AOL on NTL... no cap?!?
 

now what id like to know is what the hell is going on, today AOL officially releasd entry to the AOL on NTL service, so they get the 600k connection, but... um, in there ToS, theres NO mention of the 1gig cap, surely that £2 extra a month they pay doesnt give em 5gig more than me does it?

AND they get free BigBrother feeds... so same connection and better content, great!

Is there an explicit link in the nTL terms of service? I thought it was a general unacceptable behaviour clause.

http://theregister.co.uk/content/22/31625.html

u have to register to see aol tos

You sound surprised that ntl are shafting us again :confused:

The cap clause is defined in ntl's acceptable user policy which was posted to ntlworld.com in February this year.

I find it most odd that over the same network, the directly subscribed customers to the ntl service can be resticted, whilst subscribers to a third party service (AOL) which requires the same infrastructure to pass signals and data, wil be effectively unlimited. Not fair ntl. :mad:

has anybody been warned yet?..not heard of anyone
this seem to confirm they have either changed their minds or this it was just hot air in the first place

Well Atleast Now We Know Why We Have Been Buggered About For Nearly A Year Was Just Ntl Clearing The Way For aol To Pour Money Into The Pot

Depends on how the deal works between NTL and AOL? - Perhaps NTL will charge AOL for the amount of data transferred to/from customers by AOL and therefore no restriction placed on them by NTL. AOL may have estimated that the average punter will use x times that by the number of customers y and then finally by NTL's charge per gb z. Gives answer, try it, if reality is greater than answer then apply CAP (See NTL for reference AUP)

They'll get you one way or another?

i would assume if you are using AOL broadband you abide to there terms of service regardless of the service going through the NTL network so yep the service is capless

well you could just ring and ask AOL i would say ring NTL but i wont for obvious reasons :p

its all backdoor with NTL i assume they do it for the 'customers best interests' :rolleyes:

i know there was not a cap on it at the start i was one of the first few to get broadband a few years ago :)

with all the gripes about AOL people have, one thing i can say for the 2 years i was on it, they never sneaked in stuff like caps, or limited usage, 0800 and as long as you like. £15 a month.

as for the bang for buck AOL are paying NTL, i saw somewhere they payed £85mill ion to be on the service in december last year, and they've been prepping since then. so its one off payment my guess, rather than bandwidth.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/n...yZEEVypqgaRroz

Anyway, you wont go through NTL proxies, it'll probably all be just routed traffic like DSL, where you initially connect to your exchange then off to the ISP's servers. so therefore its only internal traffic AOL need to worry about, this could explain the lack of a CAP. also this is a REAL bad move for NTL, why even bother with them? when you can use there service, with Xbox £29.99 on AOL for £27.99 with more content and access to the US caches?

then again, i cant see how NTL and TW get away with not opening up there services to competitors, look how BT has been butt k'd in the past years, cableco's have there networks to themselves. at least BT and Sky setup partnerships. NTL is um... alone?

Could the next be BT openworld through NTL

AOL previously had this to say to AntiCap UK on the subject of cappingAOL's T&Cs contain nothing about capping but I suspect that their contract with ntl might. Nevertheless, they would have to change their T&Cs if they were to cap customers on this new service.

its called common sense, i cant see NTL forking out there own equipment which is already overstretched for AOL.

and as far as i know, AOL have never co-located any services before, cant see them doing it now, less profit in it for them.

I would say with more or less certainty that all thats going to happen is the traffic is routed through NTL internal networks to some AOL servers.

Have you ever known NTL get something right with money involved, they would not even of thought about the CAP or Bill Goodland when they negotiated it

Just out of curiousity, why do people insist on putting cap in capitals? Is it an acronym for something?

After asking AOL and checking on my Nan's AOL account at keyword BROADBAND, I can confirm that there is no cap and they do not plan to introduce a cap. you can read their "conditions of service" at http://www.aol.co.uk/cos.

I was pleasantly surprised at the politeness and knowledge of the rep I spoke to knew strait away what I was talking about and said that even though I have BB with Ntl I would need a visit to swap the modem over to an AOL owned one but other than that I could change asap if I wanted to, and I am seriously considering it. For £2 a month more it may well be worth it.

Well done AOL, you still are great, just how I remember you.

:D :D :D :)

edit If the above link doesn't work for you try : http://www.aol.co.uk/about/legal/cos.html

IMHO I believe the guy I spoke to at AOL who said that they didn't have a plan to introduce a cap, I did see the quote you have highlighted, however, the same COS are used for both ADSL and cable and as they have never introduced any sort of limitations on any of their services in the UK I don't think they will start now.

And to be honest even if they did introduce a 1 gig a day cap it would still be worth the extra £2 for decent customer service, E-mail that works, newsgroup servers that you can access and the knowledge that Ntl are getting a smaller proportion of my money each month.;)

I really dont see what the big issue is about the service provided by AOL & the service provided by ntl. Theyre different proiducts with their own price structures and their own T&Cs. If you don't like one then change supplier.

Put it another way if you had ADSL via <INSERT ISP NAME> would you complain to BT about <INSERT ISP NAME> 's T&Cs etc or would you just find another provider. Do BTs customers complain about <INSERT ISP NAME> getting better standards of customer service than BT provide ?? Somehow I doubt it :rolleyes:

From what I can see ntl are simply providing the hardware to allow other ISPs to offer a broadband service in exactly the same way that BT provide the lines that allow you to have a choice of ISPs. If package A has more desirable features than package B then you know what to do :D

To be honest this sort of debate would probably be better suited to a generic cablemodemhell site rather than here as this is a forum about ntl products isnt it :confused:

Now their's a point do AOL use proxy's on their own network ?

no idea but you do get some cute cuddly software to put on your PC (& it probably wont be *nix friendly)

not sure you asked a propper question there, but every ISP uses proxies, thats how you get onto the internet with an NTL address and have access to everything. i think what most people on here refer to as proxies are actually the cache's.

but yeh, at some point you have to go through AOL in order to get an AOL hostmask.

oCome on lets be honest here we would not be having this debate if the service was not CAPPED for NTL users and UNCAPPED for AOL users .

All we are after is to be treated fair and ditch the CAP

Lets not forget though they said they introduced this cap because their network couldn't cope. Well unless your an AOL customer that is

Obviously you miss the point.

AOL is offering a service on NTL's network, this is the network which NTL imposed a cap on to stop excessive users. Now, AOL users will be taking up that bandwidth and more because they have no cap, it also seems the cap was introduced to open up some more free bandwidth for AOL users. So, in other words NTL have screwed us in every possible way to make the deal more appealing to AOL, I'm sure the offer of a few million pounds from AOL is enough to treat us like this.

And, as mentioned somewhere else in this thread (post 22ish) , AOLs T&Cs/User Policy are pretty woolly the way theyre worded and I wouldn't mind betting that there *is* a Bandwidth Usage agreement in place between ntl &aol and that its probably based on the 1Gb per day guideline that applies to ntlworld customers

When you think about it ntl are now in the same position that BT are in that they cannot treat their own customers more favourably when it comes to being an ISP and I would rather suspect that the 1Gb a day figure stems from any potential BU agreement. , its simply a matter that aol have not put a figure upfront to their customers and are prefering to wait & see how much their customers do actually download on a monthly basis as opposed to ntlworld who have put a figure in their User Policy. Lets be honest 'heavy leeching' doesn't exactly fit your average aol 'user profile' does it !!!

And anyway its not a CAP it's a GUIDELINE


A CAP implies some sort of automatic throttling/blocking which isn't whats being done, instead there is a GUIDELINE to normal usage and ntlworld may contact you if you exceeed that GUIDELINE (although there does appear to have been a tadge of an overreaction as it doesn't appear that anyone has been contacted yet, have they ??)

AOL could not colocate servers - if they did they would be hosting out of the UK and be forced to charge VAT. AOL automatically makes 17.5% more than most ISPs as their servers are based in the US. They have no hardware in the EU.

Didn't NTLs TOS originally have similar bandwith limitations statements before the cap. Better refered to as guidance was put in place.

As others have said its not a cap. If you want to download 5Gb of linux you can do so in one day. NTL will just get upset if you do that daily.

Not true. From 1st July all companies that offer internet services to EU customers have to charge VAT. If the company is located within an EU country then they can charge the VAT rate for that country for all EU customers, rather than country specific VAT rates.

For this reason, AOL UK (or is it AOL Europe) have set up their operations in Luxembourg as their VAT rate is 15%. So from 1st July AOL will be charging all EU customers 15% VAT (currently they are absorbing this increase in cost into their existing rates)

I see no reason why AOL couldn't have hardware located in the UK - their registered office would still be in Luxembourg.

Duncan

OK didnt know they changed that VAT loophole 9 days ago. Co location of servers would certainly not be a problem.

There is no difference of opinion in my two statements, the info I have been given by AOL says that they don't have a cap at the moment and they don't plan to introduce one. Of course this could change, thats life, but for now I believe that moving to AOL is a very promising option and I as soon as my 12 months are up, assuming nothings changed in either camp I will strongly consider moving to AOL.

You are right, I shouldn't have to move but the way things are going with Ntl I don't see anything improving. :rolleyes:

On another note, I did send an e-mail to Bill Goodland saying that I was disappointed with Ntl and there current position on this and I was considering moving to AOL and this is what he had to say.


So the 'guidelines' are still here and here to stay I think.:(

The bit I liked most was the "I hope you'll reconsider", no reason or anything, schmuck.

At least if I do move to AOL they will be getting a smaller proportion of my money, AOL aren't gonna be providing billing, customers service, modem etc. all for £2 a month!

Then again, I have just phoned to find out when my talk unlimited offer ends and the guy I spoke to was so polite, he answered the phone within 5 seconds and when I said that my offer was coming to an end he suggested that I phone just after it ran out and they would look into renewing the offer for me. I thought I'd have to downgrade for a month before i could take advantage of the offer. If this is the way of things to come then maybe I shan't have to consider AOL.:eek: :D :D

Neither do NTL.

It wouldn't surprise me if ntl were making the same amount of profit from AOL customers as they do from their own customers.

- Hell Fighter -

well you would sort of hope the deal made commercial sense anyways :)

You use the word "sense" in a post about Ntl:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The whole thing stinks, why cant NTL actually get there act together, since i had broadband installed a little over a month ago, ive downloaded 1gig+ more or less everyday, through xbox and starwars galaxies traffic. IF they see fit to remove me from the service, i garauntee that ill be making a formal complaint to anyone and everyone, firstly that ive never ACTUALLY been told theres a cap in place, surely a legal requirement to tell you that before you signup? they cant just expect you to know it, the advertising says unlimited, and well... a cap is a limit by any dictionaries definition. Much like the RIAA, NTL gonna get asswhooped over there internet policies... just bring it on.

Could you imagine the conversation between the customer and NTL if its auideline also if it is a guideline it should be stated as that.

Hi all


Correct me if i am wrong but does this imply that they have already contacted users and continue to do so.


[QUOTE]Thanks for sending the link to this article. I'm not sure what the source is, but it seems to suggest that the guidelines we announced are no longer in force. I can tell you that this is not the case, and that we will continue to contact customers who regularly exceed them and cause congestion

Quote from post 39

See the quote in Post 39 from BG

It does imply that but how many people have come forward and put their hands up to
a) Being contacted and advised that they are exceeding what is considered normal usage
b) actually lost their service as a result of ignoring a)

nope you dont go through the ntl Inktomis, you got through aols own ptransparent proxies


[mike@pc2-cdif2-3-cust122 mailarchive]# host 205.188.209.140
140.209.188.205.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer cache-dq08.proxy.aol.com.

I think people would like to know the figures and how the perception was wrong

IMO the only difference between AoL & ntl regarding the CAP or guideline or whatever you want to call it is, ntl have been 'honest' (not sure that's the right word...but hey) enough to put a figure on it (1G/day).

As it stands, AoL's T&Cs can be interpreted any which way they wish, which could mean no limit, 2G, 1G or 0.5G !!!! :eek:

All of which doesn't address the real problem which is not bandwidth but congestion at peak periods !! :rolleyes:

The theory is that now that NTL have the cap guideline all aols customers can cause the problems and ntl will blame its customers .

If the network could not cope 7/2/2003 it should not be able to cope now unless goodland is a complete utter liar

Aol & Ntl
 

As AOL can now be used on NTL (Broadband) - they mention cable modems.

Does this also apply to Set top Boxes?

Currently that is how I get my broadband.

Can I swap over to a cable modem (in Surrey, ex c&w).

Also, (ignorant question coming up) - does the Cable Modems plug into a telephone (any?) socket, or the set top box?

thasnk

Lee

If nobody knows Lee try phoning AOL 0800 376 4406 and come back and tell everyone what they say :)

Ask them if they've got a data download cap on their service too mate.

I may be wrong but I belive it is available in Ex C&W areas (but don't take that as Gospel)

If it is available you will get a splitter put on your CATV feed and a standalone modem installed.

Silly queston - but what is a CATV feed?

Does it come in on the Set Top Box, or a standard (NTL) phone socket?

thanks

Lee:shrug:

The cable feed into the back of your STB (set top box)

You could of course save money and get rid of the STB

From looking at the details, I think AOL are working in the same style as their ADSL, i.e. you pay for the cable modem and tap (splits the tv/internet signals) those are then yours to keep vs renting from NTL

Also, the emails are more reliable on AOL than NTL.

:confused: huh!

Thanks for that Grum, a simple error - what I meant to say is emails are more reliable on AOL than NTL.

Any ISP is more reliable on e-mail than NTL:D

so i gathered had to read it a few times though to make sure i wasn't going mad :eek: :spin:

So hands up whos had AOL BB inst via cable network!!! :)

To be honest it would not be worth it,why bother with all the same things going wrong again.

I have just to wait for adsl extending or the local power company offering powerline.

It will not be long before cable is a bit like a 56k modem in the speed and download stakes

So i take it you think that AOL have wasted £83 million that they gave to ntl for the 4 year deal?

Me wonders what happened to freeserve doing the same :shrug:

grum1978 saidI know that was aimed elsewhere, but for what it's worth....
"I think so"

I just can't see that many customers signing up for it, surely any AOL customer with no ADSL but with ntl available in their area would allready be signed up.

I can see them gaining people who didn't like ntl and did not realise it was via ntl's network. I guess there are people like that out there.

I also guess that ntl people will say "Our marketing people have done all the figures" but my answer would be "remember how good the figures were for free dial-up"
ntl's marketing people based their figures on large numbers of
new off-net customers when they launched that product, instead they gained loads of on-net customers and had to install lots of second lines, that they were offering cheaply.
On top of this they had to carry out massive upgrades to the Telco network at local ring level to keep up with demand. The network techs were rubbing their hands at all the night work involved in the project.

ntl actually lost huge amounts of money on that venture;)

th'engineer saidWe are going to fall out:D

to be honest i have come to the same concluesion but for different reasons :p I can not see how AOL are even going to turnover that in four years they will need to get around 750,000 ppl on the service to breakeven. and ppl wonder why AOL are losing money :rolleyes:

To be fair here escapee are you trying to tell me that AOL have just taken ntl word on this and a massive company like them don't have the sense to use a calculater :eek:

:drunk: must drink more am starting to agree with escapee!! :p :D ;)

grum1978 saidPerhaps there is a big hidden agenda behind all of this;)

Any agreeing on my part is due to the large amounts still in my system from last night/this morning.:D

One of the guys redundant from ntl who left yesterday was having a good drink and send off with collegues when we bumped into them:cool: I think he looked allmost relieved;)

what AOL timewarner take over of ntl :eek:

i think thats how rumours start :shrug:

An average 80,000 users paying £25/ month gives £2 miilion per month. Over 48 months that makes £96 miilion turnover. Definitely scope for both AOL and ntl to make money (and BT to loose ...)

grum1978 saidThe thought never entered my head :rolleyes:

damn calculator :drunk:

knew it seemed to many :spin:

OK have people thought this through.....

NTL allow AOL to use its network to acces AOL's BB services.

But HOW MUCH of NTLs network can AOL use?

They may only be allowed to connect to the local part (the HFC) bit by using their own UBRs. (effectively the same as the ruling about unbundling the BT local loop!)

If that is the case, AOL have (very effectively) got around the very bottleneck that meant the introduction of the cap.

Remember in the Goodland interview with angryntl, BG stated that it was the UBRs that were oversubscribed, and that the rest of the network could easily cope.

So AOL install their own UBRs, and the result is no overcapacity for AOL users (and perhaps a moneyspinner in that a certain amount of UBR capacity is sold back to NTL to allow them to attract new subscribers)

mmm saidI think that number is quite a high target to achieve, when you sconsider they will have to be in an area capable of getting ntl service, not allready an ntl broadband customer, not allready happy with their ADSL, and possibly not p***ed of with either AOL or ntl through past experience.

What do other peopel think about figures meeting these conditions, and how many potential customers are out there willing to pay for this service, I would of thought the biggest percentage would allready be ntl customers if they wanted this service.

cjmillsnun saidWould it be cost effective for AOL to install their own ubr's with a target 80000 users across x amount of ntl hubsite/ubr locations?

They must surely be going to use ntl's existing ubr's and us/ds allocations.

BT is tightly regulated as a former monopoly supplier and so has more service obligations on it than any other telco, including an obligation to provide phone service to anyone who wants one, obligation to allow competitors to run across its networks, etc.

you can't base return on investment on turnover - grum may have been nearer the truth imo.

£80 odd Million (allegedly) over 4 years means you must expect £20 million profit a year to break even.

If you have to install hardware to get it to work without impact on the existing "network" it becomes even more bizarre from a short term economic perspective? (ubr allegedly = £30,000 ?)

Could we be seeing a long term plan to use the good bits of the cable network in a beneficial way? (apart from AOL's browser, of course - imo:))

Or, more cynical, an attempt by ntl for some investment and "hang the consequences"?

Or, a "rumoured" takeover?


:shrug:

the problem i have seen with AOL's software is that it seems to takeover everything internet orientated.... my future-tobe father in law uses AOL and curses about it all the time, the only reason he wont leave this is because of his e-mail address of 4 years :( Sux really doesnt it?

of course you all seem to basing your figures on the fact that ntl dont get any monthly money form this aswell, which they will. I home this is very succesful as ntl and aol will make good money.
I belive aol will make more from the ntl deal than they will from the bt one for sure :)

handyman saidI have no exoperience in marketing and it allways appears to be a bit his and miss, I guess they just play the odds with these sort of ventures. I am tending to lean a bit the other way and think that AOL having lots of existing dial up customers, has a potential to reach every single one of them via BT ADSL.

Yes I know not all areas have ADSL, but BT has network in all areas (except Hull) and there was this talk about it being efficient to upgrade exchanges with a small amount of customers.

I can see customers who hate AOL software saying "No Thanks"
via BT or ntl network.

and customers hating ntl saying "No Thanks" to AOL as long as the customer is aware it's received via ntl's network.

From the days of small CATV systems we knew in South Wales that people in the valley would be prepared to pay for service, whilst systems in the Large towns/cities closed down through poor customer density. ntl aquired some small CATV systems although outdated that had very impressive density figures compared to ntl's new HFC networks.

The amazing thing is ntl have not hardly ventured into these areas, I'm no marketing person but it would of been the place to start from day one as most of the older hands said.

My point is that BT cover these areas and ntl don't, there are lots of potential customers in non ntl areas for AOL to either pick up new customers or convert there dial-up ones to ADSL.

My view is any operator who had started a decent Wireless operation in these sort of areas would be on to a winner.:)