In UK, Broadband Limits Confuse Nine In Ten Users 217
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."
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?
even if... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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: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.
Re:Leave it as it is (Score:1, Insightful)
10% of the users using 90% of the bandwidth still leaves 10% for Grandpa to check his email and your sister to update her MySpaz.
This also implies there's nine times as many Grandpas and your sisters than there are of you. And in the modern day, I can assure you the stereotype "not as l33t as me" user does more than just check email and MySpace, they also trawl YouTube for videos, randomly watch Flash junk, download music, etc, etc. And given the usual media-bloated MySpace page, I would say they're requiring a healthy dose of bandwidth, too.
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 well use dial-up).
They're a bad idea because they allow ISP to delay upgrading their infrastructure.
Rate limits don't lower any price, they simply allow the company to raise prices to those who use more than looking at emails and surfing the net. Much like ISPs used to limit your modem connections to 30-60 hours a month; it's not tenable and sustainable.
Re:further evidence (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 just because I accidentally went over my limit.
Re:Bunch of Tossers (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 the advertisers are judged."
Judge: "Is there a point to this?"
Me: "Of course, Your Honor. My point is that this man expects the consumer to make a decision based on a truth and a lie without knowing the rules by which he should be judging the offer. Clearly, he cannot do the same. If I were to have asked him to pay me if he was incorrect, he would have been upset to have lost his money and I don't blame him. It is unfair, just as these ads are unfair to the general populace.