3 ms·

> it was sold as an 'all you can eat' service This is the bigger issue here. It's not about the limit, its about the bait and switch. And no, I don't accept a

> it was sold as an 'all you can eat' service This is the bigger issue here. It's not about the limit, its about the bait and switch. And no, I don't accept arguments that people should know better, because if the customer is supposedly smart enough to know that limits were inevitable, then so did starlink, which means this was a deliberate tactic (I'd call it a grift tactic at that). The responsible approach would have been to start everyone on a fairly tight limit and then either expand it if the network could handle it, keep them if it couldn't, or just charge more for more bandwidth. That way customers could make a sound evaluation of value/cost.

diydsp 4y ago
> bait and switch. ...Full self-driving...
Jedd 4y ago
> This is the bigger issue here. It really is not. Changing the ToS such that the top few percentile of people performing some seriously abnormal network activities, to ensure that the majority of your customer base remains happy with the service, is not grift. 'The sign said don't pee in the pool, it didn't say don't bring in bottles of pee you prepared at home and open them in the pool' is not a defence -- people should know better, and it was probably expected that some tiny number of customers would effectively ruin the 'unlimited' service for everyone was. The responsible approach, as you misunderstood it, was to say 'Here are the T&C - we may change them at will, and shall notify you, at which point you can choose to cancel your service'.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  Your pee example is not the same thing at all. There was no 'technicality' being breached by people using lots of bandwidth, they were doing so because that's EXACTLY what they paid for when the signed up for an 'UNLIMITED' plan. A better example would be signing and paying for, a 2022 BMW, and instead getting a 2010 Kia. Sure it still drives, but it ain't the same thing.
  - SpikyBlackHard 4y ago
    Obviously there is a limit in the physics of the thing. And now that someone is peeing in the pool, we can no longer have nice things.

diydsp 4y ago

> bait and switch. ...Full self-driving...

Jedd 4y ago

> This is the bigger issue here. It really is not. Changing the ToS such that the top few percentile of people performing some seriously abnormal network activities, to ensure that the majority of your customer base remains happy with the service, is not grift. 'The sign said don't pee in the pool, it didn't say don't bring in bottles of pee you prepared at home and open them in the pool' is not a defence -- people should know better, and it was probably expected that some tiny number of customers would effectively ruin the 'unlimited' service for everyone was. The responsible approach, as you misunderstood it, was to say 'Here are the T&C - we may change them at will, and shall notify you, at which point you can choose to cancel your service'.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Your pee example is not the same thing at all. There was no 'technicality' being breached by people using lots of bandwidth, they were doing so because that's EXACTLY what they paid for when the signed up for an 'UNLIMITED' plan. A better example would be signing and paying for, a 2022 BMW, and instead getting a 2010 Kia. Sure it still drives, but it ain't the same thing.
- SpikyBlackHard 4y ago
  Obviously there is a limit in the physics of the thing. And now that someone is peeing in the pool, we can no longer have nice things.