 | | 5 Gbps quote:
but then quietly imposing caps (usually 5 Gbps).
I wish. xD | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: 5 Gbps Hell, I'd be running an ISP with that kind of BW. | |
|
| | | | Re: 5 Gbps said by en102:said by Imitation: quote:
but then quietly imposing caps (usually 5 Gbps).
I wish. xD Hell, I'd be running an ISP with that kind of BW. That makes two of us, LoL!
xD | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: 5 Gbps Heck, I'd be running an ISP on one-tenth that  | |
|
| | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: 5 Gbps No kidding.. I'd love to get bandwidth like that here! | |
|
| | Why?! Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? If there's caps on our service, be honest with us. That's all we ask. | |
|
| | | Re: Why?! said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? Ever heard the Frog and Scorpion fable? "It's in their nature" | |
|
| | | said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? If there's caps on our service, be honest with us. That's all we ask. The irony of this is that T-Mobile is owned by Deutsche Telekom, a German firm. | |
|
| | k2nnj
join:2004-05-06
Caldwell, NJ | Re: Why?! Maybe it should be douche telekom | |
|
|
1 edit | said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? Easy. If they're up-front about it it becomes something competitors can talk about. If none of them talk about it they remain a cartel and can do whatever they want.
Just like those below-the-line fees on your bill. They all agree not to blow the whistle on each other and keep screwing their customer bases. | |
|
| | | | Re: Why?! So if competitors talk about it then the ones who are up front can use the warning about false advertising to promote their honest "no BS, no hidden fees" declaration. | |
|
| | |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: Why?! said by Berneker :
So if competitors talk about it then the ones who are up front can use the warning about false advertising to promote their honest "no BS, no hidden fees" declaration.
Like verizon vs, ATT last year.
--
standard disclaimers apply. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? If there's caps on our service, be honest with us. That's all we ask. If you're talking about T-Mobile, how can they be accused of deceit? They made the throttling policy clear in their TOS. If the idiots who filed this suit can't be bothered to read what they sign, then that's their fault, not T-Mobile's.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | Re: Why?! Not really. The TOS is designed to be not read. T-Mobile cannot advertise that they have unlimited data and then have fine print in their TOS that there's a 10GB cap. This is a deceptive practice. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Why?! said by Clever_Proxy:Not really. The TOS is designed to be not read. T-Mobile cannot advertise that they have unlimited data and then have fine print in their TOS that there's a 10GB cap. This is a deceptive practice. If it was designed not to be read then it wouldn't be printed.
Besides, most TOS are printed in normal sized fonts online. If the font on a webpage is too small it can easily be turned up until it is the desired size.
But as for the 10GB non cap, what about this is not unlimited? You're still getting unlimited data, albeit at a slower speed, and you are not being charged an overage. Most people accept the definition of "unlimited data" to mean that you can use as much data as you can get without being charged an overage for it. T-Mobile isn't sticking users with overages, so there's no problem.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Why?! i have seen countless attorneys on tv explaining they do not understand the terms of the damn contract..
--
calling a illegal alien undocumented is like calling a drug dealer a undocumented pharmacist | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Why?! said by i1me2ao:i have seen countless attorneys on tv explaining they do not understand the terms of the damn contract.. Then those attorneys are idiots, quite frankly, and shouldn't be in the profession of spin. To be honest, those attorneys are INCREDIBLE at the dramatics; don't think for one second that judges don't realize that.
If these "countless attorneys on TV" are saying they can't understand the contract, it's just a show they're putting on to make T-Mobile look like evil horrible people out to screw people and the scene they describe usually is in black and white, in a castle up on a steep mountain, with an incredible thunderstorm going on at the same time - you know the scene I'm talking about.
For the record, the terms of the "contract" are very simple and if an attorney or AVERAGE person can't figure it out - they need help. It's the TOS I believe that is in question here anyway, not the "contract".. the "contract" simply defines your subsidized hardware purchase and that you have to stay a customer for X amount of days, that's it. | |
|
| | | | | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Why?! I don't think there's particularly anything confusing in the subscriber contract, but they're still responsible for falsities in the ads. | |
|
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Why?! said by vpoko:I don't think there's particularly anything confusing in the subscriber contract, but they're still responsible for falsities in the ads. The ONLY thing that I have a problem with is a carrier that DOES use the word "UNLIMITED" in advertising when their terms and agreement DOES have a limit to it.
However, as of late, I haven't seen Sprint do it, for sure.. AT&T and VZ I'm not sure since I don't use nor will use their service. But Sprint, for example, says that it's a 5GB service pretty forward.
As for Tmo, if it's "unlimited" and yet they throttle in the name of network management at a certain threshold, and all they're doing is slowing you down but the data is flowing, then you're still getting unlimited data so long as they don't overage charge their customers.
The one thing I have not yet seen is a carrier that says "Unlimited 1.5 meg service"... I DO see them use the term "UNLIMITED DATA" which does have implicit meaning. | |
|
| | | | | | | I, too seen countless attorneys on tv explaining they do not understand the TOS, but they are all refer to the TOS from the credit card companies. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Why?! my bad, you are correct.. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why?! "Most people accept the definition of "unlimited data" to mean that you can use as much data as you can get without being charged an overage for it."
WTH??? As much as I can get? I'm sorry but I take unlimited to mean no limits. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Why?! said by Folsomite:"Most people accept the definition of "unlimited data" to mean that you can use as much data as you can get without being charged an overage for it." WTH??? As much as I can get? I'm sorry but I take unlimited to mean no limits. But, you're not "most people." That's what's amusing about this topic. The people who understand "unlimited" in a literal sense know that nothing is truly "unlimited." They know enough about how this works to investigate the parameters which they believe could affect them.
Then they expect everyone else whose usage patterns never approach a limit, to be forced to understand "unlimited" in the same absolute terms which most people never have a reason to concern themselves with.
If you want to win over consumers to greater consumer protections, it seems like it would be effective to talk about things the average consumer can relate to, such as nutritional labeling so common metrics could be easily understood in a common format. Not defining a word in a way most consumers don't experience.
You're essentially fighting for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Why?! So you're saying that advertisers aren't being dishonest by flying in the face of the standard language definition of "unlimited" because they have, by using terms loosely, have written a separate, valid dictionary where advertisers can say whatever they want? A word is a word and has a specific definition.
It's also unfair to those providers who actually *DO* provide an unlimited service. My telephone provider gives me unlimited long distance within canada and US, and it is ACTUALLY unlimited. I could have the phone running cross country calls 24/7 and not pay an extra dime. Same with my internet - UNLIMITED. The speed isn't the greatest, but it has no cap.
a
Remember the dishwasher soap commercials where they would say your dishes would be "virtually" spotless? They gave the impression of absolute, but at least used a pretty qualifier to mask the smell of BS. There is no excuse for dishonesty in advertising. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Why?! said by Berneker :
So you're saying that advertisers aren't being dishonest by flying in the face of the standard language definition of "unlimited" because they have, by using terms loosely, have written a separate, valid dictionary where advertisers can say whatever they want? A word is a word and has a specific definition.
I'm saying ISPs aren't speaking to scientists about a theoretical model of infinity. They're speaking to prospective customers who, if they're like 95% of the ISPs existing customers, won't experience a limit. I.e., the service will be "unlimited" to them.
Why would they use a word out of context? Why would they waste valuable advertising time qualifying and explaining to a demographic that doesn't need it? The 5% affected by limits know who they are, that they're different, and that nothing is truly "unlimited."
This would be like Jif peanut butter wasting a 60-second commercial describing what they mean by "choosy mothers." A nasaly, whiney narrator pedantically explaining how "it doesn't mean 'all' choosy mothers. It's just a term of art. Mothers can be choosy and still not pick Jif. So, we hope nobody is offended by our marketing claim."
The thing I don't get is how, if you want to improve the condition of consumers, why waste your time arguing about something that 95% of consumers aren't affected by, and don't understand in the way you want them to? That seems like a waste of energy when you could advocate for something like nutritional labeling for ISPs. (Common metrics in a common format so everyone can make easy market choices.). | |
|
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Folsomite:WTH??? As much as I can get? I'm sorry but I take unlimited to mean no limits. Surely your device has limitations on data transfer.
And again, where is T-Mobile charging overages? Even if they throttle people who go over 10GB these people still have access, even if it is slower, it is still there.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Clever_Proxy:Not really. The TOS is designed to be not read. T-Mobile cannot advertise that they have unlimited data and then have fine print in their TOS that there's a 10GB cap. This is a deceptive practice. It depends on how you define "unlimited." If it's intended to communicate to the "average customer" and T-Mobile has determined that their caps are well above the average, then their average customer experiences "unlimited."
Why would T-Mobile need to define a term in a way most of their customers wouldn't understand it? Just to serve the needs of the few who know they are outliers?
I do agree that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to spend half an hour reading Terms of Service contracts. I think we need the equivalent of nutritional labeling. A handful of metrics in a standardized format so consumers can make easy choices. | |
|
| | | | Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Re: Why?! It depends on how you define "unlimited sex." .
OK, whatever you say former President Clinton. | |
|
| | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Unlimited refers to access. Not consumption.
ISPs generally no longer limit access. They do limit consumption.
I don't agree with it, but it's a pretty simple concept that's easily defensible in court. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Why?! said by tiger72:Unlimited refers to access. Not consumption. ISPs generally no longer limit access. They do limit consumption. I don't agree with it, but it's a pretty simple concept that's easily defensible in court. But, if 95% of an ISP's customers' consumption doesn't reach the limits, then the ISP's offered access is unlimited.
Why would the ISP use a definition that doesn't apply to 95% of their customers? A definition 95% of their customers wouldn't understand and don't need to pedantically obsess about?
It's the difference between a technical metric, or a marketing (experiential) term. It's not being presented to network engineers, but potential customers. Why would they become anal and speak to the former when they're speaking to the latter? That would be a waste of marketing dollars. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Why?! said by amigo_boy:said by tiger72:Unlimited refers to access. Not consumption. ISPs generally no longer limit access. They do limit consumption. I don't agree with it, but it's a pretty simple concept that's easily defensible in court. But, if 95% of an ISP's customers' consumption doesn't reach the limits, then the ISP's offered access is unlimited. Why would the ISP use a definition that doesn't apply to 95% of their customers? A definition 95% of their customers wouldn't understand and don't need to pedantically obsess about? It's the difference between a technical metric, or a marketing (experiential) term. It's not being presented to network engineers, but potential customers. Why would they become anal and speak to the former when they're speaking to the latter? That would be a waste of marketing dollars. Bullshit. If 95% of consumers would be fine and 5% would get sick from crappy food with poisonous ingredients inserted on purpose, what do you think the FDA would do ?
The FCC and FTC should do the same. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Why?! said by WernerSchutz:Bullshit. If 95% of consumers would be fine and 5% would get sick from crappy food with poisonous ingredients inserted on purpose, what do you think the FDA would do ? The FCC and FTC should do the same. You might want to go to the all-you-can-eat buffet with a handful of bags. Load up the bags with all the food they'll hold, and claim "all you can eat means what it say's."
Then, protest that not letting you take bags of food home is an act of irresponsibility, like they're poisoning you!
Daaaarama queen. | |
|
| | | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by tiger72:Unlimited refers to access. Not consumption. ISPs generally no longer limit access. They do limit consumption. I don't agree with it, but it's a pretty simple concept that's easily defensible in court. Except in the CompuServe days, or in the days of neighborhood ISPs (remember that??) when was access limited?
--
standard disclaimers apply. | |
|
| | |  NyQuil Kid8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ | I trust you realize such TOS's are so long and complex because businesses are forced to write every contingency due to government regulation and the constant threat of lawsuits.
Sorry to throw facts in the way of a good rant, but hey that's reality for you.
[8F] The NyQuil Kid
--
[8F] The NyQuil Kid comes into town not looking for trouble...n00bz gang up, but he ain't seein' double,...pulls and draws, his deagles two...n00bz litter the ground you know it's true. | |
|
| | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: Why?! said by NyQuil Kid:I trust you realize such TOS's are so long and complex because businesses are forced to write every contingency due to government regulation and the constant threat of lawsuits. Sorry to throw facts in the way of a good rant, but hey that's reality for you. [8F] The NyQuil Kid bullshit
--
standard disclaimers apply. | |
|
| | | | | NyQuil Kid8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ | Re: Why?! What an immensely deep, cogent retort....what college did you get thrown out of?
[8F] The NyQuil Kid | |
|
| | | | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
1 edit | Re: Why?! several actually, what's the relevance? | |
|
| | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
1 edit | said by pnh102:If the idiots who filed this suit can't be bothered to read what they sign, then that's their fault, not T-Mobile's. And T-Mobile can continue advertising something they don't actually offer? They have responsibility to ensure that their advertising isn't contradicted by their terms of service. Anything less is simply bait & switch. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Why?! My point exactly. Even though people may have signed that they agree to this when they started their service, I'm pretty sure that 99% of people who signed the TOS didn't read it verbatim. I know I didn't. I'm trying to make a point of morals and ethics over bureaucratic regulations.
Yup, I'm an idiot. I didn't read the TOS when I signed it, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only idiot out there who signed it ignorantly. | |
|
| | | | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: Why?! said by Clever_Proxy:My point exactly. Even though people may have signed that they agree to this when they started their service, I'm pretty sure that 99% of people who signed the TOS didn't read it verbatim. I know I didn't. I'm trying to make a point of morals and ethics over bureaucratic regulations. Yup, I'm an idiot. I didn't read the TOS when I signed it, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only idiot out there who signed it ignorantly. Don't matter if its in the TOS or AUP or not, its still false advertising. And that is illegal.
--
standard disclaimers apply. | |
|
| | | | | Unlimited means without limits. If they throttle your service at 10Gb that is a limit. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| If they used the word "unlimited", that is the deceit. Advertising cannot contradict the fine print.
T-Mobile may be able to argue their way out of it, if they can convince the court that throttling is not a limit. They're in a better position than "unlimited" ISPs that disconnect users who go over a limit. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
| said by pnh102:said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? If there's caps on our service, be honest with us. That's all we ask. If the idiots who filed this suit can't be bothered to read what they sign, then that's their fault, not T-Mobile's. Oh, the consumer is the idiot? Unlimited isn't misleading? People with your attitude are the problem. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Why?! said by lefty1:Oh, the consumer is the idiot? Unlimited isn't misleading? Yes. These customers are total, complete, blithering idiots. Anyone who doesn't read and understand contracts and then signs them anyway is a total, complete, blithering idiot.
T-Mobile's TOS clearly stated that after consuming 10GB of data the service could be throttled. T-Mobile lived up to that TOS. What exactly is the problem here?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Why?! said by pnh102:Anyone who doesn't read and understand contracts and then signs them anyway is a total, complete, blithering idiot. That's where the nutritional labeling concept would be useful. I don't believe most people read fine-print, legalese. I think easy digestion of commonly-understood metrics would be a win for consumers without being a hardship for providers.
However, regarding "unlimited," I don't believe the usage outliers are ignorant of their status, nor their peculiar responsibility to investigate limits.
That's what seems strange about this topic. The people who are affected know how the game is played, so it's not like they're really affected. Then they insist everyone who's not affected must support a change in ISP practice that wouldn't affect them.
It seems like a strange way to pursue consumer advocacy. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Why?! Contracts really don't mean anything. Even with counsel they can be twisted, turned, and interpreted in several ways. It is bad business practice to play "gotcha" and it is better to have a reasonable relationship with the consumer. For example, the mortgage industry played "gotcha" with fine print and now look at them.
Also, what if a good company wants to offer real unlimited? Use it 24/7, no problem. Meanwhile, T-Mobile can drag down the reality. Not good. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Why?! said by Winterman:For example, the mortgage industry played "gotcha" with fine print and now look at them. But, those underhanded practices led to regulatory reforms requiring clearer communication to the consumer. Back in the '80s(?) it was the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) requiring full disclosure of the actual APR you would pay. A standardized format to present common metrics.
After the recent abuses by credit-card companies, they're required to print a little box on your statement informing you how long it will take (and how much it will cost) to pay the balance if you only make the minimum payment.
My point is, those things don't happen without regulation. I think common format and metrics (like nutritional labeling) would resonate more with the average consumer than beating the "unlimited" drum. I don't think many consumers are experiencing limits. But, they may relate to the nebulousness of "speeds up to..."
said by Winterman:Also, what if a good company wants to offer real unlimited? I don't think the practical use of "unlimited" would hurt any business that attempts to use the word literally. Why? Because, I don't think that many people see a difference in the words. There wouldn't be much market for it.
The 5% of outliers who hit usage caps (or feel harmed by protocol-specific throttling) know enough about themselves and how the game is played that they'd understand the "good company" and it's literal use of the term. | |
|
| | | said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers COMPANIES feel the need to deceive their customer base? Fixed that for you.
It's the American way - the entire economic model seems to be based on lies. | |
|
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Because they can get away with it
And even if caught....nothing happens
It is pathetic but it seems that they all know it so they do it with little to no thought of getting hurt with a suit
They have all politicians in their pockets to protect them from any change in laws that would actually hurt them | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Clever_Proxy:Why do American service providers feel the need to deceive their customer base? If there's caps on our service, be honest with us. That's all we ask. What I don't understand is why Americans seem to believe anything can truly be "unlimited."
NetTalk sold their T6000 VoIP service for around $150 for a "lifetime" service. Now people who bought into that are complaining that their T6000 device broke and NetTalk won't replace it and honor the "lifetime" service.
C'mon. Do people really believe they're going to get free phone service for 60 years for a one-time payment of $150?
ISPs may be preying upon the evil side of consumers. But, it sure seems like consumers invite it. | |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
|
1 edit | verizon on droid 2 says unlimited web and email. so wtf does unlimited mean..
Unlimited Email & Web for Smartphones (personal email).
Get unlimited access to the Internet and your personal email accounts.
Check and send personal emails when you’re out and about.
Access up to 10 POP3 and IMAP email accounts.
Enjoy unlimited Internet access.
Compare your Smartphone data options:
Personal
Email Corporate
Email Unlimited
Internet Access Monthly
Charge
Unlimited Data
Usage for
Smartphone Included
Included
Included
$44.99
Email & Web for
Smartphone Included
---
Included
$29.99
The Email and Web for BlackBerry and Email and Web for Smartphone Features are designed for personal, consumer use and are not compatible with some Internet email service offerings or with email applications utilizing BlackBerry Enterprise Server, BlackBerry Desktop Software, Wireless Sync or Wireless Sync Enterprise Server or Good™ Mobile Messaging. These features cannot be used to tether your device to laptops, personal computers or other devices for any purpose other than syncing of data; any other use is not permitted using these features. Service is only available in the National Enhanced Services and Extended National Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Areas. See information on roaming in Canada and Mexico at www.verizonwireless.com/naroaming.
Additional Terms & Conditions apply
© 2010 Verizon Wireless | |
|
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | What.. no arbitration clause? What.. no arbitration clause? | |
|
| | | Re: What.. no arbitration clause? they do have one. But customers do not see those either. That would involve them reading the TOS/AUP. Which is their contract. | |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Qualification? "Unlimited", without a qualifier, is pretty clear. But using a qualifier can change the meaning. "Unlimited hours" is not the same thing as "unlimited data". All a carrier needs to do is specify what aspect of the service is "unlimited".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
|
See 31 replies to this post |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
1 edit | So.. That makes at&t's iPhone even more useless? quote:
Parts of the suit are melodramatic for effect, lawyers arguing that the surprise limit makes smartphones "essentially useless for anything other than making or receiving phone calls and text messages."
So this makes the iPhone completely useless with at&t's 2GB cap. | |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | so... is unlimited like having an infinitely large dump truck or an infinite number of dump trucks? | |
|
 who
@comcast.net
approval from:
whfsdude 
| ??? quote:
T-Mobile's current 10 GB cap is rather generous, and last we checked, unlike some other carriers, T-Mobile only throttles users who cross it -- they don't impose unreasonable overages or boot users from the network.
They are not shutting you off or charging overages, thus they are not limiting you. | |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  No Merit
Besides, T-Mobile even warns you explicitly that going over 10GB will result in throttling. Isn't this the type of thing we want from cell phone providers? Throttling is infinitely better than being browbeaten with overages.
Perhaps the idiots who brought this suit should take their business to AT&T, then they can enjoy full speeds going over their caps.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | Re: No Merit What would be better is that if T-Mobile wins, all members of the class action suit be removed from T-Mobile service and forced to Verizon, ATT or any other service that they have lower caps and do charge for overages.
 | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: No Merit said by moonpuppy:What would be better is that if T-Mobile wins, all members of the class action suit be removed from T-Mobile service and forced to Verizon, ATT or any other service that they have lower caps and do charge for overages. Hahahaha... that would be cool indeed. Give the plaintiffs what they want, blazingly fast Internet at the absolute highest cost.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | said by pnh102:Unless T-Mobile is charging users overages for going over 10GB then this suit is without merit. Besides, T-Mobile even warns you explicitly that going over 10GB will result in throttling. Isn't this the type of thing we want from cell phone providers? Throttling is infinitely better than being browbeaten with overages. Perhaps the idiots who brought this suit should take their business to AT&T, then they can enjoy full speeds going over their caps. And actually if people actually read the TOS, it doesn't state they will, it states they MAY. Which, imo, is targeted to those who think its "cool" to use bittorrent on their phone and suck all the 3G bandwidth. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: No Merit said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:And actually if people actually read the TOS, it doesn't state they will, it states they MAY. Which, imo, is targeted to those who think its "cool" to use bittorrent on their phone and suck all the 3G bandwidth. I actually wish every cellular data provider would follow this model. It actually DOES punish the "excess" users in an effective manner, by denying them bandwidth that can be used by other users. No one gets a surprise million dollar bill at the end of the billing cycle either.
While 10GB, IMO, is low, it is far more generous than the 2GB and 5GB caps imposed by other providers.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
demirPremium
join:2010-07-15
usa | hmm You get what you pay for. There's a reason T-mobile is the cheapest.
If you want to pay more than $80 / month and you use more than T-mobile's cap, then you shouldn't be with T-mobile. | |
|
| TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | Re: hmm The thing is, the other, more expensive carriers, have even LOWER caps on their previously "unlimited" data plans. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: hmm said by TheGhost:The thing is, the other, more expensive carriers, have even LOWER caps on their previously "unlimited" data plans. .... and? | |
|
| | | TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | Re: hmm said by fiberguy:said by TheGhost:The thing is, the other, more expensive carriers, have even LOWER caps on their previously "unlimited" data plans. .... and? I guess I inferred from demir's comment that he thought T-Mobile provided a smaller / lesser cap ("You get what you pay for. There's a reason T-mobile is the cheapest."). I could be wrong, but it was my inference.
BTW, I don't even have T-Mobile, actually w/at&t because of work. | |
|
 kapp0
join:2001-12-16
Belvidere, IL | Unlimited? I don't think people are complaining that Tmobile's 10GB is an unfair amount. The complaint is that we are sick of companies using the word unlimited to suck people in and not having to stick to that. Rewording the unlimited part in the fine print in the back doesn't change anything. Can you imagine if all companies got away with this type of advertising?
--
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it all. | |
|
| | | Re: Unlimited? said by kapp0:I don't think people are complaining that Tmobile's 10GB is an unfair amount. The complaint is that we are sick of companies using the word unlimited to suck people in and not having to stick to that. Rewording the unlimited part in the fine print in the back doesn't change anything. Can you imagine if all companies got away with this type of advertising? They're still not limiting you, you can still download as much as you want at the rate they provide, they just provide a lower rate if you're sucking up all their bandwidth 24x7... | |
|
| | | | Re: Unlimited? said by talz13:They're still not limiting you, you can still download as much as you want at the rate they provide, they just provide a lower rate if you're sucking up all their bandwidth 24x7... Until you cross the 10 GB threshold and they LIMIT your rate to a slower speed. Sounds limited to me. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Unlimited? Really? You can still download as much as you are able to.l with the given speeds (either standard or throttled speeds). Similar to complaining that you can't download infinite gigabytes because you don't have an infinitely fast connection. | |
|
| | About damn time Finally! It is about damn time! Unlimited means "unlimited", enough with the corporate BS spin
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com | |
|
 rideboarderwelcome to the socialPremium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA | T-Mobile is doing it right. This lawsuit is worthless against T-Mobile, since T-Mobile actually provides unlimited data...REAL unlimited data unlike AT&T. He should be happy he's actually getting that, which hardly any other provider does. | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: T-Mobile is doing it right. said by rideboarder:This lawsuit is worthless against T-Mobile, since T-Mobile actually provides unlimited data...REAL unlimited data unlike AT&T. He should be happy he's actually getting that, which hardly any other provider does. Yeah, if they're just throttling (as everybody should do, if they feel the need to implement caps), this lawsuit is utterly ridiculous on its face. They aren't advertising unlimited speed, after all.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
 MemphisPCGuySenior Systems EngineerPremium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN
·Comcast
| on a side note... ... have you ever read (or tried to read) the fine print on television advertising? How they can get away with some of this stuff is amazing 
--
Onsite Computer Support in Memphis
»www.memphispcguy.com | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: on a side note... said by MemphisPCGuy:... have you ever read (or tried to read) the fine print on television advertising? How they can get away with some of this stuff is amazing Because the representation in congress and in the state houses have written the rules to allow for that... companies are following the letter of the law with that fine print.. it's the way the government set it up for them.. THAT is how they are getting away with some of it.. so yea, I agree.. the government is "amazing" huh? | |
|
| | Leave them alone ... Look, T-Mobile is by far the most generous. The bury the 10GB number so they can have a reason to terminate some moron that hacks the phone and runs a business, downloads thousands of movies, etc a month. A NORMAL user won't get cut off at 10GB. I have seen people with MORE than 10GB on T-Mobile and nothing ever happened!
It's just a bunch of scumbag greedy lawyers that will F' it up for everyone!
I would much rather have the unclear 10GB cap than the other carriers that have a 5GB cap and OVERAGES up the rear! | |
|
| chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Leave them alone ... The "unlimited" bit aside, T Mobile has had a reputation of offering discounted rates that have a delayed effect, in that the discount "will show up on two bills from now". When it doesn't "what discount" or "the discount does not apply to your rate", even though you were told by multiple sources inside T Mobile that it does or did apply at the time the rate was established. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Leave them alone ... Any time I have been in a T-Mobile store, the Representative took the extra time to explain the fine print and asked follow up questions to ensure that I fully under stood the cap.
However some other locations such as purchasing at a non T-Mobile owned Kiosk or SAM's Warehouse, Radio Shack, BestBuy etc. they rarely took the time to even explain the basics of the phone much less the contract. That is why I will only shop at a T-Mobile owned store.
Satisfied Customer for over Ten Years (started with Powertel in Atlanta which was bought out by T-Mobile) | |
|
| | I'm a TMO User and.... There is no BLOODY CAP...
When you hit 5GB+ you are subject to throttling. NOT A Cut off or service overages, THROTTLING till the next billing cycle. | |
|
 djdanskaRudie32Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
kudos:4
·Clear Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
·T-Mobile US
4 edits | right.. I've been following the t-mobile forums at howardforums for many years now and have never heard of anybody being kicked off or forced to change data plans for using too much data with t-mobile. I've seen people use the $5.99 unlimited internet with their smartphone and use many gb of data being forced to get a smartphone data plan before. Thats just getting the proper data plan for your device. It's very apparent your not using m.facebook.com on your sony flip phone and racking up 8-10gb of data. Seriously now. Nobody has that many facebook friends! Well, maybe that dude from myspace you get as a default friend. Lmao (smartphone/data cards have proper data plans. feature phones have its own data plan. They are very clear about that in all advertising in regards to plans. Many can get away with grandfathered data plans. But we all know they can easily at any given notice make us pay full price vs. t-zones on something like the HD2 or android phone. We all hate it but thats life.)
Every isp both mobile, dsl, cable, etc generally has a provision in its tos allowing them to make appropriate changes based on abuse. aka too much data. If you use bittorrent and use up 40+ gb of 3g data tethering to your phone or data card, dam right your going to get noticed! Nobody should be running bittorrent or usenet for large amounts of data on a mobile data connection. The occasional 10-15gb user isn't going to hear amything. Your just going to go slower after the first 10gb. NOT charged or turned off. They never said unlimited full speeds.
I for one accept the few abusers to be kicked off in order to maintain the quality of the network. wimax, cable, dsl vs. mobile internet is a whole different ballgame. Only a set amount of bandwidth for people to use vs. cable's 150 meg docsis 3.0 limitation.
--
The day the child realizes that all adults are imperfect, he becomes an adolescent; the day he forgives them, he becomes an adult. The day he forgives himself, he becomes wise.
Alden Nowlan | |
|
| |
Reviews:
·Comcast
| works fine for me i'm tethered right now with my cliq and regularly use 5+GB because that's all i have time for so far no throttling or overage charges. That's surfing video chatting and even some hulu and a few other video sites thrown in too. Granted i'm not using BT or similar but still in yet I figure I'd be fairly heavy and that still leaves me with nearly 5GB of unthrottled usage a month. I guess if my phone would use 3G+ or the new 21M or whatever it is service i might use more. but that is all inside my house which get's mediocre signal and of course blur running 24/7
--
my site | |
|
| | So now Tmobile will fall into lockstep | |
|
| | | Re: So now Tmobile will fall into lockstep On ATT so far Im spared of nonsense. | |
|
| | |
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Clearwire Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
| ... The service still is technically unlimited because they are not stopping you from using it altogether but they will degrade it's performance.
It's not a limit so it is unlimited, just like internet speeds are up to a certain number but that doesn't mean it will always be that number and the service still remains unlimited.
People these days just sue because they want something out of it, and honestly if you don't want to read the TOS and just sign up for the service anyway because it's too much of a pain, if I where a business owner I would of been like screw you. A lot of people don't ask any questions either, they just want it, sign up, and then act like "omg I must pay for this" after the first bill. | |
|
|
|
