Nintendo Switch (Nintendo NX) release date, price, specs and preview trailer: Codename NX console…
Sorry for double posting, in case TOPCAT® or someone else has beaten me to it. This is interesting development in the recent 1GB NTL cable download limit furore:
lets hope it can be overturned and it is returned to the service that everyone originally signed up for.
i notice NTL are promoting x-box live game play on the BB service. how much bandwidth is used playing i wonder.
also what extra capacity has been installed to provide said service , if any
and remember that the vast majority of NTL subscribers couldn't care less about a download limit that is so large it only affects a tiny minority. This argument is between the company and its customers, and I would imagine that Parliament might have weightier matters to discuss.
NTL handled this badly - it was a PR disaster in my book - but that doesn't alter the central issue. Some people (and it's a very small percentage of broadband users)are consuming a disproportionate amount of the available bandwidth. Lots of these customers are downloading copyrighted MP3 tracks and/or software for which they haven't paid a penny. Many of them are then writing the files to CD and selling them at car boot sales or down the pub. To try to pretend otherwise would be naive in the extreme.
NTL has to think about running a business out of debt and into profit, and all major broadband service suppliers will be looking at introducing download limits sooner or later. Bandwidth is expensive, and if people want to sit on the Internet transferring files all day every day they'll have to accept that they must pay a higher monthly charge. The introduction of a tiered charging structure would solve the problem - high downloaders could do their thing,and the increased revenue would finance the provision of extra bandwidth capacity.
I'm a broadband consumer myself, and I'm quite prepared to pay more if I consume more by way of resources - it's common sense really.
The argument stems from the way NTL have imposed the changes.
They have misold and misrepresented the service. It's not just that they have capped downloads, it's that NTL have done so after selling an "Unlimited use" service, marketed as "suitable for heavy users".
For those on a 12 month minimum contract, I dont think it is reasonable to have major limitations in service imposed after I have only had a month and a half use.
The purpose of MP questions is to ask how this affects government policy, given the emphasis Mr Blair and others have placed on a Broadband Britain. It is also to ask why Oftel, the government's quango, will not investigate what to consumers appears to be an unfair contract and misleading marketing.
Ultimately what users choose to do with thier BB connection is irrelevant. Many users on www,dont-pay.ntl.co.uk have more than justified why tehy legitimately exceed 1GB a day, within the terms of a residential service.
And accept that the ORIGINAL acceptable use policy allowed NTL to target precisely those
'people (and it's a very small percentage of broadband users)...consuming a disproportionate amount of the available bandwidth'.
So why, instead of targetting those allegedly responsible for 'hogging bandwidth', are they introducing a universal cap?
I am downloading the 3 main CD's for linux and also 2 other's legally off the internet. This is about 3gb in total, so far i have about 700mb of them.
I would be prepared to pay more at the moment if my service was more reliable and stopped cutting out. But this is very rare for me to want to download files this big, normally i just play games over the net and then get updates etc and just genenally surf, leaving my server on when i go to college to get files off that i may have forgotten.
I can see why some people are complaining, but NTL done it the right way, 3gb in any one day over a 14 day period is more than fair.
what is this rubbish about bandwidth capacity
i think we are being taken for a ride and regarded as stupid by NTL.
if there is spare bandwidth then it surely should be used for existing customers. first come first served. it find it a bit hard to swallow with reports like this about and then they start limiting our use. so there is the bandwidth to spare. what is really happening? why are we being told something that isn't true. why are we treated as stupid.
i don't think the capping was a PR dissaster as such more like pulling the wool over our eyes.
they are talking about users downloading music all day. what i think is, the prices for BB will increase depending on your usage. they are limiting our use when we signed up for an "always on" service. "get your downloads 10 times faster than normal dial up". that was what BB was sold on
now we can get downloads at 10 times faster than normal dial up they don't like us doing it!! now isn't that strange?
It is always reassuring when one side of an debate gets the support of a public figure of
honesty and integrity.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.