1GB Cap Letter!!!!

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

So AOL users on cable modems are uncapped in respect of bandwidth yet NTL users are capped. It proves that NTL capped its own users to allow un capped use for AOL.

Course it does, so long as you ignore that AUP change happened well over a year ago and only now are AOL advertising their unlimited service.

You really paid no attention to the rest of what I said regarding AOL users being traditionally relatively light users as most leech meisters take other packages from other ISPs, due in part to AOL's reputation.

You have no idea how hard ntl are working to make sure the speed increase goes smoothly and well, how much is being spent installing extra capacity, and how much extra capacity is going in.

I'd suggest you sort those facts out before making a sweeping statement with no basis at all in fact. NTL own the NTL network, AOL use it as it gives access to extra subscribers and new markets, end of story. Your so-called proof holds as much water as an overstretched sieve.

Don't suppose you're going to accuse BT of 'capping' their BTBroadband users at 1GB/day to make room for Zen, Eclipse, Plusnet, Nildram, and indeed AOL to offer unlimited packages are you? No? Then kindly think before making those statements, I have less and less time for rants like this as I spend more time working and less at home, therefore less time to spend on forums like this answering requests for help rather than debunking those for whom the service will never ever be right and a hole must be found somewhere, even if it takes the most monumental leap of imagination.

[scrotnig]

AOL pay for their connectivity to the ntl network wholesale, and thus can do whatever they like regarding caps, since they pay for it.

It's a ground-breaking, forward thinking deal.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Mark B

AOL pay for their connectivity to the ntl network wholesale, and thus can do whatever they like regarding caps, since they pay for it.

It's a ground-breaking, forward thinking deal.

It's a fairly standard deal if you're honest about it, BT have been doing wholesale for a while, Energis supply everything to Freeserve/Wanadoo, AOL take a feed from ntl. Nothing too arcane - they pay their money to their wholesale supplier and do what they want with the product they've paid for, simple as.

[BBKing]

AOL radio adverts round here are saying "BT line required". Also they're slightly mything the 'no limits' aspect of their broadband, as if most people are likely to hit them anyway.

As someone said, heavy users avoid AOL anyway, because of their proprietary software, strict controls and consequent higher latency.

th'eng is talking rubbish about ntl capping to make way for AOL - I've seen the relative numbers of customers on ntl and AOL in the same area and believe me it's a big difference.

Originally Posted by th'engineer

So AOL users on cable modems are uncapped in respect of bandwidth yet NTL users are capped. It proves that NTL capped its own users to allow un capped use for AOL.

I would say its blatantly wrong of NTL to ask us to moderate our usage yet allow another company to tap in unlimited, what will people do about it? probably f56k all.

[th'engineer]

Its quite true but just shows how you can get an umlimited cable modem service in an NTL area move to AOL .
The point of the CAP was to make room on the network for AOL to use it. Because NTL had no money at the time, AOL was offering NTL loadsa money to use the network. But capacity was down with no money to spend upgrading it at the time .
So how did NTL gets loadsa bandwidth back cap its own users, was even caught on tape with the Kingsley Goodland interview.

Not to improve the NTL customer experience .

Thats my view and the view of other customers at the time

BTW sorry for not geting back sooner slight stroke at Mo .

[ian@huth]

To be honest, do you think NTL users have modified their usage because of the "cap"? Most users do not even know about it and the ones that do are probably still using the same with a few using even more than before just to show them who's boss.

I see no reason to change my habits, until I hear from on high.

I am more likely to do something if my bowel habits change, maybe consult a doctor for the old finger test?

[BBKing]

The point of the CAP was to make room on the network for AOL to use it

Bzzt! Today's wrong end of the stick award goes to...

You suggest the cap was introduced to 'make room' for AOL users, so you accept that by reducing the abuse of the network by heavy downloaders you create more space. Point 1.

There are many more ntl users than AOL users. Therefore the vast majority of the people to benefit from the reduction in abuse of the network are ntl customers. Point 2.

Put the two together and it follows from th'eng's argument that ntl's introduction of the cap has benefited *ntl customers* more than AOL ones.

There is noticably less congestion on the network, measured by people's complaints. Back in December it was the dominant complaint.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Bzzt! Today's wrong end of the stick award goes to...

You know i have my views on this, and do not think on the cap we will ever agree.
Take on board yours and justanothernoobs views. However i my opinion it is a two tier service one for faithfull NTL customers who stuck with the company through hard times keeping paying for the service so NTL had revenue.
And one for AOL who paid lots of wedge at one time.
I understand the bandwidth problems was there with all the problems, undercapacity etc .
And have stuck with NTL because its improved. Its the CAP that needs bringing up to date.

[stingray]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

And have stuck with NTL because its improved. Its the CAP that needs bringing up to date.

How much do you download a day then ?

[Ignition]

And one for AOL who paid lots of wedge at one time.

How do you know the terms of the deal?

Check out this thread:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=14112

Seems in comparison to the largest competitor ntl's scheme is pretty up to date...

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by stingray

How much do you download a day then ?

Can honestly say am probably within the limit most times otherwise someone woyuld have contacted me .

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

How do you know the terms of the deal?

You keep forgeting find out more than i should know .
Its my mystic powers could even give you the cost per AOL consumer within 20p.

The estimated profit per AOL customer over a 18 month period.
Projected take up on NTL network of AOL subcribers
But do not think we should share that on this forum. Unless you wish to do so on this forum.

Also that the cost of installation is borne by AOL and NTL can upsell there TV services to AOL consumers therefore increasing market penetration with AOL customers

[Ignition]

Quite impressed actually, especially as:

And one for AOL who paid lots of wedge at one time.

1 off payment then? In that case whoever came up with AOL's bill has mystic powers to as:

Its my mystic powers could even give you the cost per AOL consumer within 20p.

The estimated profit per AOL customer over a 18 month period.

So there was a one off big payment, but you know the cost per AOL consumer within 20p and estimated profit per consumer.

If one off payment that suggests no-one would be able to give cost per user as it'd change with each and every user to join as initial fixed costs are spread out across a wider user base.

Sounds like you're saying both a one off fee and an ongoing fee runs, care to express which you think it is? Or both maybe?

Sounds like you may have been spun a yarn or two at some point - the fact you take such an interest in your Internet Service Provider is scary, think you may not be as close to the 'inner circle' as you'd like to think you are?