UNLIMITED eg:Virgin Media

Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the word
"UNLIMITED"

'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
Terms.
Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are, then
it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.

:O)

On Monday, in article <GMeCh.2$(E-Mail Removed)>
(E-Mail Removed) "Gonz" wrote:

> Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the word
> "UNLIMITED"
>
> 'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
> Terms.
> Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
> 'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
> Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are, then
> it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.

Interestingly, when Tiscali did have explicit limits, they also made it
possible for customers to check on their usage. That provision has gone.
So, while there's an FUP, you don't know what the limits are and you
can't check how much data you're shifting, according to the ISPs view.

Now, I'm an old-school Internet user who reckons that ISPs and customers
have to be able to talk. I don't know if you're right about Unfair
Contract Terms, but I think there's a bit too much not being admitted by
the ISPs.



--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.

"Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
news:GMeCh.2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the word
> "UNLIMITED"
>
> 'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
> Terms.
> Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
> 'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
> Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are, then
> it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.
>
> :O)
>

Fair use is to stop the sort of idiots who leave streaming audio and video
on all day, when they are actually out of the office etc. Anti social I
call it.

"Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
news:GMeCh.2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the word
> "UNLIMITED"
>
> 'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
> Terms.
> Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
> 'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
> Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are, then
> it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.

It doesn't effect you either way, as there's no chance of you ever getting
your account back.
Shouldn't you be back at school this week ?

R. Mark Clayton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Fair use is to stop the sort of idiots who leave streaming audio and video
> on all day, when they are actually out of the office etc. Anti social I
> call it.

Presumably the new 'fair use' is traffic shaping. 'Unlimited' traffic but
traffic on certain protocols is shaped, such that web is still extra-fast
but streaming video only gets 1fps. The speed is 'up to' 8Mbps (subject to
survey, status, terms and conditions apply, may contain nuts, etc, etc) so
no-one can complain about that.

And if people start tunnelling their traffic by encrypting it or sending on
random ports then just all their traffic gets shaped. The question is when
does an 'up to 8Mbit' service become a misrepresention... is it when you
can't get the quoted figure (but many people on ADSL can't anyway) or when
most customers can't?

Theo

Theo Markettos wrote:

> The question is when does an 'up to 8Mbit' service become a misrepresention...

When you can't actually download at 8Mbps anyway ? The actual maximum is
7150kbps.

Graham

"R. Mark Clayton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
> news:GMeCh.2$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the
>> word
>> "UNLIMITED"
>>
>> 'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
>> Terms.
>> Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
>> 'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
>> Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are,
>> then
>> it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.
>>
>> :O)
>>
>
> Fair use is to stop the sort of idiots who leave streaming audio and
> video on all day, when they are actually out of the office etc. Anti
> social I call it.

I don't understand...
A company is sellin various packages.
One is for if you don't do much on the internet.
The other is for if you have spurts here and there.
Another one they do is more expensive than the other two, and is for
people who...
Download music, download movies, stream music and video, stream TV live,
upload photos, Podcasts, play online gaming.
All those and more that the ISP they're payin to be able to do from
their premium payment, recommend they use it for.

They're only usin the product in the way that they're payin to use it
for.

I find it unbelievable that just cuz you don't download/upload as much
as someone else, then those that do are anti social.

They're not... they pay the money, and leave it up to the people who
sold it to them to sort out whether it upsets you who doesn't download
as much, that heavy users are payin a premium to do so, do.

"Theo Markettos" <theom+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news3C*(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Mark Clayton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Fair use is to stop the sort of idiots who leave streaming audio and
>> video
>> on all day, when they are actually out of the office etc. Anti
>> social I
>> call it.
>
> Presumably the new 'fair use' is traffic shaping. 'Unlimited' traffic
> but
> traffic on certain protocols is shaped, such that web is still
> extra-fast
> but streaming video only gets 1fps. The speed is 'up to' 8Mbps
> (subject to
> survey, status, terms and conditions apply, may contain nuts, etc,
> etc) so
> no-one can complain about that.
>
> And if people start tunnelling their traffic by encrypting it or
> sending on
> random ports then just all their traffic gets shaped. The question is
> when
> does an 'up to 8Mbit' service become a misrepresention... is it when
> you
> can't get the quoted figure (but many people on ADSL can't anyway) or
> when
> most customers can't?

It's one thing where 'up to' means factors like, the speed a website can
support, the amount of traffic accessing it, and content caching.

And another thing where, it's the ISP that is deliberately restricting
the speed.

"Gizmo." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hHhCh.111138$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
> news:GMeCh.2$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the
>> word
>> "UNLIMITED"
>>
>> 'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
>> Terms.
>> Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
>> 'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
>> Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are,
>> then
>> it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.
>
> It doesn't effect you either way, as there's no chance of you ever
> getting your account back.

Ah, so you're not arguin the point, then?

> Shouldn't you be back at school this week ?

No, but I've got to see my bank manager tomorrow.

"Gizmo." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hHhCh.111138$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
> news:GMeCh.2$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Challenging the use of 'Fair Use Policies' in conjunction with the word
>> "UNLIMITED"
>>
>> 'Fair Use Policies' are totally unenforceable due to Unfair Contract
>> Terms.
>> Unless the ISP specifies precisely what triggers a violation of the
>> 'Fair Use Policy' then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
>> Then of course... if you specify limits, and what them limits are, then
>> it's not "UNLIMITED" is it.
>
> It doesn't effect you either way, as there's no chance of you ever getting
> your account back.
> Shouldn't you be back at school this week ?
>

From this reply and another you have made in this group I suppose you work
for Virgin? I just requested my MAC code from Pipex today, and have now just
crossed Virgin off my "possibles" list.