*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

Show me where I said that and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Although they are remarkably similar in content

Pot, Kettle....

What happens when the HL2 Steam style distribution becomes the norm (and it's not as far off as NTL must be hoping)?

Sorry - Steam is a great idea, but complete crap when you get to the bones of the technolgy around it. With the amount of RAM Steam takes up on most peoples PCs, it will not be popular, will put a lot of people of, and therefore should not be considered as a factor - all imo, of course

I'm not saying that there should be no restrictions, I'm saying that NTL's are VERY low for their top tier and that by the time they introduce it it WILL cause them problems for a much higher percentage of their userbase than it would if they were to introduce it now

PLEASE bear in mind that the cap isn't 30Gb a month it's 1gb a day, If I were to purchase HL2 silver, I would have to spread that download over 4 DAYS to avoid going over the cap, which frankly is ludicrous, OR go over the cap by ~3Gb (assuming I did NOTHING else with the internet that day).

I'm concerned that the "Pro cap" posters seem to either imply or outright accuse people exceeding the cap of either being "Pirates" or "running a business", it's not on IMHO, especially when there are so many ways of breaching NTLs AUP without doing either.

OK, Steam. That's one (that hopefully most people won't want anywhere near their PCs if they have any sense)... Any more legal activity that needs more than 1 gig a day?

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by orangebird

If this is so, that kind of customer is in a tiny minority... What is 30gb not enough for?



...which the customer agrees to. No-ones holding a gun to your head when you sign. And PROFIT MAKING (not charity) organisations need to protect their generally costly investment of connecting a customer. What's the problem with that?

What? Where has this talk of guns come from? I said people won't know how much bandwidth they will use so the fact that you tell them makes no difference. Most PROFIT MAKING corporations try to cater for everyone. Say NTL have 1m customers, 5% of that is 50,000 people. Now if this was a company like Ford they would see the gap in the market and build a sports car marketed at these people. Businesses need to suit their customers, not the other way round.
__________________

Originally Posted by orangebird

OK, Steam. That's one (that hopefully most people won't want anywhere near their PCs if they have any sense)... Any more legal activity that needs more than 1 gig a day?

http://www.gamexstream.com/

there you go, movies and games on demand.

Originally Posted by orangebird

Pot, Kettle....

Sorry - Steam is a great idea, but complete crap when you get to the bones of the technolgy around it. With the amount of RAM Steam takes up on most peoples PCs, it will not be popular, will put a lot of people of, and therefore should not be considered as a factor - all imo, of course

OK, Steam. That's one (that hopefully most people won't want anywhere near their PCs if they have any sense)... Any more legal activity that needs more than 1 gig a day?

I`m sorry, but your reasoning is getting so specious as to the point of being irrelevant. It is *not* necessary for customers to demonstrate to you that they have a legal need to download more than a gig a day. And to dismiss an argument purely on the grounds that you personally do not like a piece of software is as good an example of clutching at straws as I've ever seen.

If you're going to start demanding that people prove that they have a legitimate need for a service then I think there is an onus on you to prove that NTL cannot deliver that service at a reasonable cost. Until you can I think you should stop demanding proof from others.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

What? Where has this talk of guns come from? I said people won't know how much bandwidth they will use so the fact that you tell them makes no difference. Most PROFIT MAKING corporations try to cater for everyone. Say NTL have 1m customers, 5% of that is 50,000 people. Now if this was a company like Ford they would see the gap in the market and build a sports car marketed at these people. Businesses need to suit their customers, not the other way round.
__________________



http://www.gamexstream.com/

there you go, movies and games on demand.

And you do that every day???

[PC_Arcade]

:lol: But if you want to play HL2 you have no choice, (unless you pirate the game, but you SURELY aren't advocating that)

heres some more then

http://www.gamexstream.com/
http://www.moviexstream.com/
http://www.apple.com/trailers/
http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html
http://www.tucows.com/
http://www.shareware.com/
http://www.archive.org/movies/movies.php

There are plenty of legitamate uses for more than 1Gb per day.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m sorry, but your reasoning is getting so specious as to the point of being irrelevant. It is *not* necessary for customers to demonstrate to you that they have a legal need to download more than a gig a day. And to dismiss an argument purely on the grounds that you personally do not like a piece of software is as good an example of clutching at straws as I've ever seen.

If you're going to start demanding that people prove that they have a legitimate need for a service then I think there is an onus on you to prove that NTL cannot deliver that service at a reasonable cost. Until you can I think you should stop demanding proof from others.

__________________

Originally Posted by orangebird

And you do that every day???

Not currently. On-demand services are very new. NTL is making sure I never will be able to. Also, I have 3 PCs connected to my broadband connection, do you really think 1gb a day is enough for 3 experienced PC users?

[cr80123]

A recurring them here in support of the caps is that anybody going over them must be downloading copyrighted material. Apart from the fact that this isn't always the case(although I admit is probably true for the majority of people who will exceed it), since when has it been ntl's business to enforce copyright law? Indeed, if everyone was stopped from doing this I suspect ntl would lose many customers! (along with all other ISPs.) I'll reiterate what I said in my first post on the subject - the sole reason for the introduction of hard caps is so ntl can cram more customers onto their network and make more money, let's not try and kid ourselves otherwise.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m sorry, but your reasoning is getting so specious as to the point of being irrelevant. It is *not* necessary for customers to demonstrate to you that they have a legal need to download more than a gig a day. And to dismiss an argument purely on the grounds that you personally do not like a piece of software is as good an example of clutching at straws as I've ever seen.

Oh, ok, but you can say that, in your opinion, acceptance is stupidity, and that's OK?

I never said that customers HAVE to demonstrate. I'm asking why 1gig is not enough, and a few examples. What's the problem with that??

If you're going to start demanding that people prove that they have a legitimate need for a service then I think there is an onus on you to prove that NTL cannot deliver that service at a reasonable cost. Until you can I think you should stop demanding proof from others.

ntl does deliver a good service at a reasonable cost That's why they have a million BB customers. No-one's prepared to tell me why it's not reasonable though. No onus on me

Originally Posted by orangebird

I never said that customers HAVE to demonstrate. I'm asking why 1gig is not enough, and a few examples. What's the problem with that??

I suppose you can`t spot the contradiction in your statement above?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I suppose you can`t spot the contradiction in your statement above?

Asking for examples is not demanding. No-one *has* to answer me..

Have you now nothing better to do that pick non existant holes in my posts?

[PC_Arcade]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Asking for examples is not demanding. No-one *has* to answer me..

Have you now nothing better to do that pick non existant holes in my posts?

I've posted some examples above

I could quite happily use them every day, and they would take me over 1Gb per day, they are all legal and high bandwidth uses of the internet

I missed a few as well
freeloader, underdogs and NTL broadband+ should be there as well

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

I've posted some examples above

I could quite happily use them every day, and they would take me over 1Gb per day, they are all legal and high bandwidth uses of the internet

I missed a few as well
freeloader, underdogs and NTL broadband+ should be there as well

There you go. Thanks, I haven't pulled teeth for ages.

[PC_Arcade]

What was your point though?
Do I now have the

Originally Posted by orangebird

right to **** and moan about things like the cap, when all they want to do is illegally download."

?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

What? Where has this talk of guns come from? I said people won't know how much bandwidth they will use so the fact that you tell them makes no difference. Most PROFIT MAKING corporations try to cater for everyone. Say NTL have 1m customers, 5% of that is 50,000 people. Now if this was a company like Ford they would see the gap in the market and build a sports car marketed at these people. Businesses need to suit their customers, not the other way round.

True to a point. But if a company spots a gap in the market and decide to offer a product that fills the gap they will only do so at a price that ensures a profit from this new line. Ford would not spot a gap and build a new sports car costing £50,000 to manufacture and then sell it for £15,000 .

Customers need to to find a company that supplies their needs at the price they want to pay, not get a company to change its products and prices to suit them alone.

__________________

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

http://www.gamexstream.com/

there you go, movies and games on demand.

Yes, streaming movies on demand. They do require a constant stream at the speed for the quality they need to be watched in. Not really suited for households with multiple users making their different demands on the internet connection and on ISPs networks that may be suffering contention issues during peak times.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by PC_Arcade

What was your point though?
Do I now have the ?

You can argue that quite legally, you use more than the cap allows. But you'll be in a small minority, and your best option would probably be to find another supplier that suits your needs.