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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Which word do you use? "The Data Plan Limited By Maximum Speeds, Current Network Capacity, and Amount of Time in a Given Month" doesn't fit on the pamphlet. Do we really need to go full lawyer on everything? I think people understand that "Unlimited Data" doesn't mean infinite speed.
But more like 25 GB of equal QoS prioritization with other customers which may or may not be high speed, followed by reduced QoS prioritization in relation to other customers which still may be high speed but less likely.
> 1 month multiplied by the maximum speed of the technology
Sure, that's obvious.
> the actual capacity of the network
Shouldn't that be enough to handle at least the actual usage given that not everyone uses it at full capacity all the time? Probably there's some capacity at which they're mostly capable except the rare event that brings in an extremely large num of users. Probably not obvious?
> Shouldn't that be enough to handle at least the actual usage given that not everyone uses it at full capacity all the time? Probably there's some capacity at which they're mostly capable except the rare event that brings in an extremely large num of users. Probably not obvious?
That sounds about right. I would expect to get my promised speeds the vast majority of the time.
Now if only we could get hard SLAs I would be really happy. (Max speed 99.9% of the month measured in seconds?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).