1GB Cap Letter!!!!

[FrankieX]

So can anyone explain why I'm currently paying for what works out as 2.5 hours of downloading on my 1Mbit line?? I'm sorry if this is something you've gone over 100 times before, but having just come back from a Telewest area with no limits, faster lines and better service I kinda feel I've been screwed...

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by FrankieX

So can anyone explain why I'm currently paying for what works out as 2.5 hours of downloading on my 1Mbit line?? I'm sorry if this is something you've gone over 100 times before, but having just come back from a Telewest area with no limits, faster lines and better service I kinda feel I've been screwed...

download whatever you want. it is after all not a cap, but a guideline. Just keep downloading and see how long it is until you get a letter... i am betting it will be a long time. And also i haven't heard of more action than a letter being sent to anyone.

MB

[scrotnig]

It should be remembered that ntl is curently focused in a HUGE way on customer numbers. They are unlikely to start throwing customers off left right and centre. In my department, we work on the view that every customer lost is another that has to be gained....just to stand still.

So I reckon that the feared 'mass evictions' are unlikely to happen. You might get the odd few, i don't know, but I am unaware of anyone being thrown off as yet.

The purpose of the letters, I believe, is to try to work with the customer to manage excessive useage to protect the quality of service for others, not to sling them off the service.

The above, of course, is my own personal opinion. Don't quote me in the courtroom!

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Mark B

It should be remembered that ntl is curently focused in a HUGE way on customer numbers. They are unlikely to start throwing customers off left right and centre. In my department, we work on the view that every customer lost is another that has to be gained....just to stand still.

Most interesting to note that ntl are waking up to the simple business concept that it's easier to retain customers than win new ones. Great news.

One day the message may get through to the powers that be that the concept of the cap, as it is written in black and white, despite some arguing till they are blue in the face that it is a "guideline", will be sufficient to alienate some customers. Bottom line is the way it is written into the AUP, however ntl might today wish it to be interpreted, tommorrow it can be rigidly applied. If signing for a new service today, would you, for similar money, choose a capped or uncapped service? I know where I would go.

[td444]

Originally Posted by Mark B

No....if your downloading reaches a point where it causes any concern, they will write to you in the first instance asking you to reduce it.

You won't get such a letter just for hitting 1gb once or twice, it's obvious patterns of consistently excessive useage they are looking for. In most cases this turns out to be people running businesses from home, I've had to deal with a couple myself.

Does that count off peak traffic too? (11pm - 8am)

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by td444

Does that count off peak traffic too? (11pm - 8am)

yes

[td444]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

yes

Damn, I would have thought NTL would not care about off-peak useage.

Would I pay the same money for an uncapped service? yes I would, but then NTL would finally come out from the woodwork and say "Hey! our service is uncapped."

Until they are willing to take somebody to court, a test case, which may benefit us all, just carry on doing what you're doing.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Would I pay the same money for an uncapped service? yes I would, but then NTL would finally come out from the woodwork and say "Hey! our service is uncapped."

Until they are willing to take somebody to court, a test case, which may benefit us all, just carry on doing what you're doing.

Hate to break this to you but they don't need to take anyone to court, ntl aren't obliged to provide anyone with any services you know and can cease providing high speed internet services at their discretion subject to contract, and all contracts now and have for some time had provisions in them that say people can be terminated for excess usage amongst other reasons.

Entering this debate as that post is ridiculous - what next? Take ntl to court for refusing to provide 10Mbit cable for £5 a year? Right - out!

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Hate to break this to you but they don't need to take anyone to court, ntl aren't obliged to provide anyone with any services you know and can cease providing high speed internet services at their discretion subject to contract, and all contracts now and have for some time had provisions in them that say people can be terminated for excess usage amongst other reasons.

Entering this debate as that post is ridiculous - what next? Take ntl to court for refusing to provide 10Mbit cable for £5 a year? Right - out!

I thought that you entered a contract with them to supply services, therefore if any party breaks the contract the other party may go to court for recompense.

If the contract terms agreed when the contract was entered are not fully met.
For instance unfair conditions CAPPED service?

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

If the contract terms agreed when the contract was entered are not fully met.
For instance unfair conditions CAPPED service?

Not an issue - all subscribers now agreed to conditions of service by not cancelling, there is nothing demonstrably unfair about them, and no-one is going to be taken to court by ntl for downloading too much.

In any case I wasn't going into this was mentioning a post relating to ntl taking people to court for downloading too much - your legal points are nonsense and anticap completely failed to persue the legal angle while it may have relevant (though in my opinion it wasn't persued because they knew the legal threats were nonsense), it now isn't, so tough to be honest, get over it go to the pub or something

[FrankieX]

Personally, I don't see why ntl couldn't keep up with Telewest in terms of upgrading their network capacity so that the caps would be unnecessary

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by FrankieX

Personally, I don't see why ntl couldn't keep up with Telewest in terms of upgrading their network capacity so that the caps would be unnecessary

There are a couple of possible answers to this:

First, in the last couple of years they became one of the largest defaulters on a loan in history. The bond holders took control, and are demanding a good return. This means little or no money for expansion. The problem NTL have is that if the Bond holders don't get what they want, they may call for the money back. If this happens, NTL will be (to put it bluntly) buggered, if not bankrupt.

Second: As far as I understand it, in certain areas, the Network is more than capable of coping uncapped, and providing the same speeds as Telewest. It's just that in other areas, the network is busier anyway so will not cope as well.

I suspect Telewest have this problem in certain areas as well, but are busy pushing the higher speeds of the network, so are less likely to admit it doesn't cope.

Having said that, I can only speculate that the main reason for the cap was that in certain areas, where a lot of people are running p2p apps such as Shareaza 24 hours a day, the network can be slowed down quite severely by these apps.

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by FrankieX

Personally, I don't see why ntl couldn't keep up with Telewest in terms of upgrading their network capacity so that the caps would be unnecessary

I imagine Telewest's banks etc. couldn't see why Telewest couldn't keep up with ntl financially and complete debt swap etc earlier, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by th'engineer

I thought that you entered a contract with them to supply services, therefore if any party breaks the contract the other party may go to court for recompense.

If the contract terms agreed when the contract was entered are not fully met.
For instance unfair conditions CAPPED service?

Affraid I have to agree, I signed a contract for unlimited, that is what it is to me as far as I am concerned.
There is now a strong definition in the BB market now, sadly for NTL I signed my contract before they changed it.
If I wanted to download oodles, thats up to me, if they want to come heavy over it fair enough, we will see what the courts say, and I don't want someone telling me that NTL will not do it, so what is the problem then?
A contract is a contract, if they want to change that contract they can write to me in person asking me if I accept the terms and conditions, if they do not? tough luck, I will just carry on doing what I have been in the past.