[alanwarwic]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...oad-limit.html
"Internet users face £200 charge for going over dongle download limit"

It seems many busy people do not know the limit of their 'unlimited internet' service.
So when that 24% suddenly find out the cost of watching a one-off movie is £100+ who is liable.

Is it just ignorance for not knowing what 'unlimited' means or is actually it a case of enticement/fraud by the mobile companies?

[flagpole]

I can't speak of every case, but i know that with vodafone's old unlimited phone data they knew they were on fairly dodgy ground and so had to make some compromises. particularly in an agreement with the advertising standards.

i thought there was some european legislation now about introducing cut offs and caps?

[psionic]

The word 'unlimited' should be banned unless it really means that IMHO.

[midnightdraven]

It should be clearly written in any terms and conditions any actual limit or fair use policy.
The person who has not read these terms should be liable.
But the companies shouldn't hide these facts in their small print.

Unlimited is thought of as no limit to data used, when really what it suggests is that you can use the internet at any time. It won't cost you extra for using at peak times, it won't have a minimum payment attached to using the internet [£1 for the first hour, £2 every hour after that for example], there aren't certain hours of the day to which internet access is not available.
It means anything other than no limit to data used, because almost all companies have fair use policy's restricting the amount of data.

[flagpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by midnightdraven

The person who has not read these terms should be liable.
But the companies shouldn't hide these facts in their small print.

these two positions do not seem compatible to me.

there seems to be a problem in the marketing of mobile broadband. it is simply not the same as home broad band. it does not do the same job and they need to stop pretending it does.

[Ken Lo]

People have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority before but the complaint has not been upheld...
http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adj...ADJ_47835.aspx

That said, most networks don't use "unlimited" any more. Tesco still use it (500MB for standard contracts, 1GB for iPhone, £4/MB afterwards) and T-Mobile still use it (1GB for standard contracts, 3GB for Android contracts, no charge afterwards).

The other thing that is restricted on pretty much every single "unlimited" internet tariff is tethering/VoIP/etc... hardly the dictionary definition of unlimited as “having no restrictions or control”.

Ken

Ken

[prking]

That telegraph article is from 18 months ago and refers to dongles. As far as I know, no provider advertises unlimited mobile broadband, so I don't really understand the point of the thread.

[alanwarwic]

Show how little news gets onto the telegraph web site that it gets regurgitated.

It very relevant and apt in that unlimited is certainly still sused as a dodgy marketing term even if it has improved of recent.
e.g. t-mobile Business Unlimited - 30 days Unlimited UK calls, texts, email and internet

This costs £35 p.m. Read the small print and you will see its 1GB per 30 days for your £35!

[sonyhamster]

You see I think that they should really have a facility to send you a warning by text or by email as soon as you've got like 2Gb left

[alanwarwic]

They do usually.
Have you read your mobile dongle text messages recently?

They are easy to miss.

[Pencil]

If I advertised a broken DVD as being in mint condition, would that be enticement/fraud?

[midnightdraven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flagpole

these two positions do not seem compatible to me.

I believe companies should not hide stuff in the small print.

But the small print exists. Liability therefore will be on the person who does not read and infringes it, as the company isn't liable because they did provide that information [regardless of font size].

[That Bloke]

Whilst I detest the way that the word unlimited is used, the users in the article went over a clearly advertised limit. I don't think there are any services that advertise as unlimited and then charge for going over a fair use limit. They may reduce speed or cut off the connection of course, but there wouldn't be an additional charge.

As I said, I think it's a disgrace that ISPs are allowed to advertise as unlimited when they have a fair use policy, and totally unacceptable when a defined cap is put in place.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Lo

People have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority before but the complaint has not been upheld...
http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adj...ADJ_47835.aspx

Absolutely disgusting.
So they find that the average user does not use more than 500MB so the adjudication says that's ok to call it 'unlimited'.

Nutty as a fruitcake in that unlimited always seems far more than average.

[midnightdraven]

I remember when the whole mobile broadband thing came out that it was advertised [tv adverts] as being, if you take your laptop on a train [for example] you can still surf the web. They weren't advertising it as an alternative to fixed line services at home.

[flagpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by midnightdraven

I believe companies should not hide stuff in the small print.

But the small print exists. Liability therefore will be on the person who does not read and infringes it, as the company isn't liable because they did provide that information [regardless of font size].

i disagree to be honest.

when you go into the shop and buy these things. you ask about them. they sell them to you. you are never given the terms to read. they never say read this for 20 minutes then come back to me and sign to say you have understood it.

the whole concept of law, and civil law, is based on the reasonable man. an intelligent but non-specialist reasonable man. the actions that reasonable man might take, and the conclusions he might draw.

if i bought a dongle, a phone contract or whatever, and the terms and conditions, which i had never read said that they were entitled to my first born, you would not argue 'well they shouldn't hide these things but the small print exists so hand him over' - because as a reasonable man you would think this ridiculous.

i would argue that by the same token, a reasonable man would believe that if a sales assistant refers unlimited data, texts or whatever, that an intelligent but non-specialist reasonable man would have no reason to think it meant anything else.

[midnightdraven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flagpole

i disagree to be honest.

when you go into the shop and buy these things. you ask about them. they sell them to you. you are never given the terms to read. they never say read this for 20 minutes then come back to me and sign to say you have understood it.

the whole concept of law, and civil law, is based on the reasonable man. an intelligent but non-specialist reasonable man. the actions that reasonable man might take, and the conclusions he might draw.

if i bought a dongle, a phone contract or whatever, and the terms and conditions, which i had never read said that they were entitled to my first born, you would not argue 'well they shouldn't hide these things but the small print exists so hand him over' - because as a reasonable man you would think this ridiculous.

i would argue that by the same token, a reasonable man would believe that if a sales assistant refers unlimited data, texts or whatever, that an intelligent but non-specialist reasonable man would have no reason to think it meant anything else.

OK. I see your point.
I always look up the t&cs online before making any decision [regards to networks/data/mobiles] but obviously not everyone will do that.

[flagpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by midnightdraven

OK. I see your point.
I always look up the t&cs online before making any decision [regards to networks/data/mobiles] but obviously not everyone will do that.

good.

the number of times i don't read the t&c's alarms me. but i would to be honest for a mobile phone contract, dongle etc. i have little sympathy for people that go abroad and comeback with a huge phone bill because i would alays look up the charges before i go. but not everyone's brain works like that.

the case for unlimited. i think comes from the fact that if you give someone 3000 texts, say, then for 99.99% of people this is effectively unlimited.

and if data tariffs were offering 500GB then i could accept that argument. but they aren't.

[Pencil]

But 500GB is a limit.

In my opinion, if something is advertised as unlimited, then individual use should never be monitored unless illegal activity is suspected. There would be no need other than to spy or limit.

[Russ_WWFC]

I think it's a scam if they say it's unlimited and it isn't

If they are going to charge you extra they should put a warning up on the laptop or phone, same for going abroard and roaming

[flagpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pencil

But 500GB is a limit.

In my opinion, if something is advertised as unlimited, then individual use should never be monitored unless illegal activity is suspected. There would be no need other than to spy or limit.

if only the world were that simple.

the problem is this. not everyone knows what 500GB is. they have no idea. you can say that there is a 500GB limit, but to some people that limit might as well be 800bananas. saying they could use 500GB would tell them nothing they wouldn't know if that meant 5 days of HD streaming on ten emails.

so the people that make the rules, the advertising standards people allow a certain amount of discretion. if you have a limit that is so high that 99.99% of people wont ever get anywhere near it. they allow you to say it's unlimited so long as you put a little start there and say FUP of 500GB applies. an you show an element of flexibility should someone go over that limit.

to me this makes sense to me.

i find your suggestion ' then individual use should never be monitored unless illegal activity is suspected' extremely interesting. unless illegal activity is suspected by whom? what constitutes suspicion? to be honest i suspect everyone who uses over 20GB a month of illegal activity. i don't know what percentage are actually doing anything wrong but i suspect them all. and monitored by whom?

[alanwarwic]

Either the advertising standards are corrupt or a bit stupid.
Mobile data use is accelerating at an incredible rate and to use existing use as a new definition for 'unlimited' is totally bonkers.

Any of these unlimited users who watch just one BBC iPlayer stream is possibly heading for one heck of a bill shock.

[BoBaDoB]

If you look around now not many Operators are advertising Unlimited data now due to confusion.

SMS is a different story but you dont hear many people going over the usual 3k SMS per month