[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

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 you don't have the service with Virgin because you haven't paid your bill, Virgin credit you back the lost period

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.

You example is flawed. With electricity, you pay for what you use - with internet use you pay a flat service fee.

Therefore the business model is completely different - and very few people would be prepared for ISP to charge for usage!

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.

Even if I accept that (which honestly I don't) STM does not stop any of the above happening. If you have been managed you can still send e-mails, do online banking, shopping, research and everything else you have just mentioned.

However where ISPs have a hard usage cap (such as TalkTalk) - THEN it would do as you describe above.

But (and in general - not directly in view of this discussion) you can live your life without the internet, just as you can live without a phone/mobile/TV.

Unlike water there is no right to an internet service.

There is no difference between the foregoing scenario and removal of Internet service.

There is by a very wide margin!

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.

The context is taken from the OFT consulation on unfair terms - which is what I thought we were discussing

So it is either fair to vary the terms or it isn't.

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.

Yes they do, but that does not invalidate the choice given to go elsewhere.

To suggest a contract term allows someone to go elsewhere, or alternatively accept restrictive practices, is to ignore a fundamental right and freedom.

That is exactly what the right of freedom is. You don't want/like what company A is doing, then you go to company B/C/D/E/Z

That fundamental right to freedom 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. 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.

Oh please. Human Rights law for this? Human Rights law says you must have a unrestricted broadband service? Really?!!!