[Chrysalis]

My opinion is the ASA have been soft on the term unlimited and been forced in that position because they have a duty to not damage the profitiability of the sector, this in turn also shows why they leniant on most advertising that many companies use and usually only clamp down when its a single company standing out. This is also why the "up to" ruling turned out to be a farce, they had to settle on something that would ultimately not discredit the sector and damage sales.

If we talking about the defenition of unlimited then BT's product is not unlimited, as the throughput of p2p is limited deliberatly by the isp. VM the same as well since they also deliberatly throttle throughput.

If we talking about 'legal' terms of how the regulators have decided then the way BT sell their product is fine.

However its also worth pointing out isp's can be very devious on this eg. an isp can say they dont throttle any protocols but still decide to route undesirable traffic via congested links and as such slowing that traffic down.

Me and Qas (and others) probably will never agree. The way I class a service that limits usage but never bills more than the set amount is not unlimited but instead as unmetered.