"Woody" <woody@spamblock.com> wrote in message
news:LLxFj.17623$%N1.2861@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...[color=blue]
> "Harry Stottle" <sorryspamdoesntwork@nospam.uk.co> wrote in message
> news:WSvFj.4294$6R1.930@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...[color=green]
>>
>> "RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
>> news:fs61at$ei6$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Harry Stottle" <sorryspamdoesntwork@nospam.uk.co> wrote in message
>>> news:q2qFj.3546$6R1.1904@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>I was considering taking out a mobile broadband service and was
>>>>looking through the options. T-mobile are advertising their
>>>>Web'n'Walk service at £15.00/month for 3 GB, but when I dug through
>>>>a couple of layers of small print, I found the following
>>>> <Quote> We do not permit use of this service for internet phone
>>>> calls</Quote>
>>>> Link [url]http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/services/uk/fairuse/[/url]
>>>> This seems like a restrictive practice to me, a mobile phone
>>>> company providing a different type of service, but banning users of
>>>> that service from using it in a way that could result in
>>>> competition to their main service. How do others see this, and does
>>>> anyone know if this could be challenged legally, because if
>>>> T-Mobile are allowed to get away with banning internet phone calls
>>>> through their broadband service, then I can see VoIP being
>>>> increasingly threatened.
>>>
>>> This is fair enough as far as I can see, as long as they tell you in
>>> advance can not see an issue with this. They offer a service
>>> and is up to user to agree if they want it or not. Why would any
>>> company offer a service which would cut their core business[/color]
>> So what would happen if BT and Virgin Media decided they were not
>> going to allow VoIP over their services?
>> VoIP would be severely limited, making it unavailable to the masses
>> just to protect the profits of the big companies.[/color]
>
> Since both BT and VM supply business users with line phones using
> VOIP, the words kettle and black come to mind.
>
> On the other hand, unless they make a fundamental change to their
> contracts - and to which you as the user would have to agree - I
> suspect they may be on a sticky wicket legally if they tried port
> blocking. Unfair Contract Terms might come into it, and even the
> Competition Commission may have something to say - and that ignores
> the useless OffCom (deliberate misspelling) within who's bailiwick it
> would fall.
>[/color]
Shortly after posting the original post here this morning, I sent an
email with similar content to my local MP knowing of his interest in
technology matters. I also know that he is usually very busy with
correspondence, so I put in the email that I didn't need a reply, and
that I was just informing him of the situation. Exactly 25 minutes
later, I received a reply from him, he agreed with my concerns, and is
passing the details on to his ministerial colleagues at BERR, (Business,
Enterprise & Regulatory Reform), to check if they are aware of it.
Not a bad service from an MP, especially on Easter Sunday, but he is one
of the better ones.