Why doesn't Unlimited mean Unlimited anymore? :/

[RDM]

You're being deliberately obtuse because its your business. Thats fine. And you keep on banding about customers being stupid and idiots.

You have a lot of customer contact in your job, do you?

This is despite the fact that several times he has stated that his company does not have a fair usage policy, doesn't advertise it's services as unlimited and in fact isn't one of the problem ISPs? And frankly some of the attitudes in this thread aren't exactly the epitome of the intelligent consumer.

Not to mention what is said in a discussion on a message board can be completely different on how you talk to and treat a customer.

 

[bigredshark]

Good question.

I used to do my laundry once a month and it cost me £25 ish. Now I have twice as much laundry as I work full time, I do it roughly every three weeks and it costs me £15.

snip snip snip

How on earth do you go without washing clothes for 3 weeks at a time?? Do you have the contents of a small department store in your wardrobe??

 

[Shoseki]

How on earth do you go without washing clothes for 3 weeks at a time?? Do you have the contents of a small department store in your wardrobe??

1 clean shirt every day, a couple of pairs of work trousers that I air on rotation, enough clean underwear for 4 weeks easily, 3-4 pairs of jeans and t-shirts that I reuse just for travel to and from work and clean clothes for the weekends/clubbing.

Its a fairly hefty bag to carry down, but I manage. I shower twice a day and am generally a clean person and work in an office so it isn't as though I'm collecting a lot of dirt - and I very rarely throw clothes away (apart from trousers, I seem to wear through them very quickly :S).

 

[bigredshark]

This is despite the fact that several times he has stated that his company does not have a fair usage policy, doesn't advertise it's services as unlimited and in fact isn't one of the problem ISPs? And frankly some of the attitudes in this thread aren't exactly the epitome of the intelligent consumer.

Not to mention what is said in a discussion on a message board can be completely different on how you talk to and treat a customer.

We do have an FUP in theory (as an ISP you'd be mad not to insert it in your contract) but the last time anybody was shaped was when we were being really hammered by iplayer during the olympics. We shaped obvious rubbish (p2p primarily) down a lot and also anyone who'd downloaded more than 25GB in a rolling week.

What we also did, which I do feel anybody implementing a fair use policy should do, is sent an email to the entire xDSL customer base explaining what we'd done and why we'd done it (backed with traffic graphs etc). Same again when we removed it once traffic levels returned to normal. I think that was just common courtesy.

It's also a good example of when a flexible FUP is useful and appropriate, it was a period of huge increase in demand (up 35-40% on normal usage for several weeks) and we maintained a reasonable level of service for 90%+ of customers. Hard limits set out in an FUP would have been far less useful

 

[bigredshark]

1 clean shirt every day, a couple of pairs of work trousers that I air on rotation, enough clean underwear for 4 weeks easily, 3-4 pairs of jeans and t-shirts that I reuse just for travel to and from work and clean clothes for the weekends/clubbing.

Its a fairly hefty bag to carry down, but I manage. I shower twice a day and am generally a clean person and work in an office so it isn't as though I'm collecting a lot of dirt - and I very rarely throw clothes away (apart from trousers, I seem to wear through them very quickly :S).

Still, 15 smart shirts? I have 7 or 8. And enough clean underwear for 4 weeks - surely it'd be easier to go more often?

 

[Shoseki]

Still, 15 smart shirts? I have 7 or 8. And enough clean underwear for 4 weeks - surely it'd be easier to go more often?

I work in business application development, so your definition of "smart" may be a little different from mine, but I have been collecting shirts for a while (usually get 2-3 cotton shirts per christmas at least). I also have about 3-4 smart "going out clubbing" shirts too but rarely wear them.

As for frequency, it is usually about £10-15 whether I go every week, 2 weeks or 3 weeks, except when I do all my bedding/towels etc as well when it goes to about £25. But its usually laziness/effort that makes me do it 3 weeks as opposed to cost. I like to justify it economically though

 

[peetee]

We do have an FUP in theory (as an ISP you'd be mad not to insert it in your contract) but the last time anybody was shaped was when we were being really hammered by iplayer during the olympics. We shaped obvious rubbish (p2p primarily) down a lot and also anyone who'd downloaded more than 25GB in a rolling week.

What we also did, which I do feel anybody implementing a fair use policy should do, is sent an email to the entire xDSL customer base explaining what we'd done and why we'd done it (backed with traffic graphs etc). Same again when we removed it once traffic levels returned to normal. I think that was just common courtesy.

It's also a good example of when a flexible FUP is useful and appropriate, it was a period of huge increase in demand (up 35-40% on normal usage for several weeks) and we maintained a reasonable level of service for 90%+ of customers. Hard limits set out in an FUP would have been far less useful

Thats a good post, may help some people wise up to FUPs.
Can anyone imagine if there was some HD streams etc about for the Olympics and your ISP didnt have a FUP, you'd try and load webpages etc and itd be slow, you'd try to play a game.. welcome to lagfest etc.

 

[RDM]

Thats a good post, may help some people wise up to FUPs.
Can anyone imagine if there was some HD streams etc about for the Olympics and your ISP didnt have a FUP, you'd try and load webpages etc and itd be slow, you'd try to play a game.. welcome to lagfest etc.

My ISP doesn't have a FUP and I had no slowdown or lag increase at all. But then the reason it doesn't have a FUP is that it has a hard cap instead and if I go over that, I pay for it or have no connection.

 

[neo202020]

I don't think I'm being at all obtuse, legally it isn't misleading and anything else is just opinion. I've already said *I* think it's misleading in this thread but unless it's legally found to be so then it'll continue.

Pigheaded is another word. Notwithstanding the fact that you make some sense overall, I have to say I find your position on this specific issue to be ridiculous.

Theoretical example: a paedophile manages to find some way of legally grooming children by using some sort of loophole. We all know it's "wrong" and "bad" but it's "legal" for now. Would you argue the same thing in this case? I hope not.

You could seriously benefit from a little perspective.

 

[Dolph]

Pigheaded is another word. Notwithstanding the fact that you make some sense overall, I have to say I find your position on this specific issue to be ridiculous.

Theoretical example: a paedophile manages to find some way of legally grooming children by using some sort of loophole. We all know it's "wrong" and "bad" but it's "legal" for now. Would you argue the same thing in this case? I hope not.

You could seriously benefit from a little perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

You could seriously benefit from actually arguing the points under discussion without resorting to random fallacies. Your post is a mixture of the above and a paedophile version of Godwin's law...

 

[neo202020]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

You could seriously benefit from actually arguing the points under discussion without resorting to random fallacies. Your post is a mixture of the above and a paedophile version of Godwin's law...

I don't think so, and I haven't refrained from arguing the points under discussion.

I am not misrepresenting his attitude in any way, I am simply applying it to a different set of circumstances. As you will know, Goodwin isn't against the use of Nazi comparisons, he's against the inappropriate use of Nazi comparisons.

The point is very simple here: he admits that he believes something to be misleading (=wrong) but he thinks it's OK as long as it's legal. The comparison is fair: if something is wrong but legal, is it OK for it to continue? Apply it to any other set of circumstances and see for yourself.

However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons

 

[Cosimo]

Your post is a mixture of the above and a paedophile version of Godwin's law...

So what is this paedophile version of Godwin's law?

 

[bigredshark]

Pigheaded is another word. Notwithstanding the fact that you make some sense overall, I have to say I find your position on this specific issue to be ridiculous.

Theoretical example: a paedophile manages to find some way of legally grooming children by using some sort of loophole. We all know it's "wrong" and "bad" but it's "legal" for now. Would you argue the same thing in this case? I hope not.

You could seriously benefit from a little perspective.

If it's legal it's legal, thats the end of. What are you suggesting? Lock up your example paedophile despite the fact he's broken no laws? If he's broken no laws then he's broken no laws, despite people's opinions.

It's also a little strong as a comparison, people do plenty of immoral and 'bad' things all the time and there's no outcry to make then illegal. Should cheating on your girlfriend be illegal?

I'll say again, if I could tell every ISP out there how to advertise I would not allow the use of the word unlimited as it's currently used. However, I can't do that, the ASA can't find legal grounds to do so and being in competition it seems unlikely every ISP is going to enter a gentlemen's agreement about advertising.

So what's left? Not a lot except for consumers to wise up, which will do them no harm. It's also a minority of consumers, if you cap at 100GB or even 50GB then you're still affecting less than 10% of the customer base (see my figures on the first page). The other 90% would never be affected by capping and so it hardly matter whether they understand or not right now. Virgin's different caps at different times is harder to justify but all the information is out there.

If there's one legal provision which would be useful it'd be requiring an ISP to tell the user when they were being throttled or capped, just by email would do, but a brief note to say 'you've downloaded far too much, you'll be shaped to 512k for the rest of the calendar month'

 

[Dolph]

I don't think so, and I haven't refrained from arguing the points under discussion.

I am not misrepresenting his attitude in any way, I am simply applying it to a different set of circumstances. As you will know, Goodwin isn't against the use of Nazi comparisons, he's against the inappropriate use of Nazi comparisons.

The point is very simple here: he admits that he believes something to be misleading (=wrong) but he thinks it's OK as long as it's legal. The comparison is fair: if something is wrong but legal, is it OK for it to continue? Apply it to any other set of circumstances and see for yourself.

You don't think that comparing contractual terms with paedophilia as an alternative to actually addressing the poster's stated points is to create a fallacy?

You pretty much admit here that you are appealing to ridicule. That is the entire basis of your rebuttal.

Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.

<snip>

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

You are doing exactly what I accused you of, and what's more, you've explained it so that it's perfectly clear.

 

[Dolph]

So what is this paedophile version of Godwin's law?

Comparing everything to paedophiles instead of nazi's to paint a negative light on someone's argument...

 

[bigredshark]

The point is very simple here: he admits that he believes something to be misleading (=wrong) but he thinks it's OK as long as it's legal. The comparison is fair: if something is wrong but legal, is it OK for it to continue? Apply it to any other set of circumstances and see for yourself.

And I don't feel this is a contradiction. I wouldn't do it in an ideal world but I see the reasons companies do it and feel they have little choice but to do it while it's legal or loose business. Business and ethics aren't happy bedfellows really, particularly when customers have no consideration of ethics and are entirely price motivated.

 

[neo202020]

You don't think that comparing contractual terms with paedophilia as an alternative to actually addressing the poster's stated points is to create a fallacy?

You pretty much admit here that you are appealing to ridicule. That is the entire basis of your rebuttal.

You are doing exactly what I accused you of, and what's more, you've explained it so that it's perfectly clear.

I am not appealing to ridicule, I am appealing to apply the principle he employs to other situations. It doesn't have to be paedophilia, it could be another type of service where he is the consumer, not the provider. I am not trying to misrepresent his position, I am actually trying to illuminate it. As you will see from his replies, I have represented his views with 100% accuracy.

I think it's not only valid but necessary to test what are essentially *moral* principles against different situations. That allows you to gauge not only their universal applicability but also their applicability to the situation under consideration.

 

[Durzel]

Pigheaded is another word. Notwithstanding the fact that you make some sense overall, I have to say I find your position on this specific issue to be ridiculous.

Theoretical example: a paedophile manages to find some way of legally grooming children by using some sort of loophole. We all know it's "wrong" and "bad" but it's "legal" for now. Would you argue the same thing in this case? I hope not.

You could seriously benefit from a little perspective.

Nice straw man.

EDIT: Oops, already been said.

 

[Dolph]

I am not appealing to ridicule, I am appealing to apply the principle he employs to other situations. It doesn't have to be paedophilia, it could be another type of service where he is the consumer, not the provider. I am not trying to misrepresent his position, I am actually trying to illuminate it. As you will see from his replies, I have represented his views with 100% accuracy.

I think it's not only valid but necessary to test what are essentially *moral* principles against different situations. That allows you to gauge not only their universal applicability but also their applicability to the situation under consideration.

Then why choose such a random, unrelated but emotionally charged example?

And why try to expand his argument beyond what it is (that if something is legal, it's legal, not that if something is legal, it's right)?

 

[neo202020]

If it's legal it's legal, thats the end of. What are you suggesting? Lock up your example paedophile despite the fact he's broken no laws? If he's broken no laws then he's broken no laws, despite people's opinions.

It's also a little strong as a comparison, people do plenty of immoral and 'bad' things all the time and there's no outcry to make then illegal. Should cheating on your girlfriend be illegal?

I'll say again, if I could tell every ISP out there how to advertise I would not allow the use of the word unlimited as it's currently used. However, I can't do that, the ASA can't find legal grounds to do so and being in competition it seems unlikely every ISP is going to enter a gentlemen's agreement about advertising.

So what's left? Not a lot except for consumers to wise up, which will do them no harm. It's also a minority of consumers, if you cap at 100GB or even 50GB then you're still affecting less than 10% of the customer base (see my figures on the first page). The other 90% would never be affected by capping and so it hardly matter whether they understand or not right now. Virgin's different caps at different times is harder to justify but all the information is out there.

If there's one legal provision which would be useful it'd be requiring an ISP to tell the user when they were being throttled or capped, just by email would do, but a brief note to say 'you've downloaded far too much, you'll be shaped to 512k for the rest of the calendar month'

First off, before Dolph accused me of dodging the arguments, as I said before you make a lot of sense in some practical areas. I agree that under the current law ISPs don't have much of a choice, which is why, in essence, I am arguing for a clarification of the law that would prevent misleading advertising. From what you've said I understand that you would support such a law/clarification.

I also agree that's it's very important for users to be notified regarding any sort of restrictions applied to them, and actually I would think a system where 2-3 warnings are sent before capping is applied would be even more effective at keeping "abuse" down without upsetting customers.

What I don't agree with, however, is your moral approach. I believe that it's up to the individual human being to make the distinction between right and wrong and legality can't always be "the end of". I do think it's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend and that's one of the reasons I never have/would.

Anyway, a discussion of "moral approaches" is way beyond the scope of this thread so I'll leave it at that