Slashdot Log In
In UK, Broadband Limits Confuse Nine In Ten Users
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Oct 24, 2008 09:24 AM
from the ninety-percent-of-everything dept.
from the ninety-percent-of-everything dept.
Mark Jackson writes "ISPreview reports that 86% of UK broadband users don't understand the usage limits on their service, and nearly one million have reached or exceeded their ISPs limit in the last year. This is important because 56% of major providers are prepared to disconnect those who 'abuse' the service. However, it also shows how damaging bad marketing can be, with 6.2M people believing they have an 'unlimited' service with no restrictions. The UK Advertising Standards Authority is also blamed for making the problem worse by allowing providers to describe their services as unlimited even if there is a usage cap, as long as it is detailed in the small print. However, consumers are none the wiser with over 10 million broadband customers never reading their usage agreements and a further 1.8M not knowing whether they have read it or not. Unsurprisingly 7.5M do not even know their download limit, which is understandable when so few providers clarify it."
Related Stories
Submission: Nine out of Ten Users Confused by Broadband Limits by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
further evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
that limited unlimited plans are a bad idea.
Really, just throttle them based on how much theyve used in a given period. everyone wins. consumers keep their service, and providers can cut their bandwidth down a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:further evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Take PIPEX as an example. I've been subjected to 56K speeds for exceeding my bandwidth quota of 50Gb per month. I can tell you that if I wasn't on a one-year contract, they would have lost a customer immediately.
Once this go-slow was lifted, I noticed that they were actually throttling my connection even when I'm a long way under my quota. I was getting a perfectly flat 512Kbps instead of the advertised 8Mbps and the 2Mbps I was getting previously. When I called to complain about it, they told me it was contention because of the olympics. When I pointed out that contention would cause variable transfer speeds instead of a flat one, they tried to get me off the phone and told me to write to their head office. I totally hate that company. Avoid.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is what happened to them
Tiscali buys Pipex broadband unit [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>>>"56% of major providers are prepared to disconnect those who 'abuse' the service."
>
>I've been subjected to 56K speeds for exceeding my bandwidth quota of 50Gb per month. I can tell you that if I wasn't on a one-year contract, they would have lost a customer immediately.
>
This is precisely why I think Internet Companies should provide an option to "buy more time" after you reach your cap. I'm willing to pay more money (say $0.50 per gigabyte over). I am NOT willing to be cut-off
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"When I pointed out that contention would cause variable transfer speeds instead of a flat one, they tried to get me off the phone and told me to write to their head office. I totally hate that company. Avoid."
Look, IANAL, but I would start documenting the bandwidth capping, and then cancel the subscription and any payments to them due to what I would consider to be breach of contract from their point of view.
This sounds like wilful capping of the speed, which can hardly be covered by their standard contrac
Just the opposite (Score:2, Insightful)
It proves that limited plans are a bad idea. They allow ISPs to charge more for data even as the cost of transmitting that data plummets.
They provide a very 2002 view of the internet and the way that it's connected.
They allow ISPs effectively to limit new services such as Internet Radio, Streaming video, video rentals, etc. simply for those who do more than look at email and surf the web (which you'd have to effectively retarded to spend $40-50/month for access to a paltry 1-2GB per month; you might as we
Bunch of Tossers (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll stop an Apple ad claiming the iPhone can reach the whole internet, but they let these ISPs advertise unlimited when it is anything but.
Double Standards anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
They also pull ads when something like 5 nutters say it's offensive. Case in point: the Pot Noodle "slag" ads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2220108.stm) Useless shower of bastards.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PS - Link to complaints form (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/ [asa.org.uk]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just checked my Verizon DSL account. It turns out it does have different levels:
50 hours == $7.
150 hour == $13
unlimited== $15
I had no idea there were various time limits! I just bought the "unlimited" service, because that's what was advertised. I guess it's similar to how Cable companies don't advertise their low-cost $15 a month option. They want you to buy the expensive $60 a month package and remain ignorant about lower-cost option.
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously, if the service is "unlimited" but the fine print makes it clear that traffic management occurs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I complained to the ASA about a Vodafone "unlimited access to your email" mobile plan that had "limited to 500MB" in the small print. They said the ad was fine because an unlimited service is allowed to have a fair use policy that includes a limit.
Re: (Score:2)
I do love how we are forced to assume the positive statement 'service is unlimited' is a lie, while the negative statment 'limited to xxxMB' is the truth.
I'd rather assume the latter is the lie, and the first is the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would love to have them in court and ask them
Me: "So, you're telling me that a provider is free to lie to the consumer, provided that the truth is less prominently displayed as well. Tell me, what do you think my name is?"
*Displays name tag with real name written prominently and false name written less prominently. Defendant invariably chooses the less prominently displayed name.*
Me: "Incorrect! I didn't tell you beforehand what the rules were. You just assumed that we were going by the rules by which th
The only confusing thing (Score:5, Interesting)
is why are companies allowed to describe something as unlimited when it's limited. If that was changed, there'd be no problem. The ISPs always say `most users....` then I lose attention. If most user don't use 50 gigs, then limit it to 50 gigs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it as it is (Score:5, Interesting)
Why punish those who actually USE what they paid for? I've had the same contract since BlueYonder "real" unlimited connections, and my usage hasn't changed. All that's changed is as soon as ive watched a couple of iPlayer programs, my downstream drops from 250k to 100k. My dad, mum, and brother don't notice, so there's 75% who don't understand and aren't affected. Only we know, and only we use it.
Re:Leave it as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you never pay for it, the price has a built-in over-subscription requirement. Dedicated bandwidth costs a lot more. Go price a DS-3 and see.
What you're saying is a little like saying you want to use the whole road for yourself at the maximum rate possible. After all, your taxes pay for your access to it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
We know that our precious cable is shared with the neighbours, and we can't exceed the maximum posted speed for our internet connections (or even reach it). Your analogy sucks.
Road taxes and weight limits (Score:2)
I am not aware of any usage limitations on roads. I've never been told, "sorry, you have driven too much today, go home for a bit".
For one thing, road use is metered: governments tax road fuels. For another, governments limit vehicle size and weight on public roads.
Re:Leave it as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
that's bullshit. the average price of U.S. per Mbps is about 10 times higher than countries like Sweden, Korea, and Japan, and it's still 2-3 times that of most other developed nations [lunchoverip.com]. just because the telecom/ISP monopolies charge extortionate rates for decent quality service doesn't mean that's what it costs to provide.
consumers expect what they paid for--what was advertise by the ISPs. if they'd been honest about the broadband service in the first place, this conflict would not have occurred. trying to shift blame onto consumers and use traffic throttling & package shaping to manipulate demand is counter to good business sense. while we're trying to scapegoat "power users," countries like Japan are upping their infrastructure to meet public demand. that's how technology usually works--you increase supply (speeds, capacity, etc.) to meet public demand. you don't artificially decrease demand to meet the supply.
unlike you, most intelligent internet users don't subscribe to this pay more for less mentality. and if you actually did some research into how other broadband networks/services are run, you'd see how much we're being completely screwed over. Japan's already rolling out 100 Mbps connections to all homes, and many are being offered 1 Gbps for £28($43). meanwhile ISP greed and incompetence is leaving our countries in the dust.
but, hey, let's spend more packet shaping technology analyzing user traffic to increase unnecessary overhead. that's a much better use of resources than actually increasing network speed/capacity and providing better value to customers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We Americans are no worse-off than our European colleagues, and vastly superior than the Aussies.
And we have faster internet...
It's funny how... (Score:4, Interesting)
...usage caps were sold as a legit tool for ISPs despite advertising unlimited because these caps affected only a tiny minority of heavy users.
I'm not convinced 1million is a tiny minority. It's about time the ASA actually did some work for once and punished broadband providers for not advertising their caps more obviously. Last time it was brought up they said they didn't need to force them to change their practices for the above mentioned reason that caps were high enough to only effect a very small amount of users.
Even Plus Net which prides itself in being open and which is probably one of the most open out the lot can be quite evil. When I renewed my contract with them for a year I don't recall seeing anywhere (except perhaps in the depths of the contract which I did read but must have overlooked) that by renewing my contract I'd accept a change in the definition of off-peak from midnight to 4pm down to midnight to 8am.
Of course, it wasn't until I hit my 20gb on-peak cap within a couple of weeks that I looked into it and found I'd started being metred during the previously off-peak 8am to 4pm.
Similarly when I stuck with their old package I noticed my speeds dropped below their advertised maximum caps at times also.
If this is the kind of practice arguably the UK's most transparent ISP engages in it's no wonder users are confused about caps. The argument about the validity of ISPs imposing caps is one thing but the fact is that ISPs can't even be honest to their customers either and I'd argue this is the crux of the problem in terms of end user confusion on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly why I left Plus Net and went to Zen. The moving goalposts on download limits, binary news groups and peak times just got to be a pain. The final straw was when a spammer got hold of their address lists.
Zen tell you what you get (for me, 25Gb a month) and how much you pay if you go over that amount. On the plus side when I moved to Zen my download went from ~1Mbps to ~3Mbps. No idea why Plus Net were capping that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be HAPPY to have that chance. Nobody around here gives out that information.
I would also be happy to have metered service. I would pay for what I use.
Re: (Score:2)
And probably a good idea for the FCC and USA ISPs to take notice.
Now with that said, WTF is wrong with building out some more bandwidth on the infrastructure side? Is it because they would have trouble monitoring it all if there were more bandwidth? Is it because the **AA's et al would not be able to monitor it all?
Seriously, there is no reason not to build bigger infrastructure. This is simple stupidity on face value. Move some of your infrastructure out toward the edge and your bandwidth increases for end
even if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think either of my recent ISPs have done (Orange and Sky). Not that they've ever contacted me, even on a 2GB (yes, two gig) cap when I run a downloads website (so I'm uploading and downloading to the server) and a Fedora box (so I can be downloading reasonable size updates at times). Sky are nice enough to say [sky.com] that they'll do the monitoring for me between 5pm and 12am. I've even looked for something in their control panel before but found nothing, which means it'll be my first point I raise if they
Truth in Advertising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is it on this earth where governments are going to play their proper role in making sure the playing field is level and participants are not deceived?
Government's roles are to provide rule of law, not bending of laws, & adherence to meanings of words, not redefining them in advertising to suit a malicious manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing ISPs to act arbitrarily and at the same time requiring them to accept ever more onerous responsibilities is a passive-aggressive way of furthering this goal.
Go for a truly unlimited provider (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks Slashdot, two chances to plug http://superawesomebroadband.com/ [superaweso...adband.com] in two days.
"Unlimited connections on static IPs. No download or upload limits. No port blocking, no packet shaping, no transparent web caches, no 'fair usage' policy, no logging, no Phorm, no ad-serving, no small print. Rolling 1 month contract. No lock in period. Direct Engineer Support 24 hours a day, every day. Good, not cheap. £60 /month"
Re: (Score:2)
No need for asshattery... (Score:2)
...they can do as one of our ISPs did before we completely rejected the idea of gigabyte limits - full speed until you hit your quota, then drop the speed to 64kpbs (ISDN speed) for the reminder of the month. No abuse or threats of disconnection, you simply can't milk it past the limit and it's enough for people to do basic stuff. Unless they actively call support and ask why the line is slow, you don't have to bother with them. Even the people that are utterly clueless about how much they use or what the l
not confused, just lacking basic information (Score:3, Informative)
Once you transgress this limit - whatever it happens to be, you get a letter (or email) telling you that you've broken the rules and if you do it again, you'll be cut off. However, this is completely arbitrary and un-testable as normal users have no means of challenging the veracity of the claim, nor of knowing in advance what this unspoken limit was.
So confused? yes, but confused that the ISPs are able to get away with such blatant mis-selling and arbitrary and un-appealable activites.
Top 1% (Score:2)
Entanet (Score:4, Interesting)
When I moved to a new flat last year, I did my research and eventually signed up for one of the Entanet resellers. When I tell people I'm paying £20/month for 30GB peak (8am-10pm weekdays) and 300GB offpeak (all other times, including all weekend) they look at me as if I have a screw loose and invariably ask why I didn't got with Provider X who is half the price and "unlimited".
The problem, I explain, is that every provider I've looked at that offered "unlimited" had a FUP and from a site on the web (which i've sadly lost) I found out that that FUP could be down to as low as 5GB per month.
In the year I've had the broadband (living on my own), I've only managed to get at most 15GB peak and 70GB offpeak in a month. It's true I don't work from home, don't stream music or video during peak hours and download really big files offpeak - but I've not found it to severly impact my browsing abilities. Hell, I'll happily suck down a 500MB update in peak - simply because I have tonnes of it to go around.
Thankfully Entanet offer a nice set of tools to monitor my usage, so if I start to get near their limits (due to changes in the way I use the web) then I'll re-evaluate the options again. It's not like I'm tied in, I only have a months notice period.
What I got out of the summary (Score:3, Informative)
Was this:
People in the UK either don't read the contracts they sign, don't question things they don't understand (the fine print), and just sign, so they can get on the internet.
Same thing as the mortgage scandal on this side of the pond.
I'm not into government intervention.... I'm into an educated populace. If people actually READ what the FUCK they are signing, people wouldn't be signing these contracts. If enough people don't sign on to the crap, the companies go out of business.
Other companies will step up, if it shows enough profit to be made, to allow people to actually use their pipes. Yes, you might have to spend a bit more, but in the long run, more people are happy, and companies like the ones mentioned in the article would be, losing.... Business, customers, etc.
Simple, people, quit being sheeple and letting companies push you around by YOUR BEING IGNORANT.
I read my contracts before I sign them. I'd be a fucking idiot not to. If I don't agree with something, I scratch it out, and submit it. If it comes back changed again, I have to agree to it. If the company doesn't send anything back changed, my contract stands. Doesn't mean I'll win in a court of law everytime, but it does mean I've actually STUCK TO MY GUNS and actually decided to THINK for myself.
Seriously, READ THE FUCKING PAPERS YOUR SIGNING. Simple, to the point, and won't happen, since that would require people to be literate :(
The general populace is stupid. New news at 11. :(
--Toll_Free
Re: (Score:2)
> How can they set limits without you being able to see them?!
From my ISP's RSS feed:
``If the same rate of usage continues for 31 days
then the total for the month will be:
1.94 GB Download - (Peak: 1.85 GB
Off-Peak: 0.09 GB)
0.1 GB Upload - (Peak: 0.08 GB
Re: (Score:2)
Confusion Marketing Definition [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You carry over your unused bandwidth to the next month as well, up to a maximum which I forget. I'm also on Nildram, but I have a business subscription which actually is uncapped (afaict).
Re: (Score:2)
Back on topic, there are plenty of good ISPs here that just resell bandwidth packages. Most of them are small enough that the costs of adding extra hardware to keep track of bandwidth use would be a large fraction of their income and so they don't bother. I don't think there is a single large ISP that is worth giving your money to anymore, and even if th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about legitimate internet video? I guess you just *have to* use services provided by your ISP or it's "partners?"
What about "tele-commuters?" Plenty of industries work with largish files and move them back and forth regularly (fMRI images anyone?).
There are plenty of uses for quality internet providers, it's just too bad they can't differentiate themselves from the fake "unlimited" providers.