Data throttling

[Bob Maxey]

The contract is being followed to a "t", but its the spirit of the contract that is in question IMO. "Unlimited" sounds like just that, "unlimited"

But if it is in your contract and your TOS, the "spirit" of the contract is being upheld, right? Not the carrier's fault you did not bother to read the contract you signed.

What bothers me is apparently, we cannot sue. We must arbitrate. Not sure if it is this way with everyone but it is the case with VM and AT&T.

 

[EarlyMon]

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

1. Uncalled-for personal remarks have been deleted. One more occurrence BY ANY PARTY of personal attacks here will net the penalty for failure to heed a mod warning.

2. Mods really don't have time to follow people around and see every post. There are only thousands of people online and posting at the same time as people in this thread.

3. If someone does a naughty thing, and it doesn't come down or get dealt with, it's not because mods have double standards, let it slide or anything else. The stuff I'm referring to here (that I've already deleted) was here because NO ONE HIT THE REPORT BUTTON and told us about it earlier - until now.

4. Anyone deciding that they get to lash out at people for naughty things said - rather than report the naughty bits - will get a high penalty.

Mod staff has spent the morning trying to help debug issues associated with our countermeasures against a phishing site trying to steal your credentials, with a poster who decided to flood-post us with copyrighted materials (the better to get us in trouble), an errant rom dev bricking someone's phone, our spam filters so you don't get security certificate warnings based on their latest tricks sneaking really bad content in under our radar - and oh, I don't know - about literally 80 other things this morning.

So, we literally have much better things to do than to lurk in every thread where people want to act poorly and flame each other.

And we certainly expected that the members here in this thread would have been informed enough to know the whole deal on participating here without me having to waste valuable time better spent working real issues.

Bottom line, below this line >------------< no one posts further personal attacks.

We are in no mood to babysit this thread. But now, thanks to shenanigans, we have to.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I have said in the past that high speed is implied as part of the quality of service expected by any reasonable customer.

When phones drop to 1x for their 3G speed and folks can't get it corrected, they seek warranty or carrier insurance service and it's honored.

Beat the dial up loophole to a pulp, and that still won't make it right. Especially when you consider the implications of the 1x example.

When quality of service is purposefully degraded without warning because of data usage, it's not unlimited. The quality is limited.

I hope consumers take this to court.

PS - let's attack the issue and not other posters. Without living in the other person's location, no one knows if that is a fringe area for coverage, and maybe it's not solveable with a phone with better radios than the Nexus. Suggesting alternatives is ok.

I have to agree with you. People do not read the contracts they often sign and they can't seem to disconnect the terms "unlimited" and "throttling." South Park had an episode that made fun of the Apple and their three-volume TOS agreement agreements, so perhaps the consumer can be forgiven for not reading and absorbing every word.

I would argue that customers should read their agreements and every insert in the box and stop moaning and complaining when they discover things are not as they seem. I would also argue that a huge agreement is designed to bury the little things they do not want us to know so we will agree to something we really do not agree with and would never accept if put into plain English.

When I watch a commercial about the latest cell phone, the advertiser often makes a point of showing video running smoothly and they toss in the word "unlimited." The public ties the two together and they think they have unlimited YouTube and video access at 4G speeds and it is unlimited. Slow the access speed down and the user experience can be much different; so much so that YouTube becomes unbearable so they give up on watching cute kitten videos on their phone; not to mention, videos from family and friends. Therefore, a limit has been set, as you pointed out, Early.

You mentioned court. We cannot sue but that does not necessarily mean there cannot be a lawsuit. I discovered that in my TOS. I also discovered I am restricted and I cannot make certain kinds of calls from my cell phone. This was in the TOS included in the box. I am throttled, but so far, it has not affected me.

 

[Yeahha]

I have to agree with you. People do not read the contracts they often sign and they can't seem to disconnect the terms "unlimited" and "throttling." South Park had an episode that made fun of the Apple and their three-volume TOS agreement agreements, so perhaps the consumer can be forgiven for not reading and absorbing every word.

I would argue that customers should read their agreements and every insert in the box and stop moaning and complaining when they discover things are not as they seem. I would also argue that a huge agreement is designed to bury the little things they do not want us to know so we will agree to something we really do not agree with and would never accept if put into plain English.

When I watch a commercial about the latest cell phone, the advertiser often makes a point of showing video running smoothly and they toss in the word "unlimited." The public ties the two together and they think they have unlimited YouTube and video access at 4G speeds and it is unlimited. Slow the access speed down and the user experience can be much different; so much so that YouTube becomes unbearable so they give up on watching cute kitten videos on their phone; not to mention, videos from family and friends. Therefore, a limit has been set, as you pointed out, Early.

You mentioned court. We cannot sue but that does not necessarily mean there cannot be a lawsuit. I discovered that in my TOS. I also discovered I am restricted and I cannot make certain kinds of calls from my cell phone. This was in the TOS included in the box. I am throttled, but so far, it has not affected me.

Advertisements aside (I know they are misleading) the actual ToS isn't too difficult to understand. Here is the exact wording from VZW's ToS

Verizon Wireless strives to provide customers the best experience when using our network, a shared resource among tens of millions of customers. To help achieve this, if you use an extraordinary amount of data and fall within the top 5% of Verizon Wireless data users we may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand. Our proactive management of the Verizon Wireless network is designed to ensure that the remaining 95% of data customers aren't negatively affected by the inordinate data consumption of just a few users.

ToS link I do not have access to AT&T's old contract that contained throttling language as I am not an AT&T customer and their current agreement is only for for their tiered data plans as they did away with offering unlimited plans quite a while ago.

In general contracts are supposed to be written in language that the general public can understand.

 

[Bob Maxey]

In general contracts are supposed to be written in language that the general public can understand.

In a perfect world, very true. But until you deal with contracts on a regular basis, you do not understand what is hidden in those contracts can affect you in a very large way. This is why we have lawyers with experience; they keep us out of trouble.

Some things like work-for-hire agreements must be clearly and plainly spelled out. This is part of the copyright law; the publisher cannot bury the fact that you are loosing every right to the article or book you wrote deep within the boilerplate.

Consider the data throttling issue. Suppose AT&T made it very clear, upfront, that although you have access to unlimited data, "we" can slow thing down. "What this means, dear consumer, is your data access is limited. After a certain point, we will slow things down and therefore, YouTube might become choppy." Or words to that effect.

 

[EarlyMon]

VZW ToS clause:

Verizon Wireless strives to provide customers the best experience when using our network, a shared resource among tens of millions of customers. To help achieve this, if you use an extraordinary amount of data and fall within the top 5% of Verizon Wireless data users we may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand. Our proactive management of the Verizon Wireless network is designed to ensure that the remaining 95% of data customers aren't negatively affected by the inordinate data consumption of just a few users.

Ok.

From Unconscionability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unconscionability (also known as unconscientious dealings) is a term used in contract law to describe a defense against the enforcement of a contract based on the presence of terms that are excessively unfair to one party. Typically, such a contract is held to be unenforceable because the consideration offered is lacking or is so obviously inadequate that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.


In and of itself, inadequate consideration is likely not enough to make a contract unenforceable. However, a court of law will consider evidence that one party to the contract took advantage of its superior bargaining power to insert provisions that make the agreement overwhelmingly favor the interests of that party.

Verizon says "inordinate consumption" - and claims that represents the top 5% of users.

But they don't give an absolute measure at the time of the contract of what that percentage translates to - and the consumer cannot gauge in any reasonable fashion when, why or how they will hit that 5%.

So, it looks very nice and very clear - but it's not.

Consider the following nonsense hypotheticals to see the unconscionability at work (because nonsense examples tend to be very revealing).

1. This month, something bizarre happens - 95% of all Verizon customers use precisely 10 MB of data (yes, MB) - and the upper 5% use 10 MB + 1 byte of data.

Question: do you still believe that "inordinate consumption" is an accurate term?

2. This month, something bizarre happens - 90% of all Verizon customers use precisely 1 GB of data - and the upper 10% all precisely use 2 GB of data.

Question: do you believe that Verizon will charge the upper 10% group as a whole, violating their own 95% commitment, or do you think they'll charge only half of the 10% group to keep their 95% commitment, and thereby showing favoritism between two equally-sized and equally-data-using groups to violate their commitment of charging you for your "inordinate consumption" while letting the other half with the same consumption be NOT defined as "inordinate consumption?"

3. This month, something bizarre happens and 100% of all Verizon customers use the exact, same, precise amount of data?

There is no question.

The law, especially contract law, is about detail and precision of specifics. Not how the internet works or how silly my examples were. And under contract law, I just showed 3 examples of how Verizon can either charge for actually low consumption calling it inordinate consumption when no inordinate consumption occurred in the first example, and in the following two examples, I showed that statistically certainty could not be relied upon for Verizon to meet commitments - but could be relied upon to penalize the consumer.

And that is why, way back on page one of this thread, I have charged that the data throttling ToS clause makes the VZW agreement an unconscionable contract.

Look again at that ToS - it is far from being simple to understand from the perspective of legal certainty - and all uncertainties are in Verizon's favor.

In my opinion.

 

[Yeahha]

In a perfect world, very true. But until you deal with contracts on a regular basis, you do not understand what is hidden in those contracts can affect you in a very large way. This is why we have lawyers with experience; they keep us out of trouble.

Some things like work-for-hire agreements must be clearly and plainly spelled out. This is part of the copyright law; the publisher cannot bury the fact that you are loosing every right to the article or book you wrote deep within the boilerplate.

Consider the data throttling issue. Suppose AT&T made it very clear, upfront, that although you have access to unlimited data, "we" can slow thing down. "What this means, dear consumer, is your data access is limited. After a certain point, we will slow things down and therefore, YouTube might become choppy." Or words to that effect.

I do deal with contracts on a regular basis AT&T wouldn't want to put that statement in the contract because then they would get complaints like "but Netflix isn't YouTube why is it choppy?"

They aren't required to go into detail just explain the rules set forth. It is up to the consumer to understand those rules. If they have a questions the consumer can contact the company or a lawyer to help them understand. They aren't exactly hiding anything.

 

[Yeahha]

VZW ToS clause:

Ok.

From Unconscionability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verizon says "inordinate consumption" - and claims that represents the top 5% of users.

But they don't give an absolute measure at the time of the contract of what that percentage translates to - and the consumer cannot gauge in any reasonable fashion when, why or how they will hit that 5%.

So, it looks very nice and very clear - but it's not.

Consider the following nonsense hypotheticals to see the unconscionability at work (because nonsense examples tend to be very revealing).

1. This month, something bizarre happens - 95% of all Verizon customers use precisely 10 MB of data (yes, MB) - and the upper 5% use 10 MB + 1 byte of data.

Question: do you still believe that "inordinate consumption" is an accurate term?

2. This month, something bizarre happens - 90% of all Verizon customers use precisely 1 GB of data - and the upper 10% all precisely use 2 GB of data.

Question: do you believe that Verizon will charge the upper 10% group as a whole, violating their own 95% commitment, or do you think they'll charge only half of the 10% group to keep their 95% commitment, and thereby showing favoritism between two equally-sized and equally-data-using groups to violate their commitment of charging you for your "inordinate consumption" while letting the other half with the same consumption be NOT defined as "inordinate consumption?"

3. This month, something bizarre happens and 100% of all Verizon customers use the exact, same, precise amount of data?

There is no question.

The law, especially contract law, is about detail and precision of specifics. Not how the internet works or how silly my examples were. And under contract law, I just showed 3 examples of how Verizon can either charge for actually low consumption calling it inordinate consumption when no inordinate consumption occurred in the first example, and in the following two examples, I showed that statistically certainty could not be relied upon for Verizon to meet commitments - but could be relied upon to penalize the consumer.

And that is why, way back on page one of this thread, I have charged that the data throttling ToS clause makes the VZW agreement an unconscionable contract.

Look again at that ToS - it is far from being simple to understand from the perspective of legal certainty - and all uncertainties are in Verizon's favor.

In my opinion.

I can see your points. Variables in the contract are never a good thing without specifics about how those variable are determined. Given with the projected growth of mobile data use I would think having the variable set as it is (5% of current unlimited data users) would actually be in the customer's favor since data use is projected to grow which would me the top 5% now which is 2GB per VZW could become the top 15% by next year and the top 5% would be 2.5GB or 3GB

 

[EarlyMon]

I can see your points. Variables in the contract are never a good thing without specifics about how those variable are determined. Given with the projected growth of mobile data use I would think having the variable set as it is (5% of current unlimited data users) would actually be in the customer's favor since data use is projected to grow which would me the top 5% now which is 2GB per VZW could become the top 15% by next year and the top 5% would be 2.5GB or 3GB

Ok. So I'm a consumer with a two year contract of this sort.

On month one, I use 2.1 GB data - and according to the terms of that clause, I'm throttled for that period and the following one. I learn my lesson. I install 3G Watchdog and never use more than 1.9 GB for the rest of my contract.

Under your stated scenario, I could have used 2.4 GB instead of 1.9 in that second year, but I couldn't find that out for myself by trial and error, and I couldn't afford to risk being throttled.

How am I, the consumer, favored by that clause and your scenario taking in the behavior that Verizon is seeking to reward by penalizing me for my "inordinate consumption?"

In the second year, I adapted my behavior to get less than I paid for under these example conditions.

So - is the ToS so very clear?

 

[Dark Jedi]

its better than getting in the top 5% and staying there. Maybe they don't know who will be in it and who won't be. So they word it to be flexible as I am sure it isn't the same 5% every month.

 

[EarlyMon]

No matter how little data gets used, there will always be someone in the unlucky 5%, you're right.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I do deal with contracts on a regular basis AT&T wouldn't want to put that statement in the contract because then they would get complaints like "but Netflix isn't YouTube why is it choppy?"

They aren't required to go into detail just explain the rules set forth. It is up to the consumer to understand those rules. If they have a questions the consumer can contact the company or a lawyer to help them understand. They aren't exactly hiding anything.

True, but cell providers are (in my opinion) not writing contracts with the consumer in mind. IMHO, they are written in such a way that the consumer gives up and simply signs on the dotted line. As soon as someone can prove that, the carrier has a problem. I think. Tell a judge/jury that "yes, we snooker the public into signing unfair contracts and yes, we make them impossible to understand on purpose, Your Honor."

Consider Best Buy. They clearly state that you cannot return software if the package has been opened. When you install Windows, you must agree to terms that include the words, "If you do not agree with these terms and conditions, return the software." Or some such verbiage. In Microsoft's Clip Art library, there once was something about not being allowed to use the clip-art for any reason MS finds objectionable. OK, but what does that mean?

So MS is telling me I should return my OS if I do not agree to the terms and BB says they will not take it back. What if I objected to the TOS and I had also purchased Office and I opened that package? Can't return the product for a refund and yes, it was in the BB terms but no, it had to be opened to install it.

If it were a cell phone, BB would not refund my cash and I did not sign any contract. I had to open the box and read the tiny little book. So who wins?

I am still wondering about my cell TOS. I am not allowed to use my phone for business calls. OK, I get that the terms were clearly spelled out on page 325, in the 2 point type, but what about the idea that nobody would ever, EVER consider that they might not be able to use their phones for business? Not me. It is silly to make that assumption. It would be like buying a new Corvette and when you arrive to take delivery, you discover buried in the sales contract was something about the engine not being included. You assume a new Corvette includes an engine. forget the contract you sighed; a few things can legitimately be assumed.

I think something needs to be done before someone figures out how to draft contracts with .0002 point type. Essential things must be in large red type at the top of every sales receipt, contract and TOS.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I would think theycwiuld have a base line of what's considered over. I can see why not to release that number as people would know how far they can go.

EM I do have a question about what you posted about not being fair to one party. My question is would that have to pertain to all customers that signed the contract or to people they think its unfair to them? I can't see that working when someone like my mother would never be throttled as she would never go over. So is it fair for people that gets throttled to use that? When it doesn't affect the consumers as a whole?

 

[TxGoat]

Again show me where they actively restrain the use of data that their customers pay for? Does att turn off the data side on people who has unlimited data plans and refuse them access to it? Again read your contract and its there in black and white. Don't like a company who pays a CEO millions for work they do for the company? Leave the company and find another one that suits your needs,wants, and expectations.

You seem to forget you yes you have the right to choose . Just like anyone does.

Yes, we have the right to choose, but we also have the right to openly object to policy, or has that right been stripped away from us as well?

Wasn't the CEO fault of the buyout failing. I seem to remember the government having a problem with the buyout and why it failed. If it wasn't for the government stopping it. T-Mobile would be part of att.

Considering AT&T had already previously been dissolved by the government before some of us were probably even walking this earth, I don't see how they couldn't have expected government scrutiny over the deal. Maybe I should send the CEO my old "GTE" Caller ID box as a reminder the next time he considers another buyout?!?!

But if it is in your contract and your TOS, the "spirit" of the contract is being upheld, right? Not the carrier's fault you did not bother to read the contract you signed.

What bothers me is apparently, we cannot sue. We must arbitrate. Not sure if it is this way with everyone but it is the case with VM and AT&T.

A few months ago I had a very problematic phone. The screen had a short and would go dark on me. Verizon's Tech Support suggested a restore of the phone (I remember multiple restores that month actually). I probably tripled my actual data use that month because I had to re-download apps more than a few times. Fortunately for me, Verizon has yet to tell me that I've hit some undisclosed "limit" to my "unlimited" service.

I understand that part of the problem is availability of bandwidth to all these devices, but for a company to ACTIVELY degrade service just seems unethical to me. If they use "Unlimited" as a selling point to generate revenue then as a company they should attempt to honor their contract, not degrade their service to inhibit use.

I don't understand why active Data Throttling is even an option for these companies. What needs to happen is the same thing that used to happen with my Cable internet back several years ago (before they also decided to actively degrade service). If you get online after 3:30pm (after most schools let out locally) then you expect service to be degraded because of all the school children getting online. There was no active degradation of service, but degradation due to the laws of supply and demand. That seems much more reasonable from a consumer's point of view. Actively degrading service, even if it's written into your contract, just seems counter-intuitive to good customer service.

 

[TxGoat]

Something else I'll add to the discussion, what about all the ads, spyware, malware, and other unwanted data that streams its way into your device? I'm sure the amount of data generated is nominal, but if we're held accountable for that data as well, how does one restrict data that's not wanted?

 

[EarlyMon]

I would think theycwiuld have a base line of what's considered over. I can see why not to release that number as people would know how far they can go.

EM I do have a question about what you posted about not being fair to one party. My question is would that have to pertain to all customers that signed the contract or to people they think its unfair to them? I can't see that working when someone like my mother would never be throttled as she would never go over. So is it fair for people that gets throttled to use that? When it doesn't affect the consumers as a whole?

I think fairness centers on the expectations.

I would guess that a lot of people would expect to be in the 95% group, and I would expect a lot of them to be right about that.

But how would they know up front if they were guessing correctly?

Lots of deals involve guesswork, but I am not thinking that is a good situation for consumers being asked to sign a contract. Because all that can be said to unlucky guessers when they get stuck is, too bad for you.

I think any contract that separates people into lucky and unlucky groups isn't very fair.

And when they wrap it up with language like "inordinate consumption" they are telling the unlucky ones, not our fault you couldn't guess right.

Do they have a chart, in the store or on the web helping people understand what 5% means this month, this last year, and some sort of projections that I can see before signing that contract? If I monitor my data usage, where do I go today to see if I am approaching 5%?

So, maybe I can't answer your question because who knows if they might be unlucky? Because without data and information, it all comes down to luck.

So I think that it's unfair to whole class of consumers on that contract, even though many individuals - 95% at any given time - will be lucky.

 

[Yeahha]

Ok. So I'm a consumer with a two year contract of this sort.

On month one, I use 2.1 GB data - and according to the terms of that clause, I'm throttled for that period and the following one. I learn my lesson. I install 3G Watchdog and never use more than 1.9 GB for the rest of my contract.

Under your stated scenario, I could have used 2.4 GB instead of 1.9 in that second year, but I couldn't find that out for myself by trial and error, and I couldn't afford to risk being throttled.

How am I, the consumer, favored by that clause and your scenario taking in the behavior that Verizon is seeking to reward by penalizing me for my "inordinate consumption?"

In the second year, I adapted my behavior to get less than I paid for under these example conditions.

So - is the ToS so very clear?

You were also paying them monthly it is a 2 year contract with scheduled payments. I could understand making that logic if you agreed to pay the full cost of the contract at the time of signing and just becase you are throttled you still have the ability to use data or else you wouldn't have been able to go to 2.1 GB that first month.

As DJ said before the contract does not specify any set data speed, which is true.

True, but cell providers are (in my opinion) not writing contracts with the consumer in mind. IMHO, they are written in such a way that the consumer gives up and simply signs on the dotted line. As soon as someone can prove that, the carrier has a problem. I think. Tell a judge/jury that "yes, we snooker the public into signing unfair contracts and yes, we make them impossible to understand on purpose, Your Honor."

Consider Best Buy. They clearly state that you cannot return software if the package has been opened. When you install Windows, you must agree to terms that include the words, "If you do not agree with these terms and conditions, return the software." Or some such verbiage. In Microsoft's Clip Art library, there once was something about not being allowed to use the clip-art for any reason MS finds objectionable. OK, but what does that mean?

So MS is telling me I should return my OS if I do not agree to the terms and BB says they will not take it back. What if I objected to the TOS and I had also purchased Office and I opened that package? Can't return the product for a refund and yes, it was in the BB terms but no, it had to be opened to install it.

If it were a cell phone, BB would not refund my cash and I did not sign any contract. I had to open the box and read the tiny little book. So who wins?

I am still wondering about my cell TOS. I am not allowed to use my phone for business calls. OK, I get that the terms were clearly spelled out on page 325, in the 2 point type, but what about the idea that nobody would ever, EVER consider that they might not be able to use their phones for business? Not me. It is silly to make that assumption. It would be like buying a new Corvette and when you arrive to take delivery, you discover buried in the sales contract was something about the engine not being included. You assume a new Corvette includes an engine. forget the contract you sighed; a few things can legitimately be assumed.

I think something needs to be done before someone figures out how to draft contracts with .0002 point type. Essential things must be in large red type at the top of every sales receipt, contract and TOS.

I agree with you. The phone companies are writing contracts that specifically state the rules set forth not thinking about what a customer will do with the contract when it is presented to the. Also the parts of the contract each individual finds important will vary so by highlighting one part and not another they would be putting themselves at a greater liability than keepin it all the same. Before someone signs it they should read it (they are usually about 20 pages or so depending on features) but if that is too much of an inconvience for someone then where does the fault lie?

I think you are not interpreting the part about business use of the phone the way I understand it to be written. IMO that part of the contract is placed to keep people from setting up some sort of business that relies on that phone specifically i.e. you can't have a 1-800 number forwarded to the phone or do telemarketing with the phone, not your boss can't call you (although that may be a good deal sometimes) Basically it is a personal cell phone not a business phone, if you need one of those they have plans for that as well.

As I have stated previously they can't try to hide things like that. The old get a magnifying glass out and read the fine print gag is just that a gag. You should go find your contract and see if there are many changes in font size varried throughout it or if it all the same, my guess is the font is all the same size or very close and all is easy to read without a magnifying glass

 

[EarlyMon]

Yeahha, I think you missed my point.

According to you, the consumer is favored because we can project the watermark to move up.

But according to me, because the consumer cannot know when that happens or by how much, the consumer is not favored by the watermark moving up. The consumer couldn't take advantage of it without knowing it was there.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I would think theycwiuld have a base line of what's considered over. I can see why not to release that number as people would know how far they can go.

EM I do have a question about what you posted about not being fair to one party. My question is would that have to pertain to all customers that signed the contract or to people they think its unfair to them? I can't see that working when someone like my mother would never be throttled as she would never go over. So is it fair for people that gets throttled to use that? When it doesn't affect the consumers as a whole?

For me, it is 5GB. Clearly stated and not hidden. They posted the changes on their web site and I received a notice. It is up to the user to avoid overages. Hard to do in many cases.

Like speed limits. I know my speed limit and if my car decides to speed up, it is on me.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I believe that's what it means about not using the personal line as your buisness line. Ie to order flowers call bob maxey flower shop at (555)555-5555. If it was a personal cell line then it would violate the contract terms.


What do I know? not a darn thing lol.

 

[Yeahha]

I understand that part of the problem is availability of bandwidth to all these devices, but for a company to ACTIVELY degrade service just seems unethical to me. If they use "Unlimited" as a selling point to generate revenue then as a company they should attempt to honor their contract, not degrade their service to inhibit use.

I don't understand why active Data Throttling is even an option for these companies. What needs to happen is the same thing that used to happen with my Cable internet back several years ago (before they also decided to actively degrade service). If you get online after 3:30pm (after most schools let out locally) then you expect service to be degraded because of all the school children getting online. There was no active degradation of service, but degradation due to the laws of supply and demand. That seems much more reasonable from a consumer's point of view. Actively degrading service, even if it's written into your contract, just seems counter-intuitive to good customer service.

Yes this would happen naturally but what happens when the 95% start complaining because the 5% are causing the degradation? The carriers are trying to protect themselves from someone getting the service and within the first 14 days seeing that data speeds are killed at a certian time of the day because there are the top 5% of consumers in the area deciding that it is the best time of the day to stream 1080p video.

Something else I'll add to the discussion, what about all the ads, spyware, malware, and other unwanted data that streams its way into your device? I'm sure the amount of data generated is nominal, but if we're held accountable for that data as well, how does one restrict data that's not wanted?

It is coming to the consumer's device. Most ads that sync on their own tend to be from user installed apps not stock apps so why shouldn't we be held accountable?

I think fairness centers on the expectations.

I would guess that a lot of people would expect to be in the 95% group, and I would expect a lot of them to be right about that.

But how would they know up front if they were guessing correctly?

Lots of deals involve guesswork, but I am not thinking that is a good situation for consumers being asked to sign a contract. Because all that can be said to unlucky guessers when they get stuck is, too bad for you.

I think any contract that separates people into lucky and unlucky groups isn't very fair.

And when they wrap it up with language like "inordinate consumption" they are telling the unlucky ones, not our fault you couldn't guess right.

Do they have a chart, in the store or on the web helping people understand what 5% means this month, this last year, and some sort of projections that I can see before signing that contract? If I monitor my data usage, where do I go today to see if I am approaching 5%?

So, maybe I can't answer your question because who knows if they might be unlucky? Because without data and information, it all comes down to luck.

So I think that it's unfair to whole class of consumers on that contract, even though many individuals - 95% at any given time - will be lucky.

Yeahha, I think you missed my point.

According to you, the consumer is favored because we can project the watermark to move up.

But according to me, because the consumer cannot know when that happens or by how much, the consumer is not favored by the watermark moving up. The consumer couldn't take advantage of it without knowing it was there.

I do think you have a good point there. the average monthy data use stats should be made available at least to the consumers who's contracts are being affected. They have come out and acknowledged that their threshold is set at 2GB and I assume (most likely not a good idea when debating you you) that the average data use numbers are made available to the FCC since they are the governing body. I have seen the FCC reports from a few years back and for all I know they could be using those as a basis for the 2GB threshold. If that is the case it seems like many consumers would be spending much more on tiered data than they did on unlimited.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I think you are not interpreting the part about business use of the phone the way I understand it to be written. IMO that part of the contract is placed to keep people from setting up some sort of business that relies on that phone specifically i.e. you can't have a 1-800 number forwarded to the phone or do telemarketing with the phone, not your boss can't call you (although that may be a good deal sometimes) Basically it is a personal cell phone not a business phone, if you need one of those they have plans for that as well.

As I have stated previously they can't try to hide things like that. The old get a magnifying glass out and read the fine print gag is just that a gag. You should go find your contract and see if there are many changes in font size varried throughout it or if it all the same, my guess is the font is all the same size or very close and all is easy to read without a magnifying glass

From their TOS: "Our service is for personal use only. Business use constitutes a violation of our Terms of Service." As I read it, I am being told NO BUSINESS USE. As you parse it, yes. No forwarding or telemarketing, but that specific topic is covered separately, so it means exactly what any reasonable person would take it.

Whenever one starts assuming that they really do not mean what they clearly say, one gets into trouble. Contracts are tricky things and it does not matter what logical people assume; it always depends on what is spelled out clearly and to the point.

My phone is a business phone. It is listed on my stationary and I make lots of calls. I answer plenty of email and I send and receive SMS from hungry buyers and panicked clients. My phone IS a business phone. What would people do if VM specifically advertised that their phones cannot be used for business? Chances are, they would never do that because we all know the results. So if they do not make it public and they bury it in the boilerplate, it seems it is not information they want customers to know.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I believe that's what it means about not using the personal line as your buisness line. Ie to order flowers call bob maxey flower shop at (555)555-5555. If it was a personal cell line then it would violate the contract terms.

That is part of it, certainly. I know that because it says that. No business use permitted. My question is this something a reasonable man would ever consider being an issue? Sorry, but when a company advertises how much better (actually cheaper costs) their phones are, can't people reasonably assume it can be a business phone, too?

I know, I know . . . there are agreements and the TOS; read and understand before buying and yadda, yadda, yadda . . . But my point is what is reasonable to assume these days? I'll answer you. I mean me. Nothing. Assume nothing. Always read and understand or you will suffer.

From the Triumph section of VM's web site:

"Corporate Email: Wirelessly sync with your company's Outlook Exchange server and get your email and contact information on the go."

So their web site says for personal use only, but dig a tad deeper and they discuss sync with your corporate email. IS that not a business use? So apparently, you can send an email message to the "Bob Maxey Flower Shop" and tha't jake, just no business use which is what they say on their site, that somehow goes against the personal use only provisions.

I now think it is not a stupid and clueless public. I now believe it is corporations that want to sell us their products, just not use them as advertised. Sorry, all of you stupid cell phone buyers . . . turns out is is them not you. SMILEY!

 

[Yeahha]

From their TOS: "Our service is for personal use only. Business use constitutes a violation of our Terms of Service." As I read it, I am being told NO BUSINESS USE. As you parse it, yes. No forwarding or telemarketing, but that specific topic is covered separately, so it means exactly what any reasonable person would take it.

Whenever one starts assuming that they really do not mean what they clearly say, one gets into trouble. Contracts are tricky things and it does not matter what logical people assume; it always depends on what is spelled out clearly and to the point.

My phone is a business phone. It is listed on my stationary and I make lots of calls. I answer plenty of email and I send and receive SMS from hungry buyers and panicked clients. My phone IS a business phone. What would people do if VM specifically advertised that their phones cannot be used for business? Chances are, they would never do that because we all know the results. So if they do not make it public and they bury it in the boilerplate, it seems it is not information they want customers to know.

Okay I don't know what your business is but if the phone is a business phone then why not look into getting a business account with it instead of personal. Given I have not read a business contract for phones but I have a feeling it may have some verbiage about no personal use...catch 22...I doubt that even if they called you and heard a VM saying "Thank you for calling Maxey's Milk Machines, we are currently closed..." they would do anything. Given that they can and you would have to deal with it if they chose to do so.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Okay I don't know what your business is but if the phone is a business phone then why not look into getting a business account with it instead of personal. Given I have not read a business contract for phones but I have a feeling it may have some verbiage about no personal use...catch 22...I doubt that even if they called you and heard a VM saying "Thank you for calling Maxey's Milk Machines, we are currently closed..." they would do anything. Given that they can and you would have to deal with it if they chose to do so.

Why get a business account when apparently, VM both allows it and disallows it in one fell swoop?

All I can say is I am headed downstairs for some pie. Pie solves everything. and I'll return a call from a client.