The problem for NTL is that it wants to attract new customers with the "promise" that they will be able to do everything they want. They even compound this by linking all the "extra" things broadband can do when selling the entry level package let alone the higher tiers.
The reality is that most of the "extras" are only possible by paying the premium for the 600k or 1 Meg service.
If, having paid a premium, the customer then finds there is some small print that limits access to those extras, they have every right to question the fairness of this.
Some basic facts are clear:
Quote:
|
1. No domestic network can sustain 24/7 use at max speed for all users.
|
This is why there has to be some control to balance individual use so that it does not unfairly impact on others hence the need for an AUP.
Quote:
|
2. If a premium is charged for a higher level of service the extra usage of that service must be reflected in what is seen as "acceptable use".
|
One size fits all clearly does not meet this requirement and so the Cap if any should be tiered based on the level of service.
If not the advertising should clearly state that one is paying for extra speed alone and not extra content.
(NTL can't have its cake and eat it on this one.)
Quote:
|
3. The prime problem, as defined by NTL not us, is that the network is at times congested at peak times. i.e. The problem is not the total throughput but how that is balanced between users and over the 24 hour cycle.
|
The AUP should, therefore, reflect the need to balance load over time as this is the most effective way to reduce congestion at peak times and prevent degradation of the service whilst still allowing the extra use paid for as part of the premium for the higher levels of service.
As for the recent comments, along the lines of "If you don't like it you don't have to stay with NTL", whilst this is certainly true it hardly helps either NTL or any of its customers to take that attitude.