| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2009.02.07 00:25:00 -
[1]
We have an issue in the UK and some other countries regarding bandwidth capping and also speed capping (otherwise known as fair usage policy).
I feel that this causes an issue with legality as we are paying for a service but not actually getting it. If you pay for an unlimited 10meg connection, that is what you should get. Fair usage policy means you pay for a 10 meg connection but due to the amount you have downloaded over a certain period, you are speed capped to less than half of that.
Take Virgin internet for example.
You pay for a 20 meg connection but what they don't tell you is that if you download more than 3gb between 4pm and 10pm, you are speed capped to 6 meg for 5 hours. They increase that to 6gb download between 10pm and 4am. If you still go over the limit during that capped time, you get another 5 hours added to it which means for most of the day, you could be only getting a 6mb connection but still paying for a 20meg connection.
This seems highly illegal to me since charging for a service that they are not actually providing is in breach of the Sale Of Goods Act, irrespective of what the agreement states. If they should, for any reason, reduce your service, they should recalculate the charges accordingly to reflect the reduction. Continuing to charge full price for a reduced service due to conflicts between what you want and what they think you should use gives rise to companies setting unreasonable limits in order to take money they are not entitled to.
For example:
A user has been on holiday so has not used the internet connection they have still had to pay the two weeks for. On returning home, they immediately go to BBC IPlayer to download some programmes they have missed out on. If they happen to be fans of soap operas, they may download two weeks worth of Home and Away, Neighbours and such. This might amount to well over 3 gb of data for which they are immediately speed capped. It's unreasonable since, in the previous two weeks, they have not even been online to use any bandwidth although they have still had to pay for it and will still have to pay full price for the period for which they are speed capped. However, if 3gb per night is the limit, the company effectively owes the user 42gb for the 14 days that they didn't use the net at all.
Maybe this is a case to put to Ofcom.
Open for discussion.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
All this has happened before and will happen again |
Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Divinity's Edge
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 00:39:00 -
[2]
Fair Use Policy.
Why the hell are you downloading so much? |
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 00:47:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Fair Use Policy.
Why the hell are you downloading so much?
But bandwidth is free 
We live in an age of high res real time streaming video and integrated media on the internets.
People are going to need 100gb a month just to browse the internet here in the next decade or so.
|
Elysarian
Minmatar
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 01:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: bff Jill
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Fair Use Policy.
Why the hell are you downloading so much?
But bandwidth is free
We live in an age of high res real time streaming video and integrated media on the internets.
People are going to need 100gb a month just to browse the internet here in the next decade or so.
Bandwidth is NOT free...
All ISP's buy bandwidth from backbone providers on a per-megabyte basis (just like if you were to run a webserver), this is one of two reasons ISP's have a fair usage policy in place
The other reason is that, in any area you have to share your "pipe" with a certain number of people, this is called the "Contention Ratio" and is somewhere in the region of between 10:1 and 50:1 depending on your ISP and where you live, upshot is that someone hogging masses of bandwidth for hours at a time will cause lag and slow download speeds for others in their area which will lead to complaints from those people & a bad rep for the ISP. |
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 01:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Fair Use Policy.
Why the hell are you downloading so much?
Why the hell is the ISP offering me the ability to download so much if it affects others bandwidth? If they can't handle users downloading more than 3gb in 6 hours, maybe they should not be offering speeds that allow them to.
I have already pointed out a scenario where fair use policy isn't fair at all. Two weeks of no use means a user then has two weeks worth of use they can have in one night if they wish, after all, they have paid for it. If the servers can't handle the speed the ISP is offering to every user at once, then they should not be offering it. In short, if your servers can only handle 99 users at 20meg, why are you offering the same service to over 100 users?
Either you limit the number of users or offer a lower rate to all users or you upgrade the servers and/or your own connection to the internet backbone to allow you to provide the service you are charging for.
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 01:31:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Elysarian
Originally by: bff Jill
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Fair Use Policy.
Why the hell are you downloading so much?
But bandwidth is free
We live in an age of high res real time streaming video and integrated media on the internets.
People are going to need 100gb a month just to browse the internet here in the next decade or so.
Bandwidth is NOT free...
yes it is
Quote:
All ISP's buy bandwidth from backbone providers on a per-megabyte basis
they are selling thin air at a metered rate =P
Once you lay the line the bandwidth is free.
Enough dark fiber out there just sitting, being unused, because if they just gave bandwidth away and charged for the service of 'being connected' they wouldn't have these treacherous oligopoly money farming scams where they can overcharge for something that's free.
|
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 01:31:00 -
[7]
Fair Use Policy is just a cop-out for ISPs that try to sell "unlimited" bandwidth a month. What the ******s in marketing didn't count on was *gasp* someone actually trying to use the service they offered. I mean heaven forbid someone take you up on it.
I forsee ISPs stating the bandwidth and transfer limits from now on (by the way there was always a limit in place because of server processing limitations and bandwidth of the backbone and other distribution lines, it was just so huge 10 years ago that it was essentially unlimited).
After all, everyone needs some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
|
Anneke Goulet
CUTLASS CORPORATION
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 01:59:00 -
[8]
Change your net to provider that doesnt do that? Only way it'll no longer happen is when companies stop receiving their income. I'm paying 3Ç more for same speed per month, instead of taking the cheapest offer. In return the small provider of mine doesnt give 2 cents what I do with my bw, if I max it out 24/7 or if I hold server. Those few times I've had to call in net related issues, I've been answered by human, in the same city and the issue is solved within hours.
In the past 3 years, they've thrice upped the speed for the same price(from 2->4->8), had one service break I've noticed (lasted day) and once emailed me with commercial of faster service (for half price if you sign for xyz long time etc).What major provider can claim that?
Sure, 3Ç a month more, totals 36Ç a year, but I consider that's saved on amount of booze I would drink to relieve my nerves for net probs. See past the big adverts and you'll see the small companies.
|
Sanguis Sanies
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 05:26:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Open for discussion.
They can do this because you signed a contract, in that contract (that I'm guessing you didn't read) it states EXACTLY what each term means (including this like "Unlimited" "Free" "Capped") and also what speeds you can expect UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS. They also set out the terms and conditions of use, if you don't agree with these terms then you are free to cancel you contract and either sign up for a "better" deal with the same company, or a different company or lose your internet all together.
If you believe that their marketing or claims are DECEPTIVE (a very specific legal definition) and not simply "I didn't read my contract OH NOES!!11!!" then yes you may use Ofcom (or any other regulatory body depending on the country, Australia is the ACCC, I think) and they will investigate and if found to be DECEPTIVE then they will take action and a civil or criminal law suite will ensue and you may find yourself being a beneficiary of this action.
|
Xen Gin
Universal Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 05:32:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Xen Gin on 07/02/2009 05:32:15
The UK ISPs over sell their capacity, anyone using an ISP running on the BT copper backbone is delusional if they think they are going to get a full speed connection.
For me, when they offer me a service they should deliver, if they say unlimited 20Mbps, it should be there for me to use 20Mbps all the time.
What would be fun, would be to have a meter that sits between your router and their modem, have it measure traffic over the months billing cycle, then minus it from the theoretical amount they should be providing you at all times, and remove a corresponding amount from the payment, as a non-usage payback charge!
------
Originally by: Rifter Drifter
News just in..
Games are a pastime.. not a way of life.
If your not enjoying, stop playing, and don't post about it.
|
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 06:03:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Spaztick on 07/02/2009 06:07:09
But that's not fair.
Also **** lawyers. God better have a special place in Hell for lawyers.
After all, everyone needs some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
|
HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 07:10:00 -
[12]
2 words
Buyer Beware
----------
"This is Chopper Dave's made for TV movie, Blades Of Vengeance. See, he's a chopper pilot by day, but by night he fights crime as a werewolf... YEAH!" |
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 08:49:00 -
[13]
It is written in contract, isn't it?
So what is the problem with it? |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 08:50:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Xen Gin
Edited by: Xen Gin on 07/02/2009 05:32:15
The UK ISPs over sell their capacity, anyone using an ISP running on the BT copper backbone is delusional if they think they are going to get a full speed connection.
For me, when they offer me a service they should deliver, if they say unlimited 20Mbps, it should be there for me to use 20Mbps all the time.
What would be fun, would be to have a meter that sits between your router and their modem, have it measure traffic over the months billing cycle, then minus it from the theoretical amount they should be providing you at all times, and remove a corresponding amount from the payment, as a non-usage payback charge!
I see your proposal as anti-theft measures. There're no bigger thieves on the planet than corporations. |
Marie Duvolle
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 09:21:00 -
[15]
You get what you pay for, ofcourse companies be default are bastards and will try/do anything to lure people in and then club them to death but still; you get what you pay for. If one provider starts messing around, TELL them that you'll be leaving them over that practise and switch to another.
Don't stir the hornet's nest |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 10:37:00 -
[16]
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
It is written in contract, isn't it?
So what is the problem with it?
The problem (until very recently) has been highly suggestive advertising, often along the lines of 'Up to 8mb/s', and 'Unlimited', not prominently mentioning any FUP or the fact that the median connection speed is typically closer to 3.5mb/s.
The situation is improving - I think there's some sort of ISP advertising code of practice that's slowly being adopted. |
Da Death
Minmatar
Relentless Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:33:00 -
[17]
I am happy that we in Thailand do not have so crappy ISP which throttles
the bandwith. I use 2 ISP's and download 24/7. Nobody ever asked or will ask.
Thats why the term: UNLIMMITED! what the hell do ISP think when they cap the
connection? THATS A LIMIT for gods sake! |
Antarus Lars
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 12:25:00 -
[18]
Totally agree, i used to be with orange broadband (ADSL),
Paid for an 8mb connection..., my useage wasnt massive.., as i work from 7 till 7 & obviously i sleep...
So somehow on my "unlimited" connection i was overusing for 4 hours downloading a day.......
My steady 850kbs was hacked down to 50kbs..., but still charged for the full amount...... permenently reduced i may add.
So had to switch ISP & phone provided, orange can go **** themselfs, now me, my family & my partner have all switched provider & i strongly attempt to stop anybody i know joining them.
Im now with o2 (be-unlimited), i know a few ppl who download 24/7 who have had no problems, ohh... and im also getting 1600kbs for ú9 a month constant (ADSL2)...
|
Elysarian
Minmatar
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 12:32:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Elysarian on 07/02/2009 12:32:50
The biggest problem in the UK is that you basically have 2 choices:
BT infrastructure for ADSL (no guarantee that you'll ever get anywhere near the max download rate as it depends on distance from the telephone exchange) or Virgin infrastructure for cable modems (guaranteed speed up to the Server but dependant on other things beyond that)
LLU was supposed to help loosen the grip that BT have on the ADSL market by allowing ISPs to install their own DSLAM's in the exchanges but from the DSLAM to the backbone is still controlled by BT.
Until FTTH comes in (who knows when that will actually happen) we're stuck with the same contention ratios of (usually) 50:1 for domestic ADSL, 20:1 for busuness ADSL and (IIRC) 20:1 for cable.
this means that your "20 Meg" connection is actually being shared with 20 to 50 other subscribers - hence why the T&C has a Fair usage policy written into it - if those 50 people all try to use max bandwidth at the same time then everyone will get around 400Kbit speeds (minus the usual TCP/IP overheads).
EDIT: an ISP is a business at the end of the day and they are there to make money - if they gave away bandwidth I really can't see their shareholders being very happy |
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 16:45:00 -
[20]
I don't know how it worked in the UK, but here in the US the government gave ISPs as subsidies to improve their infrastructure, and you know what they did? They pocketed the money and didn't upgrade a damn thing. So yes, I am going to expect them to give away free bandwidth to me because it's the bandwidth I paid for, otherwise their shareholders are going to lose another $250 a year from me (which has happened to Comcast, but they're a bunch of ****s).
And after all this time, I finally removed that annoying sentence in my signature.
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 20:33:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 07/02/2009 20:38:58
Originally by: TheEndofTheWorld
It is written in contract, isn't it?
So what is the problem with it?
It isn't.
The contract states that they "can reduce the service if it is seen that the usage is larger than that expected from a normal home user". If they are averaging a home user as one who only browses the web, that is one thing but some users always download, upload and do various other things that can increase usage over a short period. Therefore, what constitutes average?
I feel that imposing <3gb download during a 6 hour period of the day when the rest of the day it may not even be used is unreasonable. If they must have limits, it should be on a 'per week' basis as a one-time large download isn't going to prove that you are a heavy user. Imagine trying to dl some game from Steam, some of them are well over 3gb. So you are now considered a heavy user due to this one-time dl.
2mb per second (roughly divide 20mbit connection by 10) for six hours is equal to over 42gb. Allowing that sort of speed means that it is obvious that you are allowing people to download far more than the 3gb limit you are imposing. Imposing such a small limit, especially during early evening when people do their thing after work is an obvious ruse to deliberately cap people to less than a third of the speed they are paying for. Note that you are capped for usage and not time, if you switch your PC off for 10 hours after exceeding the limit, you are still capped for 5 the next hours of internet use when you go back online again. This is like being punished for downloading a large file
I say again. If you oversell your bandwidth, it is up to you to upgrade to meet customer demands and not up to the customer to adjust their use to accomodate your shortfall.
It would be a bit like advertising that speed limits have been lifted nationally to accomodate fast cars, but then you find the only places you can go at a totally unrestricted speed are 50 yards long with a speed camera at each end as you enter the restricted zone again.
Edit:
Originally by: Elysarian
EDIT: an ISP is a business at the end of the day and they are there to make money - if they gave away bandwidth I really can't see their shareholders being very happy
I'm not asking them to give away bandwidth, simply to provide the service they are selling and/or only sell the service they can provide.
IE: If I had two cars for sale and sold four than told you that you had to share a car between two of you because I oversold my cars, how fast would you have me in court?
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
All this has happened before and will happen again |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 20:44:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Super Whopper
I see your proposal as anti-theft measures. There're no bigger thieves on the planet than corporations.
Other than a possibly disgruntled BoB director 
Breathing 0.0 |
Esamir
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 09:11:00 -
[23]
Virgin are the worst company I've ever dealt with, and their entire workforce should be executed immediately.
|
Elysarian
Minmatar
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 10:28:00 -
[24]
There is another reason that I can think of as to why an ISP may limit your downloading...
What possible reason could someone have for wanting to download multi-gigabyte files in a short period?
Piracy is one... and the record/film/game/software companies are trying to "force" ISPs to regulate this.
So... to prevent you downloading high-definition copies of films, full games/software packages and loads of ripped albums (only a few examples of things that are multi-gigabyte in size except the latter which are usually only multi-megabyte) they may cap your download speed as a first step, later - if you repeatedly go over this "limit" you might get a warning letter (has happened to people), then possibly have your service terminated.
As I say: what legitimate reason does someone have for downloading multi-terabyte files unless they're using illegal file-sharing software?
I have broadband not just because it allows me to download stuff quickly but also because the fatter the pipe, the lower the latency and ping times to game servers and the like.
=====================================
It smells of spoon!
===================================== |
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 11:41:00 -
[25]
Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:43:18
Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:41:38
Originally by: Elysarian
There is another reason that I can think of as to why an ISP may limit your downloading...
What possible reason could someone have for wanting to download multi-gigabyte files in a short period?
Piracy is one... and the record/film/game/software companies are trying to "force" ISPs to regulate this.
So... to prevent you downloading high-definition copies of films, full games/software packages and loads of ripped albums (only a few examples of things that are multi-gigabyte in size except the latter which are usually only multi-megabyte) they may cap your download speed as a first step, later - if you repeatedly go over this "limit" you might get a warning letter (has happened to people), then possibly have your service terminated.
As I say: what legitimate reason does someone have for downloading multi-terabyte files unless they're using illegal file-sharing software?
I have broadband not just because it allows me to download stuff quickly but also because the fatter the pipe, the lower the latency and ping times to game servers and the like.
Twaddle.
I buy lots of my games and music online and then download it.
Using Steam I regularly make multi-GB downloads.
TV is another. Increasingly I can watch TV programmes online perfectly legitimately. TV companies have finally done the smart thing and said "Oh look, here's an audience... now how do we get a cut of this?".
I think film companies are catching on too.
There's also patches, mods, demos, shareware etc. etc.
It is not adequate in this day and age to say any large file must be piracy.
Personally I don't mind DL limits too much (as I understand that BT *****s that they are are still a big fat impediment) as long as they're reasonable and clearly stated.
What does **** me off is when I've paid more for the better package and still get ****ed around.
|
Elysarian
Minmatar
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 12:49:00 -
[26]
Originally by: TraininVain
Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:43:18
Edited by: TraininVain on 08/02/2009 11:41:38
Originally by: Elysarian
There is another reason that I can think of as to why an ISP may limit your downloading...
What possible reason could someone have for wanting to download multi-gigabyte files in a short period?
Piracy is one... and the record/film/game/software companies are trying to "force" ISPs to regulate this.
So... to prevent you downloading high-definition copies of films, full games/software packages and loads of ripped albums (only a few examples of things that are multi-gigabyte in size except the latter which are usually only multi-megabyte) they may cap your download speed as a first step, later - if you repeatedly go over this "limit" you might get a warning letter (has happened to people), then possibly have your service terminated.
As I say: what legitimate reason does someone have for downloading multi-terabyte files unless they're using illegal file-sharing software?
I have broadband not just because it allows me to download stuff quickly but also because the fatter the pipe, the lower the latency and ping times to game servers and the like.
Twaddle.
I buy lots of my games and music online and then download it.
Using Steam I regularly make multi-GB downloads.
TV is another. Increasingly I can watch TV programmes online perfectly legitimately. TV companies have finally done the smart thing and said "Oh look, here's an audience... now how do we get a cut of this?".
I think film companies are catching on too.
There's also patches, mods, demos, shareware etc. etc.
It is not adequate in this day and age to say any large file must be piracy.
Personally I don't mind DL limits too much (as I understand that BT *****s that they are are still a big fat impediment) as long as they're reasonable and clearly stated.
What does **** me off is when I've paid more for the better package and still get ****ed around.
I totally agree... just pointing out a "reason" that ISPs may use as an argument for limiting people beyond the others I gave in earlier posts.
=====================================
It smells of spoon!
===================================== |
AlleyKat
Gallente
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 15:06:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
We have an issue in the UK and some other countries regarding bandwidth capping and also speed capping (otherwise known as fair usage policy).
I feel that this causes an issue with legality as we are paying for a service but not actually getting it. If you pay for an unlimited 10meg connection, that is what you should get. Fair usage policy means you pay for a 10 meg connection but due to the amount you have downloaded over a certain period, you are speed capped to less than half of that.
Open for discussion.
I couldn't agree more.
That's why I changed to a company that gives me what I pay for with no limitations. Most of the ISP's out there are truly awful, Virgin is one of them.
Change.
AK |
rValdez5987
Amarr
32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 17:20:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
We have an issue in the UK and some other countries regarding bandwidth capping and also speed capping (otherwise known as fair usage policy).
I feel that this causes an issue with legality as we are paying for a service but not actually getting it. If you pay for an unlimited 10meg connection, that is what you should get. Fair usage policy means you pay for a 10 meg connection but due to the amount you have downloaded over a certain period, you are speed capped to less than half of that.
Take Virgin internet for example.
You pay for a 20 meg connection but what they don't tell you is that if you download more than 3gb between 4pm and 10pm, you are speed capped to 6 meg for 5 hours. They increase that to 6gb download between 10pm and 4am. If you still go over the limit during that capped time, you get another 5 hours added to it which means for most of the day, you could be only getting a 6mb connection but still paying for a 20meg connection.
This seems highly illegal to me since charging for a service that they are not actually providing is in breach of the Sale Of Goods Act, irrespective of what the agreement states. If they should, for any reason, reduce your service, they should recalculate the charges accordingly to reflect the reduction. Continuing to charge full price for a reduced service due to conflicts between what you want and what they think you should use gives rise to companies setting unreasonable limits in order to take money they are not entitled to.
For example:
A user has been on holiday so has not used the internet connection they have still had to pay the two weeks for. On returning home, they immediately go to BBC IPlayer to download some programmes they have missed out on. If they happen to be fans of soap operas, they may download two weeks worth of Home and Away, Neighbours and such. This might amount to well over 3 gb of data for which they are immediately speed capped. It's unreasonable since, in the previous two weeks, they have not even been online to use any bandwidth although they have still had to pay for it and will still have to pay full price for the period for which they are speed capped. However, if 3gb per night is the limit, the company effectively owes the user 42gb for the 14 days that they didn't use the net at all.
Maybe this is a case to put to Ofcom.
Open for discussion.
There are Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 isps. Depending on which one your isp is, that will affect price, and quality of service, as well as whether or not you have bandwidth limitations
Ive got 10 mb/s internet, mine will be slowed down if i download like 100 GB in a couple days, but I regularly download around 2-3gb in a day with no issues at all. Then again my internet is technically commercial grade and is a low priced reward for being a long term customer with my isp.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 19:13:00 -
[29]
I'd (Force) my household to change ISP if i didnt lose my Phone service till i chose a new provider for that if i changed ISP.
Tascali does a **** internet, but the phone deals actually quite good. Free 1-hour phone calls all week incl peak for chips a month. |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar
Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.08 19:15:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 08/02/2009 19:16:26
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
The contract states that they "can reduce the service if it is seen that the usage is larger than that expected from a normal home user".
They're not saying 'average home user'. They could even argue that because the majority of their users don't play EvE (as an example) that you are NOT a 'normal' home user.
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Therefore, what constitutes average?
Obviously you mean 'normal'.
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
I feel that imposing <3gb download during a 6 hour period... -snip-
All good points and I'm pretty much with you on the ****ty way our internet infrastructure is run, used and sold. I work from home (mainly) and often have to download virtual machine images, and ISOs. Which is why I pay for an un-capped service.
If you really feel the contract is unfair thouh, research contract law a bit (heartily recommend 'Contract Lawn -Seventh Edition by Robert Duxbury out in the Nutshells range by Thomson Sweet & Maxwell), then take your legal research to a solicitor. If they're significantly impressed you could get a group of users together an make the point to the ISPs legal team.
:- edit - epic typo. Should have said 'Contract Law -' not lawn :) |
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 01:50:00 -
[31]
I have now written to Ofcom to see what they say. I stated that nothing is written in black and white on the contract which allows them to interpret it in whatever way they want. I have always felt that contracts that are "open to interpretation" should be outlawed. Stating actual figures means the user is repsonsible for what they sign up for, being vague about it leaves the user totally unaware of the actual policies in place.
I also made it clear that ISP's should sell only what they are capable of delivering. If they cannot cope with a sustained 20meg drain on their services at all times, they should be looking to upgrade their equipment or selling lower speeds that they can cope with.
One final point was that any user can easily exceed a 3gb limit just by browsing. With Flash animations, embedded media and so forth in web pages now, even 6 hours browsing Youtube with a 20meg connection will take you way over 3gb so the limit is completely unreasonable. 3gb on a 20 meg connection relates to 25 minutes of use, so in that 6 hours, I am limited to a 25 minute time slot.
It appears that Virgin think a normal home user only browses light web pages and checks their mail without attachments and nothing else. Any more than that would mean getting speed capped. Sounds to me like they are deliberately looking for ways to scam people by taking more money for limited speeds.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
All this has happened before and will happen again |
Sgt Blade
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 02:21:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Sgt Blade on 09/02/2009 02:25:11
Alot of ISP providers have been using these crafty tactics for ages. For example advertising their internet speeds as MBytes which is wrong... its MBits 
The only way I can see you getting around such things is to either buy your internet from providers which cap your usage but at least you get your full speed. I used to use UKFSN because I knew how much I would generally use which is generally fine for the 'average' user. 30GB peak usage isn't a lot which was what I used but seeing their off-peak times its pretty reasonable. "Off-peak is defined as Monday to Thursday 22:00 to 08:00 and Friday 22:00 through to Monday 08:00" They actually do a true Unlimited usage package but it costs a bomb...
Currently I use Sky broadband because it came with the TV package + abit more for the Unlimited one and they don't have fair usage. So far service is pretty decent so hopefully a few other companies follow suit
Hypnotic Pelvic Thrusting Level 5 |
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 02:59:00 -
[33]
i just lol when i see this rant at UK ISP's they give you crap service because you buy it
you are not on the list even in EU stats yea UK developed country 
. . .
|
Vietone
Gallente
Mercury Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 04:06:00 -
[34]
Most people dont read the agreements they sign much like the TC here.
ISPs put a clause saying they are able to alter your connection to ensure that everyone is getting a proper, quality connection. While you were too stupid to read the agreement saying they can do this, its all fair as they have the right to provide everyone in your area with a good internet connection.
You probably have cable. If you do, that's why. Cable is a shared connection. You share a high speed connection to a hub and that connection is limited. Cable companies advertise a lot of bandwidth to each user but the main connection cant handle everyone using the max speed. Therefore, they limit high usage people.
If you wanted a dedicated connection, go pay for DSL or fiber. Then you can complain if they limit your bandwidth. |
AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Buggers' Advanced Interstellar Transport
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 04:17:00 -
[35]
I read the first few lines and then decided that I'd only give 1 cent worth of input, not a full 2 cents.
I live in South Africa. We have, I understand, the most harsh capping policy with regards to how much we end up spending per megabyte and the speed of the connection we are on while using it.
HOWEVER.
In internet usage terms, your CONNECTION and your ISP PACKAGE are in fact two separate things; even if you're on a cable service in America and it's included in your bill and is automatically 'on' whenever you're connected, you're still busy using two separate services, not just one.
The ISP has to pay to maintain and administrate the hardware that all your data travels over.
Your connection provider has to maintain and administrate the hardware that this information travels over in electrical (or optical/wireless) form.
While there is a fixed maintenance, administration and upgrade budget applied to fixed services such as cables for your service to run on, bandwidth usage is not fixed. Your ISP has to pay for any and all data that is transmitted/received over international connections, as they, like you, have to pay a rental fee on a cable or satellite system that links them to the rest of the world, and those connections can only transmit/receive so much data at once before it becomes congested.
The more people use, the more congested it becomes, the more they have to pay to relax the congestion a bit. Measuring how much you pay in terms of per-second congestion would be unreasonable to you as a customer, so they instead afford you the luxury of paying based on total usage, giving you a monthly usage allowance for which you pay a fixed fee, after which they will either discontinue the service or provide you a far slower service so that you do not as heavily contribute to the congestion.
So, what does all of this mean?
Let's say I go to KFC. I'm buying a sit-in meal, and I am getting my meal package delivered to my table. However, I am dissatisfied with the fact that I am only being given x amount of food and x amount of the beverage, as I have clearly paid for a package service.
That's unreasonable of me, because it wasn't an all-you-can-eat/drink meal, it was just a meal. I could have paid for an all-you-can-eat/drink meal, but I didn't, so it's my problem, not theirs.
I bought a car. I drive around, drive around, and eventually have to fill it up. So I go to the petrol station (gas station for you 'mericans) and have it filled up. Now the guy wants to charge me for the fuel - but I don't want to pay, because I already paid for the car, why should I pay for the fuel as well?
That's unreasonable of me. I could have gone into an agreement with a company that would provide me with a car and 'free' petrol, provided I have a minimum of x deliveries done against y petrol consumed in z space of time, but I didn't, I instead bought a personal car that I have to buy my own petrol for.
So no, it's not 'illegal' for them to do that. They are providing you with an opt-in service and you are opting to make use of it; if you're dissatisfied, there are other options available to you; whether you want or can use it based on affordability or any number of other factors is NOT their problem, it is purely yours. |
Brea Lafail
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 05:12:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Brea Lafail on 09/02/2009 05:20:25
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Let's say I go to KFC. I'm buying a sit-in meal, and I am getting my meal package delivered to my table. However, I am dissatisfied with the fact that I am only being given x amount of food and x amount of the beverage, as I have clearly paid for a package service.
And if the fine print says you only get one drumstick even though the big sign says you get two, who's problem is that?
ISPs here in Canada use deceptive advertising and it is oh so very intentional. Our airlines used to do the same thing. "$52 from Edmonton to Vancouver" the add would say. Go to buy a ticket "$52 ticket" + $80 fuel surcharge + $30 airport tax + $15 nav fee, etc., now your paying $200, 4 times the price listed on the TV.
Consumers eventually caught on and called them on their bull****, and they stopped. Hopefully the ISPs do the same soon, but they won't as long as people sit and take it.
P.S. My "5Mbps" connection clocks in at less than 1.5 Mbps, and the most bandwidth intensive thing I use it for is youtube.
Think I can get a discount?
In before Ralara. |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar
Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 09:57:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 09/02/2009 09:57:48
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
I have now written to Ofcom to see what they say. I stated that nothing is written in black and white on the contract which allows them to interpret it in whatever way they want.
Good luck. I wrote to OFGEM (or whatever they're called today) and that worked out for me.
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
I have always felt that contracts that are "open to interpretation" should be outlawed.
Well you would have to start by re-writing lots of legislation which is also 'open to interpretation' in this sort of way. A classic is in the Gambling Act where the Gambling Commission have a line that says 'significant proportion'. Basically they want something that's purposely vague because they don't want to have to define it. I guess that's just the same with the ISPs.
~~~~
There is no parody in this thread. Honest. |
KingsGambit
Caldari Knights
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 12:37:00 -
[38]
I'm with Virgin Media too, and it's a hell of a system shock after switching from Zen (2mg home, old ipstream service). I paid ú34 a month for the 2MB but now I know where the money went. Rock solid reliability, consistent service and incredibly smart technical gurus when you need help. I moved to VM for ú37 and got 10Mb which was swiftly upgraded to 20Mbit. I occasionally saw that speed, but have had 5-6 seperate billing issues each of which required hours on the phone to multiple departments (the end result is still messed up but it works so i've given up trying). I spent Sept-Dec 08 getting less than 5Mb since my area was oversubscribed and has only last month gone back to normal. But above all that, I've been traffic managed as well several times. They introduced the policy months after I signed up and had it been there beforehand, I would have stuck with ADSL and found a ADSL2 or datastream package on a BT line. My bandwidth drops to pathetic speeds for hours after hitting a pitiful limit that's in force every day of the week. Worse than the lower speed though, is that they QoS your line to buggery and back, putting your packets to the lowest possible priority. The net effect is latency goes through the roof. It took me 5-10 mins to get into Eve to change a skill on Friday when it last happened, and another 3 to open my character screen. Traffic management is a horrid, heavy handed punishment as it effectively takes away the 'broad' in the broadband service I'm paying quite a lot for, making the connection nigh unusable for even web browsing as it takes so long for even a web page to load.  I'd rather a 'daytime' limit over the course of a month, or an option to pay for excess bandwidth usage. The downtime is horrendous and the tech support staff only know one solution (turn the modem off and on again). Unfortunately, it's in their Ts&Cs that they can get away with pretty much what they want, but I'm hoping to leave and 12 month contract or not (must be over by now) be damned.  I spend days downloading nothing, then find 9gigs of things to download and have to spend the rest of the evening without the ability to use the connection for anything else (and the 9 gigs of stuff slows to a crawl halfway thru so can't even use that ) Anyone here on Be? What speeds do you get? How far do you live from your exchange if you know? What's their service like? Do they do newsgroups? What's it like for P2P/torrenting? Online gaming? They're site predicts my old bt line could handle 10 megs...I'd rather get a solid 10megs than an unpredicatable 20megs (though they are moving to 50megs soon ) |
Dred 'Morte
New European Regiment
R.U.R.
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 13:25:00 -
[39]
How the hell is that UK which is a rich country has these problems and poor countries like Portugal don't?
I pay for a 10Mb connection with 40GB monthly traffic, with free traffic everyday from 1 to 9am (torrents..)
There are other services. One for example, is considerably cheaper and has unlimited traffic, but connection is not so stable and download speed is lower (depending on time of the day..)
Most areas in my country have 2, 3 or even 4 ISP to choose from. Have you UKers socialized Internet access or something?
|
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar
Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:32:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Dred 'Morte
How the hell is that UK which is a rich country has these problems and poor countries like Portugal don't?
Greed.
I would write more but it pretty much always come back to that. |
Elysarian
Minmatar
dudetruck corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:28:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Elysarian on 09/02/2009 15:29:23
Edited by: Elysarian on 09/02/2009 15:28:19
Originally by: Vietone
Most people dont read the agreements they sign much like the TC here.
ISPs put a clause saying they are able to alter your connection to ensure that everyone is getting a proper, quality connection. While you were too stupid to read the agreement saying they can do this, its all fair as they have the right to provide everyone in your area with a good internet connection.
You probably have cable. If you do, that's why. Cable is a shared connection. You share a high speed connection to a hub and that connection is limited. Cable companies advertise a lot of bandwidth to each user but the main connection cant handle everyone using the max speed. Therefore, they limit high usage people.
If you wanted a dedicated connection, go pay for DSL or fiber. Then you can complain if they limit your bandwidth.
You sir, are a moron (or don't live in the UK where the telecomms infrastructure sucks monkey balls)...
DSL is "shared" in a similar way to cable (at least in the UK) - see DSLAM for details.
As for fibre... not actually available in the UK yet (cable is the closest to this as they have FTTC then the connection id de-multiplexed onto Co-Axial cables to the homes - hence why you get between 10:1 and 50:1 contention on cable in the UK, depends how many houses the cabinet feeds, BT is "working on" a FTTH service but I've no idea what the ETA is on that).
EDIT: the term "hub" is only really applicable to small LANs where a switch is overkill. |
Calvin Firenze
Minmatar
Firenze Heavy Industries
Anarchy.
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 22:26:00 -
[42]
I'm in the US and my cable provider actually has a clause in the TOS that specifically says if I go over a certain amount in a certain timeframe my speed will be capped until the next day (midnight).
Its their way of covering their ass over stuff like this.
It's pretty easy to find on my ISP's website. Linkage
I think some of their regulations are bull**** myself, but its either cable or DSL through AT&T where I live. I only have the choice of two ISPs. Since AT&T killed my service weekly with no explanation and an hour plus on the phone with tech support every time just for them to tell me I had to buy a new modem every time ****ed me off, considering that once they escalated the call to a senior tech he was always able to fix the problem and tell me the people I talked to before were idiots for telling me I needed a new modem. Weekly. I'll never do business with AT&T again.
My current ISP, however, says in its TOS that it "does not routinely monitor the activity of accounts for violation of this Policy." I'd like to know how I have 133,000 access attempts in 4 months originating from the main office.
/end rant
|
AlleyKat
Gallente
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 00:38:00 -
[43]
Originally by: KingsGambit
Anyone here on Be? What speeds do you get? How far do you live from your exchange if you know? What's their service like? Do they do newsgroups? What's it like for P2P/torrenting? Online gaming? They're site predicts my old bt line could handle 10 megs...I'd rather get a solid 10megs than an unpredicatable 20megs (though they are moving to 50megs soon )[/justify]
I am - it is a truly, genuinely, frickin' awesome service.
What speeds do you get? 20319 DL and 1412 UL
How far do you live from your exchange if you know? I believed it was close, actually have no clue.
What's their service like? Very high.
Do they do newsgroups? No idea.
What's it like for P2P/torrenting? No idea.
Online gaming? UK/EU game servers range from 5-15ms for your average FPS game. You can also change the type of connection they give you through profiling, and 'gaming' is one of them. Overall rock solid.
AK
EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS |
Kravick Drasari
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 00:56:00 -
[44]
I've never had a problem using Roadrunner. Ironically Roadrunner is offered through AOL Timewarner and if anyone remembers the AOL days of ****astic service you'd wonder how that company turned itself around. Now Comcast on the other hand... Lets just say I hope that company burns down to the ground with all their employees still inside the building.
---
My cat Putter approves of this post. |
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 04:14:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 10/02/2009 04:15:22
Originally by: Brea Lafail
Edited by: Brea Lafail on 09/02/2009 05:20:25
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Let's say I go to KFC. I'm buying a sit-in meal, and I am getting my meal package delivered to my table. However, I am dissatisfied with the fact that I am only being given x amount of food and x amount of the beverage, as I have clearly paid for a package service.
And if the fine print says you only get one drumstick even though the big sign says you get two, who's problem is that?
Also, would you be happy if the fine print said they can just give you a small bag of fries and nothing else for the same price due to availability? Making the customers eat less rather than cook more food. That's what the ISP's are doing. Charging for 10 or 20 meg connections and giving you less than half that speed because they've oversold their bandwidth.
I also agree with those who think the UK is a backward country. "New tech" that arrives in the UK is about 10 years behind the rest of the world. My friend owned a Frost Free Refrigerator for 6 years in Australia before they were introduced into the UK as a totally new concept in refrigerators. He said even then that they had been around in Aus for about 12 years. 256K ADSL arrived in the UK about the same time XDSL (10meg lines) was being tested in America. Even now, the standard telephone system can only really handle up to 3mb with any reliability although ISP's are selling 10meg ADSL connections.
I'm really going to laugh when Virgin brings out this new 50meg connection nationally. They can't even handle a sustained 10meg with their outdated systems. Let's see them impose a 3gb limit on that during peak times, that's less than 10 minutes of use. They are still using the old Telewest infrastructure which is evident from the Blueyonder domain names still in use. Virgin don't have a clue what they are doing, I doubt if most of their technicians have had more than the very basic networking training or they would never have even considered 20meg connections with that old equipment.
It's just another example of the UK's reluctance to spend money to update their systems. Instead, they rely on forceably curbing the customers usage. They also rely on customers not making an issue of it I might add.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |