1GB Cap Letter!!!!

[rodd]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

All I want is 25GB a month as fast as I can, yet I pay as much as someone who downloads 10 times as much. What part of this makes sense?!?!

</rant> oops.

You are now starting to talk about of paying per meg of download. Going that way is unlikely to do anything at all to help with peak congestion. Some ISPs go half way by having a restricted usage package, that might be more suitable for those complaining that others use the service more than them. As long I can do my small usage, then I'm no complaining.

What ntl just can not get into their heads, no matter how much we have tried, is that it is not logical to cap the non-peak (normal sleeping hours) in the same way as the peak daytime hours.

Those normal sleeping hours are the most off-peak, and least disruptive usage of other users pleasure, that there could be.

Ntl can not see the logic of freeing those hours of any cap, and encouraging users to do their heavy downloads during those hours. Trying to get any logic through to ntl, is like talking to a brick wall. Logic is just not ntl's strong point.

Bulldog, I believe, have or did have some kind of different allowable usage in off-peak times. Perhaps they are just more enlightened.

<a justified rant> no appologies

[Blake]

Wish I understood it more, then I could proberly see the problem from a technical postion.

At the minute, I still think ntl have a problem (just looking at this site alone tells me so) with the digerythingymabob and the whatchamecallit, and untill they iron out these gremlins I guess they are here to stay. Even if mr. blobby down the road is using 100% capacity or not.

I don't think it will go away either, Even if people do pay per mb or gig, they still using the same network as me, you and mr. blobby, and those who don't pay per mb, still suffer..

[2||Para]

I actually do the majority of my downloads between midnight and 7am and these are queued using Bit Torrent. I rarely download more than 200mb a night and download 0mb during the day.

i have friends who connect to the same p2p as me and they get huge downloads at crazy speeds on Pipex i believe. Can someone give me any info on Pipex?

[Florence]

Originally Posted by 2||Para

I actually do the majority of my downloads between midnight and 7am and these are queued using Bit Torrent. I rarely download more than 200mb a night and download 0mb during the day.

i have friends who connect to the same p2p as me and they get huge downloads at crazy speeds on Pipex i believe. Can someone give me any info on Pipex?

All the informatioin you need is http://www.extreme.pipex.net/ read up then check the forums on www.ispreview.co.uk and http://www.adslguide.org.uk/ for any problems.

[2||Para]

Thankyou Kitty

[2||Para]

Well compared to the avg. 5-15 kbs i get i believe 1 of 2 things:
either my BB is setup incorrect [probable] or my actual connection isnt up to scratch.

600kb NTL connected throught 10/100 ethernet adapter.

Is there any information available to see if my BB is setup correctly?

[2||Para]

The downloads i get are slow wherever i download from but the speed tests make me out to be a liar!

Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:50:26 UTC
1st 128K took 1863 ms = 70355 Bytes/sec = approx 585 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 1802 ms = 72737 Bytes/sec = approx 605 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 1853 ms = 70735 Bytes/sec = approx 589 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 1813 ms = 72296 Bytes/sec = approx 602 kbits/sec

This means nothing to me as im not technically minded when it comes to PC's.
If its working it's ok if it's not,ask for help! thats me lol

[Chrysalis]

I see justanothernoob's point about why isp's wont provide higher speed products, but the answer isnt a 8mbit product with 5gig traffic limit, that is just ridiculous. The answer is as what somone else suggested, manipulation of when people download.

Example 1.

2mbit product, capped to 2mbit download between 1am and 8am weekdays, capped to 500kbit between 8am and 1am weekdays, capped to 2mbit between 1am and 6pm weekends capped to 512kbit between 6pm and 1am at weekends, you could also take this further by manipulating the upload speed as well. This would make people do their downloading in the 2mbit time periods more, the stubborn ones who still do large downloads during 512k periods will suffer from reduced speeds. This should be possible as I believe ntl use QoS.

Example 2.

Keep cap how it is same speed all day, but when user reaches their traffic limit, they get capped to 64kbit isdn speed for the remiander of the month, this means no extra charges and they can still use the net, but are essentially crippled freeing up the bandwidth.

In both examples there should be a super user package available which is charged accordingly to allow the users the options of more felexibility, the extra income from this would be used to provide the infrastructure capable of doing this.

If caps are used such as Example 2 they should be reasonable 5gig on 8mbit is just stupid, I would say something like 20gig - 150kbit, 50gig - 600kbit, 100gig - 1mbit, 150gig - 2mbit and so on.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Above all else though I firmly resent you suggesting I should pay more for my connection so someone else can download many times more than me. That sort of communist style nonsense has no place with something like bandwidth which is a metered product with certain fixed costs surrounding its' supply that use more should pay a higher proportion of. I will welcome usage tiers, however I can't help but feel that heavier users will not want to take the appropriate tier - I certainly wouldn't fancy paying £700 a month to download 10GB/day...

I would also suggest that no flat rate model is equipped to properly deal with the extremes of usage being seen here.

I think you misinterpreted me. I am not saying that anyone should need to pay more, because the business model of ntl and indeed any ISP should already be priced to reflect the average and extremes (both low and high) of usage that will occur. Clearly however the low user who feels they are being taken for a ride paying for use they dont want, has a choice in the current pricing to downgrade their service speed and thus cost, or accept it. I would prefer those occasional very low use ppl who still want the convenience of fast broadband to be able to pay say a fixed price that covers the cost of the physical connection, and then a charge based on use. It becomes a matter of choice for the customer as to when to move from the fixed cost plus use model to the all encompassing flat rate, just like ntl currently offer with their telephony.

Much of this comes down to the economics of metering. I suspect metering broadband is uneconomic if it were applied accross the spectrum. Hopefully ntl have better priorities for upgrading their network to cope withthe real demand.

What I am saying is that for the occassional low user, who downloads little but wants the convenience of the faster speed, they could find that, because of the flat rate model needing to account for the overall average levels, a low user tarrif that covers a the fixed costs of the the physical connection, and provides only a limited bandwidth, might be appropriate. For everyone else the exisitng flat rate price structure is clearly preferredFor those users alone a pay as you use it model might just be appropriate, but it is an area to be explored with caution.

What is most apparent, when you look at ntl's own expectations of what 1GB actually allows, is they are failing to take account of ever expanding data sizes, which follows ever law of bigger, better and faster computers. Ntl's own expectations of use are flawed, 10,000 pictures = 1GB, great they obvioulsy don't own modern digital cameras do they? Therefore last year, it might or might not be appropriate to say 1GB was a limit. This year the average limit must be higher, and next year it will be higher again.

[DVS]

Well NTL have done exactly what I expected. They introduced the 1GB cap 12 months ago, took the flak at the time but stated excuse after excuse about how it wasn't being implemented etc etc yet didn't remove the clause from the AUP. Then they've waited till the flak has died down before 'going after' heavy users.

[ProfPete]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The answer is as what somone else suggested, manipulation of when people download.

Actually, there is a 3rd option as well (and a combination of all 3)

That would be traffic shaping. I.e. where application-layer bandwidth management servers are installed on the network which identify packets by their class, and allocate priorities. So for example, gaming packets get a low-latency priority, whereas P2P packets get the lowest priority of all.

I personally favour a combination of very high speeds, bandwidth limits with an OPTION of either slowing to say 64k over that limit, or staying at the top speed and paying per gig above the limit, and traffic shaping.

[punky]

How is that, one person can overuse a service, and degrade the service for everyone else, but him/herself?

For example, at the moment, with 6 people sharing a connection in the street/town, person A is getting full speed, and that is making persons B, C, D, E, F are getting the reduced speed. How comes person A gets priority over the other users? Is it because he is closer to the UBR for example? Surely if overuse is slowing people down, then, everyone who are downloading at the same time, would share the bandwidth equally amongst themselves, as everyone gets equal priority?

I know how it affects pings and latency, but people are also complaining about download speeds aren't they?

How does the bandwidth got distributed amongst users? I'm probably looking at it too simplistically/logically, but I have wondered.

Also: Everyone on the this thread is talking about the guys downloading 10g a day, but don't forget the first person to recieve the letter (Acathla) only fractured the limit slightly. (see here). So I don't think its a good idea to think they are targetting only the extremely heavy users, they are trying to target everyone they can.

[Sociable]

Originally Posted by 2||Para

The downloads i get are slow wherever i download from but the speed tests make me out to be a liar!

This means nothing to me as im not technically minded when it comes to PC's.
If its working it's ok if it's not,ask for help! thats me lol

One important thing to remember is that file transfers will always be subject to the weakest link principle.

If the person you are getting a file from is on a "normal" domestic line the odds are the speed will be in the 128k or possibly 256k region although some may well be able to max out your download speed this is certainly not the norm.

Even from commercial sites this can apply if there are more people downloading from the same server at the same time each of you will only get an appropriate share of the available bandwidth which again can reduce the speed you download at.

The speed test sites are gererally always able to pump at far higher speeds as they are only ever sending very small packets of datat and so will normally always push this through at the max but even then bottlenecks on the route from them to you will impact on the actual speed.

Hope that helps explain a key difference between speed tests and normal downloads often being at lower speeds without it meaning there is a problem with your connection at all.

[Graham M]

Guys! You think we have it bad on NTL! My mate live's in Belgium, has a 3.3MBit internet connection and has an imposed cap of 10GB a month!?!?!

[Florence]

Some have had a letter for downloading 8gig a day with 2gig uploads.
It is on ISPreviews main page. I will be canceling my broadband extra as I just tested a video and it used 675,815 kb for this morning.

The BBC is in talks now with BT to share the archives over p2p.. That will be of no use to NTL customers what size files will they be.

I think NTL might be shooting themselves in the foot. I agree those who download 100+ per month but it is no different to the 1gig a day. It needed to be set in tiers
1 gig for 150K
2 gig for 600K
3gig for 1mb

That is a fair option and customers should be able to carry over what hasn't been used from one month to the next so parents can save up for school holidays.