http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5923706 en Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:17:52 EDT Wed, 23 Mar 2022 18:17:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6427976
lol

i think its irrelevant what people are using their internet contention for. As for implying that if u use over a gig a day that you dont have a girlfriend is just downright ignorant.

I wont go into a list of all the things u can do legally that would go over a gig a day, we all know there are lots.

What NTL have done is wrong. I cant find the URL, but BT (my provider incidentally) have came out and said that they will not be imposing any such restrictions. U can all slag BT off of if u want, again, its irrelevant. BT know who the heavy traffic users are. I used to serve games on efnet. This meant my upload was maxed 24/7. U can say that I am wrong etc etc, again, its irrelevant to this this conversation. BT sent me an email asking me to stop. Fair enough.......I stopped. And that, my friends, is how to stop heavy illegal traffic. Not by imposing limits. Coz lets me fair, do the math......downgrade to 128k line, save money, still download same amount per day.

Would you buy a ferarri only to be told that you were to drive on the speed limit for only 3 hours a day, and then you had to pack up the car and put it in the garage. Hell no, I bought a ferarri, fair enough there are speed limits. But let me drive on the speed limit each day, every day]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6427976 Sun, 30 Mar 2003 08:43:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6390971 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6390971 Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:37:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6370600 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6370600 Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:14:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6197589 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6197589 Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:01:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6189221 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6189221 Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:05:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6157357 i now all isp's have their down fall but i woldnt touch ntl with a barge pole and i have never wanted to use them as they are useless!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6157357 Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:36:44 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6137663 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6137663 Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:00:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6128041 I'm out of work at the moment, so I download all sorts of rubbish, just to keep myself entertained. thats why I subscribed to the service.
Ban me? fine, it means I get out of the contract. And I'll advise the 120 residents in my building not to use NTL. They wouldnt like that as they have just newly wired the building at huge expense.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6128041 Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:52:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6091533 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6091533 Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:48:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086945
a Digital LL will run at the [(edit here] this should read speed not b/width) bandwidth it's provided at. The limitation is which 'box' you stick on the ends of it. If you choose a X.21 interface (for example) then you have minimum overhead and you will run at vastly more than 128k/sec. [(edit here] on a 1Mb/s service) There is no modulation going on and the 128k/s you refer to would be aparent only on an analogue circuit if you 'modulated' the input signal.[(edit here] i.e if it were an analogue line) I'm not sure you can still get analogue LL anymore....

You are right about the figures though! I got carried away and based it on a 2Mb/s line (including a bit of overhead) But you get the picture.

(Used to test LL for a living - bit of an expert here - even if I can't count;))

[(edit's to make more sence on a re-read...ooo-er....)]
[text was edited by author 2003-02-23 11:23:04]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086945 Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:52:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086715 said by wonko3fc:

---

a 1Mb/s Leased line will give you synchronous data transfer to an agreed service level of (usually) 99.998% availability. Dependant upon the ‘box’ on each end of the line, this will facilitate data transfer of (conservatively) 1984kb/s Start doing the math
sec 1,984 Kb/s
min 119,040 Mb
hour 7,142,400 Gb
day 171,417,600 Tb
30 day 5,142,528,000 Tb
Don’t forget that the ‘upload’ speed is also the same!

---

Those figures are way out! A 1MB line will do max 128 Kb/s sec, = 7.6 Mb a minute, you can see a huge difference here..

I was talking about a leased line the same speed as your NTL costing £1000 plus a month.

Thats right - same speed line for over 30 times the cost. So you see the companies are not exactly making billions out of this...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086715 Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:14:47 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086388
That by it's very nature, is unrestricted in it's content and by it's access (or at least most folks would argue that it should be)

Suppose you wanted or needed to stay in touch with a relative overseas and both of you have web cams? Suppose you run a small network of PC’s (up to 20 I believe you are allowed) and wanted to ‘update’ to the latest service pack at >1gb download per PC? It’s going to take you more than 3 days to do it and you’ll exceed the threshold. So then you are capped. For what? – A perfectly legitimate utilisation of the service you subscribed to.

You may want to host your own personal web site, which, non-commercially, may be of interest to a wide range of folks. e.g many moons back one of the US Uni’s hosted some footage of igniting a BBQ using liquid Oxygen (don’t try this at home) non commercial, not for gain to the Uni and massive interest. Some one else I know host a very popular Snowboarding forum. Non-commercial he does it from his own self-interest in the sport and his ‘hobby’ of programming.

Neither of the two examples are ‘wrong’ per say and neither would justify the expense of ‘business class’ services.

On the other side, I know one or two folks who have small businesses that just cannot afford the business class of service and the home-based stuff is far more appropriate (in terms of traffic etc) for the cost.

I was considering using some web cams as security devices to ‘upload’ images to a web server for redundant protection. Where would that fit in? Not commercial, but potentially not ‘compatible’ with NTL’s new AUP…It is my home after all.

The bug bearer here is that the service was, advertised as ‘unlimited’ and NTL have rather cynically changed their stance of the service so that it is now ‘limited’ This would appear to co-inside with a levelling off of the take up of the service offerings of BB and the ‘inability’ on a technical level (requires further investment) to sustain the current service offering. – It’s very fustrating!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086388 Sun, 23 Feb 2003 09:21:17 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086226 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6086226 Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:30:38 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076901 said by theboy69:

---

A 1MB leased line will cost about £1,000 a month, maybe more as you need to pay the line costs as well as the internet bandwidth.

£1,000 vs £35 for you NTL users, doesn't seem so bad does it!

---

a 1Mb/s Leased line will give you synchronous data transfer to an agreed service level of (usually) 99.998% availability. Dependant upon the ‘box’ on each end of the line, this will facilitate data transfer of (conservatively) 1984kb/s Start doing the math
sec 1,984 Kb/s
min 119,040 Mb
hour 7,142,400 Gb
day 171,417,600 Tb
30 day 5,142,528,000 Tb
Don’t forget that the ‘upload’ speed is also the same!

Now this is considerably more than NTL or any other Broad Band provider is currently offering and is just not comparable. Like comparing apples with pears! Or, like comparing Broad Band with Telex services. (there is a good reason I didn’t choose dial-up)

So that’s why Leased lines are more expensive. Chances are you’ll have dedicated teams to rectify any fault also as well as having credits for down time exceeding pre-determined SLA’s

No contest – sorry

PS: My 600k service gives me on a good day around 70kb/s transfer (down) before decaying down to around 50kb/s on a sustained file transfer, this is comparable (in terms of transfer rate) to a 64k leased line.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076901 Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:38:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076814 said by kbh:

---

And where are these monies going? Do they invest in ugrading their network, or in imposing metering and restrictions?

---

- I dunno where it's going. Certainly not to the shareholders in the form of dividend payment!
Maybe to the banks and creditors??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076814 Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:23:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076479
£1,000 vs £35 for you NTL users, doesn't seem so bad does it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076479 Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:51:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076245
An other issue is the nature of the limit. As I mentioned in my previous message, it does little improve the sharing of the service, since it does not distinguish between peak and non peak times. An interesting point is the claim that 1Gig a day = 30 Gig a month. Given that the service does not guarrantee 1 gig a day, in practice it rarely delivers it, and of course users do have girlfriends ;-) , this is a joke. The 1 gig a day limit means that even when the service is less busy and (in theory) I can download as much as I like with out bothering anyone, I cannot do so. If you add the fact that, since I cannot know how much of the 1 gig I have used, I must be conservative, it turns out that on average we are lucky if we can get 200-300MB/day (10 G a month). Or one active day/month. If a leased line costs £150 a month as you mentioned, then each user costs ntl £5 to £10 a month, well, its only 300 - 700 % profit !
And where are these monies going? Do they invest in ugrading their network, or in imposing metering and restrictions?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6076245 Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:53:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6066991
To sum up - a good, fast, reliable service that your average (non spotty, pale computer geek) will find a joy to use. It's all a matter of which market you are in. Just as in everything you get what you pay for and if you need not just unlimited access but also unlimited download capacity then the NTL 1MB service is not for you. Well done NTL as I for one would rather pay £34.99 than £150. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6066991 Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:19:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6038538 said by kbh:

---

Which prompts me to think that ntl do not really care about sharing issues, they wish to cut their bandwidth cost and subsidise their other loss making activities. And this pisses me off.

---

Here, here!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6038538 Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:16:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6037821 Which prompts me to think that ntl do not really care about sharing issues, they wish to cut their bandwidth cost and subsidise their other loss making activities. And this pisses me off.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6037821 Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:19:46 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6006094 www.theinquirer.net/?art ··· cle=5560

»www.ntl.com/locales/gb/e ··· at/same/ (read the grey text at the bottom)

Either way 20 or 50 it doesn't matter, the chances of all 20 people being on at the same time downloading at full throttle is very rare, this is due to the burstable nature of the internet. The isp does research all this and tests how many people can still get a decent speed even when the network is busy, they come up with these ratio's after lots of trials etc.

Blaming 'excessive' use is plain wrong, that is not the reason the network is slowing down, the reason the network is slowing down (if it is at all, cause it isnt where i live) is because they are over subscribing users.

If the highly unlikely happened and every single user decided to download a large file at the same time then it would slow down to considerably slower speeds, but that is once in a blue moon and it just doesn't happen. the only way the network will slow down is cause ntl are too tight or broke or greedy to upgrade, its as simple as that.

As a side note, im not bothered about the cap too much cause i rarely use my connection that much, im more bothered about the backhanded approach and the way ntl tried to make the users angry at these so called 'minority' of users who were 'abusing' the network.
[text was edited by author 2003-02-15 20:57:27]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6006094 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:55:43 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6005526 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6005526 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:50:11 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6005515
The limit is in place to protect the contention ratio from biting and slowing speeds. With the limit it will be possible for users to do what they need to do within reason at high speed. Without the limit people will be bringing in the contention ratio at peak times and ruining it for everyone..you will all experience sub 56k service and there will not be a thing you can do about it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6005515 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:48:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6002833
Irrespective of how 'individuals' choose to utilise the service, the service was sold as unlimited with the caveats of the contention ratio. Given the 'heavy push' in promotion that they have sustained over the past 3 years, it is difficult not to conclude that this was a poorly thought out business model if they now have to impose 'limitations' on the service offering because of the profile of (what we are told are) a few 'excessive' users.

As previously, if the service was sold at 50:1 'unlimited' then I would expect the business case to reflect that all users would utilise the service 100% 24*7 The contention then being the restricting factor or, if you like, the 'imposed' limitation. Why the hell shouldn't you use it to the maximum? That's the deal we bought into!

To now cap the availability of 'download' to a specified number of bits suggests that the business case was ill conceived to begin with as additional, previously non-specified limitations have to be imposed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6002833 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:48:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6001261
NTL are not imposing this limit because of the contention ratio and the fact your connection would really slow down soon. They are doing it because they have over saturated and over subscribed the network. They have got greedy, there are too many people on the nodes so when people try to use their connection to its CAPPED max it slows the shit out of everyone else. So they are blaming the 'heavy users' (in very vague terms) for the reason they have to put the cap on.

when really they should be blaming themselves, for two reasons:

1. They should have realised people will use p2p, and other high bandwith applications so should never called it unlimited.

2. They should stop trying to squeaze every penny out of the current technology and upgrade their hardware to accomodate more traffic as they subscribe more users.

I will agree it is also customers fault for wasting bandwith, but the isp is more to blame.

If you live in the uk you cant miss the adverts on TV and the bill boards everywhere about how its a great ISP with unlimited service, then a few weeks later they add a cap, not good.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6001261 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:48:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6000982
The service is sold at a contention ratio, any other way and the company simply couldn't make a profit. They cant provide leased lines to every customer for £25 or whatever it costs.

Scenario1 : Users are capped so that no single user or minority of users drain the available contended bandwidth. Users moan

Scenario2 : Nobody is capped, everyone goes 24/7 Kazaa crazy and speeds drop as per their contention ratio. Everyone gets a 30th or whatever of their maximum speed. Users moan

We cant have everything!!! Were not paying for a leased line!!! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6000982 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:11:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6000380 said by Crog:

---

I don't see why users have to suffer just because NTL don't seem able to provide sufficient bandwidth to their customers.

---

I think you may have hit the nail on the head with that one.

Is this really an attempt by NTL to ‘cover’ an poor service offering given that they are currently ‘unwilling’ to increase their net access portal hence are ‘unable’ to sustain service.

So all of their users now have to ‘tip toe’ around taking what ever precautions we need to, to ensure that we don’t exceed the limitations imposed.

Whatever explanations are offered it’s just plain wrong to offer and have folks sign up to a service promoted as ‘unlimited’ only to have them ‘limit’ the service.

Imagine the same in a burger joint. Yes, you can have as many Big Mac’s/Whoppers but if you have more than three, we’ll take the meat out of the bun…]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-6000380 Sat, 15 Feb 2003 09:32:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5996547
My two main complaints, though, are as follows :-

* NTL have sneaked this change to the AUP in through the back door, not telling anyone that they were going to do this. Their contract clearly states that any major alteration to the service will be notified to the subscribers in writing. For someone whose traffic far exceeds 1Gb/day, then this cap constitutes a MAJOR change to the service. No notification was given. I'm sure a lawyer could run rings around my argument from a legal standpoint, but the moral aspect of my argument is still valid.

* The 'cap' is a flat-rate figure, no matter which level of service you subscribe to. Running a 128kbps connection at full capacity for 24/7, you might just break your 1Gb trigger. The 600kbps connection could do this in just over 6 hours and the 1Gb service in just over 3 hours. So, if your major type of usage requires high bandwidth you have a very limited period in which you can use the service you've paid for. Surely, a stepped 'cap' would be more appropriate, say 750Mb for the 128kbps service, 2.5Gb for the 600kbps service and 4Gb for the 1Mbps service.

This would, at least, justify the extra cost of these tariffs; I don't want to pay £20 per month more just to make my web pages appear that little bit faster, thank you very much. I would, however, be prepared to pay an extra £15 per month on top of my £35 to allow an uncapped service.

I don't see why users have to suffer just because NTL don't seem able to provide sufficient bandwidth to their customers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5996547 Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:12:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5989255 What do you think will happen if every user on NTL or other network leaves their PC's on 24/7, downloading / uploading as much as they can?

The contention will kick in and you will all get a 30th of the speed or whatever the contention ratio is i.e. less than modem speed. Heres the post:

When are you going to realise that you are paying £35 or whatever for a say 600k connection that is SHARED.

If everyone hogged the line 24/7, the contention will bite and ur speeds will crawl down to less than modem. NTL could then quite honestly say 'told you so' or 'its 30:1 contention so you are getting 1/30th speeds, deal with it'

If you want a 600k line where you have the full bandwidth uncontended to do whatever you want with, you will be looking at £500 a month or more for a leased line.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5989255 Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:48:24 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5989002
"Ntl will be flexible over individual customers usage although you should not
exceed the limit more than 3 times in a 14 day period.

If this is not acceptable then you are within your rights as a consumer to
look for a different provider, however you may well find that they are
introducing similar limits to avoid slowing the web down as a whole, for
example BT's flagship Broadband package has the same limit level.

Kind Regards
On behalf of support.winnersh"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5989002 Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:46:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5982027
The thing im annoyed most about is I rang up the other week and spoke to a ntl technician about wanting to upgrade from 600k to 1mb. I asked if there was any kind of limit or any chance of a limit in the future and he said "nope you can download as much as you like".

I turned over to ntl's dedicated channel (for selling the broadband service) and it still states unlimited, just like thier website.

Unlimited to me means i can watch live dj sets over webcasts and play games and transfer files between my friends without fear of getting a phonecall saying "im sorry sir but if you dont curb you usage we will have to disconnect" by the same guy who told me i could use as much as I wanted.

Its an outright lie im afraid.

I can sympathise with ntl for wanting to put a cap up,and i would be ok with a 30gb/month (much fairer way of doing it) and with any excess charged for.

However their backhand way of doing it with obscure and vague rules is very annoying.

I am not upgrading to the 1mb service but i would like to, NTL have been great to far they are on the verge of turning round my opinion of them.

Andy]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5982027 Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:48:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5981315 punishing people 4 using the service is mad...
it is a clear breach of contract..
reducing 600 k users 80 % and 1 meg users 92 % of there total bandwidth... thats fair and ok is it with no reduction of charges..
ntl are clearly trying to get rid of real broadband users in-order to clear more room for people that want broadband but don't really use it..
also the estimation of normal broadband usage by ntl is a joke !!!!!
1 GIG a day lol
i can do that in 4 hours with my line and not download a thing..my web cam in super-mode reciving pictures from my family in australia will put me over the limit each day..
anyone who thinks it's ok is crazy and should not have broadband cuz they dont know how 2 use it and should not have bothered..
yours pissed off
jf

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5981315 Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:31:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5969557 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,26157~root=news,26157~parent=news,26157~ ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5969557 Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:56:51 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5944816
NTL will target the people who abuse the service not those who use the service heavily.
--
Join Team discovery and help rid the world of cancer!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5944816 Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:14:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5944262 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2744581.stm

There is a little more clarity but still built on unstable foundations:

I think I am right in saying that back in 2001, OFTEL decreed that a broadband connection could be shared with up to 20 users. How does this stack up against this imposed capping limitation?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5944262 Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:44:56 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5937722
also after upgrading to 1mb service i use/download much more then i use to as the more internet savvy you become the more you find things to do on the net. music/videos/chat/surfing/gaming i also admin a site or too and would like to open up a few more so i am tyed to my comp and i also enjoy it as well. i do not use it for business as i have not ever been paid nor will be in the future.

i suppose i would not mind, but here in the uk their is a virtual monopoly on cable internet. either ur area is an ntl area or it is a telewest area or u have to have a bt line for their(bt) asdl. talk about anti-competitive and im sure that a collusion has been involved. although for legal reasons i cannot prove this.

so what am i supposed to do pluck up pay there new billing structure and hope they dont change that in the future.

please please someone what can i do]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5937722 Sun, 09 Feb 2003 16:52:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Call-me-cynical-But-prove-me-wrong-first-5936232 said by bobsta8:

---

Just checked NTL's broadband advertising literature. They are still claiming "unlimited" surfing despite the new capping limit. Surely this is a case of misleading advertising? I hope trading standards and the ASA come down on NTL very hard.

---

Wanna hear about what the 'watchdogs & regulators' don't tell you?

ASA won't touch it because it is not using a 3rd party for which it pays to advertise the service. Thus, unless they say pay a newspaper or advertising agency to 'advertise' this then it is down to their own self publicity on their web site brochure and the like. The ASA will not intervene.

The Trading Standards won't touch it either. Why? Because it is not a defective product. The product works and even if it were found to be a breach of contract (unlikely) it'll cost you a minimum of £70 - or two months subs if you like to get it in front of the beak in the small claims court. It's a non starter before you even start.

& I bet you all thought that the regulators were there to protect you!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Call-me-cynical-But-prove-me-wrong-first-5936232 Sun, 09 Feb 2003 14:26:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5933209
I would be persuaded to think that the recent change in the AUP contravenes the terms and conditions of the contract. NTL will be losing lots of customers through this. For my digital TV/phone/cable package they're going to lose £80 per month. Multiply that by at least a few thousand....

I never thought I would go back to BT but it appears that I don't have a choice if NTL pulls another stunt like this one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5933209 Sun, 09 Feb 2003 05:22:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5929606
The article does no more than re-iterate the same statement and uses a link to BT's AUP to show that BT operate the principle of a 1 Gig daily limit.

What is does not address is that the comparison is with a maximum speed connection of 512 (half NTL's 1 meg) and for a feed that is £27 per month as opposed to £34.99.

Even when they try damage limitation they get it wrong and compare apples with oranges. If they had any sense at all they would have realised that twice the speed needs more than the same cap.

Traduk]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5929606 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:21:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5929473 said by gooner4life5:

---

Im not actually speculating my friend.

This is FACT

1) Abuse the service and NTL will now be able to terminate your contract.

2) NTL will not be terminating the contracts of heavy users.

3) It is an amendment to the Acceptable Use Policy NOT an amendment to the service.

I'll say again please do not mis-report on a respected site like this.

leave that to Watchdog.

---

Unfortunately your points are contradictory plus you appear to fail to understand how Terms of service and AUP tie together.

The Terms of Service dictate that you must abide by the AUP. The primary rules are contractual obligations and they specifically state that the secondary rules must be abided by and it's the AUP that are always changing. The new AUP rules state that an acceptable level is no more than 1 Gig per day and that usage over those levels will be considered as abuse of a system primarily designed for home entertainment. They have very specifically stated their acceptable use policy at 1 Gig daily.

The new section (h) replaced a non specific abuse eg over-use clause with a defined one. Now all that remains is to deal with what I referred to as speculation... They did not make the changes for nothing and have specified a level at which their discretion may become implemented. You in (1) state that they will now be able to terminate and in (2) state that they will not... which is it to be and why do you think they have done this if not to remove heavy users.

You have trotted the usual suspects on the "wanted" list but have avoided the usual Warez type jibes that are frequently levelled at supposed abusers. It may or may not be of interest to you but in an average week I would not even hit 1 Gig in the whole week but I suspect that this is the thin edge of a wedge and it deserves to be fought in the same way as the server ban was reversed in 2001. I have never run a server but an injustice that is allowed grows on itself.

I would be grateful if you would drop the mis-reporting thing. I am making a personal point and it is my view. Calling it mis-reporting is an attempt to censor and in the 2+ years and 200+ plus posts in these forums I have never seen anything of the like. Americans are excellent hosts and believe firmly in free speech... right or wrong, it's my opinion.

Traduk

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5929473 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:06:45 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/LikeDuh-5928836
They already operate the above (following a quick tour round their web pages) scroll down to FlexiDIA here http://business.ntl.com/en/productsandservices/productdetail.jhtml?ProductId=prod310007 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/LikeDuh-5928836 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:03:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/WellDuh-5928673
What’s really happened here is that folks have found themselves in the wrong pricing band.

Now, remember we are talking business here and one thing we need to focus on is the ability to attract new and retain existing customers.

Okay so we’ll change the T&C’s of PERSISTENT USERS of >1Gb/day to roll them up into the next pricing structure. Existing user’s will be retained then as they don’t break the criteria (assume some defined criteria for ‘persistent user’) The (ab)users will get more and more band width until they reach peak tier Business class service which, presumably won’t bother them as that’s what they really needed for whatever purposes that they are using this amount of data transfer. NTL will generate more revenue and the customer gets what they want.

My loose proposal above then will retain the users as folks will get what they pay for and attract new ones as this seems to be a more flexible approach to controlling available bandwidth.

Of course, you don’t need to be Einstein to realise that the reverse can be said to be true in that ‘low usage’ users can fall back down the scale which will be attractive to them as it will save money…UNLESS! They elect to remain at a specific ‘minimum’ how difficult would that be to programme up?

“Gee, we just thought we’d cap everybody – that seemed reasonable and fair”

Punish the majority for the crimes of the few fail to capitalise on an opportunity, size the moment and maximise every possible opportunity to improve revenue. Now there’s a way to do business!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/WellDuh-5928673 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:43:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5928300
Once again the corporate monster decides to impose it's ill judged will on the subscribers.

How long ago was it that the came out of Chapter 11? What again were the justifications for securing additional finace from the banks? Was it by chance enhanced revenue streams to secure the additional funding from previous disastrous campaigns....

This is just the biscuit! I can see the meeting now... "Guy's we are outa the limitation period. lets cap the service and risk loosing our (by definition) best subscribers"
"Hell yeah" they chorused

[5 mins later]

"Gee, we never thought they'd object to loosing what they paid for....."

Is there a way in HTML you can make the theme to the Muppet show play at this point?>]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5928300 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 18:06:01 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5928035 nthellworld.com/article/ ··· w&id=334

Looks like NTL are a bit worried at the reaction and is trying a bit of damage limitation. I think this is a much more realistic stance. I for one would be prepared to pay a premium to my ISP for heavy use.

As in most situations a bit of compromise on both sides is required.
--
"Build a man a fire he will be warm for a night, set a man on fire he will be warm the rest of his life."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5928035 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:37:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5927878
This is FACT

1) Abuse the service and NTL will now be able to terminate your contract.

2) NTL will not be terminating the contracts of heavy users.

3) It is an amendment to the Acceptable Use Policy NOT an amendment to the service.

I'll say again please do not mis-report on a respected site like this.

leave that to Watchdog.
--
Join Team discovery and help rid the world of cancer!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5927878 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:22:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5927802 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5927802 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:12:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5927140 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5927140 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:08:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5926408
You complain of misreporting and then proceed to speculate on what you think they may turn a blind to. There is no way of knowing what they may ot may not turn a blind eye to but one fact is crystal clear.... They deem that over a Gig\day is excessive and that's a joke on a 1 meg line as it is broken in around 2.5 hours.

Traduk]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5926408 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:42:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5926211
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2740621.stm
--
do you believe in rock n roll - can music save your mortal soul - can you teach me how to dance real slow.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5926211 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:18:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5925606
NTL HAVE PLACED NO CAP ON THE SERVICE.

There are certain NTL users who abuse the Service and constantly download and upload at max capacity 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

NTL had no way of removing these people from the service so now they have amended the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) to show what they believe to be 'Normal' usage of the Internet, They appreciate some people are heavy users and will turn a blind eye.

IF however you decide to stick an FTP Server on or trade apps on IRC or have kazaa running 24/7 u will be asked to stop and then removed from the service.

Fair enough if u ask me
--
Join Team discovery and help rid the world of cancer!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Do-not-upgrade-to-1mb-Ntl-Read-Important-5925606 Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:02:40 EDT