*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

[cr80123]

So your answer for wanting a faster connection is time is precious to many people? Are you serious? You think people want a 3Mb connection as opposed to a 1Mb connection due to time constraints? Why should you give me many reasons? Because you said that there were many and I asked you to give them.

I could read through this thread all night without seeing a reason for people actually desiring caps. Are you saying you would prefer a capped service to an uncapped one given the choice?

Yes Paul, you want a faster connection because it's faster. Well that showed me, what a cracking agruement!

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by cr80123

So your answer for wanting a faster connection is time is precious to many people? Are you serious? You think people want a 3Mb connection as opposed to a 1Mb connection due to time constraints? Why should you give me many reasons? Because you said that there were many and I asked you to give them.

I could read through this thread all night without seeing a reason for people actually desiring caps. Are you saying you would prefer a capped service to an uncapped one given the choice?

Yes Paul, you want a faster connection because it's faster. Well that showed me, what a cracking agruement!

Yes I am serious. Just because I said there were many reasons doesn't mean that I HAVE to give you them. Even if I did you would say that they were all rubbish just as you have with the time constraint reasoning so why should I bother.

Given a choice I would prefer an uncapped service in an ideal world. The problem is that we are not living in an ideal world when you have people arguing because they can't max out their connections 24/7. There have been many reasons given in this thread for wanting caps but blinkers mean that anything contrary to your ideas are not valid.

Tell me something? If NTL were to start charging broadband customers the exact cost of providing it to them would you have any objection to paying that amount. That is the cost of maintaining your account and the cost of the bandwidth you yourself use without making a penny profit for themselves.

[cr80123]

I certainly wouldn't say they were all rubbish unless they were. I didn't say you have to give them to me, but seeing as you've stated there are many reasons I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for some of them.

Ok fair enough, I just wanted you to be clear that you would prefer an uncapped service. Blinkers mean that anything contrary to your ideas are not valid? Pot, kettle?

No not at all, I'm sure I would pay less under those terms. That's not the point though is it? It's the thin end of the wedge and I disagree with it on principle. Unlike you I don't care how much money ntl make I just want the best deal I can get for myself.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by DVS

Here here.. Someone else who realises what this 'cap' is all about. Milking a few more pounds out of the service. Who will see the benefits - Shareholders and the boses who will get yet another bumper bonus.

Maybe they are milking those extra pounds to help pay for some of the upgrades the network needs?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by cr80123

I certainly wouldn't say they were all rubbish unless they were. I didn't say you have to give them to me, but seeing as you've stated there are many reasons I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask for some of them.

Ok fair enough, I just wanted you to be clear that you would prefer an uncapped service. Blinkers mean that anything contrary to your ideas are not valid? Pot, kettle?

No not at all, I'm sure I would pay less under those terms. That's not the point though is it? It's the thin end of the wedge and I disagree with it on principle. Unlike you I don't care how much money ntl make I just want the best deal I can get for myself.

That's the problem, we all have our own ideas of what is rubbish and having seen your definition it would be pointless giving any reasons.

Blinkers mean that you are unwilling to change your views even if someone proves you are wrong.

I dont' know how you can be sure that you would pay less as you have no idea of the true costs involved and I couldn't say as I don't know your usage.

I don't care how much money NTL make as long as they make enough to maintain and upgrade the networks. We all like to have the best deal and my view is that we aren't getting the best deal as long as 5% of broadband customers are using over 50% of its bandwidth. These 5% are costing NTL and ultimately all its customers to pay more than they need.

[cr80123]

Well don't make statements if you're not prepared to back them up.

Hmmm.

I use between 2 and 3 GB per month.

Where are you getting these satistics from?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by cr80123

Well don't make statements if you're not prepared to back them up.

Hmmm.

I use between 2 and 3 GB per month.

Where are you getting these satistics from?

I did give you one reason which you refused to accept that anyone would do that so it seems pointless to give any more.

Statistics came from the same place as when you previously asked http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...postcount=1271 and have appeared in many news articles and posted about on here by members such as Ignition who works for NTL and has all the usage stats at his fingertips.

[cr80123]

So because I don't agree with your one reason from many (your words, not mine) you refuse to give any more?

Well I asked where Ignition got his facts from and he didn't reply.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by cr80123

So because I don't agree with your one reason from many (your words, not mine) you refuse to give any more?

Well I asked where Ignition got his facts from and he didn't reply.

If you had been a member for any length of time you would know a lot more about Ignition and accept his knowledge on the things he talks about. Try Googling for the facts yourself if you still cannot accept the figures.

A few more then.

They have 3Mb because they can afford it.

They want the fastest in everything.

There are some apps that need high bandwidth that they use at odd times now and again.

They need the upload speed and aren't too bothered about the download speed.

They have 3 computers networked which at odd rare times need the 3Mb.

You seem to forget that most broadband customers only use their connection for a few hours daily and are not tied to it 24/7.

Now tell me why any of those are not reasons for having the fastest tier available.

[cr80123]

Well I don't dispute that Ignition may have a lot of knowledge, I'd just like to see that backed up becuase franky all I've seen from you is bull****.

Your first two reasons I agree with, the second two are nonsense, the fifth one is completely contrary to what all the pro-cap people are claiming (i.e. if you have 3 computers networked you should pay for it), and your sixth one is complete and utter rubbish.
__________________

And I'm going to bed!

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by cr80123

Well I don't dispute that Ignition may have a lot of knowledge, I'd just like to see that backed up becuase franky all I've seen from you is bull****.

Your first two reasons I agree with, the second two are nonsense, the fifth one is completely contrary to what all the pro-cap people are claiming (i.e. if you have 3 computers networked you should pay for it), and your sixth one is complete and utter rubbish.
__________________

And I'm going to bed!

Well that's nice, so everything that Ian has posted is BS and according to you no-one would get the 3Mb service so that they had a good upload speed? Strange that since there are a number of people on this forum that use their connections to download and upload files to servers for work, who run forums/ websites and therefore have to maintain the files related to those and there are those people that work with digital images who need to upload their files for printing/ display.
As to your opinion that the 6th reason is utter rubbish, there are many people who are on the lowest tier of service as all they do is occassional browsing because they have the service for email purposes. These people will rarely touch their usage cap and will probably not even understand that other users seem to feel the need to download every last file available on the internet just because they have a 3Mb connection.
There would probably be a few people here that would view all your posts as BS and rubbish, are they right and you wrong?

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If you had been a member for any length of time you would know a lot more about Ignition and accept his knowledge on the things he talks about.

Absolutely don't accept what I say as gospel I'm as likely to be misinformed or just plain get it wrong as anyone else.

When I have more time will go back through this thread and find what I was asked to provide proof for, and will do so as far as possible within the restrictions of NDA.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by DVS

I hope the rumours I heard recently about Cable operators being forced to open their networks for competitors to use was more than a rumour as then switching ISPs would be far easier.

That won't ever happen.

The reason BT is forced to open its networks to competitors is because it has a monopoly, and its network was built with taxpayers money.

ntl's network was built with private money. The people who stumped up the cash are entitled to try and get some return on that investment. Why should they then see that investment capability undermined by being forced to allow competitiors to use it to undercut their own prices?

To do this ntl would have to paid hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions of pounds, in compensation, and that money would have to come from the taxpayer, which as a taxpayer myself I'd object to vehemntly.

See, this is just yet another example of people who don't understand even the simplest basics of the market making pronouncements about it.

[Rone]

While this thread has provided some great heated debate, some statistics, and a fair bit of resentment, i think it's pretty worn out.
There's those in favour of a cap [each to their own] those who think its totally wrong, [cant say i disagree] and a very few who think a caps not totally unreasonable, just that the size of this ones pathetic [and your right as well].
There's no point closing it, its bound to re-emerge, its a shame none of this gets read by the people at ntl that actually put things like this into force.
And even if it was, how many firms have the courage to say "we got this one wrong"? I bet you can count them on the finger of one finger.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by DVS

Here here.. Someone else who realises what this 'cap' is all about. Milking a few more pounds out of the service. Who will see the benefits - Shareholders and the boses who will get yet another bumper bonus.

Milking a few more pounds out of a commercial product. Yes, isn't that disgraceful in a free market economy, especially for a company that makes no profit at the moment.

People criticise ntl for not marketing their products in such a way that they could actually make some money and thus invest in the network, then when they try they are criticised for that too. DAMNED IF THEY DO, DAMNED IF THEY DON'T.
__________________

Originally Posted by Rone

While this thread has provided some great heated debate, some statistics, and a fair bit of resentment, i think it's pretty worn out.
There's those in favour of a cap [each to their own] those who think its totally wrong, [cant say i disagree] and a very few who think a caps not totally unreasonable, just that the size of this ones pathetic [and your right as well].
There's no point closing it, its bound to re-emerge, its a shame none of this gets read by the people at ntl that actually put things like this into force.
And even if it was, how many firms have the courage to say "we got this one wrong"? I bet you can count them on the finger of one finger.

I'm NOT in favour of caps. But, as happened with unmetered dialup services, the morons who max out their connections 'just because they can' have spoiled it for the rest of us.

The reason other European countries are less tightly capped than the UK is because they don't have as many people who act like morons.

In Germany you get many cafes that allow 'unlimited topups' on drinks and sometimes even food. The Germans take what they need and are happy. In the UK it wouldn't work as too many people would cram their plates with hundreds of portions that they don't need and run off with it. That's our moronic mentality and we get what we deserve as a result.

Pizza Hut proved this theory when they introduced their 'all you can eat' deal in the UK. It had to be scrapped through the sheer greed of people taking far too much, more than they could ever it, and then it getting thrown in the bin. Yet it works for them in almost every other country they do it in...except the tourist areas of Spain of course where there's loads of Britons.

Expect several people to reply to this saying 'if such a company offers that they should expect it' which proves the concept 100%.

As with so many other walks of life, we get precisely what we deserve in this country because too many of us are greedy, selfish morons.