Fair use policy

The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber
exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be restricted. That,as
far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is unfair is that the fair
policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed. This gives the provider the
unfair advantage of deciding what is fair, changing thresholds and applying
consequences as it sees fit and imposing all of this without any right of
appeal. The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle of changing
ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use policy would,
probably, not be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the
police giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
displayed.

Regards.

Bill Ridgeway

"Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fkg3op$nd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber
> exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be restricted. That,as
> far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is unfair is that the fair
> policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed. This gives the provider
> the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair, changing thresholds and
> applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing all of this without any
> right of appeal. The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle
> of changing ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use
> policy would, probably, not be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good
> one) would be the police giving you a speeding ticket when speed
> restriction notices are not displayed.
>
> Regards.
>
> Bill Ridgeway

You summed up the situation very succinctly.
The question now is, what can we do about it?
The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.

George

Bill Ridgeway wrote:

> The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle of changing
> ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use policy would,
> probably, not be worth it.

Why do you think changing ISP is a hassle ?

I've used Vossnet, UKonline, Freeuk (dial-up only), NTL (both dial-up and
broadband), Plusnet and now Idnet (broadband) over the years. It hasn't been a
hassle for me.

Graham

"Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fkg3op$nd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber
> exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be restricted. That,as
> far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is unfair is that the fair
> policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed. This gives the provider
> the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair, changing thresholds and
> applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing all of this without any
> right of appeal. The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle
> of changing ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use
> policy would, probably, not be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good
> one) would be the police giving you a speeding ticket when speed
> restriction notices are not displayed.
>
> Regards.
>
> Bill Ridgeway
>

Yerp and in comes under the Unfair Terms Act.

"George Weston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:fkg3op$nd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a
>> subscriber exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be
>> restricted. That,as far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is
>> unfair is that the fair policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed.
>> This gives the provider the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair,
>> changing thresholds and applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing
>> all of this without any right of appeal. The only way out would be to
>> change ISP but the hassle of changing ISP to another one which would,
>> probably, also have a fair use policy would, probably, not be worth it.
>> An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the police giving you a
>> speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not displayed.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Bill Ridgeway
>
> You summed up the situation very succinctly.
> The question now is, what can we do about it?
> The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
> and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.
>
> George

Thanks George. I don't like the idea ISPs relying on the morally dishonest
device of issuing vague conditions AND declining to reveal details. The
message is something along the lines of "we'll do what we want and we don't
care because everyone is doing it so you don't have any choice". What can
we do about it? The practical answer is likely to be not a lot but any
practical suggestion would be welcomed. The only thing I can suggest is to
complain to OFCOM. It seems to be interested in controlling ISPs on the
speed issue so unfair "fair conditions" may also take its interest.

Bill Ridgeway

"Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fkg3op$nd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber
> exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be restricted. That,as
> far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is unfair is that the fair
> policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed. This gives the provider
> the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair, changing thresholds and
> applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing all of this without any
> right of appeal. The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle
> of changing ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use
> policy would, probably, not be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good
> one) would be the police giving you a speeding ticket when speed
> restriction notices are not displayed.

I'm all in favour of ISPs going over to the PAYG (aka Aussie model) - which
I would imagine will come about in the next year or two - especially with
MOIP and TV over IP all being released in earnest. Therefore the more folk
use, the more they pay.
The last time I saw the "league table" at Telewest (must be 4 or so years
ago), 0.3% of broadband customers were using just over 85% of the data
transfered. All of them were sucking up over 500GB a month. IIRC the average
at the time was just under 2GB.

On 21 Dec, 10:16, "Bill Ridgeway" <i...@1001solutions.co.uk> wrote:
> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber

> An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the
> police giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
> displayed.

they can of course prosecute you for driving too fast for the
conditions etc even if below the speed limit :-)

The point of an FUP limit is to control the average use, the FUP cuts
in well above the average but it is not a figure that a large
proportion of users could run at.

The reason providers are reluctant to disclose numbers is because they
don't want people bunching up at the FUP limit as the average would
then be too high and the limit would have to fall.

An FUP also allows for discretion, like treating a persistent high
user differently to someone who hits a limit one month in ten. In a
way like the traffic cops used to do before speed cameras - make a
judgment.

Phil

Bill Ridgeway wrote:

> "George Weston" wrote
> > "Bill Ridgeway" < wrote
> >
> >> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a
> >> subscriber exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be
> >> restricted. That,as far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is
> >> unfair is that the fair policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed.
> >> This gives the provider the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair,
> >> changing thresholds and applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing
> >> all of this without any right of appeal. The only way out would be to
> >> change ISP but the hassle of changing ISP to another one which would,
> >> probably, also have a fair use policy would, probably, not be worth it.
> >> An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the police giving you a
> >> speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not displayed.
>
> > You summed up the situation very succinctly.
> > The question now is, what can we do about it?
> > The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
> > and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.
>
> Thanks George. I don't like the idea ISPs relying on the morally dishonest
> device of issuing vague conditions AND declining to reveal details. The
> message is something along the lines of "we'll do what we want and we don't
> care because everyone is doing it so you don't have any choice". What can
> we do about it? The practical answer is likely to be not a lot but any
> practical suggestion would be welcomed. The only thing I can suggest is to
> complain to OFCOM. It seems to be interested in controlling ISPs on the
> speed issue so unfair "fair conditions" may also take its interest.

Plenty (the majority) of ISPs are entirely straighforward and honest about
these terms.

The rouges are typically the large consumer ISPs. All you have to do is avoid
them. They aren't particularly good value anyway.

Graham

"Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fkg74g$1ek$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "George Weston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:fkg3op$nd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a
>>> subscriber exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be
>>> restricted. That,as far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is
>>> unfair is that the fair policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed.
>>> This gives the provider the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair,
>>> changing thresholds and applying consequences as it sees fit and
>>> imposing all of this without any right of appeal. The only way out
>>> would be to change ISP but the hassle of changing ISP to another one
>>> which would, probably, also have a fair use policy would, probably, not
>>> be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the police
>>> giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
>>> displayed.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> Bill Ridgeway
>>
>> You summed up the situation very succinctly.
>> The question now is, what can we do about it?
>> The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
>> and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.
>>
>> George
>
> Thanks George. I don't like the idea ISPs relying on the morally
> dishonest device of issuing vague conditions AND declining to reveal
> details. The message is something along the lines of "we'll do what we
> want and we don't care because everyone is doing it so you don't have any
> choice". What can we do about it? The practical answer is likely to be
> not a lot but any practical suggestion would be welcomed. The only thing
> I can suggest is to complain to OFCOM. It seems to be interested in
> controlling ISPs on the speed issue so unfair "fair conditions" may also
> take its interest.
>
> Bill Ridgeway

Some ISPs are more honest and up-front in stating their service levels.
Here are Plusnet's:
http://www.plus.net/support/broadban...#Option4speeds

George
>
>

George Weston wrote:
> "Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:fkg74g$1ek$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "George Weston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> "Bill Ridgeway" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:fkg3op$nd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a
>>>> subscriber exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be
>>>> restricted. That,as far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is
>>>> unfair is that the fair policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed.
>>>> This gives the provider the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair,
>>>> changing thresholds and applying consequences as it sees fit and
>>>> imposing all of this without any right of appeal. The only way out
>>>> would be to change ISP but the hassle of changing ISP to another one
>>>> which would, probably, also have a fair use policy would, probably, not
>>>> be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the police
>>>> giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
>>>> displayed.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Ridgeway
>>> You summed up the situation very succinctly.
>>> The question now is, what can we do about it?
>>> The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
>>> and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.
>>>
>>> George
>> Thanks George. I don't like the idea ISPs relying on the morally
>> dishonest device of issuing vague conditions AND declining to reveal
>> details. The message is something along the lines of "we'll do what we
>> want and we don't care because everyone is doing it so you don't have any
>> choice". What can we do about it? The practical answer is likely to be
>> not a lot but any practical suggestion would be welcomed. The only thing
>> I can suggest is to complain to OFCOM. It seems to be interested in
>> controlling ISPs on the speed issue so unfair "fair conditions" may also
>> take its interest.
>>
>> Bill Ridgeway
>
> Some ISPs are more honest and up-front in stating their service levels.
> Here are Plusnet's:
> http://www.plus.net/support/broadban...#Option4speeds

Hmmm! Has the leopard changed its spots? Possibly I suppose. They
are now part of BT and have a different boss man.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]