Now Telecoms Are Fighting Among Themselves Over Who Lies More About ‘Unlimited Data’
from the that-word,-I-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means dept
For decades now, U.S. wireless carriers have sold consumers “unlimited data” plans that actually have all manner of sometimes hidden throttling, caps, download limits, and restrictions. And every few years a regulator comes out with a wrist slap against wireless carriers for misleading consumers, for whatever good it does.
Back in 2007, for example, then NY AG Andrew Cuomo fined Verizon a tiny $150,000 for selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited (Verizon kept doing it anyway). In 2019, the FTC fined AT&T $60 million for selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited, then repeatedly lying to consumers about it (impacted consumers ultimately saw refunds of around $22 each).
It’s gotten slightly better, but it’s still a problem. Providers still impose all manner of weird restrictions on mobile lines and then bury them in their fine print, something that’s likely only to get worse after Trump 2.0 takes an absolute hatchet to whatever’s left of regulatory independence and federal consumer protection.
In the interim, telecom providers are even bickering about the definition of “unlimited” between themselves. For example Verizon is mad that Charter Communications (a cable company that got into wireless) is advertising its wireless service as “unlimited,” while telling users they can “use all the data you want.”
As usual that’s not true. There’s all manner of deprioritization that goes on should users actually try to do that. Once you hit a certain download amount, your connection speeds are “reduced.” Charter doesn’t tell you up front that the speeds you’re reduced to are often less than 1 Mbps; so basically a trickle:
There are also usually restrictions on video resolution and tethering downloads for a lot of these companies. So yeah, it’s kind of unlimited? But also not really purely “unlimited?” Same old industry tactics. As an aside, when they say “no hidden fees,” there are almost always hidden fees.
Verizon apparently filed a complaint about Charter’s marketing with the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau, sort of an industry-self regulation apparatus designed to pre-emptively justify our feckless regulators not doing their jobs. And unsurprisingly, NAD ruled in favor of Charter, claiming that technically because your line still technically functions after hitting limits, it’s still “unlimited”:
“The National Advertising Division (NAD) concluded that the advertising conveys the message that Spectrum Mobile customers who subscribe to an Unlimited or Unlimited Plus plan will be able to consistently engage in typical online activities, regardless of the amount of data consumed in any given month.”
Even if NAD had found Charter lied, it’s a feckless pseudo-regulatory apparatus that results in no actual meaningful penalty. So the misleading marketing efforts surrounding “unlimited” data survive another day to confuse and mislead everyone.
Filed Under: caps, cellular, data, mobile, spectrum, throttling, unlimited, wireless
Companies: better business bureau, charter communications, verizon
Comments on “Now Telecoms Are Fighting Among Themselves Over Who Lies More About ‘Unlimited Data’”
I think we’ve all had just about enough of the doomposting, don’t you? 😉
Re:
Let’s not act like Trump is a champion of the people here.
Wait, sorry. I meant President Musk and Vice-president Trump.
Re:
Yeah, nothing like that happened in previous Trump mandate, no. No rights were lost and no regulations were removed or greatly scaled back in favor of businesses. Oh wait…
Re:
“I think we’ve all had just about enough of the doomposting, don’t you?”
What would you prefer to read this morning sunshine?
How about some nice clean smoke up yer ass, sound good?
Re: Re:
TIL: Even an indicator to show that the commenter is joking is not enough for some. No sarc.
Re: Re: Re:
An indicator such as the /s that isn’t there, you mean? I can’t work out which one of us is more confused, here.
Re: Re: Re:2
You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:2
Wow! Way to defend a troll. Or was that actually you posting while signed out?
Now that net neutrality is basically dead, there is not a single law that can prevent telcos to reduce traffic for some content or website.
So I’m just waiting for a “video” plan to get “unlimited” access to YouTube or Netflix but only for 5 hours of low resolution videos per month to feel completely like back in 2010s.
A typical example of “pot meet kettle”.
Verizon wants the monopoly on bullshit ads.
AND
It so much fun to have the best phone on the Market that can do Everything, except the Dishes..
And its ll built into the phone, and the Company should NOT worry about it??
Correct?
Thats BS ALSO. Fone has Builtin tethering, but Company wont allow the phone to do it, Unless I pay more? WHY?
Its my data cap. And with all these programs CALLING HOME And adverts, Just cause you wanted to try a game or try a New camera program, You know the Corps is getting Tons of Penny transactions..But thats a different Dept.
Unlimited?
What part is unlimited?
The Money they are making from Us and the Gov, then they pay into the state congress and Federal congress?
We want our word back.
It’s time for the telecom corps to give us our word back. It needs to be sanitized after they’ve used it.
If they took all the money they spend on limiting your connection and marketing their crap service and applied it to improving their service to make it what customers actually want/need, then they’d probably spend a lot less money and time dealing with the problems they create, and maybe even increase profit in the long run… or they could just provide value that everyone wants.
Trick is, when they throttle that severely, it no longer counts as Broadband, which is what the service was advertised as.
If you buy one thing, and get another, well… there’s a name for that.
Re:
I have a feeling the services specifically aren’t advertised as “broadband” for precisely that reason.
that-word,-I-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means
If you’re gonna complain about improper language usage, you’d best avoid the word “line”, that being the very thing mobile phones were meant to do away with. There’s nothing resembling a “line” in any part of a modern mobile network, and there won’t be any phone lines anywhere if the phone companies get their way (everything’s moving to packet-switched voice-over-internet-protocol).
Re:
Skeumorphism is still a thing.
Re: Re:
“skeuomorphic” (with an added “o”) seems to refer to “obsolete design elements which are retained for familiarity or out of tradition, even though they no longer serve any functional purpose.”
So, I guess that could refer to calling something a “line” when it’s not (if we’re talking about mere terminology being part of the “design”); but, then, couldn’t it also refer to calling something “unlimited” when it’s not? That is, after all, a familiar term that people look for when choosing plans, meaning that they won’t get a surprise bill for “excess” usage.
Re:
Phones have keypads rather than dials these days. Are you going to bitch about people “dialing” numbers on their cellphones?
Re:
When I click on a save icon that looks like a 3.5″ disk, does that mean the device doesn’t save the file to the hard drive or cloud since there isn’t actually a 3.5″ disk present? Or maybe language isn’t always literal.
Consistent
“… customers who subscribe to an Unlimited or Unlimited Plus plan will be able to consistently engage in typical online activities, regardless of the amount of data consumed in any given month.”
How does that fit with “the speeds you’re reduced to are often less than 1 Mbps”? It’s not possible to play games, stream video or consistently engage in other typical online activities with such speeds.