireless router and require a 12 month contract, offer no static IPs or any of the other 'value add' services that people complain about ntl not offering.

BT at present have no plans that are either public knowledge or known to their R+D department to upgrade their speeds. They are doing a network upgrade however their main project at the moment is boostable and QoS regulated services... with a maximum speed of 2Mbit downstream and 256k upstream.

Just pointing out various comparisons and refuting statements :)

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

yeah, times are a changing, more competition, better deals than NTL are offering, buyers market ATM. Seriously think NTL are falling behind in both cable and BB, i've been with them since day 1, must be nearly 10years now and what with new technology and NTL putting restrictions on BB, time to move on, just seems to me NTL are just playing catchup all the time and never quite reaching same level of service that is provided by others

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

So, you obviously love the ukonline produce (like I do) - so have you signed up? and if not, why not?

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

Have to talk to the Mrs lol, currently everything is with NTL at the mo, she worked for them for 10years until the Brighton Customer Service Centre was closed - there is no love lost with NTL anymore!

But yes i plan to take my TV subscription and BB elsewhere, NTL are so behind the times now, their TV iinteractive is slow and annoying to use compared to Sky and with these stupid restrictions holding back "the UK BB revolution" i'll be looking for alternatives for sure.

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

I would love to see the customer retention levels actually, how about the average length that a customer stays with ntl? Just because people are signing up faster then they leave it doesnt mean customers are happy it just means people want to signup which is nothing to do with customer satisfaction, think before you post.

Ignition the figures you gave us (95% below 6 gig) are these for ntl's entire broadband customer base or just the top tier? I think showing stats for top tier only is a fairer figure since most of the discussion is about the cap on the 37.99 package. Its quite obvious usage patterns will be lower on the 300kbit package.

My final point for today :) If I caught my staff telling customers to go elsewhere if they dont like what we offer I would in all likely sack them, because I dont want the public to think that of my company, of course this is just me and my standards are different to ntl's when it comes to customer relations.

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

HI all !

I just found out about the new increase offered by NTL and the caps. I don't use my connection to do any peer to peer downloading etc. I only use my connection to download MP3's from the IPOD site for my ipod which i pay for. I am also a webdesigner by trade and I do a hell of a lot of uploading and downloading per day to various servers to test websites I work on etc. I also play alot of online games this means my pc is connected virtually 15 to 20 hours of the day. What i am worried about is that these caps will affect me due to no fault of my own. An example when software such as online games patch or you download a game i.e. from valve these files can be hundreds of megabytes in size so although your not doing anything illegal you couldbe eating away at your monthly download allowance due to no fault of your own.

Now I do think that these caps are rather unrealistic i'm not a power downloader but at the moment my average monthly usage ranges from 40gb to 45gb per month this is what I would consider as normal usage for me and i am on 750kbs NTL service. This usage has been constant ever since i got broadband so its unlikely to change. So as you can see it would affect me quite a bit so I am a bit worried. I can't switch to ADSL as the exchange is to far away from me and BT don't offer ADSL in my area which means no ukonline either etc. So i am stuck with NTL for the for seeable future.

What I would like to see is these caps increased to by 10gb more which would be much more realistic figures. :Yikes:

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

Well, you would assume companies like Demon who have been around from many years are making some kind of profit. They offer 512k uncapped without any web space and a dynamic IP for £20/month, or for an extra fiver you get 20MB web space and a fixed IP. Seems like a good trade.

Clara do 512k plus their news service for £30/month, but since I am already paying for their news service to supplement the NTL one it's more like £23 to me. Uncapped.

I think the reason people are getting so upset by this is the NTL lock-in. To change ADSL provider, you just phone up, cancel and order something else. With NTL, you have to get a new phone like and switch to Sky too. NTL won't give you back ten quids line rental if you only want TV.

On the plus side, if you phone up and try to cancel stuff, they usually offer it to you for free for a few months, hoping you will forget to cancel it again. At least that makes switching over a bit easier.