Why worry or care about the cap?

Well just one reason would be because it sets a precedent for other ISPs to follow.

You may be right, perhaps they don't know their @rse from their elbow, but if they put the 'cap' in their T&Cs to cover themselves just in case they need it in future, I think it's only a matter of time before someone falls foul of it. If the director in charge of the AUP team changes for example, and starts tightening up their act. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day...and then it'll be a short hop, skip and a jump to enforcing it regularly.

It's worth standing up against it now rather than getting caught out later, IMO. It worries me as a principle even tho' I use 600k and have never come anywhere near cap-level usage of my service.

Well, I am regularly over the limit both upstream and downstream. When/if I get my warning I'll cancel the whole damn package:mad:

I signed up for an unlimited service as advertised. What bugs me is that any ISP can change the TOC's willy-nilly.

This capping is reminiscent of the bad old days of dial up un-metered services (redhotant, ezesurf, etc.), who had to limit their services as their networks/hardware could not handle the traffic!!

Or did maybe? Just going by this thread seems that despite the initial backlash not that many people really care. Not surprising considering that no enforcement has taken place as far as I know.
And just for info ntl are hardly setting a precedant with this, providers all over the world have set caps and enforced them, charging people per Mbyte or reducing their download rate when the quantity is used up, these caps are usually lower than 1GB/day.

Here's a thought. Maybe part of the reason the UK's internet is generally slower and possibly more expensive per Mbit than most is because UK consumers complain like hell when they:

1) Don't receive the full bandwidth of their connection all the time.
2) Can't use it as much and exactly as they wish.

We seem to be allergic to contention, when it is just that that allows providers elsewhere to offer higher bursting speeds at comparitive prices. No point offering 5Mbit if people might only get 2Mbit at peak time then flood your support desk with calls complaining about it so you spend all that revenue you gained on fielding calls from people.

RedHotAnt didn't limit their services in any way, they just ran out of modem ports to take calls on, as did the other 0800 and now dead ISPs of the time. There was no limiting involved they just didn't have the hardware in place. Broadband bandwidth and CVX capacity are 2 very different things, not least because if CVXs are full you can't use the net full stop.

Just maybe it's because companies like NTL will always get away with whatever they can when they can including selling a service on one basis then moving the goalposts later.

They actually rely on the fact that often people do not complain until and unless it affects them personally.

This time however they knew there would be a backlash and so tried to "sneak" the change in by the change in the AUP.

It was only after this was noticed that they tried to blame the need for the Cap on a few heavy users rather than their own bad planning and over selling of the service. This being confirmed by their own comments about this move having saved capital expenditure on improving the network.

The recent change of stance by NTL regarding enforcement seems to show they have accepted the arguement that the problem is largely one of over demand at peak times and that the solution is to shift some heavy use (data transfer rather than browsing) to off-peak times.

What hasn't, as yet, been accepted is that the current wording of the AUP fails to encourage such a shift to off-peak use by excluding transfers that are done in off-peak times from the cap itself.

In fact the reverse is true as the current Cap effectively limits the total time one can spend downloading to just a few hours a day it is more than likely that people would choose to do that at the most convient time which is during the evening i.e. peak time.

This is why I suggested a better wording in the AUP along the lines of:

"Users regularly found to be maximising their connection at peak times may be asked to restrict large transfers to off-peak times for the benefit of all users of the network. For the purposes of calculating excessive use any data transfers outside peak-times will be excluded."

This is of course a compromise on our part as it recognises we do accept that contention is part of the package we subscribed to originally. What we do not accept is a change in principle from unlimited to "capped" use even if this is not enforced rigidly for now.

The very fact that this thread continues to attract posts along the lines of "I don't see the need to complain but......If they ever call me I will cancel the service" sends a very clear message to NTL.

The complete lack of any posts actively supporting and agreeing to the cap as it is worded now also speaks volumes.

Seems NTL want to promote downloading large files.

This is taken from the new "Insider" site Broadband secition:

http://ese.ntlhomeinsider.com/ese/i...3,broadband.asp

"If you like to download big files such as music and movies and want an even faster connection try our 600K or 1Mb service, which is nearly 20 times faster than Dial-up Internet and essential for seasoned surfers. Both come with free installation!"

Still no mention of the "Guidelines" though. LOL

sorry....the page you were looking cannot be found, click here to go back.

Try: http://ese.ntlhomeinsider.com/ese/is...,broadband.asp

Its always the same with NTL they say one thing and do another remember the links with other companies that did not pay off.

Is it right that Goodland has been demoted

Dunno, better ask Paul Rusby:devsmoke:

Managers never get demoted. They either get sacked or they get moved sideways. :)

He now has a starring role in spouting the ntl "our service is wonderful sign up for broadband now" line on the latest Buy Ntl (channel 119) propoganda. That'll be a nice little earner if he gets the repeat fees for it's 24/7 half hourly reruns :spin:

or promoted

True. I'm speaking from memory here, but a number of years ago someone (I suspect called Peters :) ) proposed the Peters Principle. Essentially, it said that managers get promoted one step above their level of competence, with all the results that you might expect from this.