View Full Version : A new Cap Idea...
Ok, so i guess we have all now come to terms with the cap (after reading most of the thread about it to make sure i wasn't repeating anyone i think i have!)
Basically, we all know that ntl are not going to change their minds about it now, the 1gb cap will stay. So what should been done about it? It is quite clear that people aren't happy the way things are, so what is the best idea?
Have a vote or post any other ideas... but please don't mention anything about removing the cap and letting people use as much bandwidth as they want on the current services because we all know that isn't going to happen, and that has really been done to death!
Just be interested to know what people think :D
gary_580
10-03-2004, 08:20
ok im confused, your talking about the 1Gb cap and then you have voting options about allowing users to boost their speed. The two things arent the same.
seaneeboy
10-03-2004, 08:49
I've voted for "Something else" which in this case is "Leave it as it is"... I think we get not too bad a deal out of it really - if you go majorly over the line for three days in a row you get a slightly patronising letter... sounds like getting off pretty lightly to me! If my service was actually stopped at any one point then I'd start kicking up more of a fuss, but I'd be happy enough to get a shouty letter, and stick it on the pile I get from the bank, the gas company etc etc etc...
deadite66
10-03-2004, 08:51
i voted other, if they are going to stick to 1gb/day they should have made it 30gb/month.
much fairer that 1gb/day.
Oh good another cap discussion.....:rolleyes:
Oh good another cap discussion.....:rolleyes:
Must agree. Do we really need to go though this again?
Oh good another cap discussion.....:rolleyes:
There,there Neil. :ghugs: :kiss:
Stuartbe
10-03-2004, 09:35
NTL = Bad
CAP = Bad
Cookies = Good
thread closed :)
I wonder how many more threads we will see ? I am getting a bit bored with them TBH. :(
Celtic Warrior
10-03-2004, 09:37
I am in favour of charging the heavy users more.
Create separate tiers of usage for each of the services, add a package for the heavy users with a higher usage limit.
CW
dilli-theclaw
10-03-2004, 09:39
Well I was looking for the 'new' part that the thread title promises.
MMMmmm
Must agree. Do we really need to go though this again?
Must disagree.
If some want to keep discussing the cap, then what's the problem? Those that do not want to discuss it can ignore the thread and those that do can. Can't really see a problem myself ?
What's left to 'discuss'??
This really has been done to death, & there's nothing left to say.
Those that 'don't like the cap' should vote with their feet & get ADSL, not spend an age going on about it here-ntl have already proved that they do not listen to their customers.
What's left to 'discuss'??
For you ,clearly nothing. For Monkeybreath it would seem there is stuff they want to discuss. I just do not understand why for those where there is nothing left to discuss, they want to stop anyone else from discussing it. That's all.
This really has been done to death, & there's nothing left to say.
It just seems to me that you could say the same about no end of topics, re religion, re Imigration, re any number of things. Surely some issues intrest some and not others. Why not just let those interested get on with it and those not ignore it, thats all?
Those that 'don't like the cap' should vote with their feet & get ADSL, not spend an age going on about it here-ntl have already proved that they do not listen to their customers.
Well as has been discussed many times, there are some (prob quite few but they still exist) where they do not have the option of moving to DSL. It took about 3.5 years to change the minds of the ISP industry and the regulator on the issue of unmetered dial up, but in the end change was achieved. Maybe change from NTL on this issue is impossible, but if you give up after only a year from it's announcment and only a month or so from it's execution, then there is no chance for change at all, as I see it.
For me it's a live and let live kinda thing (or discuss and let discuss if you prefer). I just do not understand the approach - I and many others are bored with this topic - therefore no one else should discuss it.
Is this particular thread asking any NEW questions?Is it just going over old ground?If the former then ok and thus far I don't see the thread has been closed.However if it's the latter I'm with Neil.
So Erol perhaps you can keep this thread on the newer side of the discussion not wander back through all that has already been said in previous threads.I don't mind reading NEWER ideas just object to rehashed old ones.
Incog.
ian@huth
10-03-2004, 10:42
I don't normally agree with Erol but on this occasion he has a point. Unless NTL find a way to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot there is the ever increasing chance that the "cap" will be more strictly enforced or even lowered. Look at the new services that Tiscali and BT have launched with more stringent "caps" than NTLs. It is quite right to say that there are many ISPs with no cap but how long will that situation last? The more restricted services that are marketed, the more the chance that other ISPs will begin to restrict theirs. Broadband Britain should not be capped, but the reality is that caps will become the norm unless ISPs change their mentalities and backbone providers look at the situation differently.
Back to the topic.
For me I find the road traffic / congestion comparrision useful. I know it has it's limits and that for some it is simply an invalid analogy, but like I say I find it useful. So in analogy terms Monkebreath's options become.
1. Charge road users by milage over a certain number of miles per day.
2. Have variable speed limits for paeak and non peak times of the day.
3. Variable road tax levels - one with a milage limit at one price and one without at another.
4. Have a milage limit on the road tax but allow you to buy an 'unlimited' day of road usage at a time.
5. Have a road usage milage limit but make it a monthly limit and not a dialy one.
For me there are two issues. One is tackling congestion and one is to reduce overall traffic (average miles traveled per person per day). With road traffic I think both are valid objectives. With Internet traffic I personaly think the only objective should be to reduce congestion - with as little impact on overall usage as possible. I see no benefit in a plan to steadily reduce the amount of usage of the internet over all.
For me then only option 2 could be said to have the aim of reducing congestion and not just reducing overall average usage. So options 1,3 and 4 are no good imo, as they do not tackle congestion - just seek to reduce overall avergae usage.
Some schemes around the world that seek to reduce congestion.
London road charging scheme. This imposes a one of fee per day for using certain roads (areas) at certain times.
Some cities around the world have systems whereby half the cars have red tax discs and half have blue. For some days only blue tax disks are allowed into the city center and on other days only red. Sure the rich just buy two cars, one with red discs and one with blue but it has proved effective in reducing congestion in said cities as I understand.
The use of the road analogy highlights for me that the issue of congestion is not directly related to miles travelled. If you wish to reduce congestion then measures have to related to when (and where) you travel and not just how much. This then (again for me) is the core of the problems with cap's that only seek to deal with total milage and not to deal with when (and where) that usage occurs.
Is this particular thread asking any NEW questions?Is it just going over old ground?If the former then ok and thus far I don't see the thread has been closed.However if it's the latter I'm with Neil.
So Erol perhaps you can keep this thread on the newer side of the discussion not wander back through all that has already been said in previous threads.I don't mind reading NEWER ideas just object to rehashed old ones.
Incog.
Well again if I look back to how change was achieved on the issue of unmetered dial up access in the UK, we did not keep comming up with 'new' reasons as to why having only metered dial access in the UK was not necessary and damaging to the UK. We just kept presenting the same arguments, over and over again. Polietly, reasonably but persistnetly for many many years.
Certainly we sought to ever increase our understanding of the issues and to continuely refine the same old arguments in the light of new understandings,but the essential arguments were the same from day one to when change was acheived. One of the ways we increased out understandings was to keep going over the same old arguments time and again. I labourious and sometimes tedious process, but then change is not an easy thing to effect.
I totaly understand that for some (and possibly many) this process is boring and of no interest. That's fine with me but please, please do not seek to stop the process for others that can be bothered to go through it, simply because it bores you. That's all I am saying.
Well, this is the third letter to Paul Rusby, with a way forward that will satisfy both the pro cap, anti cap, ntl and the customer.
I have yet to have a reply, I am going to try higher up.
Here it is ----
paul.rusby@ntl.com
A way forward for better usage.
Dear Paul Rusby,
I understand that you are the director of Internet, and have responsibility for the broadband usage issues.
Could you please give me your comments and opinion on the following suggestion, which would be beneficial to both the customer and to ntl.
The night-time normal sleeping hours, I think you will agree are the most off-peak hours of the 24 hours. The bandwidth is there, but is being hardly used comparatively, to the other hours.
It is therefore hardly necessary to have restricted usage during those normal sleeping hours, when so little demand is being placed on the system.
Unrestricted usage could surely be allowed during those hours, as the likelihood of any congestion is so minimal. Any heavy usage moved to, or allowed during those hours, is bound improve usage during the other hours when most customers make use of the system. The load would be more efficiently spread over the 24 hours.
The restriction on excessive heavy usage will still then be in place, but in the place where it is actually needed, not in those sleeping hours where it is not needed.
Allowing those hours to be unmonitored for the purposes of any cap measurement, would allow those wanting to make more or heavy usage, to do so freely during those hours, no doubt using a timed-download utility in most cases.
Restriction would still be in place and monitored during the other hours, but not during those unrestricted hours, when it could be switched off (for cap purpose), which is not costly to do.
If only a limited portion of the heavy users took advantage of those hours, it is bound to, or is at least likely to, alleviate some of the congestion during the other hours.
Having a cap measurement applied to the normal sleeping hours, in any case, does nothing to improve congestion during the other hours. There is everything to be gained from the above practice, and nothing to be lost, from both the customers and ntl's point of view.
Both those against any restrictive usage, and those for some kind of restrictive broadband usage, would see, that at least, the above practice would be a progressive step forward, from the practice that is in place at present.
I look forward to your comments.
Regards
Rodd Curtis
Oh good another cap discussion.....:rolleyes:
I happen to agree with you ( :eek: ) that the subject has been overdone - but does it matter ?.
If people want to discuss it more then why not just bow out of the topic and leave them to it. This is what I will be doing - I may still read bits of it, but that's about all.
I happen to agree with you ( :eek: ) that the subject has been overdone - but does it matter ?.
If people want to discuss it more then why not just bow out of the topic and leave them to it. This is what I will be doing - I may still read bits of it, but that's about all.
You're kinda right Pem :angel:
I'm all for letting peeps discuss it, but I also have to consider the site & it's members-do people really want to see another cap discussion? :shrug:
It's easy to say "if you don't like the subject, don't read it", but all it really does (IMHO) is pi$$ people off who come here.
The cap has been done to death since we broke the story on .com 2 years ago-what else can there possibly be left to say?
It is going round in circles, there's no new points that can be raised, & therefore no new discussion-& that's what concerns me. :(
Erol (& others) make/have made good points, but (& I genuinely mean this with no disrespect to anyone) what has the cap 'discussion' achieved thusfar (nothing)
All it does is wind people up, but no one ever does anything about it. It's just as easy to say if you have an ISP who has conditions that you don't like then leave, but people would rather go over the same old topics here. :spin:
I have a strong feeling of deja-vu.....
ian@huth
10-03-2004, 12:13
The subject of the cap may have been done to death and many may feel that there is nothing new to be said on the subject. Unfortunately the cap is still there and may be more rigorously enforced or even lowered in the future. If the subject is dropped completely it may give NTL the impression that we have all accepted it and they may then tighten the screws, especially as others are starting to introduce even tighter caps. NTL are trialling other means of capping / controllng / charging their broadband sevices and it may not be too long before something comes of these trials. It may be that this thread may never come up with a workable solution, but on the other hand it may just give NTL something to think about.
You're kinda right Pem :angel:
I'm all for letting peeps discuss it, but I also have to consider the site & it's members-do people really want to see another cap discussion? :shrug:
It's easy to say "if you don't like the subject, don't read it", but all it really does (IMHO) is pi$$ people off who come here.
The cap has been done to death since we broke the story on .com 2 years ago-what else can there possibly be left to say?
It is going round in circles, there's no new points that can be raised, & therefore no new discussion-& that's what concerns me. :(
Erol (& others) make/have made good points, but (& I genuinely mean this with no disrespect to anyone) what has the cap 'discussion' achieved thusfar (nothing)
All it does is wind people up, but no one ever does anything about it. It's just as easy to say if you have an ISP who has conditions that you don't like then leave, but people would rather go over the same old topics here. :spin:
I have a strong feeling of deja-vu.....
Well Erols replies went pretty much as I expected.So I either carry on ignoring him(pity his replies end up in my inbox though due to the email notification option)or I unsubscribe thereby missing any NEW ideas put forward.
hmmmmm!
Nah! I'll unsubscribe as I doubt if much new will be added to the subject.I think Neil may be right that after all this time all that could be said or suggested has been said.
Incog. :sulk:
This thread was setup for discussion of ideas for the future, rather an a moan about the way the current system, or proposals to 'leave it as it is'.
I think erol has made a very good analogy here, and rodd was constructive too.
What i was looking for was agreement between users so this could be shown to ntl in a constructive way and let them see what some of their customers propose to resolve a situation that they are not happy about!
downquark1
10-03-2004, 13:15
Heaven forbid that we live under the belief that NTL could ever improve. ;)
This thread was setup for discussion of ideas for the future, rather an a moan about the way the current system, or proposals to 'leave it as it is'.
I think erol has made a very good analogy here, and rodd was constructive too.
What i was looking for was agreement between users so this could be shown to ntl in a constructive way and let them see what some of their customers propose to resolve a situation that they are not happy about!
Been there/done that-had the conversations with the MD. :rolleyes:
ian@huth
10-03-2004, 13:30
Has anyone stopped to think that NTL may have asked Monkeybreath to post this thread to see what feedback they get on the ideas that we were asked to vote on? They are running trials around some of those ideas and may be looking at future pricing of the broadband services.
LOL
they didn't ask me that... and even if they did i wouldn't do it.
when i post as monkeybreath on forums i have taken my ntl hat off.... when i post as Chris W, i have got it on. I used to have both accounts on .com, Chris W for CLT, and monkeybreath for everything else. On chetnet and broadband-help i am Chris W because i am doing it for a technical support point of view.
And anyway... they don't pay me enough to do things like you suggest for them :pp
Has anyone stopped to think that NTL may have asked Monkeybreath to post this thread to see what feedback they get on the ideas that we were asked to vote on? They are running trials around some of those ideas and may be looking at future pricing of the broadband services.
I'm sorry but NTL had all the advice and suggestions given to them at .com and elsewhere.Why didn't they listen to that advice?They supposedly were asking advice from heavy users.What happened to that?
If they want answers then they should use either email OR officially ask everyone by snail mail or yes even ask here.Not do it on the sly.
The cap has been done to death since we broke the story on .com 2 years ago-what else can there possibly be left to say?
Surely it was last year?
I have to admit, I haven't voted on this, as I have made suggestions on both .com and here, and don't really want to go over it agan.
But, having said that, people obviously still want to discuss the cap, so why shouldn't they? After all, as erol says, there are plenty of subjects done to death on here, religion being one.
Just a reply, will suffice for me. I've no wish to do the cap 'circle' again. I have sent a polite reasoned suggestion to ntl that everyone would gain from, including ntl.
They either answer or not. They have the chance to give a reasoned response.
I just thought that I would give it a try, to see if any communication at all, is at all possible with ntl or not, on any level. That's it, I've done my bit.
Chrysalis
10-03-2004, 15:30
voted for boost speed at non peak times.
Another point, of course, is that those who have been members for a long time may have done this to death - but it's a relativly new subject to recent members - why deny them the chance to discuss it.
Just a reply, will suffice for me. I've no wish to do the cap 'circle' again. I have sent a polite reasoned suggestion to ntl that everyone would gain from, including ntl.
They either answer or not. They have the chance to give a reasoned response.
I just thought that I would give it a try, to see if any communication at all, is at all possible with ntl or not, on any level. That's it, I've done my bit.
Rodd-are you aware we've already tried to get a response from ntl?
Here's what we got http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/showthread.php?t=8068 :rolleyes:
They clearly don't give a to$$, so don't expect anything other than a patronising, BS-ing response (if you get a response that is)
Chrysalis
10-03-2004, 17:18
well I think this thread is useful to see how customers generally feel, before it was more of a case we dont want a cap full stop, now other isp's are starting to introduce caps its now a case of what type of cap we will accept.
well I think this thread is useful to see how customers generally feel, before it was more of a case we dont want a cap full stop, now other isp's are starting to introduce caps its now a case of what type of cap we will accept.
typical, the british public backs down, absolutely no fight left now ?
in other countries if people disagree something gets done about it. (usally)
also under the thread starters username it says ".com CLT member" *cough :rolleyes:
The only thing that ntl understand is money, & if people were to vote with their feet by going to another ISP, & thus hitting ntl in the wallet (where it hurts), they would have no option but to listen.
Instead-people would rather 'discuss' it for 2 years (thus giving ntl another 2 years of BB subsccriptions), while ntl sit there thinking "mugs", & watching the money pile up for their share holders. :rolleyes:
ian@huth
10-03-2004, 17:50
Whilst it is probably true that the only thing NTL understand is money (don't most companies at the end of the day) they probably think that losing the few that vote with their feet is nothing compared to the new mugs that come along. The only way to make them listen is to keep shouting the message and putting it to them as often as possible and in as many ways as possible.
repost from a amil list I am on (curtesy of Simon G. Trask)
---------------
Latest DSL Prime has some great stuff, as always.
In particular check out the news here on 100Mbps VDSL and on Verizon Unlimited:
http://www.dslprime.com/News_Articles/news_articles.htm
'FCC Chairman Powell castigated cable companies for their secret
caps, consumers hate them, and the cost of bandwidth has gone down
enough they are unnecessary. Bell Canada saw orders disappear when
they imposed caps, and they picked up dramatically when they
eliminated them.
'"VOL DSL customers can watch videos for 75 hours a month,"
spokeswoman Briana Gowing was unequivocal, even after I pointed out
that would be over 40 gigabits at peak speeds. "We have no cap, and
Verizon doesn't have any plans to limit general Internet use based on
usage."
----------------
I wonder if our (ex NTL CEO) head of OFCOM will castigate the imposition of (unessesary) caps and limits on BB usage as well, once OFCOM gets up to speed? I am not a fan of Chairman Powell in general but staments like this and his recent ruling on VoIP services in the USA is rapidly changing this view for me.
MovedGoalPosts
10-03-2004, 19:10
As has been said, most of the cap stuff has been done to death, and I'm not sure that this thread is proposing anything new as a solution.
My view, for what it's worth.
Ntl have yet to give any solid reason for a cap, other than they aren't capabale (or dont want to) investing in their network enough to cope with the cash cow that it broad band. In erol's words "ntl are in the business of managing scarcity, not abundance".
If caps are strictly necessary, which I don't believe is true, the limit should be proportional to the service offerred, and the time it would ofer of theoretice maximum use. Therefore the 150k service should have one limit, the 600 a higher limit and the 1m service even higher. A tier of service options may also be of benefit, provide a budget service, aka, Telewest Blueyonders new 750MB limited 256 service, but offer a clear upgrade path to the uncapped services.
I really dont see why anyone would wish to accespt the 500 MB a day limit proposed in the vote, when it's worse than the restriction of now, that many are unhappy with.
A monthly limit is probably a clearer guide than a daily limit, even with ntl's "you can exceed it twice in a fortnight", exemption.
If as has been said in other threads the real problem is upload, not download congestion, then why aren't ntl capping that (sorry I don't want to give them ideas)?
If caps must be imposed they must also be periodically reviewed to ensure they are relevant and do not disenfranchise customers from their realistic use of broadband. They must also be clearly identified in product advertising and cotnracts.
If as has been said a large part of the problem is with p2p users, why not publish some propoer guidance on the ntlhome web sites, drawing attention to it in the AUP, about how to configure the common programs to use appropriate bandwidth at appropriate times, requesting off peak use where possible? And by the way, what really is off peak use?
Finally, in many cases, those customers who can (and in practice not everyone has that option) should vote with their feet, and move to uncapped services if the issue worries them. When a capped ISP sees it's income dropping, maybe then they will realise they have the wrong policy.
Rodd-are you aware we've already tried to get a response from ntl?
Here's what we got http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/showthread.php?t=8068 :rolleyes:
They clearly don't give a to$$, so don't expect anything other than a patronising, BS-ing response (if you get a response that is)Yes Neil, of course, I do know that everyone has tried, 'till they were blue in the face', I've seen the fruitless struggle, and I agree with what you have said.
I just wanted to try them with the more narrow suggestion of using those specific 'unused' hours, rather than suggesting that there be no cap, or of there being a greater allowable cap amount (though it actually does it, but not during peak). It seems so totally logical to me, that every cap-ISP should do it.
........ and being in diplomatic mode, and still hoping for a response, I'd best stay in that mode, or they certainly wont respond, if they are reading this site.
Florence
10-03-2004, 21:15
I voted something else...
I have had a reply to my email to Paul he had passed it on to Oliver to reply. After reading this reply I feel there is a way to resolve this.
The AUP stays at 1gig but those who use too much are automatically moved to a higher tier and pay more money for this service.
These tiers are dependant on the amount they use.
1st tier 1 gig a day £34.99 month
2nd tier 3 gig a day £54.99 month
3rd tier 5 gig a day £74.99 month
4th tier all over 5 gig a day charged at price per gig after the £74.99.
All those options seem a bit too complicated, and actually rather restrictive.. I got broadband because I dont want to have to be careful about my usage. I dont want to have to decide wether nor not to download another demo, because its going to cost me extra if I do. Thats the whole point of broadband! Always on, flat rate. Anything else is just pants tbh.
3rd tier 5 gig a day £74.99 month
4th tier all over 5 gig a day charged at price per gig after the £74.99.
Or just go to metronet . Use over 5gig a day and pay £23.99. Use less than 5.7gig a day down to 200mb a day and pay a sliding scale down from 23.99. Use less than 200mb per month and pay just £10
It's hard to see how anyone (in their right mind and with a choice) would choose these proposed packages over metronets ?
Other = I could live with a monthly cap of 30mb, dunno why you think we should reduce it to 15mb.
Better still, they could actually tackle the problem instead of imposing restrictions which will do nothing to help. Oh and supply us with monitoring software if they expect us to monitor our usage.
MovedGoalPosts
10-03-2004, 22:19
I voted something else...
I have had a reply to my email to Paul he had passed it on to Oliver to reply. After reading this reply I feel there is a way to resolve this.
The AUP stays at 1gig but those who use too much are automatically moved to a higher tier and pay more money for this service.
These tiers are dependant on the amount they use.
1st tier 1 gig a day £34.99 month
2nd tier 3 gig a day £54.99 month
3rd tier 5 gig a day £74.99 month
4th tier all over 5 gig a day charged at price per gig after the £74.99.
Where do you get those costs from for the additional tiers? Are they related to the cost of provision, or just to penalise the user?
If it is appropriate to allow tiered price structures, tarrifs levels need to reflect existing pricing, and improve on it. If other ISPs are happy to offer uncapped 512/600k services for in the low to mid £20 mark, and the 1Meg band is in the early to mid £30s, surely the initial capped tarrif should be less than current pricing, with additional allowances stepping up from there?
I voted for "pay extra for an uncapped service".
I'd say a semi-reasonable surcharge would be like 5 quid on top of the monthly fees for 600 and 1024k tiers. For people who can't switch to DSL, you could probably charge upto 10 quid extra maybe. Depends on how DSL providers play the cap issue really.
Or just go to metronet . Use over 5gig a day and pay £23.99. Use less than 5.7gig a day down to 200mb a day and pay a sliding scale down from 23.99. Use less than 200mb per month and pay just £10
It's hard to see how anyone (in their right mind and with a choice) would choose these proposed packages over metronets ?
I am not sure this information is correct... my g/f is on metronet and they do not have a specified cap, but they do have an acceptable usage policy which allows for 'reasonable use'. do you really think using 5.7gig a DAY is reasonable?!?!
It is priced at £10 per month, including first 201mb, then charged per mb, upto 5796mb per month which takes the price to £23.99 plus VAT. nothing to do with how much you use in a day.
I am not sure this information is correct... my g/f is on metronet and they do not have a specified cap, but they do have an acceptable usage policy which allows for 'reasonable use'. do you really think using 5.7gig a DAY is reasonable?!?!
It is priced at £10 per month, including first 201mb, then charged per mb, upto 5796mb per month which takes the price to £23.99 plus VAT. nothing to do with how much you use in a day.
oops yeah - that was 'my bad' as they say - the comparing of Kitty's prices per day with metronets per month. Sorry about that and thanks for pointing out my error :)
How does your gf find metronet btw? Good speeds? Good support? I have one friend using them that is very happy with the service but would welcome a second opinion on them - as the payg offer is very attractive and pretty unique in the uk (for now - wait till second half of the year for more offers like this).
she has never had to phone tech support... her boyfriend is her technical support :P
she is not a heavy internet user, which is why i suggested metronet, but when i have checked the speed a couple of times it has been at least 480kbps from a 512 connection which is good as far as i am concerned :D
Last months bill was only £14.12 which is thought was pretty good!
carlingman
11-03-2004, 00:52
Well voted something else.
Maybe they should provide what they originally promised.
Stop trying to feather their nest further by providing a poor service.
Well voted something else.
Maybe they should provide what they originally promised.
Stop trying to feather their nest further by providing a poor service.
did you actually read the first post in this thread?! not setup to complain about the current service, but to think about the way forward.
When broadband was first introduced it was unimaginable that people who use 1gig bandwidth per day, or whatever it would take to diminish the service for other customers. If i had downloaded 1gig on my first internet enabled pc it wouldn't have even fitted on my hard disk!
People need to take into account that times change, and usage changed, so charges change to reflect this. Otherwise BT/AOL/ntl wouldn't have introduced caps would they?!!
People need to take into account that times change, and usage changed, so charges change to reflect this. Otherwise BT/AOL/ntl wouldn't have introduced caps would they?!!
Times change, usage patterns change and _the cost of provision_ changes. The FACT is that even though average usage is increasing at a phenomenal rate it is still increasing slower than the unbelievably massively phenomenal rate at which the cost of moving data over fiber or wires is falling. Which is why even the head of the USA's FCC (their nearest equiv to Oftel in the UK) has stated there is NO REASON for the hidden caps limits etc that cable cos are putting on their services. (see previous post / link)
Oh and one more thing AOL have not introduced a cap. BT only has a cap on a tiny minority of its total retail BB products (those from BT Retail). The vast majority of BT BB products being used by people (those from BT Openworld/yahoo) do NOT have a cap.
That leaves NTL.
the head of the USA's FCC (their nearest equiv to Oftel in the UK) has stated there is NO REASON for the hidden caps limits etc that cable cos are putting on their services.
So if everyone in your area was maxing out their connection 24/7 meaning that yours always ran slowly... would you not complain then? and say that they should use it less so you could get what your were paying for?
I live in an area with lots of students, and yes, i download a lot, but the problem is that most other people in the area do to, so i don't usually get my full 1mb... strangely enough when all the students have gone home for holidays i do... but anyway i get annoyed with it sometimes, but i appreciate that i do download a lot, so i deserve the slower speeds. I am just having done to me, what i am doing to other peoples connections!
MovedGoalPosts
11-03-2004, 01:59
did you actually read the first post in this thread?! not setup to complain about the current service, but to think about the way forward.
When broadband was first introduced it was unimaginable that people who use 1gig bandwidth per day, or whatever it would take to diminish the service for other customers. If i had downloaded 1gig on my first internet enabled pc it wouldn't have even fitted on my hard disk!
People need to take into account that times change, and usage changed, so charges change to reflect this. Otherwise BT/AOL/ntl wouldn't have introduced caps would they?!!
If anything, costs should be dropping, or stay stable for a relative increased provision of service, i.e. increasing amounts of data downloaded. That is what is happening in every other facet of electronics and IT in particular as technology moves on.
You pay roughly the same for a computer now, as you did 5 years ago. the computer of today is massively more powerful, has loads more storage, and overall we expect much more of it than 5 years ago. Internet and Broadband use is following a similar pattern, yet this thread seems to imply that it is OK for costs to increase in relative terms, not decrease.
Surely some thing is very wrong with the apparent willingness of posters to pay more here, you should be arguing to pay less.
So if everyone in your area was maxing out their connection 24/7 meaning that yours always ran slowly... would you not complain then? and say that they should use it less so you could get what your were paying for?
No I would look for a provider that was 'delivering abundance' and not 'managing scarcity'. I f I could not find one in my area I would 'lobby' to make the ones that were managing scarcity change their ways and or look at building a community network, owned and run by those that use it - that sought to deliver the abundance that is possible with the technologies out there :)
deadite66
11-03-2004, 02:56
I voted something else...
I have had a reply to my email to Paul he had passed it on to Oliver to reply. After reading this reply I feel there is a way to resolve this.
The AUP stays at 1gig but those who use too much are automatically moved to a higher tier and pay more money for this service.
These tiers are dependant on the amount they use.
1st tier 1 gig a day £34.99 month
2nd tier 3 gig a day £54.99 month
3rd tier 5 gig a day £74.99 month
4th tier all over 5 gig a day charged at price per gig after the £74.99.
trouble is, if i had to move to 3gig/day account just becouse i went over 1gb now and again i would feel obliged to fill that 3gb everyday.
Stuartbe
11-03-2004, 08:02
trouble is, if i had to move to 3gig/day account just becouse i went over 1gb now and again i would feel obliged to fill that 3gb everyday.
How would you use 3gb a day m8 ?
I dont use that ammount of data and I have multiple computers running - mail/web servers ect.....
etccarmageddon
11-03-2004, 08:10
Other = I could live with a monthly cap of 30mb, dunno why you think we should reduce it to 15mb.
Better still, they could actually tackle the problem instead of imposing restrictions which will do nothing to help. Oh and supply us with monitoring software if they expect us to monitor our usage.
GULP! a monthly 30 mega bit cap! you can live with that?!!!
:pp
deadite66
11-03-2004, 08:10
i'd find a way, if i'm paying for 3gb/day i'll damn well use it
andygrif
11-03-2004, 11:35
Maybe I'm just being cynical here, but I really think this is a way that ntl have thought of to extract even more money from us. Look at the evidence, they get many users signed up to services, then introduce small but frequent cost increases (such as the minimum charge on phone calls).
Having been with ntl for around 8 years, this has happened year on year in some aspect of the billing - and I can see it happening again here.
NTL tells its investors that broadband is very high-margin element of the business - so is that where all the money is going? It seems to me that ntl would like to not have to invest any more in network capacity and infrastructure, but still rapidly increase the numbers of customers using broadband services.
Their answer was simple - get rid (or limit) the number of people that use higher amounts of bandwidth. If we believe some of the figures that 'x' percent of customers use 'y' percent of the capacity (whatever those headline grabbing sums may be today), then surely by limiting that 'x' percent to a much lower useage, will enable ntl to sell more high-margin broadband connections to many more average users without the need to invest more money in the system.
Our answer is not simple - if the above is correct, then paying additional amounts per gb/mb will not work. NTL do not want you to use larger sums of capacity, becuase it would take an awful lot of people going over their allowance to pay for the necessary investment - and probably would not pay for itself that quickly if at all.
So, all in all, it really doesn't matter what we vote on this one (if I'm right) if ntl want only average or low capacity users.
salman79uk
11-03-2004, 11:56
i thought ntl didnt really enforce the cap anyway!
I have NTL 600K and normally at least a few days a week, especially at weekends I go over 2-3 gig a day!
ian@huth
11-03-2004, 12:38
Maybe I'm just being cynical here, but I really think this is a way that ntl have thought of to extract even more money from us. Look at the evidence, they get many users signed up to services, then introduce small but frequent cost increases (such as the minimum charge on phone calls).
Having been with ntl for around 8 years, this has happened year on year in some aspect of the billing - and I can see it happening again here.
I would agree with that. When I started taking NTL services it was simply because I was offered Base DTV, telephone and free dial-up internet for £9.99 per month with free installation and that was only around three years ago. That increased rapidly so that it would now cost around £28 for the same service if I still had what I originally started with. What it did though was get me and a hell of a lot more to take NTL services, knowing that most of them wouldn't bother changing away from the when prices rose. They rely on customers not bothering to check the prices of competitors services and even if they do, not going to the trouble of changing. Any small price rises are in fact big money earners for NTL when multiplied by the number of customers and most of these small rises have no justifiable reason for making them.
SMHarman
11-03-2004, 12:46
Bait and hook, just like the mobile phone co's with their upgrade phones and new 1 year contract and many other companies.
Price rises are keeping track with Sky though, not above and beyond. DTV they are basically a distributor and reseller and will ultimately have to pass on all costs that their suppliers want to throw at them (until the Govt competition commission come along and enquire).
Just think if they abolish the licence fee, the BBC will start charging for its content and you will probably have a cost of more than £10 a month for all the radio and tv they supply, and the collection process to get it to the BBC will have more layers so cost more again!
carlingman
11-03-2004, 23:26
did you actually read the first post in this thread?! not setup to complain about the current service, but to think about the way forward.
When broadband was first introduced it was unimaginable that people who use 1gig bandwidth per day, or whatever it would take to diminish the service for other customers. If i had downloaded 1gig on my first internet enabled pc it wouldn't have even fitted on my hard disk!
People need to take into account that times change, and usage changed, so charges change to reflect this. Otherwise BT/AOL/ntl wouldn't have introduced caps would they?!!
Yes I read the first post of the thread but thanks for pointing it out :rolleyes:
Now you have, letââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s address the issues you raise, you say NTL are never going to change their mind and how do you know as they have backtracked on many an issue before now.
Then you to have a vote or post any other ideas... but we are not to mention anything about removing the cap and letting people use as much bandwidth as they want on the current services because we all know that isn't going to happen, and that has really been done to death.
So you want us to vote but not have an opinion then on anything you consider your views.
I will agree the capping issue has been done to death but the rest of your original post is tosh.
You nor I know that NTL will or will not negate on the issues of the cap.
Then you finish with saying you would be interested to hear what people think with a smiley at the end.
What you really meant was you will be interested to hear what people say as long as it does not go against the grain of yours and NTLs views.
Sorry but this is a discussion forum and the site is not owned by NTL and we have free speech here.
I am sorry if you felt so strongly that you had to neg rep me for post 51 here just because I did not agree with yours and NTL sentiments.
Well I am sorry to say you are going to be the first recipient of a negative rep from me.
As Erol said times change and people move with the times.
:)
Now you have, letââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s address the issues you raise, you say NTL are never going to change their mind and how do you know as they have backtracked on many an issue before now.
I obviously don't know for a fact that they aren't going to backtrack, but this post was setup on the assumption that they would not change their mind, and to think about the most popular possiblities for for future
Then you to have a vote or post any other ideas... but we are not to mention anything about removing the cap and letting people use as much bandwidth as they want on the current services because we all know that isn't going to happen, and that has really been done to death.
So you want us to vote but not have an opinion then on anything you consider your views.
I was proposing some ideas for the way forward, if you like the lesser of all the evils, and if anyone had any other suggestions for what could be done instead of those, that was what the other ideas was for. The idea of leaving it the same was deliberately left out because THAT is what has been done to death already.
I will agree the capping issue has been done to death but the rest of your original post is tosh.
thanks for the constructive feedback!
You nor I know that NTL will or will not negate on the issues of the cap.
Then you finish with saying you would be interested to hear what people think with a smiley at the end.
What you really meant was you will be interested to hear what people say as long as it does not go against the grain of yours and NTLs views.
yes, interested to hear what other people think can be done to improve the cap situation, given the assumption that the cap won't be removed.
Sorry but this is a discussion forum and the site is not owned by NTL and we have free speech here.
i know that, but as you can see, this thread wound a few people up by dragging up the cap again, so i deliberately tried to stay away from a repeat of the same discussion.
I am sorry if you felt so strongly that you had to neg rep me for post 51 here just because I did not agree with yours and NTL sentiments.
that was not the reason why i did it, because i felt that you were off topic, and post such as yours were doing EXACTLY what i didn't want to do, and that is drag back up the exact same cap discussion.
Well I am sorry to say you are going to be the first recipient of a negative rep from me.
ah well... i'm sure it won't be the last i get, because some people here think i am too pro-ntl and that can't be a good thing on this forum but my life goes on anyway... i don't see the problem with being contoversial sometimes
As Erol said times change and people move with the times. :)
he did... and i agree with him... so at least we can agree on something! lets just beg to differ on all the rest!
Anyway... my rant is over now, i think i have pretty much concluded that there is no real consensus on what should be done about the gap, although the trials that are going on at the moment might give people a service that they like... and lighten the blow of having the cap enforced!
You payed for to use the internet for 1 month you should get as much as you can, it is like you go buy bar of chocolate, will you eat the whole think or eat a bit of it then throw the rest away?
You payed for to use the internet for 1 month you should get as much as you can, it is like you go buy bar of chocolate, will you eat the whole think or eat a bit of it then throw the rest away?
you've paid for your tv license... do you leave your tv on 24/7??
you've paid for your tv license... do you leave your tv on 24/7??
will you be capped if you do ?
or more to the point just imagine how TV would have developed from when it was first set up if people had been told 'use it, enjoy it - just do not use it too much'?
Stuartbe
12-03-2004, 11:07
will you be capped if you do ?
or more to the point just imagine how TV would have developed from when it was first set up if people had been told 'use it, enjoy it - just do not use it too much'?
Good point m8.....
I dont see how a tv analogy can be used here though. Tv is a one way system (apart from interactive) and does not envolve hundreds of miles of firbe and copper !
Good point m8.....
I dont see how a tv analogy can be used here though. Tv is a one way system (apart from interactive) and does not envolve hundreds of miles of firbe and copper !
The TV anaolgy is a limited one. Really I was just pointing out how the development of either TV or internet is affected by things like usage limits. In fact usage limits are worse for development of internet as it is end users that dream up and develop the applications (content).
When you get to economics of provision there are big differences between the two - but not as big as they may seem at firsts. With the technologies available today the idea of a fixed fee (like TV license fee) to be able to move as much data to and from your house as you like is certainly techically and econimcaly viable imo. However this is not the way the historic owners and controls of these networks have worked for the last 100 years. So they are not building 'best' networks (ones that move the most data at the lowest cost). They are building networks that allwo them to bundle up, control and sell vertically intergrated products (TV, voice, data) and using charging models not based on the cost of provision but based on their histroic 100 year old models.
Stuartbe
12-03-2004, 11:17
Maybe its time that new houses were fibre connected instead of coax connected. Badnwidth need is going to get higher. soon everything is going to be on the net. Phone/house management ext.... If we dont chnage with the times we are going to get left behind.... The world is not going to wait for us !
ian@huth
12-03-2004, 11:43
Maybe its time that new houses were fibre connected instead of coax connected. Badnwidth need is going to get higher. soon everything is going to be on the net. Phone/house management ext.... If we dont chnage with the times we are going to get left behind.... The world is not going to wait for us !
Back in the last millenium when I was a kid telephones were on the end of thick cables, weighed a ton and didn't even have a dial. Now we are going away from fixed line telephony and onto wireless telephones that are so small that you have to search about in your pocket to find them.
Will broadband go the same way with wireless connections from the home to nearby wireless routers connected to the fibre backbone? Instead of digging up miles of highway to lay cable they could lay the fibre in sewers as is being done in some places. Is too much effort being put into adapting existing infrastructure to supply present day needs with resultant high prices and usage restrictions?
Stuartbe
12-03-2004, 11:48
Wireless is not going to be practical for that kind of use..... We are rapidly running out of radio freqencys.... If you could see the warf chart in 75 and then compare it to now you would see what I mean !!!
Laying fibre in the sewers is an exelent idea.... I know that they were testing it a while ago but I have heard nothing since. !
Fibre is the way to go IMHO.
Laying fibre in the sewers is an exelent idea.... I know that they were testing it a while ago but I have heard nothing since. !
Getting ntl to maintain the network above ground, is bad enough, imagine trying to coax them into maintainance down there!! ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.