Fair use policy
Bill Ridgeway
exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be restricted. That,as
far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is unfair is that the fair
policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed. This gives the provider the
unfair advantage of deciding what is fair, changing thresholds and applying
consequences as it sees fit and imposing all of this without any right of
appeal. The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle of changing
ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use policy would,
probably, not be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the
police giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
displayed.
Regards.
Bill Ridgeway
George Weston
"Bill Ridgeway" <in...@1001solutions.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fkg3op$nd3$1...@aioe.org...
You summed up the situation very succinctly.
The question now is, what can we do about it?
The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.
George
Eeyore
Bill Ridgeway wrote:
> The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle of changing
> ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use policy would,
> probably, not be worth it.
Why do you think changing ISP is a hassle ?
I've used Vossnet, UKonline, Freeuk (dial-up only), NTL (both dial-up and
broadband), Plusnet and now Idnet (broadband) over the years. It hasn't been a
hassle for me.
Graham
ABC
Yerp and in comes under the Unfair Terms Act.
Bill Ridgeway
news:5t1ip9F...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks George. I don't like the idea ISPs relying on the morally dishonest
device of issuing vague conditions AND declining to reveal details. The
message is something along the lines of "we'll do what we want and we don't
care because everyone is doing it so you don't have any choice". What can
we do about it? The practical answer is likely to be not a lot but any
practical suggestion would be welcomed. The only thing I can suggest is to
complain to OFCOM. It seems to be interested in controlling ISPs on the
speed issue so unfair "fair conditions" may also take its interest.
Bill Ridgeway
Gizmo.
I'm all in favour of ISPs going over to the PAYG (aka Aussie model) - which
I would imagine will come about in the next year or two - especially with
MOIP and TV over IP all being released in earnest. Therefore the more folk
use, the more they pay.
The last time I saw the "league table" at Telewest (must be 4 or so years
ago), 0.3% of broadband customers were using just over 85% of the data
transfered. All of them were sucking up over 500GB a month. IIRC the average
at the time was just under 2GB.
PhilT
> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber
> An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the
> police giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
> displayed.
they can of course prosecute you for driving too fast for the
conditions etc even if below the speed limit :-)
The point of an FUP limit is to control the average use, the FUP cuts
in well above the average but it is not a figure that a large
proportion of users could run at.
The reason providers are reluctant to disclose numbers is because they
don't want people bunching up at the FUP limit as the average would
then be too high and the limit would have to fall.
An FUP also allows for discretion, like treating a persistent high
user differently to someone who hits a limit one month in ten. In a
way like the traffic cops used to do before speed cameras - make a
judgment.
Phil
Eeyore
Bill Ridgeway wrote:
> "George Weston" wrote
> > "Bill Ridgeway" < wrote
> >
> >> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a
> >> subscriber exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be
> >> restricted. That,as far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is
> >> unfair is that the fair policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed.
> >> This gives the provider the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair,
> >> changing thresholds and applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing
> >> all of this without any right of appeal. The only way out would be to
> >> change ISP but the hassle of changing ISP to another one which would,
> >> probably, also have a fair use policy would, probably, not be worth it.
> >> An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the police giving you a
> >> speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not displayed.
>
> > You summed up the situation very succinctly.
> > The question now is, what can we do about it?
> > The answer is, not a lot, apart from checking every ISP's fair use policy
> > and migrating to the one that gives the best deal.
>
> Thanks George. I don't like the idea ISPs relying on the morally dishonest
> device of issuing vague conditions AND declining to reveal details. The
> message is something along the lines of "we'll do what we want and we don't
> care because everyone is doing it so you don't have any choice". What can
> we do about it? The practical answer is likely to be not a lot but any
> practical suggestion would be welcomed. The only thing I can suggest is to
> complain to OFCOM. It seems to be interested in controlling ISPs on the
> speed issue so unfair "fair conditions" may also take its interest.
Plenty (the majority) of ISPs are entirely straighforward and honest about
these terms.
The rouges are typically the large consumer ISPs. All you have to do is avoid
them. They aren't particularly good value anyway.
Graham
George Weston
Some ISPs are more honest and up-front in stating their service levels.
Here are Plusnet's:
http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/quality_broadband/speed.shtml#Option4speeds
George
>
>
Old Codger
Hmmm! Has the leopard changed its spots? Possibly I suppose. They
are now part of BT and have a different boss man.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Peter Lynch
And somehow getting a view of your running total network usage from
the ISP. Without that you can neither modify your usage if you're
getting close to the limit, nor can you query the imposition
of sanctions if the ISP decide to impose any.
--
..........................................................................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................
tony h
"Peter Lynch" <pe...@freyr.local> wrote in message
news:slrnfmnrd...@freyr.local...
> And somehow getting a view of your running total network usage from
> the ISP. Without that you can neither modify your usage if you're
> getting close to the limit, nor can you query the imposition
> of sanctions if the ISP decide to impose any.
>
> --
though still not as good as live data, entanet show you usage up til the
previous midnight (up and down)
Mark McIntyre
> The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a
> subscriber exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be
> restricted. That,as far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is
> unfair is that the fair policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed.
By law, the ISP must publish all the annexes to the contract, including
the FUP. If yours doesn't have a link to it on their website, I'd be very
very surprised.
> This gives the provider the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair,
> changing thresholds and applying consequences as it sees fit and
> imposing all of this without any right of appeal.
You ceded them that right when you signed the contract. For what its
worth, its *vital* that ISPs have this ability to manage their network.
Bear in mind it is actually *theirs*, and you're just renting use of it.
If you rented out your car for £20 a month to a bunch of students,
wouldn't *you* want to have control over what they were allowed to do? If
you rented it out for £2K, on the other hand...
> An analogy (perhaps not a good one) would be the police
> giving you a speeding ticket when speed restriction notices are not
> displayed.
It would be a good analogy - if it weren't for the fact that you can be
done for driving at 80 mph and no signs needed. You, the driver, are
expected to know the law.
Mark McIntyre
> Why do you think changing ISP is a hassle ?
I'd have to
a) pay BT to install a phone line
b) pay BT to provide a phone service I don't want
c) find an ISP who claimed to provide at least 4Mb
d) confirm I could get at least 4Mb
e) buy a new router
f) configure said router
g) advise hundreds of friends, relatives, business associates etc of the
family's new email addresses....
and so on...
> I've used Vossnet, UKonline, Freeuk (dial-up only), NTL (both dial-up
> and broadband), Plusnet and now Idnet (broadband) over the years. It
> hasn't been a hassle for me.
Presumably you either pay for a dedicated personal email addy independent
of your ISP, or don't have many people you need to inform about your CoA.
Bill Ridgeway
news:slrnfmnrd...@freyr.local...
You could monitor usage. Have a look at a Broadband Download Monitor
www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/broadband-download-monitor.html
This will show your usage. However, it wont show how much your'e using at
peak times and you can't use it as evidence. This is where ISPs are very
sneaky. They make sure they hold all the cards.
Bill Ridgeway
Bill Ridgeway
news:QkTaj.12258$745...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
I would agree that ISPs have a right to manage usage. I am arguing that
users should know what the restrictions are (so they can manage their own
usage) and know the consequences if you don't. Same as speeding on the road
really.
Bill Ridgeway
Eeyore
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Why do you think changing ISP is a hassle ?
>
> I'd have to
I was asking the OP, not YOU !
Graham
Sideshow Bob
> Presumably you either pay for a dedicated personal email addy
> independent of your ISP, or don't have many people you need to inform
> about your CoA.
That's a sensible thing to do anyway. It a virtual certainty that you
will change ISP one day.
Eeyore
Mark McIntyre wrote:
I do have my own .co.uk etc but for anyone not wishing to go down that route,
there's always hotmail etc.
Sticking with a lousy ISP because you use *their* email address is absurd.
However, I still get mail from 2 of my previous accounts. Not all ISPs
terminate the email facility when you move..
Graham
George Weston
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:476C303C...@hotmail.com...
Indeed. I still get email on my old btinternet address.
This was free for about three years until they caught up with me. I now pay
the princely sum of £1.50 a month for it.
George
Mike
Anyone using an email address provided by their ISP and expecting it
to be usable for years/decades even though they change ISP's on
average every 18 months is quite frankly an idiot - and I'm really
trying to be polite with that response.
--
Mike
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:16:51 -0000, "Gizmo." <To...@pondlife.now>
wrote:
>The last time I saw the "league table" at Telewest (must be 4 or so years
>ago), 0.3% of broadband customers were using just over 85% of the data
>transfered. All of them were sucking up over 500GB a month. IIRC the average
>at the time was just under 2GB.
2GB x 8 / (30x24x60x60) = 6000 bits per second, about what you can
move with a 56k dial up modem.
The cynical might suggest that those 97.7% of customers haven't a clue
as to what broadband is for and the remaining 0.3% of customers have
sussed it out completely.
--
Mike
>By law, the ISP must publish all the annexes to the contract, including
>the FUP. If yours doesn't have a link to it on their website, I'd be very
>very surprised.
hahahahahahahahahaha
FUP = (in almost every case) make it up using a random sequence of
words as they go along but don't ever publish it in any shape or form
or ever tell the customer precisely what limit they are breaking.
--
Eeyore
"Gizmo." wrote:
> "Bill Ridgeway" wrote
>
> > The only references I've seen to "fair use policy" is that if a subscriber
> > exceeds the provider's fair use policy access will be restricted. That,as
> > far as it goes, may (or may not) be fair. What is unfair is that the fair
> > policy (the rules of the game) is not revealed. This gives the provider
> > the unfair advantage of deciding what is fair, changing thresholds and
> > applying consequences as it sees fit and imposing all of this without any
> > right of appeal. The only way out would be to change ISP but the hassle
> > of changing ISP to another one which would, probably, also have a fair use
> > policy would, probably, not be worth it. An analogy (perhaps not a good
> > one) would be the police giving you a speeding ticket when speed
> > restriction notices are not displayed.
>
> I'm all in favour of ISPs going over to the PAYG (aka Aussie model)
Good Lord ! We're in agreement again.
The 'pay a fixed fee and download everything you like' model so beloved of the
large consumer ISPs is totally absurd and is causing them all major headaches.
FUPs are simply a 'band aid' for that problem. The charging model they're using
is simply not sustainable in the long term. And as 'casual users' gradually
access more online video and the like that'll finally break the camel's back..
> - which I would imagine will come about in the next year or two - especially
> with
> MOIP and TV over IP all being released in earnest. Therefore the more folk
> use, the more they pay.
It works that way with most things.
> The last time I saw the "league table" at Telewest (must be 4 or so years
> ago), 0.3% of broadband customers were using just over 85% of the data
> transfered. All of them were sucking up over 500GB a month. IIRC the average
> at the time was just under 2GB.
Sharp intake of breath !
Graham
Bob Eager
No, that would be the stupid.
Perfectly reasonable...not everyone wants to pull vast amounts of
bootleg music/TV/porn, which let's face it is what most of that traffic
is...note that I said *most*.
And the reason they don't want a 56K modem is that broadband is
probablyu cheaper, and it's faster at the point of use.
--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
George Weston
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:41:57 UTC, Mike <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:16:51 -0000, "Gizmo." <To...@pondlife.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The last time I saw the "league table" at Telewest (must be 4 or so
>> >years
>> >ago), 0.3% of broadband customers were using just over 85% of the data
>> >transfered. All of them were sucking up over 500GB a month. IIRC the
>> >average
>> >at the time was just under 2GB.
>>
>> 2GB x 8 / (30x24x60x60) = 6000 bits per second, about what you can
>> move with a 56k dial up modem.
>>
>> The cynical might suggest that those 97.7% of customers haven't a clue
>> as to what broadband is for and the remaining 0.3% of customers have
>> sussed it out completely.
>
> No, that would be the stupid.
>
> Perfectly reasonable...not everyone wants to pull vast amounts of
> bootleg music/TV/porn, which let's face it is what most of that traffic
> is...note that I said *most*.
>
> And the reason they don't want a 56K modem is that broadband is
> probablyu cheaper, and it's faster at the point of use.
Plus the fact that you can be on line and make a phone call at the same
time.
Which is the reason why I went for broadband - and saved about a quid a
month into the bargain.
George
Bob Eager
Good point. I overlooked that because I have a separate line just for
broadband; never gets used for voice except in dire emergency (power
failure).
Mike
On 22 Dec 2007 20:08:10 GMT, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:41:57 UTC, Mike <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:16:51 -0000, "Gizmo." <To...@pondlife.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The last time I saw the "league table" at Telewest (must be 4 or so years
>> >ago), 0.3% of broadband customers were using just over 85% of the data
>> >transfered. All of them were sucking up over 500GB a month. IIRC the average
>> >at the time was just under 2GB.
>>
>> 2GB x 8 / (30x24x60x60) = 6000 bits per second, about what you can
>> move with a 56k dial up modem.
>>
>> The cynical might suggest that those 97.7% of customers haven't a clue
>> as to what broadband is for and the remaining 0.3% of customers have
>> sussed it out completely.
>
>No, that would be the stupid.
>
>Perfectly reasonable...not everyone wants to pull vast amounts of
>bootleg music/TV/porn, which let's face it is what most of that traffic
>is...note that I said *most*.
>
>And the reason they don't want a 56K modem is that broadband is
>probablyu cheaper, and it's faster at the point of use.
But the bootleg tv traffic in particular is moving to become
mainstream legitimate traffic, some would say the music maybe moved
over quite a while ago. I doubt the porn ever will though :)
If I want to watch programme x transmitted by UK broadcaster y and
they offer it as a download and after watching one episode I decide I
want to watch the other 11 in the series then my broadband could be
completely maxed out for 12 hours. Some ISP infrastructures can't
support even 1% of their users doing this let alone 50% or more
If "average UK ISP" in the planning stages of their broadband rollout
seriously expected everyone to carry on looking at circa 1994 text and
miniscule jpg image web pages forever then its a sad reflection of the
calibre of staff these organisations attract.
Broadband at 25 quid a month is in some cases offering less for the
customer than when they relied on 0845 numbers at 1p a minute or were
charged a tenner a month for unlimited 0800 access.
FFS some of them can't even maintain their networks properly, they've
mostly got rid of their own news servers, they can't maintain a decent
DNS, their customer service is appalling and to cap it all they blame
BT/Openreach and the local loop when its usually their lack of
centrals or a pathetically undersized LLU network.
--
The Natural Philosopher
>
> FFS some of them can't even maintain their networks properly, they've
> mostly got rid of their own news servers, they can't maintain a decent
> DNS, their customer service is appalling and to cap it all they blame
> BT/Openreach and the local loop when its usually their lack of
> centrals or a pathetically undersized LLU network.
>
Fortunately none of these are necessary to be supplied by an ISP.
I run my own DNS, there are public usenet servers out there, and as for
the customer service, largely you shouldn't need it.
Yes, we ned more bandwidth,and caching proxies everywhere for proper
broadcast level service..heck its not beyond the bounds for BT to shove
a few hundred GB of storage in every local exchange, and charge access
to it by the megabyte..that would keep the backbones clear.
>