[glitchuk]

Just out of interest is the cap so low because bandwidth is costly to NTL or because the network is not adequate to cope with content being downloaded?
Reason I ask is that there are various web hosting companies that offer 330GB of data transfer a month from your web server they host for £5-6. So my paying £38 for 30GB of data transfer seems a little on the low side.
Also why are people who download that bit more than 30GB being treated like they are hammering the network 24/7 by certain people here. I download between 500MB-3GB a day just watching various shows from the US as I don't watch tv anymore. There is no issue with download space as I delete it when I have watched it and I don't flog anything down the pub.
Looking at my stats for the week I average 43Kb/s down and 3.7Kb/s up which I do not consider to be of heavy usage (using ClarkConnect which is very good by the way). I also would have been none the wiser to the "cap" if I had not come on here to post something, where were the letters? (An amendment to the t/c's is not very helpful as I imagine a large number of people clicked past them on the upgrade like I did).
With the advances of the stuff you can download legally (HDTV clips, demo's, game reviews, music and the ever quoted "Linux Distro's" etc) I cannot see how the limits NTL have imposed are realistic. There is going to be more and more content available on the internet and it is going to be larger in file size. The more you surf the more you see there is to download and the closer you come to your limit, kind of takes the enjoyment out of it. Moan over gone to watch the letterbox for an official looking NTL letter.