[Merged] NTL Increasing BB Speeds Late Summer 2004

[trebor]

Originally Posted by dev

i can't wait for people to start complaining about speed problems, remember you asked for the speed increase so dont complain if you have speed problems

the only sort of speed problem I ever had with NTL was the stopped kind.
it never went just slowly it always had to stop working

but having said that if they do increase the speed and sort a few other things out as well, like, billing,telephone wait times, capped services,email servers, news servers, proxy servers, general reliability of the network, have I missed anything? I may consider having just the broadband service off them again

[Neil]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

The speed increases can only be seen as a positive measure by NTL as its broadband customers will have up to 100% extra download speed.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

I see that their press releases do mention doubling of speed but you have to look further to see that this only applies to 150k customers and as far as I know those that are getting their broadband through the STB already get up to 256k so 300k isn't that much of an increase.

PR BS I'm afraid-I personally find it insulting to ntl customers that they emphasise the 100% increase, when that will apply to very very few customers.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

What does this increase in speed actually mean to users and what does it cost NTL to give it?

It means that customers will be able to hit/exceed the cap faster.

I don't know how much it actually costs ntl.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

The vast majority of users will still continue to do the same things at the same time and will hardly notice that their speed has been increased. Most users do not continually download large files so they will notice that any such download is quicker and they will take up the available download bandwidth for a shorter period of time.

Again, agreed.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

It is largely game players who want to host games that should benefit along with users who want to download files 24/7 for whatever reason. Also households with more than one computer networked to use the one connection should benefit where the users are all online at the same time and using bandwidth hungry applications.

Not really, as it is upload that is important to those people you have descrbed above, & that appears to be staying the same.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

It will probably cost NTL very little to implement these new speeds and they may recoup what it does cost by retaining users that may have thought of leaving or recruiting new users. If I was an AOL customer using their broadband via the NTL network I would certainly think about going direct to NTL for it and save £3 a month and have a potentially faster service.

The AOL service hasn't been running long enough for customers to be able to get out of their 1 year contract I don't think, & why opt into a new

Originally Posted by ianathuth

The one big question that needs answering is that of the alleged cap.

It's not an 'alledged' cap at all Ian, it's very real.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Will NTL suddenly start enforcing this more in order to throttle back the heavy users who will have more bandwidth available. Will they use this speed increase as an opportunity to admit that the "cap" was not thought out very well and to adjust it more in line with suggestions made through these forums.

ntl will not admit what a c0ck up they made with the cap IMHO, & they will continue to treat their customers poorly as that is their attitude at the top.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

As with most things in life, we will have to wait and see what transpires, only time will tell.

Agreed-again!!

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Pem

LOL, what would we do without you to dampen our joy eh Neil

Didn't I read somewhere in here that if a TW customer only takes BB then they have to pay a bit extra so there price difference disappears ?

Yes, it does indeed.

[Hell's Child]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

The 300k increase could be construed as giving nothing but a speed increase as permitted usage has not increased, which was my point. £1.50 imo is way better to pay over NTL's price for the entry band service for no restriction.

Can you realisticly say this will affect the "average" user? The majority of 150k (300k) use it because it is comparable on price with dial up, but they get a faster service that doesn't tie the phone up. The cap is irrelivant as, not only would it be difficlut to hit the 1GB limit, but also very unlikley!
If it's your opinion, i'm not arguing with it, I am not saying you are wrong i'm just pointing out that when you add some figures to the equasion, the number of people it would have a detrimental effect to or make worthwhile to go to adsl is quite small.

the new 750k has yes still the same permitted usage and lesser upstream speed.

Again, this will not affect the avarage user who tend to use the 600k service for DOWNLOADING.

adsl still offer a 1mb service @ considerably reduced cost in comparrison to NTL, with no usage maximum. The adsl 2mb service is considerably lower than NTL's 1.5mb also with no maximum usage.

These are the people it does effect.. i've already admitted that!!!


As ntl have recently started sending usage letters this has and will probably become more of an issue than it has been since the cap was introduced.

There are other adsl providers offering lower prices for restriced services similar to NTL's and/or out of hours service, ie bulldog primetime.

Bulldog....ÂÂƚ£15.99 a month for 150K?? why not pay £2 more and get double the speed??? To me, at least IMO, it doesn't seem logical that somebody would do that.

NTL would have been far better off just doubling all packages and increasing the cap, with maybe a small fee increase of £2-3 on each the higher tiers, which they have done on the 1mb.

When comparing you have to look at all aspects of the service comparrison.

price speed what restrictions/caps

I have already mentioned my marketing dept. has told me the cap will be reviewed in line with the speed upgrades so I have looked a the picture.

We only have 3 teirs... why should they double the 600k for example to 1.2meg and only charge £25-28 when the other cable co's charge £35?
They have doubled the lower end and not increased the price.
You seem happy with what they have done with the 1mb, but are unhappy with the cap. But, with greatest respect, this isn't a discussion about the cap, it's about the increase in the speeds.

[Hell's Child]

PR BS I'm afraid-I personally find it insulting to ntl customers that they emphasise the 100% increase, when that will apply to very very few customers.

But it isn't. I have already posted on here that 66% (approx.) of ntl's customers are on the 150k (soon to be 300k) service, so in fact a MAJORITY of the customers will get a 100% increase.

66% of 1million... 660,000.... that isn't a few!!!! (haha I still needed a calculator to work that out )

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Hell's Child

But it isn't. I have already posted on here that 66% (approx.) of ntl's customers are on the 150k (soon to be 300k) service, so in fact a MAJORITY of the customers will get a 100% increase.

66% of 1million... 660,000.... that isn't a few!!!! (haha I still needed a calculator to work that out )

Which makes a total mockery of ntl's claims that they have 1 million broadband customers (they have always been very tight lipped about how many are on 150k, but now we know thanks to you!!)

So according to you (& Oftel/Com), ntl only actually have 330,000 high speed broadband customers (I.E over 512k)?

Not a very good showing really is it? & you have just confirmed my 'ntl PR BS' comment by admitting their statement of 1m BB customers is in fact little more than BS.

Thanks!

[Edit]

NTL reckons it's top dog for broadband after announcing today that it has become the first UK ISP to rack up one million broadband customers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03..._1m_broadband/

Said the cableco's chief exec, Simon Duffy: "NTL continues to be the driving force behind the growth of broadband in the UK. We are proud to be the first ISP to have over one million homes connected to broadband

Not quite Mr Duffy-660,000 150k customers & (therefore) 330,000 600k/1MB customers does not equate to 1m BB customers I'm afraid.

the quality of our service sets the standard in the UK. We have rapidly become the European standard bearer for broadband cable."

What a complete joke/load of BS-ntl are nowhere near the standard bearer they make out to be-if that were the case then they would have announced the speed increases & TW would have copied them out of panic (not the other way round )

That may the case, but there are plenty of people who question NTL's claim.

With good reason too.

The reason is that NTL flogs a high-speed 150k service that many consumers and industry insiders in the UK reckon just isn't broadband.-

It isn't.

Thanks for ending the speculation behind ntl's BS tho 'HC', much appreciated.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Hell's Child

But it isn't. I have already posted on here that 66% (approx.) of ntl's customers are on the 150k (soon to be 300k) service, so in fact a MAJORITY of the customers will get a 100% increase.

66% of 1million... 660,000.... that isn't a few!!!! (haha I still needed a calculator to work that out )

Which is a pretty significant increase - 5-6 times faster than dial up (lets face it you normally connect at about 52k). I would imagine there are users who will downgrade from 600k to this and others that now will not upgrade.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Neil

Which makes a total mockery of ntl's claims that they have 1 million broadband customers (they have always been very tight lipped about how many are on 150k, but now we know thanks to you!!)

So according to you (& Oftel/Com), ntl only actually have 330,000 high speed broadband customers (I.E over 512k)?

Not a very good showing really is it? & you have just confirmed my 'ntl PR BS' comment by admitting their statement of 1m BB customers is in fact little more than BS.

Thanks!

Not quite Neil.....

As per the Ofcom ruling, 150k is not highspeed bb, but it is indeed bb...

[Nemesis]

/gets chair and popcorn

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

/gets chair and popcorn

Don't forget how you wasted your popcorn last time...

[Hell's Child]

Originally Posted by Neil

Which makes a total mockery of ntl's claims that they have 1 million broadband customers (they have always been very tight lipped about how many are on 150k, but now we know thanks to you!!)

So according to you (& Oftel/Com), ntl only actually have 330,000 high speed broadband customers (I.E over 512k)?

Not a very good showing really is it? & you have just confirmed my 'ntl PR BS' comment by admitting their statement of 1m BB customers is in fact little more than BS.

To be fair, this isn't about whether ntl have 1mill HIGHSPEED broadband customers is it?!?

But as ob stated, 150k is recognised as broadband, and for certain 300k will be so the claim is valid. the satement says 1mill broadband customers, not once does it state "1 million high speed broadband customers"

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Hell's Child

Can you realisticly say this will affect the "average" user? The majority of 150k (300k) use it because it is comparable on price with dial up, but they get a faster service that doesn't tie the phone up. The cap is irrelivant as, not only would it be difficlut to hit the 1GB limit, but also very unlikley!
If it's your opinion, i'm not arguing with it, I am not saying you are wrong i'm just pointing out that when you add some figures to the equasion, the number of people it would have a detrimental effect to or make worthwhile to go to adsl is quite small.


Again, this will not affect the avarage user who tend to use the 600k service for DOWNLOADING.


These are the people it does effect.. i've already admitted that!!!


As ntl have recently started sending usage letters this has and will probably become more of an issue than it has been since the cap was introduced.

Bulldog....ÂÂƚ£15.99 a month for 150K?? why not pay £2 more and get double the speed??? To me, at least IMO, it doesn't seem logical that somebody would do that.


I have already mentioned my marketing dept. has told me the cap will be reviewed in line with the speed upgrades so I have looked a the picture.

We only have 3 teirs... why should they double the 600k for example to 1.2meg and only charge £25-28 when the other cable co's charge £35?
They have doubled the lower end and not increased the price.
You seem happy with what they have done with the 1mb, but are unhappy with the cap. But, with greatest respect, this isn't a discussion about the cap, it's about the increase in the speeds.

1. I would have thought NTL wasnt just after keeping customers but gaining more and hopefully some from adsl.
2. Bulldog primetime was an example directed at the higher tiers not the lowend package. remember theres a lot more adsl providers than there are cable. You can get unrestricted 256k ADSL from other providers @ £1.50 over NTL's future 300k.
3. Obviously everyone will look forward to increased cap and increased upstream but till theres any official announcement they are just nothing more than maybe we would get them.
4. As for the 600k sorry, Iv allways known it as 512 even though I allways had 600k when I was on that tier. so to double it I meant double 512.
5. I fail to see why NTL should be comparing against other cable providers, who currently bear no competition against NTL. ADSL is your competition and so you need to be looking @ what adsl is offering.

As I said its a move in the right direction, but I had 1mb before I dropped to back to the middle tier. I see now after looking that I can get adsl 1mb for £26 no restriction. And as I can hook up for 3 months contract with line activation at £29 it may well be worth me trying it. And then as long as my line can take it I can get 2mb later when I need it at less £'s than NTL's 1.5mb. Then theres the potential of the 4mb and 6mb tiers thats becoming available, although currently only in central london. We of course hope this spreads further afield and look forward to a future lowest tier of 500k from both cable and ADSL.
So despite this increase ADSL seems to remain ahead of cable.

as for announcing any raise in the cap how long does it take to work out that as downstream speed has increased by 25%-100% that the guidance cap should also be increased with in the same region at least. meaning at max you would increase the guidance cap to 2GB. The cap is NTL's worst point and therefore they should have kicked the increase round the table of ideas at the same time. The whole threads response would have been far more positive if they had.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by Hell's Child

This is my marketing dept. telling me that it is being looked into. That's enough of an authority for me at the moment. I am not saying they will up the cap but that they are looking into the possibility.

ok, cheers, thanks for claritying that.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

5. I fail to see why NTL should be comparing against other cable providers, who currently bear no competition against NTL. ADSL is your competition and so you need to be looking @ what adsl is offering.

Because although they are not the competition the blueyonder has done a lot to market BB takeup in the UK and innovation on their network promotes questions from NTL users as to why NTL cannot offer the same.

Similar I suppose to comparing an American Airlines flight from LHR to NY to a Thai Airways flight from LHR to Bankok. You cannot use the alternate carrier, but you can compare the service you get for your money.

[erol]

Originally Posted by erol

With dialup there is 'contention' issue in terms

OK first off I'll get the appologies out of the way

appologies for replying to my own post.

appologies if this is off topic and should go somewhere else (please move it as appropriate)

appologies if this is of no interest to anyone.

I was thinking some more about ways to explain the idea that higher speed connections generally can support higher contention ratio. I think I have a way that helps make the point clearer (and some other about contention) - that uses my favourite tool - an analogy (analogy warning - analogy are not exact comparisions but ones designed to highlight a particular aspect only. Outside of that aspect they usualy break down horribly).

So in the analogy imagine that

The shared resource of a contented data pipe (where ever that contetion might be - first/last mile, middle mile or external connectivity) is a public toilet.

A users connection speed relates to how quickly they can 'evacuate' themselves. A 1mbs users takes half the time to 'evacuate' as a 512kbs user.

Contention then becomes when you go to use the toilet and it is already in use and you have to wait.

Once you do this then the point (that the more you increase a users speed the more contention you can stand) becomes (I hope) much clearer. Because people spend less time doing their doings (as their connection/ evacuation speed increases) they are in and out of the toilet quicker and thus the chance that when you go to use the toilet it is already occupied is lower. Thus you can increase the number of people sharing the toilet when you increase their evacuation speed. This of course has the implicit assumption that just because people can now evacuate quicker they do not decide to evacuate more.

This analogy (imo) is also useful a looking at some other contention ideas. Like the idea that contending more people on a larger pipe has less impact on users than less people on a small pipe at the same contention ratio.

If you imagine a public toilet with a single bowl being shared by say 20 people - giving a TCR (toilet contention ratio) of 20:1
and then imagine a public toilet with 10 bowls being shared by say 200 people - giving the same TCR of 20:1

In the first example a single indivdual that takes ages and ages to evacuate is all it takes to cause severe blockage (possibly not the right term given the anaology used). In the second example it would take 20 such 'long time' evacuators - all evacuating at the same time, which is a lot less likely than there being one. Thus in general terms the bigger the shared pipe, shared by more users is, at constant contention ratios the less impact (relative to small pipe with less users at same contetion)

The analogy can also be used to look at the CAP and heavy / abusive users as well.

In this analogy data volumes downloaded (or uploaded) relate to amount evacuated.

NTL currently define toliet abuse as being based on the amount people evacuate. However there may be a user that whilst they evacuate 10 or even 100 times more than the 'average' user they always do so between the hours of midnight and 5am in a massive evacuation session, and in a public toilet of say 20 bowls shared between 400 people (TCR 20:1). This user NEVER causes another persons usage of the public toilet to be blocked - yet by NTL's definition they are an toilet abuser. This then is the most basic (but not only) flaw with the NTL cap as it currently exists.

I hope that this 'toilet' approach to some issues surrounding contention makes the issues both easier to understand and a little less 'dry'