how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
511 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| So much for... people using this as their primary broadband at home...
I used Vz at home when I moved from one place to another, and it was "okay", but it was there when I needed it to pay bills. These companies don't realize that people want to do more than simply pay bills, get email, and browse the WWW. They want to stream video, audio, etc... They don't want to be forced to use a proprietary services for this crap. This all sounds like these companies are trying to get people to use their "preferred" services for something barely above the most basic services... **sigh** What kind of issue does that sound like?
So much for my switch back to them... ( I've had everyone... They all really do suck!) | |
| Personal opinion...
I have no sympathy for those who want to game the system. What do I mean? Using the thing for primary internet access.
Now I understand if your area doesn't offer ANY high speed option....but then you should be willing to pay extra for the ability to use the cellular network. If you have the ability to get cable, FiOS, DSL, ISDN, etc...you shouldn't be allowed to exploit the cell network so you don't have to pay the full price.
I don't like the capping. But I would rather see stuff capped than exploited. | |
vicorjhPremium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA | Game the system? As the account is for unlimited use, how's that gaming the system?
Are there terms in the contract that define "use as a primary internet connection"? Sprint is changing terms from unlimited to capped, it shouldn't really matter how the user utilizes the connection as long as it's within the terms of the service.
It seems to me it's Sprint that's gaming the system with misleading contractual terms and unilateral contract modification. If Sprint is feeling the pain due to bandwidth hogs, this was a mistake by Sprint's management --not the customer-- to engage in a contract with the term "unlimited".
If you never go over the cap, how's this going to affect your usage anyhow?
I don't have the Sprint contract or agreement details, so maybe I'm missing something in the details. I don't see how the customer is to blame or how the customer is gaming the system or how such an unlimited use connection is being exploited. | | |
|
| said by vicorjh:Game the system? As the account is for unlimited use, how's that gaming the system? Are there terms in the contract that define "use as a primary internet connection"? Sprint is changing terms from unlimited to capped, it shouldn't really matter how the user utilizes the connection as long as it's within the terms of the service. It seems to me it's Sprint that's gaming the system with misleading contractual terms and unilateral contract modification. If Sprint is feeling the pain due to bandwidth hogs, this was a mistake by Sprint's management --not the customer-- to engage in a contract with the term "unlimited". If you never go over the cap, how's this going to affect your usage anyhow? I don't have the Sprint contract or agreement details, so maybe I'm missing something in the details. I don't see how the customer is to blame or how the customer is gaming the system or how such an unlimited use connection is being exploited. That's circular logic.
You're saying "well they didn't say I can't do it so what's the problem?" Just because the law doesn't say that you can't doesn't necessarily mean you should. That's gaming the system - taking advantage of an oversight. Moral...not legal.
The cellular internet is intended for CELLULAR PHONES to access the internet. If the companies wanted you to access the network as a home usage, they would offer a card and a plan specific to that usage. The EVDO etc. cards were meant to be used in areas and times where you (a) couldn't get internet access, (b) could only get limited (i.e. VPN restricted, etc) access, or (c) could only get access so slow as to be a detriment rather than a benefit. They're the exception, not the rule.
What some people want to do is just get cellular internet with their phone plan and pay $70 a month for both...bypassing the need to pay for standard internet. That's what I'm talking about gaming the system and that's why these caps were put in place.
I repeat....I have no problem with it if it's your only choice for broadband internet, and you're willing to pay extra for that access comparable to a standard internet access plan. What I have a problem with is people who just don't want to pony up the cash but easily could. | |
vicorjhPremium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA | Heh? Ok, if so, please post the terms of service for all to review. As mentioned, I don't have the TOS so I'd be interested in what they have to say.
An oversight? That's funny. I guess the corporate marketeers aren't that bright when they state unlimited?
"Just because the law doesn't say that you can't doesn't necessarily mean you should." Who defines what a person can or cannot do if it is not stated? That's why we have -- laws. Oh wait, it was stated. Not a law but, "unlimited". So ok, I guess it is circular. Unlimited means limited but the service is unlimited.
It's a matter of stating one thing and doing another. That's the case with certain companies that wish to attract business by making statements that they
1) are so incompetent they don't realize what unlimited use means
-or-
2) are misleading customers. E.g. false advertising.
I would guess #2.
If you and I were to enter into a contract (lawful) for which you are to deliver a certain quantity of goods for certain $$$, I expect the delivery of the goods. No more, no less. Anything that significantly differs from the agreement is likely a material breach of contract. And the party that suffers is allowed to seek compensation for the difference.
This, again I don't have a copy of the contract or TOS, is not gaming the system. It is a customer utilizing exactly what they are paying for as advertised. It doesn't matter what your definition of what EVDO is. They promised something for some $$$ and discovered that they cannot deliver as promised. If the company made a contractual mistake, they learn and move on. We are seeing that now with capping. It doesn't mean the company didn't breach a contract or make misleading statements. Both a moral (false advertising) and legal (breach) quandary. Is that the oversight you're mentioning? Spinning their "oversight" to blame the customer?
Personally, I do agree with the point of using an EVDO card for primary Internet access is a bit ridiculous but, I ask again why promise unlimited in the first place?
Put caps in place and let the customer vote with their dollars. Someone else will pop up with the term unlimited anyways. Or, how about the ability to roll over unused bandwidth from month to month? Like minutes. If you don't exceed the cap anyhow, enjoy the service, and aren't all about having unlimited service, why would it matter? | |
| Again, you're defining "gaming the system" for me. In this case you're taking the word "unlimited" and attempting to marry it up to the term "fair use". Let me try to help you another way.
If someone gets POTS from AT&T and uses it to run a business from home, is that "legal"? Sure. But that's not what the residential phone service is intended for; it's intended for homes to make non-business related calls. That's why AT&T offers business class telephone service which IS designed for the home business. Do people abide by that moral standard? No. Does AT&T do anything about it? No. Still doesn't make it ethically right.
In the case of cellular wireless the intended use of the service is on the CELLULAR PHONE. I'm specifically referring to tethering here. If you want to use the service on your laptop, get the card; that's what it's for, and be willing to pay extra fees if you go outside of the boundaries specified by the company. I don't know what's difficult about that.
If you intend to have home internet access and are capable of getting it, get it and pay the money. | |
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD:said by vicorjh:Game the system? As the account is for unlimited use, how's that gaming the system? Are there terms in the contract that define "use as a primary internet connection"? Sprint is changing terms from unlimited to capped, it shouldn't really matter how the user utilizes the connection as long as it's within the terms of the service. It seems to me it's Sprint that's gaming the system with misleading contractual terms and unilateral contract modification. If Sprint is feeling the pain due to bandwidth hogs, this was a mistake by Sprint's management --not the customer-- to engage in a contract with the term "unlimited". If you never go over the cap, how's this going to affect your usage anyhow? I don't have the Sprint contract or agreement details, so maybe I'm missing something in the details. I don't see how the customer is to blame or how the customer is gaming the system or how such an unlimited use connection is being exploited. That's circular logic. You're saying "well they didn't say I can't do it so what's the problem?" Just because the law doesn't say that you can't doesn't necessarily mean you should. That's gaming the system - taking advantage of an oversight. Moral...not legal. The cellular internet is intended for CELLULAR PHONES to access the internet. If the companies wanted you to access the network as a home usage, they would offer a card and a plan specific to that usage. The EVDO etc. cards were meant to be used in areas and times where you (a) couldn't get internet access, (b) could only get limited (i.e. VPN restricted, etc) access, or (c) could only get access so slow as to be a detriment rather than a benefit. They're the exception, not the rule.What some people want to do is just get cellular internet with their phone plan and pay $70 a month for both...bypassing the need to pay for standard internet. That's what I'm talking about gaming the system and that's why these caps were put in place.I repeat....I have no problem with it if it's your only choice for broadband internet, and you're willing to pay extra for that access comparable to a standard internet access plan. What I have a problem with is people who just don't want to pony up the cash but easily could. The above bolded statement is NOT what this is about. I pay $70 for two phones, and $120 on top of that for two unlimited bandwidth data cards. I am not 'gaming' the system. I am taking Sprint up on what they offered me! Broadband wireless internet--not for cell phones, either... for PCs via datacards. Your BS about how datacards are to be used in dire situations where you are away from a home internet source is BS to the extreme. Where did you come up with that brilliant thought? EVDO cards were sold for one purpose only, idiot, to allow people wireless broadband access, whether mobile or not. Your arguements infuriate me and make yourself sound like a real tool.
Rob | |
|
