limited/unlimited complaints

littleredspot

Hi,
having read through lots of threads, I'm just wondering has anyone actually gone to the trouble of complaning officially to any of the relevant agencies, about ISP's advertising unlimited download/upload packages but then throttling because of some arbitrary but unpublished limits.
I can see the points in Cabaal's thread on the topic but just think that it would be fairer /more legal if they stopped calling something unlimited when it quite obviously isn't
I've been throttled twice by BT and apart from the 100GB limit which I read of here, no one there is willing to give me more information. I've sent off a complaint to ASAI, and to BT with a COMREG complaint no. I'll keep ye up to date if/when I get any reply.

J-blk

I think from a legal standpoint (I'm no lawyer though), the "subject to fair use policy" clause in the T&Cs covers them completely in such cases. You can find that the "arbitrary" limit can differ quite a bit from ISP to ISP (e.g some may consider excessive use to be around the 100GB mark, others may not care until you have many times that) but that's possibly because it depends on other factors too (contention in your area, time of day the lines are being pushed, overall number of "heavy" users on the ISP's network, etc).

The reason why they don't want to tell you what the "fair use" limit is? Cabaal mentioned in another thread that they possibly don't want it to become a "target" for most users, so they don't publicize it and that sounds reasonable to me...

vibe666

i think the point is, that once you put a limit on something (however you want to name it) that you call 'unlimited' it's no longer unlimited.

"unlimited subject to fair use" is distinctly limited by any standard of measurement.

i'm more than happy for ntl to put a cap on my service and tell me so, but i just wish they'd be up front about it and not do this whole threatening letter thing for no reason.

AlmightyCushion

I'm with vibe. It's not unlimited if you have a fair usage policy or impose any sort of cap or throttling.

jor el

It's not just broadband either. Mobile and land line operators give unlimited free calls and texts on certain bundles, but there's always a fair use clause, meaning it's not unlimited. I think it's been brought to the attention of various authorities before, and they've said there's nothing wrong with putting it this way.

Cabaal

I doubt anybody will get very far with it, many ISP's in the UK advertise as unlimited but still have fair usage policys, I'm sure somebody has challenged it over in the UK but as its covered in the T&C's and a customer should read them before subscribing and the ISP has to try protectb its network its ok I guess

None the less if you see it in a advert or on a website you could bring it up with the asai.ie and see what the response is just out of interest

thebman

Its really not the point though. The problem with the term fair usage on an unlimited product is that it obviously is limited. They should have to make the limit known in the T&C's or its impossible for the consumer to know what they are buying into.

It just seems a ridiculous thing to let them get away and shows half arse regulation up yet again.

No contract that doesn't specify the limit when there is clearly a limit should be enforceable IMO. You should be able to just walk away from such a provider.

Onikage

Cabaal wrote: »

None the less if you see it in a advert or on a website you could bring it up with the asai.ie and see what the response is just out of interest

Have you read some of these complaints? They are quite often upheld but the sanctions are usually to withdraw the offending item from circulation: there doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from printing a near-identical ad next month! A certain company beginning with p seems to be caught every month, yet they plow on regardless...

vibe666

unfortunately, if we actually go out of our way to do something about it the likely outcome will be that the ISP will change from their version of unlimited to a plainly capped service with a lower limit than the uncapped but fup'd service so we'll probably end up worse off rather than better off.

at least that's what I'd do if I was an ISP, just to p1ss people off.

littleredspot

Great to see its not just me that thinks its bogus. As I said to customer service, "I understand the reasoning behind capping the service, it just shouldn't be sold as uncapped. Also I have no problem sticking to the rules of a contract but when you don't tell me the rules how can I?" She agreed but nothing can be done etc. Thanks for all the replies. I'll keep ye posted