Aol

[Theodoric]

I was reading an AOL advert in the paper recently and noticed that it implied that AOL had no cap. However, remembering ntl bending the English language to breaking point on this topic, I have just been browsing the AOL site, but am none the wiser. It mentions being connected permanently which, as we all know, is not the same as being allowed to download all the time. So, what is the position?

Also, as I read it, you can get get a 512Kbps AOL connection via ntl cable. Is my interpretation correct? If so, is it worthwhile considering shifting to AOL and is it easy to change over? I seem to be always coming across comments saying that AOL has its own peculiar way of doing things, which can make life difficult on occasions.

[danielf]

Is the cap a concern for you? Or is there another reason for wanting to move?

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by danielf

Is the cap a concern for you? Or is there another reason for wanting to move?

No, the cap isn't a problem; I'm just curious - after reading about it here for over a year now you tend to develop a general interest in all matters to do with caps!

Regarding shifting to AOL, again no particular plans; I just want to know if it is something worth considering and keeping at the back of my mind. Until I looked at the AOL site this evening, I didn't even realise that I could possibly use an ntl cable connection; the adverts always seem to just mention needing a BT line (which the AOL site says you do need for the 256 Kbps service).

[Shaun]

There is not cap on AOL, but if you switch then you will have to use there software to connect, this can cause problems with networks and stuff.

[danielf]

I just had a quick look, and the AOL 512k package is £24.99. NTLs 600k (soon to 750) is the same price.

And, from my reading of the website you will be locked into minimum 12 month contract. I'd say it is probably not worth it considering you're getting a slower service over the same network and a new 12 motnh contract.

[punky]

Knowing AOL (unfortunatly I was stuck in Uni dorms with a NTL phone, and couldn't get a NTLWorld CD), so I was stuck on AOL. They never saied the had a cap, but I got reprimanded twice fot overuse. Although broadband is always on and time doesn't come into it, i'm sure AOL would say: "There is no download cap", but complain whenever you go over their own limits.

As much as people complain about NTL's cap, at lwast they are upfront about it.

[MovedGoalPosts]

I doubt AOL would wish to impose any sort of capping, although ultimately they might not have a choice over ntl BB if there were performance issues, and their T&Cs do allow for it.

When AOL launched over ntl cable in July 2004 they did say to Anticap

In an ideal world we believe that unmetered and always on should mean what they imply. The best experience online comes from having an uncapped connection, otherwise it creates confusion and complexity for the customer. That said, it is never possible to rule it out entirely. The Internet moves so fast that new phenomena - such as Napster a few years back for example - can force you to take unusual measures.

That caveat aside, however, we will work very hard not to bring in capping on either narrowband or broadband and certainly have no plans to cap any services. As you say, our whole aim is to promote content and all the benefits of broadband, which do not mix so well with a capped service

Although that is now some time ago, I suspect AOL would not wish to do a complete U turn and now impose a cap. Undoubtedly thoough their T&Cs could be used, as indicated in an earlier post, against anyone with exceptional use patterns.

The real question though is why would you want to be locked into the use of AOLs specific software browsers, email and all, rather than have the flexibility of your own software that you as a user can adapt to your own needs.

AOL are advertising an uncapped service on our local radio. The advert goes to great pains to point this out.

Originally Posted by Pem

AOL are advertising an uncapped service on our local radio. The advert goes to great pains to point this out.

Well all i can say is i am totaly shocked by this.

[seaneeboy]

They're primarily selling it through ADSL though, but if they're applying the same T&Cs to the poeple that can buy AOL over the NTL network, aren't NTL mighty peeved? and even if they're passing on extra costs for network usage through the bulk leasing (which I suspect they're not), isn't that going to end with NTL customers getting a worse service that the people leased through AOL onto the same network?

[scrotnig]

I have heard a rumour that the new AOL 9 allows customers to opt out of using the AOL software and use their own, eg Outlook Express, etc.

Can anyone confirm this? If so it will open up AOL as a potential service for lots more people.

[SMHarman]

It does except there are very few instances of NTL taking action for breaches of the bandwidth guidance limits (aka Cap).

If NTL have sent you a letter, then maybe this is an option, if they have not then carry on regardless.

Oh and the AOL-NTL service gives 600k not 512. Something else they do not advertise.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by danielf

Is the cap a concern for you? Or is there another reason for wanting to move?

I may not use enough to end up on the hit list but I signed up to uncapped internet and it was changed without notification yes I do have concerns about the cap more so if AOL are not being capped.

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

I doubt AOL would wish to impose any sort of capping, although ultimately they might not have a choice over ntl BB if there were performance issues, and their T&Cs do allow for it.

Exactly but kowing NTLs love of making big blunders have they slipped up here and not written in any cap for this service ( me thinks its time NTL checked the small print and legal angles incase they have cocked up big time)

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

When AOL launched over ntl cable in July 2004 they did say to Anticap
Although that is now some time ago, I suspect AOL would not wish to do a complete U turn and now impose a cap. Undoubtedly thoough their T&Cs could be used, as indicated in an earlier post, against anyone with exceptional use patterns.

I wonder when they actually signed the contract before the cap or after it?

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

The real question though is why would you want to be locked into the use of AOLs specific software browsers, email and all, rather than have the flexibility of your own software that you as a user can adapt to your own needs.

The software is easy to by pass on broadband but is it going to stay at 512K on AOL or will that also be increased like NTLs customers?

Originally Posted by Pem

AOL are advertising an uncapped service on our local radio. The advert goes to great pains to point this out.

We need a recording of this advert on these forums so others can hear it and perhaps NTL might answer a few questions.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Kits

The software is easy to by pass on broadband but is it going to stay at 512K on AOL or will that also be increased like NTLs customers?

Chances are it will increase. NTL BB seems only able to cope with 3 levels of service Bronze Silver and Gold, 150(300), 600(750) and 1000(1500) respectivly.

This means AOL users are on Silver and the upgrade to the silver config file would apply to them to increasing their speeds.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Kits

The software is easy to by pass on broadband but is it going to stay at 512K on AOL or will that also be increased like NTLs customers?

The AOL Gold service is 512k via ADSL and 600k via NTL.

http://www.aol.co.uk/products/broadb...l?promo=228937