*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Are most customers happy with caps, or is it actually that most customers are ignorant of the caps? It's not as though NTL went out of their way to publicise them when they were first introduced.

Whenever I deal with a new broadband booking, which is about 10 to 20 times a day now, I always mention it, and not one person has ever batted an eyelid.

Sorry if this disappoints the anti-cappers. In an ideal world I'd prefer no caps too, but since a small minority always abuse things they have become necessary. As long as they don't impact unfairly on the vast majority of users, then I am cautiously in favour. I do think the 1mb/3gb cap is too tight though, as I have said before. But at least existing users won't be forced onto that against their will, which is good.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by Mark B

Whenever I deal with a new broadband booking, which is about 10 to 20 times a day now, I always mention it, and not one person has ever batted an eyelid.

Isn't that the equivalent of telling someone a new model of car comes with a "crankcarbstruterator" to which their reply would be "Oh, I see. So how fast does it go?"

[ian@huth]

I don't work for NTL and never have and have no shareholding in the company.

I do have the ability to look a little deeper into the provision of broadband than some who post on here do. Everything isn't what it appears to be at first glance and digging a little deeper can expose many flaws with the arguments anti cap supporters use. Questions to ask yourself are things like:
Are ISPs making a profit or not?
Are current prices and usage conditions sustainable in more than the short term?
What percentage of potential users can access the full range of products at maximum speed?
Some people on here seem to think that all services being touted at the moment will be available to all users in the very near future. I know they will be disappointed when they find otherwise.

Orangebird made a very valid point in saying that xDSL products and cable products are very different with their own pros and cons. You cannot say that if one of these technologies can do something then the other must be able to do the same.

At the end of the day, each ISP will have a set of products each with its own price point and usage conditions. Users will have to find out which of these are available to them at their address and decide if the price and usage conditions meet their requirements.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

Isn't that the equivalent of telling someone a new model of car comes with a "crankcarbstruterator" to which their reply would be "Oh, I see. So how fast does it go?"

I don't follow you. I explain everything to the customer, including the fact that there is a download limit. The customers are generally not stupid and can fathom what that means. If they don't, they usually ask. If they don't understand and don't say so, what am I supposed to do? I'm not psychic.

It always strikes me as odd that ntl are pilloried on here for this sort of thing, yet other companies with much sharper practices are praised as being customer focused.

There remains a certain responsibility upon the customer to check that they know what they are signing up for. It isn't the company's fault if they can't be bothered.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by Mark B

I don't follow you. I explain everything to the customer, including the fact that there is a download limit. The customers are generally not stupid and can fathom what that means. If they don't, they usually ask. If they don't understand and don't say so, what am I supposed to do? I'm not psychic.

It always strikes me as odd that ntl are pilloried on here for this sort of thing, yet other companies with much sharper practices are praised as being customer focused.

There remains a certain responsibility upon the customer to check that they know what they are signing up for. It isn't the company's fault if they can't be bothered.

My point being, the majority of users are upgrading from 56k, they'll have no comprehension of how much download usage they will need. The word "cap" will be a nonsense word to them. I'd be very suprised if ex-56k users didn't change their usage habits over time to take advantage of their new bandwidth. As the weeks/months go on they will realise the true potential of a boradband connection and will understand a cap such as 30gb is insufficient for their needs. But why would BT/NTL/Wanadoo care? They've locked you into a 12 month contract.

[ian@huth]

I think that too many people are presuming that the average customer is thick and cannot work things out for themselves. If you are looking for a product, any product, and see several that look similar at different prices don't you look a little deeper to see why there is a difference? I can still remember the reaction to what Bill Goodland said about customers knowledge a year or two back.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

My point being, the majority of users are upgrading from 56k, they'll have no comprehension of how much download usage they will need. The word "cap" will be a nonsense word to them. I'd be very suprised if ex-56k users didn't change their usage habits over time to take advantage of their new bandwidth. As the weeks/months go on they will realise the true potential of a boradband connection and will understand a cap such as 30gb is insufficient for their needs.

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

But why would BT/NTL/Wanadoo care? They've locked you into a 12 month contract.

...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?

Originally Posted by Mark B

Whenever I deal with a new broadband booking, which is about 10 to 20 times a day now, I always mention it, and not one person has ever batted an eyelid.

Never mistake stupidity for acceptance.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Never mistake stupidity for acceptance.

Sorry, but that's out of order.-

You've just implied what Bill Goodland got a slating for.....

[cr80123]

Well Orangebird, the difference is this proposed cap is a hard cap, which means exceeding it will result in a degraded/loss of service.

Make no mistake about, people on the 1Mb 3 GB limit go over the cap, and I'm taling about people who know little about computers, not people downloading copyrighted material. What is customer services explanation going to be when they phone up, we've trebled your speed but reduced the amount you can use it by a factor of 10?

I agree with you to a certain extent, people who download 24 hours a day should pay more for their service. What I fail to understand is why people are keen on caps unless they have a vested intrest in ntl in which case fair enough. If not, what the hell does it matter to you what people use their internet connection for?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by cr80123

Well Orangebird, the difference is this proposed cap is a hard cap, which means exceeding it will result in a degraded/loss of service.

Make no mistake about, people on the 1Mb 3 GB limit go over the cap, and I'm taling about people who know little about computers, not people downloading copyrighted material. What is customer services explanation going to be when they phone up, we've trebled your speed but reduced the amount you can use it by a factor of 10?

I agree with you to a certain extent, people who download 24 hours a day should pay more for their service. What I fail to understand is why people are keen on caps unless they have a vested intrest in ntl in which case fair enough. If not, what the hell does it matter to you what people use their internet connection for?

It matters, because customers do NOT have the right to **** and moan about things like the cap, when all they want to do is illegally download.

The 3gb/imeg service is daft, I agree. But still, no-one has answered my question about why you need more than 1 gig a day to do regular, residential service internet activity.

Originally Posted by orangebird

Sorry, but that's out of order.-

You've just implied what Bill Goodland got a slating for.....

There is nothing implied there, I`m stating it as a fact. I have to deal with typical computer users every day in my job, I`m talking from a position of experience.

This is not the same as what Bill Goodland said. He claimed that since the majority of users could not understand what a cap was there was no point in explaining to them. I`m merely pointing out that the majority of customers won`t know what the caps are, I`m making no reference to whether that should be explained or not.

[PC_Arcade]

Originally Posted by orangebird

And you're telling me you need unlimited gigs and 8 meg to do that?

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

I'm saying and ntl is saying nothing of the sort.

Although they are remarkably similar in content
What happens when the HL2 Steam style distribution becomes the norm (and it's not as far off as NTL must be hoping)?

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.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

There is nothing implied there, I`m stating it as a fact. I have to deal with typical computer users every day in my job, I`m talking from a position of experience.

This is not the same as what Bill Goodland said. He claimed that since the majority of users could not understand what a cap was there was no point in explaining to them. I`m merely pointing out that the majority of customers won`t know what the caps are, I`m making no reference to whether that should be explained or not.

So, going back to your 'Never mistake stupidity for acceptance' post, what's the option for ntl then?

CS - That's a capped service.
Cust - Capped? What's that?
CS - Well sir, you may only download so much a day/month/etc
Cust - Right, OK then.
CS - Sorry sir, but I really don't think you understood a word I said. I explain it to you again until I'm satisfied that you understand, ok?

Originally Posted by orangebird

So, going back to your 'Never mistake stupidity for acceptance' post, what's the option for ntl then?

CS - That's a capped service.
Cust - Capped? What's that?
CS - Well sir, you may only download so much a day/month/etc
Cust - Right, OK then.
CS - Sorry sir, but I really don't think you understood a word I said. I explain it to you again until I'm satisfied that you understand, ok?

Well, you're example actually conveys no useful information. So, to answer your question, perhaps conveying useful information would perhaps be a start. If that is how the cap is explained to new customers then it is pushing the fringe of what I would consider an acceptable definition of "explaining".

Besides, this doesn`t address the key point that I originally raised. Staff at NTL are assuming that customers accept the cap and then using that as a basis to berate customers who don`t accept the cap. The first half of that equation is not demonstrably true, so extrapolating any conclusions regarding other customer's opinions of the cap is invalid.