4 ms·

You think everyone is silly for finding this policy dumb?

by jama211 8mo ago

gjsman-1000 8mo ago
Yes; because they have no obligation to provide this service tier at all. It could be API prices for anyone, everywhere. They offer a discounted plan, $200/mo., for a restricted set of use cases. Abuse that at your peril. It’s like complaining your phone’s unlimited data plan is insufficient to run an apartment building with all units. I was told it was Unlimited! That means I can totally run 500 units through it if I want to, Verizon!
- jen20 8mo ago
  It rather sounds like you are arguing for the acceptance of weasel words in marketing. Unlimited means just that. Otherwise, there are limits, and the word “unlimited” does not apply.
  - oenton 8mo ago
    Precisely. In fact I remember a story similar to this, so I Googled "did Sprint get sued for using 'unlimited' in their marketing?" Lo and behold, yes, they did. And for good reason. It would be an understatement to say I am ashamed to work in the same industry as many of the commenters here do--commenters who are completely ignorant of antitrust law and why it exists, or for whatever reason, are completely unconcerned with the absurd market power these mega conglomerates (ab)use.
- fruitworks 8mo ago
  You can run an entire apartment block off of a single sim card/phone line. The (technical) problem is that you are purchasing an insufficient amount of bandwidth. It goes without saying that a limited bandwidth integrated over a finite service period comes out to a limited amount of data, so the term is misleading. If google has no obligation to provide the service tier, then they should stop providing it instead of providing it under false terms. This is like if everyone in a city decided to take baths instead of showers, so the municpal water supply decided to ban baths instead of properly segmenting their service based on usage. Service providers don't have the right to discriminate what their service is used for.
  - fennecbutt 8mo ago
    Lmao no. You cannot use your common sim card for that. It's for an individual and they will cut your service and justifiably so, if they figure out that's what you're using it for. If you buy a sim card built for that purpose sure, but then you'll be paying...biz prices! This isn't really that hard to figure out people. So much outrage in comments on this. Self entitlement to the max from people who really haven't lifted a finger to stop the corporate overlords anyway.
    - apgwoz 8mo ago
      So, if I use my SIM card 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, Ill get banned? Doesn’t that seem absurd? The SIM card is enforcing one voice call at a time. If the apartment building has to wait in line to use it, what’s the difference? If you deployed it in a way that did multiplexing such that multiple users could use it at once, then sure—-Business time. But otherwise…
      - lelanthran 8mo ago
        > So, if I use my SIM card 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, Ill get banned? Probably not - you'll get billed or hit a FUP > Doesn’t that seem absurd? The SIM card is enforcing one voice call at a time. If the apartment building has to wait in line to use it, what’s the difference? The difference is that it is perfectly acceptable to enforce a "no-reselling" or a "no-3rd-party" for services. I can't think of a single service provider that provides a consumer tier permitting reselling or 3rd-party use.
    - fruitworks 8mo ago
      I can do it pretty easily. The restriction in both cases is so easily overcome it is ridiculous to build your buisness model around it and disrespectful to the customer's intellect.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > restriction in both cases is so easily overcome We’re like one comment away from HN discovering that insurance fraud is both easy and punishable. > disrespectful to the customer's intellect Murder is easy. It’s not disrespectful to anyone’s intellect to then punish it.

You think everyone is silly for finding this policy dumb?

by jama211 8mo ago

You think everyone is silly for finding this policy dumb?

Yes; because they have no obligation to provide this service tier at all. It could be API prices for anyone, everywhere. They offer a discounted plan, $200/mo., for a restricted set of use cases. Abuse that at your peril. It’s like complaining your phone’s unlimited data plan is insufficient to run an apartment building with all units. I was told it was Unlimited! That means I can totally run 500 units through it if I want to, Verizon!

jen20 8mo ago
It rather sounds like you are arguing for the acceptance of weasel words in marketing. Unlimited means just that. Otherwise, there are limits, and the word “unlimited” does not apply.
- oenton 8mo ago
  Precisely. In fact I remember a story similar to this, so I Googled "did Sprint get sued for using 'unlimited' in their marketing?" Lo and behold, yes, they did. And for good reason. It would be an understatement to say I am ashamed to work in the same industry as many of the commenters here do--commenters who are completely ignorant of antitrust law and why it exists, or for whatever reason, are completely unconcerned with the absurd market power these mega conglomerates (ab)use.
fruitworks 8mo ago
You can run an entire apartment block off of a single sim card/phone line. The (technical) problem is that you are purchasing an insufficient amount of bandwidth. It goes without saying that a limited bandwidth integrated over a finite service period comes out to a limited amount of data, so the term is misleading. If google has no obligation to provide the service tier, then they should stop providing it instead of providing it under false terms. This is like if everyone in a city decided to take baths instead of showers, so the municpal water supply decided to ban baths instead of properly segmenting their service based on usage. Service providers don't have the right to discriminate what their service is used for.
- fennecbutt 8mo ago
  Lmao no. You cannot use your common sim card for that. It's for an individual and they will cut your service and justifiably so, if they figure out that's what you're using it for. If you buy a sim card built for that purpose sure, but then you'll be paying...biz prices! This isn't really that hard to figure out people. So much outrage in comments on this. Self entitlement to the max from people who really haven't lifted a finger to stop the corporate overlords anyway.
  - apgwoz 8mo ago
    So, if I use my SIM card 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, Ill get banned? Doesn’t that seem absurd? The SIM card is enforcing one voice call at a time. If the apartment building has to wait in line to use it, what’s the difference? If you deployed it in a way that did multiplexing such that multiple users could use it at once, then sure—-Business time. But otherwise…
    - lelanthran 8mo ago
      > So, if I use my SIM card 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, Ill get banned? Probably not - you'll get billed or hit a FUP > Doesn’t that seem absurd? The SIM card is enforcing one voice call at a time. If the apartment building has to wait in line to use it, what’s the difference? The difference is that it is perfectly acceptable to enforce a "no-reselling" or a "no-3rd-party" for services. I can't think of a single service provider that provides a consumer tier permitting reselling or 3rd-party use.
  - fruitworks 8mo ago
    I can do it pretty easily. The restriction in both cases is so easily overcome it is ridiculous to build your buisness model around it and disrespectful to the customer's intellect.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > restriction in both cases is so easily overcome We’re like one comment away from HN discovering that insurance fraud is both easy and punishable. > disrespectful to the customer's intellect Murder is easy. It’s not disrespectful to anyone’s intellect to then punish it.