1GB Cap Letter!!!! - Page 40

toots66 · 01-06-2004, 10:28

1GB is about 18 hours listening to, say, Virgin Radio at approx 16KB/sec. OK, not many people will do that but throw in some web browsing & spam downloading and it can soon add up.

Foo Fighter · 01-06-2004, 10:48

I can't belive you guys are still on about this

JUST IGNORE THE GOD DAMN CAP AND DO WHAT YOU WANT!

SOSAGES · 01-06-2004, 11:22

everyday? i play games online i also d/l some mp3s i get game demos and i d/l some video clips - its hardwork to get to a gig EVERYDAY - of course i could just d/l stuff for the sake of it or get multiple downloads of the same files to get to the gig but i found once somthing is downloaded thats it im happy.

blenky · 01-06-2004, 12:11

I don't know if this observation has been made before - the thread is just too long to read it all!

I can't see ntl having the software to globally monitor each user to identify where anyone exceeds the 1 GB limit three times within a 14 day rolling period! I think they only respond to complaints of poor speed from individuals. The clue is in the letter where it says:

"some of our broadband customers in your area have been experiencing deterioration in the service we offer them. "

I believe that at that point, and at a local level, they will monitor the area to determine if it is a fault or caused by heavy usage.

If you live in a 'light' download area I reckon you will never get a letter no matter how much you download.

IanUK · 01-06-2004, 12:13

Maybe it just comes to down to what is reasonable, no I don't download 1 gig a day, far from it most days, but with E3 (as an example) for the best part of a fortnight I downloaded more than a gig a day, I just think 1 gig as a cap is too low these days, file sizes have moved on, and will continue to do so, NTL even seem to partly recognise this with their increase in speeds across the board, presumably to keep match with current download habits and their competitors.

I think AOL are a much more forward looking company in this regard, here is a quote from a recent AOL UK Press release:

"Our in-depth research shows that very few consumers have any idea or interest in what a one or two Gigabyte (GB) capacity imposed by some providers actually means in terms of usage. In fact, many AOL Broadband members already use a total of more than 1GB of data each month and this is likely to increase as additional broadband features and content are introduced. This demonstrates the real comparative value of broadband services that have no usage limits."

They were comparing the much more restrictive 1 gig a *month* restriction of some low cost DSL offerings but the message is the same - basically - 'content will grow and we know this.'

Just my view...

Ian

threadbare · 01-06-2004, 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by th'engineer

They did not inform people in writing of changes so does not exist, changes in writing within 28 days

there was no change to the AUP, just a clarification of a clause that already existed. namely that you cannot use the service in a way that affects the performance of the network. so there was no need for ntl to write to anyone

Neil · 01-06-2004, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by threadbare

there was no change to the AUP, just a clarification of a clause that already existed. namely that you cannot use the service in a way that affects the performance of the network. so there was no need for ntl to write to anyone

So why put in a clause that totally changes the amount of data youcan download?

th'engineer · 01-06-2004, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

So why put in a clause that totally changes the amount of data youcan download?

Would say that was a significant change in peoples contracts would'nt you

01-06-2004, 14:43

"now that the 'contract' has been ammended after the person signed up to the product i feel it is wrong to 'point the finger' at people who go over the 'new limit'.

whatever the person uses the service for is up to the individual."

Here here, if you pay the same money for the same service, then whatever amount you download matters to no one.
You're paying your money.........................
If NTL want to send out new contracts, let them try it.

ian@huth · 01-06-2004, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

"now that the 'contract' has been ammended after the person signed up to the product i feel it is wrong to 'point the finger' at people who go over the 'new limit'.

whatever the person uses the service for is up to the individual."

Here here, if you pay the same money for the same service, then whatever amount you download matters to no one.
You're paying your money.........................
If NTL want to send out new contracts, let them try it.

If you think about it, the changes to the AUP do not make any difference whatsoever to the action that NTL could take against users if they so wished. If they wanted to remove the service from any user they could do it under the AUP that existed before the "cap" was introduced and there is probably nothing you could do about it.

Yes, it is up to the individual as to what he / she uses the service for but that does not mean that they can use it for a pupose that is illegal or against the terms of use without risking prosecution or loss of service.

sherer · 01-06-2004, 15:11

does anyone actually know if anyone has fallen foul of this yet.. Knowing NTL i doubt they could get their act together to even monitor this.. as someone has said this thread seems to have been going on for far too long with no real evidence that the cap has even been implemented

01-06-2004, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherer

does anyone actually know if anyone has fallen foul of this yet.. Knowing NTL i doubt they could get their act together to even monitor this.. as someone has said this thread seems to have been going on for far too long with no real evidence that the cap has even been implemented

They have got there act together and letters have been sent out. As to what was said to each user and what happend to them i dont know. I have not heard of anyone being disconnected, If they had i am sure they would have been here to tell us.

Stuart · 01-06-2004, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by blenky

I don't know if this observation has been made before - the thread is just too long to read it all!

I can't see ntl having the software to globally monitor each user to identify where anyone exceeds the 1 GB limit three times within a 14 day rolling period! I think they only respond to complaints of poor speed from individuals. The clue is in the letter where it says:

"some of our broadband customers in your area have been experiencing deterioration in the service we offer them. "

I believe that at that point, and at a local level, they will monitor the area to determine if it is a fault or caused by heavy usage.

If you live in a 'light' download area I reckon you will never get a letter no matter how much you download.

Actually, they quite possibly already do have the software to track individual usage of the network.

I think you are right though. NTL don't seem to have gone in heavy handed and written to everyone who exceeds the cap. The do seem to be limiting it to excessive users who may be impacting the service for other customers in the area.

I get the impression that the cap has been implemented so that NTL have a definate point at which they can decide you (or any user) are making excessive use of the network. As a footnote, when I joined (although I cannot find a link to the AUP of the time), I read through the AUP and it did state that if I made excessive use of the network, I risk being banned. I think all they have done is defined "excessive use" as 1 Gig.

th'engineer · 01-06-2004, 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill C

They have got there act together and letters have been sent out. As to what was said to each user and what happend to them i dont know. I have not heard off anyone being disconnected, If they had i am sure they would have been here to tell us.

MovedGoalPosts · 01-06-2004, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherer

does anyone actually know if anyone has fallen foul of this yet.. Knowing NTL i doubt they could get their act together to even monitor this.. as someone has said this thread seems to have been going on for far too long with no real evidence that the cap has even been implemented

There were quite a few who did get sent the letter (copy here http://anticap.co.uk/images/ntlltr0204.JPG). However nobody to our knowledge has claimed that ntl have taken action to cut them off.

This thread is now too massive to trawl through, yet many points in support of and against capping have been made.

Most telling are the recent posts of JustAnotherNoob regarding the 12 month renewal roll over contract. The first implementation of the cap AUP clause for ntl was in February 2003. Everyone, who was on contract for Broadband at that time, has had their 12 month minimum contract period expire. Although those users may have signed for "unlimited use" after that 12 months, it is probably not unreasonable for ntl to change terms if they wish.

NTL can make price changes (we dont like it if it goes up, but we dont deny that they can do it with the correct notice), so I suppose they should be able make changes to other aspects of service.

I maintain that the AUP was not the best place to describe a cap (the guidance of what is is, maybe, but not the cap clause itself). The big point is that ntl with a significant change have to write to users to advise them. They do so with the price changes (even if that's just a leaflet in with a bill). The potentially affected by cap users have had a specific letter telling them to desist. Having received a letter the user can decide to stay or leave, as provided by the significant change T&C clauses.

For new signups, you are bound to the cap, if ntl were to enforce it, and as it is in the AUP, you probably could not use a cap letter as a means of cancellation of your 12 months. For the majority else outside the 12 months minimum contract, I see no need to worry, until you get a cap letter. At that point make a decision, cut down, or leave for an uncapped ADSL ISP (if you have that option).

I do think it unreasonable that ntl's cap is not made clearer on the signup pages, and that might be misleading to some. Most unreasonable in my view remains the limit being the same for all service tiers, and that there is no heavy user, uncapped option, perhaps for a higher price (but ntl should be looking to lower not increase prices, given the caps, to keep them in line with ADSL changes).