Why doesn't Unlimited mean Unlimited anymore? :/

bigredshark · 28 Oct 2008 at 13:42

Shoseki said:
For you maybe. The majority of the population see the law as grey. The law professionals themselves see it as very grey indeed...

Otherwise there would be no court cases, decisions would be made by a computer.

Yes, obviously, my point was decisions made by a court or such are absolute in a way that people's opinions never will be.

a1ex2001 · 28 Oct 2008 at 14:45

I say this everytime I see one of these threads but it amazes me how much stuff people find to download 100+GB in a month is mental especially when you are doing this month in month out. How people can expect others to believe that the majority of this let alone most of it is legal and legit is beyond me.

I'm on the lowest usage BT package and I'm sure I've broken it a few times when I've built new PC's or downloaded new versions of software but most months I'm nowhere near I guess I'm just the average web user who's quite happy for the crazy downloaders to be shapped and limited so my surfing isn't hampered.

I do agree with the OP though that the use of the word unlimited should be resticted to broad band packages where you can download as much as you like with no shaping or capping but then people should expect to be paying some hefty monthly fees for these services. ISP should also be obliged to publish there fair usage policies as it seem ridiculous to expect you to agree to something that you can't even read should you choose too.

neo202020 · 28 Oct 2008 at 15:57

Dolph said:
Tiered packages with priority systems might be a way forward, but that's probably going to lead to an increase in cost for the high end users that they don't like...

I am quite happy to pay more for what I want. When I was with Nildram I was paying like £30+ for 8MB with a 50GB download limit per month. At the moment I'm paying £22 to Be for 24MB with the upload booster thingie.

I would be happy to pay £35 for a lower contention ratio, the trouble is, I don't see many ISPs competing on contention ratios. On top of that, BRS has a point, in that a low contention ratio ISP would be very likely to attract other people who are heavy users, so you'd pay more and not gain much. So I suppose you are right in that lower use customers will have to keep subsidising heavier use ones, but I also think it's important to keep in mind that technology is improving all the time, so ISPs have a responsibility to expand their capacity vs. just making a killing.

a1ex2001 · 28 Oct 2008 at 16:33

neo202020 said:
but I also think it's important to keep in mind that technology is improving all the time, so ISPs have a responsibility to expand their capacity vs. just making a killing.

Why do ISPs have a responsibility to expand capacity? the only responsibility they have is too there share holders and that entails making as much money as possible these are businesses not charities. Why would an ISP invest millions in a network upgrade to satisfy 5-10% of there customers when they could bank those millions and still satisfy 90% of there customers who are the ones they actually care about as they are the ones making them profitable?

The OP has a point about the stuipid use of the term unlimited which I'm sure will be addressed now the papers have got hold of it but the number of people who think ISPs have to do something other than make a profit is bizare. Sky offer a totally unlimited broad band packagae apparently so if you are unhappy with your current provider purely on the basis of the unlimited thing vote with your feet and don't roll out the long contract or phoneline cost excuses you've all said your willing to pay for this unlimited service you want.

platypus · 28 Oct 2008 at 16:40

bigredshark said:
But how much is the question. Seriously, how much would you pay for 8Mbit, no traffic shaping?

Well, given that I don't know direct costs, I can't say exactly. I would be quite happy with 2mb unshaped, and to spend ~£100 a month on such a connection, and with a reasonable fair usage policy that I know about in advance. I don't even mind contention to a certain extent, as long as its not ridiculous (1:25 for example).

RDM said:
You can go some way towards this by going with an ISP that uses a capped service. Generally no traffic shaping and if you go over your cap, you pay for it. Can work out expensive if you download a lot.

Hard to find in Cambridge, and I'd need even more expense of getting a phone line for ADSL.

neo202020 · 28 Oct 2008 at 16:42

a1ex2001 said:
Why do ISPs have a responsibility to expand capacity? the only responsibility they have is too there share holders and that entails making as much money as possible these are businesses not charities. Why would an ISP invest millions in a network upgrade to satisfy 5-10% of there customers when they could bank those millions and still satisfy 90% of there customers who are the ones they actually care about as they are the ones making them profitable?

Because if they don't, "there customers" will suffer. If their customers suffer, they will switch to better ISPs. If they switch to better ISPs, they won't make as much money in the long run.

If your thinking worked, we'd all still be using dial-up because it's more profitable for the company to operate a simple service and charge loads in the short run than to improve and expand and offer a better product. At the end of the day, another ISP will always be seeking to gain a competitive edge by providing a better service, so I'm not worried about my own downloads. I've already said I am probably not even a heavy user, but I would much prefer to choose 1 ISP and stick with them for many years, than being branded a "leeching *******" as soon as the "regular" user catches up to the idea of the "internets" and having to switch.

a1ex2001 · 28 Oct 2008 at 17:02

neo202020 said:
Because if they don't, "there customers" will suffer. If their customers suffer, they will switch to better ISPs. If they switch to better ISPs, they won't make as much money in the long run.

If your thinking worked, we'd all still be using dial-up because it's more profitable for the company to operate a simple service and charge loads in the short run than to improve and expand and offer a better product. At the end of the day, another ISP will always be seeking to gain a competitive edge by providing a better service, so I'm not worried about my own downloads. I've already said I am probably not even a heavy user, but I would much prefer to choose 1 ISP and stick with them for many years, than being branded a "leeching *******" as soon as the "regular" user catches up to the idea of the "internets" and having to switch.

Your talking about something completely different thats market pressure not a responsibility to upgrade, I'm sure when the 90% of customers that are currently satisified with the adsl services being offered start to want/need more the companies will invest that is a market driven upgrade which the majority of customers want. The something happend with dialup and will no doubt happen with current adsl technology, the ISP have no responsibility to upgrade purely because new technology is available as you said.

a1ex2001 · 28 Oct 2008 at 17:03

platypus said:
Well, given that I don't know direct costs, I can't say exactly. I would be quite happy with 2mb unshaped, and to spend ~£100 a month on such a connection, and with a reasonable fair usage policy that I know about in advance. I don't even mind contention to a certain extent, as long as its not ridiculous (1:25 for example).

Hard to find in Cambridge, and I'd need even more expense of getting a phone line for ADSL.

Time you started looking at a corperate SDSL line have you checked availability in your area? Not much more than £100 a month now? Also don't bring in the cost of a phoneline it's merely part of the cost to get the service you said you were willing to pay for if the virgin are no good ditch em, I have a phone which is never used but I need it for the line

bigredshark · 28 Oct 2008 at 19:26

platypus said:
Well, given that I don't know direct costs, I can't say exactly. I would be quite happy with 2mb unshaped, and to spend ~£100 a month on such a connection, and with a reasonable fair usage policy that I know about in advance. I don't even mind contention to a certain extent, as long as its not ridiculous (1:25 for example).

Hard to find in Cambridge, and I'd need even more expense of getting a phone line for ADSL.

Costs are irrelevant to the question I'd say. Interesting though, you seem to belong to the small group who would pay £40-50+ for broadband, the problem is, that group is probably quite small (difficult to know, research on how many people would pay that much is hard to come by). If there are 10-12% of broadband customers who'd pay that much, then it's viable, but I don't think there is.

Participant · 28 Oct 2008 at 19:34

All I can say is that I don't really care what happens in the broadband market beause supply and demand will always prevail, and at the moment, I'm not overly fussed by Virgin's traffic management, and I personally am getting a fast and reliable service from them.

neo202020 · 28 Oct 2008 at 19:36

bigredshark said:
Costs are irrelevant to the question I'd say. Interesting though, you seem to belong to the small group who would pay £40-50+ for broadband, the problem is, that group is probably quite small (difficult to know, research on how many people would pay that much is hard to come by). If there are 10-12% of broadband customers who'd pay that much, then it's viable, but I don't think there is.

I suspect you're right: very few people would pay 500% the standard rate, even for that kind of service.

BlackAle · 28 Oct 2008 at 21:10

whatleytom said:
I'm at university, and I live with 7 other people. Now everyone obviously wants to use the internet, so it gets used quite a lot. We went for the fastest speed. But all except ridiculous times it is capped horrendously. I'm talking ridiculoulsy slow can even load a youtube video here.

It takes the pee really, we fork out the extra for 20mb and we might as well have just paid for the 1mb. Unlimited it is not. And while i'm sure for one user at home it might pass as being ok, for more than that it is a bit silly really. And there is absolutley sweet fa you can do about it.

What I'd call silly is 8 people sharing a £37 (or less) consumer orientated broadband package. Do you all share the same mobile too?

BlackAle · 28 Oct 2008 at 21:16

mattheman said:
i dont know but do you remember x-stream 0800 free unlimited internet, guess what happened bt tried to shut them down.

I loved x-stream, they appeared when I had ISDN. I could usually always connect first time, and sometimes got bonded 128kbps! All for free, I'm amazed their free offer lasted aslong as it did.

bigredshark · 28 Oct 2008 at 21:51

BlackAle said:
I loved x-stream, they appeared when I had ISDN. I could usually always connect first time, and sometimes got bonded 128kbps! All for free, I'm amazed their free offer lasted aslong as it did.

I remember having a vastly expensive ISDN line at home at one point, how things have moved on....

BlackAle · 28 Oct 2008 at 22:07

bigredshark said:
I remember having a vastly expensive ISDN line at home at one point, how things have moved on....

Indeed, If I remember correctly I think I paid £52/month line rental for ISDN, which included x hours of data calls. I also remember informing BT after 6 months that I no longer wanted the inclusive data calls, resulting in my line rental dropping to a mere £37/month ...though it took BT a few months to agree with me that their T&C's allowed me to change package after 6 months.

I guess they hadn't read their own T&C's!

Angilion · 28 Oct 2008 at 23:36

RDM said:
Then don't sign up with an ISP that doesn't give clear terms?

Which ones do and which ones don't and how can you tell them apart?

Angilion · 28 Oct 2008 at 23:40

mattheman said:
a lot of them port block, speaking to customer services and asking do you block ports and which one is like talking to a brick.

I'm with AOL. AOL don't have customer service. They have people who pick out words from what you say and feed them to helpfiles. Utterly pointless. Although it is possible to get lucky and end up routed to a call centre in Ireland, where they're just not told anything useful.

It isn't port block per se, though, because it block P2P on all ports. P2P sticks out like a sore thumb at the ISP's end, so it's quite easy to target in a more sophisticated manner than just port blocking.

Angilion · 28 Oct 2008 at 23:44

mattheman said:
400gig i think you can downlaond a month then they just email you, we think your down loading too much.

400 gig a month? I'd have to be downloading (and burning, to save some HDD space) more pirated porn than I could shake a....stick....at to get anywhere near 400 gig a month!

I'd be fine with a 40gig cap, just as long as they didn't pretend it was unlimited. That would cover my TV watching with ample spare just in case.

bigredshark · 29 Oct 2008 at 09:44

Angilion said:
400 gig a month? I'd have to be downloading (and burning, to save some HDD space) more pirated porn than I could shake a....stick....at to get anywhere near 400 gig a month!

I'd be fine with a 40gig cap, just as long as they didn't pretend it was unlimited. That would cover my TV watching with ample spare just in case.

Just about, the new higher quality streams will push it up, 2 hours a day of high quality iplayer for a month is 21GB....

RDM · 29 Oct 2008 at 11:02

Angilion said:
Which ones do and which ones don't and how can you tell them apart?

You read the terms, if they aren't clear, they are the ones you don't sign up with.