All Three One Plans to be cancelled from today

[spoffle]

Best comparison.

How? The situations aren't at all the same.

 

[Demon]

Enough is what the company prices it at, from a consumer perspective.

And also 'enough' is a cost that also allows a company to provide a service without losing money, this isn't just about what the consumer is entitled to, nobody cares, people just point out the mechanics of why actually consuming smeg loads of data would obviously end in disaster.

What argument is this?

That one where you insist that people paid enough for the service, which as I pointed out, not many people actually disagree that people who paid the fee where entitled to download as much as they wanted.

Some astute people may have noticed the comment I responded to.

Indeed, some astute people may even realise that some people aren't as astute as others.

No it's not, because it's not free, there's no such thing as a free buffet, and buffet restaurants have stipulations that don't limit how much you can eat, but how much you can eat in a given period of time (by posing a time limit on your stay).

OK, replace 'free' with '£1' or some other token amount if you think the point being made is any different, but the key point I made is "free buffet with no limits", no limits as in no time or no quantity limits.

Why would you blatantly tell me how my hypothetical buffet is going to be run??? I wanted it to be a free buffet with no limits damnit, you are telling me it can't be free and it must be for a limited time?? Blimey you'll be telling me next that any such restaurant providing such a service will get overrun and have to stop providing it..

When you have to completely change the the situation to allow yourself to construct an argument around it, you should take a look at what it is that you're actually saying.

To my mind, the analogy is absolutely equivocal enough to make the point about the cost of providing the service vs the cost to the consumer and how the consumers actual consumption determines how long that service will stay viable, but that's the thing with analogies isn't it, "a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects."
So
- free buffet with no limits = unlimited data (or lets call it cheap buffet with no limits = unlimited data)
- People bringing trolleys in and loading up = people consuming huge amounts of data
- Company can't sustain buffet = Three cancelling service
- People with trolleys stood outside complaining = this thread

Not sure how much more similar it needs to be?

 

[spoffle]

And also 'enough' is a cost that also allows a company to provide a service without losing money, this isn't just about what the consumer is entitled to, nobody cares, people just point out the mechanics of why actually consuming smeg loads of data would obviously end in disaster.

Some people, not everyone, and "enough" might not be "enough" to not lose money, that isn't the consumer's responsibility though.

[/QUOTE]That one where you insist that people paid enough for the service, which as I pointed out, not many people actually disagree that people who paid the fee where entitled to download as much as they wanted.[/QUOTE]

Some did though, and it was those that I was talking to.

Indeed, some astute people may even realise that some people aren't as astute as others.

Yep, and you are not one of them.

OK, replace 'free' with '£1' or some other token amount if you think the point being made is any different, but the key point I made is "free buffet with no limits", no limits as in no time or no quantity limits, why would you blatantly tell me how my hypothetical buffet is going to be run?, I wanted it to be a free buffet with no limits, you are telling me it can't be free and it must be for a limited time?? Blimey you'll be telling me next that any such restaurant providing such a service will get overrun and have to stop providing it..

The point was that your example doesn't exist in the real world, rendering it moot. That's ignoring the few parallels you drew.

To my mind, the analogy is absolutely equivocal enough to make the point about the cost of providing the service vs the cost to the consumer and how the consumers actual consumption determines how long that service will stay viable, but that's the thing with analogies isn't it, "a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects."

Analogies are about drawling parallels, your example had few parallels.

So
- free buffet with no limits = unlimited data (or lets call it cheap buffet with no limits = unlimited data)
- People bringing trolleys in and loading up = people consuming huge
amounts of data

It's not a real world example, it's pointless making it.

The bottom line is that three has stopped offering a service it can't sustain. My point early in the thread is that they shouldn't offer a service they can't provide, which they have done.

Some people were suggesting or outright stating that it's selfish and wrong for people to use "excessive" amounts of data, despite the fact that the people in question were using their data, mid contract, as their contracts stated.

People were putting arbitrary amounts on "excessive" as they seem unable to comprehend that others use their connections differently than they do.

- Company can't sustain buffet = Three cancelling service
- People with trolleys stood outside complaining = this thread

Yes, and where did I say that it's wrong for 3 to stop offering the service to people who are outside of the contracts? Since you're so astute, you should be able to show me this.

Not sure how much more similar it needs to be?

Hence my point about being astute, you've completely misconstrued my point. I'm not complaining that three has capped tethering at all. Your example wasn't that similar outside of both situations showing a company offering something they couldn't really provide long term, the rest of your example didn't make any sense and drew very few parallels.

 

[Demon]

Some people, not everyone, and "enough" might not be "enough" to not lose money, that isn't the consumer's responsibility though.

It becomes partly the customers responsibility if they care about continuance of service.

Some did though, and it was those that I was talking to.

The person you replied to said:

This was inevitable, I'm surprised they allowed the high users to continue unchecked for so long. I bet less than 1 percent of their subscribers were responsible for 99% of bandwith use.

He didn't say they shouldn't have been allowed the data they paid for, he was saying Three's model was unsustainable unless they changed it, that doesn't mean they have to withold data, they could have just put STM in place.

Yep, and you are not one of them.

or am I?

The point was that your example doesn't exist in the real world, so it's pointless trying to argue it.

And now Three have inevitably stopped the unlimited tethering service for peanuts, that doesn't now exist in the real world either and no one else offers the same service...

Analogies are about drawling parallels, your example had few parallels.

OK, call it what you want, even if I used a comma incorrectly it still serves as a good example of why that business model rarely succeeds due to both sides not be reasonable or realistic.

It's not a real world example, it's pointless making it.

The bottom line is that three has stopped offering a service it can't sustain. My point early in the thread is that they shouldn't offer a service they can't provide, which they have done.

Contended data provision has been the backbone of consumer data providers business models legitimately for years, many high cap or unlimited models have been used many time by many companies, the vast majority (if not all) cannot actually provide the stated bandwidth/allowance if every single customer consumes 100% of their contracted data allowance/bandwidth.

Some people were suggesting or outright stating that it's selfish and wrong for people to use "excessive" amounts of data, despite the fact that the people in question were using their data, mid contract, as their contracts stated.

One or two maybe, most where just saying it was obviously unsustainable when some people consumed huge amounts because they understand contended provision as the model used by all companies.

I've been through many data providers over the years, and encountered this age old dilema of wanting lots of data, but not wanting to pay the true cost of having it provided, so I am actually one of those people that has made hay while the sun shines with many of these offers,

People were putting arbitrary amounts on "excessive" as they seem unable to comprehend that others use their connections differently than they do.

A good observation, I agree.

Yes, and where did I say that it's wrong for 3 to stop offering the service to people who are outside of the contracts? Since you're so astute, you should be able to show me this.

Who said that last statement was aimed at you?, I use the word people many times in my posts, when I say 'you' then I mean 'you', if I say 'people' I mean other people which may or may not include you, depending on the point being made, why so pedantic? Hell I may even use 'you' when I mean 'people', lets not let it get in the way of a good old bit of banter and debate.

Hence my point about being astute, you've completely misconstrued my point. I'm not complaining that three has capped tethering at all. Your example wasn't that similar outside of both situations showing a company offering something they couldn't really provide long term, the rest of your example didn't make any sense and drew very few parallels.

I've already stated what you are complaining about, you are complaining about people complaining about people using what they where entitled to, I am simply complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people who using what they are entitled to, I would have thought it obvious.

Anyhoo, that was a nice bit of fun, my 3D print is nearly finished, so I can go get some sleep.. too-da-loo..

 

[spoffle]

It becomes partly the customers responsibility if they care about continuance of service.

This makes the assumption that the customers are aware of this. When the vast majority of the general public is as dumb as they are, then that's an unreasonable expectation.

The person you replied to said:

They said they were surprised that three allowed it to continue unchecked for so long. That implies that Three shouldn't have allowed it for as long as they did, with no mention of contracts or not. However, my comment wasn't entirely serious, and was made on the off chance that they meant at any point, rather than out of contract.

He didn't say they shouldn't have been allowed the data they paid for, he was saying Three's model was unsustainable unless they changed it, that doesn't mean they have to withold data, they could have just put STM in place.

An STM would mean that it's a limited service, ergo it can't be unlimited with traffic management. This is why Virgin Media no long traffic manages downstream traffic (at least not publicly) but only upload, because the headline advertised speeds are the download speeds.

or am I?

No.

And now Three have inevitably stopped the unlimited tethering service for peanuts, that doesn't now exist in the real world either and no one else offers the same service...

But it has existed, on a commercial scale, your example hasn't.

OK, call it what you want, even if I used a comma incorrectly it still serves as a good example of why that business model rarely succeeds due to both sides not be reasonable or realistic.

Using a comma incorrectly would be vastly different to what actually happened. You made your example more complicated than it needed to be, and as a result of this it became a moot point.

Contended data provision has been the backbone of consumer data providers business models legitimately for years, many high cap or unlimited models have been used many time by many companies, the vast majority (if not all) cannot actually provide the stated bandwidth/allowance if every single customer consumes 100% of their contracted data allowance/bandwidth.

I'm well aware of this, and I think having infrastructure that can't support the load, is different to intentionally limiting a service that is being sold as unlimited.

Obviously, they would have to expand their network to some degree to keep up with an increasing customer base, even if the customer base wasn't rinsing the network. They also made provisions that didn't take in to account certain usage patterns.

So my argument isn't about them changing the packages that they offer, it was in response to people complaining about those who use a lot of data, and claiming that it was selfish to use a lot of data on the unlimited package that you're paying for. The actual amount is irrelevant in this instance.

One or two maybe, most where just saying it was obviously unsustainable when some people consumed huge amounts because they understand contended provision as the model used by all companies.

It's more than one or two. But they were the ones I've been responding to.

I've been through many data providers over the years, and encountered this age old dilema of wanting lots of data, but not wanting to pay the true cost of having it provided, so I am actually one of those people that has made hay while the sun shines with many of these offers,

I personally don't use that much mobile data, anywhere I go, there's an internet connection that is better than my mobile one, and I don't really travel that much or that far that I need to consume a lot of media on the go. So my usage patterns are with regards to fixed lines, of which I've always had unlimited packages and not really had much in the way of issues with them actually being unlimited, outside of Virgin Media who used to send condescending letters out, suggesting that I'm using over an arbitrarily set amount of data, and that could be happening because I must have malware on my computes.

It's also been a pain in the arse for when I've had to complain about my speeds, and the customer services or technical help staff have little to no idea what they're talking about, and struggle to comprehend that even though I'm ringing to complain that my connection is slow (1/8-1/2 of what it should be) they suggest that it must be fine because I've downloaded x amount of data. It's hard work trying to get them to understand that I'm complaining that I'm not getting the speed I'm paying for, not that I literally can't download anything at all, as you can still download a fair amount of data over a short period of time at 20-80MB, but when I'm paying for 152Mb, I don't expect 20-80Mb to be all I get.

A good observation, I agree.

These are the people I'm talking about, I'm not complaining about Three.

Who said that last statement was aimed at you?, I use the word people many times in my posts, when I say 'you' then I mean 'you', if I say 'people' I mean other people which may or may not include you, depending on the point being made, why so pedantic?

I'm not being pedantic. You seemed to be saying I'm complaining about Three, when I'm not. It's not pedantic to point out this, and ask you why you think I'm complaining.

I've already stated what you are complaining about, you are complaining about people complaining about people using what they where entitled to, I am simply complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people who using what they are entitled to, I would have thought it obvious.

If it was as obvious as you think, I would have thought you wouldn't have replied to my post in the first place.

 

[Mitzy]

Spoffle

My local cinema complex has an "all you can eat buffet", it costs £8, you can literally have all you can eat, they stopped me when I went out and returned with a shopping trolley. I told them I would much prefer to take all the food home with me but apparently I was being unreasonable. Well you can believe I kicked up a fuss, told them it was false adverting, cheeky buggers told me I had clearly been provided with all that I could eat when I was there and that I was being unreasonable.

I went back the following week, sign in the window said "all you can eat (while you're here) buffet", can you believe that? If they couldn't provide me with all I could eat the week prior then they shouldn't have advertised that they could.

Back on topic though, Three, provided service, mick was taken, sign got amended?

 

[spoffle]

Spoffle

My local cinema complex has an "all you can eat buffet", it costs £8, you can literally have all you can eat, they stopped me when I went out and returned with a shopping trolley. I told them I would much prefer to take all the food home with me but apparently I was being unreasonable. Well you can believe I kicked up a fuss, told them it was false adverting, cheeky buggers told me I had clearly been provided with all that I could eat when I was there and that I was being unreasonable.

I went back the following week, sign in the window said "all you can eat (while you're here) buffet", can you believe that? If they couldn't provide me with all I could eat the week prior then they shouldn't have advertised that they could.

Back on topic though, Three, provided service, mick was taken, sign got amended?

Again, you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. You go to a restaurant to eat there, not take all their food. So it isn't even a reasonable assumption.

 

[Mitzy]

Again, you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. You go to a restaurant to eat there, not take all their food. So it isn't even a reasonable assumption.

No. This was an all you can eat buffet, they advertised it like that, not me!

 

[spoffle]

Yes, all you can eat at the establishment. Just because three's plan was called all you can eat data, doesn't mean that your example is the same.

 

[Mitzy]

What absolute rubbish. It's called all you can eat and I paid for an all I could eat buffet as that's what I wanted. A shopping trolley full is in no way taking the pee on an all you can eat buffet.

I've got no issue if they want to up the price, but they didn't.

What I take offence to is a) they don't offer it anymore. b) there should be no difference between eating in he premises and taking it home, I'm paying for food, makes zero difference where I eat the food.

 

[spoffle]

Yeah, no.

 

[muon]

What absolute rubbish. It's called all you can eat and I paid for an all I could eat buffet as that's what I wanted. A shopping trolley full is in no way taking the pee on an all you can eat buffet.

I've got no issue if they want to up the price, but they didn't.

What I take offence to is a) they don't offer it anymore. b) there should be no difference between eating in he premises and taking it home, I'm paying for food, makes zero difference where I eat the food.

edit: nvm, misunderstood post.

 

[mrochester]

The ironing board of that statement is that in actual fact people where not paying (enough) for unlimited data.

Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that because people payed for that service, they where entitled to 'unlimited' data. As it happens everyone actually agrees that they where, Three provided it, and contractually all has been fulfilled..

Some astute people have merely been pointing out that as it become popular and some people really went mad on their downloading, they where, whether they want to admit/understand it or not, sending it into demise which would be perfectly fine by most people right up until they complain about the loss of that service..

It's like a free buffet with no limits that becomes popular to the point people bring in shopping trolleys to offload as much as they can possibly carry.. Clearly they are 'entitled' to as much of the free buffet as they like, however the moment it is unsustainable by the company provided, it inevitably stops, and then you get a load of disgruntled, shopping trolly adourned people outside shouting how it's terrible and they where only taking what they where entitled to as if that company should be held to task over not loosing a ton of money and not realising they where in fact part responsible for it's termination.

The problem is, Three didn't let people know what that magic limit was where it became unprofitable. If they had simply sold the deal at that magic limit in the first place, people wouldn't now be disgruntled that Three were getting rid of the One Plan. However, if they had sold the One Plan with those limits in place, it wouldn't have looked anywhere near as impressive as it did and it probably wouldn't have attracted as many customers. But ****ing people off is simply the price Three pay for taking that approach.

 

[Morfik]

Really surprised by some of the vitriol in this thread.

If you've been using the unlimited tethering for years then you've had a great run, just because it's coming to an end doesn't mean you didn't get your money's worth.

No one else offers unlimited tethering or any form of data, I appreciate that's frustrating with 4G but that's the way the market is. Complain to Ofcom, it isn't one providers fault.

I'm with EE and get a far worse deal all in, still in an old (expensive) 4G contract (yes, my own fault), limited data and no feel at home.

 

[Deep]

I'll be staying on Three and it'll be good to get the power users off so my speeds will be quicker !

 

[Quinnaay]

Also will be staying with Three for the people who don't Tether this could be great.

 

[stoosh]

I don't tether hardly go over 2Gb and am happy with Three so I'll be staying either way.

 

[Demon]

reply

Wow, you really are taking this seriously. I would have assumed the reasonable amounts of sarcasm would have told you I really am not taking it seriously..

For your benefit then, let me start off again in a more 'serious' tone..

I understand your argument to be (paraphrasing) that it was Three's fault for providing a service that was not sustainable and that large data consumers were entitled and in no way hold any responsibility for its demise.

My response is simple, whilst people were ENTITLED to download as much as they wanted, the facts are clear that whilst they were paying exactly enough according to the contract, they were not actually paying enough for the cost of the data they were being provided, and thus wittingly or unwittingly were actually partly responsible, as Three are partly responsible for getting their predictions incorrect.

Further to that (and at a slight tangent) you say you understand the contended provision business model, yet continually demonstrate you don't understand it because you are directly blaming Three for providing an unsustainable service from the outset, thus implying they should have known upfront the exact number and usage patterns of their customers to guarantee sustainability, which is very much not how the contended provision model works.

My personal opinion on the entire situation which is aimed at the whole thread:
Were people entitled to as much as they could consume? Yes
Should people have felt guilty for consuming loads? No
Were people partly responsible for its demise? Yes
Were Three partly responsible for a less than perfect prediction of usage? Yes
Are people entitled to feel disgruntled with Three for stopping the service? Hell no, they had a dream package that gave some people ridiculously cheap data, for which they should be thankful for the chance of making hay while the sun shines
Should lower usage people feel disgruntled that the service is coming to an end? Not really

 

[jamief]

Balderdash. What's it matter that it's on their device via a tether or on their native device? It really doesn't.

Because it is far easier to consume vast quantities of data via tethering than via a handset itself.

 

[Martini1991]

Because it is far easier to consume vast quantities of data via tethering than via a handset itself.

It's quite easy to consume the same amount on a phone, probably just as easy these days.