NTL broadband cap & general broadband discussion

[TOCMFIC]

NTL could be a lot worse. (My Dad is getting broadband from them in just over a week.)

My ISP here has a cap of 5 gigabytes a MONTH. Yes, a month. They don't enforce it currently, but I know sooner or later they're going too. Now 1 gigabyte a day, I don't a problem with that to be honest, so long as the cap is enforced properly. I've heard of some ISP's that cap by limiting you to 28kbps style dialup speeds if you violate the cap. Eastern Canada has started enforcing caps, but we haven't had them here yet, but I know it's only a matter of time.

Be glad you're not with Comcast in the US. They cap their internet which they pimp as unlimited. The worst part? People get shitty letters and have apparently even been disconnected entirely for violating the cap. The really stupid part is Comcast won't tell anyone what the cap is. People have called and complained and demanded to know what the limit is and they flat out won't tell you.

A gigabyte a day cap? Trust me, this is the tip of the iceberg. It's going to get worse.

[Timmay]

Maybe we should switch to data based charges then. That is say a flat fee of £5 a month for the service regardless, and then 50p per gigabyte after that. I don't think £20 per month is too unreasonable for being able to download 30Gb a month, or 1Gb a day equivalent.

Personally I'll have a week where I'll download 5-10Gb (that's a heavy week for me), and then another 3 weeks where I'll only download 3Gb total. Work out pretty cheap for me.

This I think has a reasonable chance of happening sometime in the future, as more companies feel the pinch, and need to make heavy hoggers pay. Only problem is the pricing structures will become very complicated, and will go the way of mobile phone tariffs. Eventually we'll come full circle, and start having transfer allowances, where you get 30Gb a month included in your plan, for only £25 per month. Only difference being now you'll get charged extra for what you use over and above that, rather than some nasty letters.

[cairnsi]

soon as they cap your download theyll cap your upload and noone will be getting files as sharers with the most popular files go offline for weeks on end-im sure its 10% of users spreading 90% of material

[New World Order]

I heard about the one gig cap a few weeks ago, I seriously thought it was a joke.  I dont understand how there can be a cap when they state that its 24/7 512 down and 256 up.  That should surely mean that you can use it (if that was actually possible) at its peak for as long as its connected.

Im glad im not with NTL, I tend to surf around webpages that seem to be filled with flash animation pop ups which cant be removed untill they have loaded, and some of them are  around 5mb or larger.  They use flash now as virus checkers and firewalls block the old pop ups if you turn the function on.

NTL +Heavy advertising = The advert channel, at a very reasonable £30 per month subscription.

[gazzyk1ns]

I heard about the one gig cap a few weeks ago, I seriously thought it was a joke.  I dont understand how there can be a cap when they state that its 24/7 512 down and 256 up.  That should surely mean that you can use it (if that was actually possible) at its peak for as long as its connected.

Well exactly, that's really all there is to it. I can think of no other product available where the manufacturer/provider can advertise it as one thing and accuse you of abuse when you use it exactly how they specified.

Timmy I can't understand your reasoning here at all. I think you're right in that sooner or later there will be cherges per data downloaded but why you'd want it to go that way is beyond me. Maybe it works out cheaper for you at the moment but surely you've got to see the bigger picture? Two main things:

- The amount of data you download will only increase over time, as people have already said sites are always getting bigger, adding more flash and graphics, etc...

- As far as free filesharing is concerned, charges per data downloaded will kill it for many people, and not just those who leech but also those who like to download and share.

It would also seem quite restrictive to me and the fact that's never been the case so far is what I love about the net, if you feel like grabbing something then you'll do it. Don't tell me you don't feel like that either Timmy, hehe I remember last month when you'd queued up a GB or so of Win2k source code in Kazaa just to see an MS programmer writing "Willy" and "Bum". Wonder how much Zen would charge you for that if they took your advice and charged per data downloaded? You stopped it because it could have been a fake actually, didn't you? How would you feel about your ISP charging you for hundreds of MB or possibly the whole thing, if it was useless? What about if GetRight fucked up with its multi-source downloading, or the server at the other end shitted up, and that 700mb Linux ISO you'd downloaded was useless? Still gotta pay for it...

Maybe you could argue you can afford it because as you like to say, you're on ~30K or whatever but what happens if you hit the big time and started earning ~150K? Would you not mind if your ISP charges increased proportionately?

[Timmay]

All I'm saying is whatever the companies advertise, whatever they tell us we can and can't do, the simple fact is broadband is almost always a shared resource. FACT.

When you have people taking the piss, regardless of whether they're allowed or not, it spoils it for the rest of us. The more people that take the piss, the faster we'll travel down the path to volume-based charges - ie. again the worse it'll get for everyone.

Maybe you could argue you can afford it because as you like to say, you're on ~30K or whatever

As I like to say? I believe I've mentioned my salary once on here, and the only other time was when someone managed to work it out through the results of some quiz. And if I go on about it so much, how come you had to put the "or whatever"? Surely you'd know it well by now, seeing as I go on about it all the time.

[gazzyk1ns]

People aren't taking the piss by using the service as the providers advertised they could. How on Earth is that 'taking the piss'?

[Timmay]

All I'm saying is whatever the companies advertise, whatever they tell us we can and can't do, the simple fact is broadband is almost always a shared resource. FACT.

[gazzyk1ns]

Yeah but they don't advertise that. Us lot here only realise that because we're PC-minded and read sites like ADSLguide.org/TheRegister, etc. If you read all the terms and conditions of your broadband contract it will say something like "Your bandwidth is divided, service may vary" to get them out of shit when their ridiculous contention ratio means that people are experiencing slow speeds, but that's it. In their adverts they don't say "Always on connection! Amazing speeds! Download movies! You can only download a certain amount though, otherwise we'll cut you off for abuse. You connection is shared with fifty other people so your speeds might crawl at peak hours. Sorry."

[Timmay]

Yeah, you're right. So lets all go max out our connections, just cause they say we can. Well, they don't, but they don't say we can't. Anyway, then watch as companies struggle to keep up, all of our services will degrade, companies will put up prices or change T&Cs to cap bandwidth, or simply close down because it's not financially viable.

I've never seen my water company say that I can't run the taps 24/7, but do you think they'd be a little miffed if I started pouring it off into my garden all day, everyday.

What do you suggest we do? Leave things as they are, and let them run their own natural business course - ie. prices up and/or tighter restrictions? Or take proactive action, and don't take the piss?

[Mr Flunchy]

I'd imagine around 8-10 gig a day, maybe more?

On a 512kbps connection, you'll get 1Gb in around 5 hours. On a 1Mbps connection, half that, natch.

I'd be surprised if you're transferring at 100%, 100% of the time. Bittorrent only ever reaches about 40kb/s for me.

I'm on the 1mb connection, and there's 3 of us, 3 x soulseek 1 x emuleplus and god knows what other things splat/rou and t'other housemate use, newsgroups and whatnot. So it's easy to max it out a lot.

Emuleplus can average between 50-80k, and *some* users on soulseek (probably in other countries) I've grabbed albums off with speeds of upto 121.5K!

From my uni connection I can dl from Soulseek at about 600k/s.  Mmm.. kilobytes..

[gazzyk1ns]

I never suggested downloading useless things on purpose. Using your connection to let bit torrent download you films/TV eps which you'll watch isn't really the same as running your taps 24/7, is it...

In any case, ISPs don't "just not say you can't", they actively say you can... i.e. they advertise the connection as being on 24/7, and that you can download films/music/movies, without mentioning restrictions. Dialup ISPs did the same a little while ago when they advertised the fact that you could play games on your connection... then they introduced their 2hr cutoffs so that it wasn't really practical. It's not quite the same and I never play games on here so I didn't care but it's a typical case of ISPs selling you bandwidth and features and then accusing you of abusing the service when you actually use them.

I have no sympathy for the ISPs when they find their systems maxed out because it's their fault for being too greedy in their speculation on what kind of contention ratios they could get away with. All that'll happen when the systems do start getting overloaded is, like you say, they'll probably start charging per data downloaded. It might as well happen later rather than sooner, and as a result of their incompetence/greed. I doubt they'll realise it (they certainly won't admit it), but a few people high up might think twice about doing it again.

Cable companies have been contending their users' connections at 15:1 for a while now, and there have been limited problems. So what do BT set their datastream service (the one that Openworld/Yahoo, and the service that most other UK ADSL providers use) at? 50:1. Where on earth is the sense in that if the 15:1 cable users are already experiencing minor problems, and NTL felt the need to cap their service?

BT do offer their IPstream service which is contended at either 20:1 or 25:1 but that's more expensive and I'm pretty sure you can only get it through the very pricey business/SOHO packages, no matter which DSL provider you use.

I don't want to get bogged down in tech talk but do you see what's happened? All the ISPs have set their contention ratios ridiculously high, hoping that it will never be a serious problem despite all the facts indicating that it will. Either that, or that they are relkying on the fact that they can accuse people of "abuse" and they'll cave in... if everyone thinks like you then that will happen and they'll always know that they can get away with providing a substandard infrastructure for their broadband services, despite advertising otherwise.

[Timmay]

Mmmm... Janet. Lovely Janet. Those were the days. :)

[MojoJojo]

Do people realise what the contention ratio means? I imagine that pretty much everyone here is on a 50:1 contention ratio, which means that you are sharing your 500Kbps with 50 other people. So it doesn't work if everyone downloads at 500Kbps a second.

The speed you're given is the maximum speed, which isn't the same as guarenteeing the right to have that speed all the time. If you can't tell the difference, that's your problem.

[gazzyk1ns]

No sorry I didn't know what that meant, I thought I deserved the whole internet to myself, that's why I was selfishly saying what I did. I'll carry on paying for a 500/250 connection but only ever using it to download what I did on dialup, sorry, I mustn't abuse it.

I've got 45GB of storage in here, I will only ever use 30GB of that - after all, using all of it is abuse. Similarly, I'll make sure that even though I purchased 512MB of RAM not so long ago, I only ever use 375MB of it - I can't take the piss, after all.

Anyone want to say anything more in this post? It's your right, after all, Neil said I could sign up for an account and post but I can't abuse his trust and expect all of my posts to be solely edited by myself.

Do people realise what the contention ratio means? I imagine that pretty much everyone here is on a 50:1 contention ratio, which means that you are sharing your 500Kbps with 50 other people. So it doesn't work if everyone downloads at 500Kbps a second.

NO_SHIT_SHERLOCK

Is that my fault, for accepting the terms and conditions of my contract which say "you can have a 500k/250K connection via our ADSL service, pay £x and you'll have it 24/7. If it goes 10/50/100K below that sometimes at peak hours then that's due to your contention ratio."?

I accept that it is contended, and that those are the consequences. However, if I use the connection I have purchased to the specifications to which it was specified, I do not expect to have it cut off one day and a letter regarding abuse sent to my house.

Shite, I've just burned a 700MB file to one of my blank TDK CD-Rs, I'd better get a compass and scratch up at least a 10th of the disc, I don't want to take the piss, do I...

[Timmay]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

If you want to play ignorant, and act like any of the other drone consumers who buy from PC World out there, be my guest. I however thought you knew better than that - obviously I misjudged you. But just don't come whinging when you get letters in the post, or get kicked off your ISP.

[gazzyk1ns]

Hey maybe one day I'll be as knowledgeable as you Timmy, I certainly hope so.

I apologise to Mojo for the aggressive tone of my post above, 'bad mood for other reasons', etc. I won't edit it, it will teach me not to do it again.

[blue jammer]

Good to see this still being thrashed out then :|

Anyway, I've been reading that nthellworld site a fair bit and here's two excellent posts by erol, who replied to the comment "I seriously doubt that 10,000 users are using 90% of NTL's traffic." with the following:

The maximum amount of network _congestion_ a single user can create is < 1 users worth. The idea than an individual user can cause more than one users worth of _congestion_ is just nonsense, though one that is widely disseminated by some and believed by many.

The idea that a given user can cause more than one user's worth of congestion is just false. At times of congestion everyone using his or her connection contributes equally to congestion. How much you may have downloaded in times of no congestion has no effect on how much congestion you cause during peak periods.

A 'heavy' user during peak times creates one user's worth of congestion.
A 'light' user during peak times creates one user's worth of congestion.
Any user during peak times creates one user's worth of congestion.

If the heaviest (by download volume) 5% of users were removed overnight, congestion would improve by up to 5%, but no more. If some of those 5% were heavy users that avoided heavy usage in peak periods then the benefit will be less than the 5%. If these users are then replaced by 'light' users that use the net in peak periods only, then congestion will not improve at all.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

And one more time.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion.

Heavy users do drive the development of the internet. They drive the increasing capacity of it and they drive the increasing things that can be done with it.

Or from another angle. Let's imagine the central London road traffic charging scheme. Let's imagine that in order to reduce congestion in central London, rather than a charge, they simply banned 5% of drivers. They choose which 5% based on which drivers that do the most miles in total. They then replace this 5% with a different 5% that do less total milage but possibly more driving in Central London in peak periods. Would such a solution reduce traffic in Central London? Of corse not. Even if they did not 'replace' the 5% of removed drivers, would congestion improve by more that 5%? Of course not. So why do people believe that such a solution will help congestion on NTLs network? Why do people believe that removing 5% of users will improve congestion by > 5% ?

Heavy users do not create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

This stuff really is not rocket science, yet the level of misunderstanding about how one users usage affects anothers on a shared medium like a packet switched network, is so widely misunderstood.

And later replied with this:

It is true that I was treating a user as either being online or not during peak periods, and if they are tonline hey are dling whilst online. I did this to simplfy the issue.

If we go into this 'extra' detail of kinds of usage during peak periods then some points come to mind.

First off during peak times it's not possible to 'max out' your connection. As it becomes more congested then your dl speed reduces and the amount of congestion you can cause reduces, as your connection speed does.

Also I would take some issue with the idea that 'light users' do not max out their connection in those periods when they do use the internet (generally peak periods).

Imagine a houshold that only downloads 500MB a day but all in peak periods. There might be little johny playing online games from 7pm till 9pm. Sister Clare likes to get home from school, have dinner do her homework and then retire upstairs to talk online to her friends, using her webcam. She also runs a small website, heavy on large uncompressed graphics files and intersperces he online chatting with intense uploads, all from 7pm till 11pm when she has to be in bed. Dad likes to catch up on the news and uses several video based news sites. Mum meanwhile is wondering why the 5 emails from cousin Jenny in Australia, each containing an uncompressed 1.5MB didgtal photo of cousin Jenny's sick cat, are taking so long to download. She wonders if it is being caused by all these 'heavy users' and wishes NTL would just kick them off.

In the senario above the total congestion caused by such a household, entierly in peak periods, is likely to be as significant as the lazy heavy downloader that has not turned off their P2P app in peak periods. It will be much greater than the non lazy heavy downloader that _does_ restrict their usage in peak periods. However it is hard to villfy this fictional family, compared with the ease with which the non lazy heavy user is villifed.

Also if you are going to look at the detail of usage during peak periods, then with a CM based system upstream usage causes more congestion per byte than dling does per byte. In some ways the real 'bandwidth hogs' are those that upload intensively during peak periods. Apps that are symetrical in their bandwidth usages (voip, gaming and others) cause more congestion than those that are asymetrical, with more dl than up (classic dling, getting email, P2P). Apps that are asymetrical with more upload than down (uploading files to webspace, sending emails, video serving) are even worse from a congestion point of view.

My main point is however that the idea that 5% of users cause 60%+ of congestion is just plain rubbish. It is unfortunately widely believed to be true. It is this misconception that I feel the most need to counter.

(PS there is nothing 'peaky' about downloading your mail from an NTL server (if they are working that is). It's likely to saturate your connection a lot more than your typical P2P app is.)

Incidentally, I had NTL come and install an additional STB last Wednesday, one of the new Samsung ones, it's silver in colour, and has a new fancy remote, I'm really jealous as it's gone in splattermac's room.

Whilst he was here, we got talking about the differences in the boxes, and I still couldn't believe they haven't a power on/off switch on the newer ones, as, if like me, you use the STB to provide the internet and TV (I have 3 STB's, of which 1 is for TV/internet) you have to reboot it every now and then, I find when the IP changes, it's worthwhile rebooting the NTL box and router just so the router clears itself properly, else I get some of the port 80 pages blocked.

Anyway, he said "why don't you just call CS and ask them for a cable modem" but I'm not sure I'd like that, as aren't they USB? I'd rather stick with Ethernet, as I've read a lot on here and the .com site that it's more stable than USB.

He also mentioned that these new silver STB's are "2MB ready" - I didn't know NTL were going to offer 2MB, and said that to him and laughed as I said it, along with "what about the CAP, surely a 2MB connection will be a waste of time with a 1GIG per day limit."

He confirmed something I'd been told by someone else a while ago, that, I'm on the ex-cable and wireless network, and therefore cannot be monitored, saying "just hammer it mate, s'what I do"

[weirdbeard]

Media Guardian

BT has slashed the price of its cheapest broadband internet connection to less than £20 a month in an effort to win over customers put off by the hefty price of a high-speed connection.

BT Broadband Basic will offer the same high-speed service as its other broadband packages, running at up to 10 times the speed of a normal connection and making video clips, music downloads and online gaming a practical possibility, for £8 a month less than its current cheapest offering.

Duncan Ingram, the managing director of internet arm BT Openworld, said today the new service was "a major addition to the creation of broadband Britain".

He added that BT had decided to set a 1Gb limit on the amount of information subscribers to the cut-price service could download in a month, rather than reducing the speed of the service.

"The 1Gb limit will be enough for a huge portion of the population. We will be making it very clear that some broadband is broader than others," Mr Ingram said.

1 Gig a month for "less that £20 a month" which probably means £19.99.  Hmm, Pipex unlimited for £23 quid a month or BT's latest generous offering?  Hard choice.