Not entirely true - but then that's not your fault as I only scanned a same portion of the "advertisment feature". The entire thing was a 4 page wrap around the paper so the advert appeared as the front, second, penultimate and back page of the paper.

The first page was a general advert for the digital TV services, with boxes listing the packages advertised on the following pages. The second page was the broadband advert, of which the scan I posted was the top two-thirds of. The remainder of the page was a breakdown of the costs of the 3 broadband packages and so advice on how to decide which one bests suits you (150Kb for occasional usage, 600K for medium usage - including downloading music - and 1Mb for heavy usage - including online gaming and downloading files).

The third page detailed net filtering - apparently NTL offer deals on buying Net Nanny - and broadband content. The fourth page detailed the dial-up network package.

Duncan

Guys, I think the issue of whether or not ntl is inciting illegal activity is an important topic in itself. I know I'm not a mod or anything, but ...


:notopic:

Then you have just discredited yourself, and any argument you have put across....

In reply to justanother noob if you wish to discuss anything quite happy to talk to people on any subject at NTL.

In fact quite a few people at HOOk have my e-mail or phone number so if you wish to discuss further just ask around always willing to talk.

Even AIZAD has my e-mail and phone number :D

No incorrect

Thanks for the extra info Duncan. The prominence this advert had means, in my view, it is even more serious.

Hope everyone can see the way you get treated by NTL employees when they can not come out with a sensible argument they go to personal attacks must be the call centre training.

For everyones info, when trying to cancel the service, was offered the service at a rate that made ADSL look expensive.

This point has been made by myself many times you can not cancel because you end up in an auction with the retention team :rolleyes:

So who is just anothernoob trying to kid

OK, fine, PM me your MSN details (I am aware you use it) and we'll proceed from there :devsmoke:

BTW no need to put HOOK in caps, I know where it is, though I don't work there, used to live pretty close tho for my sins.

EDIT: On the other hand going by above attitude, despite the mass of evidence suggesting it maybe not a good plan.

Who said I work in a callcentre anyway?

It would be nice if we could get an official responce from NTL on this, however I don't think we'll get it.

This certainly does need to be brought out in the open.

Can you please, just for once, stop using the 'employee versus customer' line - it is just not relevant (not for my argument anyway), Believe it or not, I only work to live and do not have a mission to stick up for ntl regardless. The company who has advertised this is not in question. It's the moral high ground which I don't think anybody on this thread has the right to take that's appalling, not the fact that it's ntl you have a vendetta against.

Quite amusing then that for your strong moral stance saving a few quid a month was enough to keep you. Maybe you should take a look at yourself before pontificating about others? If you actually felt that strongly about the AUP etc would have thought a few quid a month would be a small price to pay?

I think you are obscuring the central point by repeatedly focusing on a very narrow side issue. Not a single person has replied to you to object that they have never done anything wrong, or never downloaded copyright material from the net. Your point is well made. But as others have posted, civil society would collapse if one person's wrongdoing prevented them from acting on someone else's.

What I'm interested in establishing (and I think one or two others are trying to thrash this out too) is whether ntl have done anything wrong, and if they have, what action should be taken.

Everything else - e.g. whether or not you are on a 'mission' to stick up for ntl, whether or not someone else is carrying on an anti-cap grudge match, and so on - is irrelevant to me. I'm interested in the facts behind this issues and how they are interpreted.

The hypocrisy is not whther someone might have downloaded a movie (which incedentally I have not - I prefer to own the DVD myself) but the following:

1. This is a good thing to do

2. You have the bandwidth to do it (which under the terms of the AUP you clear do not).

If i moved to another supplier that would be easy, unfortunately myself like others stand up for there rights .

It just shows how desperate they are to stop churn, to be honest in respect of your reply to the offer of further conversation.

I have tried to get some reply back from NTL in respect of concerns but it has not been forthcoming.

Therefore the only way to really make NTL open there eyes is by hitting them in the pocket, bad press, and contacting partners of NTL.

i am quite happy to stop this if the answers are forthcoming

If you think there is a way forward then wil accept your offer

And you don't see anthing wrong with this? So, you know it's illegal to download said films, but you do it anyway. Maybe ntl know they shouldn't be advertising the fact you can do these downloads via their BB service, but they are anyway....:rolleyes:


q) What's the difference?
a) absolutely none.

But carry on, the lot of you. My sincerest wishes that you all get a life after your crusade is over (as long as you all don't choke on your hypocritical words first ) :)