Pipex FUP letter thread

z0mbi3 · 5 Mar 2007 at 17:19

Seeing as it's a hot topic for many people at the moment I thought I'd make a new thread with my current findings.

The jist of the letter is the following.

Your usage is too high and we give you three options. Switch to Bulldog (owned by Pipex), switch ISP, or use one of our lower tarrifs and pay for your extra usage.

Having done a little research of my own I've found out, from a tech support guy at Pipex, that they are sending out 500 of these letters a week as of a few weeks ago. So it's not just a few select users their targeting, I speculate it's around 2000 (Pipex have 570,000 bb customers).

So why all of a sudden are Pipex flexing their FUP? Over at the thinkbroadband forums a supposed Pipex employee calims that there's a rumour going around his office that they've sold a hefty chunk of their bandwidth to an unknown operator. This might be untrue but it does sound like a good reason for them to have to start cutting away the fat.

Now I don't know how Pipex's IP infrastructure works, but assuming they have one big bandwidth bucket that the company as a whole uses, the following article compliments the office rumour.

January 17, 2007 -- (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- Telecommunications and Web hosting provider Pipex Communications (pipex.net) announced on Tuesday that the company may soon be put up for sale.

According to reports, the speculation arose after the company's chairman Peter Dubens told the Times newspaper he was reviewing the best way forward for the business. The paper continued by saying that Pipex was seen as a likely target for larger industry players like BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse, but other sources believed Pipex would sell off only part of its business, such as its Web hosting division.

Taken from here.

For me things start to seem a bit too coincidental now. Not that the customers can really argue with the FUP, but it would seem that the heavy users are a victim of the companies business objectives.

If you do get a letter don't panic as their sending so many of these things out I expect you have around a month, maybe longer, to make a decision and get in touch with them.

Anyway I just thought I'd but this out there. Feel free to make comment if you like.

squiffy · 5 Mar 2007 at 17:24

I've decided to give up DSL altogether...I won't be hear in 3 weeks time. I'm not prepared to pay for limited speeds/capped line or charged to go over. If they're all doing FUP then I won't sign up for another.

Taking a stance here.

z0mbi3 · 5 Mar 2007 at 17:30

My personal gripe is that I'm effected by all this. Whilst I understand the principle behind an FUP the problem is how Pipex have chosen to conduct theirselves.

I spoke to Tech support and the guy there told me that they'd capped my line because of heavy use. If they'd taken the time to warn me I could have stopped the heavy use use of my unlimited service before they'd had to start this ridiculous rubbish.

Vai · 5 Mar 2007 at 19:32

FUP's are crappy in their own right (restricting something you pay for because they are too cheap to buy more bandwidth) although this can be blamed on BT/ofcom to a certain extent, however selling off bandwidth they already have for a bit more money in their pocket and using the FUP to screw users is bang out of order. I am just glad Nildram decided to remove their traffic shaping after only a week or two and have a reasonable FUP.

z0mbi3 · 5 Mar 2007 at 20:22

A little update is due. Nice chap at tech support explained how this flagging of heavy users works.

If anyone uses over 70 gig a month you're classed as a heavy user and automatically get sent a letter. So that's it. Pipex unlimited service actually has a 70 gig limit.

Now I'm sorry if my using over 70 gig a month makes the service slow for other users but it's not my fault, it's Pipex's fault for advertising an unlimited service that actually isn't.

He also told me that some users are using up to a terrabyte a month :eek:

Avalon · 6 Mar 2007 at 00:55

Vai - The point is you don't pay for a leased line with unlimited bandwidth, you pay for a residential line with speeds up to xxmbit and a fair ammount of residential usage. Bandwidth has a cost per GB, ISP's average usage by users to give them a cost price+customer service/tech support and then add an element of proffit. If a user was using 1000GB a month (as stated) that's in pipex's equation over 14 customers 70GB usage allowance but they only get one payment. Why should every other customer have to pay extra for that ? No residential user can expect to pay residential rates and do unrealistic ammounts such as 1TB+ a month that's clearly taking the wee wee and beyond any reasonable definition of fair usage.

I admit I have an ethical problem with profile capping like pipex is doing atm but I also don't see why someone who uses 10GB a month should pay the same as someone downloading a TB? Clearly that's not going to be 'home' or 'personal' use it's either business or illegal so why should any ISP have to make a continual loss on an account that clearly isn't being used for reasonable home usage ?

Not so long back the telephone industry did the same 'unlimited' marketing/FUP issue, with only minor exceptions (cable). They pushed unlimited being unlimited for calls, no 1 hour cut off or FUP. Do you know what people did ? They began treating landlines as baby monitors (parents dial friends home, leave phone next to child, go to friends, no need for baby sitter?!) it's abuse that's dictated we get to this point. It sucks but it was unavoidable, it's just a shame ISP's aren't up front about cap's and FUP's and continually feel the need to move the goalposts without being upfront about what they are doing and why.

Perhaps if users were given the choice of paying for true usage they'd think before downloading 30+GB of 'demo's an linux iso's' a day.

z0mbi3 · 6 Mar 2007 at 08:27

Avalon said:
snip

Your missing the point. By advertising unlimited service Pipex invite people who want to download a lot to join them.

While I agree people who use 10 gb shouldn't pay the same as people who use 100 gb they should be on a different tarrif.

The fact of the matter is that if Pipex didn't advertise their 70 gig cap as an unlimited service they wouldn't have to be getting rid of paying customers now.

Jonny · 6 Mar 2007 at 14:23

How can you regularly justify downloading 70gb per month if it isn't for business/pircacy as stated earlier in the thread?

z0mbi3 · 6 Mar 2007 at 15:36

Jonny said:
How can you regularly justify downloading 70gb per month if it isn't for business/pircacy as stated earlier in the thread?

Why should I have to justify myself :confused:

Avalon · 6 Mar 2007 at 20:41

Why should you have to justify yourself ? Possibly because you started a thread voicing your opinion about the unjust 70GB FUP limit for a residential customer using the product within the scope of a residential service agreement, that's why I and others naturally wonder what you are using your connection for or if this thread will turn into another 'I download Linux ISO's and demo's' thread. If you have a legitimate use for 70GB a month feel free to share it.

Pipex haven't set a hard limit, they set a threshold that they feel is reasonable (and its better than most ISP's soft limits), I've sat here and attempted to justify 70GB a month legitimatly and TBH it's not easy to continually exceed that level of usage even if you never sleep and read faster than your average MENSA member while streaming webcasts all day, you couldn't even listen to the 1hour 30 mins of legally purchased music you'd have to download every hour of every day (based on 17 hours awake) to reach your 70GB FUP limit each month so the question is what are you actually using it for ? It's the same question Pipex will have asked before choosing the 70Gb figure, the difference is they know exactly what you are using your connection for

z0mbi3 · 6 Mar 2007 at 20:54

Sorry I meant the "why do I have to justify myself?" comment in terms of how the content of what I download is irelevant to them enforcing an FUP. It's the amount their exercising their muscles over, not the type of information.

I use my line for lots of things. A siginificant chunk of bandwidth can come from running multiple DC projects, hell even one net intsensive one could use over a TB a month (I don't use that much).

I'll say it again , I pay for an unlimited service, shame on them for advertising it so if it really isn't. The problem is the Pipex FUP / AUP is so vague it lets them move the goal posts as much as they like.

Avalon · 6 Mar 2007 at 21:13

Now that I agree with. The majority of the ISP industry is suffering from a total lack of clear information for consumers mainly due to this being the teething phase of FUP enforcment and them having the right to reviewing the limits and move the goalposts as and when they feel like it, untill OFCOM bothers to push the issue (don't hold your breath) it's not likley to get any better.

However it's not just an ISP issue anymore. The last two adverts I didn't fastforward were Orange who limit 'Unlimited' free landline calls to 2000 mins a month and Chrysler who limit 7 years warranty to 'gearbox and engine only' with the rest of the car being 5 years.

Vai · 6 Mar 2007 at 21:22

Avalon said:
Vai - The point is you don't pay for a leased line with unlimited bandwidth, you pay for a residential line with speeds up to xxmbit and a fair ammount of residential usage. Bandwidth has a cost per GB, ISP's average usage by users to give them a cost price+customer service/tech support and then add an element of proffit. If a user was using 1000GB a month (as stated) that's in pipex's equation over 14 customers 70GB usage allowance but they only get one payment. Why should every other customer have to pay extra for that ? No residential user can expect to pay residential rates and do unrealistic ammounts such as 1TB+ a month that's clearly taking the wee wee and beyond any reasonable definition of fair usage.

I admit I have an ethical problem with profile capping like pipex is doing atm but I also don't see why someone who uses 10GB a month should pay the same as someone downloading a TB? Clearly that's not going to be 'home' or 'personal' use it's either business or illegal so why should any ISP have to make a continual loss on an account that clearly isn't being used for reasonable home usage ?

Not so long back the telephone industry did the same 'unlimited' marketing/FUP issue, with only minor exceptions (cable). They pushed unlimited being unlimited for calls, no 1 hour cut off or FUP. Do you know what people did ? They began treating landlines as baby monitors (parents dial friends home, leave phone next to child, go to friends, no need for baby sitter?!) it's abuse that's dictated we get to this point. It sucks but it was unavoidable, it's just a shame ISP's aren't up front about cap's and FUP's and continually feel the need to move the goalposts without being upfront about what they are doing and why.

Perhaps if users were given the choice of paying for true usage they'd think before downloading 30+GB of 'demo's an linux iso's' a day.

Where did I say they should give you unlimited usage? My concern is (based on what has been said in this thread) Pipex are selling bandwidth that they have and can therefore afford, and are then screwing the user's out of that bandwidth with the FUP.

70gb is a reasonable amount, personally I like Nildram's 50gb cap to stop the degradation of the network when people are using it, then unlimited offpeak usage when it won't affect anyone.
<=50gb caps, especially ones with traffic shaping I do disagree with