[Chrysalis]

What has VM not been a reseller have to do with them having to pander to the "I want everything for nothing" brigade? Even BT themselves have a usage cap on their cheaper products.

I would love to see you try that argument to a judge.

Judge - So why did you not give a service fit for purpose?
Defendant - Because I was making no money, surely the need to make a profit comes before the law?
Judge - Not quite.

Nice to see you completely ignored my scenario points ignition, do you think this high utilisation issue is 1-2% or a much higher number like double digits? if its very low then to subsidise those areas to a acceptable service should be very possible. If its over 10% then I think its defenitly wrong to call it unexpected high usage and is a simple matter of selling something cant provide.

I am not sure why you keep going on about costs, trading standards as an example dont care one bit for such things. In basic transactions the seller offers something for a price, the buyer agrees to pay for it or doesnt. It is 100% up to the seller to ensure that price is enough to provide what they selling as fit for purpose and it makes them money.

You have gave no valid reason. VM do not have to sell unlimited 10mbit connections for the price they do. It is 100% their choice. They do not have to dish out retention deals to 10s if not 100s of thousands of people, again their choice. You have even said yourself that you think people bluff and would likely not leave anyway if retention deals were withdrawn, these things suck money out of the company. Someone who knows what they doing would budget for extra bandwidth in student areas from day 1, it would be taken into account for the price on the whole customer base.