False No Usage Limit Claims With UPC

dub45 · 21-03-2010 11:37pm

hightower1 wrote: »

Dub .... vibe... when ye start an ISP thats bettering UPC's network, for less than or the same price and has all the honesty in the world..... I'll be the first to sign. (I'll still read the small print but dont take it personally its just good common sense)

So (apparent) fast speeds justify dishonesty??? And there is plenty of stuff missing from UPC's 'small print' as any critical reading will demonstrate.

Pathetic.

UPC are an appalling company by many standards and it is quite incredible that people consistently allow 'fast speeds' to blind them to this fact.

vibe666 · 22-03-2010 12:03am

hightower1 wrote: »

Dub .... vibe... when ye start an ISP thats bettering UPC's network, for less than or the same price and has all the honesty in the world..... I'll be the first to sign. (I'll still read the small print but dont take it personally its just good common sense)

yet again, you don't have an argument so you just come out with a pointless post. :rolleyes:

since when did one person's inability to do 'better' than a dishonest multinational corporation exclude them from being able to criticise it?

i seem to remember our first little disagreement was when i accused you of working for UPC, but I see now that you obviously don't. you must be the PR manager for Toyota with views like that. :rolleyes:

JHMEG · 22-03-2010 12:35am

enfant terrible wrote: »

Why don't comreg force them to label it as a 250GB limit per month instead of unlimited.

Broadband is not within the remit of Comreg. Or An Bord Pleanála or SIMI or Tesco. Broadband is not regulated in Ireland.

hightower1 · 22-03-2010 12:54am

jesus calm down, all i said was you do better and i'll join yer super isp. relax ....... its sunday!

dub45 · 22-03-2010 12:56am

hightower1 wrote: »

jesus calm down, all i said was you do better and i'll join yer super isp. relax ....... its sunday!

No matter what day of the week it is - nonsense is nonsense:rolleyes:

ArseBurger · 22-03-2010 1:05am

JHMEG wrote: »

Broadband is not within the remit of Comreg. Or An Bord Pleanála or SIMI or Tesco. Broadband is not regulated in Ireland.

If you're stating that 'Broadband' is not regulated in Ireland, would you please define Broadband for me?

bk · 22-03-2010 3:45am

- Fact most western countries have truly unlimited broadband [1]
- Fact UPC has an effective 250GB limit, they are lying, it isn't unlimited [2]
- Fact most other Irish ISP's are the same and often have worse caps. [3]

All ISP's shouldn't be allowed to advertise unlimited unless they really are.
All ISP's should be made advertise their CAP up front.
All ISP's should be made advertise what action is taken if you go over the cap.
All ISP's should be made advertise any other network management techniques they use, such as throttling or blocking P2P.

It is as simple as that, no excuses, the Department Of Communications and Minister Ryan should have taken care of this a long time ago.

[1] Really, most other countries don't even enforce fair usage policies on very heavy users. There was war in the US when Comcast tried trialing it.

[2] UPC use to seem to just operate a fair usage policy which seemed to be based on if you were on a very congested node and you were taking the piss, you would get a warning, that was fair enough. UPC have now crossed a line, were they seem to really just have a 250GB cap, which you get automatically charged €80 if you go over it.

This isn't a fair usage policy, this is an effective 250GB cap and UPC can't claim they are unlimited any longer, IMO

[3] In fairness, I haven't heard Magnet enforcing a fair usage policy on anyone and I think Eircom don't either, but I'm open to correction on that.

dub45 · 22-03-2010 4:14am

bk wrote: »

- Fact most western countries have truly unlimited broadband [1]
- Fact UPC has an effective 250GB limit, they are lying, it isn't unlimited [2]
- Fact most other Irish ISP's are the same and often have worse caps. [3]

All ISP's shouldn't be allowed to advertise unlimited unless they really are.
All ISP's should be made advertise their CAP up front.
All ISP's should be made advertise what action is taken if you go over the cap.

This is basically Comreg's policy which I posted a link to earlier.

bk wrote: »

[2] UPC use to seem to just operate a fair usage policy which seemed to be based on if you were on a very congested node and you were taking the piss, you would get a warning, that was fair enough. UPC have now crossed a line, were they seem to really just have a 250GB cap, which you get automatically charged €80 if you go over it.

This isn't a fair usage policy, this is an effective 250GB cap and UPC can't claim they are unlimited any longer, IMO .

UPC 'upgrade' offenders to a product which isn't even officially listed on their website. http://www.upc.ie/broadband/ and note no qualification anywhere on that page on the 'unlimited'[/QUOTE]

bk wrote: »

[3] In fairness, I haven't heard Magnet enforcing a fair usage policy on anyone and I think Eircom don't either, but I'm open to correction on that

The ironic thing is that Eircom have official caps which do they not seem to enforce while UPC 'dont have a cap' which they do enforce!!!!:rolleyes:

ComReg would like to advise consumers that any provision of a contract which sets usage thresholds, or describes what constitutes ‘fair’ or ‘acceptable’ use, should be clear and unambiguous, particularly where the service is described as being ‘unlimited’.

Usage thresholds or limits should be clearly set out, as should the manner in which they may be updated or amended.

ComReg expects each service provider to implement a clear, transparent and policy for dealing with customer usage above any set thresholds. The policy should set out the rules for contract termination, including penalties, the charges that shall apply for any use above the threshold/limit, and the policy regarding migration of the customer to other packages, if applicable.

http://www.askcomreg.ie/internet/my_provider_has_advertised_an_unlimited_package_%E2%80%93_what_does_that_mean_for_me.5.154.LE.asp

vibe666 · 22-03-2010 9:37am

JHMEG wrote: »

Broadband is not within the remit of Comreg. Or An Bord Pleanála or SIMI or Tesco. Broadband is not regulated in Ireland.

you might want to tell that to ComReg and the EU, they seem to disagree with you.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/953&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The European Commission today endorsed the Irish regulator's (ComReg) proposal to lower the prices charged by Eircom, the incumbent telecoms operator, to its competitors for granting access to its network and for migrating customers from one wholesale product to another. The proposed measures represent an important step towards facilitating direct investment in infrastructure and enhancing competition on the Irish broadband market.

comreg might not have any teeth, but they are the communications regulator in ireland and broadband (being a form of electronic communication amongst other things) is most certainly within their remit whether they like it or not.

bk · 22-03-2010 11:09am

hightower1 wrote: »

I'm sure UPC would be delighted to label it with a 250 cap if every ISP was also forced to state their caps because everyone here seems to forget that every single ISP in Ireland all say their product is unlimited but in fact does have a limit.... why would UPC contest a blanket ruling to show caps when they are beating the pants off all the other ISP's cap wise. It'd be just another way for them to show off their superior specs. :cool:

You know, I initially agreed with you, but looking around the market, UPC seem to be the only major ISP who don't clearly state their cap on their site, so it would seem UPC have no excuse for not doing the same.

Eircom
Clearly state a 75GB cap up front, but don't say what happens if you go over it.

Vodafone
Clearly state a 100GB cap up front, but don't say what happens if you go over it.

UTV
State a 16GB cap, with an unlimited for an extra €5, they do have a fair usage on the unlimited and don't state what it is, so only half way there.

Magnet
Don't say anything about a cap, but also don't claim to be unlimited anywhere and from what I've heard never actually enforce any cap, so pretty fair.

Smart
Don't say they are unlimited anymore, but also don't say anything upfront about their 170GB cap.

Digiweb
Clearly state their caps up front, but don't say what happens if you go over it.

UPC
Claim to be unlimited (literally the only ISP to remain doing so), but effectively have a 250GB cap

So really UPC have no excuse for continuing to claim unlimited BB. It looks like much of the industry is getting there. Comreg should really just make the last bit of effort to make UPC do the same and also make them all detail clearly what happens if you go over.

zeris · 22-03-2010 3:57pm

bk wrote: »

[1] Really, most other countries don't even enforce fair usage policies on very heavy users. There was war in the US when Comcast tried trialing it.

Comcast trailed and have introduced a 250GB bandwidth cap. I don't know if they are still doing their DPI to throttle P2P.

For your "most other countries don't even enforce fair usage policies on very heavy users" your going have to show your work.

JHMEG · 22-03-2010 4:16pm

vibe666 wrote: »

you might want to tell that to ComReg and the EU, they seem to disagree with you.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/953&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=encomreg might not have any teeth, but they are the communications regulator in ireland and broadband (being a form of electronic communication amongst other things) is most certainly within their remit whether they like it or not.

That's forcing eircom to lower wholesale prices. Has nothing to do wth retail broadband.

It's been a while since I spoke to them but they told me they are not responsible for broadband.

IrishTonyO · 22-03-2010 4:21pm

Comreg are responsible for:-

Our remit covers all kinds of transmission networks including:

Traditional telephone wire
Traditional television and radio
Radio Communications including fixed wireless
MMDS and deflector operators providing TV services
Mobile operators providing voice and data services
Licensing Framework for Satellite Services in Ireland
Postal delivery network

http://www.comreg.ie/about_us/roles_what_we_do.523.html

zeris · 22-03-2010 4:35pm

vibe666 wrote: »

you might want to tell that to ComReg and the EU, they seem to disagree with you.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/953&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=encomreg might not have any teeth, but they are the communications regulator in ireland and broadband (being a form of electronic communication amongst other things) is most certainly within their remit whether they like it or not.

Comreg regulate the cost of wholesale line rental and the cost of wholesale bitstream from Eircom. I am not sure about LLU, or if Comreg just regulate from the Eircom side.

Wireless and cable operators for example are not regulated by Comreg.

Nody · 22-03-2010 5:12pm

hightower1 wrote: »

We could get lucky and people might actually start reading what their signing for and stop being naive? :eek::D

You should see the comments in Rip of Ireland about mobile broadband and exceeding the 10GB monthly limit and because they consider it a rip off (yet signed the contract agreeing to it) that they should not have to pay it...

Jonathan · 22-03-2010 6:02pm

Nody wrote: »

You should see the comments in Rip of Ireland about mobile broadband and exceeding the 10GB monthly limit and because they consider it a rip off (yet signed the contract agreeing to it) that they should not have to pay it...

If you use your full cap, it costs the mobile operators a lot more than your subscription to provide the service.

bealtine · 22-03-2010 6:05pm

Jonathan wrote: »

If you use your full cap, it costs the mobile operators a lot more than your subscription to provide the service.

It costs exactly the same to provide under the cap and over the cap, so it costs exactly the same to provide the data regardless of cap. Any charging over the cap is just price gouging.

Jonathan · 22-03-2010 6:15pm

bealtine wrote: »

It costs exactly the same to provide under the cap and over the cap, so it costs exactly the same to provide the data regardless of cap. Any charging over the cap is just price gouging.

When did bandwidth and network infrastructure become free?

bealtine · 22-03-2010 6:19pm

Jonathan wrote: »

When did bandwidth and network infrastructure become free?

Who suggested that? The user still pays regardless of the cap.

It still costs exactly the same to provide the data before the cap as after the cap.

zeris · 22-03-2010 6:41pm

bealtine wrote: »

It costs exactly the same to provide under the cap and over the cap, so it costs exactly the same to provide the data regardless of cap. Any charging over the cap is just price gouging.

Technically you are correct. In reality it is more complicated.

novarock · 22-03-2010 6:41pm

How big is the contention pipe on the service - its probably in the contract somewhere. So divide the 30mpbs by the contention pipe that is stated in the contract - this is all the provider has to give you in a month. It could be anywhere up to 50:1 with some providers. Ive heard that the UPC fibre connections can have anywhere up to 400:1 contention ratios.

Generally all this has been thought of before by the providers, they will get you on the terms and conditions that they say your agreement is subject to. THey can advertise what they want because people accept these contracts without really reading them.

And to be fair, you are never going to download 10T a month for 80 euro. That is an awful lot of data. A 10 meg uncontended pipe from any service provider will cost you multiples of zeros per month..

bealtine · 22-03-2010 6:44pm

zeris wrote: »

Technically you are correct. In reality it is more complicated.

Do fill us in:)

DaveyDave · 22-03-2010 6:47pm

I know I'm not gonna download 10TB in a month, I'm just saying that it's possible to download that much on that speed, and I was using it to show how unfair their cap is. It's like giving someone a Ferrari and saying they can only go 30kph, on weekends and only when it's dry.

Fair enough if they admit they have a 250GB cap and charge people for going over it, but they haven't got the balls to admit it, they just blatantly lie about it and charge you when you go over it and still cap you. I cannot stand this, why are they getting away with this? False or misleading advertising is an offence, I don't see why it would matter who regulates it, the law is the law. They say there isn't a cap. It's clearly stated and there's no small print when they say it yet they have one.

Not only that, the name and their adverts on TV are misleading. Why is it called fiber power when it's cable? Why does their ad on TV show fiber optic cable when it's not fiber optic?

It's also not fair that despite paying twice as much a month we're still capped. We pay twice as much, we should get at least 500GB use a month.

Last April they sent us a letter, blaming us for their poor quality service and that I was effecting other users. We never got the speed we were paying for, I guess that was my problem too. They said large files cause issues for other users, so if I upload a 10GB file at 10kbps for an hour it makes other people's internet slower than if I uploaded a 1GB file at 100kbps for an hour? Not to mention back then there was no mention of a cap or set number.

This is what they said:

We are writing to you because some of our broadband customers in your area have been experiencing deterioration in the service we offer them. We have found that this is usually caused by a small number of broadband customers who continually upload and download extremely large files, which has a detrimental effect on our network.

Our broadband service is intended for normal recreational or educational use by individuals and families'. Customers, who use the services excessivlely, i.e beyond the acceptable level of a normal home user, will reduce the performance of the network for other customers. Our records show us that your broadband usage is exceeding the acceptable usage guidelines for residential use which is set at a generous 250GB of data transfer monthly. In the month of April 09 you uploaded/downloaded in excess of 560.21000000000000.4GB.

bealtine · 22-03-2010 6:51pm

Jonathan wrote: »

A couple of heavy sessions? More like a week of watching solid 1080p h.264 youtube.

Take for example the 1080p version of this video.

3500kbps*1min = 25.63MB/min
25.63MB/min*60min = 1.537GB/hour
250GB/1.537GB/hour = 162.65hours
166.66hours/24hours = 6.77days

Now divide that into your average family with a couple of tech savvy kids.

zeris · 22-03-2010 7:01pm

bealtine wrote: »

Do fill us in:)

Caps and FUPs exist as a deterrent to maxing your connection for extended periods of time in the hope that ISPs can aggregate their customers traffic into a nice constant flow without too many peaks.

Which brings us to IP transit, peering, IXs, CIR, 95th percentile billing etc etc.

bealtine · 22-03-2010 7:10pm

zeris wrote: »

Caps and FUPs exist as a deterrent to maxing your connection for extended periods of time in the hope that ISPs can aggregate their customers traffic into a nice constant flow without too many peaks.

Which brings us to IP transit, peering, IXs, CIR, 95th percentile billing etc etc.

Most of those are "makey uppy" problems that are not relevant to the consumer in any case. Joe pays for X so should get X not .5X.
Contention is a similar "problem" and just means the ISP has made a bet that everybody will only look at web pages and never try to use youtube.

Pipes are a reasonable cost and if the ISP is too miserable to get a decent pipe then the consumer shouldn't be penalised.

zeris · 22-03-2010 7:37pm

bealtine wrote: »

Most of those are "makey uppy" problems that are not relevant to the consumer in any case. Joe pays for X so should get X not .5X.
Contention is a similar "problem" and just means the ISP has made a bet that everybody will only look at web pages and never try to use youtube.

Yes, ISPs make up these problems because they are punitive, vindictive and love administrative headaches. :rolleyes:

bealtine wrote: »

Pipes are a reasonable cost and if the ISP is too miserable to get a decent pipe then the consumer shouldn't be penalised.

Excellent, do share the vendor(s) names.

bealtine · 22-03-2010 7:56pm

zeris wrote: »

Yes, ISPs make up these problems because they are punitive, vindictive and love administrative headaches. :rolleyes:

Standard operating procedure of ISPs that try to save lots of money on NOT providing decent bandwidth.

zeris · 22-03-2010 8:37pm

bealtine wrote: »

Standard operating procedure of ISPs that try to save lots of money on NOT providing decent bandwidth.

Right. So where would I go to find an ISP that will give me a 30Mbps connection with IP transit to the Internet with no contention for EUR50 or less a month? I especially like to stream HDTV at 2000 in the evenings.

bealtine · 22-03-2010 8:39pm

zeris wrote: »

Right. So where would I go to find an ISP that will give me a 30Mbps connection with IP transit to the Internet with no contention for EUR50 or less a month? I especially like to stream HDTV at 2000 in the evenings.

Holland (anywhere but Ireland)

False No Usage Limit Claims With UPC

Comments