But how long is that plan going to last when they have just costed up
and released the data only Goodybag at �12.50 for 3G.
Perhaps the aim of the data only deals is when you approach the 3G
download/upload on an unlimited deal they would warn that the usage is
excessive and "suggest" that next time you move to the �12.50/3G deal to
prevent being disconnected
Giffgaffs �12.50 data goodybag isn't going to come close to that
> Breach of contract.
It's just not going to happen.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
22:06:32 up 22 days, 3:19, 6 users, load average: 0.04, 0.10, 0.07
They'll probably just chuck individuals off the system, agreed. But the
possibility exists - and there is caselaw for people being prosecuted
for theft of telephone service (it's no longer required to prosecute for
theft of electricity).
--
Roland Perry
What they'd be looking for is whether the [over-] use of service was
dishonest (not whether the supplier had failed to 'lock the doors').
Coming back for a new SIM after being cut off might be an indication of
that.
--
Roland Perry
I think you are confusing what would happen in a criminal trial (which
is what the above is about) and a civil one. In the civil case the
losses are easy to quantify - 20p/MB would be a good place to start. In
the criminal case, any theft is a theft.
--
Roland Perry
>In message <96b597h3df89pievm...@4ax.com>, at 09:29:38 on
>Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> They'll probably just chuck individuals off the system, agreed. But the
>>>>> possibility exists - and there is caselaw for people being prosecuted
>>>>> for theft of telephone service (it's no longer required to prosecute for
>>>>> theft of electricity).
>>>>
>>>>I'm naive enough to believe that no judge would allow a case to proceed
>>>>against a paying customer because they weren't using the right kind of
>>>>device, especially when a) if they're actually causing "damage" [ie
>>>>consuming too much data] the network can kick them off and b) networks can
>>>>take some counter measures to block the wrong kind of devices from their
>>>>networks if they so wish.
>>>
>>>What they'd be looking for is whether the [over-] use of service was
>>>dishonest (not whether the supplier had failed to 'lock the doors').
>>>Coming back for a new SIM after being cut off might be an indication of
>>>that.
>>
>>The company would still have to prove (and quantify) its actual
>>losses. That would be difficult IMHO.
>
>I think you are confusing what would happen in a criminal trial (which
>is what the above is about) and a civil one.
I don't think so. AFAIK in a (civil) case of breach of contract the
claimant has to show that the alleged breach has directly resulted in
a quantifiable loss in order to claim compensation.
>In the civil case the
>losses are easy to quantify - 20p/MB would be a good place to start.
But the aforementioned tariff is "unlimited" but forbids tethering.
Therefore the usage *could* equally have been done directly on a
phone. Therefore any claims based like the above would be hard to
justify IMHO.
>In
>the criminal case, any theft is a theft.
Agreed.
> Roland Perry (for it is he) wrote:
>
>> In message <96b597h3df89pievm...@4ax.com>, at 09:29:38 on
>> Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>The company would still have to prove (and quantify) its actual losses.
>>> That would be difficult IMHO.
>>
>> I think you are confusing what would happen in a criminal trial (which
>> is what the above is about) and a civil one. In the civil case the
>> losses are easy to quantify - 20p/MB would be a good place to start.
>
> What losses is a network going to suffer from someone tethering their
> phone rather than just using it standalone?
They will get through a lot more data, due to a different pattern of
usage.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
They are providing service which hasn't been paid for, because they
prohibit that mode.
--
Roland Perry
Not sure I understand what you're asking here.
My mobile phone deal is with VirginMobile.
VirginMedia is where I get my TV/BB/landline from.
I'm also not sure what the connection is between the two companies.
I think VirginMedia is really NTL by another name.
That's what I said, in my initial post ;-)
If it sounds like you are being rationed [1] then that's probably
because you are. O2 can't build their network out fast enough [2] to
cope with the rise in demand for data coming from smartphones. They need
the core voice and SMS business, so they don't want you migrating to
Vodafone[3] etc and taking that business with you, but they need to
preserve their data capacity to give everyone a reasonable experience.
And information such as this: http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/wifi.html is
an attempt to shift data from the mobile network, just as much for
*their* benefit as the customer's.
[1] On "unlimited" tariff to whatever a smartphone can consume if not
tethered nor streaming; on a data goodybag to only one a month.
[2] Constrained by both capital expenditure and spectrum. Currently
�1M/day on 3G, and even 4G isn't predicted to ever get ahead of
this curve.
[3] Although they wouldn't mind Tesco so much, as that's another way for
them to shift spare voice/text capacity.
--
Roland Perry
Is this the case for *all* the networks, or just O2?
I was surprised to find that the extra applications that Orange
installed on my Android phone all insist on using mobile data, and
*refuse* to work over wifi. Which seems wrong.
--
dwmw2
It's an industry-wide thing, although "Three" may be a wild card; they
don't often participate in the sorts of discussion where this came up.
>I was surprised to find that the extra applications that Orange
>installed on my Android phone all insist on using mobile data, and
>*refuse* to work over wifi. Which seems wrong.
Are the applications funded by some sort of commission on your mobile
data usage?
It's not unusual to have different bits of a company pulling in opposite
directions!
--
Roland Perry