Personal Fair Usage - EE 4G LTE Essentials Unlimited - Contract Issues

voluted

PHK said:

voluted said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

What they are saying is the service is unlimited but they then try to limit it! 

I have "unlimited" with EE with the same clause about 600GB in the terms, they recently sent me a letter to say my contract was coming to an end but don't worry as everything carries on as normal, at the end of the letter it says "data: 9999 GB".

Unlimited with restrictions shouldn't be sold as unlimited IMHO, switching you to a business tariff (if you aren't one) is possibly an unfair term, the reduction in speed could possibly be an unfair term as well as it's varying the service sold and forcing the consumer to accepted reduced benefits under the contract, either than or we are in CCRs territory.   

Unfortunately anyone who realistically stood any chance of getting the use of the term "unlimited" stopped believed it was perfectly acceptable to use "Unlimited" as long as it was asterisked with *Fair Use Policy applies. That would be both the ASA and Ofcom.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. "Unlimited" has a very clear definition that is "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent." By introducing throttling when you get to a particular amount of data then it clearly IS restricted. The argument that technically they're not applying a strict limit on the data, but rather the speed, therefore there is no hard limit on the data allowance is ridiculous IMO. This has been going on for the best part of two decades though now, so I don't see it changing anytime soon.

It’s slightly more nuanced than that. The argument given to ASA, Ofcom, Trading Standards etc is that the average user on the tariff uses much much less than the figure quoted and only 1% (or some such low value) of subscribers use the quoted figure or higher. Additionally (as you say) it isn’t a hard cut off at that figure. 

 

I understand but that's not really the argument we are making here. The argument we are making is that "unlimited" has a very clear dictionary definition and I (and many others) do not agree that a service with a limit qualifies as unlimited.

I have seen the argument made (and it's a real stretch) that since the connection speed could never be limited, no connection could be truly unlimited and, by extension, applying throttling is perfectly acceptable. I'd have to disagree with this, as there is a clear difference between a punitive limit applied over and above the connection speed and the fact that you don't have an infinite connection speed.

It would be interesting to see how the courts would rule on this. As I said I think that if the ISP tinkers with anything which ultimately restricts how much a user can download, it is by extension placing a limit on their download capabilities. Sadly nobody seems to have had a desire to take this into a court that can set precedent.

visidigi

Just to clarify....there's nothing stopping you having two or three lines with the limits independently right?

mjm3346

"unlimited" has a dictionary definition but it has been deemed acceptable, subject to certain conditions that might include a fair use policy, to tweak that definition for advertising purposes - same as it has been accepted as fine for Aldi to compare a basket of their own label stuff with a basket of "branded" products from other supermarket

[Deleted User]

voluted said:

...FYI they can't see the MAC addresses of the devices unless you were using some sort of EE-supplied router that they essentially had a backdoor into (unlikely when we're talking about mobile data plans.) That's not how MAC addresses work.

Thank you for pointing that out. Instead of a router, what EE need to see is a mobile device like a phone or tablet.

PHK

voluted said:

PHK said:

voluted said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

What they are saying is the service is unlimited but they then try to limit it! 

I have "unlimited" with EE with the same clause about 600GB in the terms, they recently sent me a letter to say my contract was coming to an end but don't worry as everything carries on as normal, at the end of the letter it says "data: 9999 GB".

Unlimited with restrictions shouldn't be sold as unlimited IMHO, switching you to a business tariff (if you aren't one) is possibly an unfair term, the reduction in speed could possibly be an unfair term as well as it's varying the service sold and forcing the consumer to accepted reduced benefits under the contract, either than or we are in CCRs territory.   

Unfortunately anyone who realistically stood any chance of getting the use of the term "unlimited" stopped believed it was perfectly acceptable to use "Unlimited" as long as it was asterisked with *Fair Use Policy applies. That would be both the ASA and Ofcom.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. "Unlimited" has a very clear definition that is "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent." By introducing throttling when you get to a particular amount of data then it clearly IS restricted. The argument that technically they're not applying a strict limit on the data, but rather the speed, therefore there is no hard limit on the data allowance is ridiculous IMO. This has been going on for the best part of two decades though now, so I don't see it changing anytime soon.

It’s slightly more nuanced than that. The argument given to ASA, Ofcom, Trading Standards etc is that the average user on the tariff uses much much less than the figure quoted and only 1% (or some such low value) of subscribers use the quoted figure or higher. Additionally (as you say) it isn’t a hard cut off at that figure. 

 

I understand but that's not really the argument we are making here. The argument we are making is that "unlimited" has a very clear dictionary definition and I (and many others) do not agree that a service with a limit qualifies as unlimited.

I have seen the argument made (and it's a real stretch) that since the connection speed could never be limited, no connection could be truly unlimited and, by extension, applying throttling is perfectly acceptable. I'd have to disagree with this, as there is a clear difference between a punitive limit applied over and above the connection speed and the fact that you don't have an infinite connection speed.

It would be interesting to see how the courts would rule on this. As I said I think that if the ISP tinkers with anything which ultimately restricts how much a user can download, it is by extension placing a limit on their download capabilities. Sadly nobody seems to have had a desire to take this into a court that can set precedent.

I wasn’t contradicting you merely expanding on a point someone else made. 

The last time someone made your argument, I suggested they “put their money where their mouth is” and test the situation in court. 

I draw no inference from the fact that no-one has. 

[Deleted User]

voluted said:

PHK said:

voluted said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

What they are saying is the service is unlimited but they then try to limit it! 

I have "unlimited" with EE with the same clause about 600GB in the terms, they recently sent me a letter to say my contract was coming to an end but don't worry as everything carries on as normal, at the end of the letter it says "data: 9999 GB".

Unlimited with restrictions shouldn't be sold as unlimited IMHO, switching you to a business tariff (if you aren't one) is possibly an unfair term, the reduction in speed could possibly be an unfair term as well as it's varying the service sold and forcing the consumer to accepted reduced benefits under the contract, either than or we are in CCRs territory.   

Unfortunately anyone who realistically stood any chance of getting the use of the term "unlimited" stopped believed it was perfectly acceptable to use "Unlimited" as long as it was asterisked with *Fair Use Policy applies. That would be both the ASA and Ofcom.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. "Unlimited" has a very clear definition that is "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent." By introducing throttling when you get to a particular amount of data then it clearly IS restricted. The argument that technically they're not applying a strict limit on the data, but rather the speed, therefore there is no hard limit on the data allowance is ridiculous IMO. This has been going on for the best part of two decades though now, so I don't see it changing anytime soon.

It’s slightly more nuanced than that. The argument given to ASA, Ofcom, Trading Standards etc is that the average user on the tariff uses much much less than the figure quoted and only 1% (or some such low value) of subscribers use the quoted figure or higher. Additionally (as you say) it isn’t a hard cut off at that figure. 

 

I understand but that's not really the argument we are making here. The argument we are making is that "unlimited" has a very clear dictionary definition and I (and many others) do not agree that a service with a limit qualifies as unlimited.

I have seen the argument made (and it's a real stretch) that since the connection speed could never be limited, no connection could be truly unlimited and, by extension, applying throttling is perfectly acceptable. I'd have to disagree with this, as there is a clear difference between a punitive limit applied over and above the connection speed and the fact that you don't have an infinite connection speed.

It would be interesting to see how the courts would rule on this. As I said I think that if the ISP tinkers with anything which ultimately restricts how much a user can download, it is by extension placing a limit on their download capabilities. Sadly nobody seems to have had a desire to take this into a court that can set precedent.

At the end of the day its semantics and a question of grammar. The word unlimited wherever mentioned within the terms of service should really be surrounded by single quotes, for example, 'Unlimited' Plan, this would be a helpful change that avoids the present semantic confusion.

born_again

From EE T/C

https://ee.co.uk/content/dam/ee-help/help-pdfs/ee-monthly-price-plans-Device Finance 170822.pdf?logo=TUR1&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmOm3BhC8ARIsAOSbapU1vRWLa1e2yp2ZXtxdAmMz9V2APm9gzBK1PRb4iRbulUpb31DmUKgaAi4WEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


Stay Connected Data On our Essential and All Rounder plans if you have a capped data allowance (i.e. not an unlimited data plan) once you have used up your monthly data allowance your speed will be capped at 0.5Mbps. Stay Connected Data is not included in No Frills plans. All Full Works plans have unlimited allowances so do not require Stay Connected Data. You will regain access to our fastest speeds upon any of the following: • renewal of your monthly plan allowance; • by buying one of our data add-ons; or • if you are gifted data by someone else in your family account. Once the data add-on or gifted data runs out, you will return to the capped speeds until your monthly plan allowance has renewed. You can use mobile internet on your phone to make internet phone calls (‘VoiP’) use your phone as a modem (‘tethering’) and phone for peer to peer file sharing.

Unlimited Data Plans 50GB fair usage policy applies outside UK. Personal, non-commercial use only. If you regularly tether 12 or more devices, we will consider this non-personal use and have the right to move you to a more suitable plan. We will consider usage above 600GB/month to be non-personal use and have the right to apply traffic management controls to deprioritise your mobile traffic during busy periods or to move you to a business plan. You can gift up to 100GB. Data usage on an unlimited plan will decrement from giftable allowance. Any data boost allowance will be added to the giftable allowance.

Speeds No Frills Plans give you access to speeds of up to 25Mbps in the UK. Essentials Plans give you access to speeds of up to 100Mbps in the UK. Essentials Unlimited Max, All Rounder and Full Works speeds give you uncapped speeds in the UK. The speeds you achieve will also depend on a number of factors including: your location, the device you are using and geographic factors such as tree coverage and population density. If you are using your phone indoors, the materials of the building you’re in may also affect mobile internet speeds.

Data Gifting You must be on an Essentials, All Rounder or Full Works plan to be able to gift and receive data. The account holder only can gift between pay monthly plans on the same account in increments of 500MB. Unlimited plans can gift up to 100GB. Data usage on an unlimited plan will be deducted from the giftable allowance. You cannot gift to or from Smart Watches or 4G Home or 5G Home.  Data not used in a month does not roll over and allowances are set back to zero at the start of each month.  If you are outside your price plans standard countries when your monthly allowances refresh on your bill date the main account holder will not be able to gift data until you return to the UK.  Data can only be used in accordance with the plan terms applicable to the receiving line.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

mjm3346 said:

same as it has been accepted as fine for Aldi to compare a basket of their own label stuff with a basket of "branded" products from other supermarket

The ASA has the CAP code for advertising standards. 

The above is simplistic in that it implies Aldi may compare a basket of their own brand against a basket full of branded to skew the comparison in their favour when that isn't the case, price comparison falls firmly within the scope of the CPRs and the ASA acknowledge this in their code by ensuring the comparison criteria seeks to eliminate the opportunity to mislead the consumer:

https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/comparisons-basket-of-goods.html

Marketers are entitled to compare own brand products with branded products, provided this is clear in the ad and the comparison is fair and representative. Marketers should not skew a comparison by comparing their cheaper own brand products with a selection of competitor products which includes an untypically high number of high-priced branded products.

The ASA upheld a complaint against an Aldi ad and considered that particular basket comparison misleading the because the ASA had not been provided with any evidence from the advertiser that the comparison included a fair and truly representative selection of goods typically purchased, and because they considered that it was unlikely that price conscious consumers to whom the ads were targeted would purchase such a large proportion of branded goods when own-brand goods were typically cheaper and available.

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

From EE T/C

https://ee.co.uk/content/dam/ee-help/help-pdfs/ee-monthly-price-plans-Device Finance 170822.pdf?logo=TUR1&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmOm3BhC8ARIsAOSbapU1vRWLa1e2yp2ZXtxdAmMz9V2APm9gzBK1PRb4iRbulUpb31DmUKgaAi4WEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


Stay Connected Data On our Essential and All Rounder plans if you have a capped data allowance (i.e. not an unlimited data plan) once you have used up your monthly data allowance your speed will be capped at 0.5Mbps. Stay Connected Data is not included in No Frills plans. All Full Works plans have unlimited allowances so do not require Stay Connected Data. You will regain access to our fastest speeds upon any of the following: • renewal of your monthly plan allowance; • by buying one of our data add-ons; or • if you are gifted data by someone else in your family account. Once the data add-on or gifted data runs out, you will return to the capped speeds until your monthly plan allowance has renewed. You can use mobile internet on your phone to make internet phone calls (‘VoiP’) use your phone as a modem (‘tethering’) and phone for peer to peer file sharing.

Unlimited Data Plans 50GB fair usage policy applies outside UK. Personal, non-commercial use only. If you regularly tether 12 or more devices, we will consider this non-personal use and have the right to move you to a more suitable plan. We will consider usage above 600GB/month to be non-personal use and have the right to apply traffic management controls to deprioritise your mobile traffic during busy periods or to move you to a business plan. You can gift up to 100GB. Data usage on an unlimited plan will decrement from giftable allowance. Any data boost allowance will be added to the giftable allowance.

Speeds No Frills Plans give you access to speeds of up to 25Mbps in the UK. Essentials Plans give you access to speeds of up to 100Mbps in the UK. Essentials Unlimited Max, All Rounder and Full Works speeds give you uncapped speeds in the UK. The speeds you achieve will also depend on a number of factors including: your location, the device you are using and geographic factors such as tree coverage and population density. If you are using your phone indoors, the materials of the building you’re in may also affect mobile internet speeds.

Data Gifting You must be on an Essentials, All Rounder or Full Works plan to be able to gift and receive data. The account holder only can gift between pay monthly plans on the same account in increments of 500MB. Unlimited plans can gift up to 100GB. Data usage on an unlimited plan will be deducted from the giftable allowance. You cannot gift to or from Smart Watches or 4G Home or 5G Home.  Data not used in a month does not roll over and allowances are set back to zero at the start of each month.  If you are outside your price plans standard countries when your monthly allowances refresh on your bill date the main account holder will not be able to gift data until you return to the UK.  Data can only be used in accordance with the plan terms applicable to the receiving line.  

Evidence in the EE Price Guide for Small Business v17.3 17.09.2024 found here, sees Unlimited Plans accompanied by a caveat in footnote 7 where it is stated that data consumed over 600Gb will attract punitive measures. This is contrary to the verbal advice received on the meaning of Unlimited by Business Customer Services at the time of original posting. Sorry about that.

I was also remiss in not providing a link to the EE Pay Monthly Plan Terms and Price Guide 10 April 2024 which can be found here along with other historical plans that go back to 2013.

On the question of semantics there is no difference between residential and business plans using the word Unlimited. In Terms of Service documents EE should really be referring to ‘Unlimited’ plans if they are to avoid confusion.

Both Residential and Business plans set out punitive measures for non-compliance. Residential non-compliance and mention of moving the subscriber across to a business plan is pointless as both prescribe use of the same punitive measures. It amounts to buck shifting by moving a residential problem to business to make it their problem an internal issue for EE.

What cannot be found is any EE policy statement or document is that the subscriber will be notified of non-compliance and offered an opportunity to mend their ways. At the moment subscribers are left bewildered by a change caused by hidden punitive measures which must benefit EE in some way.

EE even removed the opportunity for Unlimited subscribers to self-regulate their data consumption. Metered plan customers have their addon allowance renewed each month and can monitor what is left by using the URL http://add-on.ee.co.uk/status however unlimited subscribers see only the word Unlimited instead of 600Gb.

[Deleted User]

voluted said:

PHK said:

voluted said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

What they are saying is the service is unlimited but they then try to limit it! 

I have "unlimited" with EE with the same clause about 600GB in the terms, they recently sent me a letter to say my contract was coming to an end but don't worry as everything carries on as normal, at the end of the letter it says "data: 9999 GB".

Unlimited with restrictions shouldn't be sold as unlimited IMHO, switching you to a business tariff (if you aren't one) is possibly an unfair term, the reduction in speed could possibly be an unfair term as well as it's varying the service sold and forcing the consumer to accepted reduced benefits under the contract, either than or we are in CCRs territory.   

Unfortunately anyone who realistically stood any chance of getting the use of the term "unlimited" stopped believed it was perfectly acceptable to use "Unlimited" as long as it was asterisked with *Fair Use Policy applies. That would be both the ASA and Ofcom.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. "Unlimited" has a very clear definition that is "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent." By introducing throttling when you get to a particular amount of data then it clearly IS restricted. The argument that technically they're not applying a strict limit on the data, but rather the speed, therefore there is no hard limit on the data allowance is ridiculous IMO. This has been going on for the best part of two decades though now, so I don't see it changing anytime soon.

It’s slightly more nuanced than that. The argument given to ASA, Ofcom, Trading Standards etc is that the average user on the tariff uses much much less than the figure quoted and only 1% (or some such low value) of subscribers use the quoted figure or higher. Additionally (as you say) it isn’t a hard cut off at that figure. 

 

I understand but that's not really the argument we are making here. The argument we are making is that "unlimited" has a very clear dictionary definition and I (and many others) do not agree that a service with a limit qualifies as unlimited.

I have seen the argument made (and it's a real stretch) that since the connection speed could never be limited, no connection could be truly unlimited and, by extension, applying throttling is perfectly acceptable. I'd have to disagree with this, as there is a clear difference between a punitive limit applied over and above the connection speed and the fact that you don't have an infinite connection speed.

It would be interesting to see how the courts would rule on this. As I said I think that if the ISP tinkers with anything which ultimately restricts how much a user can download, it is by extension placing a limit on their download capabilities. Sadly nobody seems to have had a desire to take this into a court that can set precedent.

Whilst semantics would be fair game for court wordsmiths the question arises of whether EE is gaining something at the expense of its customers by using their established practices. If so, this could be considered a criminal offence under Fraud Act 2006.

When punitive measures are applied on an unlimited plan, EE continues to collect revenue as though the 100Gbps speed limit was still in play and when knowingly they have reduced the speed to less than 10Gbps and without telling the subscriber this has happed. They gain on two counts: by freeing up bandwidth they encourage new business and by collecting revenue they are not entitled to, especially if the 10Gb product is sold at a cheaper rate. The court would need to establish whether this was intentional or a result of unintended consequences namely a failure of EE management and policy.