T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
1–10 of 127 posts
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#2I want direct monetary compensation.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#3I honestly find it, always and everywhere, to be deceptive marketing. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#4Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#5I see the word "unlimited" on a lot of hosting providers. Give me access to the dd command and we'll see how long that theory lasts. I honestly find it, always and everywhere, to be deceptive marketing. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#6Now the equivalent plan (T-Mobile One+) is $90/mo, and that just gets you "unlimited HD day passes" which you have to remember to toggle every day if you want video that isn't 480p.
What's even scarier to me is that they're not alone. Sprint has opted for a nearly identical pricing structure w/ "Unlimited Freedom" and "Unlimited Freedom Premium." As an aside: the idea of "premium" freedom makes me giggle, I'd love to have a beer with the marketing exec that came up with that mouthful.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#7I see the word "unlimited" on a lot of hosting providers. Give me access to the dd command and we'll see how long that theory lasts. I honestly find it, always and everywhere, to be deceptive marketing. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
Yes, but there is such a thing as not placing a limit on the usage of a resource. I don't see it as deceptive if that's actually what they're doing. Sometimes "unlimited" is just a marketing term, other times it seems like a genuine statement of intent from the provider. Obviously I could be a dick and try to prove them wrong, but why?
I understand that the word unlimited makes people feel good, but it shouldn't. Nothing is unlimited, ever. Just because they're not telling you what it is doesn't mean it isn't there.
Unmetered bandwidth that is capped at a gigabit or is physically incapable of going faster is not unlimited either. It's been throttled to only allow you to download a certain amount each month. It is also not unlimited, unless you consider a throttle to not be a limit.
Most cable modems, by the way, can go 3-5 times faster without the artificial throttles put on them by the providers. So even before Comcast started doing their stupid 1TB cap, they were already throttling your internet connection way below the possible speeds of the device.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#8I see the word "unlimited" on a lot of hosting providers. Give me access to the dd command and we'll see how long that theory lasts. I honestly find it, always and everywhere, to be deceptive marketing. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#9It's great that the FCC does this for cell carriers, but they still are letting the data caps apply on home connections, which is going to do nothing except increase profits and decrease innovation.
Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans
#10It's great that the FCC does this for cell carriers, but they still are letting the data caps apply on home connections, which is going to do nothing except increase profits and decrease innovation.
For e.g: AT&T U-Verse will let you remove the cap[1] using a $30 add-on. However they'll also remove the cap "for no extra charge" if you subscribe to one of their bundles. (Which works out to about the same price, for the 2-year promotional period anyways, after which you'll be renegotiating your bill with retentions.)
I suspect they're doing this so that if you really need the bandwidth: you'll find the basic TV subscription to be a much better use of the $30. That way they get to tell their shareholders they've stopped hemorrhaging pay-TV subscribers.
I flat-out refused the sales guy as soon as I saw the 600GB cap in the fine-print of the contract. He tried to tell me most people don't get anywhere near that figure. Now I don't doubt that statistic, but I have my own statistics. I pulled up my router's bandwidth report[2] and showed him that my network would bump up against that cap nearly every month.
[1]: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/u-verse-high-spe...