GiffGaff boots freetards off mobile network People-powered mobile phone network GiffGaff is debating how best to curb excessive data use, while kicking off a few customers considered to be really taking the biscuit. GiffGaff has always offered unlimited data with its "goody-bag" tariffs, which start at a tenner a month, and unlike competing networks it has never imposed …
"There isn't a limit; there are restrictions on how the service may be used, not how much. I posted the relevant section above. I don't think we'll miss you.
"
and so there is a limit there then.
Defintion 2 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restriction of restriction (from the american history of langauge)
"2. Something that restricts; a regulation or limitation."
Not the word LIMITation?
You CANNOT say there isn't a limit but there is restrictions, as the restrictions limit (see what i did there) what you can do.
It is perfectly possible to say that there is no limit on how much of a product or service is consumed, thus making *consumption* unlimited, but that there are restrictions on the means by which it is consumed. You can post as much irrelevant American bullshit as you like, you'll still be wrong.
This post has been deleted by its author
"you are asserting that GG are guilty of dishonesty or other wrongdoing"
I never said any such thing, now you are misrepresenting what I said, however _you_ did assert that the 1% were doing something wrong but you consistently fail to produce any evidence except some heresy from GiffGaff, See how that works.
The problem with using an arbitrary percentage to determine who are infringing on others rights, is that the underlying number constantly shifts. That's aside from it being an interestering percentage point for GiffGaff to pick (perhaps an attempt to create some loose connections in people's imagination to... oh... I don't know).
Rally against the "less than 1%" of GiffGaff users if you must, kick them off the network... keep doing it and before long, you will find yourself crossing over into the "less than 1%". What will you say then? But I only use it for email synching, web browsing, social networking, occasional youtube use... "That's too much!" - the mob will scream! Far better to have some actual usage statistics so you can hold your service provider to account and ensure they're not just downsizing.
Of course, I expect the next rally cry to be against the 1% of people in rural locations being subsidised by the 99% for the letters and parcels they get to send at the same rate as everyone else - it's completely unfair!
I have quite a low opinion of your intelligence nichomach, however I think it is quite clear from the context that that is a typo for "hearsay". Just so you don't get any more confused that you presently are, here's the definition: "Unverified information heard or received from another; gossip; rumour".
that'll keep me awake at nights, Krakenfool. Here's a thought; next time you abuse the English language, correct it, don't blame other people for your error. A typo? Really? In which you manage to lose the 'a' from 'hear', insert an 'e' to transform it into 'here', and then omit the 'a' from 'say'. That's one heck of a 'typo' you've managed there, sport. Not that I'm implying that you simply used the wrong word due to ignorance and a tendency to pomposity, no, sir, not I...
Actually it has been demonstrated, since they've stated as much on the forum thread linked to from the article. On the basis of their testimony, and absent any evidence to suggest that they are lying, that 1% contains a significant number of people who are breaching the terms and conditions of service. Krakenfart asserts that GiffGaff's statement is "bullshit"; that is an assertion of dishonesty or wrongdoing, but one for which he adduces no evidence or testimony to support it. Craigness asserts that they are lying as well, yet offers no evidence to support that assertion. If GiffGaff state that there is abuse of their network, that is something of which they can have direct knowledge (not hearsay, despite what Krakenfart states); that is evidence. A bald assertion that they are lying from someone with no direct knowledge of whether they are or not, and without any physical evidence or testimony from someone who has such direct knowledge is, well, nothing. It's just noise. You see?
"Unless you have evidence that GiffGaff are lying, then I would take their assertion as being the requisite evidence".
Oh Boy, not only are you on the slippery slope, you’ve fallen right off the edge and into the abyss.... How many wars and atrocities have occurred in past history because somebody’s "assertion" was accepted as being the "evidence"? How long ago did you have your frontal lobotomy?
I'm not the only person to ask you this, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE 1% HAVE BREACHED THEIR T&C'S. I'll answer it for you, YOU DON'T, all as you know is that the 1% are using their connection as it was advertised i.e. as an unlimited connection.
Not unless you are actually an employee of GiffGaff (other than in PR) and you know something that the GiffGaff users don't, It wouldn’t be the first time a company has put spyware on the phones it sell to joe public?????
This has gone on long enough, you're one troll I'm not going to feed any more (I extend my middle finger in your general direction).
You didn't answer my question "How do you know they're not abiding with the T&Cs?" It's impossible to say that people were booted off for violating terms rather than exceeding the unpublished limited if you don't know that they were actually violating the terms. Using an unlimited amount of data is not a violation of the terms you posted above, yet the people removed from the service were identified as the top 1% of users, not the top 1% of terms violators. If they published a limit then it would be reasonable to end the contracts of people who exceed it.
If the supply is unlimited and free the demand will be infinite.
It's all fine postulating how these people use so much data and guessing that they are breaching the T&C's but when a resource is free you will find people are ingenious in their over use of it. When Cable first went in in our area cable-to-cable calls were free and unlimited. Some people used them as baby monitors while spending an evening with friends down the street. I new someone who had an un-metered water supply who used to leave a tap running 24/7 into his 50 m2 Koi pond to 'keep the water fresh'.
I wonder how much data a permanent skype/facetime call would use? What about sufferers of tweetarrhea with pics/video. What about Mr 'Oh I just leave News24 on all day just in case'? somebody somewhere is downloading whole movies, watching the first 5 minutes, getting bored and downloading another one.
You don't need to connect a phone to a telly to pull down gobs of data, I regularly see the kids pull over 2.5Mb/s for long periods watching videos on WiFi and iPlayer onto my SII will often pull 3.5Mb/s.
You don't need to be feeding some external higher res device.
At home the O2 signal isn't good enough for them to trouble GiffGaff by watching videos over the phone link.
Main issue is stupid advertising regulator can't read a F**king dictionary and allowed everyone to get away with fraudulent advertising.
Unlimited should mean "UNLIMITED", no stupid hidden Sh*tty fair use clauses.
If there is any sort of limit, then it is NOT UNLIMITED, full stop, no weaseling, no argument, no fraud.
So this nonsense about headphones being a tethering scenario.... what nonsense.
Headphones do not process the data received over 3G, the phone has a DAC, it converts this and the headphones receive the audio signal from that.
Your TV does not process the data, but the result of the data...
Your laptop receives the IP Packets sent on 3G. That is tethering.
Now about this limited unlimited... for the 'n' amount of revenue received how much data is feasible while still giving margin, when calculated in a sane way. Then take some away, to give margin. Problem solved. Now publish *that* amount.
If network has capacity and you have used the guaranteed allowance you can..
A) Offer customers "best efforts" option of low priority data when capacity allows. Send them a text so they know they are at that point ... and maybe warn them beforehand too.
B) Offer a paid option of more data with the paid priority again.
For example, my phone downloads podcasts daily. It does it at 3am. Network has capacity spare, no major cost to provider for me using it, so i should be able to get good speeds and even if I do not, i don't mind since it is downloading for later.
If i needed data NOW I would be able to live with what is available on best efforts, or pay to get it PDQ.
The sooner we get away from the nonsense of unlimited with limits the better.
"I LOVE all the downvotes from people who aren't GG customers, who this in no way affects, but who are very eager to see a service that I use and pay for ****ed up by people not abiding by the conditions of the service...."
No, I think you are being downvoted as you are struggling to tell your posterior from your elbow. Connecting a phone to a TV and watching iPlayer on it is NOT against the T's & C's of GG, as it is not connected to another device which can use its data connection, all the TV is doing is displaying what is on the screen. Pretty much the same way as using the data connection to download maps for the satnav whilst the phone is connected to a BT headset - the TV/BT Headset/Headphones are completely immaterial.
By your reckoning GG customers would have to turn off their data connection when their phone is on charge, as it is connected to another device (the charger), and god help them if they use USB charging......
Plainly anyone can see this is a load of nonsense.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
