I'm sorry but if people are paying for a service that is marketed as UNLIMITED, then why should people get there backs up for them downloading a TB. It is spurious marketing by the ISPs if they were honest and TRANSPARENT (as BW says this sounds strangely familiar to the situation we have with the banks) with their charges and policies then this complaint wouldn't arise in the first place. People are always going to look for the best deal (and rightly so!) Why would someone pay a lot more for a business tariff, when they can get what appears to be a better deal elsewhere? If in fact the use of bandwidth is for business reasons then to me this is irrelevant, it's the heavy contention (for adsl) or the under supplying and overmarketing of bandwidth (from VM) that causes these issues, I think this is what needs to be focussed on. An LIMITED service should not in any way be marketed as UNLIMITED. Personally I use BE and am on their pro tariff, as of yet they have no traffic management but have invested (apparently) heavily in their infrastructure, if their pipes are becoming full then they add more to their network. I'm not sure how long this will continue now that they have been taken over by o2, but for me this is a much more sensible approach from an ISP.

Send the letter but phone the number on the bottom of the partial refund letter to speak to Gareth Tunicliffe, this is what I have done, tell him you don't accpet that as full settlement and that you thought it courteous to inform them that you will be takin further action. MBNA definetly don't want to go to court, and he will ask what it will take to stop this, and, I did this and one phone call later I had my full refund! Just speeds things up slightly, he was quite courteous aswell, it his job to be as he deals with executive complaints.