Back to the Fair Usage Policy:
A FUP in the Uncapped ISP world has traditionally been
the most opaque, confusing set of terms that you have to
agree to.
Hi Gian,
I am not sure what you mean by this.
Over the past few days I've seen ISPs impose limits in their FUP and AUP terms where they say my
uncapped account has a limit or will get limited based on a threshold which was first an uncertain amount, but has recently come into light as 60GB/200GB/etc. The problem, as many people have pointed out, is that you can't call a service uncapped if it indeed has some hidden limit making it in fact, capped.
Judging from your statement above you make it sound like it is normal for ISPs across the world to impose these FUP to uncapped accounts when it is not. If you go to major ISP websites like Comcat and Bigpond you will see them advertising ADSL/cable services at prices and speeds we can only dream of getting here in SA. Further googling will reveal that these ISPs are trying to impose usage limites to the likes of 250+GB for Comcast accounts etc. The difference comes in where they do not market it as an uncapped account. They sell INTERNET. They don't sell 4mbps internet, or uncapped internet - they sell broadband internet for $x a month.
So yes, while they can and probably do impose FUP limits on their accounts, they don't market it as uncapped because they know the difference.
Obviously I'm not aiming this directly at you but every ISP selling an "uncapped" account in South Africa who want to impose these download restrictions, as well as everyone here on mybroadband who think marketing an uncapped account with a cap is acceptable.
So once again, I'd just like to reiterate my statement that I don't quite understand what you mean by uncapped accounts having opaque and confusing terms when the "uncapped ISP world" has never had a precedent of marketing their products as such.
I find that my connection has slowed down quite a lot since the uncapped
