*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

[Graham F]

so i guess we will never find out, as none of you are taking ntl to court

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Graham F

so i guess we will never find out, as none of you are taking ntl to court

I'm willing to bet that ntl will not be taking anyone to court either.

[Graham F]

why would they

they would just cut you off surely?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

To me that's the reason they are introducing caps. If they cap the service before these services take off NTL can charge what they like once they start running their own services. People will be none the wiser that these kind of services previously existed freely and will just assume they'd have to pay NTL to use them.

We're coming to a point where the internet is being governed by the ISPs profits. It is in no way of any benefit for the customer.

What I don't get it why people, who claim to go nowhere near the limit, are so pro-cap. Surely it won't affect them one way or the other? Overloaded areas will still be overloaded, and other areas will still have plenty of bandwidth to go round. If you live in a bad area now, just wait till people are downloading at 3mbit.

Good point, if you in a congested area the cap wont make any difference you will still suffer and have a cap to add to it, all a cap will do is decrease early morning activity peak time usage will stay the same. Seems to me recent changes are governed for the shareholders, my last 3 email's sent to ntl customer feedback have had no reply, I have had no email notification of ntl pre warning me about future caps (BT issued emails to its customers as stated earlier in thread), I just feel unwanted by ntl and they want my money and dont care. Forgive me if this offends you but I have very low satisfaction of my service at the moment, I pay my money to ntl and I have the right to feel this way. I also think people leaving will hurt ntl, these people leaving may be paying for sky sports and movies every month as well and a premium pone package so a 3 figure sum monthly, 50-100k of these wiped of the turnover sheet makes ntl a weaker company, weaker in credit, weaker in contract negotiations and weaker in publicity. Thats why so many people have worked out here that these packages really havent been thought though, even if they are making a loss on some customers its good business practice to accomodate them so why the power package only offers a 40 gig limit is down to the shareholders and their pockets.

You think pipex,nildram,plusnet and others make a profit on all their users then you are wrong, but what is important is they make a profit on their userbase as a whole and keep a good reputation while they at by keeping their customers happy.

I run a webhosting company and for £3.50 a month a customer can potentially use 15 gig traffic a month, and if they do use it I will make a loss on that customer but what happens if the customer uses that 15 gig? do I kick them off for making me a loss or do I accept it, I accept it and be glad they are happy with the service because I know 1 happy customer is likely to tell his friends and bring me more customers and I get high retention this is proper business practice. I hope ntl executives are reading and learning.

Well said Chrysalis. I remember when Demon were having mail problems (a rare occourance, they are no NTL) they posted almost hourly status reports. One mentioned "mad pop3ers" who checked their email every five minutes (this was pre-broadband). They also said that was fine. I had a friend who used to stay connected 24/7 on dial-up to them. His bills used to show 100+ hour phone calls costing £0.00, and they didn't mind. I only left them because it took them so long to get the free calls thing going. If I hadn't, I'd be on ADSL now...

Chrysalis hit the nail on the head. Sadly, NTL seems to be at the mercy of shareholders. All companies that answer to shareholders seem to turn "evil" pretty quickly

[DieDieMyDarling]

The way ntl are introducing the caps says it all really, when they changed the AUP in the first place, they did it in secret, overnight, sneakily, and now with these caps, there's no information made available to the cumstomers, most people will probably never even know there's a cap being enforced, it won't be mentioned in the adverts, there won't be any letters or emails, we'll only find out on here, because some people know where to find information like this out. Bt send out their letters/emails in November (i think it was november), stating that caps would be introduced in 2005.

Ntl's cap is apparently being introduced in the first quarter of 2005, yet there's nothing being mentioned. So they're happy enough to take on all the new customers, not telling them of any caps that are planned, then any new customer that joins, only to find out their useage is capped, can't really complain, as ntl reserve the right to change the T&C any time they wish.

Would new customers be different, as they'll have signed into an initial 12 month contract, and thus their T&C can't be changed in that time?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

The way ntl are introducing the caps says it all really, when they changed the AUP in the first place, they did it in secret, overnight, sneakily, and now with these caps, there's no information made available to the cumstomers, most people will probably never even know there's a cap being enforced, it won't be mentioned in the adverts, there won't be any letters or emails, we'll only find out on here, because some people know where to find information like this out. Bt send out their letters/emails in November (i think it was november), stating that caps would be introduced in 2005.

Ntl's cap is apparently being introduced in the first quarter of 2005, yet there's nothing being mentioned. So they're happy enough to take on all the new customers, not telling them of any caps that are planned, then any new customer that joins, only to find out their useage is capped, can't really complain, as ntl reserve the right to change the T&C any time they wish.

Would new customers be different, as they'll have signed into an initial 12 month contract, and thus their T&C can't be changed in that time?

NTL have given no information to customers because the new service has not started yet. There is plenty of time to notify customers before the new service starts. Existing customers will not be automatically put on the new service but will have to apply for it, terms and conditions being given to them at that time so that they can either agree to them and go ahead or disagree and stay as they are now. I would imagine that eventually customers who have not asked to move to the new service will be moved on to it with adequate notice and they would then have the option to agree the new terms or cancel their service.

Customers within their 12 month contract CAN have their terms and conditions altered but they then have the right to cancel that contract if the changes are substantial

A point that Chrysalis was making that "even if they are making a loss on some customers its good business practice to accomodate them" is flawed if that accomodation of them results in massive expenditure or massive disruption to other users. If you consider a UBR with several really heavy users on it that are disrupting every users service on that UBR you have the coice of getting the heavy users to modify their usage or upgrading the infrastructure to cater for them. If the necessary infrastructure upgrade will cost several thousand pounds is that a choice that should be made. Someone has to pay for that upgrade.

[DieDieMyDarling]

I disagree. BT informed their customers BEFORE it happened, a few months in advance. THey were told in November, of changes that would take place in the first quarter of 2005.

And we can only judge ntl by it's history, it didn't tell customers of the AUP change,

The idea that people could stay as they are, is flawed. If I was a heavy user, and was downloading as much as i possibly could, of course i'd stay on the old contract, getting 1.5mb with only a guide of how much i should download. So, if ntl are indeed trying to get rid of / slowdown heavy users, then this wouldn't help at all. Although, saying that, ntl aren't renowned for doing things 'right'.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

I disagree. BT informed their customers BEFORE it happened, a few months in advance. THey were told in November, of changes that would take place in the first quarter of 2005.

The speed increases and "hard" caps haven't happened yet. NTL can still inform its customers before they happen.

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

And we can only judge ntl by it's history, it didn't tell customers of the AUP change,

Have you read the terms and conditions regarding changes in the AUP?

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

The idea that people could stay as they are, is flawed. If I was a heavy user, and was downloading as much as i possibly could, of course i'd stay on the old contract, getting 1.5mb with only a guide of how much i should download. So, if ntl are indeed trying to get rid of / slowdown heavy users, then this wouldn't help at all. Although, saying that, ntl aren't renowned for doing things 'right'.

There can be at least two possibilities here. The current "soft" cap could be hardened for customers staying on the old contract or other sections of the T&Cs could be applied. Also the old contract could be altered to provide "hard" caps.

NTL seem to be offering the majority of its customers an excellent deal. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

A point that Chrysalis was making that "even if they are making a loss on some customers its good business practice to accomodate them" is flawed if that accomodation of them results in massive expenditure or massive disruption to other users. If you consider a UBR with several really heavy users on it that are disrupting every users service on that UBR you have the coice of getting the heavy users to modify their usage or upgrading the infrastructure to cater for them. If the necessary infrastructure upgrade will cost several thousand pounds is that a choice that should be made. Someone has to pay for that upgrade.

That's a very short sighted view to take. Eventually, the upgrade will have to be done anyway. Broadband speeds will keep increasing and NTL will have to keep up. I don't think people really understand what broadband is about in this country. Video on demand, downloadable video rentals, the BBCs back catalogue... these are just the tip of the iceberg. Already, I don't want the news on TV any more, I just watch it on the BBC web site so I can pick the stories I'm interested in. With 2mb the quality could be better, but assuming it uses 75% of the available bandwidth you could only watch for about an hour and a half a day, less if you surf.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by mojo

That's a very short sighted view to take. Eventually, the upgrade will have to be done anyway. Broadband speeds will keep increasing and NTL will have to keep up. I don't think people really understand what broadband is about in this country. Video on demand, downloadable video rentals, the BBCs back catalogue... these are just the tip of the iceberg. Already, I don't want the news on TV any more, I just watch it on the BBC web site so I can pick the stories I'm interested in. With 2mb the quality could be better, but assuming it uses 75% of the available bandwidth you could only watch for about an hour and a half a day, less if you surf.

The main point that most people are tending to forget is the cost of broadband services. Yes, there is a lot that you can do with broadband that may be a problem with having a cap. The question you should be asking yourself is "am I prepared to pay a realistic amount for the service level of broadband that I require". Some customers expect the equivalent of a leased line service at a budget price which can never happen.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by orangebird

No Towny, that's not the reason. It IS enforceable, because as part of the T&Cs states that it is the CUSTOMERS responsibility to check the AUP regularly themselves, not ntls to announce every change. Like it or not, that's the LEGAL and BINDING way it is

Thats if you accepted that version of the terms and conditions on sign up not applicable to people who signed up prior to the terms changing

Prior to the 7th of Febuary 2003 seems to be the time

Thank you

[PC_Arcade]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Thats if you accepted that version of the terms and conditions on sign up not applicable to people who signed up prior to the terms changing

Prior to the 7th of Febuary 2003 seems to be the time

Thank you

That's me in the clear then

[Neil]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Thats if you accepted that version of the terms and conditions on sign up not applicable to people who signed up prior to the terms changing

Prior to the 7th of Febuary 2003 seems to be the time

Thank you

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

Even if you signed up on 01/01/03, you agreed to a set of T's & C's that could be changed at any given time-that is what you agreed to like it or not.

Now I'm not saying that is right, but to imply that people who signed up prior is nothing short of midsleading (you don't work for ntl do you? )

[Neil]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

That's me in the clear then

Not at all-see my post above.