*ALL* Speed Upgrade Discussion In Here Please (Part 2)

Originally Posted by scrotnig

Unless the regulator instructs otherwise, ntl are not obliged to pay any consideration whatsoever to whether their customers have any alternative suppliers.

I did not say that NTL were obliged, I said they have a responsibility, they are two entirely different things. Having a responsibility does not automatically mean that it is automatically mandated by an outside authority.

[Skaara]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

NO they DON'T!

What makes people think this?

Read my earlier post again. ntl are out to make a profit, like any other large company. They don't have any 'social' or 'moral' responsibilities.

You need to read up on the origins of the capitalist system and also the free market economy.

NTL have a legal obligation to provide a service! I'm sure once they carry out the 'upgrades' there will be a lot of fuss.

If you think we live in a free market economy under the New Labour government you are mistaken sir. The 'market' is soon going to screw ntl right in its rectum .

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I did not say that NTL were obliged, I said they have a responsibility, they are two entirely different things. Having a responsibility does not automatically mean that it is automatically mandated by an outside authority.

A private company does not have ANY responsibility to tailor its services according to whether there's any competition.

I sincerely hope some of the posters to this thread never go into business. Wonderful and Utopian though your ideals may be, the UK economy doesn't work like that.
__________________

Originally Posted by Skaara

NTL have a legal obligation to provide a service! I'm sure once they carry out the 'upgrades' there will be a lot of fuss.

If you think we live in a free market economy under the New Labour government you are mistaken sir. The 'market' is soon going to screw ntl right in its rectum .

I fail to see the relevance of this post to what I had posted.

If ntl are about to get screwed for introducing caps, then it's very bad news for the likes of BT, Wanadoo, Nildram, PlusNet, Tiscali, Brightview and many others.

Or are caps only a problem when it's an excuse to bash ntl?

I'll repeat for what feels like the eightieth time: members of this forum need to stop thinking they are 'typical' broadband users. They aren't. ntl alone has over a million broadband customers. I daresay other providers have similar numbers. In all these cases, the vast, overwhelming majority of users have no problem with it because they never get near.

Wanadoo and Tiscali alone report massive, massive demand for their entry level services...with a 1gb cap!
So why is ntl's entry level service going to be so bad with a 3gb cap?

Originally Posted by scrotnig

A private company does not have ANY responsibility to tailor its services according to whether there's any competition.

I sincerely hope some of the posters to this thread never go into business. Wonderful and Utopian though your ideals may be, the UK economy doesn't work like that.

And once again you've totally ignored the fact that I specified that this was not a mandated responsibility. With a non-mandated responsibility the company can choose to ignore if if they so wish, as NTL have done, and frankly this is pretty much par for the course with NTL.

You have such a narrow vision of the whole situation. Yes, NTL are there to make a profit, but they cannot be blindly led by profit alone as they do need customers to make that profit. If they focus purely on profit and not what the customers want they will soon leave, taking that profit with them.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And once again you've totally ignored the fact that I specified that this was not a mandated responsibility. With a non-mandated responsibility the company can choose to ignore if if they so wish, as NTL have done, and frankly this is pretty much par for the course with NTL.

You have such a narrow vision of the whole situation. Yes, NTL are there to make a profit, but they cannot be blindly led by profit alone as they do need customers to make that profit. If they focus purely on profit and not what the customers want they will soon leave, taking that profit with them.

Which returns neatly to my other point. The overwhelming majority of customers aren't bothered by caps. I'm afraid it's a fact.

So, if there's no legal obligation to not have caps, and most of the paying customers don't care either way......what's the problem?

Answer: the problem is a few people on here who cannot accept that their strongly held view is not typical of most of ntl's customers.

Remember, I speak here as someone who doesn't really like caps and would be happier if there were none. But I'm realistic about it.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And once again you've totally ignored the fact that I specified that this was not a mandated responsibility. With a non-mandated responsibility the company can choose to ignore if if they so wish, as NTL have done, and frankly this is pretty much par for the course with NTL.

You have such a narrow vision of the whole situation. Yes, NTL are there to make a profit, but they cannot be blindly led by profit alone as they do need customers to make that profit. If they focus purely on profit and not what the customers want they will soon leave, taking that profit with them.

Narrow vision??? pot kettle blah blah.

Customers arten't leaving - the numbers are climbing every quarter. Or do you want to ignore that FACT, as it doesn't suit your agenda?

[NSR]

Hi I'm New! I've been glancing over some of the posts on the forthcoming speed increases. There seems to be a lot of concern on capping, My personal view on this is that NTL's sytem is inadequate for 'ordinary users' (whoever they maybe) as it stands at the moment and any speed increase is welcome and long overdue, as has been stated before.
I digress!

My Comment on Capping
I'm on 750 and access speeds to Webmail is laughable, so I redirect it to Microsoft .
At the moment if you go over the 1Gb daily limit NTL 'backdoor' you on port80, if you use ZA it generates a warning that your computer is being hacked, but ZA has prevented it.(they also hide under the guise of Virgin.net when they do this)
This suggests to me that NTL are already trying to identify errant users, and have the already started to implement their capping strategy.
I have been 'backdoored' by NTL no less than 15 times over the weekend, that's when I do most of my downloading. (and I thought 'hacking' was illegal )

Perhaps someone else can confrim this.

I hope this information is useful and of interest in the Speed Upgrade/Capping debate.
If this has been mentioned before I appologise for not studiously reading every post, as there are quite a lot of them!!!

regards to all
NSR

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And once again you've totally ignored the fact that I specified that this was not a mandated responsibility. With a non-mandated responsibility the company can choose to ignore if if they so wish, as NTL have done, and frankly this is pretty much par for the course with NTL.

You have such a narrow vision of the whole situation. Yes, NTL are there to make a profit, but they cannot be blindly led by profit alone as they do need customers to make that profit. If they focus purely on profit and not what the customers want they will soon leave, taking that profit with them.

Yes, you're quite right, NTL do need customers in order to make a profit. What they don't want are customers that cost a three figure sum to service who only pay a fraction of that for the privilege.

Can you justify why other customers should subsidise the heavy users who don't want to pay the right price for the service they are getting.

Don't you think that the heavy users have a moral responsibility to stop freeloading.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by NSR

[font=Times New Roman][size=4]Hi I'm New! I've been glancing over some of the posts on the forthcoming speed increases. There seems to be a lot of concern on capping, My personal view on this is that NTL's sytem is inadequate for 'ordinary users' (whoever they maybe)<snip>

If you don't know 'who' the normal user is, how can you have an opinion on whether the system is adequate or not?

What do you consider 'normal' use?

[NSR]

I did not say 'normal'

[jtwn]

[DieDieMyDarling]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Narrow vision??? pot kettle blah blah.

Customers arten't leaving - the numbers are climbing every quarter. Or do you want to ignore that FACT, as it doesn't suit your agenda?

Ntl say the numbers are rising every quarter, and BT are boasting how many people leave then come back. Maybe lots of people are joining ntl, when fed up with BT, then find out that BT were actually more reliable. (jesus, i never thought i'd ever make a positive post about BT, i feel dirty now).

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by NSR

I did not say 'normal'

pedant.

ORDINARY then. What's an ordinary user, and what's ordinary use?
__________________

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

Ntl say the numbers are rising every quarter, and BT are boasting how many people leave then come back. Maybe lots of people are joining ntl, when fed up with BT, then find out that BT were actually more reliable. (jesus, i never thought i'd ever make a positive post about BT, i feel dirty now).

speculate all you like. my post was fact.

[Nemesis]

Cap discussions should go in the CAP thread .....

[DieDieMyDarling]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Yes, you're quite right, NTL do need customers in order to make a profit. What they don't want are customers that cost a three figure sum to service who only pay a fraction of that for the privilege.

Can you justify why other customers should subsidise the heavy users who don't want to pay the right price for the service they are getting.

Don't you think that the heavy users have a moral responsibility to stop freeloading.

They do subsidise heavy users. They always have done. All ISP's do. It's all relative. Someone who pays 37.99 now for 1.5mb and uses it to check email, play games a few times a week, and surf a lot (justifying the 1.5mb speed), subsidises someone else who is on the same service but maybe downloads 28GB a month. Same with 300k, lots of people probably just use it to check emails and look around a few forums etc. They subsidise someone else on the same tier who does the same things, but plays a lot of online games and downloads porn every day.

The only way to change this is to charge per MB. Then if someone only uses 120mb a month they pay for exactly that, and someone else who downloads 120GB a month, pays for exactly that. But no company will do that, as they know they have to keep the customers sweet. Subsidisation is a much needed part of the trade.
__________________

Originally Posted by orangebird

pedant.

ORDINARY then. What's an ordinary user, and what's ordinary use?
__________________



speculate all you like. my post was fact.

Your post was based on what NTL claim, not necessarily fact. In the same way that my reply was based on what BT claim, not necessarily fact. Neither company would admit if if they were being hammered. It's business talk. One of them is lying, and i know who my money is on.