My principles align with 2023tmobileuser
Advertising should not lie, mislead or manipulate. The word "unlimited" has a very clear definition, there are NO limits. At all. That is what it means. It's absolutely fine to have an "all you can eat" product for marketing purposes, which does have an eventually limit. But do not call it unlimited. I feel that any other interpretation is a debate over what's an acceptable degree of lying.
But I am not naive. I already know they are lying, what I truly resent is the lack of information.
The ASA will not look into individual complaints, however if enough people complain, they will. This is their rule:
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/cb2997ec-68d6-4a7d-9d3dd0ef7c168427.pdf
“Unlimited” claims are likely to be acceptable provided that:
• The legitimate user incurs no additional charge or suspension of service as a
consequence of exceeding any usage threshold associated with an FUP, traffic
management policy or the like; and
• Provider-imposed limitations that affect the speed or usage of the service are
moderate only and are clearly explained in the marketing communication.
With a stronger clarification made in 2014: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/internet-unlimited.html
QUOTE:
"marketers will no longer be able to use a fair-use or traffic management policy to slow down legitimate users, nor will they be able to impose an additional charge or suspend the service. A policy which does not affect the majority of customers but impacts significantly on a small number of heavy users is unlikely to be considered “moderate”. "
So EE's FUP really doesn't align to policy. However, I would be satisifed IF it is made CLEAR to me when I am approaching the "Provider-imposed limitations that affect the speed or usage" in advance.
You find out AFTER you have hit the limit.
