Cap

[th'engineer]

And any CAP thread would not be complete without a th'engineer in it

[poolking]

Originally posted by th'engineer
And any CAP thread would not be complete without a th'engineer in it

Just wondering when you'd turn up.

[obvious]

Sorry I'm late. I was practicing beating my head against a brick wall. Feel much better now

Damn cap!

[th'engineer]

Are we turning this thread into a serious discusion, will BIll CAP change his view

[Sociable]

Originally posted by th'engineer
Are we turning this thread into a serious discusion, will BIll CAP change his view

Yes Please !

[th'engineer]

Nice to see all the usual suspects present and correct including myself in that .

Anyone know if BIll Goodlands new job has been announced

[Stuart W]

OK, firstly, why is it called a CAP?

My 'CAP' is 1M down 256k up because I am 'CAPPED' at the 'GOLD' level.

I am aware of a "Download Limit" of 1Gig per day, but choose to ignore it.

My reason for ignoring it is as follows.....

A few years ago I got a 600K CM and was told by ntl that I must not host FTP or HTTP servers. I hosted both but restricted access to usernames and passwords. NTL were fine about this (spoke to LOADS of tech support peeps about it) as they could not see any major impact on the connecton I used, or any other customers on my UBR.
They said the "no server" policy was there just so they could quickly shut someone down if they started up an "adult" site, or a site with too much traffic.

IMO, the 1Gig limit is there for similar reasons. I have frequently gone over 1G and NEVER got contacted. I imagin if I start downloading at 120k 24/7 they wll be phoning me, but as I dont, they wont.

[obvious]

Originally posted by Stuart W
OK, firstly, why is it called a CAP?

My 'CAP' is 1M down 256k up because I am 'CAPPED' at the 'GOLD' level.

I am aware of a "Download Limit" of 1Gig per day, but choose to ignore it.

My reason for ignoring it is as follows.....

A few years ago I got a 600K CM and was told by ntl that I must not host FTP or HTTP servers. I hosted both but restricted access to usernames and passwords. NTL were fine about this (spoke to LOADS of tech support peeps about it) as they could not see any major impact on the connecton I used, or any other customers on my UBR.
They said the "no server" policy was there just so they could quickly shut someone down if they started up an "adult" site, or a site with too much traffic.

IMO, the 1Gig limit is there for similar reasons. I have frequently gone over 1G and NEVER got contacted. I imagin if I start downloading at 120k 24/7 they wll be phoning me, but as I dont, they wont.

I'm sure a lot of people would agree that it doesn't matter what we call it. I think it's the thin end of the wedge. First they introduce the 'limit' without enforcing it, then whenever it suits them they could theoretically use it as a club to beat users with. Very few people would argue that it's ok to rape your connection 24*7 on a contended service but the thing is, ntl already had measures in place that covered this kind of abuse in the old AUP. I'm worried that any of the following could happen:-

• ntl start beating non abusers with the cap
• ntl start generally enforcing the cap
• Other ISPs follow suit
• We end up with a pay per byte model across the UK

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by obvious
We end up with a pay per byte model across the UK[/list]

In the long run this will happen in some way or another

[Sociable]

Originally posted by Stuart W
OK, firstly, why is it called a CAP?

Cap in this context is a defined point at which some action may or may not apply.

Regardless of how you choose to define it everyone involved in this debate knows what we are talking about so it matters not if you choose to call it a guideline, a limit or a Cap

My 'CAP' is 1M down 256k up because I am 'CAPPED' at the 'GOLD' level.[/B]

Yes this is a cap but maybe better defined as a speed limit rather than a cap.

I am aware of a "Download Limit" of 1Gig per day, but choose to ignore it.[/B]

That is your right but raises two issues:

First is one can only choose to ignore it if one is aware that it exisists. This is the general complaint we have about the covert nature of its introduction and absence from any of the advertising by NTL.

My reason for ignoring it is as follows.....

A few years ago I got a 600K CM and was told by ntl that I must not host FTP or HTTP servers. I hosted both but restricted access to usernames and passwords. NTL were fine about this (spoke to LOADS of tech support peeps about it) as they could not see any major impact on the connecton I used, or any other customers on my UBR.
They said the "no server" policy was there just so they could quickly shut someone down if they started up an "adult" site, or a site with too much traffic.[/B]

The existance of these restrictions in the original AUP is just one of many reasons we feel the change to add a specific cap at 1 gig was not required.

IMO, the 1Gig limit is there for similar reasons. I have frequently gone over 1G and NEVER got contacted. I imagin if I start downloading at 120k 24/7 they wll be phoning me, but as I dont, they wont. [/B]

Once accepted that NTL can apply "new" restrictions (even if they don't imediately enforce them) to existing users without first gaining agreement is a very dangerous precident to set.

If you wait till NTL decide to enforce the 1 gig cap, or worse still reduce it to say 500MB, it is going to be far harder to argue your case as the general principle has already been conceeded.

[kronas]

Originally posted by Ramrod
In the long run this will happen in some way or another

not if we fight it roddy consumer power CAN make a diffarence we must stand up to these compaines

[Dave Stones]

just hope they dont get drunk with power and limit us 56kers...

[Dupre]

• ntl start beating non abusers with the cap
• ntl start generally enforcing the cap
• Other ISPs follow suit
• We end up with a pay per byte model across the UK

[/B]

i cant see these retro active steps being good, or long lasting. look at how internet provisions have progressed since BBS in the UK. I remember when freeserve and those isps started with the FREE 0845 services, that was a WOW! for me, after 2 years of paying demon £40 a month for the priviledge of paying 0845 rates... it was now free! then the surgence of broadband, suddenly paying for bandwidth seems stupid.

True they'll milk more money out of us, and with a cap they'll end up losing customers, but hey... 12 months after all these ISPs do that, some entrepreneur will start a free dsl pay-as-you-go, then a limitless dsl for prices we see dialup going for now.

The biggest cost to ISPs in this country right now, is paying off for the installation of all the fibre optics (cableco's) and DSL enabling exchanges (BT+co). at the end of the day, once they recoup those costs, after 12 months of the exchange being up, BT make there cash back on a minimum of 400 users to activate the exchange. Bandwidth is pretty much cheap as chips these days, and when you consider that dialup servers need literally 1000's of modems connected in order to interact with you, and cable/dsl needs 1 per 100mbit of traffic... that cant be an issue.

To the point, Cap = Bad ;-) with more and more exchanges being DSL enabled, and if they kick you off, they're essentially terminating your contract, vis-a-vis you dont have to pay them any longer and are free to go trouble DSL exchanges at 6mbit/s with no cap. The day i get kicked off is the day i admit i won, i get to give £25 a month to a company who will let me hookup my xbox for no extra charge, and i can run NAT

[wizardman]

he he i were wonderin when this swear word would pop up lol

hi all

[Ben]

Originally posted by wizardman
hi all

Hi wizardman

Anyway to the discussion...

The "Cap" ( ) does not bother me one bit. I personally only think it comes into play if your area is in bad shape and your downloading big files (that being anything people down :p )

Its not a problem for me as I never go over it anyway