£380 charge for going over BT broadband monthly usage?

DrScotsman

Cross posted.

jox wrote: »

This is what im thinking, i agree a charge should be paid but surely there must be a point where that charge becomes excessive? where or how can i find out more about this?

To be honest I'm not sure, but I think your starting points on Google would be with the words "excessive" and "penalty", and the legislation here

You also have to remember that (if I'm not mistaken) you can make a formal complaint with BT and take it up to Otelo, the telephone ombudsman (yes including internet). You can do this without prejudicing your legal position and without costing you anything more than a few stamps. If you quote the law like I did just now, then even if I'm unknowingly wrong it might be enough to persuade Otelo to find in your favour.

Lokolo

380GB!? In a month!? That's over 12GB a day. This is ridiculous amount. A 40min TV show will be around 700mb to download (would be less to stream off the net).

Hogging the bandwidth will have an effect on other users in the area. This charge is fair imo. It stops people using the internet excessively which will then have an effect on other users in the area.

DrScotsman

Lokolo wrote: »

Hogging the bandwidth will have an effect on other users in the area. This charge is fair imo. It stops people using the internet excessively which will then have an effect on other users in the area.

It might be fair if you couldn't get unlimited internet for over 2 years for £380. Unless I'm mistaken there's no such penalty on unlimited plans.

Also the banks tried the subsidising other customers argument. I know the banks won, but if I remember correctly that argument didn't fare too well in the courts.

jox, I found some OFT guidance. Check out page 40.

5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.

MrsBartolozzi

I agree with Lokolo, that does seem like an excessive amount to be downloading every day. Maybe you could get your friend to check if she is broadcasting her wireless internet to everyone with no password protection, her neighbours could be using her internet. That could be how she's racked up such a large bill, that and move up to the unlimited download package, it'll save her money.

Lokolo

DrScotsman wrote: »

It might be fair if you couldn't get unlimited internet for over 2 years for £380. Unless I'm mistaken there's no such penalty on unlimited plans.

ALL broadband suppliers have a cap on unlimited usage (even VM!). As do phone companies with unlimited texts. They all do it under fair usage. If people ended up abusing it then others would suffer.

IMO it's fair. I am currently downloading 80GB but let this go over a few months (I cap the bandwidth speed). I don't want my housemates, nor other customers in the area to get slower speeds.

DrScotsman

Lokolo wrote: »

ALL broadband suppliers have a cap on unlimited usage (even VM!). As do phone companies with unlimited texts. They all do it under fair usage. If people ended up abusing it then others would suffer.

Why was your "even xxx" example the one company I trust the least over "unlimited" claims and bandwidth throttling? Maybe it's just me but I've yet to find someone with something nice to say about VM's internet.

IMO it's fair.

Well unfortunately for you the law seems to deem it unfair. Unless of course I'm wrong, but I'm not hearing any legal rebuttals. And besides...

I am currently downloading 80GB but let this go over a few months (I cap the bandwidth speed). I don't want my housemates, nor other customers in the area.

...I'm not sure why other customers having connection troubles due to jox's friend justifies BT getting £380 in their pocket. Explain?

Lokolo

DrScotsman wrote: »

Why was your "even xxx" example the one company I trust the least over "unlimited" claims and bandwidth throttling? Maybe it's just me but I've yet to find someone with something nice to say about VM's internet.

Virgin Media's is one of the best internet providers (bar customer service). As for their throttling, this method is extremely fair.

DrScotsman wrote: »

Well unfortunately for you the law seems to deem it unfair. Unless of course I'm wrong, but I'm not hearing any legal rebuttals. And besides...

If it weren't fair, the charge wouldn't exist.

DrScotsman wrote: »

...I'm not sure why other customers having connection troubles due to jox's friend justifies BT getting £380 in their pocket. Explain?

Because hogging the bandwidth in the area will have an impact on other customer's. Customer's getting less speeds than they could would mean a loss in custom and therefore money.

---

I worked it out. 12GB is 145kpbs, ALL day. This is excessive. Games would not be playable online when downloading at this speed. If everyone on the street did this there would be problems.

DrScotsman

Lokolo wrote: »

Virgin Media's is one of the best internet providers (bar customer service). As for their throttling, this method is extremely fair.

We'll probably just have to disagree and leave it at that.

If it weren't fair, the charge wouldn't exist.

The parking fines board would like to have a word with you.

Seriously though, "no one breaks the law"...not sure I have much to say about that. [strike]I've seen[/strike], no, many MSEers have seen BT contradicting their own contract terms, you think they pay attention to statutes?

(I say statutes, but some of the OFT guidance I've been reading says that penalty clauses are already unfair under English common law, let alone UTCCR)

Because hogging the bandwidth in the area will have an impact on other customer's. Customer's getting less speeds than they could would mean a loss in custom and therefore money.

For a start BT need to mitigate their losses, shouldn't they be do that by throttling in the first place? It seems all broadband suppliers do it nowadays so it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect BT to do so.

Also the onus would probably be on BT to show it was reasonable to expect they would lose that much custom from him - Is it likely that BT's average customer (checks email every few days) would be hit by this? Is it likely this is the only heavy user in the area?

Red_Panda_2

ISP's have to buy the bandwidth, they buy a certain amount for their customers each month, making allowences for those on unlimited and those on capped. When their customers go over the allowance the ISP has to pay additional charges.
The £1 per gig is fair, I work for a small ISP and we charge more than that when our customers go over the
dowload limit. BT would be making little or no profit on the £1.

On that basis you would stand a very very low chance of claiming unfair / penalty charges.

BargainGalore

16gb a day is seriously well above even some of the big downloaders