T-Mobile "Unlimited Data Plans" - a scam.

[postmortemIA]

well then why they don't pay me back if i don't use anywhere near that 5GB?

if you are not using a lot of data, then you're pretty much paying for nothing.

 

[uli2000]

The few remaining remnants of Alltel still have unlimited (the areas yet to go to AT&T, not the Commnet areas that still use the Alltel name). I have used 10's of gigs per month and I knew people who used hundreds as their only high speed internet connection. I got granfathered into AT&T with an unlimited plan, but I'm sure if I push the limits that will go away.

 

[thomsbrain]

I predict this will come to a head when Netflix launches their Android app. You're going to have a crapload of people streaming video who never did it before, for hours at a time.

Personally I've topped 4 GB/month with just regular usage, meaning Pandora during my commute to work, podcasts, occasional Youtube or Wimp.com stuff, web browsing and email. If I had Netflix, too, I could easily see myself topping 10 GB/month, and I'm not tethering or watching porn or anything outrageous.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Yeah, I've been saying for a while that the carriers will all switch to metered billing sooner or later. Any notion of "unlimited" data in an age where people stream music and video is ridiculous. If even a small percentage of folks attempt to do this at one time the bandwidth will be consumed and doing anything will take forever. As has been mentioned before the bandwidth is SHARED so if a bunch of folks are watching movies and others are streaming music there won't be any bandwidth left for anyone else.

Of course, the folks that are streaming will be effected as well with long and frequent pauses and, likely, the connection being dropped. So, going forward, the only way around this is for users to pay for the data they eat so that the more you eat the more you pay. And, again, I'd highly recommend that anyone that's gotten used to streaming think of alternative means of acquiring the media you want. For me, eating a shit ton of data to stream music just makes no sense at all -- I have just upgraded to a 32GB uSD card for my Evo and now my 16GB of music sits there comfortably with plenty room to spare.


Brian

 

[SSSnail]

You people that thinks when a company is unable to provide a level of satisfactory service, it's OK. No it's not!

When you check into a hotel, do you ever run out of hot water because many people are taking a bath? The answer is no, not ever. Do you know why? Because that's what you expect the service to be, because you paid for it.

There are many different streaming services now aimed specifically at mobile devices at a premium. You mean to tell me that if I'm to pay for those services, and my carrier decides not to uphold their end of the bargain, I'm SOL?

There's something to be said about the beaten and battered mentality of yours. Like most denizens of a metropolis, I now utilize public transport to and from work. There's a lot of time to kill, so I will use my phone that I paid for, with the plan that I paid for so I'm not inconvenient. As an example, T-mobile would have 3GB for $5/month (penalty for overages), 5GB for $8/month and UNLIMITED for $15/month, I better get my service when I need it. Because nobody is going to refund me my premium if I don't use anything.

Do you know why I pay the premium? Because I don't want the inconvenient of paying overages. You see how that works? Pay a premium, expects premium service. Now go bite your pillows.

 

[reallyscrued]

well then why they don't pay me back if i don't use anywhere near that 5GB?

if you are not using a lot of data, then you're pretty much paying for nothing.

Stop with the common sense, the businessmen in this thread don't want to hear it.

Truth of the matter is, they are all companies, they all hold meetings on how to squeeze every penny to maximize profits. They aren't in business to make the world a better place (as much as they would like you to believe through their advertisements), they are in business to make money...eh. Who can blame them...


FrostedFlakes:

"Why should they spend more money to appease 2% of their customers?"

That doesn't justify it.. If they cared about rationing things out that evenly and fairly, they would offer:

50 gb/mo - $9.99
100 gb/mo - $15.99

etc...you know, staggered pricing. I bet 75% of their subscribers don't even hit the 100 gb limit, why should the CONSUMER pay more money to appease the ISP? Door swings both ways buddy. Of course, they'll never have pricing models like this, it's much more profitable to find the perfect point where you can charge everyone 40 bucks a month, even for the grandmas who only check their e-mail.

And that telecommunications argument is bullshit. Internet is not like a landline telephone at all, we use it all the time we're basically not sleeping in this day and age. It's backwards ass thinking like that which keeps the U.S. from advancing technologically. Just look at this graph:

http://www.jamaipanese.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/broadband_speed_chart_by_country.jpg

...we beat both Japan and Germany in World Wars...(yeah, not that that matters, but it's funny to think about.)

 

[frostedflakes]

Don't get me wrong, light users do kind of get screwed over. I think I remember Comcast saying at some point that median bandwidth usage is only like 2-3GB/mo. But your idea of staggered pricing probably isn't realistic, because bandwidth isn't the only cost of operating an ISP (truthfully, it's probably a relatively tiny chunk of the pie since most major ISPs have so many peering agreements). There are fixed costs like administration, network maintenance, etc. that don't really change if a customer is using more or less bandwidth than another.

Yes they're a business and their job is to make money and keep shareholders happy. There's nothing wrong or evil about that by the way. :/

Something kind of interesting to consider when looking at broadband speeds is the actual demand for higher speed connections in the US. Or at least if there is demand for higher speeds, people aren't willing to pay a price premium for it. If there was such a high demand, Verizon's subscription rate for FiOS would be 100% and every home they pass would switch from cable, DSL, whatever to their superior FTTH service. But that isn't the case, subscription rate is closer to 30% IIRC (so only 3 out of 10 homes they pass bothers signing up -- 70% of the network infrastructure they've invested in is just sitting idle not being used and not making them money... that is the economics of the situation). That means 7 out of 10 customers don't really care about the speed enough to even bother switching from cable or whatever they're currently using. I think this is a big factor in our broadband speed, there just isn't enough demand for higher speed services for ISPs to justify the network investment at this time. As mentioned earlier median bandwidth usage according to a major ISP is a couple of GB/mo. Most customers obviously are not power users. The US is not South Korea, for example, which has a relatively young and tech-savvy population. Again, you need to look at it from a business perspective. I mean I guess Verizon thought it was worth it when they started rolling out their $20 billion FTTH network, but years ago when they proposed it investors weren't too keen on the idea. In hindsight it's been pretty successful for Verizon, but when the idea was first proposed people didn't think there was enough interest in such high speed internet service to justify the enormous capital costs. It was a pretty big gamble on Verizon's part.

 

[SSSnail]

Your arguments would be valid if they are not charging different pricing for different tiered service, but they are. So where does that leave us? Yeah, the people that paid more because they thought they're getting better service are getting shafted. I opted for a high priced plan, because I want the service available to me when I need it, or just for the heck of it.

People purchase fast cars not because they're going to race around all the time, but for when they want to. Or live in a big house not because they're ginormous and can occupy more than one room at a time. It's the same concept. They paid for it, they get to use it however the heck they want.

If all the plans are the same, and everyone pays the same amount, I don't think I'd complain if they limit me. But when they advertise Unlimited, and I paid for unlimited and can't use it? We've got problems. Speaking of problems, if you don't see that then there's something seriously wrong with you.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah I don't really understand the tiered structure that your cellular provider uses. Both the 5GB and unlimited plans are capped at 5GB, but there has to be other differences. Do they charge overage fees for the 5GB plan if you go over, but only throttle on unlimited if you go past 5GB? If so that's probably why they can technically claim the 5GB plan is unlimited. You can continue to use it past 5GB with no extra charges, it will just be painfully slow. :/

Definitely doesn't seem to be worth the extra $7/mo, though, I'd just switch back to 5GB and be careful about my usage to make sure I don't go over.

 

[SSSnail]

Well, technically, it's not a dead on stop, but they throttle it from upgraded 3G speed to Hello, You've got Mail! speed, which is as useful as tits on nuns. Ironically, if I switch to a lower plan now, I'll get hit with penalties...

 

[Raduque]

Snail, what carrier are you on? That's pretty retarded if they have a 5gb plan and an "Unlimited w/5gb cap" plan, and they're both the same price. Who does that? I thought all the carriers (except Sprint) had a 100s of MB plan (for cheaper) and an "unlimited" plan?

edit: Wait, nm, read the topic line.

T-Mobile has an Unlimited plan for $30 (w/5gb cap, and I've gone over 5gb never been throttled) and a 200mb plan for $15/mo. T-Mobile doesn't have a 5gb plan for $30.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Well, the whole point is that if they advertised tiered service with different pricing from 3GB to 5GB to UNLIMITED, and if I paid for UNLIMITED, then it should be delivered as such. Anything less is bait and switch.

You're getting unlimited data though. They aren't charging you for more.
I use my phone a lot for web surfing and youtube videos, and my GF uses hers for websurfing and facebook and combined we don't come close to 5GB.

Have you ever thought of turning the wifi on on your phone and using wifi when you can?


Don't like it. Leave. Go to any other carrier and you will pay more.

 

[Pulsar]

Snail, what carrier are you on? That's pretty retarded if they have a 5gb plan and an "Unlimited w/5gb cap" plan, and they're both the same price. Who does that? I thought all the carriers (except Sprint) had a 100s of MB plan (for cheaper) and an "unlimited" plan?

edit: Wait, nm, read the topic line.

T-Mobile has an Unlimited plan for $30 (w/5gb cap, and I've gone over 5gb never been throttled) and a 200mb plan for $15/mo. T-Mobile doesn't have a 5gb plan for $30.

Sprint has multi-tiered pricing.

People posting in this thread need wise up though. First, we're not talking about just phones. Even if we were talking about just phones, why on earth would you argue that companies shouldn't provide you with exactly what you pay for?

Frankly, the people disagreeing are just being difficult, or enjoy being obnoxious twists. These companies say we're getting unlimited, and we pay a premium. Which means we better get unlimited.

Comparing unlimited internet to free speech is... well... laughable.

I would be perfectly happy with a totally tiered pricing system describing exactly what the restrictions are. However, when I signed up for my plan, it said unlimited. There were no addendums, no caveats, and no fine print. Of course, they always have the clause about terminating for whatever they feel is necessary, but it doesn't take a lawyer to tell you that you better be getting a refund if their terminating you for using to much on an unlimit plan.

Luckily, I'm not in the position that the OP was. I signed up for unlimited when it actually meant unlimited. Once, when we tried to renew our phones, Sprint tried to change me to a 5GB plan. I had a VERY in depth discussion with their management (having a business class account is nice) regarding what "renewing" a contract means vs. "changing" a contract.

However, after that little fiasco, I certainly understand where the OP is going and agree. You don't pay for 12 gallons of gas and get 10. You don't buy a gallon of milk and only get 1/2. You don't buy 5GB of internet and only get 2, and you don't buy unlimited and get shut off when you use it.

It's pretty simple. There's no argument.

 

[Nebor]

all those wireless gigahertz flying around.

I'm waiting for the direction correlation to be discovered between the amount of data in GB you used on your wireless phone and the number of tumors you develop.

 

[Raduque]

You don't pay for 12 gallons of gas and get 10. You don't buy a gallon of milk and only get 1/2. You don't buy 5GB of internet and only get 2, and you don't buy unlimited and get shut off when you use it.

It's pretty simple. There's no argument.

Let's say you go to an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet for $7.95. Let's also say, that you consume 75 lb of food when you eat (just for argument's sake. I'm not calling you fat). Should you be allowed to eat 75lb of food at the buffet?

 

[Pulsar]

Let's say you go to an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet for $7.95. Let's also say, that you consume 75 lb of food when you eat (just for argument's sake. I'm not calling you fat). Should you be allowed to eat 75lb of food at the buffet?

Yes. It is not the customer's problem if the company advertised something they didn't truly want to provide.

People seem to want to bring politeness, or morality, or some other emotion into this discussion. They are wrong.

This is a legal contract in which the language spells out the obligations of both parties. I pay, I get my service. I don't, they cut it off. They provide what I paid for, period. Unless of course someone wants to argue that a car company should be able to sell you a car with all the options but only give you the parts they think you actually need.

Legal contract. Period.

 

[alkemyst]

Because of fucks like Pulsar many all-you-can-eat places have to put out disclaimers. Several around here are now upcharging for things like crab lebs.

Unlimited internet has never ever been truly unlimited for over a decade. Everyone knows this here, yet wants to play the village idiot when talking to their CSR's.

 

[Raduque]

Yes. It is not the customer's problem if the company advertised something they didn't truly want to provide.

People seem to want to bring politeness, or morality, or some other emotion into this discussion. They are wrong.

This is a legal contract in which the language spells out the obligations of both parties. I pay, I get my service. I don't, they cut it off. They provide what I paid for, period. Unless of course someone wants to argue that a car company should be able to sell you a car with all the options but only give you the parts they think you actually need.

Legal contract. Period.

So just because somebody says "Take all you want", you can be a greedy shit and take it all? Whatever happened to reasonable amounts and moderation?

"ITS NOT MY FAULT THEY SAID I COULD HAVE IT ALL SO I DID!"

That's the way a child thinks.

Edit: If you want to go by logic, because of your "Legal contract" with Sprint, they'd be 100% justified in dumping you for replacing a residential high-speed internet connection with a tethered smart phone. I wonder how you'd feel about that?

 

[frostedflakes]

Yes. It is not the customer's problem if the company advertised something they didn't truly want to provide.

People seem to want to bring politeness, or morality, or some other emotion into this discussion. They are wrong.

This is a legal contract in which the language spells out the obligations of both parties. I pay, I get my service. I don't, they cut it off. They provide what I paid for, period. Unless of course someone wants to argue that a car company should be able to sell you a car with all the options but only give you the parts they think you actually need.

Legal contract. Period.

Well if you want to get technical, the actual contract you agree to when you sign up for the service will explicitly state any limits on usage. It's only the advertising that tends to be fast and loose with words like unlimited. But the fine print (which is what really matters) will state whether there is a 3GB cap or a 5GB cap or whatever.

 

[SSSnail]

Well if you want to get technical, the actual contract you agree to when you sign up for the service will explicitly state any limits on usage. It's only the advertising that tends to be fast and loose with words like unlimited. But the fine print (which is what really matters) will state whether there is a 3GB cap or a 5GB cap or whatever.

I can assure you that there is nothing of sort on my 4 page contract. Also, when's the last time that any of you buffet fans see anyone got kicked out of the buffet?

I found it funny that the ones arguing for 5GB/month for $30 will cry if their ISP limits their porn download to say, 100GB/month. As it stands right now, wireless data delivery is more expensive than ISP data deliver by order of magnitudes. But, I guess it's OK for you guys with defeated attitudes. It's all you know, and will likely remain so for the rest of your life. Just take it a bit more, after all, you've been taking it.

 

[zerocool84]

I can assure you that there is nothing of sort on my 4 page contract. Also, when's the last time that any of you buffet fans see anyone got kicked out of the buffet?

I found it funny that the ones arguing for 5GB/month for $30 will cry if their ISP limits their porn download to say, 100GB/month. As it stands right now, wireless data delivery is more expensive than ISP data deliver by order of magnitudes. But, I guess it's OK for you guys with defeated attitudes. It's all you know, and will likely remain so for the rest of your life. Just take it a bit more, after all, you've been taking it.

If they did tiered pricing I'd be fine with that but they don't, they take away the 5GB option which is ridiculous. I would have no problem paying a reasonable price for 5GB of data which is why I'm staying with Sprint.

 

[Raduque]

Also, when's the last time that any of you buffet fans see anyone got kicked out of the buffet?

Well, I'd have to have seen somebody eating $300 worth of food at a $7.95 buffet, before I can say I've seen somebody get kicked out of a buffet.

It all comes down to reasonable amounts and moderation. I don't use reasonable amounts on my cable internet, but I wouldn't cry if they capped me - I'd deserve it, because I refuse to moderate myself.

 

[frostedflakes]

I can assure you that there is nothing of sort on my 4 page contract. Also, when's the last time that any of you buffet fans see anyone got kicked out of the buffet?

I found it funny that the ones arguing for 5GB/month for $30 will cry if their ISP limits their porn download to say, 100GB/month. As it stands right now, wireless data delivery is more expensive than ISP data deliver by order of magnitudes. But, I guess it's OK for you guys with defeated attitudes. It's all you know, and will likely remain so for the rest of your life. Just take it a bit more, after all, you've been taking it.

If that is in fact the case, seems like you would have a pretty slam dunk legal case against them if you had any desire to pursue it. Sometimes these contracts have pretty vague fair access policies, though. For example there won't be a hard limit on data usage, just some wording about how they have the right to put limits on the connection if the customer's data usage is "excessive" (which can obviously mean about anything).

But generally the contracts are pretty good about outlining any restrictions on usage. Which isn't surprising, corporations are obviously going to do their best to cover their asses.

 

[SSSnail]

Well, I'd have to have seen somebody eating $300 worth of food at a $7.95 buffet, before I can say I've seen somebody get kicked out of a buffet.

It all comes down to reasonable amounts and moderation. I don't use reasonable amounts on my cable internet, but I wouldn't cry if they capped me - I'd deserve it, because I refuse to moderate myself.

But who are you to decide what is reasonable for me when I paid for unlimited? What's reasonable for you, maybe mediocre for me, that's just how things are.

I bet the ones that are supporting the lies an deceit of the carriers are the same obstructionists on the freeway doing just a tad below speed limit on the left lane.

 

[frostedflakes]

So you're a T-Mo US customer right? It looks like the 5GB limit is in fact in their terms and conditions and has been for years (check the previous revision of the T&C from 2008, the 5GB hard cap is mentioned there as well).

http://www.t-mobile.com/Templates/Po...ons&print=true