*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

Originally Posted by orangebird

Why don't you leave ntls services if it's all so terrible?

1. There is currently no BT line running into my flat. I would have to get one installed first to find out if I can get ADSL here.

2. Because it is in a block of flats I need planning permission before I can get a Sky dish installed.

3. Even if I get planning permission, the company that own the flats may still not give permission for me to get a Sky dish put up.

4. If I decide to skip steps 2 and 3 and either the council or the flat owners decide they want a dish taken down they can take legal action to get that enforced.

This is why I stay with NTL, I simply do not have a practical choice.

There are people I know who stay with NTL for DTV because they cannot put dishes up on their properties due to local planning restrictions. Again, if they want more than the channels available from Freeview they are stuck with NTL.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

So you have no proof then?

So, going by your argument you have no problem with me stating that the majority of customers, going by my experience of those I've spoken to, are totally unhappy with NTL and only stay with them because they have no other real choice where they live? Equally, you have no problem with me stating that the majority of NTL staff are absolutely useless and probably can`t tie their shoelaces together. From my personal experiences I'd be surprised if you can work out the percentages. Again, that's my personal experience which is all you are using.

No NTL employee has proof of what the majority of their customers "think". What they do have though are usage stats of customers which show the percentage of customers that have a usage pattern that will not involve breach of the caps. A reasonable person would assume that if those stats show that over 95% of customers have a usage pattern below the cap levels then they will not be bothered by the caps. Now, do you consider yourself a reasonable person?

[Nemesis]

....erm still watching ...

Originally Posted by ian@huth

No NTL employee has proof of what the majority of their customers "think". What they do have though are usage stats of customers which show the percentage of customers that have a usage pattern that will not involve breach of the caps. A reasonable person would assume that if those stats show that over 95% of customers have a usage pattern below the cap levels then they will not be bothered by the caps. Now, do you consider yourself a reasonable person?

Given that NTL have over 1 million customers, that 5% is actually an awfully large number of people to lose. Further, I'd warrant that the 5% are the kind of people who were early adopters of broadband technology, so there is a strong chance they will have been with this service the longest. NTL are effectively risking losing some of their longest-term customers.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Given that NTL have over 1 million customers, that 5% is actually an awfully large number of people to lose. Further, I'd warrant that the 5% are the kind of people who were early adopters of broadband technology, so there is a strong chance they will have been with this service the longest. NTL are effectively risking losing some of their longest-term customers.

I can assure you that isn't the case.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Given that NTL have over 1 million customers, that 5% is actually an awfully large number of people to lose. Further, I'd warrant that the 5% are the kind of people who were early adopters of broadband technology, so there is a strong chance they will have been with this service the longest. NTL are effectively risking losing some of their longest-term customers.

I just used 95% as an example, it could just as easy be 99.5% as I don't work for NTL and don't know the figures. There is no logical reasoning that would suggest that heavy users are early adaptors or long standing customers. I would think it more likely that heavy users are quite new customers who haven't got tired of trying to download the entire internet yet.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I just used 95% as an example, it could just as easy be 99.5% as I don't work for NTL and don't know the figures. There is no logical reasoning that would suggest that heavy users are early adaptors or long standing customers. I would think it more likely that heavy users are quite new customers who haven't got tired of trying to download the entire internet yet.

I`m an early adopter of new tech. A large number of my friends are early adopters of new tech. I can assure you that the people I know who came to the internet later are the lower users of bandwidth. I've been using it for 13 years now and my consumption of internet resources is simply expanding as I'm able to get more and more from the net.

Give me 56k dialup and I'll download less because the speed restrictions are too painful to wait out. As bandwidth increases so will consumption. People go for the fastest tier not because they want to save time but because they want to do more. Increasing bandwidth but then imposing caps is simply short-sighted as it doesn`t take into account why people want more bandwidth.

[Chrysalis]

Heh excellent points made. What I agree with.

Back in broadband early days in the 1990's the early adopters will have been the ones paying £40+ for broadband and are the likely the power users now who NTL are trying to get rid off. I am getting quite sick of some comments made to try and justify these caps, the only 2 options that are good value for money are the 300kbit 30gig cap and the £24.99 2mbit 30 gig cap, the 1mbit 3 gig cap and 3mbit 30 gig cap are both huge profit makers.

Now to be honest :-

I dont care if someone pays the same price as me and downloads 5x as much.
I dont care if someone pays the same price as me and shares it with a whole household of people.
I dont care what others download.
I dont care if you spend £37.99 to surf the net and send emails and expect everyone else to do the same.

Some FACTS.
All the family that lives in my area incidently are NTL customers, and guess what they all unhappy, the first lot arent happy because no boardband in their area, the second lot unhappy because no digital tv and had a lot of billing errors, I am unhappy because of india call centre's caps etc. Another family member is unhappy because he cant have sky sports news and premiership plus (no digital in area) This is not made up I know no happy NTL customers sorry to dissapoint.

More facts, if it was cheaper to rent someone's network then use your own then why would BT build their own network and rent it out to isp's, what kind of suggestion is that, the evidence is clear, easynet have their own network, they dont rely on BT wholesale, and their package portfolio proves it, you can all claim they not making a profit but I am willing to bet they are making a profit. NTL are making a 50% operating profit as stated in another thread which is no surprise since they own their own network and use transperent proxies and have a cap, this 50% is about to increase when these new tiers come into force.

What baffles me is NTL staff on here claim that customers are not thick/stupid whatever word you want to use yet carry on trying to sell a 3mbit tier as a surfing package and not as a downloading volumes of data package which is what its really suitable for. You can send your emails over a 3mbit connection but it wont make jack difference to a 512kbit connection. The only difference is you paying an extra £20 a month.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m an early adopter of new tech. A large number of my friends are early adopters of new tech. I can assure you that the people I know who came to the internet later are the lower users of bandwidth. I've been using it for 13 years now and my consumption of internet resources is simply expanding as I'm able to get more and more from the net.

Give me 56k dialup and I'll download less because the speed restrictions are too painful to wait out. As bandwidth increases so will consumption. People go for the fastest tier not because they want to save time but because they want to do more. Increasing bandwidth but then imposing caps is simply short-sighted as it doesn`t take into account why people want more bandwidth.

You must be right then. I'll forget all that I learned being involved in consultancy work for a certain consumer body. The socio economic class findings must have been so far from the mark.
__________________

Chrysalis, have you bothered to check company balance sheets?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

What baffles me is NTL staff on here claim that customers are not thick/stupid whatever word you want to use yet carry on trying to sell a 3mbit tier as a surfing package and not as a downloading volumes of data package which is what its really suitable for. You can send your emails over a 3mbit connection but it wont make jack difference to a 512kbit connection. The only difference is you paying an extra £20 a month.

I dont try to sell anything i am an Engineer. Again get your facts right and stop saying things you cannot prove. Its not the first time you have comeout with a wild and untrue statment like that. Prove to me that i having been selling 3meg as a surfing package to users on this site or anywhere else. If you cannot then correct you statement .

See the bottom part of my sig for other wild statments proved to be untrue

[mosaddique]

As a 300k user I agree with chrysalis. I cannot see myself taking up the 1M option with a 3GB cap. I am a patient sort and I will stick on 300k.

Most of what I do can be done fairly well with 300k. As for downloading large files (Mainly Linux ISOs in my case). I will just have to leave the downloads running overnight and all day till they finish as I do now.

I would rather they had raised the speed to say double and kept the same 30 GB cap. 3 GB is too small a cap.

One would have thought that if NTL wishes to be competetive then they would keep an incentive in there for those of us who are not speed merchants. If an ADSL provider comes up with an improved offer (as I am sure they will) people like me will probably be tempted to move.

Finally for those staying on 300k with 30GB cap, will NTL reduce their charges? I have not seen such an indication, so I assume not. This will in the end be a further disincentive to stay if a better option were to come from the ADSL camp.

[Kevin]

The Question i have is that if the powers that be, those who set these cap limits forsaw the customers view on this, and set a realistic cap:-

I.e.

1Mbit 30 gig a month
2Mbit 40 gig a month
3Mbit 60 gig a month (1gig a day is appauling for a 3mb service)



Then no one would be that bothered, i guess all the problems are that the cap levels are unrealistic, competition with other service providers on both costs and cap levels are more competitive.

I understand the reasons for the cap both on business and network, what i cant figure out is why they chose those levels.

If im paying for the top level account 3mb damn right im gonna use it, and not on a GB a day, if i want to max it for a couple of days then tale off then i could, not with these caps tho.

Again Ntl totally unrealistic.

[scrotnig]

I am rather tired of reading on here that ntl customers must be thick or stupid. I can assure you that the ones I speak to are not. Even those who have not been on the internet much have a fair idea of what I mean if I mention a 'download limit'. I've never once come across anyone who failed to understand what I was talking about.

I also worked for all of last year in the department that handles disconnection requests. Want to know how many requests we had to disconnect because of the cap? None. That's right, not a single one in 12 months. And that covers the entire former NW business unit.

So please, no more of these quasi-experts telling me what customers want and what they don't want. I happen to KNOW because I am at the sharp end dealing with it all the time.

Incidentally, I am also regularly pleased to see how honest the sales people are in explaining caps. By the time I need to speak to the customer and I point the cap out, they invariably tell me the salesman told them already.

This is the reality, not the invented fiction.

[BIGZIPZ]

Are CS telling people that there is a download limit or a limit on usage? Reason I ask is if there is going to be a "download" limit then one would assume upload data doesnt count towards your usage total.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by BIGZIPZ

Are CS telling people that there is a download limit or a limit on usage? Reason I ask is if there is going to be a "download" limit then one would assume upload data doesnt count towards your usage total.

Individuals use their preferred terminology. I tend to use download limit as that covers it reasonably well, others use data transfer limit. Useage limit could imply that there is a time restriction, so none of them is perfect. Data transfer limit is probably closest and least geek-sounding. Perhaps I'll use that in future.