1GB Cap Letter!!!!

[centaurxprc]

This 1 Gig cap letter. Will the traffic attributed to us include all the ARP and other users' DHCP protocol traffic that keeps my down stream VERY busy? If yes they need to design a better network before they start charging that way.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by centaurxprc

This 1 Gig cap letter. Will the traffic attributed to us include all the ARP and other users' DHCP protocol traffic that keeps my down stream VERY busy? If yes they need to design a better network before they start charging that way.

Hi we asked this question when the news broke allegidly NTL where going to investigate monitoring software.

And power users.

[centaurxprc]

Yeah perhaps. But you can't stop ARP and dhcp requets/renewals being seen at ur c/m i/f though plus all the other stuff that wanders down. Also are they gonna take out unsuccessful web requests that fail because THEIR poxy proxy servers won't perform. They need to think about this quite hard otherwise we may all have a case to say they are not perfoming according to their own contracts with us.

[Sociable]

Soory Noob but you appear to be the one making it personal still.

Yes we know you think there is nothing to worry about with the cap.

Red repping and pi$$ing off anyone that disagrees with you won't change the fact we disagree and intend to continue pressing NTL for some level of compromise that will both help them solve the congestion problems and save them from pi$$ing off so many customers.

Both of these will, in the end, help increase NTL's profitability and protect NTL jobs. Continuing as they are to carry on regardless with an unfair AUP that doesn't even do the job it was designed to will not.

Please try and be a little more constructive in your comments and show that compromise is possible as right now the way you are taking all this so personally is detracting from a worthwhile debate about possible ways forward for NTL as far as the whole issue of the AUP is concerned.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Shame more people don't use chatroom really could induce more real time debate on these issues.

I am not apologising for anything by the way. I insulted no-one personally, seems fine for people to insult an organisation I'm connected to but I can't comment on the anticap organisation I guess. Fair enough. I really am leaving this thread now, I've no more to contribute and it'll just go round in circles as it has for a while I think. Same kind of story as the original thread - really there's not that much of value to say on the subject and it soon gets digressed from.

If being honest pi$$es anyone off, that's their problem not mine, saying what I think as is my right last time I checked.

Here's a little food for thought though, no news to me, UK ISPs have been looking at metering etc for some time:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/n...FVluyZMVUvxBrP

This does seem to be going around in circles and not going anywhere.......

[Chrysalis]

heh check this

"The VNUNet item highlights that roughly 5% of ISP customers could be classed as 'heavy users', yet they account for an estimated 55% of all traffic."

I thought ntl said 1% users use 90%, seems a bit off.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

You tell me, your the one reverts to oh so hilarious insults 'Originally Posted by JustAnotherN0b' tee-ho, pure professionalism at work, nice to see you so able to take criticism without getting personal.

Just for your information EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, Amortisation. Take this off and the whole financial picture isn't so nice. It's easy to forget that ntl is still a company with a fairly unpleasant debt burden as it's come through a lot and the light is most definitely there at the end of the tunnel.

Of course you seem to think the financial health of the provider and the jobs of its' 14,000 staff don't affect you, so why should you care (to turn your argument about not caring about others back at you).

Thanks for proving my points though, you missed ISPA Awards I'm afraid so the 2 of you won't be able to stand outside there with a banner or whatever fighting the good fight.



Counters on Cisco kit count traffic passed over IP IE layer 4 protocols, ARP and DHCP are both layer 3 or below. Hope that helps.

I almost considered not responding to this rant.

One issue - 14000 staff and health of the provider. Of course we have an interest. It is ultimately the paying customer that enables the company to have a chance of remaining healthy and keeping it's staff employed. If the company does something that the customers are not happy about, those customers may leave, new ones don't join (which is harder retaining customers of winning new ones?), revenues fall, staff get laid off, etc. I hope that the company will sit up and listen, as by finding the means to provide customers what they actually want will enable the company to remain healthy.

Your post suggests it is correct for the company to do as it wants, with a take it or leave it attitude to it's customers. That short sighted view sums up much that is wrong with ntl, and why it will always be the subject of attention from sites like this and anticap.

[Stuartbe]

Dont forget - Without customers there is no company...... The customer is the companys most important asset. !!!!!!!

[rodd]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

heh check this

"The VNUNet item highlights that roughly 5% of ISP customers could be classed as 'heavy users', yet they account for an estimated 55% of all traffic."

I thought ntl said 1% users use 90%, seems a bit off.

Whichever figures are correct, getting just a few % of them taking advantage of the normal sleeping hours for more of their heavy download usage, would improve whatever situation there happened to be at present.

Those 'normal sleeping hours' do not need monitoring, since there would be no disruption to other users pleasure by way of congestion. It is so simple to do, just take those 'normal sleeping hours' outside of the cap, there is no specialist monitoring equipment needed either.

The benefits are obvious, and ntl would even be able to claim that do not have a blanket 24 hour cap. I would have thought that propaganda incentive, alone, would have enticed ntl into such a change.

I would say that the normal sleeping hours for this purpose would be something like - after midnight and about 7am, give or take, if thought better. Between those hours, monitoring is switched off, or not done.

No one connected to ntl, or come to that, anyone else, has yet given a valid reason why this should not, or could not be done. I still wait for a valid reason.

[Stuartbe]

I think that heavy use overnight is a good idea...... Its the peak times when users need good pings and fast web pages !

[obvious]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Just for your information EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, Amortisation. Take this off and the whole financial picture isn't so nice. It's easy to forget that ntl is still a company with a fairly unpleasant debt burden as it's come through a lot and the light is most definitely there at the end of the tunnel.

Thanks for that. I'll write it down in my diary. Saturday 21st Feb - ntl says that "high margin" = "low margin" then goes on to prove black is white and gets itself killed on the next zebra crossing (Sorry DA).

Of course you seem to think the financial health of the provider and the jobs of its' 14,000 staff don't affect you, so why should you care (to turn your argument about not caring about others back at you).

ntl's bottom line is crucial to the whole argument. The point is that now that they've done a debt for equity swap AND there may be more on the cards AND they've paid of some of the debt AND broadband is profitable, how can they justify squeezing the users? They cant gloat about profitability on the one hand and persecute high users on the other. It's supposed to be an umnmetered service with the low users balancing out the high users. If ntl think they can swap to a pay per byte model and get away with it, I suggest they try it.

Thanks for proving my points though, you missed ISPA Awards I'm afraid so the 2 of you won't be able to stand outside there with a banner or whatever fighting the good fight.

And who else missed out on the ISPAs this year? ntl weren't in the running cos they didn't meet the service level criteria. Sad but true.

[obvious]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

heh check this

"The VNUNet item highlights that roughly 5% of ISP customers could be classed as 'heavy users', yet they account for an estimated 55% of all traffic."

I thought ntl said 1% users use 90%, seems a bit off.

Well spotted. It just goes to show how ntl top level management have been more than happy to lie through their teeth even when the truth would have sufficed in the first place.

Will anyone defend ntl claiming that 1% of users accounted for 90% of traffic?

Hi

First let me put on my flame suit.

quote
Here's a little food for thought though, no news to me, UK ISPs have been looking at metering etc for some time:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/n...FVluyZMVUvxBrP[/QUOTE]


This link has a point on it that struck a cord with me. Users on here say that they download legal stuff from sites that allow pay for content, Download Linux distro's and stuff like that.

My point is the comment "leading to their consideration of unpopular measures such as port throttling P2P sites"

For me that would not be a problem as any stuff i download is not from p2p and therefor would not be affected by port throttling. This would cut down on a lot of the high bandwidth that is being used at the moment by those that do download 8-10gig perday day in day out from p2p sites.

Plus if the throttle was only on at peek times you could control the damage that p2p can create.

There flame suit on ready to be shot down.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Optiplex

Hi

First let me put on my flame suit.

This link has a point on it that struck a cord with me. Users on here say that they download legal stuff from sites that allow pay for content, Download Linux distro's and stuff like that.

My point is the comment "leading to their consideration of unpopular measures such as port throttling P2P sites"

For me that would not be a problem as any stuff i download is not from p2p and therefor would not be affected by port throttling. This would cut down on a lot of the high bandwidth that is being used at the moment by those that do download 8-10gig perday day in day out from p2p sites.

Plus if the throttle was only on at peek times you could control the damage that p2p can create.

There flame suit on ready to be shot down.

I think there is a consensous of opinion on here that it is peak time use where problems of congestion are causing service deterioration. P2P is one part of the congestion equation, but all downloading contributes. I'm not sure how practical or possible it is for ISPs to physically throttle P2P ports, especailly as these can be changed.

In the first instance asking all heavy downloaders (and uploaders too) to try and schedule such data transfers off peak, must be of benefit. Physical controls could be developed in the longer term if the voluntary measures don't work, but what would not the cost of developing such tools be better spent positively on physical upgrades in network capacity, rather than managing scarcity of resource that in the longer term would become an ever increasing problem for the ISP and it's users?

PS no need for a flame suit, you are entitled to make your views known.

good point.

First let me say i dont aggree with the cap as it stands. I think we should have differant levels depending on what service level you take.

As for upgrading the network yes it should be, But its not just the network but the cost where traffic is off the network. "Since much P2P traffic does not originate from ISPs' networks it costs them more to deliver it"

Now if they upgrade the network thats fine but there is the cost of all the p2p traffic to take into consideration as well.

I have to agree the cap as it stands does not work and is not implemented correctly, Leading to users feeling that they are getting a raw deal and yes i think i am getting a raw deal. I have the 1 meg service and find the speeds to be fine and would hate for billy downloader to slow me down when i need the speed.

Has anyone that had a letter commented on what was said when they phoned the number quoted on the letter, and if they were told they could be cut off if they did not cut down.