4 ms·
This is outrageous, but it's outrageous because it is legal to describe something as unlimited that is in fact no such thing. The reasonable thing here would b
by kauffj 8y ago
This is outrageous, but it's outrageous because it is legal to describe something as unlimited that is in fact no such thing.
The reasonable thing here would be to simply require companies to be honest and state the actual bandwidth they provide.
This issue seems orthogonal to net neutrality; the real problem is in allowing companies to mislead.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kodablah 8y ago> The reasonable thing here would be to simply require companies to be honest and state the actual bandwidth they provide. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Verizon wants this too. Or maybe not, I don't know the landscape. But I don't expect them to altruistically abide by more reasonable definitions of these terms while their competitors don't (unless being honest is part of their selling point).
- briandear 8y agoIs the data capped? When they exceed their data cap, does the service shut off?
- pixl97 8y agoIf you went to an unlimited buffet and found out that you could only get one 'full' plate, then every other plate could only have one small piece of food and only once every hour, you'd be yelling about false advertising. If we want truth in advertising, then the banners would say "Unlimited 200Kbps Internet, capable of 25GB of 4G burst speed" Which is much different than "Unlimited 4G Internet", then a bunch of small text about the limits.
- gnulinux 8y agoYes, the service is "reliable fast internet". If I buy "Unlimited LTE 4G Internet" it's not ok to serve unreliable, slow internet after a "limit".
- solotronics 8y agowhy doesn't anyone sue them? I am sure a jury would hate a telco just as much as anyone else...