BT no frills £19.99 with.. 1gig a MONTH cap!!!

[themelon]

If you are on a tight budget It would be better to use a crap service like Gio......it costs less, and can potentially be faster!!

Or Fast4??

BT having a laugh again at their customers expense....jesus and people think ntl are bad!!

[paul11974]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

1 gig would be used by web browsing, unless you are an extremely light user then I would then say broadband is not for you.

BT have 1 intention with this package, that is to lure people from dialup to broadband with it and then make them move to the proper package when they exceed the traffic limit.

yes but would the limit be 200 downloads a month ..... sometimes i only download 1 a month so this would be ideal for me

I wonder if ntl will match bt ? I am very very very tempted to switch to bt

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

1 gig would be used by web browsing, unless you are an extremely light user then I would then say broadband is not for you.

BT have 1 intention with this package, that is to lure people from dialup to broadband with it and then make them move to the proper package when they exceed the traffic limit.

I spotted an additional benefit for BT in some of the national papers this morning - they are taking out big half-page ads and can of course headline their prices as 'from £19.99' which looks very tempting. You only discover the bandwidth cap in the small print at the bottom of the ad, by which time they have already attracted your attention and put 'BT' in your head.

[Foo Fighter]

If you download less than 1gb a month then your better off with dial up payg it would probably work out cheaper

This is worst ever internet package i've seen, beats aol..

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by paul11974

yes but would the limit be 200 downloads a month ..... sometimes i only download 1 a month so this would be ideal for me

I wonder if ntl will match bt ? I am very very very tempted to switch to bt

there no limits on download a month just the volume of downloads, but just remember everything counts as traffic, i get approx 2megabytes a day of junk email so thats 60 meg a month gone already (6%).

My lowest usage in february was 34.5 megabytes in and 2.7 megabytes out, this is I assume one of those days I was just browsing a few webpages, this takes you over the gig mark, the limit is abolutely insane, a driver download would make you seriously have to watch what you use and do stuff like turn off images in pages, I cannot imagine anyone would seriously want this package especially when you can get more for less, like I said before if you not going to be using up the limit of this package then you obvously not online enough to warrant broadband.

The uk is trying to redesign what broadband is for, broadband is about content, the amount of data that can flow through it. Its not about freeing up your phoneline, thats just a bonus.

Originally Posted by Foo Fighter

If you download less than 1gb a month then your better off with dial up payg it would probably work out cheaper

This is worst ever internet package i've seen, beats aol..

I really can't agree that dial-up internet is better for anything, unless cost of service is absolutely critical. We are not heavy users. The vast majority of our online activity is browsing webpages. But the speed and reliability with which we can do that now we're on BB easily justifies the extra cost IMO. Even if I never wanted to download an app, a patch or a high-quality video stream ever again, I would still have BB just for fast page browsing.

There does seem to be an assumption among some (and this is not aimed at anyone in particular) that BB is all about high bandwidth useage. I don't believe that is the case at all, and I would not be surprised if the majority of broadband users said they only use their service for reliable web browsing, not heavy downloading.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by towny

I really can't agree that dial-up internet is better for anything, unless cost of service is absolutely critical. We are not heavy users. The vast majority of our online activity is browsing webpages. But the speed and reliability with which we can do that now we're on BB easily justifies the extra cost IMO. Even if I never wanted to download an app, a patch or a high-quality video stream ever again, I would still have BB just for fast page browsing.

There does seem to be an assumption among some (and this is not aimed at anyone in particular) that BB is all about high bandwidth useage. I don't believe that is the case at all, and I would not be surprised if the majority of broadband users said they only use their service for reliable web browsing, not heavy downloading.

Though I don't consider myself a heavy user, I would easily go over this limit, as I like to listen to streaming audio. I don't download many apps, and am a very occasional user of p2p. Even with a low quality stream, you would hit the cap in no time. At 150k unlimited, you would have no problems at all. My feeling is that, if you a person is a light user that he won't hit the cap, there are other, better alternatives out there.

Alternatively, people who try this out, may very soon find they need to upgrade (which, as others have remarked, may be the real reason for offering this service)

[Chrysalis]

danielf yeah, a unlimited 150kbit service is a much better option for browsing webpages then a highly restricted 512kbit service, you would still be getting about 300% better performance.

Towny and yes you are right that a large amount of uk internet users just browse web pages, however I feel this isnt the trend worldwide at the same scale, when broadband was invented I am sure the idea wasn't for faster web browsing, the idea would have been much beyond that.

[tkiely]

see my sig,

NO CACHE,NO CAP

[erol]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

danielf yeah, a unlimited 150kbit service is a much better option for browsing webpages then a highly restricted 512kbit service, you would still be getting about 300% better performance.

but still no where near as attractive as metronet's offer which gives you fast 512Kbs access for only £10pm for low usage. You can also use it heavily if you want safe in the knowledge that your total monthly cost is capped.

So you get faster speeds.
Lower cost for low usage
Option to for heavy usage, with capped total monthly cost.

This too me seems like the best option for low usage users, medium usage users and even 'periodic' heavy usage users.

Given the choice of metronet's package or a 150kbs service that costs more, who would choose the 150kbs service?

[Chrysalis]

well my guess is normal web browsing (enough that annoys you having phone line tied up) you looking at approx 5 gig a month, which makes metronet almost normal price, the amount of traffic used for 10 pounds a month cost would probably be used in a dozen hours on payg dialup.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

well my guess is normal web browsing (enough that annoys you having phone line tied up) you looking at approx 5 gig a month, which makes metronet almost normal price, the amount of traffic used for 10 pounds a month cost would probably be used in a dozen hours on payg dialup.

I do like this metronet scheme though. Between 200 meg and 5 gig, you only pay for the bandwith you use (which means that you only pay 10 quid (plus vat) if you're away for a month). Once you hit 5 Gig, you're on a flat rate (without a cap), and the price is quite similar to what NTL charge. So, it's very flexible, and cost-aware customers can decide to do all their big downloads, p2p in one month, and cut on the price in the other months... In the months you use a lot of bandwidth, you pay NTL prices, if you use less then 5 Gig, you pay less...

And, I noticed, the minimum contract is for three months only...

I don't know how good they are, but I like their business model

[th'engineer]

A little bit of competition is always good in the BB market, hope BT do well at least they said itr was capped prior to introducing it something NTL might learn from.

[Chrysalis]

yeah its a good idea in theory, one side of me is thinking 5 gig is still actually low usage so they not giving much away, but the other is thinking well they cap the maximum price so the end user loses nothing in the end.

[Rillington]

I would say I download roughly 1 gig per month (prob slightly less) but I don't download anything apart from the occasional TV nostaglia clip from tv-ark. 99% of my internet use is forum participation, looking at news and pictures with virtually no downloading. If I ever did do any downloading (and I could if I ever got bb - which is very unlikely) then I would go with an ISP, such as my own - AOL - which does not have any form of download cap.