[Now Official] More ntl speed changes

Originally Posted by DVS

Unfortunately I know what my usage is (and I know that I am outside NTL's current guidelines before anyone screams such ). I use a Linux firewall/router with full traffic graphing and thats showing a monthly average for the last three months of ~70GB per month.

I am in the same position in that i am a heavy user and know how much i use per month . I will move to the 3 meg service and "I dont know the full details so don't think this is what will happen"if they introduce some form of hard cap i would hope they will allow me to

A. See what i have used.
B. Inform me when i am close to my limit.
C. Allow me to pay more for the extra i use. If i use it then i should pay for it.

At the moment this is all guess work as the full info has not been released so i for one will wait and see what happens .

Therefor as this seems to be a cap thread i will go put my feet up and watch from the sideline. Untill we get back on track.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by thephenom

Check out Force9 ADSL service. They have a premier and lite user package for thier home users. I feel most ISPs will use the same format. The premier user will pay for example £29.99 for 1mbit connection, unlimited download. The lite user will pay £14.99 for the same connection with a 1 gig per month download limit, but you can increase it up to 10 gig, but the price goes up with each gig.

I feel it's inevitable and soon all ISPs will be placing a download cap of some sort

Force9 / Plus.net ya.

My one concern about plus although I've heard a lot of good things about them is that since they switched their buying method from BT they are running their network bloody close to the wire now:

http://www.plus.net/support/adsl/adsl_utilisation.shtml

Bear in mind that last week they added another 155Mbps.

I was considering their services, 2Mbps, no limits for £40 a month is a good deal, I'm just rather nervous about how viable it is and how close to its' limits they are running their connectivity. They lose a single 622Mbps circuit from BT and it's congestion city, they lose a single 155Mbps and it's marginal

In ntl's case core network is more than capable of supporting twice the load it currently does, and very few users see congestion, the uBRs as a whole have a lot of overhead free now due to the big upgrades that have been done.

Just a comparison of one to another. I'm very not convinced that Plus is viable in the long term, their profit margin is tiny, and they are shortly to move all their users on home 2Mbit from the 20:1 contention BT network to the nominal 50:1, which is currently showing oversubscription in 10% of BT's exchanges (better than the 15 - 20% it was a fortnight ago).

I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention why BT aren't offering 3Mbps as a business service, and are only now getting around to offering a home version of 2Mbps - their network can't handle it. They backhaul over 90% of UK DSL, and their network simply can't handle the extra load right now.

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

Nothing beats roaming the streets in the evening with the wife and kids in the drizzle. And as for reading, isn't that what the internet is for? Now NTL is limiting it's use for text only websites...

Now i have heard it all .

[DVS]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Please don't take offence, but that is a ridiculous amount for a residential service.

No offence taken. That is your view. Most people would also think that my home network is ridiculous but apart from working in IT its also my hobby (an expensive hobby granted but a hobby non the less).

The fact that I hold a senior IT role in the Internet department of a major UK corporation/content provider does mean that I have a very tech savvy family. My youngest son, 13, could run rings round some of the IT techs I work with meaning that we are not the average net using family and our usage is accordingly higher.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by DVS

No offence taken. That is your view. Most people would also think that my home network is ridiculous but apart from working in IT its also my hobby (an expensive hobby granted but a hobby non the less).

The fact that I hold a senior IT role in the Internet department of a major UK corporation/content provider does mean that I have a very tech savvy family. My youngest son, 13, could run rings round some of the IT techs I work with meaning that we are not the average net using family and our usage is accordingly higher.

With all due respect, the bandwidth dynamics of a major UK corporation, which doesn't have an access network as such, and those of a cableco which runs its' own access network and can't add bandwidth to that network or segment it just by adding a switch and some CAT5/6 runs are two very different things.

[DVS]

Originally Posted by orangebird

No, ntl is not limiting it's use for text only websites, it was MPO. And who the hell reads books online? It's bad for your eyes anyway.

You need to get a better monitor or glasses (no offence ). I find reading on my IBook as easy as reading a book and I do read online (OReilly bookshelf for example). I have a wireless network in place so I can read anywhere in the house (although reading on the IBook in the bath is a problem ).

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

But surely this is only the start? If bandwidth costs are sky rocketing by this time next year we'll all be sitting on 1gbit connections with a 20mb a month usage limit. People are making out anyone downloading 31gb a month is the spawn of satan, the real issue is NTL's infrastructre. The more customers they attract with these news high speed deals, the less everyone else will be allowed to download.

Bandwidth costs are not skyrocketing at all. Usage allowances, caps, or whatever you want to call them are there to enable most users to enjoy a satisfactory internet experience for most of their time online. The mechanics of it are that each user is sharing a UBR card with many other users. There is a fixed, finite amount of bandwidth available on thet UBR card that all these users have to share. It only takes a relatively low number of users who try to max their downloads and uploads 24/7 to create problems for all other users on that card. It is no good saying that users can have unlimited bandwidth for a slightly higher price because the maths still stay the same. To provide extra infrastructure to cater for everyone having an unlimited service with little deterioration to their service would increase the price of the service quite substantially and then the ones complaining that the cap was too low would be saying that the price was too high.

It's quite simple really. NTL are offering a service at a fixed price for you to use within the guidelines that they set. For me and the majority of NTL customers they are offering a damn good deal that nobody else is matching. If the deal doesn't suit your requirements then shop around for one that does. I would advise waiting to see how this develops as we do not know what will happen when you have used up your allowance. Wait and see.

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by DVS

No offence taken. That is your view. Most people would also think that my home network is ridiculous but apart from working in IT its also my hobby (an expensive hobby granted but a hobby non the less).

The fact that I hold a senior IT role in the Internet department of a major UK corporation/content provider does mean that I have a very tech savvy family. My youngest son, 13, could run rings round some of the IT techs I work with meaning that we are not the average net using family and our usage is accordingly higher.

Seen as you are not an average family with your usage, maybe you need to go to not an average ISP for your connection

[DVS]

Originally Posted by Ignition

With all due respect, the bandwidth dynamics of a major UK corporation, which doesn't have an access network as such, and those of a cableco which runs its' own access network and can't add bandwidth to that network or segment it just by adding a switch and some CAT5/6 runs are two very different things.

I wasn't trying to compare the two (and in all honesty I'm not involved in that area of the companies IT). I manage and maintain the corporate internet sites which are co-lo'd away from the main corporate network. I was mearly trying to point out that my family and I don't fit into the "wheres the any key" type average family.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by DVS

<snip>My youngest son, 13, could run rings round some of the IT techs I work with meaning that we are not the average net using family and our usage is accordingly higher.

I'm sure he'd show up some of ntl/IBMs IT staff too....
IMPO though, 13 year old children should be running round fields playing sports etc.

[DVS]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I am in the same position in that i am a heavy user and know how much i use per month . I will move to the 3 meg service and "I dont know the full details so don't think this is what will happen"if they introduce some form of hard cap i would hope they will allow me to

A. See what i have used.
B. Inform me when i am close to my limit.
C. Allow me to pay more for the extra i use. If i use it then i should pay for it.

At the moment this is all guess work as the full info has not been released so i for one will wait and see what happens .

Very good points which I have reiterated previously. I just wish NTL had divuldged more details instead of making a marketing release and leaving the detail to be guessed at

Originally Posted by Bill C

Therefor as this seems to be a cap thread i will go put my feet up and watch from the sideline. Untill we get back on track.

OK point taken. I'll shut up now

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by DVS

I wasn't trying to compare the two (and in all honesty I'm not involved in that area of the companies IT). I manage and maintain the corporate internet sites which are co-lo'd away from the main corporate network. I was mearly trying to point out that my family and I don't fit into the "wheres the any key" type average family.

With even more respect I'd suggest that should your fears come true you should seek service elsewhere. Major ISPs necessarily cater to the "where's the any key" type average family, there are a few ISPs intended for heavier usage, they tend to come with a quality of service or price tag to match though!

With all due respect, this thread is just going round in circles, with the same points being made and questions raised over and over again. Is it not possible to suspend the thread until more info is released? This would avoid interested people like me having to read through several pages of repetetive posts each day, in the hope of finding some NEW information.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by DVS

Very good points which I have reiterated previously. I just wish NTL had divuldged more details instead of making a marketing release and leaving the detail to be guessed at

The problem is that NTL and good communication sometimes seem to be (to badly paraphrase Douglas Adams) a total mismatch of concepts, much the same as the Suez Canal getting up and popping out for a cup of tea.*

*Yes, I know that is not exactly what is said, but I cannot remember the exact quote and I can't find it on the web.

[zovat]

Hmm , I leave the thread for a bit, and it ends up as yet another round in circles "CAP" thread.

This is not about the cap - if that is your issue, then look at other threads that are about the cap.
(sorry but this bugs me when I read page after page of "great Higher speeds and a cap means I will have to upgrade" )
This is about NTL announcing higher speeds for their customers, for the same price as the current speed.

My only issue is the £25 "admin fee" which I will happily pay on the assumption that new customers will have to pay some form of installation fee.

If, however , by paying the £25 I am not tied in to a 12 month contract, then I don't care whether new customers have to pay for installation or not...

Why can't people just be pleased that NTL are going to be providing one of the fastest services available in the UK.