![]() |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
This 1 Gig cap letter. Will the traffic attributed to us include all the ARP and other users' DHCP protocol traffic that keeps my down stream VERY busy? If yes they need to design a better network before they start charging that way.:eek:
|
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
And power users. |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Yeah perhaps. But you can't stop ARP and dhcp requets/renewals being seen at ur c/m i/f though plus all the other stuff that wanders down. Also are they gonna take out unsuccessful web requests that fail because THEIR poxy proxy servers won't perform. They need to think about this quite hard otherwise we may all have a case to say they are not perfoming according to their own contracts with us.
|
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Soory Noob but you appear to be the one making it personal still.
Yes we know you think there is nothing to worry about with the cap. Red repping and pi$$ing off anyone that disagrees with you won't change the fact we disagree and intend to continue pressing NTL for some level of compromise that will both help them solve the congestion problems and save them from pi$$ing off so many customers. Both of these will, in the end, help increase NTL's profitability and protect NTL jobs. Continuing as they are to carry on regardless with an unfair AUP that doesn't even do the job it was designed to will not. Please try and be a little more constructive in your comments and show that compromise is possible as right now the way you are taking all this so personally is detracting from a worthwhile debate about possible ways forward for NTL as far as the whole issue of the AUP is concerned. |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
|
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
heh check this
"The VNUNet item highlights that roughly 5% of ISP customers could be classed as 'heavy users', yet they account for an estimated 55% of all traffic." I thought ntl said 1% users use 90%, seems a bit off. |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
One issue - 14000 staff and health of the provider. Of course we have an interest. It is ultimately the paying customer that enables the company to have a chance of remaining healthy and keeping it's staff employed. If the company does something that the customers are not happy about, those customers may leave, new ones don't join (which is harder retaining customers of winning new ones?), revenues fall, staff get laid off, etc. I hope that the company will sit up and listen, as by finding the means to provide customers what they actually want will enable the company to remain healthy. Your post suggests it is correct for the company to do as it wants, with a take it or leave it attitude to it's customers. That short sighted view sums up much that is wrong with ntl, and why it will always be the subject of attention from sites like this and anticap. |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Dont forget - Without customers there is no company...... The customer is the companys most important asset. !!!!!!!
|
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
Those 'normal sleeping hours' do not need monitoring, since there would be no disruption to other users pleasure by way of congestion. It is so simple to do, just take those 'normal sleeping hours' outside of the cap, there is no specialist monitoring equipment needed either. The benefits are obvious, and ntl would even be able to claim that do not have a blanket 24 hour cap. I would have thought that propaganda incentive, alone, would have enticed ntl into such a change. I would say that the normal sleeping hours for this purpose would be something like - after midnight and about 7am, give or take, if thought better. Between those hours, monitoring is switched off, or not done. No one connected to ntl, or come to that, anyone else, has yet given a valid reason why this should not, or could not be done. I still wait for a valid reason. |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
I think that heavy use overnight is a good idea...... Its the peak times when users need good pings and fast web pages !
|
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
Will anyone defend ntl claiming that 1% of users accounted for 90% of traffic? |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Hi
First let me put on my flame suit. :) quote Here's a little food for thought though, no news to me, UK ISPs have been looking at metering etc for some time: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/n...FVluyZMVUvxBrP[/QUOTE] This link has a point on it that struck a cord with me. Users on here say that they download legal stuff from sites that allow pay for content, Download Linux distro's and stuff like that. My point is the comment "leading to their consideration of unpopular measures such as port throttling P2P sites" For me that would not be a problem as any stuff i download is not from p2p and therefor would not be affected by port throttling. This would cut down on a lot of the high bandwidth that is being used at the moment by those that do download 8-10gig perday day in day out from p2p sites. Plus if the throttle was only on at peek times you could control the damage that p2p can create. There flame suit on ready to be shot down.:) |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
Quote:
In the first instance asking all heavy downloaders (and uploaders too) to try and schedule such data transfers off peak, must be of benefit. Physical controls could be developed in the longer term if the voluntary measures don't work, but what would not the cost of developing such tools be better spent positively on physical upgrades in network capacity, rather than managing scarcity of resource that in the longer term would become an ever increasing problem for the ISP and it's users? PS no need for a flame suit, you are entitled to make your views known. |
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
good point.
First let me say i dont aggree with the cap as it stands. I think we should have differant levels depending on what service level you take. As for upgrading the network yes it should be, But its not just the network but the cost where traffic is off the network. "Since much P2P traffic does not originate from ISPs' networks it costs them more to deliver it" Now if they upgrade the network thats fine but there is the cost of all the p2p traffic to take into consideration as well. I have to agree the cap as it stands does not work and is not implemented correctly, Leading to users feeling that they are getting a raw deal and yes i think i am getting a raw deal. I have the 1 meg service and find the speeds to be fine and would hate for billy downloader to slow me down when i need the speed. Has anyone that had a letter commented on what was said when they phoned the number quoted on the letter, and if they were told they could be cut off if they did not cut down. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum