how-to block ads
|
Tails
join:2007-09-25
Sanford, NC
 ·Windstream
|  Everyone is right...including amigo_boy...
Don't confuse what amigo_boy and what others have said. Amigo_boy is playing devil's advocate; he's reasoning on why they would advertise "unlimited" when in fact the service is limited. He's saying that the lawyers who helped draw the TOS up put this specific language in the TOS, so that it could be a blanket cover-all when people in the "real, untechnological, average-joe" realm realize that they are getting screwed over.
Everyone is right here. Nobody likes false advertising. Amigo is just explaining the reasoning behind the false advertising.
I can't say nobody likes caps. I guess this all goes back to why ISPs cap users. They can advertise unlimited, but know that the average joe won't use but X amount of bandwidth. I'm not sure HOW they come across that information, but they do. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| said by Tails  :Everyone is right here. Nobody likes false advertising. Amigo is just explaining the reasoning behind the false advertising. Thanks. I'm not actually playing devil's advocate. Just saying there are more ways to look at this than the rigid, literal, blinkered way that the more passionate enthusiast may see it.
As I said in my last post, I can see how it would be helpful to make it clearer what the limits are. If it affected more people, I believe they would. I believe they're just targeting the average person, and what the average person would *experience* as unlimited.
We all know *nothing* is ever unlimited. Even those complaining the most about this would say that some level of use would be absurdly unrealistic. So, the question is why providers should have to tailor their ads to that exceptional minority? What's wrong with tailoring it for the majority?
But, I wouldn't mind if there was some kind of consumer protection to help consumers compare services (the same way we have nutrition labeling laws). Something that would show the average realized speeds for a tier. The max monthly limit. Cost per additional gig. Etc.
I could go for that just to help consumes make informed market choices using a common format.
I just don't go for the allegations of "false advertising." Advertising helps people hear what they want to hear. Nothing wrong with being successful at that. Those with exceptional requirements know they should be skeptical, and dig deeper. They're just kvetching.
Mark | |
Tails
join:2007-09-25
Sanford, NC
·Windstream
3 edits | Maybe I should clarify what I said about false advertising:
To us, unlimited means unlimited means unlimited. We have a different definition of unlimited bandwidth, because we make better use of it. The average joe sees unlimited, but doesn't think about the same things as we do in terms of what it can be used for. Not trying to make it look like the average joe is inferior, because he is not.
These wireless broadband providers marketing "unlimited" means unlimited to those who see the advertisements, be it average joe or techsavvy user. The differences lay on the person who is using the bandwidth, and what he uses it for.
Yes, nothing is ever unlimited, and any rational thinker knows this, but these providers should NOT advertise something that has a limit , and that is what Karl is trying to say. If they bury a limit in the TOS, then they need to not put the word "unlimited" in their advertisements.
"Advertising helps people hear what they want to hear. Nothing wrong with being successful at that. Those with exceptional requirements know they should be skeptical, and dig deeper. They're just kvetching."
Are you saying that these companies have a right to false advertising? Even if I were to never pass the limit, I don't think I want trick myself into thinking that this service will always be "unlimited". That's not telling the truth IMO, and I don't think I would like to deal with a company who makes a habit of telling me lies through advertising, unless I absolutely have to.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
-
|
