Show me where I commented on what you were doing or said it was in any way bad for anyone beyond VM, or that you were somehow not paying your way and I'll be happy to retract what I wrote.

The only opinions expressed were about VM. Like all ISPs who don't charge per GB they have an interest in users using as little bandwidth as possible, making their actions strange.

If your conscience twinged in any way that's your prerogative. You were used as an example of VM's desperation to retain customers, nothing more Sir.

Edited by deleted (Sat 16-Nov-13 22:21:02)

I never read any article stating specifically its 17a, since you know more than me, do you know if any of the trials are on ECI cabinets?

2 main reasons are probably.

a loss making customer still has more potential to make money than no customers. plus if you have a policy of not spending money to relieve congestion meaning heavy usage doesnt cost you much if anything than such customers are fine as long as you can accept moaning customers.
2nd reason is shareholder reports, a CEO wants to report growing customer numbers to his/her shareholders.

They did used to boot unprofitable customers off the network but that was apparently not allowable by the ASA if they wanted to continue to advertise it as an unlimited service.

When companies are run by the marketing department a lot of their methods of operating appear loony (except to the marketing department I assume).

I thought you said that you didn't use much nowadays.

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

So they could simply change their marketing and get rid of people like me the dead wood if you like and then sort things out.

History says they won't as they've made umpteen changes to continue doing so. If they couldn't advertise unlimited they'd be one of the few big players that can't and I expect they fear that would lose them market share.