HTC Desire Vodafone 500mb Fair Usage Policy

gjchester

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Sounds more to me like the networks dont want to upgrade their software or the hardware that processes the connections. And are therefore just doing what telecoms companies always do until competition forces them to offer a better deal. .

Yep your probably spot on there, but to be fair if they installed 4G networks then no phone could use it at the moment anyway. Look how long it took 3G to become common and how long it took to payback the frankly silly sums the networks paid out for this "must have" serveice no one wanted at the time. We still don't use Video calling which was touted as the "killer app" of 3G.

And remember at the end of the day we as customers pay this back licence cost in via our rental.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

500mb is not "huge", "unlimited", "un-go-overable" or any of the other adjectives that networks currently use to describe a stingy amount of data that basically equates to an watching Eastenders on iPlayer.

I agree with you however rather than repeat myself, read my prior post.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=37176922&postcount=1788

The ASA say they can use these terms so it's legal. If you don't like it take it up with the ASA, I put the how to complain link in the post.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If Networks cant provide these data services they shouldnt sell the phones, or at least be much more uprfront about the significant limitations they have imposed in their use.

They can supply all the data you'll ever use, it's just if you want it you need to pay for it. If your not willing to pay then you better start staying under the limit.

People need to understand the days of unlimited freeloading are over. If you want to use the service you better get used to paying for it. If you remember that fat back Text messages used to be free, until the networks realsied they could get away with charging for them, and no-one really worries about it as we have them in the airtime bundles. Same will be true of data, you'll have so much bundled and the rest you'll have to pay for.

musical_norwich

gjchester wrote: »

Yep your probably spot on there, but to be fair if they installed 4G networks then no phone could use it at the moment anyway. Look how long it took 3G to become common and how long it took to payback the frankly silly sums the networks paid out for this "must have" serveice no one wanted at the time. We still don't use Video calling which was touted as the "killer app" of 3G.

And remember at the end of the day we as customers pay this back licence cost in via our rental.




I agree with you however rather than repeat myself, read my prior post.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=37176922&postcount=1788

The ASA say they can use these terms so it's legal. If you don't like it take it up with the ASA, I put the how to complain link in the post.




They can supply all the data you'll ever use, it's just if you want it you need to pay for it. If your not willing to pay then you better start staying under the limit.

People need to understand the days of unlimited freeloading are over. If you want to use the service you better get used to paying for it. If you remember that fat back Text messages used to be free, until the networks realsied they could get away with charging for them, and no-one really worries about it as we have them in the airtime bundles. Same will be true of data, you'll have so much bundled and the rest you'll have to pay for.

I've read what you've written and not replied but now feel I have to. Your posts really are quite ignorant and you are misleading others.

Firstly, the ASA is an industry body that operates a voluntary code. It decides if an advert can run or not but it has no authority to decide whether something is legal or not.

Secondly, Vodafone is clearly in breach of both the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and Condition 9.3 of the General Conditions. Statute does not differentiate between 'tariff' and 'terms and conditions' as you claim: both are part of the contract between the consumer and the provider and cannot be modified to the likely detriment of the consumer without the agreement of the consumer.

How can I prove you are wrong? Three ways:

1. THE REGULATOR - If you ring OFCOM, the right to leave if terms are modified to the consumer's detriment will be confirmed;
2. THE MARKET - Vodafone are letting thousands of consumers leave which Vodafone would not do if it did not legally have to;
3. THE COURTS - I took T-mobile to the County Court when it tried the same thing, and I received £430. Others have done the same.

So, stop talking utter rubbish and misleading people as to their legal rights.

Notsram

Roustabout wrote: »

I think it is disgusting that Vodafone are in effect rewarding people who have abused the Fair Usage Policy on these plans.

Those that have basically ripped the excrement out of the 500MB limit are being offered new handsets worth 100s of pounds, exiting a committed period with no penalty costing upwards of £300- 500+ and cheaper line rental with browsing bigger limits with no extra cost.

Those that actually stuck to the agreement and used less or just slightly over the Fair Use Policy from time to time get NOTHING but are probably subsidising the costs of those that get away scott free in their subscriptions.

What is Vodafone going to give those that have actually stuck to the deal.

This is a case of be naughty and get a lollipop.

I'm one of the ones who apparently has been abusing the internet usage (and have got a cancellation out of it) but my argument was that I WASN'T abusing the fair usage policy at all. Apart from the first few days of owning my handset when I admittedly hammered the apps market and downloaded loads of stuff, I barely used the phone for internet access. Maybe 10-20 minute a day of surfing, and that was ordinary websites, no youtube or other streaming sites. I only downloaded updates when I was at home and connected to my WIFI, and yet my usage averaged out at 25-30 megabytes a day. If that's not fair usage, then I don't know what is.

Incidentally, since I transferred networks, my data usage seems a lot lower and my battery lasts almost twice as long, so looks to me as though some of the vodafone software on my phone could well have been responsible for the excess.

Also incidentally, I got a letter from Vodafone yesterday, confirming that I would be allowed to cancel my contract... almost a month after they'd confirmed this by email and I'd used my PAC to transfer. I've also had two phone calls this week from Vodafone thanking me for being a loyal customer and asking me if I'd be interested in any special offers. In both cases, the rep in question had no idea until I told them that I wasn't a Vodafone customer anymore...

gjchester

musical_norwich wrote: »

Firstly, the ASA is an industry body that operates a voluntary code. It decides if an advert can run or not but it has no authority to decide whether something is legal or not.

True, however if the ASA upheld a complain Vodafone would cease to use the terms unlimited. The ASA has repeatedly updeld that Vodafone cna advertise in this way and it's not considered misleading..

musical_norwich wrote: »

Secondly, Vodafone is clearly in breach of both the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and Condition 9.3 of the General Conditions. Statute does not differentiate between 'tariff' and 'terms and conditions' as you claim: both are part of the contract between the consumer and the provider and cannot be modified to the likely detriment of the consumer without the agreement of the consumer.

Possibly, would need to be decided in a court, however the actual tarrif (ie cost per minute) is not part of the T&C and can be varied within limits. If vodafone increase the cost per minute and it's less than RPI then thats acceptable.

musical_norwich wrote: »

How can I prove you are wrong? Three ways:

1. THE REGULATOR - If you ring OFCOM, the right to leave if terms are modified to the consumer's detriment will be confirmed;
2. THE MARKET - Vodafone are letting thousands of consumers leave which Vodafone would not do if it did not legally have to;
3. THE COURTS - I took T-mobile to the County Court when it tried the same thing, and I received £430. Others have done the same.

So, stop talking utter rubbish and misleading people as to their legal rights.

Let me refer you back to your post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=36621257&postcount=1568

"OFCOM is too clueless, ineffective and lazy to protect consumers as it should. But the law is the law, as the £430 cheque from T-mobile illustrates."
Again it hinges on the T&C of the contract, and the T&C state they can charge if you go over the FUP. If it was clear cut and all legally clear then OFCOM may be interested.

The Market doesn't care. For each and every person leaving Vodafone over this there is someone joining because they are disgruntled with Orange/O2/T-Mobile/3 service. Churn is a matter of fact no network can stop it.
Will this blemish Vodafone, no not really. If they were doing it in isolation maybe but all networks are putting in limits so the grass is not greener elsewhere.
Remember for every person who leaves (and there will be at most a few thousand) they are not paying a legal biull if they had to contest it. It would not take long before legal fee's would cost more than profit they would have made on the contract, it may be for the small loss in income they save on fee's. Vodafone made almost £9.5 billion last year profit. Anything this is costing really is small change to them.

The Courts - Well now there's the real test. You got £430 from T-mobile but never said how, did they contest it or just not show up to court and you had a default judgement. Until someone tests it in law (and not at county court level) and it's defended rather than the mobile co simply not turning up this is all just talk.


I'm certainly not trying to mislead people, if you want to Take Vodafone to court then go ahead. But like bank charges if enough pewople do it then they will start to defend cases rather than not turn up.

musical_norwich

gjchester wrote: »

True, however if the ASA upheld a complain Vodafone would cease to use the terms unlimited. The ASA has repeatedly updeld that Vodafone cna advertise in this way and it's not considered misleading..


Possibly, would need to be decided in a court, however the actual tarrif (ie cost per minute) is not part of the T&C and can be varied within limits. If vodafone increase the cost per minute and it's less than RPI then thats acceptable.




Let me refer you back to your post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=36621257&postcount=1568

"OFCOM is too clueless, ineffective and lazy to protect consumers as it should. But the law is the law, as the £430 cheque from T-mobile illustrates."
Again it hinges on the T&C of the contract, and the T&C state they can charge if you go over the FUP. If it was clear cut and all legally clear then OFCOM may be interested.

The Market doesn't care. For each and every person leaving Vodafone over this there is someone joining because they are disgruntled with Orange/O2/T-Mobile/3 service. Churn is a matter of fact no network can stop it.
Will this blemish Vodafone, no not really. If they were doing it in isolation maybe but all networks are putting in limits so the grass is not greener elsewhere.
Remember for every person who leaves (and there will be at most a few thousand) they are not paying a legal biull if they had to contest it. It would not take long before legal fee's would cost more than profit they would have made on the contract, it may be for the small loss in income they save on fee's. Vodafone made almost £9.5 billion last year profit. Anything this is costing really is small change to them.

The Courts - Well now there's the real test. You got £430 from T-mobile but never said how, did they contest it or just not show up to court and you had a default judgement. Until someone tests it in law (and not at county court level) and it's defended rather than the mobile co simply not turning up this is all just talk.


I'm certainly not trying to mislead people, if you want to Take Vodafone to court then go ahead. But like bank charges if enough pewople do it then they will start to defend cases rather than not turn up.

You really are foolish.

1. Yes, the ASA has made judgements that the adverts are not misleading. But the ASA is not the arbiter of legal or not.

2. The tariff not being part of the consumer contract argument you put forward is utterly bogus. Tariff is an inherent part of the contract, as is the FUP. To argue otherwise demonstrates a total lack of understanding of contract law, consumer protection legislation and telecoms directives.

3. Before taking court action, I had discussions with OFCOM which confirmed that T-mobile was in breach of the General Conditions. OFCOM is too lazy to take action on our collective behalf but will confirm if the telecoms provider is in breach.

4. I didn't talk about blemish, financial impact or anything else. I simply stated that a rational company will not let customers leave without paying an early termination fee if it can.

5. I, and others, took T-mobile to court and it settled out of court, as it knew it would lose.

Yes, you are misleading people - particularly with your frankly ridiculous claims that the tariff is not part of the consumer contract.

gjchester

musical_norwich wrote: »

5. I, and others, took T-mobile to court and it settled out of court, as it knew it would lose.

Settled out of court means no such thing.

It means it was not contested it was not worth the costs to send a laywer to defend the case.

It's rather like the Orange non signal case, unless and until it's tried in court (and not a county court) there is no legal preceident, it just wasn't cost effective to defend it.

I won't continue, like many in the thread before you are going to continue down this track being ponyed on by each other.

Yes some people will leave, but if the few became a lot (and I doubt it will, there are only maybe a few dozen who say they have on here) Vodafone would do something, but the income they'll make on you is probably less than they'd have to pay a laywer to defend the case. If that became a big loss somethign would happen but it won't.

musical_norwich

gjchester wrote: »

Settled out of court means no such thing.

It means it was not contested it was not worth the costs to send a laywer to defend the case.

It's rather like the Orange non signal case, unless and until it's tried in court (and not a county court) there is no legal preceident, it just wasn't cost effective to defend it.

I won't continue, like many in the thread before you are going to continue down this track being ponyed on by each other.

Yes some people will leave, but if the few became a lot (and I doubt it will, there are only maybe a few dozen who say they have on here) Vodafone would do something, but the income they'll make on you is probably less than they'd have to pay a laywer to defend the case. If that became a big loss somethign would happen but it won't.

You obviously have little to no expertise or experience regarding these matters but are pompous enough to believe you should try to put consumers off pursuing a course of action you now admit will result in the outcome they seek. You haven't addressed points 1, 2, 3 or 4.

One Vodafone customer at Bitterwallet wrote: 'I have just spoke[n] to someone in the magical HQ office – said the department had 5 people in it and about 10,000 customers to deal with and couldn’t believe how some people had been treated.The upside is I have a free HTC desire on a 18th month contract with 1.5gb of data usage'. About 10,000 = a few dozen in your myopic world.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

gjchester

musical_norwich wrote: »

You obviously have little to no expertise or experience regarding these matters but are pompous enough to believe you should try to put consumers off pursuing a course of action you now admit will result in the outcome they seek. You haven't addressed points 1, 2, 3 or 4..

Theres nothing to address. People can always resort to the courts, just don't be suprised when they lose. The only way people will win this is Vodafone don't defend it.

The ASA regulate advertising standard which Vodafone adhere to. If they upheld a complain Vodafone would not use it again. They haven't.

OFCOM say they are in breach but don't wish to take actions suggest OFCOM does not consider it to be a breach and will not prosecute, Surely as OFCOM is on the cumstomers side if there is anything wrong they will proceed. They won't so they probably think there is no case to answer.

A rational company considers the costs before actions. If a laywer cost £100 an hour which usually includes travel then anything more than four hours laywer time is a waste whatever the outcome. I assume someone at Vodafone has worked this out and has worked out it's not worth it for the profit they make on a customer.

The Tarrif is a part of the contract, Howver it can be changed, it did when Vat changed and will at the end of the year.

musical_norwich wrote: »

One Vodafone customer at Bitterwallet wrote: 'I have just spoke[n] to someone in the magical HQ office – said the department had 5 people in it and about 10,000 customers to deal with and couldn’t believe how some people had been treated.The upside is I have a free HTC desire on a 18th month contract with 1.5gb of data usage'. About 10,000 = a few dozen in your myopic world. .

Vodafone report they have 347 million customers globally. 10000 is absolutly nothing to them.

musical_norwich wrote: »

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

And once again people in this thread prove how childish they are. Whats the point when you won't listen anyway.

ruggedtoast

Vodafone are releasing people from their contracts because they've changed the terms and conditions of those agreements, to the detriment of their customers. People are inclined and entitled to feel aggrieved about Voda making the process difficult.

VAT is irrelevant, it is not part of the contract or Voda's revenue it is a fee levied by the government.

But thats not really the point. Every time someone has an issue with a mobile network gjchester turns up to fight the corner of, the company.

Other than devils advocate, not much help on a consumer website.

enigma368

I do not understand what you guys are all arguing about.

Vodafone have conceded both in writing on their message boards and verbally (to me and others) that the change of their policy from "unlimited internet with a FUP" to "internet with a defined fixed cap" DID count as a change in the terms of contract/agreed tariff and thus DID give any affected customers the legal right to end their contract early.

The FIRST thing that Andrew guy from Vodafone said to me when he rang me was that "I have to first advise you that legally you ARE permitted to end your contract with Vodafone without penalty should you choose to do so"

Vodafone perhaps could have argued that it wasn't a change - although I dont think that would have held up in courts - but they didn't. End of story.