Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

Keep taking them pills Niel...LOL :)

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

Amen !?

Hallelulah!?



Now praise the nthw Lord!!

AGREED

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

I signed up for BB in September 2002 but have changed to 600k inbetween then and now.Can someone tell me if the contracts then were for unlimited or capped?

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

If you changed in the last 12 months then you would come under the revised terms for sure as part of the process involved accepting the T.O.S. that applied after feb 2003 including the revised AUP.

If unhappy you could have the right to cancel the contract though as it is arguable that they should have made the difference in terms more clear as it was reasonable to assume no key change had happened because they didnt directly inform you.

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

Well, IMO NTL should have stated that the service provided changed either verbally when in upgraded or by way of a revised contract. Neither of which is the case.
Still happy [overall] with the service after 6 or 7 years of being a NTL customer but i think they could have handled this a little better.

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

:rofl: LOL So do we all!!

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

HeHe,yeh sorry for the "stating the obvious" post :wavey:

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

No probs, the more the merrier.

One day NTL may just hear one of us. LOL

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

No it's not milage that causes congestion - exactly my point. Just as its not how much u downlaod that causes congestion. Exactly my point so why are NTL trying to solve congestion by removing or restricting user because they do 'too many miles'?
Its not your vehical type or the way you drive it that causes congestion. Its eveyone trying to use the sane road at the same time.

As I said before the original example made an assumption that a user was either using the connection or not and if they were all usage was equall. A gross simplification to make a point but valid none the less.

The idea that a user either only uses P2P or web and chat and email is flawed imo. There are many apps that light users use that eat bandwidth (for a short time - hence low total usage).

The point is thqat NTL are defining abuse as being total usage. What they should be doing is defining abuse as being high usage in peak periods. Thats my point.

When you go online in peak hours and _use_ your connection you cause congestion. How much you may have dl in non peak times is irrelevant.

Someone who runs p2p (or any app that has a high up or down throughput) 24/7 7 days a week should be dealt with. However there ARE heavy users that do not max out their connection at all during peak hours and these are being punished by NTL equaly with those that do.

I think you are obsessed with P2P personaly. There are many many apps that cause high volume usage - up or down. NTL is promoting some of these apps via its plus product for just one example. It is just as likely to be a 'light' users that only uses the net in peak periods that causes congestion as a heavy users. What is considered 'normal' usage today is a tiny fraction of what was considered normal 5 years ago. The same will be true in 5 years time.

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

You haven't thought that out Erol. Vehicle types and how they are driven is the main cause of road congestion. Get on a hilly motorway with one lorry trying to pass another at virtually the same speed and a car driver hardly going any faster than the lorries using the outside lane to pass them and you soon get a big build up of traffic. Take the same motorway with all the vehicles doing exactly 70 mph and you have no congestion at all.



That assumption of yours is totally wrong and doesn't make any point valid. Every user has a different goal and a different pattern of usage and may do many things whilst online. Yes there are many apps that eat bandwidth but in the main most users are not using apps that are anywhere near maxing out their connection in either direction. I have been in IT for more years than most people on here have lived and have talked to many people on the subject and have seen what thousands of people have on their systems.

Neither of us know how NTL define abuse (other than the "cap" as set out in the AUP), nor the reasoning that NTL used to select customers to receive the letter



You can go online in peak hours and cause no congestion whatsoever. You, and others, talk about peak periods but all 24 hours a day can become congested dependant on how others on your card are behaving. There is a suggestion that downloading in non-peak hours is OK and doesn't affect anyone, correct me if I am wrong.


I use p2p as an example, not because I am obsessed with it, but because it is something that many people use 24/7 and no matter what anyone says they are not always downloading legal material. What other application can you think of that can consume so much bandwidth 24/7?

As I have said many times in other threads, mainly on dotcom, times change and things like the number of users per UBR card should be altered to take heed of changing usage of bandwidth by applications. Likewise the 1Gb "cap" should be looked at on a regular basis to see if the figure is still valid if NTL insist that there is a "cap" on usage. Technology will change over a period and the capabilities of NTLs infrastructure should move on to enable users to benefit from from these changes.

I would welcome your ideas on how the subject of congestion can be overcome, taking into account the fact that there is not unlimited financial resources.

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

The analogy of cars blocking the road as above does not translate into the network analogy. Net congestion is simply down to the number of people trying to use a shared resource all at the same time, you can not 'drive badly' on the net. You can either use it or not (to varying degrees) - during peak periods or not. There is simply no equivalent net behviour that relates to such type of driving. However if you insist on this analogy, then in these terms I would 'argue' that you are branding lorries unfairly (as 'heavy' users are), in that anyone can drive like an idiot. Would you suggest solving this (unique to roads) congestion issues by restricting lorries on the road or by restricting bad driving? In analogy terms you would just restrict lorries, regarless of how well or bad they drive and regardless of how many other non lorry bad drivers there are.

The new AUP clearly defines 'abuse' of the network in terms of volumes downloaded. If you dl over 1gig a day for 3 days in a row your are, according to the terms of the AUP in breach of the AUP.

If you go online during peak hours and _use_ your connection you are creating congestion. How much you cause is related to how much data you send up or down during these periods - but always with a mximum of less than your connection speed. One user can not create more than one users worth of congestion.

There certainly is a suggestion that downloading in non-peak (ie times when the shared pipe size is <= the total bandwidth that users attached to it are sending / recieveing)

Basically almost any app run 24/7 can consume similar bandwidth.

Video serving
Newsgroups (and this is where the _real_ copyright leeching is done by those that do it best)
FTP
VPN
the list goes on.

The simple fact is if you build the right network then the cheapest way to deal with congestion is simply to put more bandwidth in. However NTL's network is far from the 'right' kind (at least from customer to UBR).

If you have to work with NTL's existing infrastructure and you really want to get the best experience for all users all the time, then limits should be placed on volumes uploaded (especially with cable based systems) and downloaded in certain 'peak' hours and not accross all hours. The objective should be to influence people to 'increase their statistical diversity' - or in other terms to spread thier usage out over the times when there is capacity to spare.

Alternatively if NTL want to run a service that is suitable for a certain type of user and usage - they should market and sell the product as such.

I am going chuck in some quotes from a book I have just finished reading (just come out of a 21 hour power cut here - so I did quite a bit of reading.) It's from Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic by Terry Jones. It features an alien (the Journalist) encountering human road traffic for the first time.

"'Purple Pangalin!' exclaimed the Journalist. 'What sort of transportation system d'you call this? The more popular it is the slower it goes! What genius worked this one out?!' He was really quite indignant"

"'You have to devise a system that goes _faster_ the more popular it is, so it can cope! It's perfectly obvious!'"

Now the above is obviously humorous - but it highlights the basic problem NTL has here. It is selling a product that it markets as a great thing that you can do all sorts of wonderous things with that are really great - just don't use it too much. That is a problem.

In the real world of atoms and physical transportation I do not know how the Journalists suggestion can be achieved. However in the digital world of electrons and photons, where the cost of moving data halves every 12months, and a single fibre can carry more data than all the users of NTL combined could create with 24/7 saturated usage, then I think his solution is achievable.

I want to see us (the human race) get as quickly to a point where anyone can move any amount of data to or from any location at a small fixed cost. Where contention is irrelevant. Where abundance is delivered and scarcity is a thing of the past. Do I think we will get there quicker if compaines like NTL restrict and limit usage and try and encourage those who want to move large amounts of data around to not do so? No I do not.

This vision of 'unlimited bandwidth' to all is not a pipe dream imo. It is in the realms of the possible and increasingly so by the day. By the day the costs of such a system are reducing. The main problems to achieveing this goal are not actualy techincal atm. They are more to do with the historic control of entities (telephone companies) that have for the last 100 years or so had a business built around the concept of managing scarity.

However much cleaver people have written about this subject than me. I would suggest than anyone interest find a book called 'Telecosm' by George Gilder. It's a great book. One part of it deals with his own personal 'vision' of the future. He see a 'glowing fibersphere' of traffic moving freely around the globe. Where you do not have an IP address, but a wavelength of light. If someone wants to send data to me the just chuck it out on my wavelenght and hey presto I get it.

We will at some point live in a world of 'near infinate bandwidth' - simply because it is techincally possible and offers to much value not to do so. My concern is in how quickly we move from a world of managed scarcity to one of abundance.

For me the NTL cap keeps us in a world of managed scarcity at the same time as simply not solving the problem of congestion.

So finally some questions for you Ian.

Do you really believe that if NTL were to remove the 5% highest download volume users from the network and replace them with 'normal' users - that your speeds in peak times will increase by more than 5%?

Do you accept that someone who currently downloads an average of 1.5meg per day - but always from 2am to 7am, is likely to respond to the cap by downloading .9meg per day during peak hours - thus making congestion _worse_ that it was?

The cap (if its objective is to reduce congestion) is ill though out and will not result in noticably faster speeds for the majority. Most users will still all try and use the net at the same time (and look to blame anyone else but themselves for the congestion). They will still encounter congestion and the absolute best improvment they can hope for is 5% - until the users removed are replaced with new users that use it in peak times, when you will be back to square one (but now you statistical diversity will be even worse because you have forced those that use it in unpopular times off the service.)

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

Erol. the road analogy was one that you introduced and if you look carefully at what you said in it you would realise that it was an invalid argument, but of course I forgot that you cannot be wrong and always have an answer. You have made several statements that are simply untrue but I will not go into them as again, you are always right.

At the end of the day we all know who is responsible for most of the congestion on the net and what they are doing to cause it and no matter what arguments you use it will not alter this fact. There is a certain type of user who is affecting all our use of NTL broadband and that type should either modify their usage to fit in with the AUP (and by that I mean the AUP that existed before the "cap" clause was put in) or move to another provider.

The problem for users is that chaanging ISP may or may not enhance their internet experience and that if it does enhance it it may not be too long before other people see this advantage and jump on the bandwagon with a consequential reduction in service levels if the ISP isn't able to cope with the influx.

Memo to self: Don't respond to Erol's diatribes.

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

hmmmm...

All the combined trafic of all NTL users in the uk 24/7 going through one fibre ! :eek: :rofl:

Would that be multi mode or single mode ? :D

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

Ahh the old "Evil phone companies" argument. I won't go out of my way to defend them, as to a large extent, what you are saying is true (after all, BT held comms back in this country for years, and, imo, still isn't rolling out ADSL as fast as it could, other companies are in a similar position, ntl included). But I would like to point out that despite advances in Technology, it is still not cheap to maintain/upgrade a network. It still costs billions a year for the likes of BT and ntl to maintain theirs. Even the huge comms companies don't have infinite resources. The problem with ntl is they sometimes seem to mismanage what they have.

I think we will get to a point where we have near infinite bandwidth, but I don't think it is technically feasible yet (the fibres used may have infinite bandwidth, but the equipment used either side of each fibre may not).

If the problem is congestion on the network, as NTL have stated, then, no, a 1 gig cap probably won't help. It might if NTL are charged for data transferred across their link to the Internet and they are trying to cut costs though.

A more sensible option (I will stress that I am not in favour of this option though) would be to have variable speeds. The max speed would lower in peak time, and increase in off peak time (much like Bulldog DSL does).
So finally some questions for you Ian.

Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!
 

is this a discussion or just an opportunity to 'slate' me?

and you accuse me of always being right? It seems to me that you have decided who is responsible - end of story. So you believe that 5% of users create 60% of congestion. That's your perogative - but its not what I believe to be ture - and I have explained why I think that. So presumably in 6 months time, after the letters have been sent and behaviour moderated or users removed, we can all expect 60%+ less congestion on the NTL network. Dream on, would be my response to that.

Memo to self: Don't argue my case - I will be accused of having to always be right. Don't try and explain why I think the things I do - it will just be used against me.

Then again some here do seem able to have a reasonable discussion. So onto those

It's not really that they are evil (or any more so than any large corporation). It's just that they have done business in a certain way for the lastt 100+ years - and a very profitable business it has been. It's hard for such an entity to not try and make tomorrow the same as today. It's inevitable to some degree. What should motivate them to change every tenet of faith they have held for last 100 years is fear. If they do not they may not exist at all in the future. Unfortunately there is imo still not enough 'paranoia' (andy grove style) in the telcos and still too much complacency.

I do not disagree with that. Telecoms is a 'big business' activity. Vast sums must be spent to build, upgrade and maintain the network. Vast sums are also accrued in revenue. Take BT and a quick rough calculation. 30 million phone lines @ approx £10pm line rental = £3.6 billion per anum. Its not the 'money' thats the problem its what its being spent on. It is still being spent on a network designed to have constrictions, designed to place control in the center of the network (with the telco) and not at the ends (with the user), designed to allow the telco to bundle up and marktet 'verticaly intergrated' products - voice, video, internet. We need to build 'best networks' (where best is best for the users of them and not those that build and run them and best means networks that move the most data at the lowest cost).

Yes I agree that would have been a better option. Also a better option imo would to have used the standard 'affecting other users' clause in the AUP to target people who upload and download constantly in peak periods (and not just a blanket volume cap). This is pretty much what the majority of other ISPs do.

Yes it is possible to 'abuse' your connection imo. Undoubtedly some people do, to the detriment of others (but only upto 'one users worth' of detriment to others an no more). However to say that someone is abusing the network based solely on volumes dl (with no mention of time of usage or uplaod) is just not the right way to deal with such abuse imo.

Admin Edit: Updated quoted names - K