• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
Unlimited - what is excessive?
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
jonmorris
24-03-2014
TrafficSense needs to be applied to everyone equally, although I suppose that someone paying more for a 'proper' mobile broadband tariff could find that they are given a higher priority.

Clearly Three then needs to monitor things and if some areas are struggling with demand, and users are excessively restricted, then more money can be spent in those areas.

A hard cap on tethering seems very harsh to me too, especially with a 2GB maximum. I'd have hoped that TrafficSense could have been applied there too, perhaps more harshly than handset-only usage.

Anyway, Three (like others) will monitor the situation and make adjustments as required. It's a business at the end of the day.
WelshBluebird
24-03-2014
I understand the arguments that have been made, but at the same time if something is advertised and sold as unlimited, then to put it bluntly, that is what the customer should get. It doesn't matter if that will impact on other users or the network. If that is the case, and you can't actually provide what you sell, then don't sell unlimited packages! It is really as simple as that. If I took peoples money in return for a product I could not provide, I would rightly be prosecuted. Why should phone networks be any different? So I don't think any amount of usage is abuse, as that is what the customer has paid for.
jonmorris
24-03-2014
I think there's scope for a company (whether it's mobile or fixed broadband) to advertise truly unlimited data, but with it being clearly stated that there will be traffic management in place to maintain a level of service for all users.

By all means then have a super 'VIP' plan with no such management, if it's deemed possible to do, and charge a hefty premium for that. Then people still have a choice.

Yes it would mean people suddenly seeing speeds fluctuate, which would likely see loads more complaints, but it would be fair. And if there was that VIP offering, at least the companies concerned could point out that there is a way around it, but at a cost.
flagpole
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by WelshBluebird:
“I understand the arguments that have been made, but at the same time if something is advertised and sold as unlimited, then to put it bluntly, that is what the customer should get. It doesn't matter if that will impact on other users or the network. If that is the case, and you can't actually provide what you sell, then don't sell unlimited packages! It is really as simple as that. If I took peoples money in return for a product I could not provide, I would rightly be prosecuted. Why should phone networks be any different? So I don't think any amount of usage is abuse, as that is what the customer has paid for.”

as i have said before. what would be the benefit and to whom?
flagpole
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by jonmorris:
“I think there's scope for a company (whether it's mobile or fixed broadband) to advertise truly unlimited data, but with it being clearly stated that there will be traffic management in place to maintain a level of service for all users.

By all means then have a super 'VIP' plan with no such management, if it's deemed possible to do, and charge a hefty premium for that. Then people still have a choice.

Yes it would mean people suddenly seeing speeds fluctuate, which would likely see loads more complaints, but it would be fair. And if there was that VIP offering, at least the companies concerned could point out that there is a way around it, but at a cost.”

yes probably.

i mean there is already a way around it. it's to not use an unlimited package but one with a cap that is big enough for your needs. sadly for the people wanting 50GB a month that is going to cost them a lot. but the alternative is for them to be subsidised by the rest of us.

if you buy your mobile data in bulk, by the terabyte, or even the petabyte. it costs ~£8/GB. the only reason the capped tariffs are cheaper is because most people don't hit the cap.

I'm comfortable with the word unlimited provided the actual terms are visible, as in Unlimited *

* - if you reach the usage greater than the 95th percentile, currently 5GB we reserve the right to reduce the speed of your connection.
corf
24-03-2014
Three and I both benefit

Three benefits by getting my custom due to offering unlimited tethering.
I benefit by having a broadband substitute on-demand.

Everyone wins.

I have no issue if they want to throttle or traffic shape etc, it would be unreasonable to expect free reign on a unlimited tariff.
WelshBluebird
24-03-2014
It is more the principle rather than anything else. Why should they be allowed to sell something they are unable to provide?
wavejockglw
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by WelshBluebird:
“It is more the principle rather than anything else. Why should they be allowed to sell something they are unable to provide?”

Somewhere deep in the T&Cs will be a clause stating that the offer is subject to the network's capacity. I think most people understand that wireless systems are finite and can't deliver truly unlimited data on demand to everyone at the same time. The limit that exists is a technical constraint and whilst some have stated there would never be any need for restriction, reality has bitten and not only traffic management is now being deployed but hard caps introduced to disuade folks from high levels of consumption. Not to everyones liking of course but honest and realistic in terms of a proposirion that customers enter into for 2 years.
corf
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by WelshBluebird:
“It is more the principle rather than anything else. Why should they be allowed to sell something they are unable to provide?”

What makes you think they are unable to provide it? They allow me to download unlimited data as fast as I can (or they let me).
flagpole
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by WelshBluebird:
“It is more the principle rather than anything else. Why should they be allowed to sell something they are unable to provide?”

forget the superficial for a moment.

if they were banned from using the word unlimited unless it was truly without limit or throttling, who would benefit and how? what is the problem that you are trying to solve and how will it help?

you are asking for a change in the law. you are saying that ofcom and the advertising standards authority are wrong. so i think you should make that case.

the reason for their rulings thus far is that millions of people benefit from knowing that they wont be charged for mobile data, at all. they don't need to think about it. and if they did they wouldn't understand it. that has value, the problem you are addressing has to be bigger than that.
qasdfdsaq
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by daleski75:
“if people are going through 350Gb a day then it's pretty obvious that is not regular web browsing, youtube, music etc.”

People who use "regular web browsing, youtube, music etc" don't need an unlimited connection. They use less than 1.5GB a month on average.

Plus, what makes your web browsing, youtube, music, etc acceptable, but my higher quality web browsing, better quality video streaming, and lossless audio streaming unacceptable? (The idea is I can use ten times as much data as you just by watching "proper" quality streamed videos instead of crappy compressed-to-hell-and-back Youtube junk).

Originally Posted by jonmorris:
“The real benefit for unlimited is not being surprised by run-on charges because you didn't have a clue how big a music file or video was, especially now that you're streaming and have no visual indication of the size compared to downloading an AVI or whatever.”

Well, neither O2 or EE charge run-on fees, Vodafone do but warn you first, and not sure about 3 as I've never had a limited package with them.

Wouldn't it be easier just to require operators to warn users before their data allowance run out?

Seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If the main concern is run on fees, stop run-on fees. Then we can go back to properly priced data contracts where people pay proportional rates depending on how much load they put on the network, or proprortionally less priority.

Originally Posted by flagpole:
“* - if you reach the usage greater than the 95th percentile, currently 5GB we reserve the right to reduce the speed of your connection.”

This.

Originally Posted by corf:
“What makes you think they are unable to provide it? They allow me to download unlimited data as fast as I can (or they let me).”

The fact that many areas are congested to hell and can't provide a usable 3G connection throughout most of the working day?
scooby1970
24-03-2014
I quite often go over 100GB a month on my One Plan. I stream Google Play music daily on my way to work and back which takes between 500MB and 1GB a day, I download a lot of movies and music on there too. Can't say I've ever noticed Traffic Sense kick in.

It's unlimited, so why would it be excessive? I had the One Plan because it is "Unlimited", if I wanted a plan with limits, I would have gone elsewhere.

Mark
cooler
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by jonmorris:
“With regards to Three's 2GB tethering cap, users can buy another gig for £5. Not particularly cheap, but at least users won't be unable to use tethering for the rest of the month. Unlike Three's 15GB mobile broadband contract where you literally can't use ANY data until the next month. A totally crazy situation that saw my parents (who use that for business) have to get a PAYG SIM to stay online until it renewed.”

I haven't heard of that before.

I was on the 15GB mobile broadband plan and you can use data after you exceed the 15GB monthly allowence, charged at 10p per MB.
qasdfdsaq
24-03-2014
Yeesh, contract users on their biggest data package getting charged ten times more than a PAYG user with no data package...
flagpole
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by scooby1970:
“I quite often go over 100GB a month on my One Plan. I stream Google Play music daily on my way to work and back which takes between 500MB and 1GB a day, I download a lot of movies and music on there too. Can't say I've ever noticed Traffic Sense kick in.

It's unlimited, so why would it be excessive? I had the One Plan because it is "Unlimited", if I wanted a plan with limits, I would have gone elsewhere.

Mark”

it's excessive because it is costing the company money that they cover by charging other users more to the tune of £100s of pounds a month, i guess.

i'm not sure how you can use 1GB a day streaming Google Play music. for a start that is over 10 hours worth, but also your phone should be caching it.

in addition to caps and throttling, if i were three i would just refuse renew your contract.
cooler
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“in addition to caps and throttling, if i were three i would just refuse renew your contract.”

What about if someone was using 55GB a month, would you refuse to renew their contract?

Three say-

Quote:
“So in essence there is a limit of how much data you can actually consume which is up to 1000GB. All this means that you can have absolute peace of mind and enjoy all the internet you need on your smartphone, without worrying.”

So you'd tell people they have absolute peace of mind and no unfair “fair use policies” then go and say they can't use 100GB a month or they can never use the service again. Very nice.
scooby1970
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by flagpole:
“it's excessive because it is costing the company money that they cover by charging other users more to the tune of £100s of pounds a month, i guess.

i'm not sure how you can use 1GB a day streaming Google Play music. for a start that is over 10 hours worth, but also your phone should be caching it.

in addition to caps and throttling, if i were three i would just refuse renew your contract.”

I stream in high-quality mode and have caching turned off, and yes I am streaming most of the working day.

I am quite often in the Three store, and have had many discussions with the staff about streaming. From what I understand, they are more than happy with my usage, and they have said it's a tiny amount compared to a lot of users.

Unlimited means unlimited... surely there should be no problems with that? Just as someone using unlimited talk or texts day in and day out could take advantage of this. I'm sure if Three had a problem with me, or others, they would let us know. It's not like I'm downloading illegally, so I'm well within my rights to make use of "Unlimited".

Mark
jonmorris
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by cooler:
“I haven't heard of that before.

I was on the 15GB mobile broadband plan and you can use data after you exceed the 15GB monthly allowence, charged at 10p per MB.”

Not for them, and I was there to see it giving the message (a similar style to when you've run out of credit on PAYG).

It even suggested going up a plan, and made a note of saying this wasn't possible if you were already on the 15GB plan. So, in effect, there was nothing they could do.

They've had that contract for ages, so I wonder if it's a legacy tariff and things have changed since (which would make more sense)?

I doubt it's worth me getting them to contact Three as they're planning to get a 4G MiFi or a new dongle/router when it's finally announced and will probably get a new contract then. They don't even need 15GB anyway, but I think they pay a pretty good price (it probably still has the 25% discount that was offered to journalists and friends at the time).

It only used up all their data so quick because they added Dropbox and forgot to use selective sync, so it tried to download 50GB of files overnight and, well, didn't manage. I'd say they use maybe 5-7GB max, and that's probably only when their two PCs have loads of updates or my dad decides to watch football on one of the evenings where he works late.

I am glad they didn't find themselves with a huge bill because they were charged 10p/MB after their allowance was used up.

As for a comment above about using text alerts to warn users when the limit is nearly reached, there is always the problem that the text is delivered late or simply not read. And in the case of my parents, if there wasn't a pop up screen, they'd never know as the text would come to the MiFi and not be noticed - as I doubt they look at the display to see an envelope.

Hard capping, which could easily give an option to 'select here to agree to pay £.nn/MB' or 'buy 1GB for £nn' would be ideal and I think all networks should do something like that. No chance to find you've been running up bills because you didn't notice that text, which couldn't actually tell you exactly when the data was going to be used in full.
Quackers
24-03-2014
I don't like 'Unlimited' unless they are true to it. I much prefer them to say its £X for 20GB and its your 20GB to do what you want with, so if you want to teather you can, its your data allowance.

I like the fact that EE say its 20GB on my plan and not unlimited but we will secretly start traffic shaping you after 2GB with a fair usage policy of X.
Chris1973
24-03-2014
I use '3' Tethered as my main household internet connection. I know from reading old threads that this doesn't sit well with some people, but they will just have to lose sleep for the both of us because I don't feel guilty about it at all.

My main reason for doing this is because BT's ADSL speed in this rural area rarely hits 1mbps, and generally averages out at around 0.5mbps - 0.7mbps. Completely useless for any type of streaming and netflix? well that is a luxury which people in towns get.

So I don't feel guilty about using the local DC-HSDPA 10mbps+ speeds available from '3' in my front room, for these activities. After all, if Households in London and Manchester all reverted back to 2001 style 512k ADSL, then you wouldn't be able to move on here for the hand wringing and wailing, but believe it or not, for hundreds of villages and rural areas they are still a daily reality.

If ADSL around here increased to a usable (6mbps+) speed then I would be the first to drop tethering and go back to landline based ADSL, however after years of tireless campaigning by a local rural broadband group, we have been told that this isn't likely, so I'll cheerfully continue to use 3's tethered high speed connection for as long as its made available, because there really isn't any alternative.

That said, I only average around 10gb a month, and even at Xmas I only managed 20gb when at home during the day, so I don't consider myself to be an excessive user in real terms.

I often read of others saying that tethering is generally a lower speed to that of a mobile broadband sim connection, but I have found the opposite. I can stream, even at peak periods at 10mbps using my cheap cubot android phone as a hotspot, but when connected via the dedicated 3 supplied DC-HSDPA mi-fi using a pay monthly mobile broadband sim, the speed drops right down to 3 - 4 mbps from the same mast.
wavejockglw
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by scooby1970:
“I am quite often in the Three store, and have had many discussions with the staff about streaming. From what I understand, they are more than happy with my usage, and they have said it's a tiny amount compared to a lot of users.
Mark”

The staff in the 3 store are sales people and have little knowledge or concern about network technicalities. They are there to make sales targets and keep customers happy and if telling folks it's fine to consume 100GB a month is what makes a customer happy that is exactly what they do.

The fact is plain and simple that customers using 100GB a month on a wireless network are a liability and whilst they might be doing nothing wrong they are simply not viable for the network on a low priced plan. (They were acceptable when the network could not attract anyone else and had few on it. but now 3 have a product that lots of mainstream customers want to buy). 3 have to make a simple choice between taking the money and satisfying one 100GB per month customer or selling smartphones to those with an average use of about 2GB per month. 1 customer VS 40-50, it's a no brainer for them and they will quite rightly do all they can to reduce consumption of the highest users.

Consumption is managed on a needs basis and it is likely that if high volume users are not already feeling the effects of Trafficsense they probably will soon whether they move to new contracts with tethering limits or go for SIM only deals.
tdenson
24-03-2014
Originally Posted by scooby1970:
“.

I am quite often in the Three store, and have had many discussions with the staff about streaming. From what I understand, they are more than happy with my usage, and they have said it's a tiny amount compared to a lot of users

Mark”

I find it very difficult to believe that Three staff consider 100Gb per month a 'tiny amount'. Are you sure they didn't mishear you and think you said megabytes ? actually, I wouldn't put it past Three staff to not know the difference between the two.
uno
24-03-2014
Does anybody know though how much it actually costs the mobile for you to use say 10GB of data a month ? I seem to remember reading a BT broadband presentation which said it cost 50p per GB
qasdfdsaq
24-03-2014
Most costs are sunk and fixed, so costs the same whatever you use, therefore the more you use the cheaper it is per GB, up until the system hits 100% capacity.

The main variable cost for 3 is transit costs because they don't have their own peering to to access most of the internet.
AlecR
24-03-2014
If a company advertises unlimited, it should be just that.

If a company like Three can't provide unlimited data, they shouldn't advertise it. You can't blame the consumer for using the service as advertised.
<<
<
2 of 4
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map