Cable Forum - View Single Post

Chrysalis · 13-01-2005, 17:11

The situation here is NTL claim they need to cap to maintain a good quality of service for their customers and to make a profit, as explained earlier the making a profit part really confuses me as they already take many other measures to maximise profit but I wont repeat what I said earlier. On the quality of service I think their argument doesnt stick, only since the last few weeks has my area been able to sustain 1.5mbit on my broadband before then it was simply over congested/subscribed, contrary to what they make believe I think the real reason behind this is profits and QOS will not improve in the slightest NTL seem to have a habit of upgrading AFTER congestion occurs and no preempting it and I think this habit will continue.

A leased line is more expensive for a ton of reason's here are some.

Commercial hosting off the line is allowed.
Uncontended full duplex connection, garantueeing maximum throughput at any time of the day.
It allows for reselling of services.
SLA garantueeing uptime usually 95%+

Contrary to what people think a leased line doesnt mean unlimited bandwidth, it is quite often the case to have a leased line with a 95% percentile to charge per kbit used.

Likewise a consumer connection shouldnt need to be able to maintain full speeds 24/7 and expect contention at peak times, they tend to be more generous on traffic then leased lines and will usually have no SLA and be forbidden for commercial purposes, these are the reasons for the price difference. It is also cheaper for isp's to provide a smooth bandwidth pattern then to provide for bursty type traffic this is why 95% is used as a billing method so customers with spiky graphs are penalised more. I may provide an example later if I get the time for it.

Coming back to NTL I just wish they stopped playing games with us and admit they want high profits off the broadband sector to subsidise their failing tv sector, its quite absurd to expect a residental user to pay a 3 figure price for a unmetered connection, the price is low for high contention not high traffic which are 2 different things.

13-01-2005, 17:11	#275
Chrysalis Inactive Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 12,047	*Re: [Merged] ntl "cap"-ALL* Discussion In Here Please.** The situation here is NTL claim they need to cap to maintain a good quality of service for their customers and to make a profit, as explained earlier the making a profit part really confuses me as they already take many other measures to maximise profit but I wont repeat what I said earlier. On the quality of service I think their argument doesnt stick, only since the last few weeks has my area been able to sustain 1.5mbit on my broadband before then it was simply over congested/subscribed, contrary to what they make believe I think the real reason behind this is profits and QOS will not improve in the slightest NTL seem to have a habit of upgrading AFTER congestion occurs and no preempting it and I think this habit will continue. A leased line is more expensive for a ton of reason's here are some. Commercial hosting off the line is allowed. Uncontended full duplex connection, garantueeing maximum throughput at any time of the day. It allows for reselling of services. SLA garantueeing uptime usually 95%+ Contrary to what people think a leased line doesnt mean unlimited bandwidth, it is quite often the case to have a leased line with a 95% percentile to charge per kbit used. Likewise a consumer connection shouldnt need to be able to maintain full speeds 24/7 and expect contention at peak times, they tend to be more generous on traffic then leased lines and will usually have no SLA and be forbidden for commercial purposes, these are the reasons for the price difference. It is also cheaper for isp's to provide a smooth bandwidth pattern then to provide for bursty type traffic this is why 95% is used as a billing method so customers with spiky graphs are penalised more. I may provide an example later if I get the time for it. Coming back to NTL I just wish they stopped playing games with us and admit they want high profits off the broadband sector to subsidise their failing tv sector, its quite absurd to expect a residental user to pay a 3 figure price for a unmetered connection, the price is low for high contention not high traffic which are 2 different things.