Tiscali Kicks Off BB "Hogs"

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Hold on though, and this reaches the crux of it, the user is not affecting the service of others are they? The ISP itself is the problem as they are unable to supply a service which they have advertised as available.

Why is it the users fault? They have paid their money for an uncapped service and are using it as such.

You can't blame the end users of a service who use it as advertised.

We all know that broadband costs are as low as they are because of contention and contention means there is the possibility of one user affecting the service of others.

Most, if not all, ISPs also have within their T&Cs statements about transfer and storage of copyright material. Most heavy users could be terminated because of breach of this and also possibly face criminal charges.

Let's face it, every ISP can get rid of cutomers it does not want quite easily and the user can do nothing about it. The more ISPs that cap users, the faster other ISPs will do the same.

[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.
__________________

Originally Posted by ianathuth

We all know that broadband costs are as low as they are because of contention and contention means there is the possibility of one user affecting the service of others.

Most, if not all, ISPs also have within their T&Cs statements about transfer and storage of copyright material. Most heavy users could be terminated because of breach of this and also possibly face criminal charges.

Let's face it, every ISP can get rid of cutomers it does not want quite easily and the user can do nothing about it. The more ISPs that cap users, the faster other ISPs will do the same.

So why not say they are removing the customer for downloading illegal / copyrighted content?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

So why not say they are removing the customer for downloading illegal / copyrighted content?

They may not have used that criteria to decide who to get rid off. To be honest I don't think that they are too bothered about what customers download as long as they get their money. Heavy users are the problem and they will use anything within the T&Cs to remove them. Anyone who thinks that there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth out there and there will always be an uncapped ISP who they can get it from is in for a bit of a shock somewhere along the road.

[etccarmageddon]

it's a shoddy way to treat customers - they should at least make an effort to find a solution - perhaps implementing a metering system for those who want to use more than 30gig a month.

much better PR than calling a certain section of their use base hogs etc

[TheBlueRaja]

They may not have used that criteria to decide who to get rid off. To be honest I don't think that they are too bothered about what customers download as long as they get their money. Heavy users are the problem and they will use anything within the T&Cs to remove them. Anyone who thinks that there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth out there and there will always be an uncapped ISP who they can get it from is in for a bit of a shock somewhere along the road.

NO

Heavy users are NOT the problem, the ISP's are for advertising a service they cannot adequately provide and then resolving it by removing those users.

If there are uncapped ISP's out there then they should be exactly that after all that is EXACTLY what those users have paid for.

It should not be advertised as uncapped in adverts - but then capped in reality.

[Stuart]

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.

[TheBlueRaja]

It dosent mention a limit either, otherwise that would be a capped service wouldnt it.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by scastle

<snip>
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.
<snip>

They may have been concerned about the furniture

[Neil]

Here we go again.......

[TheBlueRaja]

Im just waiting for it to kick off - then im outa here...

[MovedGoalPosts]

It looks like Tiscali actually changed their terms and conditions in on 5th January 2005. Their site implies that customers signed before then are in the old T&Cs http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/br...terms_old.html
This does not have a specific cap clause
The new T&Cs http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/br...tcs/index.html have a very specific capping clause 8.4

Interestingly they now advertise as "Unlimited Access" rather than just "Unlimited".

What is not clear is whether those getting the boot are just the new users that signed to the new T&Cs or, older users too who should be subject to the less specific clauses.

[ian@huth]

Maybe Tiscali has had an influx of new high usage customers moving to them to avoid caps elsewhere.

[TheBlueRaja]

Even unlimited access is misleading, unlimited access to what?

[SMHarman]

Unlimited as in always on.

[TheBlueRaja]

Lord, they will be calling 128k broadband next.