It's already happening to some extent with data pricing. Some would argue that it is justifiable charging extra for data hungry services. I suppose it all depends on the offer. There is little point in Netflix on a network with traffic management that makes it impossible to stream, so you then have the following options, (a) pay per MB for the streaming or (B) buy a package that allows a set amount of streaming at a cost. The problem with the latter is that in high traffic areas there may be no guarantee of the performance due to congestion.

I would rather loose net neutrality to be able to use my smartphone when out and about in the city as for many HD streaming may be putting a strain on the networks making everyday average usage difficult. Quite a dilemma and not one that networks will find an easy solution to, apart from pricing of course!

Mobile platforms are of course somewhat different to fixed line broad band providers. for fixed line the upstream bandwidth has a genuine cost to them. the local delivery is fairly cheap after they have built or rented the line.

mobile providers it's the other way around.

net neutrality is an issue on which i would definitely change provider.

Some networks already have different policies for peer to peer traffic and streaming video (compression) but I can appreciate they have to try to deliver as much as possible to as many as possible efficiently to make a profit.

. The abolition of net neutrality is charging edge customers for access to customers and charging the customers as well.

The ideal situation would be to charge per bit and charge for speed. Abolish all you can eat plans and arbitrary limits like 500mb or 10gb. That way those bandwidth hoggers who stream video would pay a fair price. The Three 321 plan is on the right lines but still to expensive. Data at 1p per 4mb would be about right with a premium for streaming speeds. Abolish contracts as well where the price includes the phone

really i meant with my fixed line provider.

So if you are paying only £5 a month for 500mb, who would willingly pay £500 a month for 50GB of movies?

Anyway, the more likely outcome of non neutrality is likely £10 or £15 per month for that small 500MB and a massive increases across the board for other data plans.

I've been keeping an eye on the giffgaff forum for the last few days and it would seem that this new policy of theirs is now in full swing with warning emails being sent out and some customers already banned from buying any more unlimited bundles.

If the claims are to be believed then people are getting banned from unlimited data for using as little as 35GB a month so just over 1GB a day which leaves me to wonder with the World Cup just started and everyone and their dog streaming matches on their phones,how many punters are giffgaff going to have left by the quarter final stage?

Well, if you're following England then I guess your data usage over the next 30 days will be less than most.

did you really think you'd be able to get 35GB for £12 a month? really?

as for how many customers giffgaff will have left by the quarter finals stage. i expect they'd lose almost non, as most people will be watching the football on tv. but presumably if the tiny percentage of users that are using 35GB do f/o giffgaff and the rest of it's customers will be laughing.

What a stupid thing to say. It says unlimited, 35GB isn't a huge amount of a supposedly "unlimited" goodybag. Why wouldn't you think you can get 35GB?

I'm on Three paying £12.90 for unlimited data and their "unlimited" is 1000GB a month.

Yeah, even Three users have to pay more than that - although my £15 a month will allow me to use 965GB more!

watch who you're calling stupid mupet.

Bear in mind that 3/4G networks can only really support an average use of around 5GB per month with their present bandwidth. If that is exceeded data delivery becomes difficult for all customers and to ensure everyone gets a fair share traffic management has to be deployed. This happens a lot now in populated areas where significant numbers are using mobile broadband and tethering as fixed line alternatives. When price regulates consumption there is less chance of congestion as customers are more careful about how they use the limited bandwidth the networks have.

giffgaff are in a worse position than others really. because with no highstreet presence etc their user base is going to be more 'technical,' nerds basically. and they are going to have higher data requirements on average than other networks. they can't subsidise the high users so easily.

If the service is sold as unlimited, then yes.
With modern smartphone use, and what we can now do on mobile with the speeds available, then 1GB a day really is not that much at all.

True I guess but any network offering 'unlimited' is bound to attract some very high users that will probably be uneconomical. Not a big problem if there only a small number but as the user base increases they become more of an issue and need 'managed'. The opportunity to get totally or almost unlimited data from mobile networks is decreasing which is what one would have to expect as more average users demand more data.

you say it's not that much but a fraction of a percent of people are using that much. and it is actually twice the average usage for fixed line broadband.

so by any metric you care to use it is actually a lot.

Nothing is "a lot" if you are told your usage is unlimited. Nothing bugs me more than than these bait and switch tactics from companies claiming unlimited use. If I buy unlimited I expect just that, how they have been allowed to get away with it for so long is astonishing.

Because the regulator thinks you are wrong? fundamentally disagrees with your position?

I wouldn't say streaming one film (or based on current events a football match) is a lot, and that can easily use over 1GB in just a couple of hours.

regardless of what you would say. you are talking about a level of data use that is in the top fraction of one percent. which is, by definition, high.

it's like saying you don't think my 12" is large.

Errr, you must work for dominos right... right?

My issue with giff gaff is they don't explain their fair use properly.
All other networks have a fairly clear fair use such as Lyca and Virgin.

Giff gaff's policy is so vague I could be cut off for something I've done whilst not even realizing it counts as abuse.

If giff gaff are going to say unlimited and cut people off for using too.much then that's wrong. But if they actually define a soft cap it hard cap then I'd say its fair as they are being open about the limits.

What are you quoting there exactly?

The whole case about your mum not knowing what a mb means is exactly why some people choose unlimited to avoid this confusion, only to be very sadly mistaken. This whole nonsense about cost per/mb etc is a red herring, if you can't offer unlimited don't claim you are.

I understood ofcom had the view in their response to CAP and BCAP


The ASA in their "guidance" say


Now if you don't know what as mb is as claimed you are even less likely to know what an average usage is. just nonsense and should be stopped.

you cannot be serious?

I ask again. what would be the advantage and to whom?

I sit on the fence on this issue I'm afraid, on one hand "as little as 35GB a month" is an oxymoron, that is an immense amount of data to use on a mobile phone, especially as tethering is not allowed.

On the other side of the argument, don't advertise unlimited then if you're going to ban people for using too much. TELL people what your fair use policy is, don't leave it up to guesswork and interpretation as to what people are allowed.

I think Three should stop unlimited data as it is clearly being abused to the detriment of the main customer base who get affected by the tiny 1% who rape the connection for every gigabyte it's worth 24/7 and use simply stupid unsustainable amounts. I think even Three should put in a 50Gig limit or something, although we worked out Three had many times more capacity overhead due to the user to spectrum ratio and the number of masts.