Caps-the logic

[andymt]

Ok im not really an expert, but a few questions come into my mind regarding "caps"

1) what is in it for the isp?
I mean, surely the isp wants to reduce the b/w being used at any one time. but why do they want to reduce the amount people use in a month? they are just offering a poorer service. How does capping actually help the isp? there are still off and on peak times, so its still going to be congested.
Also, some adsl services seem to be a con- BT offering 2mb with 1gb cap-this is stupid, because they are advertising that it is very fast, but if you want to use your connection alot, regardless of the speed, you have to pay £29.99, just to use your dsl line that you have paid for!! (and even then its only 30gb cap)

2) Why do some cap and others dont?
talking of adsl, (and excluding llu because they are different) if aol can provide u/l service, why can't other isps do the same?
and BT, the people who own the damn network, why can't they give u/l if one of their wholesale isp's can!

3) NTL. why should a cable company cap? i can just about understand adsl (old lines, never designed for high peed conections, and diff. technology)
but if tw can be unlimited, why can't NTL?

4) and another random thing, i hate the way some isps say "with an 8b connection you can download 20 webpages in the time a 1mb connection can only do 10, or whatever.
To tell the truth, this website loads the same speed on 256k as it does on 10mb!!

5) and if LLU companies can offer 24mb bb, why can't BT?

It's not possible for me to migrate to any form of adsl, even though I live in the centre of london, as I'm on a DACS system, but if that changes and NTL introduce caps on tw's services, i might have to think about it. If i wasn't on dacs, i could be with UKonline, as they and bulldog (and bethere, soon) have enabled my exchange.
And they don't cap tv or phone, so why should they cap broadband?

[jrhnewark]

I see one good reason for why the ISPs cap - and it's not just about their bandwidth capacity!

GB, TB = cash the ISPs have to pay out. Whatever goes through their network normally has to go through someone else's, too! :)

(I don't support capping, especially for this reason. There is always a way of offering an unlimited service, it's just making the price look attractive that's the problem.)

[Ignition]

Ok im not really an expert, but a few questions come into my mind regarding "caps"

1) what is in it for the isp?
I mean, surely the isp wants to reduce the b/w being used at any one time. but why do they want to reduce the amount people use in a month? they are just offering a poorer service. How does capping actually help the isp? there are still off and on peak times, so its still going to be congested.
Also, some adsl services seem to be a con- BT offering 2mb with 1gb cap-this is stupid, because they are advertising that it is very fast, but if you want to use your connection alot, regardless of the speed, you have to pay £29.99, just to use your dsl line that you have paid for!! (and even then its only 30gb cap)

It saves money on having to buy extra capacity, some users user their full bandwidth 24x7 which is insanely expensive.

2) Why do some cap and others dont?
talking of adsl, (and excluding llu because they are different) if aol can provide u/l service, why can't other isps do the same?
and BT, the people who own the damn network, why can't they give u/l if one of their wholesale isp's can!

Same reason that some charge £40 a month for 2Mbit and others £23, it's all down to pricing strategy and business plans. BT aren't unlimited simply because its' where they've placed themselves in the market.

3) NTL. why should a cable company cap? i can just about understand adsl (old lines, never designed for high peed conections, and diff. technology)
but if tw can be unlimited, why can't NTL?

ADSL is a simple but effective technology. Its' capping is nothing to do with the tech itself but with the charging systems that are utilised by BT and the ISPs pay. Most of them are now on Capacity Based Charging, so its' in their interests to populate the pipes with as many customers as possible.

Telewest did a huge upgrade cycle a while ago, they are now having to upgrade their network majorly for the first time in some time. They are currently behind with their Teleport VOD rollout and with the upgrade schedule for the 10Mbit uplift (which is why they are doing the previously unheard of and performing customer affecting work in the daytime).

Telewest have their share of congestion issues. If customers are prepared to tolerate this in return for an uncapped service then all good. Telewest and ntl simply aim for different sections of the market. Whose approach is best is entirely down to point of view.

4) and another random thing, i hate the way some isps say "with an 8b connection you can download 20 webpages in the time a 1mb connection can only do 10, or whatever.
To tell the truth, this website loads the same speed on 256k as it does on 10mb!!

Just a sales pitch, same as the advertising of the 'up to' speed. Cable is a different technology to DSL, with DSL the difference between 256k and 10Mbit on web browsing is very noticeable, cable due to its' bursty nature only makes the difference obvious on very bandwidth heavy pages.

5) and if LLU companies can offer 24mb bb, why can't BT?

BT are required by Ofcom to supply ATM backhaul from their exchanges. This legacy technology has some limitations. In addition to this they have enabled many exchanges which have as little as 34Mbit of bandwidth for the exchange. LLU operators have a pure IP backhaul of at least 100Mbit from every exchange.

It's not possible for me to migrate to any form of adsl, even though I live in the centre of london, as I'm on a DACS system, but if that changes and NTL introduce caps on tw's services, i might have to think about it. If i wasn't on dacs, i could be with UKonline, as they and bulldog (and bethere, soon) have enabled my exchange.
And they don't cap tv or phone, so why should they cap broadband?

Speak to BT and DACS can be removed. If the capacity is there to remove your DACS it will be removed as part of an order for DSL.

They don't cap TV because you don't share it with anyone, you all receive all channels at all times, and they don't cap phone because its' a pay as you go arrangement unless you are on one of the unlimited packages in which case it is capped by a 1 hour cutoff, and the various restrictions preventing you dialling non-geographic numbers.

Hope this helps.
__________________

I see one good reason for why the ISPs cap - and it's not just about their bandwidth capacity!

GB, TB = cash the ISPs have to pay out. Whatever goes through their network normally has to go through someone else's, too! :)

(I don't support capping, especially for this reason. There is always a way of offering an unlimited service, it's just making the price look attractive that's the problem.)

Yes there is, it's just a case of whether users are prepared to pay for the privilege, most aren't, or if they are prepared to accept the congestion issues that come from an unlimited cheap service and again most aren't.

To be perfectly honest I reckon that ntl are footing the bill for Telewest's network upgrades and TW would have gone bust if it weren't for ntl buying them. I don't think TW could afford what they are doing now without it, a few anonymous Telewest staff suggested this to me.

Just the same really as the investment banks footing the bill for their last upgrades, they know they are going to have to restructure so they spend out then go into bankruptcy protection.

[andymt]

Thanks for the excellent reply im so grateful!!


yeh i put an order in for ukonline a few years back, but they said the dacs would be too costly to remove.
AOL said the same, and i haven't bothered with BT broadband as a capped service is no use to me
+ im not willing to pay for the btyahoo stuff when all i need is an internet connection, not all the yahoo stuff.
Im glad im with tw now.
it seems cable is ahead at the mo with unlim 2mb - £17,99, unlim 4mb £25 and unlim 10mb £35
I hope though, this is not their only upgrade and that they stay ahead with the arrivalof bt 8mb and soon bt 18mb.

[Ignition]

I hope though, this is not their only upgrade and that they stay ahead with the arrivalof bt 8mb and soon bt 18mb.

Both ntl and Telewest will be trying to keep up with the BTWholesale product line, which goes to 8Mbit in February of 2006 (was originally scheduled for around now).

Keeping up with the 21.5Mbit max usable that the LLU operators are/will be offering shortly is at the moment impossible until some even more heavy duty work has been done.

[ian@huth]

The name of the game for most ISP's is attracting new customers for their products and then retaining them. They have to make it appear that they offer the fastest, least restricted service at the lowest price. Many ISP's are making little, if any, profit from their customers in order to boost their customer base.

The higher that broadband speeds become, the more that one customers usage can impact on anothers. Take cable for example where only 4 customers hammering a 10 Mbps connection can seriously affect all other users on that part of the network. Caps in themselves do not remove the impact of this. If those 4 customers all decided to only use their 30 Gb allowance, but all at the same time and maxing out their connection, then other customers will be affected. What caps will do is either make those customers who require more bandwidth than their cap allows move to an alternative ISP who has a product more suitable for their needs of their own volition or restrict the customers usage by other means. Other means can be reducing their maximum speed, traffic shaping their use or terminating their contract, amongst other things.

All ISP's have an infrastructure which has physical limits which can only be exceeded by spending vast amounts of money on upgrading it. There is no such thing as a totally unlimited high speed broadband connection that is long term sustainable at the price that most users find acceptable unless customers are prepared to put up with the degredation to their speed that contention brings.

[alkenstein]

Cable is a different technology to DSL, with DSL the difference between 256k and 10Mbit on web browsing is very noticeable, cable due to its' bursty nature only makes the difference obvious on very bandwidth heavy pages.

Very interesting, please could you elaborate a bit on these natures?

[Chrysalis]

The dangerous thing I am noticing is that speed is becoming the king alongside price as the what customers are going for, ahead of content amount.

Ignition I am not sure if 10mbit makes a big difference over 256kbit on an average website, content heavy yes but not something like a forum or news site.

Your average person is more likely to go for a package that says 2mbit £14.99 and then in smallprint 3gig cap. Then 1mbit £19.99 50gig cap in big letters. Certian things look more attractive to the average punter which unfortanetly isnt that savvy when it comes to the internet. I think as years go by and the average person becomes more experience isp's will get worked out and caps will have to increase, speeds will also stop rising at such a fast rate and may actually drop.

[andymt]

correction-when i was on the 256 package, and upgraded to 1mb i noticed a difference.
no difference between 1mb and 4mb and 4mb and 10mb.

[alkenstein]

Quote:
Cable is a different technology to DSL, with DSL the difference between 256k and 10Mbit on web browsing is very noticeable, cable due to its' bursty nature only makes the difference obvious on very bandwidth heavy pages.


>Very interesting, please could you elaborate a bit on these natures?

Hi Inition, perhaps you could expand on this a bit? :)

What and why is the bursty nature of the cable? Due to the low latency perhaps? (and how does adsl differ)

:monkey:

alk

[Ignition]

Cable is a high bandwidth pipe that's throttled down for each user, result being that you get a burst of bandwith before the throttling kicks in.

DSL is a constant data rate connection, you're always talking to the kit in the exchange at 2Mbps or whatever, just that when you're not transmitting or receiving data null frames are transmitted containing nothing.

Basically DSL cannot go faster than the line rate while cable delivers a burst of bandwidth which isn't changed by how fast your line is, just how quickly your traffic starts being policed down to the speed you pay for.

Hope that explains.

[Chrysalis]

I understand now, generally you were saying because cable might burst higher then our current speeds anyway, we will see less of a distance when raised to 10mbit then xDSL users when using bursty applications.

[andymt]

also, isn't there a feasable maximum speed that bt could obtain?
I heard somewhere BT wholesale won't be able to go beyond 32mbps ever.
With rumours of tw chasing the 100mbps mark, won't bt be in trouble?
Also, how do you cap large speeds?

ie how could bt cap 32mbps? its impossible-my allowance would go in minutes at that speed!!

[Chrysalis]

Telewest might be toying with 100mbit but I fail to see the purpose other then marketing.

[jrhnewark]

Telewest might be toying with 100mbit but I fail to see the purpose other then marketing.100Mbps is a way off for the cable companies, I believe - if Telewest's infrastructure is anything like NTL's.

100Mbps is the speed that's generally seen as the 'optimum' mark to reach - you can watch high definition TV channels, stream high quality audio, download, game, and everything else over the home network without really worrying about how much bandwidth you have left. With a few people watching HD video and downloading files on your network, the pipe would soon start to fill up. :)

[Chrysalis]

Yes but like you said, ntl's network and peering capabilites are way of from been able to cope, and telewest's is probably the same.