[Now Official] More ntl speed changes

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Some will say that families with multiple computers and users will soon eat the limit up, but again why should the average user have to pay the same as four or five users sharing a connection?

The problem is, unless you can persuade them otherwise, NTL will only run one connection (and account) per house

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by slowcoach

<snip> it just might be that NTL didn't fully consider the current BB users when working out their plans, after all they have only just completed the last increases in speed which everyone was happy to be handed.

Or that they discovered they had capacity to make this quantum leap in speeds as a result of the last speed increase.

[AndrewJ]

I do hope ntl go through with this I am not that bothered about when or how because I shall be d/c from ntl around December as I am moving house then I shall be r/c around April LOL so shall be nicely on the new speeds I hope by then.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by scastle

The problem is, unless you can persuade them otherwise, NTL will only run one connection (and account) per house

Perhaps this is something NTL may want to look at as some multi user households may opt to have an ADSL line as well as the NTL broadband. This could also possibly lead to the loss of the customers telephone business and TV business.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Perhaps this is something NTL may want to look at as some multi user households may opt to have an ADSL line as well as the NTL broadband. This could also possibly lead to the loss of the customers telephone business and TV business.

As far as I can understand, technically they do have the ability to do it, they just don't. Don't know why... It may help business. If

[DVS]

This discussion if starting to make me laugh. The low usage customers are rightly happy with the levels announced by NTL and cannot (or will not see) that their usage doesn't suit everyone (nothing would suit everyone unless we all had 1:1 connects ). What the 'power users' such as myself are saying and are miffed about is that NTL seem at present (as details are sketchy) not to have factored them into the equation and provided a suitable cost effective cap level. A higher tier would solve the problem for most people but wether NTL could offer such at a profit is only for NTL to answer. I personally would like to see another 3MBit tier added with 100GB cap at say a £50 price point but thats based on my usage. I know that a 100GB cap would still upset some people as they need X not Y but I believe that 100GB would cover off most power users (apart from the serial 24/7 downloaders). I'm quite willing to pay extra for my usage but I personally don't really want a PAYG solution. I'd rather have higher tiers of service.

If, has been stated on here, 5% of users account for 67% of network utilization then those 5% are not being catered for by the proposed NTL changes. 5% is ~50K customers. If those customers take TV and telephone services from NTL then that equals quite a sum of monthly revenue that NTL is not protecting under the current proposal. Wether those 5% are cost effective is again something I cannot answer but NTL appears to be running the risk of driving those customers to alternate providers. Once a customer is lost it's usually extremely difficult to win that customer back at a later date (and a number of posts earlier in this thread validate that).

[etccarmageddon]

if 5% of the users are using more than half the network then I'd suspect that any higher tiers or additional GB bolt ons for these power users could reflect this and thus be very expensive or at least an opportunity to exploit this 'fact'!

if the 5% are using 67% of the network then they are the least profitable or loss making customers.

if these 5% are forced out by the new tiers then that (in theory) saves tons of money from the 67% of the network then freed up... which means more profits and instant free capacity for more light users to be shoved onto the network without expanding it.

assuming this 5% are using 10 times what the majority are then that means the 50,000 high users who leave can make space for 1/2 a million light users without any network expansion program.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by DVS

Wether those 5% are cost effective is again something I cannot answer but NTL appears to be running the risk of driving those customers to alternate providers.

Obviously, I don't have access to NTL's internal figures, but if those 5% are occupying 67% of network resources, I would guess it's not cost effective for NTL to keep them. After all, they would only account for a small percentage of the revenue generated, but they would incur a far higher percentage of the costs.

For example, NTL may well have to install an extra card in a UBR if someone is maxing out their 1.5 Meg connection 24/7 (which you would need to to download as much as some people do) and slowing everyone else on the same channel down.

Now, I don't know how much those cards cost retail, but they cost $8000 on eBay. That one person would pay £37.99 a month (+ possibly TV & phone). Now, what would you say is more cost effective? Losing that user or buying the card?

Now, admittedly that example would only apply if the bandwidth on the other channels was full, so NTL would possibly need to buy another card anyway, but it does illustrate what I say. I haven't taken into account upgrades possibly needed further up the network either.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by scastle

Now, I don't know how much those cards cost retail, but they cost $8000 on eBay. That one person would pay £37.99 a month (+ possibly TV & phone). Now, what would you say is more cost effective? Losing that user or buying the card?

well based on the 'facts' given that 5% are using 67% of the network then they're using 10 times their 'portion' of the cake - so if the price of their broadband was relative to this... wouldnt they be charged 10 times the average subscription! how does £25 * 10 sound!

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by Neil

I think people's main issue is the lack of choice that you refer to from ntl.

The issue (as usual) is the silence from ntl, & the lack of clarification of whether a tiered structure will exist-I.E. pay by the MB/GB when you hit your monthly allowance with these new tariffs.....

No lack of silence Neil ntl are just not in a position to announce details at the moment as they are still being worked out. The changes are not till Q1 2005 so there is no need to announce details months in advance is there?!? however I believe they are obliged to mention new products with results to shareholders so hardly silence IMO

[DVS]

The figures I stated where taken off here. I have no reason to believe they are accurate. Equally I have no reason to disbelieve them but at the same time they seem overly high to me. A more interesting metric would be how many existing customers utilize an average of more than 1GB a day (actually it's slightly more than a GB 40gb/30days) as that's the percentage of people who would be affected by NTL's proposals.

[ian@huth]

It makes me laugh what monthly usage allowance some heavy users expect to be provided and the cost that they say this should be.

Whilst NTL have quoted usage allowances they have not said how usage will be measured nor how the user will keep track of his / her usage. Will usage be the actual throughput of the cable modem or the effective throughput where the user will not have the data involved in transmission of headers in the IP layer and lower layers counted against their usage.

Have a look at http://www.aaisp.net.uk/aa/adsl/adslother.html for a laugh and see what their charges are like. Please note the top up charge for usage above your monthly allowance which is £5.88 per GB.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by DVS

The figures I stated where taken off here. I have no reason to believe they are accurate. Equally I have no reason to disbelieve them but at the same time they seem overly high to me.

Not necessarily overly high. Where I work, I saw some figures on network usage. 80% of network resources were used by around 10% of the users. I can well believe those figures scale up to 67% of national network use. Incidentally, that 67% figure appears to have come from Ignition, but he was talking about the average ISP. NTL's actual figures are probably different.

But, assuming the figures are correct, surely you have to admit that 5% of the users using 67% of resources is not economically viable for NTL (or any company)?

[zovat]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

It makes me laugh what monthly usage allowance some heavy users expect to be provided and the cost that they say this should be.

Whilst NTL have quoted usage allowances they have not said how usage will be measured nor how the user will keep track of his / her usage. Will usage be the actual throughput of the cable modem or the effective throughput where the user will not have the data involved in transmission of headers in the IP layer and lower layers counted against their usage.

Have a look at http://www.aaisp.net.uk/aa/adsl/adslother.html for a laugh and see what their charges are like. Please note the top up charge for usage above your monthly allowance which is £5.88 per GB.

Ouch

Originally Posted by AAISP

Service Cost (inc Vat) Limit Speed "Description"

Home-Fast : £27.02 3GB 1M/250K Ideal for home/family, with ample capacity for typical usage
Home-Plus : £36.42 5GB 1M/250K Additional capacity for heavier users
Home-High : £50.52 8GB 1M/250K Additional capacity for heavier users

so 3GB per month is ample capacity for home usage at 1M and costs £27 ?
and 1M with a limit of 8GB is £50 - Hmmm - won't be using them then

[DVS]

Scastle, I have never disagreed that the 5% using 67% isn't ideal for any company or product. Economic viability of such I cannot comment on as I haven't got the figures but common sense says no it's not.

Ianathuth, nice page you decide to choose . Expensive over usage charges BUT charges are only incurred during peak periods. Nice solution IMO to the whole overusage issue. At peak times you are capped but at night and during weekends DL's are unrestricted.