This needs quoted every time someone posts "how can they advertise unlimited then complain when people use the service".
All Three One Plans to be cancelled from today
- Thread starter scoopex
- Start date
This needs quoted every time someone posts "how can they advertise unlimited then complain when people use the service".
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
The fact is, Three made a song and dance about it being truly unlimited.
There was no asterix, small print, etc.
There was no asterix, small print, etc.
I ran to cancel a few months ago (just trying to get monthly down) and the woman was boasting about their unlimited telling me many of their users frequently download 50-60gb and no other service offers this.
Didn't BT want to put fibre in back in the 80s, and Thatcher refused?
Most of the reason for not putting Fibre in (even in new Housing Estates) is Cost of laying the cables, and Local Authorities not wanting the roads foot-ways dug up!, but mainly cost!!
When I was in Infrastructure planning I had dealings with C&W/Virgin and BT (early stages of Infinity) and I asked them Why don't new estates (at least) get Fibre layed up to the doors, and that was the answer I got from them both! Checking a little deeper and I found it to be true!
When I was in Infrastructure planning I had dealings with C&W/Virgin and BT (early stages of Infinity) and I asked them Why don't new estates (at least) get Fibre layed up to the doors, and that was the answer I got from them both! Checking a little deeper and I found it to be true!
No one is saying unlimited does not mean unlimited, people are saying that unlimited models are based on obvious contention and forecasts, and as soon as the parameters of those calculations shift appreciably, then the unlimited model stops being viable and is terminated by a company..
Saying "unlimited means unlimited, I can download whatever I want", is true, whilst in your contract period, that is most certainly what you can do, people have done and Three have allowed you to do.. I am really not seeing what the actual issue is, it seems the issue is more that Three have stopped the service and moving people out of their initial contract period off the plan which is clearly no longer sustainable..
Last edited:
I really don't get what you're on about. You are so far from the reality of this situation it's unbelievable.
Genuine lol. That's about the most retarded attempt at a comparison I've ever read.
Firstly in a shared bandwidth environment, each party is paying a subscription. This subscription is based on usage forecasting.
Imagine 11 people paying £10 per month for a fair usage share of 1000GB. If 10 of those people only use 10GB that leaves 900GB in the pool for that heavy user, but he's still paying £10. Now if 10 of those people use 100GB each that leaves nothing for that eleventh user, therefore the ISP has a problem and they need to stop offering the services which is what has happened, in reality.
This is why ISPs are able to charge everyone the same price for their shared packages, it makes billing a lot simpler if they pool their resources and charge everyone the same. This is why you cant usually get online prices for dedicated bandwidth.
Your buffet restaurant is simply incompatible with this because firstly the buffet isn't a shared resource.
Again, you simply have no clue how shared resources work. And the funny thing is you brush off my explanation as "irrelevant" yet all you do is whine about Three advertising unlimited services when the whole point of this thread is that they have just stopped doing it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 4,409
If the price was right I'd pay extra for unlimited tethering.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,083
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
BRILLIANTI really don't get what you're on about. You are so far from the reality of this situation it's unbelievable.
Genuine lol. That's about the most retarded attempt at a comparison I've ever read.
Firstly in a shared bandwidth environment, each party is paying a subscription. This subscription is based on usage forecasting.
Imagine 11 people paying £10 per month for a fair usage share of 1000GB. If 10 of those people only use 10GB that leaves 900GB in the pool for that heavy user, but he's still paying £10. Now if 10 of those people use 100GB each that leaves nothing for that eleventh user, therefore the ISP has a problem and they need to stop offering the services which is what has happened, in reality.
This is why ISPs are able to charge everyone the same price for their shared packages, it makes billing a lot simpler if they pool their resources and charge everyone the same. This is why you cant usually get online prices for dedicated bandwidth.
Your buffet restaurant is simply incompatible with this because firstly the buffet isn't a shared resource.
Again, you simply have no clue how shared resources work. And the funny thing is you brush off my explanation as "irrelevant" yet all you do is whine about Three advertising unlimited services when the whole point of this thread is that they have just stopped doing it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,083
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
who the tell downloads 1tb of data in there main pc/home network let alone on there freaking mobile phone network tarif?
daft
True but you think it being 2014 and we all meant to be moving forward in the world of technology, offering unlimited data shouldn't be a problem anymore.
Mobile companies offer 4G but with limited usage. They offer streaming services in high quality. You get some so many unskippable ads thrown at you while using them, most of your bandwidth is probably taken up by ads.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,279
- Location
- The South
'Unlimited' means exactly what it means, "without limit". You don't need any expertise apart from knowing how to use a dictionary
If there wasn't any T&C's or fair-usage policy attached to the One Plan that stated limits, then you can't really be angry at customers for using the service as offered. Rather the blame lies at Three for be naive.
But you're right in that there is usually connotations attached to the word 'unlimited' for services but that is the heart of the problem - as Greedydog mentions, operators and service providers shouldn't be able to, nor legally allowed to, redefine the definition of words for purely marketing purposes. And in a similar vain, providers should define any limits and not be able to use terms like 'reasonable usage' in T&C's as it essentially gives them free-range to do what ever they wish.
Bandwidth is expensive unfortunately and it's unlikely anyone would be able to offer a truly unlimited service because of it.
Last edited:
3 clearly got there sums wrong with unlimited, they worked out an average and unfortunately some people have pushed that average way beyond a workable business model.
Same happened when adsl was getting capped, Giffgaff too not so long ago.
Fox's analogy of all you can eat buffet's pretty much sums it up, if your going to feast all day every day sooner or later the offer is going to end. What is reasonable is up for debate, especially with 4G being as fast as home broadband in most instances.
They are taking the service away and letting you move on and find what you want elsewhere, if you can.
Same happened when adsl was getting capped, Giffgaff too not so long ago.
Fox's analogy of all you can eat buffet's pretty much sums it up, if your going to feast all day every day sooner or later the offer is going to end. What is reasonable is up for debate, especially with 4G being as fast as home broadband in most instances.
They are taking the service away and letting you move on and find what you want elsewhere, if you can.
They've still had ~30 years to reintroduce plans to recent governments.
By the sounds of things they're only cancelling contracts that are expired/rolling. As i have another 6 months left on my contract, i shall annihilate my bandwidth just to spite all the complainers
.What makes matters worse, this is 2014/2015, poor data speeds and lack of available bandwidth should have been an issue last decade, not this one.
Last edited:
You're responding to something I never said. I didn't mention anything about out of contract. I'm talking about the people who were moaning about people using a lot of bandwidth on an unlimited price plan, calling them leeches and suggesting that it was "unfair" or "selfish" to do so.
Again, you're responding to something I never said. I didn't suggest that they can't, I'm talking about in contract usage, and the possibility of people being told that they're using "too much" of unlimited bandwidth.
Virgin Media used to send letters out to people who used "too much" of their unlimited service, as an example.
Do you have the ability to respond to things that have actually been said instead of resorting to strawman arguments? Where exactly is the something for nothing part coming from? People who are on unlimited price plans, whilst in their contract (because this obvious has to be stipulated since some people lose their mind and think something else is being said) should be allowed to use whatever bandwidth they want as they're on an unlimited price plan.
This isn't at all relevant.
In the real world unlimited means without limit. It's extremely simple. Telcos aren't allowed to advertise unlimited with an asterisk any longer because any deviation means it's not unlimited, and they're not supplying what they're advertising. The same way a supermarket wouldn't be allowed to state you get a certain amount of product with an asterisk next to the quantity, which when you look at it closer says they have their own way of measuring volume.
Most telcos even advertise as Unlimited*. The asterix is normally the big give away.
And yet anything but unlimited isn't unlimited. I don't know how you're struggling to grasp the contradiction there. In the real world we tend to use words like unlimited as they're intended.
Why does anyone have to justify to you how they use their unlimited service?
Yes you do, stop playing dumb.
So you can't grasp the meaning of saying something is unlimited, but isn't unlimited is a contraction? And you think what I'm saying is retarded? "lol"
I know how it works, it's irrelevant.
I'm not disputing this at all, which shows you're not really reading what I'm saying. What you're describing is a company ceasing a service they can't provide, which is exactly what I've said. If they can't provide unlimited, don't sell it to customers.
Okay, but you're responding to something I never said.
It is a shared resource. Everyone in the restaurant has access to it, and if I cain a whole tray of something, there's none left for others until the restaurant makes more available.
But you're making it more complex than it needs to be. It's as simple as a restaurant advertising themselves as all you can eat* where there's small print with the asterisk that says you can only have a set amount of trips to the buffet. That by definition isn't all you can eat, even if most people only manage 2 plates, now is it?
Again, you simply have no clue how shared resources work. And the funny thing is you brush off my explanation as "irrelevant" yet all you do is whine about Three advertising unlimited services when the whole point of this thread is that they have just stopped doing it.
You're mistaking pointing out that your example is irrelevant because the technical details don't matter, with a lack of understanding. I know full well how it works.
The funny thing is, the discussion has moved to some people whining that people on unlimited services shouldn't use as much bandwidth as they want because it's selfish.
Again, I've said numerous times that if a company can't offer unlimited, then they shouldn't advertise it. However, this isn't even what's happening with 3, they are still offering unlimited price plans, just with limited tethering, because tethering has been a problem for them.
My argument isn't about what you think it's about, as I keep saying. I'm responding to the people losing their mind over the fact that some people use their unlimited data as it's advertised.
Buffets do have stipulations though, often it's all you can eat within a certain time frame. Which is a fair and reasonable stipulation. As they're not telling you you can't have over a certain amount, just that you have a time window. Though it's usually only enforced if a place is busy. When an all you can eat restaurant is quiet, they usually don't bother with the stipulation.
I worked with Three and T-Mobile, basically they never wrote into their business model the effect Skype, Whatsapp, Viber etc .. all of a sudden they're not making as much money as they thought they were going to make and were in trouble, thus the merger.
Three clung onto the Unlimited package, but they still are being battered by Skype, Whatsapp etc, and a lot of people took the pee slowing the network down for other customers.
They've made their decision, arguing about it on a forum is dumb, it's not going to change anything!
Three clung onto the Unlimited package, but they still are being battered by Skype, Whatsapp etc, and a lot of people took the pee slowing the network down for other customers.
They've made their decision, arguing about it on a forum is dumb, it's not going to change anything!
But they're still offering unlimited data...
Exactly, what's to stop people continually abusing the network by video calling via skype for 6 hours a day on their phone.
Tethering isn't the issue here. It's Three claiming to offer an unlimited service when quite clearly it's not feasible for them to do so.
Thus they shouldn't ever offer the service as "unlimited". This would have gone down much better had Three decided to offer the one plan contract with a 50Gb cap - tethering or not!