To NTL users #2

[speshneeds]

NTL customers shouldn't worry too much about being chased if they go over their broadband limits. NTL is unable to get enough people to answer its help-lines let alone find the staff to send out letters to so-called broadband hogs

lol so wrong systems like this are automatically generated guys.. and trust me this is one bit of ntls stuffs that does work all the time

 

[PJS]

Well where I live its NTL or nothing so I dont have any choice and I dont get anywhere near that cap anyway so I really dont care.

 

[myrder]

If it wasnt for the likes of NTL you buttmunches on BT would be paying 2 or 3 times what you are now, NTL provides the only half decent competition.

Really?

Care to tell me what other cable companies are in competition with NTL in your area?


... thought not.

 

[Whoodoo_RD]

Originally posted by myrder


Really?

Care to tell me what other cable companies are in competition with NTL in your area?


... thought not.

This isnt about competition with NTL, its about anyone else against BT, its the cable companies that pushed the price down.

Please put brain into gear before attempting to flame.

Oh and Telewest and Blueyonder for your info.

 

[Meatballs]

Originally posted by shilak


How can you relate the amount of bandwidth used to how lawful the use of bandwidth? Its complete bull. Here are some simple examples of how easy it is you use that 1Gb up: -

Each DAoC connection uses 14Mb per hour, therefore 2 DAoC connections = 28Mb per hour. So if playing with 2 accounts for 16 hours a day (quiet likely for some people) you will use 450Mb of download. Then once windowed mode is available, you will get people browsing during downtime, using IRC, IRQ, MSN, etc, all of which use bandwidth you will be getting pretty close to, if not exceeding, that cap.

Then you have internet radio, running a live feed at 128kbit (which isnt that uncommon) uses 900Mb of bandwidth in a 16 hour period.

Not to mention video feeds, which can be in the region of 512kbit or more, which will burn your entire quota in under 5 hours.

And we mustnt forget that once capping of this sort is introducted by one supplier with minimal complaints, all the others will follow suit. Also consider that most of those who went with NTL in the first place did so because we were limited only by the speed of the connection. NTL even marketed, and still do, their cable modem package as being unlimited internet access!

Right, so you play daoc with 2 computers for 16 hours a day, and dont even reach half the cap, webpages wont make up another 500mb unless you go refresh happy on some image laden website repeatedly.

Do you normally spend 5 hours a day watching videos streamed from the web? Every day of the week. It isn't a hard cap on 1gig a day, you could download 3 gig one day, they aint gonna bring round the swat team and cancel your account. If it happens repeatedly (and how often do you find more than 35+ hours worth of video to watch from the web to go over your quota?) then they'll get in contact.

The only thing that does get close is the internet radio, but if your sat infront of your computer 16 hours a day listening to it you certainly aint the normal domestic user. I've left winamp running it overnight etc, and probably would go over cap, but its not that hard to press the stop button.


p.s

using IRC, IRQ, MSN, etc, all of which use bandwidth you will be getting pretty close to, if not exceeding, that cap.

lololol running irc, irq, msn, i currently have a throughput of 0.01KBs, and thats probably rounded up

 

[myrder]

Please put brain into gear before attempting to flame.

Oh and Telewest and Blueyonder for your info.

Gosh, and there's me thinking that the cable companies had a monopoly in their areas. I must be mistaken, and NTL is providing access for it's competitors.

BT on the other hand, is required by law to provide access for it's competitors, and that's where the price reductions have mainly come from. Competitors have basically forced BT to reduce prices, through complaints to OFTEL and/or the government.

Cable has played a small part, but in a fragmented way. If one doesn't live in a cable area, one won't get the service no matter how cheap it is. This is also true of ADSL, but availability is far higher than cable to start with.

Cable may be a superior product to ADSL, but it is certainly not the reason for cheap ADSL.

Thank you for your suggestion for me to 'put my brain into gear'.

 

[Cadire]

The truth that dare not be spoken is that most high-bandwidth home users are warez/mp3 collectors.

I'm sure that those present only ever download Linux ISOs and other non-copyright material but the fact remains that the Internet is a haven for software/music thieves.

A cap of 1Gb average download traffic a day is not unreasonable. I'm sure that those who have a legitimate reason for downloading more than this would be dealt with sympathetically by NTL.

 

[Whoodoo_RD]

Originally posted by myrder


Gosh, and there's me thinking that the cable companies had a monopoly in their areas. I must be mistaken, and NTL is providing access for it's competitors.

BT on the other hand, is required by law to provide access for it's competitors, and that's where the price reductions have mainly come from. Competitors have basically forced BT to reduce prices, through complaints to OFTEL and/or the government.

Cable has played a small part, but in a fragmented way. If one doesn't live in a cable area, one won't get the service no matter how cheap it is. This is also true of ADSL, but availability is far higher than cable to start with.

Cable may be a superior product to ADSL, but it is certainly not the reason for cheap ADSL.

Thank you for your suggestion for me to 'put my brain into gear'.

OK, you got it in a gear, but it seems in reverse!

This still has squat to do with the differing companies who offer ADSL or Cable, but the 2 different types of connection.

When ADSL was launched, the price for 512K was in the £60+ market, OFTEL told BT off and after some months, it lowered to about £50, as it happens around the same time the cable companies began to roll out BB. As Cable became more widely spread, ppl took it up. However its costs were 1/2 what BT were charging. At this point other companies like freeserve deceided to get in on the ADSL bandwagon.

These companies didnbt lower the consumers price at all, but they managed eventually through OFTEL to get the price BT were charging them for connections down. Eventually prices did slowly start to fall, but very slowly.

In areas rife with Cable like Manchester, both were available, but still, a BT phone line and 512k would cost you around £55+ plus call charges a month. Cable on the other hand offered 20+ TV channels, 512k Broadband and telephone line rental for £30.

Simple business terms meant that to compete in cities with cable avaiable, BT had no choice but to lower its price, and this would have to be a national thing.

Oh, and btw, there is no LAW stating BT must lower their prices to the consumer. But end of this topic as its detracting from the thread altogether

 

[darbey]

Originally posted by Whoodoo_RD
OK, you got it in a gear, but it seems in reverse!

This still has squat to do with the differing companies who offer ADSL or Cable, but the 2 different types of connection.

When ADSL was launched, the price for 512K was in the £60+ market, OFTEL told BT off and after some months, it lowered to about £50, as it happens around the same time the cable companies began to roll out BB. As Cable became more widely spread, ppl took it up. However its costs were 1/2 what BT were charging. At this point other companies like freeserve deceided to get in on the ADSL bandwagon.

These companies didnbt lower the consumers price at all, but they managed eventually through OFTEL to get the price BT were charging them for connections down. Eventually prices did slowly start to fall, but very slowly.

In areas rife with Cable like Manchester, both were available, but still, a BT phone line and 512k would cost you around £55+ plus call charges a month. Cable on the other hand offered 20+ TV channels, 512k Broadband and telephone line rental for £30.

Simple business terms meant that to compete in cities with cable avaiable, BT had no choice but to lower its price, and this would have to be a national thing.

Oh, and btw, there is no LAW stating BT must lower their prices to the consumer. But end of this topic as its detracting from the thread altogether

Are you sure your signature shouldnt read

NTL PR department?

If you had read my post you will see im trying a different provider because i have the chance to as im moving home and so far the service has been pretty sucky in my area. The cap is neither here nor there for me as i wouldnt hit any where near the cap. My point was to illustrate yes the customer service does suck when they cant keep their department managers informed over important issues like these.

 

[PJS]

Originally posted by myrder

This is also true of ADSL, but availability is far higher than cable to start with.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Whoodoo_RD]

Originally posted by darbey
Are you sure your signature shouldnt read

NTL PR department?

No m8, Im a telecomms engineer for the NHS, therefore I know a little about BT and their Machine de la Bullplop, so im anti BT.

See what your saying now, didnt seem clear in the beginning

As for the availablilty of ADSL, think you need to read up a little on that. One guy I know lives within 1.5KM of 3 BT exchanges, 2 of them are ADSL enabled, the one closest to him is not. Despite being in the radius for ADSL, BT say he cant have it. Read up on it a little more.

NTL / Blueyonder / Telewest and the other Cable cos may not have the coverage, but they aint that far off in major towns and cities. BT are being way too slow in the ADSL roll out.

www.theregister.co.uk for lots of interesting arcticles about BT.

 

[shilak]

Originally posted by Cadire
The truth that dare not be spoken is that most high-bandwidth home users are warez/mp3 collectors.

I'm sure that those present only ever download Linux ISOs and other non-copyright material but the fact remains that the Internet is a haven for software/music thieves.

A cap of 1Gb average download traffic a day is not unreasonable. I'm sure that those who have a legitimate reason for downloading more than this would be dealt with sympathetically by NTL.

I pass that 1Gb limit everyday and I have yet to download any warez/mp3's, fact of the matter is that every user clocks up more download capacity than they think they do.

As I said before, most of those who moved off of the 128Kbit option and onto the higher ones did so because they needed more bandwidth, hence this 'limit' will be affecting their usage of the connection they pay for. Not to mention that recently NTL dropped the cost of the 1Mbit line in order to win more customers with that level of usage, in doing so they insisted that existing customers moving up from their lower levels of service signed new 1 year contracts.

 

[Vepo]

Strange, i've haven't seen anything differ in my service with NTL, and i use there 1Mb/sec Connection service

and i download alot per day maybe over 2Gb to 3Gb a day and upload around 1Gb a day
one thing i don't like its the upstream cap compaired to ADSL

i download around 160kb/sec and i can only upload at 30kb/sec
when i first got the connection i throught i would get like around 60kb/sec upstream

But i'm just waiting for the faster services

I only have a high amount of stuff i download and upload is because i help out with Friends FTP's to transfer stuff

But with the infomation saying about a 1Gb limit... i think its stupid... they are starting to act like the Aussie which there download limit... we pay for a service where we use it as freely as we wish... within the law and rules which we signed when we brought the service... if they want to piss us about... they should drop the price of there service even more, because i know alot of people will leave NTL if they bring this into service..

But thats what i think