> The topic of "unlimited" access vs. metered time has been beaten to death
> but I'm going to flog the dead horse again...
>
Indeed.
> I don't see the 23.75 hour account as a problem. I see it as a gold mine.
> We charge by the hour over a set amount of usage and I'd love to have
> your "hog" accounts.
You don't think they'd actually stay on if they paid by the hour do you?
> As for kicking people off after a set period of time, if I had an account
> that was advertised as "unlimited" access and I found out my supplier had
> some mechanism to interrupt my usage at regular intervals I'd have a
> lawyer and a lawsuit in place faster than they could disconnect me.
>
> I am, frankly, surprised that someone hasn't been sued, that the FCC
> hasn't gotten involved, and that there isn't a class action suit in
> process now.
>
> If you are going to _limit_ client access, be sure not to call it
> "unlimited" access and be sure you have their signature on a contract
> that specifies the mechanisms you intend to use to interrupt their
> access. It sure wouldn't make me very happy to have 97% of MSIE30.EXE
> downloaded and find my carrier dropped.
The crux of the argument though is just what unlimited means. It could
be taken to mean no time limits. It could also be taken to mean no
service limits, no limits on who/when/where you can access something.
It could be taken to mean all the above.
I think the best solution is to be less ambiguous and advertise
"umlimited interactive usage" and then be creative in ways to make sure
the usage is indeed interactive.
--- David Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
one doesn't know what one can't do!