Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this falls under a reasonable interpretation of the unlimited.

a reasonable person would understand that there are bandwidth limits both technological and environmental. A reasonable person would expect that the level of service they signed up for would continue or get better over time.

I see two issues.

One is that after a certain amount of data is used they limit bandwidth. If you limit something it is hard to call it unlimited.

The other issue is that early on throttling was not in place. They specifically added throttling to entice users to switch to more lucrative data plans.



I do not agree.

I would potentially reluctantly agree, iff the throttling was only during peak hours and when things were actually overloaded. And if they had been doing so from the start. ("I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." is incredibly shady.) But they weren't on either of those things. They throttled after a certain amount of data per month, and it was a flat throttle.


I disagree. That the word 'unlimited' exists in the language does not mean there must be a place and justification for it found in marketing material.

The only reasonable interpretation of a word is its meaning; since there are no shortage of words to describe non-unlimited data plans, the mobile networks should use those instead.


And yet PAM non-stick spray is marketed as 'fat free' when its 100% fat. And so on. Marketing has its own Brave New World rules.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: