[merged] Price increase

Nikko, explain to me why a quid arbitary rise would not have been a choice, yet a £3 one is seen as a choice?

I too don't intend getting into a slanging match, but it is unfair to charge one group of customers more.
There are a few on here who just won't climb down from the fence me thinks.

[ian@huth]

My own feeling is that NTL have not increased the price of the lower two tiers in order to remain competitive. They have probably increased the higher tier because users on that are probably the ones that make more use of the upstream and it is the upstream that is in short supply and the cause of most congestion problems. NTL may actually want users to drop down to the middle tier from the higher one.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

My own feeling is that NTL have not increased the price of the lower two tiers in order to remain competitive. They have probably increased the higher tier because users on that are probably the ones that make more use of the upstream and it is the upstream that is in short supply and the cause of most congestion problems. NTL may actually want users to drop down to the middle tier from the higher one.

I am not a heavy user, I go nowhere near the 1gb limit, because for one, music downloads do nothing for me, I have spent over £1k on my hifi set up, so I buy originals.
As has been stated before, sorry to drag over coals again, but, broadband was touted to me as unlimited.
If there are problems with the upstream, that is up to NTL to increase capacity.
That is why you pay your monthly subscriptions, not just to line the pockets of the board.
If the water board say to you that you have unlimited use of your taps, it doesnt mean they can then moan if you leave a sprinkler connected 24/7.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

<snip>
If the water board say to you that you have unlimited use of your taps, it doesnt mean they can then moan if you leave a sprinkler connected 24/7.

Intersting analagy, and thats all it is, but the water board, or Thames Water or whoever your suppler are, do charge a fee for a hosepipe and another greater fee for a swimming pool. In fact they probably require you to switch to meter if you have a pool. Both increase the fee paid from the standard.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Intersting analagy, and thats all it is, but the water board, or Thames Water or whoever your suppler are, do charge a fee for a hosepipe and another greater fee for a swimming pool. In fact they probably require you to switch to meter if you have a pool. Both increase the fee paid from the standard.

I think you missed the point my friend, note the phrase "unlimited use".
My take on the increase to the top tier, is that NTL know that they do not have a legal case to take someone to court for what they call " excessive use " of an unlimited product.
So it is a lot easier to penalise the customers using the fastest connection speed, under the misconception that these customers are the ones causing the main problems with upstreaming.

[Chrysalis]

nikko actually you are wrong

"150K box = Buy one, get one free, 100% larger box for the old price.
600K box = 25% extra free for the old price.
1024K box = 50% extra free for an 8% price increase"

all packages come with 30 gig traffic so it works like this

and what I work out will be after price changes, since you did the same.

300kbit users pay £170.99 per mbit traffic
750kbit users pay £249.99 per mbit traffic
1.5mbit users pay £379.99 per mbit traffic

the price rise and speed upgrades were NOT linked ntl original move was just to send a price rise to the top tieir only for their own reasons (I suspect they want people to downgrade), then the speed increases came after when blueyonder forced them into doing it. There is nothing stupid about expecting all customers to be treated the same, there is currently 2 major problems with the top tier package.

1 - users on the bottom tier can download the same amount
2 - the gap in price has increased by 30%

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

nikko actually you are wrong

"150K box = Buy one, get one free, 100% larger box for the old price.
600K box = 25% extra free for the old price.
1024K box = 50% extra free for an 8% price increase"

all packages come with 30 gig traffic so it works like this

and what I work out will be after price changes, since you did the same.

300kbit users pay £170.99 per mbit traffic
750kbit users pay £249.99 per mbit traffic
1.5mbit users pay £379.99 per mbit traffic

the price rise and speed upgrades were NOT linked ntl original move was just to send a price rise to the top tieir only for their own reasons (I suspect they want people to downgrade), then the speed increases came after when blueyonder forced them into doing it. There is nothing stupid about expecting all customers to be treated the same, there is currently 2 major problems with the top tier package.

1 - users on the bottom tier can download the same amount
2 - the gap in price has increased by 30%

Chrysalis, sadly, there are people on here who think that it is not a big issue that only one group of customers are being asked to plump up an increase in price.
And your calculation is spot on.
Ntl have been faced with a problem regarding upstreaming for some time now, but rather than increase capacity, instead of lining the troughs of the board with nice big bonuses, they decide to try and force people downwards.
And as you agreed, there is nothing stupid in expecting everyone to be treated the same.
Either an across the board increase of £1 per level, or no increase at all and leave the speeds as they are.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

300kbit users pay £170.99 per mbit traffic
750kbit users pay £249.99 per mbit traffic
1.5mbit users pay £379.99 per mbit traffic

Um, what

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

nikko actually you are wrong

"150K box = Buy one, get one free, 100% larger box for the old price.
600K box = 25% extra free for the old price.
1024K box = 50% extra free for an 8% price increase"

all packages come with 30 gig traffic so it works like this

and what I work out will be after price changes, since you did the same.

300kbit users pay £170.99 per mbit traffic
750kbit users pay £249.99 per mbit traffic
1.5mbit users pay £379.99 per mbit traffic

the price rise and speed upgrades were NOT linked ntl original move was just to send a price rise to the top tieir only for their own reasons (I suspect they want people to downgrade), then the speed increases came after when blueyonder forced them into doing it. There is nothing stupid about expecting all customers to be treated the same, there is currently 2 major problems with the top tier package.

1 - users on the bottom tier can download the same amount
2 - the gap in price has increased by 30%

One point that you have failed to take account of:

All packages do not come with a 30 Gb allowance. You are allowed to break the 1 Gb on several days per month (forgot how many and I am tired) and on those days that you do, the faster your connection the more you can download. So, the faster your connection, the more you can download per month without breaching the AUP. Probably works out at nearer 90 Gb per month rather than 30 Gb.

I would love to know how you work out the cost per mbit traffic which arcamalpha2004 says you have done accurately. Please enlighten us.

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

nikko actually you are wrong

1) Its Nikko

2) No, I am spot on and I take umbrage at those that make unqualified statements about correctness without the wherewithall to grasp the concept.

3) Others have requested that you clarify your seemingly wild calculations and figures into some semblance of comprehension. I would agree.

Edit: BTW It was not me that called anyone stupid, if you look back on the thread. However, I have to say it is becoming tempting.

[Chrysalis]

Nikko apologies on the misnaming you. I worked it out on the basis of 30 gig traffic a month, as I am used to paying for traffic on various hosting platforms I have got used to how paying for traffic works, when people have traffic allocation its usually measure in mbit of usage, although ntl customers won't be told this way the comparison is still the same, ianathuth does have a point that user's can go over the allocation if they are clever and only go over on certian days but I based it on what ntl stated their guidelines as, which is 1 gig a day. The 1mbit is based on average usage over the month, and since 1mbit is 300gig traffic I simply divided it by 30(30 gig allocation) which = 10 so that makes 10 users to use the 1mbit, so I then multiplied the price that each users pays by 10. Now normally to counteract this isp's that have traffic limits will usually give out a larger allocation to those with higher burst speeds so when working out the cost per 1mbit its usually the same or at least less of a gap but as it stands per the guidelines ntl set the top tier user's are paying over the double amount of what the bottom tier users are paying, I expect this will be hard to grasp for those that are one the bottom package's.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

...since 1mbit is 300gig traffic...

I thought 1mbit is 1 million bits?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

....The 1mbit is based on average usage over the month, and since 1mbit is 300gig traffic ....

Sorry, but how does 1mbit = 300gig traffic

"Traffic" is measured in bytes transferred. Line speed is measured in [max] bits/second. Your statement above seems to confuse the two in some random way.

Whether I have agreed with a wrong calculation is besides the point here, will some bright spark tell me why NTL are justified in only increasing the top tier? instead of an across the board increase?
As far as I gather, everyone can download 1gb per day, the faster speed just means you get to that limit faster?
The whole thing is unjustified in my opinion, and maybe a matter the oft should be looking into.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Nikko

2) No, I am spot on and I take umbrage at those that make unqualified statements about correctness without the wherewithall to grasp the concept.

Yes, your figures are spot on, but they do not tell the whole story, as not everyone is interested in how much data they can download, whilst still staying within the AUP, but rather how fast they can browse.

I think someone mentioned the cap does not actually limit you to 30gb per month, but rather asks you not to go above 1gb per day for something like 3 consecutive days in a 14 day period. I think we're all agreed this is rather wooly, and a 30gb per month allowance would be far more sensible, but that's not the issue.

To complete your story, customers also need to take into account the following, which is cost of bandwidth (based on new pricing and bandwidth):

300k = 5.9p per k
750k = 3.3p per k
1.5mb = 2.5p per k

This compares to currently:

150k = 11.9p per k
600k = 4.2p per k
1mb = 3.5p per k

This highlights how much the 150k users were being fleeced, but it also domstrates that the new pricing is better value for money.