6 ms·

Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage

by derekp7 10y ago

Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage penalty. Especially with a family plan when the non-bill-payers on the plan don't understand overage fees. So the way I understood it (at least under the plan that I signed up for before "binge-on" was added), T-Mobile would charge $20 (on top of the regular voice/text plan) for 'unlimited' data. Then, after something like 25GB, they would prioritize data from users that were under that limit if there was congestion. So to me that is entirely reasonable in light of the fact that radio waves have physical limits on how many people can consume high bandwidth at the same time. Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans).

gshulegaard 10y ago
> Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans). Which is ultimately the problem here. They didn't spell this out or make explicit this practice. I agree with you, it makes sense, and I find it acceptable...but they definitely should have made it obvious and well documented.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over about four years ago and have been wholeheartedly recommending it as a good carrier, but things like this severely diminish T-Mobile's luster in my mind.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.
    - 67726e 10y ago
      TFA said they got busted in 2015, so that's likely as a result of this. They never had any sort of disclaimer like this when I signed up around 2012.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to cast doubt on your other comment, I just recalled reading that disclaimer and thought it was worth mentioning that they have the specific small print now.
    - CountSessine 10y ago
      I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear. Marketing and sales is the root of all evil. I'll go out on a limb here and say that 'unlimited' in the case of data/telecom services should be a controlled and regulated word, much like 'organic' and 'natural' are in food.
      - bravura 10y ago
        I believe it already is regulated. You can't falsely advertise. The only reason that "natural" and "organic" are regulated terms is because they are nebulous. But "unlimited data" is not nebulous, it's clear cut. IANAL
        maxerickson 10y ago
        There's obvious limits. 1 month multiplied by the maximum speed of the technology, the actual capacity of the network, the fact that they throttle heavy users, etc.
- marincounty 10y ago
  The MBA's think they are out smarting their customers. Maybe customers will run towards the simple truth? Although, I'm still shocked when I hear people are still paying $70/month for cell/data coverage. I only know of one company that attempts to tell the truth, and not bury it in pages of TOS, but I haven't jumped in yet.
wmf 10y ago
Yep, T-Mobile's actual practices are consumer-friendly; this is just a debate on the marketing language of "flat rate" vs. "unlimited".
- CoryG89 10y ago
  The fact that they screwed up the marketing is why it is not consumer-friendly.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  How exactly is lying to the consumer about what you are selling them consumer-friendly?
  - wmf 10y ago
    I mean slowing traffic instead of cutting them off or charging huge overage fees is consumer-friendly.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      So, you mean that if they offered a product where bandwidth is reduced after a certain amount of traffic per month that would be a consumer-friendly product as compared to a product with huge overage fees? Well, maybe. But given the context, it's like if a car dealer had sold you a new car, then delivered an old and rusty one, and you'd be saying that delivering an old and rusty one is consumer-friendly practice as compared to billing them double what was agreed for the new one. Also, no, this is not about "marketing language". This is about contract language. Would you also agree that there was a discussion to be had about the "marketing price" that the customer agreed to pay? I mean, the customer only intended to pay half of what they agreed to, so why should they be required to pay the full amount? Marketing language is the catch phrase that you clarify in the fine print. Contract language is what you actually agree to.
  - aashishlowanshi 10y ago
    Exactly. Offer unlimited. Or don’t. I don’t see why they use that word and then not honor it.
dealiaro 10y ago
I think that's fine, you just can't sell people something different from what you said you were selling them. That is, the infraction is about honesty. I think rulings like this are important. If you can't know if your plan throttles more aggressively than another, you can't make the choice and competitive pressure is taken off the market.
profeta 10y ago
think a little harder. If you actually happen to NEED unlimited data, and someone offers you unlimited data at some speed, and when you go to use it it is not that speed. And now your system does not work as designed. Are you a happy consumer then? and since everyone get fooled by the false marketing, the actual providers of unlimited data at a certain speed is now out of business, because they had to charge for the real deal. This is not about having sane limits. It's about false advertising with the only goal of killing competition and stealing business. And btw, all carriers do that. It's a shame FCC is a tool for AT&T and Verizon nowadays on their plan to split the country into two monopolies. I will bet you money that they will never get a fine like that. ever.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You mean like the $100 million the FCC fined AT&T for the exact same thing? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mobile-fined-48m-slowing-unlimited-data-plans-42908073 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mobile-fined-48m-...
  - harryh 10y ago
    You gotta make them agree to an actual bet before lowering the hammer like that!

by derekp7 10y ago

gshulegaard 10y ago

> Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans). Which is ultimately the problem here. They didn't spell this out or make explicit this practice. I agree with you, it makes sense, and I find it acceptable...but they definitely should have made it obvious and well documented.

67726e 10y ago
Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over about four years ago and have been wholeheartedly recommending it as a good carrier, but things like this severely diminish T-Mobile's luster in my mind.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    TFA said they got busted in 2015, so that's likely as a result of this. They never had any sort of disclaimer like this when I signed up around 2012.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to cast doubt on your other comment, I just recalled reading that disclaimer and thought it was worth mentioning that they have the specific small print now.
  - CountSessine 10y ago
    I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear. Marketing and sales is the root of all evil. I'll go out on a limb here and say that 'unlimited' in the case of data/telecom services should be a controlled and regulated word, much like 'organic' and 'natural' are in food.
    - bravura 10y ago
      I believe it already is regulated. You can't falsely advertise. The only reason that "natural" and "organic" are regulated terms is because they are nebulous. But "unlimited data" is not nebulous, it's clear cut. IANAL
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        There's obvious limits. 1 month multiplied by the maximum speed of the technology, the actual capacity of the network, the fact that they throttle heavy users, etc.
marincounty 10y ago
The MBA's think they are out smarting their customers. Maybe customers will run towards the simple truth? Although, I'm still shocked when I hear people are still paying $70/month for cell/data coverage. I only know of one company that attempts to tell the truth, and not bury it in pages of TOS, but I haven't jumped in yet.

wmf 10y ago

Yep, T-Mobile's actual practices are consumer-friendly; this is just a debate on the marketing language of "flat rate" vs. "unlimited".

CoryG89 10y ago
The fact that they screwed up the marketing is why it is not consumer-friendly.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
How exactly is lying to the consumer about what you are selling them consumer-friendly?
- wmf 10y ago
  I mean slowing traffic instead of cutting them off or charging huge overage fees is consumer-friendly.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    So, you mean that if they offered a product where bandwidth is reduced after a certain amount of traffic per month that would be a consumer-friendly product as compared to a product with huge overage fees? Well, maybe. But given the context, it's like if a car dealer had sold you a new car, then delivered an old and rusty one, and you'd be saying that delivering an old and rusty one is consumer-friendly practice as compared to billing them double what was agreed for the new one. Also, no, this is not about "marketing language". This is about contract language. Would you also agree that there was a discussion to be had about the "marketing price" that the customer agreed to pay? I mean, the customer only intended to pay half of what they agreed to, so why should they be required to pay the full amount? Marketing language is the catch phrase that you clarify in the fine print. Contract language is what you actually agree to.
- aashishlowanshi 10y ago
  Exactly. Offer unlimited. Or don’t. I don’t see why they use that word and then not honor it.

dealiaro 10y ago

I think that's fine, you just can't sell people something different from what you said you were selling them. That is, the infraction is about honesty. I think rulings like this are important. If you can't know if your plan throttles more aggressively than another, you can't make the choice and competitive pressure is taken off the market.

profeta 10y ago

think a little harder. If you actually happen to NEED unlimited data, and someone offers you unlimited data at some speed, and when you go to use it it is not that speed. And now your system does not work as designed. Are you a happy consumer then? and since everyone get fooled by the false marketing, the actual providers of unlimited data at a certain speed is now out of business, because they had to charge for the real deal. This is not about having sane limits. It's about false advertising with the only goal of killing competition and stealing business. And btw, all carriers do that. It's a shame FCC is a tool for AT&T and Verizon nowadays on their plan to split the country into two monopolies. I will bet you money that they will never get a fine like that. ever.

rayiner 10y ago
You mean like the $100 million the FCC fined AT&T for the exact same thing? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mobile-fined-48m-slowing-unlimited-data-plans-42908073 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mobile-fined-48m-...
- harryh 10y ago
  You gotta make them agree to an actual bet before lowering the hammer like that!