Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Chamelion, Jun 23, 2012.
Good, go away and revel in your hypocrisy somewhere else.
I honestly think you're more interested in flaring your chest out at me than really submitting anything of any real relevance to this discussion dude?
Wakeup he is not complaining about congestion but stating that he is happy with his plan.
Try and use some logic. Were in the T&Cs does a data limit or time limit appear in the unlimited plan of the OP.
The issue is, when the plan is marketed as unlimited people aren't going to then go sprawling through the terms and conditions to see if the plan really is unlimited or not, as the plan is marketed as being unlimited.
Such an action constitutes false advertising, not to mention blatant deception, and it's the reason the ACMA put a stop to it.
I'm 5'8", no point even if this the internets
So say the customer had 24/1Mbps sync and it was capable of about 8.1TB throughput per month (including overheads, including upstream data being maxed out, no downtime. The customer would have downloaded/uploaded 6.5TB or so without overheads) is that still reasonable, given the T&Cs have that acceptable use policy? It's what you're suggesting someone could do with the connection and no one should take offense.
Would you like to buy my magic beans? They really are magic and will grow money!
The word "unlimited" has one meaning. It is not ambiguous. ISP's can't just decide it means something else.
The fine print is deliberately vague. How is the customer supposed to know what the ISP considers acceptable use?
We're not dealing with a complex concept here: either the plan is unlimited, or it isn't.
There are things that require a more complex understanding, but whether the service is "unlimited" or not is not one of those things.
If the service is advertised as being "unlimited", yes it is reasonable for the customer to expect they can use it as much as they want.
If the ISP is deliberately vague about what is considered acceptable, then the only unreasonable thing would be to expect the customer to know what the ISP considers to be reasonable usage.
If the ISP thinks people should use less than ~750GB, they should state that.
From the first post by the OP - "Been reports of people who used to be on the 500gb plan, which automatically changed to the unlimited plan a few months ago, getting the boot for downloading as 'little' as 750gb per month. Kind of a dick move by spintel."
Do you think it is reasonable getting the boot in the above scenario? It is less than 1/8th of your calculated maximum! Contracts have to be fair to all parties. Which is why the ACMA has ruled in favor of the clients. It is not possible to comply with an acceptable use policy without knowing how much data constitutes acceptable use.
You claim to have superior knowledge of the intricacies of providing an internet connection. So how is it that you take offense when a client takes up your offer of unlimited use? You then yell it is not acceptable use! Why is it unacceptable, if the client is using the service within the provided speed and time frame.
Seeing as you keep referring to the extreme maximum data use to make your point. I will use an extreme analogy to illustrate the stupidity of an acceptable use policy with no acceptable quantity disclosed. You are welcome to come onto my property. However if you get too close you will be shot.
The 750GB example at the way the OP got booted from Spintel was bullshit yes. There are examples from other carriers of getting kicked for much higher amounts though.
Like I've said a few times, show me someone who can claim they're not breaching T&Cs themselves while going through that quantity of data every month and then I'll take your side about it, until then, if we want to keep using analogies, it's like claiming police brutality when you assault 4 police officers and resist arrest. I've heard your hypothetical situations, I don't believe it's anywhere near as common as some of you would like to make out and therefore I don't accept your arguments about the dictionary definition of unlimited being the holy word of whatever deity you do or don't believe is being denigrated and disrespected.
And for the last time, my employer doesn't offer unlimited plans because like Caspian said it attracts the kind of customers you don't want, the kind who wave around TIO complaint threats without even putting any thought into the matter.
I'm just amazed that here, 10-15 years after this unlimited bullshit started, that a/ ISPs are still using that word 'unlimited' when they specifically and absolutely mean 'not unlimited', and,
b/ That there are fools pretending that if you use the word 'Unlimited' as a major part of the name of a conx package then it doesnt actually have to mean unlimited if you hide away in the T&Cs the fact that it isnt unlimited.
Unlimited is a fairly simple word, its also fairly absolute, its not the word 'lots' or 'heaps' or 'mega'... its an absolute term. Unlimited.
If I was boss of Australia theyd get their arses kicked and made to provide actual unlimited internet for an entire year to anyone they had bullshitted to. How simple can this be. Limited does not equal Unlimited.
I know the bit where unlimited is specifically refuted in the T&Cs is there for all to see, but its essentially a complete lie to have the word unlimited when you dont mean it.
ISPs need to stop this shit. IF there is a limit, but its fluid, then it needs to be stated somehow so that the consumer knows whats going on. I dont give a fuck if this is difficult or problematic. Not the consumers problem.
This was originally thought up to be deliberately deceptive, to seem to offer something that was then taken away in the fine print. It needs to stop. I note that when I agree to pay 79.99 for something the companies are quite clear that I owe 79.99, not some lesser amount. Same goes for unlimited. It either is or is not.
Maybe we could have a new government agency that is like the tax man but instead randomly audits internet use for accounts that seem high risk of illegal usage.
Eg, someone downloading 8TB of stuff would be recommended for an Audit due to his irregular use, but once the government has ascertained that this is simply 8TB of linux ISO's then he's fine.
This would fit in with the current trend of things these days..
Personally I am on your side in principle, but having dealt with telcos many times before as we all have, I know that you should always read the fine print. Technically, you DO have unlimited internet if your contract is similar to every other telco. Its just not the same speed you paid for, you got speed shaped? (an assumption)
My daughter got behind with her Telstra bill recently. They disconnected her, and offered her a payment plan. Kicker was, until she had paid it off, they denied her service, but her monthly plan was continuing to be charged on top of the payment plan.
I objected to this. They said 'but she has a contract, she has to pay' to which I said 'you have a contract, you have to provide'. I have no problem with them cutting her off till she paid, but continuing to charge that monthly fee for a service they were not providing, on top of the debt repayments, just wasnt on.
Eventually they gave in and reconnected her, I paid the outstanding for her and all is good. Their 'fine print' has limits, they still have a business to run, a bad reputation they are trying to repair, and if you persevere you can usually score a win eventually. The pricks just make you work for it.
Heh, exactly, and I'm not an advocate of things going that way either so devil/deep blue sea.
Yeouch. That's ridiculous.
So whats the general consensus for those churning away? Spintel up until couple of weeks ago were really good but now they are suffering congestion issues due to lack of bandwidth and have offered me out of my contract?
Looking for ADSL2 on regional Telstra exchange say 100GB or more allowance preferably bundled with a phone with local and national calls included for around $100/month
Are the likes of Dodo and TPG a reasonable option or is their bandwidth oversubscribed too and I'm better of looking at providers such as iinet, exetel or internode?
What about AAPT are they any good?
Cannot recommend them enough. I'm on offnet and just recently moved house.
Called 1 week before hand saying i'm moving on the 15th, and i'll be in the new house on the 16th, can you hook me up then?
16th rolled around, plugged in my modem... BAM up, but was stuck on adsl1 speeds, monday they called said that there were still some issues with the adsl2+ package, but it would be done tuesday night, wednesday morning syncing at 16mbps!
Seamless and really helpful, although a TOUCH on the expensive side... but meh.