Vodafone and Three's UK merger hits regulatory roadblock
Watchdog concerns about price hikes and consolidation remain unresolved
Networks
4 Apr 2024 | 11
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 …
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:39 GMT technohead95
Why advertise as unlimited?
I fully understand why giffgaff have done what they done, 1% of users using up 1/3 of the capacity is very disproportionate. However, why do they advertise themselves as unlimited if it is clearly not? Why not set an upper limit on data usage where those 1% are exceeding. This would at least show the service as what it is actually doing. If you want to allow users to occasionally have months of very high usage while other months are low then why not set an annual bandwidth cap. Any service that uses unlimited is just asking for abuse and thus I do not think the term should be used.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:11 GMT KenSweep
So allegedly 1% of GG users are using a third of the bits the other 99% use. Some of the users here who are part of the 99% don't like how the 1% are taking up their 'capacity'. With these figures though, it's incredibly unlikely any one of these 99% is within the same transmitter as one of the 1% whilst both are trying to use data at the same time. That'd really be the only time the 99% are impacted by the 1%! if you agree with that, then what it comes down to in fact is that the 1% are costing GG money instead of gaining them profit. So surely GG needs to make a decision on whether to absorb this as an overall business cost, as part of cost of being allowed to market freely as truly unlimited mobile data, or not? I udnerstand 90% of Dropbox users are on free basic accounts - yet they still make a profit overall. So what's GG's problem really?
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:45 GMT Muscleguy
It's Classic
It's a classic Poverty of the Commons situation and such will always happen without regulations and control. It's why humans invented regulations and controls on usage. The only people who bleat about the necessity of such things are those who fancy themselves one percenters and want to go fill their boots at everyone else's expense.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 11:56 GMT Ben Norris
time to stop calling them abusers
the top 1% are using what was offered. It is long past time for ISPs to stop offering something that they can't deliver and whining when early adopters try to make use of it. In any other kind of business you wouldn't get away with it. There would be outrage if I sold cars which I took back when people tried to drive for more than 4hrs a week! -
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
Tethered or not tethered?
Now now then, children. Stop squabbling! How's about we agree on this as a definition as to what constitutes tethering and what doesn't: If the attached 'device' can request the content from the intarwebs itself, then that 'device' is tethered. If the attached 'device' can't, then it's a peripheral and not tethered. Therefore a laptop using the phone as a modem is tethered, as the laptop itself is requesting the content from the intarwebs and using the phone as a conduit. Speakers, headphones, external monitors, USB powered dildos etc. are not tethered, as they are not requesting the content from the intarwebs themselves. They are having it pushed to them from the phone. QED Thank you and goodnight! -
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:40 GMT Mike G
ha frickin ha
Always like to see greedy selfish leechtards that take the piss torrenting and warezing and fuck-knows-whatsing with their 'interwebs' getting a massive HOOF IN THE BAWZ. There is no way anybody that gets throttled or capped is using their bandwidth for stuff that isn't illegal, unethical or just plain tarded. Anybody that downvotes me is quite clearly a bearded torrenting porno fiend. -
Wednesday 11th January 2012 12:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Marketing
There is a 'natural' usage profile; 'limited' caps the upper end of that profile, Suppose there is a potential market for a service who are worried about the costs of over-use. In that market 'unlimited' attracts those customers and 'limited' is in effect a cap on the lower bound. It might appear that setting a very high limit would be an option: capping ultra-high use whilst not discouraging uptake. But when people have paid £x for 'upto' nGB they tend to think they need to 'get their money's worth'. So a high limit will flatten the usage profile. Before I worked at home all day, 1GB a month was more than enough on my broadband dongle. Now that is not enough; but 3GB is usually more than enough: come the end of the month I tend to download more just to use up more of that 3GB. -
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Issue caused by vendor selling 'Unlimited'...
...which is marketing-speak for 'a lot', despite it having a specific meaning in the real world - that is, unlimited = NO LIMITS. If you sell 'unlimited' then it should be unlimited. Therefore you can understand why it's users (including the 1% who take 30% of all bandwidth), are pissed at being labelled as being at fault. If you 'accidentally' built a business model on selling unlimited data, but then finding you fucked up your cost model because some people are taking advantage of it, and it costs you more than you expected, then quite frankly the company doing so can fuck off. Don't go blaming users who have the audacity to use what they have bought, when it's your failure to build a suitable infrastructure and cost model. -
Wednesday 11th January 2012 13:42 GMT Anonymous Coward This always happens - 1% of the users use 50% of the traffic - so 99% of the users are paying more or suffering slower speeds as a result.
If it's a network for it's users the fairest thing would be to kick off the 1% of excessive users each month and you would probably sign up many more normal users as you could reduce your prices and be more competitive.
-
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:18 GMT Anonymous Coward Networks should be honest and up front with exactly what you are getting and equally users should not 'abuse' the service - but if the networks did their bit first people could not abuse the networks.
I would rather have xGb I can do what I ilke with than 'unlimited' that is not unlimited and can't be used for this that or the other.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:30 GMT zb
Pareto Principle
Have they never heard of the Pareto Principle. (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle It is pretty obvious from experience even if you have not heard of the theory. -
Wednesday 11th January 2012 14:51 GMT Paul Shirley
giffgaff history
Apologies for the shitty formatting, the Reg has screwed up big time. Might help some understand how gg painted themselves into this corner, especially the attack drones swarming here from the mother hive who presumably weren't with giffgaff when this happened ;) giffgaff launched before completing their billing platform, that meant they could not charge for data. For marketing reasons they offered free data for the 1st 6 (or was it 9?) months, with the clear understanding they would then start charging. So far no problems, people got slapped for exceeding the stated limits but it went smoothly enough. Then O2 decided they preferred building new infrastructure to supplying the missing support to giffgaff - not really surprising after OFCOM ordered them to sort their network out or lose the licence. Became obvious whatever contracts giffgaff have gave them no power to compel O2 to deliver. Still wasn't a problem, they extended the free data offer every time O2 postponed delivery and I assume O2 had to swallow the costs. Everything carried on as usual. Then giffgaff asked users what the really hated about other networks: number 1 answer, the word unlimited not meaning unlimited. Around the same time they needed to decide data pricing. And that's when it all went very wrong. Seems a simple choice really, just don't use the word unlimited, instead of devious FUP limits just be open upfront. But they still had a problem, O2 still hadn't delivered the billing support... and carried on not delivering. And they still needed to look like a really good deal to suck customers in. So gg basically just gave away data, closely tied to actually buying voice minutes and hoped averaged over all users it would work out. The problem is the market is shifting toward smartphones and the dumbphone users supposed to dilute the averages are a vanishing species. More important, giffgaff don't seem to have the balls to backtrack lest they frighten off the low data users that actually are profitable. Strangely they did have the balls to screw over their lowest users in another attempt to subsidise the data hogs, with rate rises last year that disproportionately apply to PAYG users. Explained away as a way for all users to share the pain, I still fail to understand how increased SMS rates affect their bundle users unlimited SMS allowance! giffgaff are trapped by their own past problems and mistakes and visibly losing their headline 'community' focus in favour of more traditional shitting on their customers. -
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:09 GMT davtom
The obvious way forward is to move away from the incorrect use of the word unlimited. Provide a limit and stop drawing customers, especially those ultra-consuming ones who are not desired, with fake promises of unlimited.
Anything that says "subject to fair use" ought to be banned in the context of saying something is unlimited. What is reasonable is subjective.
So remove unlimited and apply a reasonable limit that would cause customers in the top 1% to have to pay more. It would then be possible to allow tethering with no penalty. Simples.
-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 15:21 GMT pedromap
no one understands the real issue hare no matter how you slice it
Lets have a look at this issue from a logical stand point shall we here is a statistic for your consideration: I. ## 1/3 of total monthly data usage on the entire network II. ## Used by 1% of users III. ## Smart phones consume from 1-8 GB by themselves on a max. average IV .## Laptops use at most 10-50 GB of data per moth depending on speed and connection types V. ## feature phones do to pass the 5-500mb threshold depending on features and connectivity hardware.. Real Conclusion It is not Logical to state that those figures of 1/3 of total network usage for only a 1% of users is not tethering and it is clearly stated in the T's and C's that for tethering you should use a gigabag [a.k.a data only goody bag] another feature suggested by us the users and approved by the network. so I defy any self proclaiming IT Expert to find another reason or theory for this 1/3 data usage per 1% users, i am eager to hear such reasons and theories. I gave everyone the figures now make the calculations for yourselves, or ask a mathematician to run those figures for you. regards pedromap-
Wednesday 11th January 2012 18:58 GMT Vince
We're still talking about this because?
Er OK pedromap here's a way...
I have a Motorola Atrix. I download Podcasts, several. Daily and Weekly ones. My Atrix has a linux install built into it, and connecting it to a screen (which is not tethering no matter how many times morons say it is) means I get access to full desktop Firefox among other things.
Using said firefox I can watch BBC iPlayer, I can download lots of stuff, browse full fat web pages, and many other things, all legitimately, and none by tethering. I can EASILY (and do) sail past 10GB a month.
OK sure, the Atrix is unusual in this regard (today, but give it time...)
Yes it is undoubtedly true that "some" will be tethering or otherwise doing things against the T&Cs, or are just using as much data as they possibly can because they can - in the same way some people download never ending "linux ISOs" if you believe them but somehow never have time to watch, sorry, install them.
So there are really only 3 issues:
(a) Some users can legitimately use a lot of data without breaching the terms and conditions, and as it stands, those users are not only complying with the terms of service, giffgaff right now are obliged to provide that service in return for the consideration (the money paid) otherwise they are in breach of the terms to the customer.
(b) Some users are using the service against the terms they signed up to. This is not a point for debate, you're either compliant or you are not. If you are doing anything accepted as tethering by anyone sane (eg except morons who think chargers or headphones are suddenly tethering). then you're in breach and should (as per your terms) be disconnected.
(c) Giffgaff like many many before make these problems for themselves. If they could not bill for the data, they could have said, for 'x' per month you get 'y' amount of data, and said NOTHING about the fact it was unlimited - some will work it out and get lucky, many won't, and anyone accidentally using over the agreed limit will have a nice experience too. Once they can bill, give it a month, let people know what they used and if more than allowed either tell them they'll have to reduce in future, or pay 'n' for more data.
If they're able to bill for the data, then the problem never crops up unless someone set a limit that was also unsustainable (this person therefore needs to be redeployed to a different area of the business since financials are not for them).
However, giffgaff started with "data is free, use as much as you want" then continue with "unlimited data". Given they're offering "unlimited" that's what they should be providing (subject to you complying with your side of the bargain).
They are of course entitled to change the offer - I'm not sure why there is such a debate. They've got the right to change things, various notice periods may apply (generally quite short since nobody has a long term contract), and once said notice period is over, if the offer isn't like the old one, you can moan as much as you like, but you weren't offered the service for any duration beyond that which you had paid for it.
Meanwhile for the majority of people, this is indifferent "news" because they're not using an amount of data outside the agreement that causes a problem, and even if they were tethering (not that it makes it OK) they don't use enough to cause any concerns. So in the same way that 1% will be using all the data if those numbers stack up, I suspect that same 1% will be crying themselves a frikking river of upset over something they're not obliged to receive for more than 'd' days, and that doubtless a good number of them will be using a service they haven't paid for (no, sorry, "I paid for unlimited data and it doesn't matter how I use it" is NOT a valid argument because actually you did not. You paid for unlimited data for specified purposes).
OK, so now where is the IT news?
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 13:51 GMT pedromap
fair enought 10gb on a linux machine.
how ever there is a big difference between 10GB on one data consuming device and
and the same 10GB on two data consuming devices, not the amount but the way it is used, it is very clear that 10gb on one device costs less bandwidth then 10gb on two devices, that is what was the discussion was about ..
what i was trying to explain and making a mess of it, was not about the amount of data itself, it was about how some users use that data, so to make myself clearer its OK any amount of data as long you don't connect two separate devices on that unlimited goodybag, to connect two devices together and use data the new gigabags where devised for such purpose...
nobody simply understands the principle behind the rule of no tethering and the over usage of resources:
1 - 1KB of data usage when connecting unlimited a goodybag mobile phone to a second device is already over the limit just because someone connected two devices together, and that is tethering by definition and a clear breach of terms and conditions for that goodybag, no matter how this is explained no one outside of giffgaff will ever understand the real issue here.
2 - 20 GB on one device only ie the smart phone is OK as long as the smartphone itself was never used as a modem device and I know the tech staff @ giffgaff never handout bans without any reason #### As once i read a user of the forum complaining of being barred and when he confronted the staff member on a public forum it was discovered later that user was using a mobile broadband usb device with a unlimited goodybag ## i will not publicly name that user and will not post that discussion here
in conclusion if i may enlighten every one once and for all, not the AMOUNT of data is the HOW you get the data that is important.
and @ Vince it is a pleasure to meet a fellow Linux user i was starting to think i am the only one in the UK and about my numbers i was trying to demonstrate usage patterns not amounts of data by themselves, however it looks like i explained this badly on that post...
-
-
-
Thursday 12th January 2012 02:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Reality
Bandwidth costs money.
Carriers have to use revenue to provision that bandwidth.
That revenue comes from their subscribers.
Any carrier that promises true unlimited bandwidth while pricing competitive to a market that no longer offers unlimited bandwidth is going to attract the people most likely to consume it, and drive them into bankruptcy.
Therefore, the 'unlimited bandwidth at cheap prices' model is unsustainable, and they need to stop pretending it can be offered.
And those of you whining about 'but they said....' need to realize tanstaafl.
-
-
Saturday 14th January 2012 02:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
"All this smoke and mirrors so ISPs can offer "unlimited" data is a farce."
Yes but if they told the truth, then they'd lose customers.
And people on here question why others don't trust giffgaffs proclamations?!? Innocent unless proven guilty isn't relevant - evidence is. And if giffgaff won't provide that evidence, then people are likely to be suspicious of giffgaff's motives. Just because someone claims/denies something, doesn't make it so.
The bottom line of the discussions on this long thread is that giffgaff doesn't provide the value required by its customers, ie a low cost but decent download allowance for use at the subscriber's discretion (eg tethering/non-tethering) in conjunction with a phone service. Having to buy a separate SIM for tethering only is just farcical.
-
-
Wednesday 18th January 2012 11:53 GMT James 100
As a long-term customer...
I've been a customer of theirs since the outset - long before "goodybags" were even thought of - and I'm quite unhappy about this. They have repeatedly and specifically stated that the unlimited data on goodybags is indeed unlimited - so they have no basis for whining about someone exceeding a limit they lied about!
So far, they've been very honest and quite transparent about most things. If they were to come out and say "OK, we said 'unlimited', but these guys have been using over 3 Gb/month, so we're making a big loss on them", fair enough - indeed, they did exactly that in the past with the "unlimited calls" Goodybag when some people were averaging over, I think, 3 hours per day. If they can't afford genuinely unlimited usage, say so and set a limit instead. If they said, for example, "up to 1 Gb/month", I'd be fine with that - but please, no telling me "unlimited - unless you use it lots, then we'll make up a secret limit and punish you for exceeding it"!
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
