On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:41:12 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
> wrote:
>>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:01:00 +0100, RevK  wrote:
>>>>Posted at 2009-10-09 09:40 BST by RevK
>>>>Update #3: 2009-10-09 10:01 BST
>>>>    
>>>>  Customers on the 1GB basic tariff now will get an extra benefit.
>>>>  Currently they get 1GB peak and 50GB peak. However the new tariff will
>>>>  mean they get 2 units at the same price, which gives 1GB peak and 100GB
>>>>  off-peak (or 2GB peak and none off-peak, or 200GB off-peak and none
>>>>  peak, etc).
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want this?
>>
>>Why _wouldn't_ anyone want this?
>
> Thanks that explains it!

It wasn't supposed to.  The original status post exlained it.
I was merely trying to get more information on why you seemed
to think it wasn't beneficial to be able to allocate any
previously-unused off-peak bandwidth allowance to peak (or
vice versa).

-- 
David Taylor

On 9 Oct 2009 16:44:19 GMT, Bob Eager  wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:36:24 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:
>
>> I like:
>> A certain amount of inclusive gigabytes for peak and off-peak.
>> 
>> Purchase topups if needed (I never have): 1 off-peak GB costs x amount.
>> 1 peak GB costs x amount
>> 
>> Oops that is what we have now. Guess we have been doing things all wrong
>> up to now.
>
>It's not, quite. I pay for 4GB peak and 100GB offpeak per month. I don't 
>know how much one peak GB costs. Or how much one offpeak GB costs. I just 
>pay a lump sum.
>
>You've just described the new pricing model!

Really? Note I did not need to use the word 'unit' once.