Cap

[Stuart W]

Originally posted by Sociable
Many said the same when we stuck to our guns over the price of the 1 meg service but few complained when we got NTL to agree to the £34.99 instead of £50.

User Power at its best

The only thing that got ntl to drop from £50 was the simple fact that it was CHEAPER to get 2X600k and it would be FASTER too.

Having said that, I do agree totaly that cusomers, when in large numbers, can have a big influence on companies. After all, just who pays who's wages???

[Sociable]

Originally posted by Stuart W
Realy?

No, REALY?

I would say these 'heavy' users are the ones who download films / music from KrapZaa and burn to disc to sell at boot sales!

What about all the other legitamate uses?

The way the cap is written it makes no distinction at all about what is being downloaded. Such a blunt instrument serves no use in combating that sort of abuse or would you argue it is OK to break the law long as you dont exceed the limit?

All the "heavy" users that drove developement are usualy legitematley using the service. All the 'heavy users' that screw things up for the rest of us are just plain selfish.[/B]

If only life was so easy

Truth is anyone downloading anything at peak times has an equal effect on the network.

More than that it is clear much of the initial drive behind the explosive growth of the internet was due to porn and more recently the availability of bootleg music and video.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical but I would be surprised if the money men behind NTL did not count on such use when setting up the network. If this was not so why have they always avoided taking any real action to stop either.

As I said before, the "CAP" is only there to give ntl a reason to drop the pi$$ takers.[/B]

If this was the case the existing AUP gave them all the power they required. I think it is therefore reasonable for us to question whether NTL had any other motive in introducing the Cap.

ntl are very poor at enforcing things.... proof being:-

Amount of STB's which have been "chipped" available. (both analogue & digital).
Amount of cable modems on-line with NO BILLING AT ALL due to incompitance.

I could also go into detail about them writing to me about my usage and quoting two totaly unconnected parts of the T&C as a reason to disconnect me, but last time I did that, everyone decided to slate me for uncapping, not read into the full reasoning. If you want details, PM me. [/B]

My take on this is that someone has actually done a cost benefit analysis and worked out the cost of enforcement often outweighs the loss.

Besides that it has become increasingly clear NTL's philosophy is "hook" more fish, tie them into a nice 12 month contract then ignore them along with all the existing customers.

It is this policy of loading additional users on the network without matching the extra sales with capital investment in the network that is more to blame for dgraded services than a few people actually using the service as it was sold to them.

[Sociable]

Originally posted by Stuart W
The only thing that got ntl to drop from £50 was the simple fact that it was CHEAPER to get 2X600k and it would be FASTER too.

Having said that, I do agree totaly that cusomers, when in large numbers, can have a big influence on companies. After all, just who pays who's wages???

Actually as NTL restrict customers to one connection per houshold it is now and never was possible to have two 600k connections. This was, however, part of the arguement we put forward as the pricing structure effectively charged more per k for the faster service. Bit like selling raffle tickets 10p each or 5 for a pound.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Sociable
Actually as NTL restrict customers to one connection per houshold it is now and never was possible to have two 600k connections.

As far as I know you are now allowed 2 connections in the same household. (could be wrong though )

[Sociable]

Originally posted by Gandalf
As far as I know you are now allowed 2 connections in the same household. (could be wrong though )

Possibly

But certainly wasn't allowed at the time and would serve little use now given the curent pricing unless someone wanted 2 x 1 meg connections.

mmm Ponders would they have to share the cap in such a case

[obvious]

Originally posted by Stuart W
Realy?

No, REALY?

I would say these 'heavy' users are the ones who download films / music from KrapZaa and burn to disc to sell at boot sales!

All the "heavy" users that drove developement are usualy legitematley using the service. All the 'heavy users' that screw things up for the rest of us are just plain selfish.

As I said before, the "CAP" is only there to give ntl a reason to drop the pi$$ takers.

ntl are very poor at enforcing things.... proof being:-

Amount of STB's which have been "chipped" available. (both analogue & digital).
Amount of cable modems on-line with NO BILLING AT ALL due to incompitance.

I could also go into detail about them writing to me about my usage and quoting two totaly unconnected parts of the T&C as a reason to disconnect me, but last time I did that, everyone decided to slate me for uncapping, not read into the full reasoning. If you want details, PM me.

Hi Stuart, I've been a bit slow catching up on threads here.

I honestly don't see where you're coming from. I haven't found anyone who thinks that the 'cap' addresses any problem of network congestion at peak times or otherwise.

ntl have always had stuff in the AUP to tackle bandwidth abusers. Yes I think that downloading 24*7 is bandwidth abuse and people who do this on a busy ubr deserve to be 'capped'.

On another point, do you really not think that increases in demand for bandwidth have been one of the main factors in the development of faster (wider) broadband?

Strangely though (and I only mention this cos I think it's funny) if a user was able to download 24*7 at full speed, wouldn't it prove that the network was not congested in that area?

[Munkeh]

I dont think they ever meant to enforce it. It was just put in a a catchall get out of jail free card if they wanted to boot you off because they didn't like the smell of your pants.

I've not heard of one incident of an account being closed because of it. Is there any point in flogging the already dead and whiplashed horse. Or are you all that bored? :P

oh hello btw ;P

[Sociable]

Originally posted by Munkeh
I dont think they ever meant to enforce it. It was just put in a a catchall get out of jail free card if they wanted to boot you off because they didn't like the smell of your pants.

They always had that power anyway what is new is the concept that data transfer can be limited when it was not part of the original contract as sold. It has also set a general precedent that our contracts can be amended without notification or agreement.

I've not heard of one incident of an account being closed because of it. Is there any point in flogging the already dead and whiplashed horse. Or are you all that bored? :P

oh hello btw ;P

Not bored simply sticking to a point of principle. If we wait till they start to enforce the Cap it will be too late.

The horse is not dead by the way it is simply being held in the stable till NTL decide to take it out for a trott.

Please do not feed the NTL nag with the oats of apathy or they may decide to go for a gallop instead and trample all of us in the process.

[obvious]

lol.

Hi Munkeh

What Sociable said

[Munkeh]

Originally posted by Sociable
They always had that power anyway what is new is the concept that data transfer can be limited when it was not part of the original contract as sold. It has also set a general precedent that our contracts can be amended without notification or agreement.

but doesnt the small print always read .. we retain the right to change this contract as and when we see fit.. etc (although I've not checked tbh)

Not bored simply sticking to a point of principle. If we wait till they start to enforce the Cap it will be too late.

The horse is not dead by the way it is simply being held in the stable till NTL decide to take it out for a trott.

Please do not feed the NTL nag with the oats of apathy or they may decide to go for a gallop instead and trample all of us in the process.

Ahh sticking to a point of principle is an admirable trait, but this argument has been done to death, the cap IMHO will never be enforced in its present form, so I think the G-G is well and truly dead, although there may well be another horsebox hiding just out of view full of shetland ponies ;P

There's really no apathy involved from my end at all here, just rather a "Why don't you turn off the TV and go something more.." in a kids tv stylee. ( ahh nows thats given away the fact I'm an old codger)

[obvious]

Originally posted by Munkeh
but doesnt the small print always read .. we retain the right to change this contract as and when we see fit.. etc (although I've not checked tbh)

Contracts can not be changed unilaterally.

It's illegal. A changed contract is a broken contract.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 state :-

(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

(k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

There's a whole bunch of other stuff in there that ntl ignore on a regular basis.

[Sociable]

Originally posted by obvious
Contracts can not be changed unilaterally.

It's illegal. A changed contract is a broken contract.

Well said

Good example of this is the accepted fact that NTL can not enforce the 12 month contract if they change the price of a service and do not get the customers agreement to the change.

A degree of "flexibility" is allowed to be built into any agreement but any "fundamental" changes have to be agreed to.

Closest example of this that comes to mind is if your Water supplier wished to change over to metered supply. They have the right to ask for the change but would have to both notify you and gain your agreement prior to making the change.

[Munkeh]

Originally posted by obvious
Contracts can not be changed unilaterally.

It's illegal. A changed contract is a broken contract.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 state :-

There's a whole bunch of other stuff in there that ntl ignore on a regular basis.

Ahh sorry meant terms and conditions and the user policy. Which do appear to have lots of get out of jail free cards in.

Originally posted by Munkeh
Ahh sorry meant terms and conditions and the user policy. Which do appear to have lots of get out of jail free cards in.

But even T&Cs can be challenged as unreasonable and therefore unenforceable.

The point with that, and with the Unfair Terms Act, is that the police are not going to go knocking on Ntl's door to investigate allegations that they are abusing the law. It's up to us beleagured customers to learn what our rights are and to take them to court ourselves, if we have the time and the money for it. I suspect ntl is banking on us being too busy and too impoverished to put up a struggle.

[dodgy.geezah]

Originally posted by obvious


There's a whole bunch of other stuff in there that ntl ignore on a regular basis.

So vote with your feet or do the plusses of ntls cablemodem offering outweigh the disadvantages. Anyways from what I can see ntl T&C's/User Policy are as suitably vague as any ISPs