lodger 18:31 12 Feb 03

Is it NOT time that ISPs who use the vague slur 'Heavy User' were asked to mention the term in their SO warm welcoming advertising shots on TV? In other words, to state clearly, NO HEAVY USERS ALLOWED! and then perhaps to define the term, so that customers BEFORE SIGNING UP, can make a more informed choice about their ISP?

  Forum Editor 19:00 12 Feb 03

but I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

It would have to be - you can't seriously be suggesting that TV adverts should include such a statement. The term 'heavy user' isn't a vague slur unless you take it as such - it simply means that you are a heavy bandwidth consumer.

There's too much emotive talk about bandwidth quotas (I take it that's what you're referring to), and it muddies the water. All that's happened is that a broadband service provider has decided to stop a tiny percentage of users from consuming a disproportionately large chunk of bandwidth. Those of us who will be unaffected - and that means the vast majority - don't have a thing to get het up about do we?

Unless we perceive the signs of some dire and sinister plot that is - which I don't.

  obbit 19:09 12 Feb 03

with respect to you FE but the reason why capping has been used may be this click here

profits. that is what it seems to be boiling down too. the success of broadband has caught all ISP's out.

their figures must have been wrong when they tried to out bid each other. now they have to impose restictions.

i don't want to turn this into NTL part 3 but how many more times are they going to restrisct usage of broadband?

Probably until tiered rates are introduced based on your average usage.

  bfoc 19:14 12 Feb 03

Is an 'irregular verb' so:
'they are heavy users, you are a power user and I am an WEB guru!'

Without turing this into NTL 3 just to say existing usage policies could easily have dealt with 'a tiny percentage of users' and were designed to do so!

  Ironman556 19:49 12 Feb 03

Yes it's inevitable that ISP's will follow each other, and urge "heavy users" to go for the more expensive packages. But I think that if the term unlimited is used, then it should mean unlimited. I know it'd be impractical and expensive for an ISP to provide that to all standard customers, but that's what they advertise.

As a home user, I do think that 1GB per day is excessive (but better than BT's time limitation). There can't be many people on the slower connections who download that much every day compared to the number of users? I'm not sure what connections the limit affects, but if you pay for a fast connection, I assume it'd usually be so that 1) downloads are faster and 2) you can download large amounts of data. Again, for an average home user I still think 1GB a lot to download, but for a business I'd expect less limitation.

  oresome 19:55 12 Feb 03

Bandwidth is like the road network. You'll never satisfy demand for long. New uses will be dreamt up making the present capacities totally inadequate. Look at the cellular network. It used to be sufficient to roam and stay in voice contact. Now we are told we need lots of other features to stimulate growth.

  special sophie 23:15 12 Feb 03

I understand your position on this one FE and i have probably been rather overcritical of your stance on this one but NTL are currently proposing a new range of heavy use packages anybody who is downloading vast amounts of data and making money from it will switch to this service but it does beg the question where are they getting the spare bandwidth for these new packages

  spuds 23:26 12 Feb 03

Possibly this posting is in response to the recent NTL and BT clamp down. Reading the latest media reports, I do not think that we have heard the last of this. click here

  Forum Editor 23:39 12 Feb 03

I don't believe that any of us are in possession of the full facts when it comes to making judgements about the NTL policy.

Contrary to what some people seem to think it's not illegal or immoral to make a profit - even a big profit. I work in America and the Far East a fair bit, and in both places they have a completely different attitude to profit - they admire businesses that do well, and understand that there's absolutely no point in trading at a loss - you might as well pack up and go home.

NTL has posted huge losses - for reasons that are complex and rooted in the recent history of the development of the UK's cable network - and they are now struggling to pull themselves out of the fire. What would we rather have, a loss-maker that goes under, dragging hundreds of thousands of customer's broadband connections and thousands of jobs with it, or a company that makes positive (albeit somewhat unpopular) management decisions and tries to trade its way to stability?

I know which one I would go for - especially when I knew that only the tiniest minority of over half a million customers will even know that anything's happened.

Worrying about "thin end of wedge" theory, and "who knows what they might do if they get away with this" is a tad silly in my opinion. NTL are in competition with some big players, and they aren't going to do anything to jeopardise their potential in the market. Broadband is a maturing technology, it has a way to go yet, and there will be problems along the road. On past occasions I have (in company with many others) said that the broadband problem was always going to be bandwidth. Couple that with fierce price competition and you have the perfect recipe for trouble. In the end we'll all be fine, but we have to stop reacting in this knee-jerk fashion each time someone changes the colour of the soap in the bathroom.

  bfoc 23:50 12 Feb 03

So, what we should do is allow a company which has already, through bad choices, got into dire straits make more stupid decisions to protect jobs?

I'm sorry I completely disagree, what makes sustained and sustainable profit is giving the cutomer what they want and looking after them, which NTL is bogging up, again.

The best protection for jobs, investment and, yes, shareholders, is to let NTL know when they are going wrong, as they are now.

And despite the attempt to trivialise it they ain't changing the colour of soap in the bath-room, they are putting a limit on how many times you can use the facilities. People may thinK they won't need it that often but what happens when they do? And that is before the limit us all to 4 times a day!

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Apple Event live stream | Apple October Event live blog: Watch Apple unveil new MacBook Pro, new…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Lida designs a cross-stitch email sent to thousands of Ikea Family members

Apple Watch 2 review | Apple Watch Series 2 review: Faster performance, a brighter screen, water-ret…