Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
not sure what your point is.
|
Just commenting on a couple of points you made.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
Not true. To say I have no comeback against anything ntl do is ludicrous. If ntl break their side of a contract I could take the matter to court.
|
That was said in the context that if NTL say you have affected the service of other users you cannot prove otherwise. To say you could take the matter to court is one thing, to actually do it is another. Think cost and likelihood of winning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
*If* docsdiag is still working then it would be a simple matter to run a series of snapshots over time to establish an overall picture of usage patterns.
|
Which still would not prove anything.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
1 'if'
followed by an 'and'
followed by another
|
Most situations contain "ifs" and "ands". If you took NTL to court and if you could afford the cost and if you won, what would the result be?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
Of course there is. I'd seriously consider taking them to court for breach of contract. My argument being that my internet usage did not affect the service for other customers (I'm on a particularly quiet UBR)
|
You cannot prove that it didn't affect the service of others and you would have exceeded their AUP usage guideline.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
see above.
|
See above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
That might be one of the reasons they mention it but I still dont know why they get worked up over it. Incidentally and AFAIK the reason caps were introduced is because somebody got the decimal point in the wrong place when calculating the percentage of 'bandwidth abuse'. They cocked up big time.
|
Nobody got the decimal point in the wrong place (post a link to where this was said). The bandwidth used in illegal activities is well known. ISPs the World over are capping and they all quote the same reasons. A calculator and a little bit of knowledge can soon show that someone maxing out 24/7 who uses hundreds of Gb of bandwidth a month is costing the ISP far more than the user is paying and with contention, several doing this can soon impact on others usage. Anyone using that amount of bandwidth is doing something illegal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obvious
Not true. NTL cant currently tell what you are downloading. At best they can tell what sort of thing you are downloading. If they were to interrogate data at the packet level and decide what is fit and unfit then they would be seen as a 'content provider' rather than a 'service provider' and could well be held liable for any illegal content that was transferred through their system.
In any case it is a trivial matter for customers to use a service such as Secure Tunnel to mask the type of data they are downloading. |
Why would deep packet inspection make them a content provider? There are many methods of masking your activities advertised, but do you believe the hype of adverts?
