GiffGaff boots freetards off mobile network People-powered mobile phone network GiffGaff is debating how best to curb excessive data use, while kicking off a few customers considered to be really taking the biscuit. GiffGaff has always offered unlimited data with its "goody-bag" tariffs, which start at a tenner a month, and unlike competing networks it has never imposed …
...Goodybag data use is for use on your mobile phone and that it cannot be connected to any other device:
"5.13. In addition to our standard terms and conditions, all usage must be for your private, personal and non-commercial purposes. You may not use your SIM Card:
a) In, or connected to, any other device including modems, dongles or any other way to connect to a PC (unless you are on a gigabag plan)
b) fraudulently;
c) in such a way that adversely impacts the service to other giffgaff customers; or illegally"
They don't specidically use the term "tethering", so it isn't limited to *just* connections to a PC.
....connecting "to another device" - it's got nothing to do with whether that signal goes over the internet. You are still breaching the Ts & Cs - you want a plan that allows that, then get one of the fixed amount Gigabags that GG offer, which are still very reasonably priced.
This post has been deleted by its author
I have watched an iPlayer programme on my phone before now. Admittedly I wouldn't make a habit of it, and it wasn't one where the video was that important (the audio stream had most of the relevant content), but that once it was convenient. However, it was connected over Wifi at the time, given that 3G coverage is non-existent in my hou-se, and even GSM is almost so.
It is tethering. The phone data package is intended to be used by a phone. The second you link your phone to a more powerful device then you're tethering.
Giffgaff have another goodybag package for people wanting tethering or tablet browsing.
But of course we all know that Android users like to boast about using their Wifi hotspot functionality against the T&Cs of their operator.
They're applying them. Data usage on goodybags has always been exclusively for use on the handset as their Ts & Cs have made clear, and has always been dependent upon not adversely affecting other users. A handful of people are taking the mick, and GG are doing something about it. Good for them. As someone who's a GG customer, and has been for some time, and who sticks to those rules, that's fine by me.
They're not necessarily applying the rule you posted above. That relates to the SIM being put in or connected to another device, and it's specifically a PC that they mention, not a TV. If someone sends video to a TV from a phone then the TV is no more connected to the SIM than a pair of headphones is if they send audio to a pair of headphones. Did they ask the 1% what they were doing with their SIM card, or did they just cut them off? What if they have projector phones, is that Ok with you?
is no excuse for publishing ignorant and inaccurate rants either, but they seem to be letting you get away with it. GG allow unlimited data usage on goodybags for use *on the handset*. Connect that handset to another device which will be accessing the data and you breach the Ts & Cs, end of. If you want a tariff which allows that sort of usage, they offer Gigabags of varying fixed sizes which allow usage in dongles, tablets, laptops, tethering, whatever you want.
"Connect that handset to another device which will be accessing the data and you breach the Ts & Cs, end of. If you want a tariff which allows that sort of usage, they offer Gigabags of varying fixed sizes which allow usage in dongles, tablets, laptops, tethering, whatever you want."
So don't plug in your headphones if you use streaming music services then, as that is another device under the T and C so bye bye account!
"GG allow unlimited data usage on goodybags for use *on the handset*."
Plugging your phoneinto your TV is still using the data on the handset, the data is then changed before its sent to the tv so its not the data you got from the internet, its called decoding.
"is no excuse for publishing ignorant and inaccurate rants either"
Might want to look at the accuracy of your own rants, and your staunch defence of this might make people dig a bit deeper into why you are defending so militantly.
I AM a GiffGaff customer who uses data on my handset and would like to keep the service that I have. Like the vast majority of us. I've made that abundantly clear. I'm forced to wonder why you're so staunch in your defence of people who are abusing that service and endangering its provision for the rest of us. Got caught, did you?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "unlimited" as
unlimited
Pronunciation: /ʌnˈlɪmɪtɪd/
adjective
1 not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent:
offshore reserves of gas and oil are not unlimited
Mathematics (of a problem) having an infinite number of solutions.
2 (of a company) not limited.
But it seems the marketing people at telephone companies have a different idea of what "unlimited" means.
If you did read it then you'd see that section 5.13 refers to SIM cards being used in modems and sending internet packets from the SIM. It does not rule out using a headphone connection to send audio data from the phone, or using an HDMI connection to send video data from the phone. What if your phone comes with a hands free kit, which is only any use when "connected to the SIM" (via the headphone socket). Should those users have their contracts torn up?
This "unlimited" service is being abused by the people who are limiting it, not by people who plug headphones, amps or TVs into their phones. If they want to limit the service then they should have the balls to sell it as a limited service. End of.
You're assuming that they failed to understand the meaning of the orginial terms when they offered UNLIMITED DATA, a.k.a. unlimited bandwidth use, as a means to gain subscribers. They understood completely what "unlimited" means, and I have no doubt that once they had atttracted a large number of people under contract they planned this move to kick off those who took them at their word and used their devices with no thought to how much data they were consuming. Why should should the consumer have been worried about their bandwidth use? Unlimited means exactly that. Check the dictionary.
What people didn't read was the fine print which states that GG had the "right" to unilaterally change the terms any time they wanted, and without recourse by the consumer. But, to do that and not look like the orge they ae, they had to denigrate those who took the original contract at face value, hence the term "freetard". That term is totally misleading, and in fact is slander. The customers who took them up on their offer of unlimited data were PAYING for that plan. How could it be free? How the data is used AFTER the packets arrive at the phone in no way increases the bandwidth. But, "journalists" acting as corporate shills, and folks who assume that someone else using their plan the way it was offered somehow affects their own use of the service, want to "name and shame" those who do understand what "unlimited" means? The CULPRIT here is GG, who deliberately oversubscribed the bandwidth they purchased from O2, KNOWING that in the near future they would pull the rug out from under them, along with a spat of name calling to make the consumer look like the guilty party.
The shills I understand. Why some consumers want to behave like North Koreans and behave like everything GG or the shill says is true.
It can't be that difficult to regulate speed someone gets... T Mobile's new tariffs are 'unlimited' in the same way. You get X amount of Meg, go over that, and your speed disappears.
This change forced Tesco to change all their marketing for TMobile to show the fair use figure as the data allowance, to prevent them giving misleading information to customers...
My suggestion to GiffGaff is to :-
Publish how much data the individuals in the 1% are using....
Publish their 'fair use' limits
Allow users to *easily* see how much data they are using...
Meanwhile, someone (Ofcom, OfFT, whoever) should start looking into the disproportionate (IMHO) costs for Broadband usage over the mobile network... surely bandwidth is not that expensive these days...
"Allow users to *easily* see how much data they are using..."
That. That right there.
Especially when the best provider you can get in an area offers a 20gig fair usage, at ~£30 per month, throttles anything that streams, such as YouTube. Then phones up threatening to kick you off after you go two gig over the fair usage once in 9 months.
I was under the impression "fair usage" provided some leeway and took usual usage into account, but no, apparently those gigabytes downloaded in the early hours of the morning were having a serious detrimental effect on other users. Yeah.. right.
I should probably call them once a week to find out how much data I've used, I couldn't find it on their site.
/unintentional rant about O2
That's the problem with "unlimited" data plans when they're not actually unlimited. Companies shouldn't be able to use the word unless they mean it. Why not be open and honest - 100MB, 500MB, 1GB, 10GB per month?
If I was one of the 1% and they gave me that warning, I'd want to know what the limit of the "unlimited" plan was - how can you be in breach of contract if you don't know what the contract is?
Or is this the law of diminishing returns - bollock the top 1% now, then the next top 1%, then the next... Slowly bringing everyone's data usage down and reducing costs, but still maintaining the phantom "unlimited" plan?
The way I see it, it's unlimited like the speed on derestricted parts of the Autobahn is. That's to say, go as fast as you like, but if you start making a nuisance of yourself by bashing into others, don't expect the authorities to turn a blind eye. Usual analogy disclaimers apply.
As for the "freetard" bit, well don't tell anyone, but many of us end up effectively not spending anything to get the service as described. That may well have been what the author is referring to.
The least they could do is tell you what percentile of data usage you're in. And why not real-time? This is technology we're talking about. Even that wouldn't be that helpful without some sort of measure of "disproportionality". And should you manage to come up with such a measure you could even build a billing model on that, offering near-free access to that "long tail". That "people's network" idea should extend to showing at least just what the network and you are in for, if not the rest of your fellow people's network people.
If a company advertises "unlimited data," then scolds the top 1% of users for using 30% of the data, everyone is up in arms: "It's not really unlimited! I should be able to stream Netflix every second of every day!"
On the other hand, if a company is up front about having a cap on their data, and are very clear about how much data is allowed before you are cut off, billed extra, and/or publicly humiliated... everyone is up in arms. "They are just trying to rip people off! See how much they're charging for overages? And they sneak it in, right there in bold print!"
And finally, if a company decides to continue to allow everyone to use as much as they like, but up the charge on everyone a bit to pay for it... everyone is up in arms yet again. "It's highway robbery! Next thing you know they'll charge me to breathe!"
They can't win. Meanwhile, it sounds like this company is actually being fairly sane about it, and not hiking charges or imposing strict cutoffs. Maybe not entirely fair to some, but still, sane.
And last month, when I didn't really use Youtube or iPlayer, I didn't even top 1gig, even though I use the internet all the time on my phone. Was usually between a gig and two with some light video usage. Streaming video is the killer for most users.
I suppose if you tether and download you could rack up a fair amount too but never needed that. It's nice to know I could use it in an emergency even though it's a bit naughty but unless you're forced to why would you?
Back to the streaming video, if they put in speed-limits after a certain amount of usage that would likely kill the video. Whatever the reason that would piss off the user no end. Unhappy customers with no contract = byebye.
I seem to remember reading somewhere on the GiffGaff site that although they called their data allowance 'unlimited' there was a limit beyond which they reserved the right to let you know/kick your arse/tell you to go away. For some reason the figure of 150GB/month sticks in my mind. That's an awful lot of data...
"There isn't a limit; there are restrictions on how the service may be used, not how much. I posted the relevant section above. I don't think we'll miss you.
"
and so there is a limit there then.
Defintion 2 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restriction of restriction (from the american history of langauge)
"2. Something that restricts; a regulation or limitation."
Not the word LIMITation?
You CANNOT say there isn't a limit but there is restrictions, as the restrictions limit (see what i did there) what you can do.
It is perfectly possible to say that there is no limit on how much of a product or service is consumed, thus making *consumption* unlimited, but that there are restrictions on the means by which it is consumed. You can post as much irrelevant American bullshit as you like, you'll still be wrong.
This post has been deleted by its author
"you are asserting that GG are guilty of dishonesty or other wrongdoing"
I never said any such thing, now you are misrepresenting what I said, however _you_ did assert that the 1% were doing something wrong but you consistently fail to produce any evidence except some heresy from GiffGaff, See how that works.
The problem with using an arbitrary percentage to determine who are infringing on others rights, is that the underlying number constantly shifts. That's aside from it being an interestering percentage point for GiffGaff to pick (perhaps an attempt to create some loose connections in people's imagination to... oh... I don't know).
Rally against the "less than 1%" of GiffGaff users if you must, kick them off the network... keep doing it and before long, you will find yourself crossing over into the "less than 1%". What will you say then? But I only use it for email synching, web browsing, social networking, occasional youtube use... "That's too much!" - the mob will scream! Far better to have some actual usage statistics so you can hold your service provider to account and ensure they're not just downsizing.
Of course, I expect the next rally cry to be against the 1% of people in rural locations being subsidised by the 99% for the letters and parcels they get to send at the same rate as everyone else - it's completely unfair!
I have quite a low opinion of your intelligence nichomach, however I think it is quite clear from the context that that is a typo for "hearsay". Just so you don't get any more confused that you presently are, here's the definition: "Unverified information heard or received from another; gossip; rumour".
that'll keep me awake at nights, Krakenfool. Here's a thought; next time you abuse the English language, correct it, don't blame other people for your error. A typo? Really? In which you manage to lose the 'a' from 'hear', insert an 'e' to transform it into 'here', and then omit the 'a' from 'say'. That's one heck of a 'typo' you've managed there, sport. Not that I'm implying that you simply used the wrong word due to ignorance and a tendency to pomposity, no, sir, not I...
Actually it has been demonstrated, since they've stated as much on the forum thread linked to from the article. On the basis of their testimony, and absent any evidence to suggest that they are lying, that 1% contains a significant number of people who are breaching the terms and conditions of service. Krakenfart asserts that GiffGaff's statement is "bullshit"; that is an assertion of dishonesty or wrongdoing, but one for which he adduces no evidence or testimony to support it. Craigness asserts that they are lying as well, yet offers no evidence to support that assertion. If GiffGaff state that there is abuse of their network, that is something of which they can have direct knowledge (not hearsay, despite what Krakenfart states); that is evidence. A bald assertion that they are lying from someone with no direct knowledge of whether they are or not, and without any physical evidence or testimony from someone who has such direct knowledge is, well, nothing. It's just noise. You see?
"Unless you have evidence that GiffGaff are lying, then I would take their assertion as being the requisite evidence".
Oh Boy, not only are you on the slippery slope, you’ve fallen right off the edge and into the abyss.... How many wars and atrocities have occurred in past history because somebody’s "assertion" was accepted as being the "evidence"? How long ago did you have your frontal lobotomy?
I'm not the only person to ask you this, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE 1% HAVE BREACHED THEIR T&C'S. I'll answer it for you, YOU DON'T, all as you know is that the 1% are using their connection as it was advertised i.e. as an unlimited connection.
Not unless you are actually an employee of GiffGaff (other than in PR) and you know something that the GiffGaff users don't, It wouldn’t be the first time a company has put spyware on the phones it sell to joe public?????
This has gone on long enough, you're one troll I'm not going to feed any more (I extend my middle finger in your general direction).
You didn't answer my question "How do you know they're not abiding with the T&Cs?" It's impossible to say that people were booted off for violating terms rather than exceeding the unpublished limited if you don't know that they were actually violating the terms. Using an unlimited amount of data is not a violation of the terms you posted above, yet the people removed from the service were identified as the top 1% of users, not the top 1% of terms violators. If they published a limit then it would be reasonable to end the contracts of people who exceed it.
If the supply is unlimited and free the demand will be infinite.
It's all fine postulating how these people use so much data and guessing that they are breaching the T&C's but when a resource is free you will find people are ingenious in their over use of it. When Cable first went in in our area cable-to-cable calls were free and unlimited. Some people used them as baby monitors while spending an evening with friends down the street. I new someone who had an un-metered water supply who used to leave a tap running 24/7 into his 50 m2 Koi pond to 'keep the water fresh'.
I wonder how much data a permanent skype/facetime call would use? What about sufferers of tweetarrhea with pics/video. What about Mr 'Oh I just leave News24 on all day just in case'? somebody somewhere is downloading whole movies, watching the first 5 minutes, getting bored and downloading another one.
You don't need to connect a phone to a telly to pull down gobs of data, I regularly see the kids pull over 2.5Mb/s for long periods watching videos on WiFi and iPlayer onto my SII will often pull 3.5Mb/s.
You don't need to be feeding some external higher res device.
At home the O2 signal isn't good enough for them to trouble GiffGaff by watching videos over the phone link.
Main issue is stupid advertising regulator can't read a F**king dictionary and allowed everyone to get away with fraudulent advertising.
Unlimited should mean "UNLIMITED", no stupid hidden Sh*tty fair use clauses.
If there is any sort of limit, then it is NOT UNLIMITED, full stop, no weaseling, no argument, no fraud.
So this nonsense about headphones being a tethering scenario.... what nonsense.
Headphones do not process the data received over 3G, the phone has a DAC, it converts this and the headphones receive the audio signal from that.
Your TV does not process the data, but the result of the data...
Your laptop receives the IP Packets sent on 3G. That is tethering.
Now about this limited unlimited... for the 'n' amount of revenue received how much data is feasible while still giving margin, when calculated in a sane way. Then take some away, to give margin. Problem solved. Now publish *that* amount.
If network has capacity and you have used the guaranteed allowance you can..
A) Offer customers "best efforts" option of low priority data when capacity allows. Send them a text so they know they are at that point ... and maybe warn them beforehand too.
B) Offer a paid option of more data with the paid priority again.
For example, my phone downloads podcasts daily. It does it at 3am. Network has capacity spare, no major cost to provider for me using it, so i should be able to get good speeds and even if I do not, i don't mind since it is downloading for later.
If i needed data NOW I would be able to live with what is available on best efforts, or pay to get it PDQ.
The sooner we get away from the nonsense of unlimited with limits the better.
"I LOVE all the downvotes from people who aren't GG customers, who this in no way affects, but who are very eager to see a service that I use and pay for ****ed up by people not abiding by the conditions of the service...."
No, I think you are being downvoted as you are struggling to tell your posterior from your elbow. Connecting a phone to a TV and watching iPlayer on it is NOT against the T's & C's of GG, as it is not connected to another device which can use its data connection, all the TV is doing is displaying what is on the screen. Pretty much the same way as using the data connection to download maps for the satnav whilst the phone is connected to a BT headset - the TV/BT Headset/Headphones are completely immaterial.
By your reckoning GG customers would have to turn off their data connection when their phone is on charge, as it is connected to another device (the charger), and god help them if they use USB charging......
Plainly anyone can see this is a load of nonsense.
I fully understand why giffgaff have done what they done, 1% of users using up 1/3 of the capacity is very disproportionate. However, why do they advertise themselves as unlimited if it is clearly not? Why not set an upper limit on data usage where those 1% are exceeding. This would at least show the service as what it is actually doing. If you want to allow users to occasionally have months of very high usage while other months are low then why not set an annual bandwidth cap. Any service that uses unlimited is just asking for abuse and thus I do not think the term should be used.
It's a classic Poverty of the Commons situation and such will always happen without regulations and control. It's why humans invented regulations and controls on usage. The only people who bleat about the necessity of such things are those who fancy themselves one percenters and want to go fill their boots at everyone else's expense.
This always happens - 1% of the users use 50% of the traffic - so 99% of the users are paying more or suffering slower speeds as a result.
If it's a network for it's users the fairest thing would be to kick off the 1% of excessive users each month and you would probably sign up many more normal users as you could reduce your prices and be more competitive.
Networks should be honest and up front with exactly what you are getting and equally users should not 'abuse' the service - but if the networks did their bit first people could not abuse the networks.
I would rather have xGb I can do what I ilke with than 'unlimited' that is not unlimited and can't be used for this that or the other.
The obvious way forward is to move away from the incorrect use of the word unlimited. Provide a limit and stop drawing customers, especially those ultra-consuming ones who are not desired, with fake promises of unlimited.
Anything that says "subject to fair use" ought to be banned in the context of saying something is unlimited. What is reasonable is subjective.
So remove unlimited and apply a reasonable limit that would cause customers in the top 1% to have to pay more. It would then be possible to allow tethering with no penalty. Simples.
Er OK pedromap here's a way...
I have a Motorola Atrix. I download Podcasts, several. Daily and Weekly ones. My Atrix has a linux install built into it, and connecting it to a screen (which is not tethering no matter how many times morons say it is) means I get access to full desktop Firefox among other things.
Using said firefox I can watch BBC iPlayer, I can download lots of stuff, browse full fat web pages, and many other things, all legitimately, and none by tethering. I can EASILY (and do) sail past 10GB a month.
OK sure, the Atrix is unusual in this regard (today, but give it time...)
Yes it is undoubtedly true that "some" will be tethering or otherwise doing things against the T&Cs, or are just using as much data as they possibly can because they can - in the same way some people download never ending "linux ISOs" if you believe them but somehow never have time to watch, sorry, install them.
So there are really only 3 issues:
(a) Some users can legitimately use a lot of data without breaching the terms and conditions, and as it stands, those users are not only complying with the terms of service, giffgaff right now are obliged to provide that service in return for the consideration (the money paid) otherwise they are in breach of the terms to the customer.
(b) Some users are using the service against the terms they signed up to. This is not a point for debate, you're either compliant or you are not. If you are doing anything accepted as tethering by anyone sane (eg except morons who think chargers or headphones are suddenly tethering). then you're in breach and should (as per your terms) be disconnected.
(c) Giffgaff like many many before make these problems for themselves. If they could not bill for the data, they could have said, for 'x' per month you get 'y' amount of data, and said NOTHING about the fact it was unlimited - some will work it out and get lucky, many won't, and anyone accidentally using over the agreed limit will have a nice experience too. Once they can bill, give it a month, let people know what they used and if more than allowed either tell them they'll have to reduce in future, or pay 'n' for more data.
If they're able to bill for the data, then the problem never crops up unless someone set a limit that was also unsustainable (this person therefore needs to be redeployed to a different area of the business since financials are not for them).
However, giffgaff started with "data is free, use as much as you want" then continue with "unlimited data". Given they're offering "unlimited" that's what they should be providing (subject to you complying with your side of the bargain).
They are of course entitled to change the offer - I'm not sure why there is such a debate. They've got the right to change things, various notice periods may apply (generally quite short since nobody has a long term contract), and once said notice period is over, if the offer isn't like the old one, you can moan as much as you like, but you weren't offered the service for any duration beyond that which you had paid for it.
Meanwhile for the majority of people, this is indifferent "news" because they're not using an amount of data outside the agreement that causes a problem, and even if they were tethering (not that it makes it OK) they don't use enough to cause any concerns. So in the same way that 1% will be using all the data if those numbers stack up, I suspect that same 1% will be crying themselves a frikking river of upset over something they're not obliged to receive for more than 'd' days, and that doubtless a good number of them will be using a service they haven't paid for (no, sorry, "I paid for unlimited data and it doesn't matter how I use it" is NOT a valid argument because actually you did not. You paid for unlimited data for specified purposes).
OK, so now where is the IT news?
how ever there is a big difference between 10GB on one data consuming device and
and the same 10GB on two data consuming devices, not the amount but the way it is used, it is very clear that 10gb on one device costs less bandwidth then 10gb on two devices, that is what was the discussion was about ..
what i was trying to explain and making a mess of it, was not about the amount of data itself, it was about how some users use that data, so to make myself clearer its OK any amount of data as long you don't connect two separate devices on that unlimited goodybag, to connect two devices together and use data the new gigabags where devised for such purpose...
nobody simply understands the principle behind the rule of no tethering and the over usage of resources:
1 - 1KB of data usage when connecting unlimited a goodybag mobile phone to a second device is already over the limit just because someone connected two devices together, and that is tethering by definition and a clear breach of terms and conditions for that goodybag, no matter how this is explained no one outside of giffgaff will ever understand the real issue here.
2 - 20 GB on one device only ie the smart phone is OK as long as the smartphone itself was never used as a modem device and I know the tech staff @ giffgaff never handout bans without any reason #### As once i read a user of the forum complaining of being barred and when he confronted the staff member on a public forum it was discovered later that user was using a mobile broadband usb device with a unlimited goodybag ## i will not publicly name that user and will not post that discussion here
in conclusion if i may enlighten every one once and for all, not the AMOUNT of data is the HOW you get the data that is important.
and @ Vince it is a pleasure to meet a fellow Linux user i was starting to think i am the only one in the UK and about my numbers i was trying to demonstrate usage patterns not amounts of data by themselves, however it looks like i explained this badly on that post...
Bandwidth costs money.
Carriers have to use revenue to provision that bandwidth.
That revenue comes from their subscribers.
Any carrier that promises true unlimited bandwidth while pricing competitive to a market that no longer offers unlimited bandwidth is going to attract the people most likely to consume it, and drive them into bankruptcy.
Therefore, the 'unlimited bandwidth at cheap prices' model is unsustainable, and they need to stop pretending it can be offered.
And those of you whining about 'but they said....' need to realize tanstaafl.
Yes but if they told the truth, then they'd lose customers.
And people on here question why others don't trust giffgaffs proclamations?!? Innocent unless proven guilty isn't relevant - evidence is. And if giffgaff won't provide that evidence, then people are likely to be suspicious of giffgaff's motives. Just because someone claims/denies something, doesn't make it so.
The bottom line of the discussions on this long thread is that giffgaff doesn't provide the value required by its customers, ie a low cost but decent download allowance for use at the subscriber's discretion (eg tethering/non-tethering) in conjunction with a phone service. Having to buy a separate SIM for tethering only is just farcical.
I've been a customer of theirs since the outset - long before "goodybags" were even thought of - and I'm quite unhappy about this. They have repeatedly and specifically stated that the unlimited data on goodybags is indeed unlimited - so they have no basis for whining about someone exceeding a limit they lied about!
So far, they've been very honest and quite transparent about most things. If they were to come out and say "OK, we said 'unlimited', but these guys have been using over 3 Gb/month, so we're making a big loss on them", fair enough - indeed, they did exactly that in the past with the "unlimited calls" Goodybag when some people were averaging over, I think, 3 hours per day. If they can't afford genuinely unlimited usage, say so and set a limit instead. If they said, for example, "up to 1 Gb/month", I'd be fine with that - but please, no telling me "unlimited - unless you use it lots, then we'll make up a secret limit and punish you for exceeding it"!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
