Tiscali Kicks Off BB "Hogs"

[Neil]

Tiscali UK has expelled "just over 500" broadband users for excessive use of the ISP's high-speed internet service. Those who've received their marching orders are being given the opportunity to leave Tiscali "without penalty.

The ISP says the bandwidth "hogs" have gorged on between 30 Gig and 150 Gig a month. At the same time, the average Tiscali UK punter uses less than a Gig a month.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/09/tiscali_hogs/

[Millay]

damn beat me to it.

Its an interesting problem, these companies have to make money and we want lots of bandwith, well some of us do. Should we be expected to pay extra. I owuld happilly pay a little extra a month to get more bandwith as Im well aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch..

[ian@huth]

Hmmm, wonder what the people who think that NTLs proposed caps are pathetic will think of this? Just think what will happen when all those users who are against any form of capping move to uncapped ISPs to be able to continue using vast amounts of bandwidth. There will probably be a domino affect as they search for their perfect ISP until such time as all ISPs have a cap.

[TheBlueRaja]

Did them a favor if you ask me - Tiscali suck.

Thats terrible from Tiscali though - if your paying for an unmetered service you should be able to use it.

No other service i know kicks you off for using it too much.

[ian@huth]

Plus Net are taking a different form of action with heavy users which will probably result in them seeking another ISP. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/30/plusnet_clampdown/ I know this is old news but it shows that ISPs are getting more concerned about usage levels.

[TheBlueRaja]

Pehaps the users could sue them, it would make sense and would be an interesting case.

Irrespective of how many Gigs they have downloaded, they have paid for an unmetered service. It is the job of the service provider to provide the best level of service for those customers irrespective of how much they use it. To eject customers or to move them onto a crippled service is ethically wrong given that that customer has paid for the service.

Companies want to have their cake and eat it - thats the real problem here - you cant have them going round saying 29.99 for an uncapped service and then removing users who take advantage of that.

You dont see BT kicking you off their network for using the phone too much, and why, because their pricing policy protects the network.

The fault here lies at the feet of the service provider not the end user.

In fact its a bloody disgrace.

If you paid for unlimited phone calls at 30 quid a month and then got complaints from BT because you used it to constantly be in touch with someone would you be happy?

[ian@huth]

If you have read the Register article you will have seen that it says "It is therefore necessary for us to protect the service for the other 99 per cent considerate users by establishing an acceptable guideline for use and serve notice of termination, which we are able to do within the scope of our current and previous Terms and Conditions, for those who are affecting the quality of service for the rest." Every uncapped ISP could get rid of its heavy users in the same way if they so desire and it is quite legal for them to do so.

[TheBlueRaja]

They can say what they like in the T&C's, but they advertise it as an Uncapped service.

Therefore its false advertising is it not?

[SMHarman]

Interesting that at the lower level they were on the border of acceptable usage within the NTL current and proposed limits and that many of these using say under 50Gb depending on their patterns would probably have been left alone by NTL.

[ian@huth]

They can say what they like in the T&C's, but they advertise it as an Uncapped service.

Therefore its false advertising is it not?
The terms and conditions are the important bit and breach of those can result in termination. Words used in advertising can be challenged but even if successful it doesn't get you your internet connection back.

[Neil]

They can say what they like in the T&C's, but they advertise it as an Uncapped service.

Therefore its false advertising is it not?

Not really, as Tiscali's Ts & Cs state that they can do something if you are affecting the service of others-that's what you signed up to from day one.

The difference between Tiscali's & ntl's, is that ntl changed the AUP/Ts & Cs late on a Friday without telling anyone-regardless of what you signed up for/to.......

Legally OK?-probably.

Morally OK?-definately not. :nono:

The answer for heavy downloaders in not just to find an uncapped ISP, bit to find one that offers the choice of paying extra for an uncapped service, such as Pipex/Plus Net etc etc.

[TheBlueRaja]

Who would you complain to about false advertising anyway?

Ofcom state that you need to contact "The ISP" first but as their all at it this is a more general query.

[Neil]

Who would you complain to about false advertising anyway?

Ofcom state that you need to contact "The ISP" first but as their all at it this is a more general query.

The Advertising Standards Agency I would presume.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/

[TheBlueRaja]

Not really, as Tiscali's Ts & Cs state that they can do something if you are affecting the service of others-that's what you signed up to from day one.

The difference between Tiscali's & ntl's, is that ntl changed the AUP/Ts & Cs late on a Friday without telling anyone-regardless of what you signed up for/to.......

Legally OK?-probably.

Morally OK?-definately not. :nono:

The answer for heavy downloaders in not just to find an uncapped ISP, bit to find one that offers the choice of paying extra for an uncapped service, such as Pipex/Plus Net etc etc.

Hold on though, and this reaches the crux of it, the user is not affecting the service of others are they? The ISP itself is the problem as they are unable to supply a service which they have advertised as available due to end users using it as advertised.

Why is it the users fault? They have paid their money for an uncapped service and are using it as such.

You can't blame the end users of a service who use it as advertised.

[Neil]

Hold on though, and this reaches the crux of it, the user is not affecting the service of others are they? The ISP itself is the problem as they are unable to supply a service which they have advertised as available due to end users using it as advertised.

Why is it the users fault? They have paid their money for an uncapped service and are using it as such.

You can't blame the end users of a service who use it as advertised.

But how do you know that their uber leeching wasn't affecting the service of others in their area/exchange?

I'm not suggesting that was the case here, & I am totally against caps ETC, I am just playing Devil's Advocate. :angel:

[ian@huth]

Hold on though, and this reaches the crux of it, the user is not affecting the service of others are they? The ISP itself is the problem as they are unable to supply a service which they have advertised as available.

Why is it the users fault? They have paid their money for an uncapped service and are using it as such.

You can't blame the end users of a service who use it as advertised.We all know that broadband costs are as low as they are because of contention and contention means there is the possibility of one user affecting the service of others.

Most, if not all, ISPs also have within their T&Cs statements about transfer and storage of copyright material. Most heavy users could be terminated because of breach of this and also possibly face criminal charges.

Let's face it, every ISP can get rid of cutomers it does not want quite easily and the user can do nothing about it. The more ISPs that cap users, the faster other ISPs will do the same.

[TheBlueRaja]

I hear you ;)

But even if it was the same principles apply, that is not the fault of the end user. That is the problem of the service provider and whoever they partner with (probably BT) and its an issue on their part. Its upto them to maintain a level of service for their end users.

If they specifically say in the contract that users enter into that they are capped at x amount per month then i have no issue as the end user will know what to expect and can make a decision on which provider to go with based on that. But most use vauge terms like excessive use (which is how much exactly?) or if you look at ianathuth's post above no real description at all other than it affects the useage of others.

THATS where i have a problem - as that is a problem for the Service provider to deal with not the end user.

You cannot sell a product then complain because they use it.
__________________

We all know that broadband costs are as low as they are because of contention and contention means there is the possibility of one user affecting the service of others.

Most, if not all, ISPs also have within their T&Cs statements about transfer and storage of copyright material. Most heavy users could be terminated because of breach of this and also possibly face criminal charges.

Let's face it, every ISP can get rid of cutomers it does not want quite easily and the user can do nothing about it. The more ISPs that cap users, the faster other ISPs will do the same.

So why not say they are removing the customer for downloading illegal / copyrighted content?

[ian@huth]

So why not say they are removing the customer for downloading illegal / copyrighted content?They may not have used that criteria to decide who to get rid off. To be honest I don't think that they are too bothered about what customers download as long as they get their money. Heavy users are the problem and they will use anything within the T&Cs to remove them. Anyone who thinks that there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth out there and there will always be an uncapped ISP who they can get it from is in for a bit of a shock somewhere along the road.

[etccarmageddon]

it's a shoddy way to treat customers - they should at least make an effort to find a solution - perhaps implementing a metering system for those who want to use more than 30gig a month.

much better PR than calling a certain section of their use base hogs etc

[TheBlueRaja]

They may not have used that criteria to decide who to get rid off. To be honest I don't think that they are too bothered about what customers download as long as they get their money. Heavy users are the problem and they will use anything within the T&Cs to remove them. Anyone who thinks that there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth out there and there will always be an uncapped ISP who they can get it from is in for a bit of a shock somewhere along the road.

NO

Heavy users are NOT the problem, the ISP's are for advertising a service they cannot adequately provide and then resolving it by removing those users.

If there are uncapped ISP's out there then they should be exactly that after all that is EXACTLY what those users have paid for.

It should not be advertised as uncapped in adverts - but then capped in reality.

[Stuart]

I hear you ;)

But even if it was the same principles apply, that is not the fault of the end user. That is the problem of the service provider and whoever they partner with (probably BT) and its an issue on their part. Its upto them to maintain a level of service for their end users.

If they specifically say in the contract that users enter into that they are capped at x amount per month then i have no issue as the end user will know what to expect and can make a decision on which provider to go with based on that. But most use vauge terms like excessive use (which is how much exactly?) or if you look at ianathuth's post above no real description at all other than it affects the useage of others.

THATS where i have a problem - as that is a problem for the Service provider to deal with not the end user.

You cannot sell a product then complain because they use it.


Just had a quick look at the Tiscali website and saw no mention of it being uncapped (or even unlimited).

Businesses often advertise things as unlimited, but then in the small print put some get out clause that enables them to kick out heavy users. If they didn't , the resulting cost may bankrupt them.

For instance, a local vietnamese restaurant does an "all you can eat" buffet. Someone I know had three starters, three main meals and 4 desserts all in one sitting. They charged him the £4.99 for the meal, watched while he ate then asked him to leave and not come back. This is all Tiscali are doing.

I agree, morally they could be construed as being wrong. However, those people could have been degrading the service of others by maxing out their connections 24/7. You argue that maybe Tiscali or BT should upgrade their equipment. Maybe they should. Upgrading the equipment costs a lot of money. It's cheaper to merely get rid of the problem by booting off the users. Obviously the cheaper option is more likely to be picked. After all, they could spend millions of pounds upgrading equipment for heavy users, but seeing as those extra users would not pay any extra to use it, they would get no extra money back.

So, morally they are wrong, but legally, they are within their rights to do so, and looking at it from their point of view, they took the most logical step.

[TheBlueRaja]

It dosent mention a limit either, otherwise that would be a capped service wouldnt it. ;)

[danielf]

<snip>
For instance, a local vietnamese restaurant does an "all you can eat" buffet. Someone I know had three starters, three main meals and 4 desserts all in one sitting. They charged him the £4.99 for the meal, watched while he ate then asked him to leave and not come back. This is all Tiscali are doing.
<snip>

They may have been concerned about the furniture :erm:

[Neil]

Here we go again.......:spin:

[TheBlueRaja]

Im just waiting for it to kick off - then im outa here... :D

[MovedGoalPosts]

It looks like Tiscali actually changed their terms and conditions in on 5th January 2005. Their site implies that customers signed before then are in the old T&Cs http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/build/tcs/terms_old.html
This does not have a specific cap clause
The new T&Cs http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/build/tcs/index.html have a very specific capping clause 8.4

Interestingly they now advertise as "Unlimited Access" rather than just "Unlimited".

What is not clear is whether those getting the boot are just the new users that signed to the new T&Cs or, older users too who should be subject to the less specific clauses.

[ian@huth]

Maybe Tiscali has had an influx of new high usage customers moving to them to avoid caps elsewhere.

[TheBlueRaja]

Even unlimited access is misleading, unlimited access to what?

[SMHarman]

Unlimited as in always on.

[TheBlueRaja]

Lord, they will be calling 128k broadband next.

[ian@huth]

Lord, they will be calling 128k broadband next.
They do in Canada, even 64k. :)

[MovedGoalPosts]

Here we go again.......:spin:

Admit it, you would be dissappointed if all the old stuff wasn't regurtitated every few weeks. :erm: :o
__________________

Lord, they will be calling 128k broadband next.
I think many ISPs here do. In fact OFCOM (or OFTEL as they were) still count 128k in their analysis for the government :shocked:

The ASA thought diferently though, and did give at least one ISP a slap on the wrist.

[ian@huth]

There should be a generic name for internet supplied other than by dial-up. Why not call it broadband?

[MovedGoalPosts]

There should be a generic name for internet supplied other than by dial-up. Why not call it broadband?

Probably drifting away from the Tiscali hogs issues, but If I recall correctly when Broadband was first launched one of the big criteria is that it was fast enough to support media streaming at a watcheable video resolution. Many of the slowest "ADSL" services today, and the cable co's slow services too, are strictly speaking not fast enough and so should not be broadband.

I'm amazed that this broadband misconception has been allowed given trading standards, consumer organisations, etc. Perhaps they should have been called "mediumband" with "broadband" reserved for speeds of 500k and above.

[SMHarman]

ISDN has also been referred to as midband or similar.

[TheBlueRaja]

I was joking by the way with my 128k comment... ;)

[scrotnig]

OK well, I am to Tiscali what Neil is to ntl.

Don't ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever consider using Tiscali as your ISP.

They make ntl look like saints. You really will seriously regret it if you ever get stuck with this corrupt ISP.

There are dodgy car dealers under railway arches that could do you better internet access.

[TheBlueRaja]

Im with Zen, and have never been whinged at for downloading too much (even when i was with NTL and i went over 1Gig on a few occasions), but i still think that what happend is wrong.