Merged:AOL over ntl BB.

[Dupre]

now what id like to know is what the hell is going on, today AOL officially releasd entry to the AOL on NTL service, so they get the 600k connection, but... um, in there ToS, theres NO mention of the 1gig cap, surely that £2 extra a month they pay doesnt give em 5gig more than me does it?

AND they get free BigBrother feeds... so same connection and better content, great!

[SMHarman]

Originally posted by Dupre
now what id like to know is what the hell is going on, today AOL officially releasd entry to the AOL on NTL service, so they get the 600k connection, but... um, in there ToS, theres NO mention of the 1gig cap, surely that £2 extra a month they pay doesnt give em 5gig more than me does it?

AND they get free BigBrother feeds... so same connection and better content, great!

Is there an explicit link in the nTL terms of service? I thought it was a general unacceptable behaviour clause.

[Dupre]

http://theregister.co.uk/content/22/31625.html

u have to register to see aol tos

[BubbleGum]

Originally posted by Dupre
now what id like to know is what the hell is going on, today AOL officially releasd entry to the AOL on NTL service, so they get the 600k connection, but... um, in there ToS, theres NO mention of the 1gig cap, surely that £2 extra a month they pay doesnt give em 5gig more than me does it?

AND they get free BigBrother feeds... so same connection and better content, great!

You sound surprised that ntl are shafting us again

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally posted by SMHarman
Is there an explicit link in the nTL terms of service? I thought it was a general unacceptable behaviour clause.

The cap clause is defined in ntl's acceptable user policy which was posted to ntlworld.com in February this year.

I find it most odd that over the same network, the directly subscribed customers to the ntl service can be resticted, whilst subscribers to a third party service (AOL) which requires the same infrastructure to pass signals and data, wil be effectively unlimited. Not fair ntl.

[darkangel]

has anybody been warned yet?..not heard of anyone
this seem to confirm they have either changed their minds or this it was just hot air in the first place

[Jonboy]

Well Atleast Now We Know Why We Have Been Buggered About For Nearly A Year Was Just Ntl Clearing The Way For aol To Pour Money Into The Pot

[Tricky]

Depends on how the deal works between NTL and AOL? - Perhaps NTL will charge AOL for the amount of data transferred to/from customers by AOL and therefore no restriction placed on them by NTL. AOL may have estimated that the average punter will use x times that by the number of customers y and then finally by NTL's charge per gb z. Gives answer, try it, if reality is greater than answer then apply CAP (See NTL for reference AUP)

They'll get you one way or another?

[kronas]

i would assume if you are using AOL broadband you abide to there terms of service regardless of the service going through the NTL network so yep the service is capless

[kronas]

Originally posted by Andre
That's just the problem though-its all assumption at the moment.

In typical ntl style, the service has been sneaked out the back door.

Don't forget there wasn't a cap on ntl's broadband service to begin with.

well you could just ring and ask AOL i would say ring NTL but i wont for obvious reasons :p

its all backdoor with NTL i assume they do it for the 'customers best interests'

i know there was not a cap on it at the start i was one of the first few to get broadband a few years ago

[Dupre]

with all the gripes about AOL people have, one thing i can say for the 2 years i was on it, they never sneaked in stuff like caps, or limited usage, 0800 and as long as you like. £15 a month.

as for the bang for buck AOL are paying NTL, i saw somewhere they payed £85mill ion to be on the service in december last year, and they've been prepping since then. so its one off payment my guess, rather than bandwidth.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/cgi-bin/n...yZEEVypqgaRroz

Anyway, you wont go through NTL proxies, it'll probably all be just routed traffic like DSL, where you initially connect to your exchange then off to the ISP's servers. so therefore its only internal traffic AOL need to worry about, this could explain the lack of a CAP. also this is a REAL bad move for NTL, why even bother with them? when you can use there service, with Xbox £29.99 on AOL for £27.99 with more content and access to the US caches?

then again, i cant see how NTL and TW get away with not opening up there services to competitors, look how BT has been butt k'd in the past years, cableco's have there networks to themselves. at least BT and Sky setup partnerships. NTL is um... alone?

[th'engineer]

Could the next be BT openworld through NTL

[obvious]

AOL previously had this to say to AntiCap UK on the subject of capping

AOL's position is thus:

In an ideal world we believe that unmetered and always on should mean what they imply. The best experience online comes from having an uncapped connection,

otherwise it creates confusion and complexity for the customer. That said, it is never possible to rule it out entirely. The Internet moves so fast that new phenomena - such as Napster a few years back for example - can force you to take unusual measures.
That caveat aside, however, we will work very hard not to bring in capping on either narrowband or broadband and certainly have no plans to cap any services.

As you say, our whole aim is to promote content and all the benefits of broadband, which do not mix so well with a capped service.

AOL's T&Cs contain nothing about capping but I suspect that their contract with ntl might. Nevertheless, they would have to change their T&Cs if they were to cap customers on this new service.

[Dupre]

its called common sense, i cant see NTL forking out there own equipment which is already overstretched for AOL.

and as far as i know, AOL have never co-located any services before, cant see them doing it now, less profit in it for them.

I would say with more or less certainty that all thats going to happen is the traffic is routed through NTL internal networks to some AOL servers.

[th'engineer]

Originally posted by obvious
AOL previously had this to say to AntiCap UK on the subject of capping

AOL's T&Cs contain nothing about capping but I suspect that their contract with ntl might. Nevertheless, they would have to change their T&Cs if they were to cap customers on this new service.

Have you ever known NTL get something right with money involved, they would not even of thought about the CAP or Bill Goodland when they negotiated it