on 29-02-2012 00:39
The lines between unlimited and fair usage needs clarification I agree. The word UNLIMITED should be replaced to avoid instances such as this. It's a shame common sense didn't prevail! You yourself admit too being a high user and it's for this reason GiffGafafter have taken the action they have. There have been numerous blog's on the subject and I for one agree with the company's policy. May I suggest in future you also use your wifi connection and add a data usage app to your phone to help decrease you data usage in the future, leaving some data pockets for the more conscientious user.
on 29-02-2012 01:06
29-02-2012 01:06 - edited 29-02-2012 01:09
only 3 pages for me (10 pages is long winded as 15 GG members post an answer some times can get lost in there)
Posts per page 100
Posts per topic 50
he find out on the 5th next month if he has the option set so that it sends him the report
i guess it depends on how you got to 15gb, maybe you watched tv all day for 1-3 days
Please mark the correct answer so users can find them later on
on 29-02-2012 16:30
Not being calm when someone does something to wrong you is a perfectly reasonable attitude; telling someone to calm down under those circumstances is patronising and unhelpful.
You are so wrong that I was tempted to not even reply. I have done so in case your opinion misleads someone.
If you had paid attention on the forum, you would have known - as you should, by now - that the first step in getting a data ban lifted by giffgaff is to acknowledge the wrong of what you have done and undertake not to do it again.
Taking the opposing position, of insisting you did no wong and giffgaff acted improperly and so on, is altogether the wrong course to take. (You can look up the meaning of "patronising" in your own time. It's probably a good idea to refrain from using it until you do )
smaugsbane wrote:giffgaff can put whatever they like in their Terms and Conditions. The only parts of their Terms and Conditions that matter, though, are those which are acceptable under UK laws. So just because it's on the Terms and Conditions, that doesn't mean that giffgaff have any sort of "right" let alone ability to act on it.
That kind of naivete is too common on the forum these days. You appear to have taken a shallow acquintance with "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" out of context and attempted to reverse the case. That makes you wrong again.
I'd be a little less aggressive in your defense of giffgaff's behaviour in this instance, were I you.
I didn't "defend" giffgaff's behaviour. I leave that kind of thing to the parrots. Happily, however, you are not me, since I was taught to understand what I read before I try to comment on it.
on 01-03-2012 00:29
(You can look up the meaning of "patronising" in your own time. It's probably a good idea to refrain from using it until you do )
I'm sure everyone on here will thank you for providing a perfect illustration of a patronising statement. However, I am perfectly conversant with how to be patronising.
I could write a point-by-point rebuttal (in fact, I already have), but lets avoid that and do the following.
giffgaff can, and do, make mistakes. giffgaff have a complaints procedure, and there exists an industry ombudsman in case that fails. Therefore, there will be circumstances when it is necessary to challenge giffgaff. The tone and content of your reply strongly suggest that you believe that anyone banned by giffgaff must accept that and give in. But those who have done nothing wrong should not have to give in to the bullying.
I like to believe the best of people; if I perceive someone as having been wronged, then I'll say so - and recommend that they do not give up, but instead ensure that they get what they deserve. There will, indeed, be those who take advantage of any system - I just won't assume that everyone has been doing so. I also do not feel that the best way to deal with those taking advantage is to tar the character of everyone who happens to get caught up in the net.
From a purely practical point - giffgaff won't be able to ban anyone on a goodybag tariff from April 1st without being in breach of Ofcom's guidance on advertising. That's pretty clear cut and unambiguous, and it's worth thinking (with a month to go) whether giffgaff's current practices are viable. I do not see them as being so, and I do not think that a court would permit a company from enforcing a clause of their Terms and Conditions that it is impossible for a consumer to work within. After all, without knowing the second-by-second state of giffgaff's network, no-one can tell if they're impacting the network or others on it - can they?
There are alternatives to acknowledging a non-existent wrongdoing, even on giffgaff. Some people have managed to get their incorrectly applied bans reversed without selling their souls. It's not necessary, and certainly not desirable, to "see whether they will give you a second chance" if you shouldn't have lost your first chance.
This issue - data bans - is not going to go away, and is not something that needs to be accepted. I will continue to challenge incorrect applications of overly broad and unenforceable Terms and Conditions within giffgaff, just as I will educate those who wish to exploit giffgaff.
on 01-03-2012 03:09
Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.
It's as simple as that. NOT LIMITED OR RESTRICTED.
Why oh why do people here preach on about "fair use" and "affecting other users". How can *you* POSSIBLY affect other users when something is UNLIMITED. You cannot. That doesnt mean to say that people are not affected by it, but it's certainly not your wrong doing. ou are using the product as described. You cannot (IMO) advertise UNLIMITED, then later add terms and conditions that state that it is in fact limited. Nor should it be expected that you should have to read small print to find the contrary to the big print.
Small print is just that, small print. It covers the small stuff. Something like limits on something that is unlimited has no place in small print, it's INVALID.