[Mike_A]

Ben: Excellent points. I cannot go too deeply into them because to do so could place me in a position that a judge may want to penalise me for. I can generalise though.

First, I go back again to the essence of a contract made between two parties. In the sense of supply of a service, let's say electricity, if a provider unilaterally restricts supply then the client does not pay for the portion not received. If, although they can supply, the excessive use by others becomes a supposed reason for restriction, and they continued to charge as though the supply had been made, they would be forced to refund.

Now, to deal with a predominant theme of this thread, contracting with an ISP becomes a way of life. The contract of provision not only allows access to websites and other sources of information. It provides access to social intercourse like chat and forums for communication with others. It provides access to leisure pursuits such as gaming. It provides access to online shopping for holidays and goods. It provides access to academic and personal research such as for health. It provides access to banking and movement of funds. In short, it becomes a wallet containing keys to a way of life, as a physical wallet holds bank cards, driving licence and contact details. If a thief approached in the street or in the home and removed some or all of the contents of a physical wallet then it would involve law and penalties.

There is no difference between the foregoing scenario and removal of Internet service. Accordingly, when an ISP imposes unilateral, uninformed, unaccounted and imbalanced conditions upon a regular user under any excuse not the essence of the originally agreed contract then, inevitably, that is an unfair practice.

Now to your OFT authorities.

Given the foregoing, you seem to have taken them out of context. These OFT references display that the terms in themselves are okay - but not the abuse of them.

It appears, overall, that your thrust of a customer being able to take the choice to go elsewhere is invalid. ISP services vary widely in different areas. To suggest a contract term allows someone to go elsewhere, or alternatively accept restrictive practices, is to ignore a fundamental right and freedom. That fundamental right is contained in Article 8 of what is generally referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights. It is now adopted within UK statute and well rehearsed in a great number of court and employment tribunal cases. It's legislates that everyone shall have the right to respect for their correspondence. Virgin Media's approach, if you are right, flies in the face of that.