Originally Posted by Rob

Unfortunately I think your optimism that VM will drop it's unlimited broadband claim, or it's traffic management policies is unfounded.

You bold the term "suspension of service", yet do not highlight the equally key "legitimate user". I suspect VM would argue they don't just suspend a service. They've warned the user before hand that their use is detrimental and thus would rendered the user as "not legitimate". Regrettably the VM AUP can probably stay within this new Code of Practice

STM (speed throttling) might however be a little less clear cut. I suspect the lawyers will have to argue over what level of speed restriction is "moderate".

Personally I have always thought the use of the term "unlimited" to describe broadband services was misplaced and incorrect ever since way back in the days of ntl they first introduced their "cap" and yet somehow, because broadband was an always on service compared to the dial up prevalanet back then the industry has been able to argue unlimited simply meant "always available in some form". This new Code of Practice is a missed opportunity to provide proper laymans easily understood English classifications to broadband services and advertising.