Thats not the point though is it?Ah forgot about them, none of it really affects me so it doesnt bother me, If im abroad I dont want to be using my phone and iv got 'unlimited' texts![]()
But as long as you're alright..
Thats not the point though is it?Ah forgot about them, none of it really affects me so it doesnt bother me, If im abroad I dont want to be using my phone and iv got 'unlimited' texts![]()
no, it wasnt the point, I was just stating why I hadnt realised.
I was quite shocked that text costs had gone up whereas all the providers are offering unlimited texts **** cheap nowadays, and you dont even need to get into much of a commitment as far as contracts are concerned
What about excessive network usage?
If it’s felt that any Be member’s Internet activities are so excessive that other members are detrimentally affected, Be may give the member generating the excessive web traffic a written warning (by email or otherwise). In extreme circumstances, should the levels of activity not immediately decrease after the warning, Be may terminate that member’s services.
It sounds to me like a cartel. If innovation fostered competition, some broadband providers would have shiftied over to japan to find out how they can provide 90Mb broadband for the same price we have 8Mb.
But as mattheman has pointed out, there just isn't the competition to drive down prices... costs for some things are going UP (text messaging anyone?).
Capitalism was supposed to foster competition, but tbh companies know what people are willing to pay. We'll see how they handle a recession...
its upto you as a user what you do with your bandwidth so dont let isps dictate.
Mate, for someone who's in the industry, you seem strangely ignorant of how easy these "problems" are to solve.
I was with Nildram before they got taken over and they had an explicit number of GB per month, which was split into a peak and off-peak allowance AND any unused bandwidth from the previous month was carried over into the next.
You see, I have no problem with limits, but please tell me what they are so I can make an *informed decision* myself!!!
Not true btw. They have a FUP, which is unspecific.
https://www.bethere.co.uk/fairusage.do
I am with Be and think they offer a good service at a very good price, and certainly their limits don't affect me but it still irks me that they don't specify the limit.
Perhaps because the levels at which you'll affect other users aren't static???
I.e. if my ISP oversells its capacity, I'll have to take the hit in terms of service. Allow me to "lol".
I.e. if my ISP oversells its capacity, I'll have to take the hit in terms of service. Allow me to "lol".
You're on a contended service, as long as they don't exceed the agreed contention ratio, they can't oversell their capacity![]()
We keep coming back to what is proper "contractually" and "legally," whereas I think most people who are not happy with the current arrangement are trying to say that the contracts the ISPs are allowed to stipulate and the regulatory framework that is currently in place do not lead to a "fair" outcome for consumers. Let's not confuse "legal" with "right, "fair" etc.
I think this is actually something similar to the current financial crisis, which was caused by some banks behaving "legally" but acting very riskily and in some cases outright stupidly.
The point I was making above can also be expanded to include the perfectly possible scenario that the "average" user's appetite for bandwidth will suddenly increase massively. That will mean that under bigredshark's definition, I'll begin to "detrimentally affect other users" at a much lower usage level, meaning that at a time when overall traffic consumption is rising steeply, I will be forced into reducing my consumption on what is officially an unlimited service. Surely there is some irony to be appreciated here.
It sounds to me like a cartel. If innovation fostered competition, some broadband providers would have shiftied over to japan to find out how they can provide 90Mb broadband for the same price we have 8Mb.
Ah I see, so you're saying it's just another example of loose advertising terms being applied liberally. I actually partially agree with your point but at least it's unreasonable for a consumer to believe that to be true, whereas it's reasonable to believe that unlimited internet means unlimited.
No, what I am saying is you are foolish to base your buying decisions purely on advertising. They are going to paint their product in the best light possible. So before you make a purchase you do a bit more in the way of research. Hence why my ISP is Zen.
Sort of, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed, otherwise all advertising would be "say whatever you like, it's up to the consumer to check whether or not we're telling the truth", which is hardly in the spirit of things.