*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion (Part 3)

[Horace]

Thanks for that reassurance Ignition, I didn't realise that mac address cloning only worked if it was used in a different area. Makes sense if you think about it, if I tried to use the same mac address on two pc's connected to my router problems would obviously occur .
Can't NTL check if more than one person is using the same mac by running a custom script and checking all their "router" logs for duplicates? I'm a total newb as far as networking this high up goes so excuse the ignorance.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Horace

Thanks for that reassurance Ignition, I didn't realise that mac address cloning only worked if it was used in a different area. Makes sense if you think about it, if I tried to use the same mac address on two pc's connected to my router problems would obviously occur .
Can't NTL check if more than one person is using the same mac by running a custom script and checking all their "router" logs for duplicates? I'm a total newb as far as networking this high up goes so excuse the ignorance.

Who said that it worked in different areas?

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Who said that it worked in different areas?

Ian read your own signature.

Please put brain in gear before posting.

Please Ian stop defending ntl to the hilt whatever the facts. A post like this makes you look a fool. Everyone who has been on these boards any length of time should know that while the recent software updates have made this practise far more difficult it has in the past been something that's happened and is still possible even if the bar has been raised a lot as far as how difficult it is to accomplish it.

If it were impossible altogether do you not think I'd have just given the one sentence reply rather than the more verbose response I did?
__________________

Originally Posted by Horace

Can't NTL check if more than one person is using the same mac by running a custom script and checking all their "router" logs for duplicates? I'm a total newb as far as networking this high up goes so excuse the ignorance.

Easily, though much harder to track down the cloner to an exact address!

Guys i am not a mod on here but can you remember we do not talk about the ways and hows of ripping off NTL. I know you have not yet but would hate to see this degenerate by accident. Or for someone to say the wrong thing.



Bill C shuts up and crawls back under his stone and hides again

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Ignition

Ian read your own signature.

Please Ian stop defending ntl to the hilt whatever the facts. A post like this makes you look a fool. Everyone who has been on these boards any length of time should know that while the recent software updates have made this practise far more difficult it has in the past been something that's happened and is still possible even if the bar has been raised a lot as far as how difficult it is to accomplish it.

If it were impossible altogether do you not think I'd have just given the one sentence reply rather than the more verbose response I did?

Ignition, how can you say that I am defending NTL to the hilt by that one comment? I will defend them when I believe that they are right and knock them when I don't. I have done my share of knocking over the years.

From the post that you made I did not assume that it was possible to clone MAC addresses if you were in a different area and get away with it. Look at what you said

NTL know where your modem is supposed to be

That, to me would indicate that if the MAC address of your modem turned up in a place that it shouldn't be at that NTL would know. The poster to which I responded took it to mean differently in that you could get away with a cloned MAC address in an area other than your own. I simply asked where he got that information from. Before calling someone a fool I suggest that you read exactly what you, I and others have said and make sure that you post an answer that cannot be interpreted in more than one way.

I think that's enough discussion about 'cloning'.

Its not directly related to caps and is obviously going to cause arguments - and as Bill has pointed out - we don't allow discussion of the methods involved in illegal ripping of ntl's services.

Please get back to the topic subject. Thank you.

[nemesis01]

a letter i received this morning:

Your ntl Broadband Usage

In August we wrote to you about your ntl Broadband usage. We asked you to reduce your internet usage in line with our User Policy to help us continue to offer all our customers the same great service.

During the month of september your Broadband usage was 56GB which is in excess of the 30GB monthly usage allowance for your 3MB service.

Unfortunately, as you haven't reduced your September usage in line with ntl's User Policy, we will transfer you to a new unlimited service later this month.

More usage, less speed.

We understand usage is important to you so your new service will provide unlimited Internet usage at download speeds up to 512Kbps. Your monthly bill will be changed at the same time to a charge of £17.99 per month.


Now, the thing is I feel that since I reduced from 193GB to 56GB that is very harsh, indeed some people on here have said they received 2 warning letters, in light of this one I find that very hard to believe. Still I suppose rules are rules, at least I will admit I got busted unlike some.

The interesting thing is, after I got my first letter I downgraded to 2MB straight away, when my next bill came in it billed me for the 3MB. I rang CS and they said that was a mistake, they told me to pay that bill and next month would be free. Ok, fair enough but why on this letter is it saying I am still on 3MB? Ohwell, at least I did not get downgraded to dial-up.

Originally Posted by nemesis01

Now, the thing is I feel that since I reduced from 193GB to 56GB that is very harsh, indeed some people on here have said they received 2 warning letters, in light of this one I find that very hard to believe. Still I suppose rules are rules, at least I will admit I got busted unlike some.

Harsh?! Just how much warez do you now have on your hard drive? I can't even imagine what 250GB of stuff looks like. And please, don't try to tell me it's all legitimate game demos and other fair use stuff. Plus of course that's only the two months they busted you for - how much per month were you downloading before you got your first letter?

Sorry my friend, but NTL's cap has been well known and understood for a very long time now so the way they are treating you is not harsh. You have no excuse whatsoever. IMO you got away with it for too long anyway!

No hard feelings, but my sympathies are not with you, they are with the other poor subscribers on your UBR.

[nemesis01]

i was not looking for sympathy, i accept that it is my fault and can live with 512kpbs. and yes i still do think it's a bit harsh, if only for the fact i know at least 2 people, one of them my brother in law who downloads far more than i ever have and has received no warning letter at all, now that is unfair imo.

if truth be told this could not have come at a better time, i am struggling financially and this is probably best for me, and i suppose all the other ubr users whose lives have been totally destroyed by my downloading.

[RichieUK]

Originally Posted by nemesis01

i was not looking for sympathy, i accept that it is my fault and can live with 512kpbs. and yes i still do think it's a bit harsh, if only for the fact i know at least 2 people, one of them my brother in law who downloads far more than i ever have and has received no warning letter at all, now that is unfair imo.

if truth be told this could not have come at a better time, i am struggling financially and this is probably best for me, and i suppose all the other ubr users whose lives have been totally destroyed by my downloading.

I agree with this. I myself have never gone over the 30GB limit, but i know people who do everymonth, probably over 100GB and none of them have been contacted by NTL about their usage. If NTL are going to do this, they should do it properly and contact everyone

[Safeman]

on 3mb and dont even go over 10mb a month wot the hell are these people downloading to go over that lol

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Safeman

on 3mb and dont even go over 10mb a month wot the hell are these people downloading to go over that lol

linux distros..... every day.

Originally Posted by orangebird

linux distros..... every day.

I think he was being sarcastic I think everyone wouild exceed 10 meg in a month

[Safeman]

i dont i only playonline game most weekends

[jonifen]

Originally Posted by nemesis01

a letter i received this morning:

Your ntl Broadband Usage
-- snip --
More usage, less speed.

We understand usage is important to you so your new service will provide unlimited Internet usage at download speeds up to 512Kbps. Your monthly bill will be changed at the same time to a charge of £17.99 per month.

So can anyone therefore get on this 512Kbps unlimited deal for £17.99p m? Or do I need to batter down 150Gb of nonsense for 2 months to qualify? What would the upload speed be on this? Reason I ask is I've always said I'd prefer a slower service that I can "use and abuse" (so to speak) rather than have a quicker one that I have to continually think "oh, is what I'm doing going to take me over the limit?" "More usage, less speed" - sums my internet needs up perfectly
We play games online (often me and my partner will play UT or Q3) so the upload we currently have on the 2Mb (200k) is better than the previous 128k.