Let the capping commence.

Ben · 23-09-2003, 16:34

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/22/32978.html

Not looking good imo.

23-09-2003, 16:39

Wont last the yanks arn't as daft as us. They'll be a back lash. Plenty of other BB companies out their

Caspar · 23-09-2003, 16:44

True..but it doesn't say why they are doing it, really...

...why don't they just expand the service, infastructure, etc...to keep up with us! :p

If they're sitting on $8 BILLION, then they can't plead poverty like some idiots do

...wonder whether they've thought about online gaming traffic....

Jerrek · 23-09-2003, 18:41

It will not last. Sympatico DSL introduced a cap last year sometime and like half their users switched to other DSL providers or cable. They probably got worried sick so as of August this year they removed the cap AND upped the speed from 1 Mbit to 1.5 Mbit.

The other cable company in this area is Rogers, which has no cap whatsoever.

The other cable company, Cogeco, offers 3 Mbit standard and 5 Mbit Pro packages has a soft cap of 30 GB a month, but they've never enforced it and according to them it is just for legal reasons.

The other cable company, Shaw, offers 8 Mbit standard and has no cap either.

I don't think there are caps in Canada anymore. They tried it, and people left for competitor's products. I'd wager the same will happen in the United States.

El Diablo · 24-09-2003, 01:48

I for one would welcome any capping provided that it is to the benefit of a good number of users... <ducks>

Not everyone has 'broadband' connectivity so that they can abuse the software / music industry by P2P sharing. Many people have broadband for legitimate usage. Sure, I download legitimate files from places on the interweb but I don't leave my machine downloading oodles of $music / $software / $porn from the likes of P2P Kazaa or $other P2P facilities.

Think about other users who simply want faster access to the web, speedy download of pop3 mail along with the ability to use telnet and other Internet tools without their connection slowing due to contention ratios and the fact that broadband accessibility is being 'misused' by other users.

The mis-conception that "Well, I've paid $ for #mbs and so I shall use it" derives mostly from the bad ole days of dialup. 56kbs was the most that users could get on dialup and so broadband packages were badly marketed on the basis of greater speed through capacity - which subsequently encouraged users to simply download more mbs/$.

I personally object to the fact that my downstream is reliant on fscktards sharing the same feed and that when said fscktards decide to download half of HMV my speed is greatly reduced.

It's about time people were educated to understand that greater bandwidth relates to greater capacity, rather than ability to download *mbs of, often illegal, rubbish, just because they can.

Sure, there's legitimate uses too, but lets face it, if users don't wise up, we'll all end up with a bum deal.

Oh, and don't expect ISPs to increase their backbone on this basis. Think... bandwidth capacity is only as great as the weakest point in the connection - this mostly being at the local exchange points, hence contention ratios - upgrading their already under utilised backbone will not make a $hit of difference.

JESUS

24-09-2003, 10:49

I have a 600K connection.
I'll hold my hands up and say that I download mp3's.
I'll also state that if I like albums or singles, I will go out and buy them.

I dont download movies, I just invested in my unlimited UGC ticket so I'm better off using that and seeing movies as they were intended.
Also theres plenty of cheap DVD's available these days.

I like to be able to send and receive files quickly, I dont have any problems with BB in Teesside, and I have never had any major problems in nearly 2 years of usage. So from my experience I fail to see why a cap would be necessary. I have a basic understanding of how the network runs and I do understand that people share the bandwidth.

24-09-2003, 11:48

I really wish some NTL employee's would add it to their profile or do they like to pretend their the average joe customer.

Well NTL advertise all that ****e that has been mentioned even the illegal downloading.

Think before you type

24-09-2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
I really wish some NTL employee's would add it to their profile or do they like to pretend their the average joe customer.

Well NTL advertise all that ****e that has been mentioned even the illegal downloading.

Think before you type

I hope your not referring to me

orangebird · 24-09-2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by timewarrior2001
I hope your not referring to me

No, I think it was towards El diablo?

if it was...

24-09-2003, 12:26

yep

orangebird · 24-09-2003, 12:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
yep

Can we not start another employee v customer argument? I don't think it's very fair or reasonable to assume that just because someone agrees with the cap that they are an ntl employee.....

Wether they are or not shouldn't matter - it's a customer view on the cap and the way other use bb, nothing else.

Dooby · 24-09-2003, 13:03

i think one of the interesting things about this 'cap' is that there is no specified level...at least NTL had the decency to tell people what the level was...I like the speeding analogy...I had used that before when trying to argue that a AUP that had a specified limit was better than one with an arbitrary 'excessive use'...( that DOESNT mean i agree with the level, or with the fact that all tiers had the same cap ) ...

one thing I would point out though, is that while most 'end users' were on dialup, the bandwidth they consumed on teh main backbones was minimal... these backbones have to be paid for and maintained, the heavier users were businesses etc and they paid for it, dialup users pretty much 'piggy backed' on the network...now end users have broadband...they are consuming more and more of the bandwidth...so expect to start paying more of a contribution to the upkeep of the network. Routers, switches, frame relays etc etc are NOT free, hence the (limited) bandwidth that flows through them is also not free...

El Diablo · 24-09-2003, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
I really wish some NTL employee's would add it to their profile or do they like to pretend their the average joe customer.

Well NTL advertise all that ****e that has been mentioned even the illegal downloading.

Think before you type

LOL! And so should you think before you type!

That's quite an assumption to make Defiant, but just for the record, no, I certainly do not work for NTL.

El Diablo · 24-09-2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Dooby
one thing I would point out though, is that while most 'end users' were on dialup, the bandwidth they consumed on teh main backbones was minimal... these backbones have to be paid for and maintained, the heavier users were businesses etc and they paid for it, dialup users pretty much 'piggy backed' on the network...now end users have broadband...they are consuming more and more of the bandwidth...so expect to start paying more of a contribution to the upkeep of the network. Routers, switches, frame relays etc etc are NOT free, hence the (limited) bandwidth that flows through them is also not free...

I couldn't agree more with you Dooby

Backbone bandwidth isn't much of an issue here though, it's the access routes to the backbone that become congested moreso.

Anyone know the current backbone capacity of NTL, including its transatlantic links?

With ISPs moving away from Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology to running networks based on Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM), a great increase in bandwidth can be achieved. 2.5Gbit/s backbones are quite standard/minimal with DWDM, since with the appropriate equipment attached to the same fibre, capactities of 10Gbit/s are easily achievable, even increasing upto 40Gbit/s +- the equipment is expensive though, so if users want this, they will have to pay top dollar

Anyone know of any networks running in excess of 10Gbit/s at the mo? From conversations I've had previously, very few ISPs are interested in reaching these capacities just yet, since even those that have 10Gbit/s with lots of customers find that actual usage is a mere scratch in the overall achievable capacity.

24-09-2003, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by El Diablo

With ISPs moving away from Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology to running networks based on Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM), a great increase in bandwidth can be achieved. 2.5Gbit/s backbones are quite standard/minimal with DWDM, since with the appropriate equipment attached to the same fibre, capactities of 10Gbit/s are easily achievable, even increasing upto 40Gbit/s +- the equipment is expensive though, so if users want this, they will have to pay top dollar
:

Let NTL put their BB price's up oh mouthy one. Lets just see what happens shall we. Their's some excellent deals out their now for BB and some customers just need a little push by NTL like me