As well as the proposed 256k 3G speeds already mentioned in this forum,Giffgaff "the mobile network run by who?" also announced another little gem this week in the shape of their new "Congestion Management Policy".

In a nutshell,this policy means that if they don't like the way you're using the unlimited data you handed over your hard earned cash for they will ban you from buying any more unlimited bundles.

Yes,you really did read that correctly and here's the announcement in their news section

http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/New.../td-p/13059998

and here's the section from their "knowledge base" that also explains this policy

http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Lea.../ta-p/12999304

So that's it all you Giffgaffers,if you don't play nicely with the product you've paid good money for then they won't let you have any more of it.

Could this spell the end of the great social experiment in the world of mobile communications and is the Giffgaff gravy train about to hit the buffers because what have they got left to sell?

Their PAYG rates are nothing like the cheapest and there are better value monthly bundles available at both the £5.00 and £10.00 price points so the one place where they were ahead of the game was with the cheapest unlimited 3G data from a UK PAYG provider but now you can only have that if you use it how they want you to and don't mind being throttled to a snail's pace whenever they fancy it.

Will the last customer leaving Giffgaff please turn off the lights.

tl;dr but if it's the case of "banning you" for doing certain things they don't like how is that news? They previously would have banned you from the network entirely if you used your unlimited bundle in ways they didn't like...

It sounds pretty much like exactly what they have already been doing in the past, except instead of banning them from the network entirely they just ban them from unlimited data bundles... That's actually an improvement.

I'd like to know if this is actually allowed...

I can't think why it wouldn't be allowed or what laws or Ofcom rules it would break.

I just don't know why they don't play fair and set a cap so people know where they stand, rather than call it unlimited.

People have to worry if they're using too much unlimited and if they're going to get banned because they watched too much Netflix on their 256kbps low quality stream.

I too think it's allowed and completely legal.

I'm no expert on UK consumer law but I'm pretty certain that any retailer or supplier be it a pub,shop or in the case mobile network can refuse to sell any of their products to anyone they choose without even having to give a reason.

I was just having a look through the "knowledge base" article that I linked to above and there's a section in the FAQs called "I received an email, what did I do wrong?"which is as follows

"You haven’t done anything wrong. However, there are certain usage patterns that affect the data experience of other members and this appears to match your natural usage pattern. Sometimes, these usage patterns are seen when very data heavy services (such as high definition streaming or large file downloads) are carried out very regularly during peak hours."

You'll note this policy seems to be solely based on a customers usage and that the word "usage"is used 3 times in as many lines but then the next section of the FAQs goes on to point blank deny that this is a Fair Usage Policy.

Is it just me that this doesn't make a lot of sense to?

Surely any policy that's based purely on usage patterns can only be a Fair Usage Policy can't it?

It seems like this is the case. giffgaff have for a long time barred customers from using any data at all if they try to use large amounts of data.

I don't see the point in this though. Customer requires 20GB, sell them 1GB goodybag. Seems like a vanity project to try and smooth over the barring process.


Why wouldn't it be?

ASA seem to be all up for FUPs.


A few years ago giffgaff was telling customers that they wouldn't have to worry about their data usage, now all of that has changed. They're not completely open about their processes, they hold back details about certain parts of the process (or atleast they certainly have in the past) and this just causes more fear and worrying for customers than they would on any other network.

I don't see giffgaff lasting, it has lost its USP.

Presumably it's just people using 80-100gb/month on torrents/VPN they're trying to target or those wanting to send full HD Netflix to their TV. Seems like the vast majority will have nothing to worry about and its only those who have been rinsing it for all its worth who will suffer.

If you think you can stream full HD from Netflix on giffgaff, you're mistaken. Why shouldn't people be able to watch video streams on their phone though, or download some big games and apps, podcasts, files - after all, giffgaff sold it as unlimited use.

giffgaff - unlimited if you're a light user, otherwise you're banned

I'm not sure you can make that statement when you don't know what their definition of high usage is, nor what specific conditions would trigger it. Your post is just hyperbole.

They won't say what the definition of high usage is, so everyone just has to guess. What a shambles.

It's not surprising that giffgaff are targeting high users as no mobile network has the capacity to deliver totally unlimited data especially when it is used as an alternative to fixed line broadband.

The approach may vary but pricing, speed restriction, removal of unlimited facility for identified high users, fair use policies and traffic management that uses a mix of metrics are being deployed by all the mobile operators in the UK. The question that should be asked is why the operators using anything other than pricing which has a set data limit have been allowed to use the term 'unlimited' or similar when they know full well that their technology can't cope with that loading in some built up areas.

giffgaff customers have a right to be aggrieved if they have been sold a service they can't make use of and have the option to pay another operator for their needs with very little penalty as they are not locked into contracts. It's hard to know what giffgaff consider 'high use' but I expect it will affect a small minority of their users which are probably costing them money anyway. Perhaps someone will challenge them after being denied the package they have chosen on the basis of previous usage? It would be interesting to see the result of that.

The 'unlimited' data proposition looks like becoming a thing of the past as the demand on the networks increase and as large numbers of customers appear to have accepted the pricing structure that the majors have offered for data over the last few years.

That's the one thing about all this that annoys me, it leaves an element of uncertainty with consumers and allows giffgaff to move the goalposts whenever it wants to.

They would be better off being blunt, dropping the "unlimited" talk, spelling out to people what they don't want to occur on their network (without going down the route of hitting net neutrality) and allowing consumers to have an informed choice and ask for their PAC codes if necessary.

What we don't want though as some will lust for is the idea of data being a premium product for smartphones where people will happily pay £100's for should be made to pay charges of £75 a month (in the same way that Sky charges accordingly for access to premium content) for data and anyone who doesn't want to pay that much should just be made to stick to "dumbphones" and basic telephony and SMS or at best as giffgaff forum contributors suggest, WiFi or bust.

giffgaff don't offer tethering on unlimited plans, we're purely talking about mobile phone use, tethering is already blocked and nobody has a problem with people being banned or blocked for tethering, that's why they have gigabags.


They don't have a fair use policy, they won't say what you can use before you get banned from buying goodybags. They only clearly tell you about tethering.



Sure do, they've done nothing wrong except used their unlimited data and then they get banned.

This is what irritates me. giffgaff used to sell itself as a network where users don't need to worry about data usage. Now users do need to worry and shouldn't have to on an unlimited plan.

In the Q1 results, Telefonica announced a revenue drop of 18%, with income down 23%, O2 UK saw a revenue decline as well. This is Telefonica's performance in comparison to the Dow Jones and Vodafone for example http://oi61.tinypic.com/31290m9.jpg

I suspect Telefonica have issued an ultimatum to giffgaff that they can't continue in the current form and have to make drastic changes in light of their losses getting worse each year. Losses for giffgaff are now £38.2m in the last year, up from £32.7m the previous year.

You know what pisses me off.

The users on the official giff gaff forum who are paid off by giff gaff to agree with any crap they spew out.

I honestly can't believe the comments on there, pretty much every giff gaff member is saying this is a great idea. So it's a great idea to mis-advertise is it? If you're going to sell something as unlimited then it's unlimited. Not unlimited until you use too much. I can understand traffic management or banning tethering fully. But selling an unlimited package with an undisclosed "You've used to much" fair use policy is just wrong.

At least with Virgin and Lyca you know what you're getting by reading the FUP/Small print.

Exactly, putting a figure on it or even just doing traffic management and banning tethering. Not specifying on a tarriff advertised as unlimited and then banning people seems crazy.

However doing the sums, every active sim on giffgaff on average is losing the company £48 a year. Samba and Ovivo have gone, and I would say if you're due payback in June, make sure you take it.

The sooner the ability to use the term unlimited is made "illegal" the better, the biggest and most misleading loophole there is.

Well there is that, to an extent, but it certainly wouldn't be allowed in the fixed line broadband market. There, any ISP that penalizes customers in any way (such as barring, charging, disconnection, or severe throttling) cannot describe their service as "unlimited".


Most of his posts are.


Yeah that's the irony of it. However as a company, they don't want heavy users to begin with, a lot of the time companies selling "unlimited" products are banking on the majority of customers using a plainly average amount (less than 2GB in the case of mobile) but paying more to subsidise the few heavy users.

In this case they're booting the heavy users so the ones that use less are just subsidising their own wallets but meh, business is business.


It's already "regulated" in the fixed broadband market and frankly there's nothing wrong with its use there IMO. There are a few companies that do use it legitimately. We should be forcing others to follow their example not banning the word because some companies don't use it properly.

The very fact you have to use it properly says it all, unlimited should be unlimited. There is no regulations around this other than some ludicrous asa wording that I am aware of.

The ability to change the English language to mean something completely different is simply wrong.

There are some truly unlimited providers and they should be the only ones benefiting from its use.

In the fixed line arena but not in mobile. There are no truly unlimited providers as all have speed, fair use or traffic managemnt that control users consumption to some exent. The limitation of bandwidth will cause mobile to be more prone to restrictions than fixed line services for a long time to come. Anyone who thinks it's possible for mobile operators to deliver the same sort of service as fixed line providers is deluded. They could to a small number of folks but not to the quantity who now have the hardware to stream HD video via smartphones to their TVs etc. Those who know about mobile technology know if the unlimited proposition is used to sell a service it's probably too good to be true and paying for quality of service is the only way to get reliability with mibile communications.

I don't know to what extent (if at all) they apply to the mobile market, the "ludicrous asa wording" specifies "telecommunications advertising" which I'd have thought includes mobile telecommunications...


GiffGaff clearly fall foul of the former, maybe we should raise an official complaint and see how it turns out... Chances are they'll just remove the word "unlimited" like other providers have done and make up something else instead.

But t there you go the ability to use unlimited until your told not to is the issue. Just like virgin and tmobile were told to stop it creates a misleading expectation.

Look how it is being used it there at the moment, with selective traffic management and the like, simply shocking that they can get away with it.

It if can't be offered stop claiming it is being, wooly asa wording does little to help.

Key examples of these scams.

Vectone Mobile, once you're used your "unlimited" fair use policy of 3000MB, every further gig is priced at £90 each. So if a user used 10gigs over their fair use policy thinking it was unlimited as per the advert, they would owe nearly £1000.

Giffgaff once you've used your unspecified amount of unlimited data (they literally won't even tell you what it is), you can get banned

I think its down to the fact that they believe its going to ease the crap speeds they have been / are getting.

Whether it will or not, remains to be seen.