This discussion if starting to make me laugh. The low usage customers are rightly happy with the levels announced by NTL and cannot (or will not see) that their usage doesn't suit everyone (nothing would suit everyone unless we all had 1:1 connects
). What the 'power users' such as myself are saying and are miffed about is that NTL seem at present (as details are sketchy) not to have factored them into the equation and provided a suitable cost effective cap level. A higher tier would solve the problem for most people but wether NTL could offer such at a profit is only for NTL to answer. I personally would like to see another 3MBit tier added with 100GB cap at say a £50 price point but thats based on my usage. I know that a 100GB cap would still upset some people as they need X not Y but I believe that 100GB would cover off most power users (apart from the serial 24/7 downloaders). I'm quite willing to pay extra for my usage but I personally don't really want a PAYG solution. I'd rather have higher tiers of service.
If, has been stated on here, 5% of users account for 67% of network utilization then those 5% are not being catered for by the proposed NTL changes. 5% is ~50K customers. If those customers take TV and telephone services from NTL then that equals quite a sum of monthly revenue that NTL is not protecting under the current proposal. Wether those 5% are cost effective is again something I cannot answer but NTL appears to be running the risk of driving those customers to alternate providers. Once a customer is lost it's usually extremely difficult to win that customer back at a later date (and a number of posts earlier in this thread validate that).