Traffic Shaping (again)

[RXP]

On the Newshosting support group their representative posted this in a thread that I thought was interesting:

Hopefully NTL will get back w/ us next
week w/ a fix. They've admitted they made some "router changes" on nodes
with "heavy downloaders" but so far that's all we've heard.

and also

c) NTL has admitted to making router changes a few months ago that would
effect "heavy downloaders" ; their exact words.

[dev]

to me that sounds like the heavy downloaders are impacting other users service levels and so ntl have every right to slow them down to make it a more level playing field for everyone in that area

[RXP]

Luckily for us the law determines are rights and obligations under contract. When I signed my contract traffic shaping wasn't a term. (unlike with Sky, who specifically say you will be moved to heavy users if >120gb a month).

Furthermore, in practice their 'traffic shaping' doesn't work. It slows down everyone in certain areas during prime time. If they only slowed down during prime time I would have no problems with that (apart from the legal one). I mean who the hell cares if anyone downloads heavily in the middle of the night? It doesn't effect the network.

[Paul K]

Fair usage is probably mentioned in your contract

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RXP

Luckily for us the law determines are rights and obligations under contract. When I signed my contract traffic shaping wasn't a term. (unlike with Sky, who specifically say you will be moved to heavy users if >120gb a month).

The legal one is covered. For a start, when I signed up (in 2000), there was a clause in NTL's Acceptable Use Policy that enabled them to take action against heavy downloaders.

For another thing, if they do make any major changes to the terms and conditions of the service, for 30 days, they (AFAIK) allow people to leave without penalty.

[anduin]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

....... for 30 days, they (AFAIK) allow people to leave without penalty.

Thats not NTL playing nice, its your legal right.

They dont advertise it, its mentioned nowhere, and if you try to terminate your contract early with them for this reason you have to argue it out before you can.

[RXP]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The legal one is covered. For a start, when I signed up (in 2000), there was a clause in NTL's Acceptable Use Policy that enabled them to take action against heavy downloaders.

I wasn't aware that NTL contracted to 6 year terms. I was under the impression that the current contract is what everyone is under which DID NOT contain a 'fair usage policy'. I specifically signed the contract because of a lack of 'fair usage policy'. I know I can leave if I want to, problem is not many people are aware of this. Fair usage policies are also junk terms. They are completely at the discretion of your ISP and set down no criteria. If X is downloading 1000gb a month, however it is entirely during the time between 00:00 and 06:00, that does not impact on other users. However, if there is a hard cap of 120gb a month to invoke the sanctions under the FUP it is contractually fine, even though it doesn't affect the network.

The legal problem is NTL haven't actually inserted anything new into the contract, so you cannot invoke your right to terminate the contract early. They're doing what they please and bypassing legal remedies. If you phone up CS they are clueless as to the traffic shaping.

It's also a shame that the initial traffic shaping was as a result of 'undercover' info and the new moving heavy users together is as a result of another service provider.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by anduin

Thats not NTL playing nice, its your legal right.

They dont advertise it, its mentioned nowhere, and if you try to terminate your contract early with them for this reason you have to argue it out before you can.

I never said NTL were playing nice. I was just pointing out it's there.

Originally Posted by RXP

On the Newshosting support group their representative posted this in a thread that I thought was interesting:



and also

Is that support group on the newsgroups ?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RXP

I wasn't aware that NTL contracted to 6 year terms. I was under the impression that the current contract is what everyone is under which DID NOT contain a 'fair usage policy'. I specifically signed the contract because of a lack of 'fair usage policy'. I know I can leave if I want to, problem is not many people are aware of this. Fair usage policies are also junk terms. They are completely at the discretion of your ISP and set down no criteria. If X is downloading 1000gb a month, however it is entirely during the time between 00:00 and 06:00, that does not impact on other users. However, if there is a hard cap of 120gb a month to invoke the sanctions under the FUP it is contractually fine, even though it doesn't affect the network.

The legal problem is NTL haven't actually inserted anything new into the contract, so you cannot invoke your right to terminate the contract early. They're doing what they please and bypassing legal remedies. If you phone up CS they are clueless as to the traffic shaping.

Who mentioned a 6 year contract term? I didn't. I merely pointed out that when I signed up, there was a reference in the Acceptable Use Policy to taking action against heavy users.

As I understand it, everyone on NTL is on a rolling contract. Thus, continued use of the services after the initial 12 months is up is deemed to be acceptance of any change in the terms and conditions (of which I believe the Acceptable Use Policy to be part).

Also, bear in mind that ANY contract NTL use will have been checked by NTL's legal department, who have, I am sure, made sure that any terms and conditions are legal, if not exactly nice for the customer.

[etccarmageddon]

"Luckily for us the law determines are rights and obligations under contract."

as you pay them on a monthly basis - either £18, £25 or £35 - what exactly are you going to claim for if you take them to court?

it's not like you're a company who've shelled out £10k for an annual subscription of a leased line only to find they've reduced the service significantly part way through the year. you're buying a retail service and paying no more than £35 a month for it. the biggest claim you could make would be £35?

[Richy99]

i always thought contracts of this nature could be changed any time they see fit providing that they make notice to the customer that terms are changing?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Richy99

i always thought contracts of this nature could be changed any time they see fit providing that they make notice to the customer that terms are changing?

They are legal, as long as the notify the customer (as you say) and as long as they allow those who object to leave.

[RXP]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Who mentioned a 6 year contract term? I didn't. I merely pointed out that when I signed up, there was a reference in the Acceptable Use Policy to taking action against heavy users.

If a FUP is in a contract 6 years old it has no bearing on contracts presently. That is why I had to assume that you were on a 6 year contract, otherwise the reference to the FUP of 6 years ago is irrelevant. Which was, infact, the case.

Also, bear in mind that ANY contract NTL use will have been checked by NTL's legal department, who have, I am sure, made sure that any terms and conditions are legal, if not exactly nice for the customer.

Of course the terms are legal. The conduct after it is in question. Because there is no fair usage policy in place! They haven't updated the terms since, therefore, those of us who wish to choose to exercise our legal right to terminate the contract will have difficulties especially since CS has no idea about the shaping.

[Graham M]

Erm yes there is a FUP...