3 ms·
They create a kind-of-fixed limit. They don't create a running list of the top X% of usage and ban those users. They study their customers usage for some peri
by bigdatababy 9y ago
They create a kind-of-fixed limit.
They don't create a running list of the top X% of usage and ban those users. They study their customers usage for some period and find the top X%, then translate that to a fixed upper limit. Then they punish anyone who goes over that fixed limit. If their customers or technology changes, they can re-calculate that number.
As far as "unlimited": marketing is full of bullshit words that don't mean what you think they mean. Courts (no wait, its all company-paid arbitrators now) unsurprisingly favor the companies.
When the Supreme Court sided with AT&T on the binding arbitation clause, no joke I got an email from Charter Communications the very same day the ruling was released that said they updated their terms of service to include binding arbitration.
- harshreality 9y agoThen WHY NOT STATE THAT SEMI-FIXED LIMIT TO BEGIN WITH AND SAVE EVERYONE THE HASSLE OF TRYING TO GUESS WHETHER THEIR USAGE WILL BE ALLOWED OR NOT? If the limit is dynamic and periodically re-evaluated, then you run into the "there's always an outlier" problem. If the determination isn't dynamic, and Snake Inc. advertises its service as 'unlimited' instead of stating the limit, and then starts discriminating against users or tools associated with higher usage, and get a reputation of being a snake in addition to actually having an undisclosed cap, what then? They'll not only lose their high-end customers to other services (which apparently they don't want or they could have disclosed the limits to begin with), but as already mentioned they also hurt their reputation, because whatever the courts say, people are not happy when an unlimited service actually discriminates against high-usage customers.