Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DVS
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.
|
Obviously, I don't have access to NTL's internal figures, but if those 5% are occupying 67% of network resources, I would guess it's not cost effective for NTL to keep them. After all, they would only account for a small percentage of the revenue generated, but they would incur a far higher percentage of the costs.
For example, NTL may well have to install an extra card in a UBR if someone is maxing out their 1.5 Meg connection 24/7 (which you would need to to download as much as some people do) and slowing everyone else on the same channel down.
Now, I don't know how much those cards cost retail, but they cost $8000 on eBay. That one person would pay £37.99 a month (+ possibly TV & phone). Now, what would you say is more cost effective? Losing that user or buying the card?
Now, admittedly that example would only apply if the bandwidth on the other channels was full, so NTL would possibly need to buy another card anyway, but it does illustrate what I say. I haven't taken into account upgrades possibly needed further up the network either.