Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja
I hear you 
But even if it was the same principles apply, that is not the fault of the end user. That is the problem of the service provider and whoever they partner with (probably BT) and its an issue on their part. Its upto them to maintain a level of service for their end users.
If they specifically say in the contract that users enter into that they are capped at x amount per month then i have no issue as the end user will know what to expect and can make a decision on which provider to go with based on that. But most use vauge terms like excessive use (which is how much exactly?) or if you look at ianathuth's post above no real description at all other than it affects the useage of others.
THATS where i have a problem - as that is a problem for the Service provider to deal with not the end user.
You cannot sell a product then complain because they use it. |
Just had a quick look at the Tiscali website and saw no mention of it being uncapped (or even unlimited).
Businesses often advertise things as unlimited, but then in the small print put some get out clause that enables them to kick out heavy users. If they didn't , the resulting cost may bankrupt them.
For instance, a local vietnamese restaurant does an "all you can eat" buffet. Someone I know had three starters, three main meals and 4 desserts all in one sitting. They charged him the £4.99 for the meal, watched while he ate then asked him to leave and not come back. This is all Tiscali are doing.
I agree, morally they could be construed as being wrong. However, those people could have been degrading the service of others by maxing out their connections 24/7. You argue that maybe Tiscali or BT should upgrade their equipment. Maybe they should. Upgrading the equipment costs a lot of money. It's cheaper to merely get rid of the problem by booting off the users. Obviously the cheaper option is more likely to be picked. After all, they could spend millions of pounds upgrading equipment for heavy users, but seeing as those extra users would not pay any extra to use it, they would get no extra money back.
So, morally they are wrong, but legally, they are within their rights to do so, and looking at it from their point of view, they took the most logical step.