NTL supercharges broadband

NTL is to revamp its cable broadband packages during
Q1 2005, including the launch of a 3Mbps service.

It will replace its existing 300Kbps, 750Kbps and 1.5Mbps
packages with services offering speeds of 1Mbps, 2Mbps
and 3Mbps.

1Mbps will cost £17.99 a month

2Mbps will cost £24.99 per month

3Mbps will cost £37.99 per month

yup , looks good
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/03/ntl_q3_04/

"Chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> yup , looks good
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/03/ntl_q3_04/
>
>
Wonder if TW will do the same

S

ABC wrote:
> "Chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>yup , looks good
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/03/ntl_q3_04/
>>
>>
>
> Wonder if TW will do the same

They probably will, but why should they ? in a given
cable area you either have Telewest *or* NTL.
AFAIK not a single household has a choice of both,
so they are not really competitors in the domestic market.

More interestingly, what will BT do ?

Mark Carver wrote:
> ABC wrote:
>> "Chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> yup , looks good
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/03/ntl_q3_04/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wonder if TW will do the same
>
> They probably will, but why should they ? in a given
> cable area you either have Telewest *or* NTL.
> AFAIK not a single household has a choice of both,
> so they are not really competitors in the domestic market.
>
> More interestingly, what will BT do ?

Not a lot I would imagine as, although it may look good on paper, the
through put on NTL is sadly lacking.

Speaking from experience when they put the speed upto 750k I still didn't
get the thru put I can get now from a 512k DSL connection, partially due to
the way they have set up their network with the wonderful (not) transparent
proxy (or should that be poxy) servers & partially because of the way they
have the habit of overloading the local network (sometimes it was dire if
you turned of your CM as you couldn't get an IP allocated until someone else
turned their's off).

Other NTL users may have better views of them but personally all I can see
is a desperate attempt to stop the ongoing churn from their CM service to
other broadband services...

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (piere) writes:
> NTL is to revamp its cable broadband packages during
> Q1 2005, including the launch of a 3Mbps service.
>
> It will replace its existing 300Kbps, 750Kbps and 1.5Mbps
> packages with services offering speeds of 1Mbps, 2Mbps
> and 3Mbps.
>
> 1Mbps will cost £17.99 a month
>
> 2Mbps will cost £24.99 per month
>
> 3Mbps will cost £37.99 per month

I wonder if the uplink speeds will stay the same at the paltry
128 kbps. Neither of the places which have been referred to
here mention that:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/03/ntl_q3_04/
http://snipurl.com/ad4m

--
Tim Clark

"Kráftéé" <kraftee@spammersbogoff&die.kraftee.plus.com> wrote...
> >> Wonder if TW will do the same

TW and NTL will be one entity next year!

> > They probably will, but why should they ? in a given
> > cable area you either have Telewest *or* NTL.
> > AFAIK not a single household has a choice of both,
> > so they are not really competitors in the domestic market.

That's actually incorrect as NTL now offer offnet via BT wholesale ADSL and
have started the implementation of BT footprint ADSL i.e. renting Co-Lo
space only

> > More interestingly, what will BT do ?

BT have started already with SDSL DSLAM by Fujitsu and I hear Marconi will
be taking over the vast majority of xDSL contracts although I also hear
Marconi kit is just out of beta so to speak .. go figure!? PS Marconi had 0
[Zero] DSLAM's installed as of March 2004 with the exception of a few trial
systems.

> Not a lot I would imagine as, although it may look good on paper, the
> through put on NTL is sadly lacking.

Agreed NTL are maxing out their current infrastructure.

> Speaking from experience when they put the speed upto 750k I still didn't
> get the thru put I can get now from a 512k DSL connection, partially due
to
> the way they have set up their network with the wonderful (not)
transparent
> proxy (or should that be poxy) servers & partially because of the way they

I'm a little lost here and everything other than port 80 requests [HTTP]
side step the cache such as FTP, HTTPS, POP, p2p

> have the habit of overloading the local network (sometimes it was dire if
> you turned of your CM as you couldn't get an IP allocated until someone
else
> turned their's off).
>
> Other NTL users may have better views of them but personally all I can see
> is a desperate attempt to stop the ongoing churn from their CM service to
> other broadband services...

The truth is churn is down year on year and Q on Q. NTL are marketing speed
to punters but let's be honest who needs 1Mb/s for web browsing and the
occassional download? Next year we will see stage 2 with a strict capping
regime, pay per GB and of course the standard increase in pricing to reflect
the wonderful speeds on offer.

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Use.Netuser.de
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Next year we will see stage 2 with a strict capping
>regime, pay per GB and of course the standard increase in pricing to reflect
>the wonderful speeds on offer.

The caps are already in this stage - chetnet indicates that the new
1Mbit ntl: 'basic' package will have a 5GB per month cap, 2Mbit 30GB per
month and 3Mbit 40GB per month. There's no indication as to whether the
caps are downstream only or downstream plus upstream. I'm expecting that
ntl: will stop being soft on caps now that the cap is across a month.

There's also going to be a regrade charge for existing customers wanting
to move to the new packages of 25 pounds, apparently.


More details at
<http://www.chetnet.co.uk/portal/forum/showthread.php?threadid=3922>.


The whole industry seems to be moving towards the price you pay being
based increasingly on the data transferred and less on the line speed.

This is true both of ntl:'s new packages, and those ISPs using CBC
IPstream. I suspect in another few months, UBC IPstream will be with us
(which also has a 'by usage' element to the charging) and "standard"
IPstream pricing will be withdrawn.


I suspect things will stay fairly cost neutral for many people, who may
probably find themselves able to transfer the same amount of data faster
for the same money. However, a move to charging by data transferred will
hit is the "I have an n Mbit connection and it's my right to download at
that speed 24/7" users - who forget about the contention and arguably
lose their ISPs money each month.



David
--
David Wood
(E-Mail Removed)

David Wood wrote:

> I suspect things will stay fairly cost neutral for many people, who
> may probably find themselves able to transfer the same amount of data
> faster for the same money. However, a move to charging by data
> transferred will hit is the "I have an n Mbit connection and it's my
> right to download at that speed 24/7" users - who forget about the
> contention and arguably lose their ISPs money each month.

I agree with your sentiments, but with the likelyhood that it will be total
bandwidth usage which you will get charged for ( as some ISP's already do)
it is unfair for those of us with fixed IPs which appear atract the wanna be
hackers as their attempts will also be counted on your usage.

Yes I know that the odd port scan won't make much difference, but for the
last 6 days I've had constant ICMP redirects, smurf attcks, IP spoof
attacks, Syn floods etc etc & they have been getting that bad that I have
virtually lost service at times, so it will count a great deal against my
usage & why should I have to pay for that? I'm just glad I've paid the
extra to go on the unlimited/premium service so don't have to worry about
these little extras other people are placing on my account...

"Kráftéé" <kraftee@spammersbogoff&die.kraftee.plus.com> wrote ...
> David Wood wrote:
>
> > I suspect things will stay fairly cost neutral for many people, who
> > may probably find themselves able to transfer the same amount of data
> > faster for the same money. However, a move to charging by data
> > transferred will hit is the "I have an n Mbit connection and it's my
> > right to download at that speed 24/7" users - who forget about the
> > contention and arguably lose their ISPs money each month.
>
> I agree with your sentiments, but with the likelyhood that it will be
total
> bandwidth usage which you will get charged for ( as some ISP's already do)
> it is unfair for those of us with fixed IPs which appear atract the wanna
be
> hackers as their attempts will also be counted on your usage.

Oh come on are you serious that port scans et al are gonna be counted as
incoming traffic!?
Incoming attempts are killed at my router so yes it's beyond the CM but no
ack nothing/denied I would find it unrealistic and pointless to measure such
traffic.

> Yes I know that the odd port scan won't make much difference, but for the
> last 6 days I've had constant ICMP redirects, smurf attcks, IP spoof
> attacks, Syn floods etc etc & they have been getting that bad that I have
> virtually lost service at times, so it will count a great deal against my
> usage & why should I have to pay for that? I'm just glad I've paid the
> extra to go on the unlimited/premium service so don't have to worry about
> these little extras other people are placing on my account...

Ah ok now I see your point but then again the overhead for such attacks is
minimal when compared with 24/7 p2p or even genral HTTP with a bit of FTP. I
think it must be measure as acccepted connections but then that's not to say
that will be the case.