*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please.

[ian@huth]

I would think that contention on cable is based on the capacity of the UBR card.

As for the caps, my guess is that they are there purely to get rid of the very heavy users.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

I would think that contention on cable is based on the capacity of the UBR card.

As for the caps, my guess is that they are there purely to get rid of the very heavy users.

Probably (to both).


Regarding contention, NTL possibly do measure it at the UBR card level.

[Stuart]

Isn't it funny how whenever NTL talks about a cap. we get great long threads of people moaning about it (IIRC the one on .com was around 7000 posts when it was closed), threatening to leave etc.?

AFAIK, very few people actually left as a result of the current cap. It will be interesting to see how many people actually leave as a result of the proposed ones.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by scastle

Isn't it funny how whenever NTL talks about a cap. we get great long threads of people moaning about it (IIRC the one on .com was around 7000 posts when it was closed), threatening to leave etc.?

AFAIK, very few people actually left as a result of the current cap. It will be interesting to see how many people actually leave as a result of the proposed ones.

I'm sure if they actually imposed the current cap people would have left. And people are leaving due to this, I've just had the Sky bloke round saying he needs to come back with a pole (oo-er), and I'm sure I'm not alone.

[DieDieMyDarling]

There was a major difference, the last one wasn't a cap, it was a guideline. I'm waiting to see what the cap is first, and how hard it is. Also, an option to buy more GB per month, might sway me, depending on the price. If it's a simple hard cap, i'm off to ADSL, i know a lot of people who feel the same.

[Doofy]

I have a question bearing in mind i do not understand any of this looks like NTL are gonna enforce the caps to get rid of the heavy users, So if the heavy users go to lets say AOL with no caps on cable, isnt that still through the NTL ntework? which means NTL achieved absolutely nothing. And how come aol can offer unlimited via NTL but NTL cannot. As i said i dont really understand any of this, please bear that in mind when flaming this one

Originally Posted by Doofy

I have a question bearing in mind i do not understand any of this looks like NTL are gonna enforce the caps to get rid of the heavy users, So if the heavy users go to lets say AOL with no caps on cable, isnt that still through the NTL ntework? which means NTL achieved absolutely nothing. And how come aol can offer unlimited via NTL but NTL cannot. As i said i dont really understand any of this, please bear that in mind when flaming this one

I think it's more about NTL choosing not to have an uncapped service than being unable to do so. AOL has just taken a different view. I would imagine that AOL-via NTL customers are small enough in number for it to make little difference anyway.

TBH I'm not sure why anyone would get AOL by cable when they can get it direct from NTL. Even with a cap, NTL's speeds are faster, and soon to be even more so, while AOL is apparently offering a measly 512k, presumably so as not to annoy their ADSL customers.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

There was a major difference, the last one wasn't a cap, it was a guideline. I'm waiting to see what the cap is first, and how hard it is. Also, an option to buy more GB per month, might sway me, depending on the price. If it's a simple hard cap, i'm off to ADSL, i know a lot of people who feel the same.

Yeah, but the rumours last time were the same as the rumours this time. Nobody knew it wasn't going to be actively enforced. TBH, nobody (outside of NTL) seems to know what will happen if a user exceeds the current caps.

I have to admit, if the cap does cause me problems (or if UKOnline do decide to unbundle my local exchange) I'll probably be off like a shot to ADSL, but we do (at the moment) seem to be doing a lot of shouting about nothing.

Unfortunately, for me (and probably a lot of other people), ADSL is not worth it at the moment. Although I often defend NTL on here, I do keep an eye on what's available in my area. Currently the fastest ADSL service I can get is Bulldog's 2 meg service. For about £2 more than NTL's soon to be 3 meg service.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I have a question bearing in mind i do not understand any of this looks like NTL are gonna enforce the caps to get rid of the heavy users, So if the heavy users go to lets say AOL with no caps on cable, isnt that still through the NTL ntework? which means NTL achieved absolutely nothing. And how come aol can offer unlimited via NTL but NTL cannot. As i said i dont really understand any of this, please bear that in mind when flaming this one

You can't get anything but thier mid tier 512 or 600 k service on NTL so as a power user you have you bandwidth capped down from the potential 3Mb anyways.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

You can't get anything but thier mid tier 512 or 600 k service on NTL so as a power user you have you bandwidth capped down from the potential 3Mb anyways.

Cheers that cleared that up for me but AOL just offered me 1mb on my cable with no caps, ah well i will do the same as most others wait and see what happens if the cap is enforced and adversely affects me then i will go to adsl bit of a choice now BT has it sorted in my area now. Thanks for answerinf my query and no flaming

[DieDieMyDarling]

A lot of people are waiting to see though Scastle. If it becomes a hard cap, then i'm guessing a good few will move, most of the people i know that have said this are people who don't even use 30gb a month, they just don't like the idea of being capped, and having to keep an eye on it, with kids etc.

A lot of people have said how ntl won't mind losing their heavy users, i think they need to worry about the amount of users that will leave because they feel they can't sit watching everything their kids download etc, to ensure they don't go over the cap.

AOL might only do 512k, but you could still download more in a day, than you could with the ntl 3mb, considering the cap. Also, if i was going to AOL, i'd move my phone to BT, and get faster speeds, which i'm sure is what many others will do. My phone bills count to about £1200 a year. My average broadband use is about 45GB a month. BT and AOL will be glad of my custom. :-D

[Hans Gruber]

Speaking of AOL over NTL cable, do you need to install any AOL software or would it be just the same as with NTL (ie. just using a normal network connection)?

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

Speaking of AOL over NTL cable, do you need to install any AOL software or would it be just the same as with NTL (ie. just using a normal network connection)?

You need to install the AOL software, which does peculiar things to your PC and is the main reason I won't sign up with them even if they do have a big free trial period. It's just too much like hard work clearing the cr@p out at the end of it. Oh, and let's not forget their legendary billing department, which is liable to start charging your credit card even if you do cancel the service before the end of the trial.

Rearrange the following words into a well known saying:

bargepole touch them with I wouldn't.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by Chris T

You need to install the AOL software, which does peculiar things to your PC and is the main reason I won't sign up with them even if they do have a big free trial period. It's just too much like hard work clearing the cr@p out at the end of it. Oh, and let's not forget their legendary billing department, which is liable to start charging your credit card even if you do cancel the service before the end of the trial.

Rearrange the following words into a well known saying:

bargepole touch them with I wouldn't.

I thought they might still insist you use that awful software If you need the software running, does that mean you can't use it with a router?

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

I thought they might still insist you use that awful software If you need the software running, does that mean you can't use it with a router?

I have a friend who spent a good deal of time and money setting up a wireless LAN in his house only to find it useless, courtesy of AOL broadband (although ADSL rather than cable based, AFAIK). I think he has managed to make it work by having one of his PCs act as the network hub but no, it seems you can't make it work with a stand-alone router. Not a wireless one in any case.