[Now Official] More ntl speed changes

[slowcoach]

Personally I think that I am in Happy Valley.

Over the years my telecoms bill has remained virtually the same, if you take inflation into account it has actually reduced considerably.

My first acoustic coupler (300/75 Baud) + voice call charges used to cost me what I am paying for Phone and 1.5 MB BB today.


In the past when speeds increased you had to buy a new modem to take advantage of them, initially these were incredibly expensive, this cost had to be added to your overall telecoms costs.

It seems to me that you could complain about the price of houses, food, clothes, booze, cars, petrol and virtually every other commodity, but surely not telecoms, be fair.

In todayââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s telecom world we are spoiled rotten.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by slowcoach

Personally I think that I am in Happy Valley.

Over the years my telecoms bill has remained virtually the same, if you take inflation into account it has actually reduced considerably.

My first acoustic coupler (300/75 Baud) + voice call charges used to cost me what I am paying for Phone and 1.5 MB BB today.


In the past when speeds increased you had to buy a new modem to take advantage of them, initially these were incredibly expensive, this cost had to be added to your overall telecoms costs.

It seems to me that you could complain about the price of houses, food, clothes, booze, cars, petrol and virtually every other commodity, but surely not telecoms, be fair.

In todayââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s telecom world we are spoiled rotten.

and there speaks the voice of reason

[Hans Gruber]

NTL claim to have 1m broadband customers, and also that 5% of them use too much bandwidth. Let's say those 5% left NTL and went to another unlimited ISP. That's 50,000 lost customers. These people won't change their downloading habits. Let's say all these people are spending at least £50 a month for their broadband and TV and they take their custom elsewhere, that is a loss of £30m a year. Is NTL really losing more than that in bandwidth costs?

[DVS]

I presume they must be as NTL will already have done the math before they decided to upset 5% of their customers.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

NTL claim to have 1m broadband customers, and also that 5% of them use too much bandwidth. Let's say those 5% left NTL and went to another unlimited ISP. That's 50,000 lost customers. These people won't change their downloading habits. Let's say all these people are spending at least £50 a month for their broadband and TV and they take their custom elsewhere, that is a loss of £30m a year. Is NTL really losing more than that in bandwidth costs?

Just to point out, what is being spent on other services isn't pure profit, assuming this is the case it'd be measured against how much profit is being made on the services, not on how much is being taken in total.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by Ignition

Just to point out, what is being spent on other services isn't pure profit, assuming this is the case it'd be measured against how much profit is being made on the services, not on how much is being taken in total.

As any businessman knows, it's better to have the money coming in than not. I do not believe those 50k customers are costing NTL more than what they make out of them.

Why are people not given an unlimited option? Instead they are being forced elsewhere. It's not the quality of service that will keep these people with NTL after they've been kicked off their broadband.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

Why are people not given an unlimited option? Instead they are being forced elsewhere. It's not the quality of service that will keep these people with NTL after they've been kicked off their broadband.

Bluntly an unlimited option is unsustainable given these prices, however much bandwidth is given a percentage of users literally use all of it. There are users who, on 1.5Mbit, are downloading over 400GB a month. On 1Mbit they were doing close to 300.

Give these guys 3Mbit, which I'd remind you is about 1/10th of an entire EuroDOCSIS downstream normally good for hundreds of users, they'll be pulling over 800GB.

From a datacentre I would pay £120 a month for such bandwidth; include the various costs of traversing the ntl network as well as the transit cost and you are looking at hundreds of pounds a month for this.

Do you consider it acceptable for a single user to force upgrades costing tens of thousands prematurely, cost hundreds a month to a provider, and for what, the £50 or so a month where most people would draw the line as absolute maximum they would pay?

You hear about 'resegmentation'. This process involves numerous man-hours, five figures in parts and equipment as well. Full downstreams require this sort of upgrade. The end result being that costs go up for everyone.

Would you rather people pay more money for less speed, or that the majority are catered for with fast products that suit their needs, rather than trying to look after them and a small minority who impact on costs.

Look at Telewest's packages. The 750k is £24.99, 1.5Mbit £34.99, 3Mbit £49.99. NTL's packages will be 1Mbit @ £17.99, 2Mbit @ £24.99, 3Mbit @ £37.99.

Then tell me that allowing unlimited usage doesn't impact both on the quality of service that can be offered, and on the prices that have to be charged to maintain the quality that UK users have become accustomed to, and demand.

[DVS]

I personally could <edit> not <edit> give two hoots about increased speed. 1.5MBit is more than ample for my needs. What I do care about is limiting the amount I can use my connect which is what capping will do. If NTL where to offer an all you can eat 512/256Kbit connect at a reasonable monthly sum I'd most likely jump at it. As it stands now I'll probably move providers next year when the new caps come into play. I do not and will not return to 'clock watching' my usage.

[ProfPete]

Originally Posted by DVS

As it stands now I'll probably move providers next year when the new caps come into play. I do not and will not return to 'clock watching' my usage.

Good luck finding one. With BT Wholesale moving to capacity-based carging, unless the ADSL ISPs adjust their business model to suit, they're not going to have a business.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and the days of all-you-can-eat broadband are numbered.

[DVS]

You make it sound like BT are the only back haul carrier? If and when all the back haul carriers join the PAYG party then and only then will we see the death of all you can eat.

[ProfPete]

There are plenty of backhaul carriers, but most are not interested in the domestic market.

BT have edged themself into a nice position. They've made LLU too expensive for most ISPs, and they've made datastream pretty unreliable, by selling extremely highly contended virtual paths. The whole thing is run of an antequated SDH and often even PDH infrastructure.

Most tier-1 ISPs have been forced to opt for IPstream, and others are shifting that way too. Few tier-2's have the ability to get backhaul, possibly with the exception of wanadoo, who have energis. And I doubt the vISPs even care, as long as they make their quick buck...

Oh, and once it gets back to the ISP, they're certainly no all-you-can-eat for peering and transit anyway!!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by DVS

You make it sound like BT are the only back haul carrier? If and when all the back haul carriers join the PAYG party then and only then will we see the death of all you can eat.

No, BT aren't the only one. They are, however, the largest.

[daxx]

Originally Posted by DVS

I personally could <edit> not <edit> give two hoots about increased speed. 1.5MBit is more than ample for my needs. What I do care about is limiting the amount I can use my connect which is what capping will do. If NTL where to offer an all you can eat 512/256Kbit connect at a reasonable monthly sum I'd most likely jump at it. As it stands now I'll probably move providers next year when the new caps come into play. I do not and will not return to 'clock watching' my usage.

errr so what have you been doing since one Friday afternoon a couple of years when the 'amended T&C' came into effect? (the original CAP, 1G over 3 consecutive in 14days).

One good thing about the deteriaration (sp) of this into 'Another Capping Thread' is the fast self 'outing' of the 5%, providing NTL with even more 'public domain' ammunition from 'its users' to verify (wrong word I know) any action that NTL may take IF and WHEN the new limits are written into the T&C and for any action they MAY take against 'offenders'.

The writing is on the wall and has been for the past few years, just another 'thing' you'll have learn to live with when it comes to t'internet, along with the raft of virii, scams and other associated crap that the majority of users now take daily into the stride of their 'online' experience.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by ProfPete

Good luck finding one. With BT Wholesale moving to capacity-based carging, unless the ADSL ISPs adjust their business model to suit, they're not going to have a business.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and the days of all-you-can-eat broadband are numbered.

and sent a rep for this post

it is true the unlimited downloads is running out of time just like unlimited dial up ran out of time same thing brought down both over use.

[Hans Gruber]

Originally Posted by Ignition

Give these guys 3Mbit, which I'd remind you is about 1/10th of an entire EuroDOCSIS downstream normally good for hundreds of users, they'll be pulling over 800GB.

There's a little difference between 40gb and 800gb though. It's not a budget tier being offered, this is almost £40 a month. Give a realistic cap, people aren't paying for 3mbit to check their email and maybe download a couple of mp3s every month.

Anyone that's used genuine high speed internet will tell you that once you've gone above 1mbit you see no difference in downloading webpages. NTL is offering a gimmick pure and simple. Back to this much used car analogy, not only are we being limited in the speed we can drive, we are now being limited on how far we can drive our car each month. Fine some people only need a car to drive 5 miles into work, some people drive long distances. Offer capped services, but give people the option to download a sensible amount. Are you saying people are going to pay an extra £13 a month for the priveledge of an extra 10gb? On a high speed, high end 3gb connection, costing almost £40 a month, quite frankly 40gb takes the ****.

Fair numbers would be....

Low Tier: whatever, it doesn't matter it's for people that need little bandwidth, 5gb is fine.

Mid Tier: 50gb. This is FAIR. It is a reasonable amount.

High Tier: Remember these people pay A LOT compared to other countries (most of which need to use the bandwidth of the UK to get to USA) give them 100gb. It's why they're paying so much for net access. Most of the users in this category can get 2mbit DSL with unlimited bandwidth for £40 (location permitting)

All I'm saying is most people can accept the need for caps, but make them realistic for the money people are paying.