*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

[PC_Arcade]

Originally Posted by Neil

Not at all-see my post above.

You realise I was joking right?

I couldn't care less about the cap any more, when and IF NTL contact me regarding use, I will simply cancel all the services I have with them and go to another ISP.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by Neil

(you don't work for ntl do you? )

Dont you be cheeky now, but would contest it in court as being outside the fair contractual terms and conditions.
NTL did not officially informed in writing all existing customers within one month of the change.

[Rone]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

You realise I was joking right?

I couldn't care less about the cap any more, when and IF NTL contact me regarding use, I will simply cancel all the services I have with them and go to another ISP.

Thats my current view as well. Customer services contacted me about my switch back to BT etc. I told them i was keeping the broadband until i knew more. He seemed to think it was short sighted of ntl, but he agreed most people wont be affected. [Not until all their kids get older and discover peer to peer etc]. Neither did he think it was going to be a very immediate speed increase.
I told him the phone was the most urgent in case i required adsl sooner or later, and thats the current state of play.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Dont you be cheeky now, but would contest it in court as being outside the fair contractual terms and conditions.
NTL did not officially informed in writing all existing customers within one month of the change.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that you are not in a position to say that all peeps who registered pre Feb 03 are unnaffected.

As you know, I'm totally against the way they have gone about it, & would also like to see ntl (or any company for that matter) make it stick in court.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Neil

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that you are not in a position to say that all peeps who registered pre Feb 03 are unnaffected.

As you know, I'm totally against the way they have gone about it, & would also like to see ntl (or any company for that matter) make it stick in court.

Whether the terms & conditions were fair or not would have to be decided in the courts but who would risk the expense of a court hearing if their broadband service was terminated?

If a customers broadband contract was cancelled because of the breach of the "soft" cap there is every chance that it could be terminated because of the breach of other sections of the T&Cs which have existed from the start of broadband.

[Chrysalis]

I think the soft cap breach probably wouldn't stick in court mainly because NTL didn't notify customers in the proper manner but to be honest if it came to a court case I am sure NTL could bring up some other part of their AUP to force breach of contract.

I just wish it was as easy to change providers as a lot of people make out, there is reasons why people dont simply move from ntl, stress of moving, lack of adsl in area, landlord restrictions. Its not like changing adsl providers it involves changing landline provider, changing tv provider as well as having a new isp and to a lot of people they probably just cant be bothered. I think this is what saves ntl from mass walkout. I have a new question tho.

Lets say this scenario occurs.

NTL have a cap in place to maintain QOS, but lots of AOL cable customers in area downloading 150 gig a month and congestion issues, would this affect NTL customers on same ubr or are they seperatly allocated bandwidth.

[DieDieMyDarling]

Would ntl risk taking it to court? I can just see the headlines... 'ntl change T's & C's without informing customers' - 'customer taken to court because of ntl's mis-management', etc.

I really don't think ntl would want it as news, it might put off future customers. Regardless of it being right or wrong.

IF something like this were to happen, i think it would be a media hot spot, certainly in the communications industry. It's the case that would set a precident for future cases. And i'm sure whoever the person was going to court would have his costs paid for, by some anti-cap group, or media company, wanting their story.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

Would ntl risk taking it to court? I can just see the headlines... 'ntl change T's & C's without informing customers' - 'customer taken to court because of ntl's mis-management', etc.

I really don't think ntl would want it as news, it might put off future customers. Regardless of it being right or wrong.

IF something like this were to happen, i think it would be a media hot spot, certainly in the communications industry. It's the case that would set a precident for future cases. And i'm sure whoever the person was going to court would have his costs paid for, by some anti-cap group, or media company, wanting their story.

NTL wouldn't take anyone to court would they? All they would do is cease the customers account. If any court action was to take place it would have to be the customer suing NTL for breach of contract and I would hazard a good guess as to who would win.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

NTL have a cap in place to maintain QOS, but lots of AOL cable customers in area downloading 150 gig a month and congestion issues, would this affect NTL customers on same ubr or are they seperatly allocated bandwidth.

I would say that they were on the same UBR as NTL customers and their usage may affect NTL customers. How many AOL via cable customers are there though and how are AOL charged for their use?

Originally Posted by ianathuth

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.

Leased lines are expensive for many reasons. You get a business level service, with guaruntees about reliability and bandwidth. You expect the email servers to be working, for example. Also, leased lines tend to be higher speed than comsumer broadband. In effect they are subsidising the technology until it drops in price enough for consumers. Leased lines have better contention ratios too.

Many ADSL providers seem to be able to supply an unlimited service and make a profit. NTL service is nowhere near a lased line, but to be honest I'd be happy to have a "bare bones" connection without email and news servers if it was unlimited. They are useless anyway, I have Gmail and ClaraNews. How's that for a trade?

One other problem with the cap that no-one has mentioned is DOS attacks. My IP hasn't changed for months. If someone wanted to DOS me, they could flood my downstream overnight. By doing that for a few hours a night (when I wouldn't notice) they could easily run me over the 30GB limit in a few days.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by mojo

Leased lines are expensive for many reasons. You get a business level service, with guaruntees about reliability and bandwidth. You expect the email servers to be working, for example. Also, leased lines tend to be higher speed than comsumer broadband. In effect they are subsidising the technology until it drops in price enough for consumers. Leased lines have better contention ratios too.

I agree with all that but that is what some customers expect for their budget price.

Originally Posted by mojo

Many ADSL providers seem to be able to supply an unlimited service and make a profit. NTL service is nowhere near a lased line, but to be honest I'd be happy to have a "bare bones" connection without email and news servers if it was unlimited. They are useless anyway, I have Gmail and ClaraNews. How's that for a trade?

Who says they are making a profit? Not much of a trade is it, why not pay the going rate for the kind of service that you want.

Originally Posted by mojo

One other problem with the cap that no-one has mentioned is DOS attacks. My IP hasn't changed for months. If someone wanted to DOS me, they could flood my downstream overnight. By doing that for a few hours a night (when I wouldn't notice) they could easily run me over the 30GB limit in a few days.

Are you that important that you think you are in danger of a DOS attack. Many customers would pay extra for a fixed IP. Another point is do you know what traffic NTL will count towards the cap. It all won't count.

[Hans Gruber]

ianathuth will all your posts on this thread count towards the cap? If they do I think we're all in trouble.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by mojo

<snip>
One other problem with the cap that no-one has mentioned is DOS attacks. My IP hasn't changed for months. If someone wanted to DOS me, they could flood my downstream overnight. By doing that for a few hours a night (when I wouldn't notice) they could easily run me over the 30GB limit in a few days.

Unless you spend your life winding up script and packet kiddies, the chances are you won't be DOS'd.

If you are, NTL are likely to get in touch regardless of any cap.

[sleepless]

Originally Posted by mojo

Leased lines are expensive for many reasons. You get a business level service, with guaruntees about reliability and bandwidth. You expect the email servers to be working, for example. Also, leased lines tend to be higher speed than comsumer broadband. In effect they are subsidising the technology until it drops in price enough for consumers. Leased lines have better contention ratios too.

The leased lines I used to sell did not come with any additional services like email or news. It was a straight connection with possibly a domain attached. Speeds started from 64k up to several MB. A single IP and router usually came with the connection. Prices were quite a lot more than consumer broadband, the price dependent on the distance to your property. Put it this way, A 256kb leased line to, say Cardiff, would cost in excess of £10,000 for the first year. Most of that cost went to BT.

*Disclaimer: I haven't sold Leased Lines for a couple of years but I do recall a rather large difference in price (and service level).

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

ianathuth will all your posts on this thread count towards the cap? If they do I think we're all in trouble.

And that will be the last personal remark you make here.

Thank you.

[Ignition]

This is in reply to a post in another thread, as all posts to do wtih capping are supposed to go in here:

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

It does kind of show people would be willing to pay the extra needed for an uncapped service. I used to pay a fortune on my modem, but I've tried to block that from memory

I would very very much disagree, people as a whole are now very used to low bills for their internet and various surveys have shown that the vast majority of people aren't interested in how fast but how cheap their internet is.

Also the same people who want the uncapped services tend to be the same who download lots - check out Supanet, Bulldog, various Telefonica resellers on ADSLGuide, issues presently with Supanet and Telefonica resellers, BD have had nightmares in the past.

Cheap bandwidth attracts heavy usage which causes problems due to abnormally high expenditure being required to support services.

Times have changed, there's a big difference between wanting any sort of internet service and an uncapped one.

Of course if people are really interested in uncapped services I imagine a few hundred quid a month would cover as much as you wish.

Or of course just go to DSL and find a provider that will let you download as much as you like. Just don't complain when they go the way of Plusnet or Supanet and end up traffic shaping you because they can't make enough money to support your usage in their business model.

Or there's the Bulldog option of just letting the network go into meltdown of course.