Broadband advertising - illegal and deceptive? Please help clear it up.

hhobba

Hi there.

Over the past few years, as I am sure you are aware, companies offering broadband internet connections (ISP's) have began to advertise "unlimited" services. These "unlimited" services attract the user by claiming that they can "stay online as long as they want" and enjoy "unlimited numbers of downloads" - some even say "download as much as you like." However, these claims usually come attached with a "fair usage" policy.

One such ISP offering this type of deal is AOL, the company my complaint is regarding.

AOL's fair usage policy states that users cannot make excessive use of the broadband service, such as downloading one large file for 24 hours a day, but re-inforces the advertised claim that "there are no set download limits for users to adhere by." However, having recently been alerted that I, as an AOL customer, am in breach of the usage policy, I find these claims to be totally false.

AOL do not, indeed, have any "set" download limits - instead, I am told that the limit is "floating". A customer rep told me that one month the limit may be 60 gigabytes of data, and the next month 80GB, before the user is placed on the fair usage policy's blacklist. Either way, this is clearly not an unlimited service and their wording of "no set limit" is deceptive indeed.

AOL may try to argue that by downloading such a large amount of data, a customer has breached its policy by "abusing" the service. This is not so. With an average broadband speed of 2 megabits per second, one may download around 220 kilobytes of data every second. Therefore, in order to download AOL's "excessive" limit of 60 gigabytes of data, the user would only have to spend a total of 2.5 hours every day, surfing at full speed for a month, which I am sure no-one could call excessive, especially given the influx of broadband television and streaming video content on the internet today.

And with an 8 megabit connection, at a realistic speed of 700KB/s, this would be just 48 minutes of full speed downloading every day to meet AOL's limit!

Therefore my complaint, in summary, is that ISP's in general (but in my case, AOL) advertise a service as being "unlimited" when it is clearly limited. Their fair usage policy which aims to stop excessive usage also falls short, because (as I have just shown) usage clearly does not have to be excessive to meet their criteria.

I would like to see some kind of review of the way broadband is advertised, particularly the absolute removal of the term "unlimited" in advertising where a fair usage policy, or any other kind of download limit, exists.

Please let me know if anything such as this could be done as I'm sure this issue will act as a kind of trap for consumers who are lulled into thinking they can download as much as they want.

Any suggestions regarding who I can send this complaint to would be helpful.

Thank you.

Crabman

The ASA look into this sort of issue - I'm on AOL too so would be interested to see what happens. I don't download very much but do use streaming radio/TV as it goes well with my new 22" monitor, here I go gloating again

ASA - http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/

continentalgal

First off, stay away from 'mainstream' telco providers (AOL, Tiscali, Orange) luring people with cheap, unlimited broadband offers. This technology is pricey in the UK and companies look to make profit, not to let you surf endlessly at their expense. So no wonder they either 'pool' up to 80 people to share a line which already slows things considerably down (no wonder people never reach their advertised speeds), they restrict speeds during peak times (evening) to prevent users' downloading too much, and oh yeah, then there's the dreaded fair usage policy.

At the same time, the UK is totally behind technological developments in increasing broadband speeds and geographical availability. I start drooling when I think about the +/-50mbps bb speed consumers get for $10 in South Korea!

I've been with NTL for 3+ years paying for the unlimited & max. speed - this costs me £37 a month. My usage is probably between 150-200gig/mth. Nobody's ever bothered me about my bb usage habits. I guess what I'm trying to say is if you want it, be prepared to pay for it. At least in Britain.

I'm amazed that AOL is still in business after all these years??

hhobba

continentalgal wrote: »

I've been with NTL for 3+ years paying for the unlimited & max. speed - this costs me £37 a month. My usage is probably between 150-200gig/mth.

Although I'd love to have that usage allowance, I only pay £15 at the moment for 2Mb speeds. Give me an 8Mb connection with unlimited downloads and then yes, £30+ comes into the equation!

continentalgal

hhobba wrote: »

Although I'd love to have that usage allowance, I only pay £15 at the moment for 2Mb speeds. Give me an 8Mb connection with unlimited downloads and then yes, £30+ comes into the equation!

I do see your point, and you're quite right, with a 2mbps connection there's only so and so much you can download 24/7 and it is quite cheeky of AOL to put a download limit even on that. Then again, I'd never use AOL.

Think again, it's £37 for 20mbps (10x faster than 2mbps) - it's quite nice when you're over and done with your downloads in an hour BEFORE rush hour

hhobba

continentalgal wrote: »

£37 for 20mbps (10x faster than 2mbps)

Not bad at all, but unfortunately I don't live in an LLU area. Could you give me their website address with (if possible) that specific package highlighted? Thank you.

continentalgal

hhobba wrote: »

Not bad at all, but unfortunately I don't live in an LLU area. Could you give me their website address with (if possible) that specific package highlighted? Thank you.

It's cable, doesn't have anything to do with LLU, does it? Anyway, it's the former NTL/Telewest broadband, now offered by Virgin Media, here's the link to their bb packages.

To be honest, you rarely get the full speed, first of all you need to visit websites hosted by servers with appropriate bandwidth, it's mostly only the big ones that have them (microsh*te, adobe, apple, etc.). I ran a test earlier today and it gave me around 16mbps. I think I just like the idea that I am able to do different things online at the same time!

hhobba

continentalgal wrote: »

It's cable, doesn't have anything to do with LLU, does it?

Unfortunately I think it does. The cable that's used isn't from a standard phone installation and I believe that's why only exchanges where LLU upgrades have taken place can have access to specialist ISP services like Virgin Media. Thanks though! Nevermind

jammin_2

Just to clear things up..

hhobba has ADSL broadband.
continentalgal has cable broadband.

Cable broadband is provided by Virgin Media through their cable network. Totally separate from anything to do with any telephone line or exchange.

ADSL broadband is provided by many, many companies (such as AOL) through BT's telephone line. Even if it's LLU (which basically means it's the broadband supplier's own equipment in the exchange), it's still BT's telephone line that's coming in to your house.

djohn2002uk

hhobba wrote: »

Although I'd love to have that usage allowance, I only pay £15 at the moment for 2Mb speeds. Give me an 8Mb connection with unlimited downloads and then yes, £30+ comes into the equation!

Zen Internet. Truly unlimitted, suposedly great british based customer service @ £34.99
http://www.zen.co.uk/broadband/athome.aspx

jammin_2

djohn2002uk wrote: »

Zen Internet. Truly unlimitted, suposedly great british based customer service @ £34.99
http://www.zen.co.uk/broadband/athome.aspx

Not unlimited, there's a 50gb usage allowance.