NTL Write to Heavy Users (19 Feb 2004)

NTL but would hate to impose restrictions but ...

Ntl have written to a number of their broadband customers complaining that they're downloading too much. This ntl claim is causing a service deterioration.

The timing of this letter is interesting, coming just over a year after the ntl cap policy was added to the AUP. Did ntl think that long enough had passed that they could try again?

Ntl have drawn users to their Acceptable Use Policy, and in particular whine

"Please, for the sake of all our broadband customers, reduce the downstream bandwidth utilised through your cable modem to no more than 1GB per day"

As previously, ntl provide their outdated guidance of what 1GB a day means. , i.e. 200 music tracks (about right!), 650 short videos (or less than 15 minutes worth of uncompressed DVD Mpeg) 10,000 pictures (of a white cat in a snowstorm we presume; ntl technology can't stretch to modern 4megapixel plus digital cameras), or around 100 software programs (Must be the latest Microsoft Windows patch). Which computer buff worked that out? We could go on.

If ntl seriously expect users to restrict their use, how can users accurately assess what they are actually downloading based on such erroneous guidance (where is the much awaited ntl approved bandwidth monitor package - presumably of less than 10MB size).

It is clear from this that ntl's strategy and calculations of bandwidth demands are hopelessely out of date. There is no account of the inevitable rise in consumption over time, which would be consistent with every rule of expanding computing (faster processors, bigger memory and hard disks and so on).

Once again ntl have failed to address any issue of 'rush hour' congestion but instead ask customers to download less than 1GB/day. We predict that if customers are asked to keep a close eye on how much they download, they'll do their downloading at peak times when it's most convenient for them to monitor (thus causing even more congestion) while the considerate downloader who schedules downloads to run off peak (say between midnight and 7AM) in order to place less strain on ntl's creaking network will fall foul of the ridiculous policy.

Reaction to these letters has been swift. One thread on the user forum nthellworld.co.uk received over 6500 views and 260 posts in the space of 48 hours with 'threatened' customers wondering just where this network congestion actually is. The argument being, "How can I be causing other people's service to deteriorate if I'm seeing no bad pings or slowdowns myself"?

Anticap has also been contacted by a number of users expressing concern. Thanks to those members who have forwarded us copies of the ntl letter.

It is clear any talk of capping remains an emotive issue. We are watching for any further developments, and seeking clarification from ntl as to their stance.