1GB Cap Letter!!!!

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Keyser

Where have you been m8? :pp

Sorry m8 still

[ynwa]

Originally Posted by Derendai

Well I recommend pipex

£23 for 512 and UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD!!!

I am not paying but if I can get a cheap adsl modem I would pay 5-6 a month for that

Pipex seem to have an excellent service. Cheap, always getting good speeds, unlimited upload / download, newsgroups that work. Customer service i hear isnt great but you rarely need to call them.

Thats where i will be heading if i get a letter from ntl.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by ynwa

Pipex seem to have an excellent service. Cheap, always getting good speeds, unlimited upload / download, newsgroups that work. Customer service i hear isnt great but you rarely need to call them.

Thats where i will be heading if i get a letter from ntl.

Going on Pipex myself soon - Looking forward to it

[erol]

Originally Posted by DVS

I seriously doubt that 10,000 users are using 90% of NTL's traffic.

The maximum amount of network _congestion_ a single user can create is < 1 users worth. The idea than an individual user can cause more than one users worth of _congestion_ is just nonsense, though one that is widely disseminated by some and believed by many.

The idea that a given user can cause more than one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion is just false. At times of congestion everyone using his or her connection contributes equally to congestion. How much you may have downloaded in times of no congestion has no effect on how much congestion you cause during peak periods.

A †˜heavyâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
A †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
Any user during peak times creates one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.

If the heaviest (by download volume) 5% of users were removed overnight, congestion would improve by up to 5%, but no more. If some of those 5% were heavy users that avoided heavy usage in peak periods then the benefit will be less than the 5%. If these users are then replaced by †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ users that use the net in peak periods only, then congestion will not improve at all.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

And one more time.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion.

Heavy users do drive the development of the internet. They drive the increasing capacity of it and they drive the increasing things that can be done with it.

Or from another angle. Let's imagine the central London road traffic charging scheme. Let's imagine that in order to reduce congestion in central London, rather than a charge, they simply banned 5% of drivers. They choose which 5% based on which drivers that do the most miles in total. They then replace this 5% with a different 5% that do less total milage but possibly more driving in Central London in peak periods. Would such a solution reduce traffic in Central London? Of corse not. Even if they did not 'replace' the 5% of removed drivers, would congestion improve by more that 5%? Of course not. So why do people believe that such a solution will help congestion on NTLs network? Why do people believe that removing 5% of users will improve congestion by > 5% ?

Heavy users do not create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

This stuff really is not rocket science, yet the level of misunderstanding about how one users usage affects anothers on a shared medium like a packet switched network, is so widely misunderstood.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by erol

The maximum amount of network _congestion_ a single user can create is < 1 users worth. The idea than an individual user can cause more than one users worth of _congestion_ is just nonsense, though one that is widely disseminated by some and believed by many.

The idea that a given user can cause more than one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion is just false. At times of congestion everyone using his or her connection contributes equally to congestion. How much you may have downloaded in times of no congestion has no effect on how much congestion you cause during peak periods.

A †˜heavyâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
A †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
Any user during peak times creates one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.

If the heaviest (by download volume) 5% of users were removed overnight, congestion would improve by up to 5%, but no more. If some of those 5% were heavy users that avoided heavy usage in peak periods then the benefit will be less than the 5%. If these users are then replaced by †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ users that use the net in peak periods only, then congestion will not improve at all.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

And one more time.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion.

Heavy users do drive the development of the internet. They drive the increasing capacity of it and they drive the increasing things that can be done with it.

Or from another angle. Let's imagine the central London road traffic charging scheme. Let's imagine that in order to reduce congestion in central London, rather than a charge, they simply banned 5% of drivers. They choose which 5% based on which drivers that do the most miles in total. They then replace this 5% with a different 5% that do less total milage but possibly more driving in Central London in peak periods. Would such a solution reduce traffic in Central London? Of corse not. Even if they did not 'replace' the 5% of removed drivers, would congestion improve by more that 5%? Of course not. So why do people believe that such a solution will help congestion on NTLs network? Why do people believe that removing 5% of users will improve congestion by > 5% ?

Heavy users do not create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

This stuff really is not rocket science, yet the level of misunderstanding about how one users usage affects anothers on a shared medium like a packet switched network, is so widely misunderstood.

Hi Erol How are you - I thought you had gone away !

[Frank]

Good post Erol, one of your better ones

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by Keyser

Good post Erol, one of your better ones

Agreed - if I have it right, then 100% of users are responsible for all of the congestion, regardless of the various 5% of some of the usage that others might not be utilising 5% of some of the time. Sorry if I kept that short.

[erol]

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

And, as was stated above, BT have the same cap in force for the SAME reasons as NTL.

Just not correct.

BT has two different divisions that sell residential BB services. BT Openworld (is it BT yahoo now?) and BT retail. BT Openworld has been offering DSL based services from 'day one' (as soon as the DSL product moved from trial to an actual product). The service has never been capped and remains uncapped currently. BT retail (a totaly seperate division of BT from Openworld) started to offer a competing 'no frills' DSL based BB service about 1.5-2 years ago. This was designed as a 'no frills' service from day one and had a cap from day one.

I think for every BT retail BB customer there are 10 BT Openworld BB customers or more. I am not sure about the exact ratio but it is in that ball park. The vast majority of BT BB customers do not have a cap in place at all. Those that do have a cap in place (BT Retail customers) bought a capped no frills / low cost (alledgedly) product and still have a capped no frills product.

So the statement that BT have the same cap as NTL for the same reasons is just not true imo.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

IE that someone who continuosly downloads all day will affect others performance on the network, be it on a DOCSIS system or on ADSL.

No. During peak periods they will cause 'one users worth' of congestion, along with every other users using the network in peak periods. They create no more congestion than a light users using their conection in peak periods. Outside of these peak periods their usage has no effect on others at all.

It is my understanding that CM based BB systems do not 'handle' congestion as well as DSL does. I might be wrong about this but it my understanding atm.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

All users had 30 days after the cap was introduced to leave NTL, not leaving signalled your acceptance of the AUP with the cap in place.

It is my view that users should have the option of terminating their contracts within 30 days of when the cap is imposed on them and not when it is annoucned.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

If they are only going after people who download more that 5gb /day on average then I have NO problem with NTL contacting that user and asking them to moderate their usage.

Even if those users are creating no congestion at all (which would be the case if they dl 5gigs outside of peak hours)?

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

I have gone over the 1gb limit myself on occasion since the cap was introduced, but now try to moderate my usage o stay within the cap.

Well moderating your usage to stay within the cap will have no effect on congestion at all. Moderating your usage to not do heavy DLing during certain hours would improve congestion. Still if it makes you 'feel good' to limit your volume but not your usage during peak periods, then good for you. Unfortunately such 'modification' of usage will have no effect on NTL's congestion problems what so ever.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

If they are not going for people who just go over but are going after genuine bandwidth hogs, then kudos to NTL, they are trying to please the majority of customers.

No they are trying to mislead the majority of customers imo (and doing a pretty good job by the looks of things). Just what is a 'bandwidth hog'? In my view a bandwidth hog is someone who insits on maxing out their connection during peak periods. It has nothing to do with how much they dl, just when they dl it. If you use the internet in peak periods then you are creating as much congestion as any other user during such periods and as such are just as much a 'bandwidth hog' as any other users during peak times.

Originally Posted by cjmillsnun

What people must realise (and it is on NTLs website) it that this is a contended service and therefore people must share the bandwisth allocated.

The whole of the internet is a 'shared' service. It is how the internet works. People must realise that with such a shared system total volumes bear no relation to congestion at all. What matters as far as congestion goes is usage during peak periods and only during peak periods and nothing else.

You could argue that becuase a users has used a shared resource (be it roads or a packet based network) lots and lots when no one else wants to use it, they should then not be able to use it much or at all during peak periods. It's not a view that I take but at least it has some 'internal logic' to it, unlike so many of the arguments used to justify limits on usage

[Nikko]

cont_d...........

[DVS]

Originally Posted by erol

TA †˜heavyâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
A †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
Any user during peak times creates one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.

I agree and disagree

Whilst I agree 1 user cannot create > 1 users worth of congestion a light user will most likely not create a full 1 users worth of congestion.

Heavy user will likely be maxxed out on bandwidth.

Light user is most likely web browsing or checking email etc which uses bandwidth in a very 'peaky' manner. They aren't maxxed out during their net usage.

[bb31]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

Going on Pipex myself soon - Looking forward to it

never had a problem with pipex in the 2yrs i been with them!!

[erol]

Originally Posted by DVS

I agree and disagree

Whilst I agree 1 user cannot create > 1 users worth of congestion a light user will most likely not create a full 1 users worth of congestion.

Heavy user will likely be maxxed out on bandwidth.

Light user is most likely web browsing or checking email etc which uses bandwidth in a very 'peaky' manner. They aren't maxxed out during their net usage.

It is true that I was treating a user as either being online or not during peak periods, and if they are tonline hey are dling whilst online. I did this to simplfy the issue.

If we go into this 'extra' detail of kinds of usage during peak periods then some points come to mind.

First off during peak times it's not possible to 'max out' your connection. As it becomes more congested then your dl speed reduces and the amount of congestion you can cause reduces, as your connection speed does.

Also I would take some issue with the idea that 'light users' do not max out their connection in those periods when they do use the internet (generally peak periods).

Imagine a houshold that only downloads 500MB a day but all in peak periods. There might be little johny playing online games from 7pm till 9pm. Sister Clare likes to get home from school, have dinner do her homework and then retire upstairs to talk online to her friends, using her webcam. She also runs a small website, heavy on large uncompressed graphics files and intersperces he online chatting with intense uploads, all from 7pm till 11pm when she has to be in bed. Dad likes to catch up on the news and uses several video based news sites. Mum meanwhile is wondering why the 5 emails from cousin Jenny in Australia, each containing an uncompressed 1.5MB didgtal photo of cousin Jenny's sick cat, are taking so long to download. She wonders if it is being caused by all these 'heavy users' and wishes NTL would just kick them off.

In the senario above the total congestion caused by such a household, entierly in peak periods, is likely to be as significant as the lazy heavy downloader that has not turned off their P2P app in peak periods. It will be much greater than the non lazy heavy downloader that _does_ restrict their usage in peak periods. However it is hard to villfy this fictional family, compared with the ease with which the non lazy heavy user is villifed.

Also if you are going to look at the detail of usage during peak periods, then with a CM based system upstream usage causes more congestion per byte than dling does per byte. In some ways the real 'bandwidth hogs' are those that upload intensively during peak periods. Apps that are symetrical in their bandwidth usages (voip, gaming and others) cause more congestion than those that are asymetrical, with more dl than up (classic dling, getting email, P2P). Apps that are asymetrical with more upload than down (uploading files to webspace, sending emails, video serving) are even worse from a congestion point of view.

My main point is however that the idea that 5% of users cause 60%+ of congestion is just plain rubbish. It is unfortunately widely believed to be true. It is this misconception that I feel the most need to counter.

(PS there is nothing 'peaky' about downloading your mail from an NTL server (if they are working that is). It's likely to saturate your connection a lot more than your typical P2P app is.)

[th'engineer]

Lets not forget NTL Broadband was sold as unlimited, not a limited service .
I have a leaflet and contract saying that there again did sign up before the AUP changes.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Frankly I think Anticap have as much potency as the queue for a Viagra convention, though that is just my opinion

Now do we need to debate the good and bad of engineering at NTL or has it just appeared as certain people being very tunnel visioned

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

If that's the case, it's not very clear watching thier propaganda channels on Digital whcih usually blatantly plug prices from £17.99. I don't know if they've stopped now but they were even utterring "High Speed" when those sort of logos were on screen. Very iffy to me.

While I agree it is not high speed.

For a dial up upgrader who is probably getting about 50k compressed on dial up, its a 3x speed increase. A 20 second web page now loading in 7 seconds, 7 seconds (the boredom threshold apparently) loading in 2 and a bit.

That plus no beep beep beep squeel before you can see anything, its certainly a benefit, from NTLs point of view it then leads to upgrade creep in the same way they manage with the TV product. Install the basic and let people upgrade themselves when they want more channels.

Originally Posted by DVS

I agree and disagree

Whilst I agree 1 user cannot create > 1 users worth of congestion a light user will most likely not create a full 1 users worth of congestion.

Heavy user will likely be maxxed out on bandwidth.

Light user is most likely web browsing or checking email etc which uses bandwidth in a very 'peaky' manner. They aren't maxxed out during their net usage.

To keep with the traffic analogy, its like replacing articulated lorrys or Humeers with minis, more will fit on the same road, but congestion is likely to be the same.

Originally Posted by erol

<snipped the bits i'm not commenting on>
It is true that I was treating a user as either being online or not during peak periods, and if they are tonline hey are dling whilst online. I did this to simplfy the issue.

If we go into this 'extra' detail of kinds of usage during peak periods then some points come to mind.

First off during peak times it's not possible to 'max out' your connection. As it becomes more congested then your dl speed reduces and the amount of congestion you can cause reduces, as your connection speed does.

Also I would take some issue with the idea that 'light users' do not max out their connection in those periods when they do use the internet (generally peak periods).

She also runs a small website, heavy on large uncompressed graphics files and intersperces he online chatting with intense uploads, all from 7pm till 11pm when she has to be in bed.

Mum meanwhile is wondering why the 5 emails from cousin Jenny in Australia, each containing an uncompressed 1.5MB didgtal photo of cousin Jenny's sick cat, are taking so long to download. She wonders if it is being caused by all these 'heavy users' and wishes NTL would just kick them off.

In the senario above the total congestion caused by such a household, entierly in peak periods, is likely to be as significant as the lazy heavy downloader that has not turned off their P2P app in peak periods. It will be much greater than the non lazy heavy downloader that _does_ restrict their usage in peak periods. However it is hard to villfy this fictional family, compared with the ease with which the non lazy heavy user is villifed.

Sister Clare is unlikely to be hosting her website on the home PC, but in reality will be uploading this to the NTL (or another) web space. This is more likely to be one time bandwith useage, than nightly congestion.

Mums cat pictures as an XP / OSX user are also likely to be a one off. First time one of her Ozzy dial up recipients gets one of these they are going to send a polite response asking her to send a smaller piccy next time. Even the microsoft apps now offer compression saving options, (save in format for e-mail) on PhotoEditor, iPhoto or most apps.

Your post does point out why Debsy is concerned with the cap though, expand this scenario to a half term week with 3 PCs in the house, an online gamer, a chatter and general browsing and there goes the Gb.