Caramba Stuart, are you still bleating on about being caught with your pants down and getting spanked !!!!

You did wrong, you got caught who gives a monkeys flying left breast whether or not the relevant, in your opinion IIRC the original threads correctly, sections were quoted.

I've always said that Broadband is, IMO, the best thing Ntl do. I suspect it's helping keep them afloat at the moment as well.

With no BT line in our house and no need for one (ntl Tv and phone) it would be a whole lot of hassle to get ADSL which apparently costs more anyway.

Perhaps it is something unique about the Internet but I, and I suspect many others, feel that we are not just customers or users of ISP's but actually co-owners of the first truely "free" international resource. Because of this we defend the key principles embodied by it.

The arguements we make against things like Caps and other issues apply equally to all ISP's as if we allow NTL to change a key aspect like capping without objection that cancer will spread. Better to fight our ground now than just sit back and let them get away with it as this will only encourage others to follow suit.

That said In a way I have already voted with my feet by standing still rather than making the move to the 1 meg service. I am on the original £19.99 deal as I own my own modem so there is really no advantage at all in my upgrading until NTL allow me to make full use of the extra bandwidth, Simply being able to download the same content a little faster does not make ecconomic sense.

Hear, hear! :tu:

Co-owners??? Why? You pay to receive a service.....

That's the whole problem. The internet in its very essence is an utterly democratic, international entity. The Internet is not a commercial service you pay for, like Sky Movies.

Unless you have the It resources yourself, you have to pay someone else in order to get access to the Internet. But paying someone for access to the 'net is not the same thing as paying for the 'net. The Internet is free.

Now, I'm not such an idealist that I think we should get BB access to the internet for nothing, and I know that ntl has a business to run. All I think we're saying here is that ntl should do business and provide services in a way that respects the internet.

Unmetered access respects the spirit of the internet - free, democratic, knows no boundaries or borders - while pay-per-byte or pay-per-minute attempts to turn the internet into a commodity to be retailed to a mass market by ntl and others.

Many Thanks towny :)

Thanks too for your following post that fleshed out and put into words so well the sentiment I was trying to express.

Just as a slightly off-topic comment I think the circumstances which have brought us here from .com have their roots in the same principles.

With all due respect to Frank I think he forgot that, whatever the "Legal" position, NTHELL was not his to sell. A forum is a community and as such belongs to its members far more than any one individual.

When BB was installed I printed down the T&Cs including the USER POLICY. I am still working to the original conditions as NTL have not informed me of any changes

hmmmm, perhaps i'm just too forgiving, or perhaps i am apathy bound after all.

I've not got an issue with the cap, if it does come to a point where people are calling me to ask me to curb my browsing / leeching habits then they can cancel the service on the same call.

somehow, i just i can't ever see that happening.

as for the internet being an embodiment of free speech/information/karma(dude), well that depends on entirely what you use it for.

some free, some not so free.

but hey.. at the end of the day its just the net, and to be honest, most days i'd rather go down the pub :)

think you are playing into NTLs hands you should protest like many do and sign the petition

OK, this is EXACTLY my point.

I did wrong, I was caught.... but ntl quoted irelevant parts of the T&C. I was not even remotely worried about getting caught, it was an experiment. I am not complaining about being caught, or promoting the uncapping of CM's. I was just pointing out that the AUP team had quoted IRRELEVANT parts of the T&C.

If it "doeesn't matter" which parts are quoted, or how they are interpreted, what is the point in having T's & C's????

My point is that ntl do not know how to enforce the existing T&C, so why worry about the "cap" when they are so unlikely to enforce it properly.

There are (and were at the time) simple black and white entries in the T&C which I clearly broke. NONE of these were quoted to me however. I was just quoted on interfeering with equipment and reverse engineering ntl's software, NEITHER of which was done by, or on behalf of myself.


Now, just to get my point accross as clear as possible.....

I don't care for / about the CAP as in my opinion it will never be used to enforce ANYTHING at all.
In my expirience with the AUP team, they have quoted irelevant T&C's, breached the data protection act and represented themselves as an entirly unprofessional group of individuals.

I've never heard a word from ntl regarding the cap, i regularly download well over 1 gig per day & i dont see why i should change it either considering every other isp charges you just as much, if not less.

I'll continue as i am and should they ever mention it i'll tell them what to do with there acc & get adsl.

Where do you get off?

Frank owned the domain name, designed the site, got it into the public eye and did a whole load of customers a favour. He had every right to do with it as he wished.

A forum is a little piece of space on the internet you can have a virtual chat on. Get over it!!!! It happened over a year ago FFS, and unless you were in Franks position when he sold you won't have the knowledge to even begin to assume why he sold, or wether it was 'morally' his to sell.

I am amazed at all of you who had the nerve to say he 'sold out', or berate him for doing so - I can bet that 99.9% of you have never even met the guy to form such 'considered' opinions.... :rolleyes:

As I said in my post I respect Frank and accept selling the domain name was entirely his decision to make.

What he did not own was the membership of that forum and as time will show many will reach their own "considered" decison how to react to NTL's decison to mess with the spirit created by Frank's original idea.

This is, however, a Cap thread so please refrain from further posting to it unless you have something contructive to say about the cap itself.

So what was he supposed to do? Dump the membership into a black hole and make everyone start again?

:confused: I was replying to one of your posts - I'll stay on topic if you will.... :rolleyes: