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

Ectophile

[Deleted User] said:

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.

I think tou're clutching at straws here.  They are applying the policy that was in the Terms and Conditions of the contract that you agreed to.

[Deleted User]

Ectophile said:

[Deleted User] said:

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.

I think tou're clutching at straws here.  They are applying the policy that was in the Terms and Conditions of the contract that you agreed to.

Thank you for replying. Yes, I agree, as you know consumer purchases are normally accompanied by a cooling off period to allow a change of mind however, what happens after that time.

In both Business and Residential terms there no mention of the procedure for terminating the contract. So contractually it would appear that one is stuck with a product one is unhappy with. Having discussed this with residential customer services it was said that one could end the contract but it would cost about £500 to do so.

I recently had a doorstep cold call from a fibre broadband salesman. He had obviously met people trapped in broadband contracts and unable to afford the buyout. He said his company would put up to £300 toward the buyout or if it was larger adjust the monthly premium to suite.

Its likely that deals like this are available from other broadband suppliers.

On that subject I notice that some 5G plans from other providers are advertised as 500Gb rather Unlimited. Business Terms use a subscript on the word Unlimited pointing to a footnote to qualify what Unlimited means. This is not the case for Residential Terms which remains misleading.

One thing I forgot to mention previously is that Business terms make no mention of the maximum number of connected devices or tethering however one must qualify as a trader to be a subscriber.

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

Thank you for replying. Yes, I agree, as you know consumer purchases are normally accompanied by a cooling off period to allow a change of mind however, what happens after that time.

In both Business and Residential terms there no mention of the procedure for terminating the contract. So contractually it would appear that one is stuck with a product one is unhappy with. Having discussed this with residential customer services it was said that one could end the contract but it would cost about £500 to do so.

I recently had a doorstep cold call from a fibre broadband salesman. He had obviously met people trapped in broadband contracts and unable to afford the buyout. He said his company would put up to £300 toward the buyout or if it was larger adjust the monthly premium to suite.

Its likely that deals like this are available from other broadband suppliers.

On that subject I notice that some 5G plans from other providers are advertised as 500Gb rather Unlimited. Business Terms use a subscript on the word Unlimited pointing to a footnote to qualify what Unlimited means. This is not the case for Residential Terms which remains misleading.

One thing I forgot to mention previously is that Business terms make no mention of the maximum number of connected devices or tethering however one must qualify as a trader to be a subscriber.

Really, you trust someone cold calling to be telling the truth?

Given the margins I doubt that any will offer to buy out a contract.

The best way with these mobile contracts is to take the one month option. Sure you pay a bit more, but you can always upgrade later.

Also sounds like you are putting sim in a router then the limits apply, as in reality this is a mobile sim.

https://community.ee.co.uk/t5/Archived-Posts/Unlimited-data-sim-card-in-a-4G-router-Actually-unlimited/td-p/946857

If you want a sim for a router then EE do tariffs just for this purpose.

https://ee.co.uk/broadband/mobile-broadband

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

...Really, you trust someone cold calling to be telling the truth? ...

Just to keep you from hanging onto the edge of your seat in excitement about what happened next: he introduced himself, and I listened without speaking. Then I said I was already in a contract and did not wish to change. He then said could he mark me down as "not interested," I replied, "Yes." Then off he went on his way. The guy was just doing his job, trust was not involved.

Bradden

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

...Really, you trust someone cold calling to be telling the truth? ...

Just to keep you from hanging onto the edge of your seat in excitement about what happened next: he introduced himself, and I listened without speaking. Then I said I was already in a contract and did not wish to change. He then said could he mark me down as "not interested," I replied, "Yes." Then off he went on his way. The guy was just doing his job, trust was not involved.

I think @born_again was referring to this comment....  He had obviously met people trapped in broadband contracts and unable to afford the buyout. He said his company would put up to £300 toward the buyout or if it was larger adjust the monthly premium to suite.

screech_78

I don’t agree with any of the OP’s comments on the EE contract, however to be fair to them, I had a leaflet through the door from Trooli broadband not too long ago and that stated they would cover the cost of paying an early termination fee from your current broadband provider if still in the minimum term and you switched to them. 

400ixl

Bradden said:

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

...Really, you trust someone cold calling to be telling the truth? ...

Just to keep you from hanging onto the edge of your seat in excitement about what happened next: he introduced himself, and I listened without speaking. Then I said I was already in a contract and did not wish to change. He then said could he mark me down as "not interested," I replied, "Yes." Then off he went on his way. The guy was just doing his job, trust was not involved.

I think @born_again was referring to this comment....  He had obviously met people trapped in broadband contracts and unable to afford the buyout. He said his company would put up to £300 toward the buyout or if it was larger adjust the monthly premium to suite.

The £300 is probably true as there are a few including Sky and EE who do this. The or larger probably would be much rarer.

sonearandyetsofa

It sure feels like an odd choice to set up an iot style home automation when your sole internet connection is via a mobile sim contract. I think EE could comfortably argue in court that connecting your entire automated household is an unreasonable use of the service when it's marketed as a mobile contract, not specifically a broadband service. And most people still have regular old "dumb" houses where things are turned on manually.

Come to think of it, if this is a mobile contract and not a broadband contract, would the new supplier's offer to buy OP out actually apply?

voluted

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

Thank you for replying. Yes, I agree, as you know consumer purchases are normally accompanied by a cooling off period to allow a change of mind however, what happens after that time.

In both Business and Residential terms there no mention of the procedure for terminating the contract. So contractually it would appear that one is stuck with a product one is unhappy with. Having discussed this with residential customer services it was said that one could end the contract but it would cost about £500 to do so.

I recently had a doorstep cold call from a fibre broadband salesman. He had obviously met people trapped in broadband contracts and unable to afford the buyout. He said his company would put up to £300 toward the buyout or if it was larger adjust the monthly premium to suite.

Its likely that deals like this are available from other broadband suppliers.

On that subject I notice that some 5G plans from other providers are advertised as 500Gb rather Unlimited. Business Terms use a subscript on the word Unlimited pointing to a footnote to qualify what Unlimited means. This is not the case for Residential Terms which remains misleading.

One thing I forgot to mention previously is that Business terms make no mention of the maximum number of connected devices or tethering however one must qualify as a trader to be a subscriber.

Really, you trust someone cold calling to be telling the truth?

Given the margins I doubt that any will offer to buy out a contract.

The best way with these mobile contracts is to take the one month option. Sure you pay a bit more, but you can always upgrade later.

Also sounds like you are putting sim in a router then the limits apply, as in reality this is a mobile sim.

https://community.ee.co.uk/t5/Archived-Posts/Unlimited-data-sim-card-in-a-4G-router-Actually-unlimited/td-p/946857

If you want a sim for a router then EE do tariffs just for this purpose.

https://ee.co.uk/broadband/mobile-broadband

https://www.be-fibre.co.uk/contract-buyout/

Albeit not £300.

Contract buyouts are not completely unheard of, but I'd say they're not exactly commonplace either.

voluted

[Deleted User] said:

Ectophile said:

[Deleted User] said:

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.

I think tou're clutching at straws here.  They are applying the policy that was in the Terms and Conditions of the contract that you agreed to.

On that subject I notice that some 5G plans from other providers are advertised as 500Gb rather Unlimited. Business Terms use a subscript on the word Unlimited pointing to a footnote to qualify what Unlimited means. This is not the case for Residential Terms which remains misleading.

One thing I forgot to mention previously is that Business terms make no mention of the maximum number of connected devices or tethering however one must qualify as a trader to be a subscriber.

Their residential T&Cs have an entire paragraph about Unlimited and what it means so I have no idea what you're referring to here.

https://ee.co.uk/content/dam/help/terms-and-conditions/price-plans/mobile/sim-only-price-plans/ee-simo-plan-tncs-from290824.pdf

In terms of the actual service comparison page, neither residential nor business qualifies what "Unlimited" means outside of the "Legal bit" at the bottom of the page, and there is no asterisk pointing people to this. As stated, the ASA and Ofcom both seem to be happy with the use of "Unlimited" to mean "With a limit but the vast majority will not hit it." You're going to be hard-pushed to get them to roll over by claiming this is misleading. You might be able to convince a judge but the chances of them turning up to a small claims hearing for this are slim to none, so you'd win by default rather than winning by proving them wrong.

600GB is a lot, especially on a mobile service. You may think they're being unreasonable but it's fairly obvious pretty much nobody agrees with you here. If you can't convince anyone on here, I don't think you'll get anywhere with EE, an adjudication service or a judge.