[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Simon Avery wrote: > I quite agree and think it's scandalous that the advertisers are clearly > lying by claiming it is. As per my response, the AUP itself is intended to protect users from abuse such as spamming etc. It is a misuse of the AUP itself to put a usage cap in there as *that* is clearly a Condition (as in Terms and Conditions) of the Contract, not an 'abusive' use of the service. Using the AUP this way is like a 'Reward' scheme for employees for good service which carries specific targets they must meet to qualify *as well as* providing good service. It's not a reward scheme when it conceals a stick. It's abuse by the management of the original purpose of the function. BTW it's obvious why it is done this way. Most (if not all) ISP contracts state that the ISP must advise all customers of changes to the Terms and Conditions. By slipping usage cap into the AUP (which somehow they see as a separate entity) they don't see that they have to advise them. Yes it *is* a load of *deleted because this gets archived and Alex will get cross* ;) Perhaps an email to the ISP(s) concerned CCed to the ASA on the matter? Kind regards, Julian -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html