Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
And, as was stated above, BT have the same cap in force for the SAME reasons as NTL.
|
Just not correct.
BT has two different divisions that sell residential BB services. BT Openworld (is it BT yahoo now?) and BT retail. BT Openworld has been offering DSL based services from 'day one' (as soon as the DSL product moved from trial to an actual product). The service has never been capped and remains uncapped currently. BT retail (a totaly seperate division of BT from Openworld) started to offer a competing 'no frills' DSL based BB service about 1.5-2 years ago. This was designed as a 'no frills' service from day one and had a cap from day one.
I think for every BT retail BB customer there are 10 BT Openworld BB customers or more. I am not sure about the exact ratio but it is in that ball park. The vast majority of BT BB customers do not have a cap in place at all. Those that do have a cap in place (BT Retail customers) bought a capped no frills / low cost (alledgedly) product and still have a capped no frills product.
So the statement that BT have the same cap as NTL for the same reasons is just not true imo.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
IE that someone who continuosly downloads all day will affect others performance on the network, be it on a DOCSIS system or on ADSL.
|
No. During peak periods they will cause 'one users worth' of congestion, along with every other users using the network in peak periods. They create no more congestion than a light users using their conection in peak periods. Outside of these peak periods their usage has no effect on others at all.
It is my understanding that CM based BB systems do not 'handle' congestion as well as DSL does. I might be wrong about this but it my understanding atm.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
All users had 30 days after the cap was introduced to leave NTL, not leaving signalled your acceptance of the AUP with the cap in place.
|
It is my view that users should have the option of terminating their contracts within 30 days of when the cap is imposed on them and not when it is annoucned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
If they are only going after people who download more that 5gb /day on average then I have NO problem with NTL contacting that user and asking them to moderate their usage.
|
Even if those users are creating no congestion at all (which would be the case if they dl 5gigs outside of peak hours)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
I have gone over the 1gb limit myself on occasion since the cap was introduced, but now try to moderate my usage o stay within the cap.
|
Well moderating your usage to stay within the cap will have no effect on congestion at all. Moderating your usage to not do heavy DLing during certain hours would improve congestion. Still if it makes you 'feel good' to limit your volume but not your usage during peak periods, then good for you. Unfortunately such 'modification' of usage will have no effect on NTL's congestion problems what so ever.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
If they are not going for people who just go over but are going after genuine bandwidth hogs, then kudos to NTL, they are trying to please the majority of customers.
|
No they are trying to mislead the majority of customers imo (and doing a pretty good job by the looks of things). Just what is a 'bandwidth hog'? In my view a bandwidth hog is someone who insits on maxing out their connection during peak periods. It has nothing to do with how much they dl, just when they dl it. If you use the internet in peak periods then you are creating as much congestion as any other user during such periods and as such are just as much a 'bandwidth hog' as any other users during peak times.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjmillsnun
What people must realise (and it is on NTLs website) it that this is a contended service and therefore people must share the bandwisth allocated.
|
The whole of the internet is a 'shared' service. It is how the internet works. People must realise that with such a shared system total volumes bear no relation to congestion at all. What matters as far as congestion goes is usage during peak periods and only during peak periods and nothing else.
You could argue that becuase a users has used a shared resource (be it roads or a packet based network) lots and lots when no one else wants to use it, they should then not be able to use it much or at all during peak periods. It's not a view that I take but at least it has some 'internal logic' to it, unlike so many of the arguments used to justify limits on usage