1GB Cap Letter!!!!

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by Optiplex

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.

I did ask if one could post the response back but they are handling it via snail mail to avoid any problems of "We didn't say that". Hopefully that will give us a more detailed answer but in the meantime it would be nice to hear what reaction others are getting when they call in.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Optiplex

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"

Dealing specifically with that point, I would expect that a great deal of traffic will be generated from outside the individual ISPs network, even if some of it can be reduced by Proxy Servers.

p2p is not the only source of cumulatively large download. As sites become more dynamic, it is harder to cache them, and more and more they will need to be refreshed fully on each visit and change. It's certainly the case for forums. Streaming media, radio, etc, will be generated outside of the ISPs own network.

Broadband Plus for ntl may be a small way of containing some of the loads by remaining inside ntl's own servers.

p2p is undoubtedly an issue for ISPs external traffic costs, but is it right that it is singled out and blamed for all ills?

[cjmillsnun]

Originally Posted by Sociable

Sorry but we are not discussing BT at all what we we are looking at is what NTL do.

Just because a n other company are not acting honourably or not doesn't let NTL off the hook.

My contract is with NTL and this is a discussion about the NTL AUP and how they are starting to enforce it.

Please can we keep the discussion on that topic and not worry about what "other" companies do or don''t do.

I think a fair discussion of what other broadband providers do is NOT off topic, it is a comparison of what they do against NTL.

And, as was stated above, BT have the same cap in force for the SAME reasons as NTL.

IE that someone who continuosly downloads all day will affect others performance on the network, be it on a DOCSIS system or on ADSL.

All users had 30 days after the cap was introduced to leave NTL, not leaving signalled your acceptance of the AUP with the cap in place.

If they are only going after people who download more that 5gb /day on average then I have NO problem with NTL contacting that user and asking them to moderate their usage.

I have gone over the 1gb limit myself on occasion since the cap was introduced, but now try to moderate my usage o stay within the cap.

If they are not going for people who just go over but are going after genuine bandwidth hogs, then kudos to NTL, they are trying to please the majority of customers.

What people must realise (and it is on NTLs website) it that this is a contended service and therefore people must share the bandwisth allocated.

[cjmillsnun]

Originally Posted by obvious

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?

Not necessarily,

NTL have nearly 1 million BB customers.

different networks have a different spread of users and may define a heavy user differently

It is quite possible that 100,000 users are causing 90% of NTLs traffic.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

Not necessarily,

NTL have nearly 1 million BB customers.

different networks have a different spread of users and may define a heavy user differently

It is quite possible that 100,000 users are causing 90% of NTLs traffic.

Not necessarily

If you don't include the 150Kbps "broadband" subscribers in that number then the picture looks significantly different

After all...a 150Kbps customer can hardly be an "uber leecher," can they?

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

I think a fair discussion of what other broadband providers do is NOT off topic, it is a comparison of what they do against NTL.

And, as was stated above, BT have the same cap in force for the SAME reasons as NTL.

IE that someone who continuosly downloads all day will affect others performance on the network, be it on a DOCSIS system or on ADSL.

I've looked at the BT Yahoo Broadband (formerly the openworld) offering, and find no reference in their t&cs and user policy, as published on their web site that their BB service is capped. http://www.btyahoo.com/broadband/terms500

I know the BT Broadband did have a cap policy, but as that service was cheaper and "no frills", that may be reasonable as customers seeking BT as thier ISP had a choice of levels. ntl are not offering that choice.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

All users had 30 days after the cap was introduced to leave NTL, not leaving signalled your acceptance of the AUP with the cap in place.

Ntl have still yet to formally tell their long standing customers of the cap. Those who know of it, probably do so only by chance i.e. word of mouth, forum use, etc. I know the AUP says it can be changed, but how often is a customer really expected to check conditions of service to see if something changes that could have an effect. BT Yahoo in thier user policy readily say it can be changed, but crucially say they will notify customers if they do change it. A far more responsible policy don't you think. At the end of the day, for a number of users the cap restriction is a material change in the terms of service for whcih I suspect courts could decide it has no validity in contract unless customers are formally advised of the change. I'm not convinced that the letter is valid in that respect.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

If they are only going after people who download more that 5gb /day on average then I have NO problem with NTL contacting that user and asking them to moderate their usage.

I have gone over the 1gb limit myself on occasion since the cap was introduced, but now try to moderate my usage o stay within the cap.

If they are not going for people who just go over but are going after genuine bandwidth hogs, then kudos to NTL, they are trying to please the majority of customers.

What people must realise (and it is on NTLs website) it that this is a contended service and therefore people must share the bandwisth allocated.

I don't think that many would disagree that it is unreasonable for ntl to seek some traffic reshaping. However I do think that blanket application of the 1GB limit cannot solve the peak congestion, in fact it could worsen it. Contention is the basis of broadband and inevitably the fact that one user has their computer on, affects another user, and vice versa. If we don't want contention an it's inevitable limitations, then we have to be prepared to accept the costs of dedicated leased lines.

[obvious]

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

Not necessarily,

NTL have nearly 1 million BB customers.

different networks have a different spread of users and may define a heavy user differently

It is quite possible that 100,000 users are causing 90% of NTLs traffic.

I agree its statistically 'possible' but the larger the sample size (a million in this case) the less deviation from the average. Therefore I'd say there's probably one chance in several hundred trillion that ntl were telling the truth.

[Chrysalis]

oh yeah I forgot ntl were counting 150k customers as broadband customers, they seem to have forgotten the concept that broad means big or wide.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

oh yeah I forgot ntl were counting 150k customers as broadband customers, they seem to have forgotten the concept that broad means big or wide.

I didn't think that NTL called the 150k service broadband !

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

I didn't think that NTL called the 150k service broadband !

If that's the case, it's not very clear watching thier propaganda channels on Digital whcih usually blatantly plug prices from £17.99. I don't know if they've stopped now but they were even utterring "High Speed" when those sort of logos were on screen. Very iffy to me.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

If that's the case, it's not very clear watching thier propaganda channels on Digital whcih usually blatantly plug prices from £17.99. I don't know if they've stopped now but they were even utterring "High Speed" when those sort of logos were on screen. Very iffy to me.

Just like the sales guy in Luton told me that there broadband was unlimited !

[DVS]

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

Not necessarily,

NTL have nearly 1 million BB customers.

different networks have a different spread of users and may define a heavy user differently

It is quite possible that 100,000 users are causing 90% of NTLs traffic.

My maths might be out but 100,000 is 10% not 1%. 1% of 1million is 10,000?

I seriously doubt that 10,000 users are using 90% of NTL's traffic.

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

I didn't think that NTL called the 150k service broadband !

LOL That is exactly what they do.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

I didn't think that NTL called the 150k service broadband !

Where have you been m8? :pp

[Derendai]

Well I recommend pipex

£23 for 512 and UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD!!!

I am not paying but if I can get a cheap adsl modem I would pay 5-6 a month for that