lol look at this cynical mule. People change, yo, I know that first hand.
You know what he's not doing anymore? The same old BS everyone else is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
T-Mobile to Pay $48 Million For Lack of Transparency About Throttling Data-Heavy Users on Unlimited Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
lol look at this cynical mule. People change, yo, I know that first hand.
You know what he's not doing anymore? The same old BS everyone else is.
Do you know of any rule that they have to grandfather the plans at all, especially for years after they no longer existed?
The plan was designed for back when devices didn't use that much bandwidth. I doubt it was ever envisioned that people would stream 100+GB. For that matter, the plan existed back when there was only 3G. A lot of us were happily surprised when they let us get LTE for the same unlimited price.
Wanting unlimited LTE Advanced for the same price today as the original plan's 3G ten years ago, is like thinking that the apartment rent should stay the same forever, even after the original lease was up and they built the apartment ten times larger.
I'm glad they let us keep the plan, and I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Last edited:
I'm not discussing pricing, they could simply increase the price point like AT&T did. Which for me works, because I still get the option of all purpose upgrades, no fine text, and unlimited data.
Verizon blew it and should face a fine for switch and bait tactics, after all, they expressedly said they wouldn't change business with the plan. AT&T on the other hand simple stated it's yours to keep and upgrade, but never stated service level (read: price) would stay the same.
Yes and no. To stop offering the unlimited plan is a business decision that I can respect. Earn money where you can after all. However, bait and switching their grandfathered users into giving up their unlimited plans? No, just no. Would I be happy if they offered it back? Yes, puts pressure on AT&T to do so which in turn puts pressure on upgrading those cell towers that need more fiber connections. Sadly, that won't happen.
I'm going to be doing my best to avoid being argumentative in this post, but I just wanted to provide a little more information about T-Mobile's contracts. With their current offering (T-Mobile ONE), you do indeed only have unlimited 480p streaming with the ability to bump the quality up for additional money. They are indeed giving you unlimited data access, but they aren't giving you uncontrolled unlimited data access. I would assume that the $3 daily pass price is accurate as well, but they do offer a plan that will give you these passes everyday for a total of $25 per month, and that will include unlimited tethering with LTE speeds.
However, for older plans which are now grandfathered, myself included, there is no need to buy HD passes. I have an unlimited plan that will give me Full HD video everyday for no additional costs, and for my family who doesn't have the unlimited they have two choices. Unlimited DVD quality, or capped HD (counting against their 4G data limit).
I would struggle to recommend T-Mobile to a person looking for a single line or even two, but for families with many devices trying to use data, I have no problem sharing my experience and recommendation. None of the service providers are perfect, but some work better depending on the situation. Overall, I don't really trust the new T-Mobile ONE plan, mostly because it replaced a plan that was introduced not too long ago.
No he's not. He misled people and is only paying because he got caught. And part of restitution is in free data, which doesn't cost him any extra, and a measley 20% accessory discount.
Ok, now i wonder where this $48 million will go to, since it's a fine, then it should be split and shared with all T-Mobile users, and should be paid in cash and NOT extra talk time minutes or data packages
It should go to the FCC to sponsor their legal battles against telcoms like Verizon, Comcast...
I don't care about getting one month of free data. I want cash or a free month!!!
Or at least, a year supply of Wendy's Chocolate Frostys!
Or at least, a year supply of Wendy's Chocolate Frostys!
It should never have happened (or gotten to this point) in the first place if the praise in this thread was deserved.
He tried to play fast and loose and got caught. When this happens you engage the spin and hope people are hip to it. Obviously works like a charm
Of course if anyone actually believed in this day and age you'd get anything "Unlimited" without some kind of a catch... wow.
It's not a throttle. It's a deprioritization of your traffic. Bascially, if the cell site is maxed out, your traffic has a lower priority than people who haven't hit their caps. If you're connected to a cell site that has plenty of bandwidth (at the time you're using it), you won't notice anything. If you use a tower that's constantly saturated, then you will notice. I bet if you stayed at work to the middle of the night, you would be fine using that cell tower too (as everyone went home and connected to other cell sites).
Totally disagree. The consumer laws in the USA are generally in place to protect unsuspecting users from companies that seek to hide their unscrupulous ways. The cellular companies used to use the word throttling, now it prioritizing. Just a smoother way to say you are getting your ass reamed and you will enjoy it. Verizon throttles their UDP 3G customers - and in an effort to make them jump off the ship they recently increased their monthly plan from $59 to $79. Hopefully other companies will be sued to Mars and back for their deceiving ways.
[doublepost=1476918067][/doublepost]
I agree with you. These companies should have never offered unlimited data plans years ago if that's how they feel now. In today's market the word unlimited should be banned. They have already replaced throttling with deprioritization. Unlimited should be denoted as full speed unlimited as much as you want whenever you want it.
So basically because you're wasting your money you have enough buyer's remorse to defend what is clearly a sham. There's a reason they don't advertise that they throttle all video traffic to 480p.
That's a huge (and poorly written) wall of text to say absolutely nothing. If it's not unlimited don't advertise it as unlimited. T-Mobile also throttles all video traffic down to 480p on their "unlimited" plan unless you buy a "24 hour HD pass" for 3 dollars. It's malpractice what they're doing. Pretty much only someone being paid would actually defend T-mobile over dirty practices like these.
I didn't buy it. I would never rip myself off by buying a (not) "unlimited" plan from T-mobile. Clearly you still have plenty of lessons to learn about being smarter with your money though.
Likely why you're so upset about it.
It should never have happened (or gotten to this point) in the first place if the praise in this thread was deserved.
He tried to play fast and loose and got caught. When this happens you engage the spin and hope people are hip to it. Obviously works like a charm
Of course if anyone actually believed in this day and age you'd get anything "Unlimited" without some kind of a catch... wow.
People like you can never be pleased - it sucks to never be satisfied to appreciate the change in leadership among companies.
Also - it was unlimited, even for the 3% that were throttled during high usage times.
I've always imagined throttling and deprioritization as different animals. Throttling is when you are automatically set to a lower speed regardless of network congestion, simply because you hit an arbitrary cap. So if internet traffic flowed along a high way and had a fast and a slow lane, you are forced into the slow lane even if the fast lane is empty.
Deprioritization has you taking the slow lane (once you hit that arbitrary cap) **IF** a) you were in the fast lane for the last 500 miles, and b) there are a lot more cars that want to use that lane now. If traffic thins out, you can probably get back in the fast lane, but if it gets heavy again, you will have to get back over into the slow lane.
Key difference in each scheme is the word 'IF'. Throttling doesn't have an IF statement, deprioritization does. So I don't think you can say they are the same thing.
Deprioritization has you taking the slow lane (once you hit that arbitrary cap) **IF** a) you were in the fast lane for the last 500 miles, and b) there are a lot more cars that want to use that lane now. If traffic thins out, you can probably get back in the fast lane, but if it gets heavy again, you will have to get back over into the slow lane.
Key difference in each scheme is the word 'IF'. Throttling doesn't have an IF statement, deprioritization does. So I don't think you can say they are the same thing.
You are lying to yourself if you think his mea culpa was anything but getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
I'm pleased with quite a lot. Which makes the disappointments coming from the tech industry, and Apple in particular, striking to me.
If nothing wrong was done, this article wouldn't be here.
Just sorry so many gullible people fell for it and yet happy for them their lapse in thinking isn't costing them as much as it would otherwise.
Welcome to humanity, people aren't 100% altruists.
A company that says they care only wants more money - I don't doubt that mindset carries over to people, too. How negative, paranoid, and lonely.