Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to rradina
Re: Throttling? said by rradina:We need to define unlimited. If we're talking about providing your customers as much as they can eat ... I would say you hit the point right there. When we define "as much as they can eat" it becomes an average of "they."
When the buffet calculates how much to charge, it considers how much the average customer eats. If a group of boulemics show up, and plan to spend the day binging and purging, I'm pretty sure the buffet will throw them out. And, average customers (for whom "all you can eat" was defined by) will completely understand.
Now, I'm sure someone will say buffet's aren't a good analogy. But, they'll object regardless of what analogy is used. To them, "unlimited" is a literal word (even if 95% of those it is targetted at never reach a limit, and thus experience "unlimited" service in the sense the provider used the term).
Mark |
|
|
|
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:said by rradina:We need to define unlimited. If we're talking about providing your customers as much as they can eat ... I would say you hit the point right there. When we define "as much as they can eat" it becomes an average of "they." When the buffet calculates how much to charge, it considers how much the average customer eats. If a group of boulemics show up, and plan to spend the day binging and purging, I'm pretty sure the buffet will throw them out. And, average customers (for whom "all you can eat" was defined by) will completely understand. Now, I'm sure someone will say buffet's aren't a good analogy. But, they'll object regardless of what analogy is used. To them, "unlimited" is a literal word (even if 95% of those it is targetted at never reach a limit, and thus experience "unlimited" service in the sense the provider used the term). Mark English applies to 100% of readers, not to the 95% a crook decides to redefine words for.
Maybe they should read up on the definition.
# having no limits in range or scope;
# outright: without reservation or exception
# inexhaustible: that cannot be entirely consumed or used up; "an inexhaustible supply of coal"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The reason they can (still) get away with this shit is because the FCC and the FTC are NOT doing their job.
Let's look at an analogy here. Do you think that the FDA would let a producer get away with selling a subpar product just because 95% of the customers would not get sick ? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by WernerSchutz:Maybe they should read up on the definition. Why should they when, for all intents and purposes, they encountered no limit?
You're sounding like the group of bulimics at the "all-you-can-eat" buffet, after their 6th round of binging and purging, and being ejected, turning to the other patrons, furiously shaking a dictionary at them: "the word 'all' is well-defined. You people need to...."
You might want to look up the word "irrelevant."
Mark |
|
1 edit | It is that 5% of "bulimics" that pushed technology so that you are no longer on dial-up, running a 386 or have electric power.
We are willing to pay for what we use, we just have an issue with deceptive advertising. Maybe it is time for the government to do their job.
And yes, if a buffet advertises "all you can eat" and someone wants to eat 40 lbs of food, they should be able to. If they advertise 1 plate, or 2 lbs of food, whatever clearly defined, it is fair to enforce a limit.
Words are supposed to have clear meaning for all parties involved. Only crooks and lawyers benefit from obfuscating the clear communication. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by WernerSchutz:And yes, if a buffet advertises "all you can eat" and someone wants to eat 40 lbs of food, they should be able to. I guarantee that the unaffected "all-you-can-eat" buffet patrons will have little sympathy for bulimics who believe they should be able to binge/purge all day just because "the dictionary says 'all' means *all*"
You've just placed yourself firmly within the irrelevant fringe.
Mark |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
1 edit | reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:And yes, if a buffet advertises "all you can eat" and someone wants to eat 40 lbs of food, they should be able to. If they advertise 1 plate, or 2 lbs of food, whatever clearly defined, it is fair to enforce a limit. I can agree with this. The "All You Can Eat" Buffet near me, where I sometimes eat, has a set of rules on signs near the door which are repeated on the walls. These include the usual of "Eat what you put on your plate" (ie: Do not waste food) and has a Time Limit listed. These former give them the right to toss bulimics (who were mentioned up thread) due to Food Wasting as well as exceeding the eating time limit (they only really enforce the time limit when the restaurant is packed. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Actually, I remember hearing a legal case about this very topic many years ago. An all-you-can-eat pizza place had a couple of patrons removed. They sued, company settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. Restaurant nearly doubled their prices for the buffet.
The fact is, if you advertise unlimited, you flirt with legality. Most companies get away with it because people are too lazy to sue and it costs an arm and a leg. If an 'unlimited' case ever made it to court, the offending company WOULD lose. Just look at comcast removing the word 'unlimited' a while back. They did that to avoid getting the shit sued out of them. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:The "All You Can Eat" Buffet near me, where I sometimes eat, has a set of rules on signs near the door which are repeated on the walls. These include the usual of "Eat what you put on your plate" (ie: Do not waste food) and has a Time Limit listed. These former give them the right to toss bulimics (who were mentioned up thread) due to Food Wasting as well as exceeding the eating time limit (they only really enforce the time limit when the restaurant is packed. I don't know anyone (except a few activists here) who would say a group of bulimics are entitled to binge/purge at the all-you-can-eat buffet just because the buffet didn't qualify the word "all."
It's just common sense. Everyone knows "all" doesn't mean "all" in the literal sense. It's defined toward the 95% of patrons who understand the term within their own usage patterns.
Mark |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Just for curiosity I did ask around today(buffet). Most people I talked to do think all means all, as long as one is not wasting the food(not eating what one took). |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Lazlow:Just for curiosity I did ask around today(buffet). Most people I talked to do think all means all, as long as one is not wasting the food(not eating what one took). Or, purging what they did eat. Or...
It always comes down to those commonly-understood exceptions which mean "all" isn't literal, and most of us know that without the provider being pedantic just to satisfy a few irrelevant customers.
Mark |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | I thought I was pretty clear but apparently not. Most people I talked to said that all means literally all. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by RARPSL:The "All You Can Eat" Buffet near me, where I sometimes eat, has a set of rules on signs near the door which are repeated on the walls. These include the usual of "Eat what you put on your plate" (ie: Do not waste food) and has a Time Limit listed. These former give them the right to toss bulimics (who were mentioned up thread) due to Food Wasting as well as exceeding the eating time limit (they only really enforce the time limit when the restaurant is packed. I don't know anyone (except a few activists here) who would say a group of bulimics are entitled to binge/purge at the all-you-can-eat buffet just because the buffet didn't qualify the word "all." It's just common sense. Everyone knows "all" doesn't mean "all" in the literal sense. It's defined toward the 95% of patrons who understand the term within their own usage patterns. Mark No it`s not. You have no idea what you`re talking about. Average bandwidth usage grows over time. It`s not a few, small minority of users who brought AT&T`s network to its knees. It`s the fact that so many iPhone users actually used their data plans.
You can`t use an all-you-can-eat buffet example. People`s appetites don`t grow exponentially over time. The buffet has no way to augment its supply of food above and beyond what it normally does. Your argument is meaningless.
Your 5% number is completely arbitrary. You have no hard data to back it up. Ethically it`s also baseless. If you advertise unlimited, you cannot discriminate against those who you don`t think are `relevant`. That sort of discrimination is against the law. Whether it involves discriminating against race or gender, or discriminating against high bandwidth users or low bandwidth users, you just can`t do it *if you want to advertise unlimited*. |
|
