throttled wrote:
throttled wrote:
Someone made a great point earlier, and I'd like to bring it up again.
aristizzle, you see nothing wrong with at&t throttling speed to the slowest trickle possible to irk customers into leaving their highly sought "unlimited" plans.
What if at&t also throttled phone calls, and limited them to 30 seconds and then had the tower automatically dump you? Would that type of tactic also be fair? They could argue the same point you seem to be beating... Hey everyone... it's UNLIMITED... we never said what kind of speed you were going to get... and we never said it was going to be continuous. You can call back and have as many 30 second calls as you want!
Whoever posted that.. that was a great point. And I'd love to hear a response... but we know you're not good at answering tough questions, so just ignore that one too.
wingrider01 wrote: what - "highly sought "unlimited" plans" are you talking about, do you have some insite into "unlimited plans" that the carrier is offering under the table?
----------------------------------------------------------
Don't play stupid with me. When att&t and Verizon were ending the limited plans, everyone was running around saying, hey, you better get in on the unlimited plans now. Getting the unlimited plan was suppose to be a way to get something and save money... I don't think it's any secret. It's the same concept as going to a buffet... lots of different types of food and plenty of it.
What at&t has done was used a passage in a contract to directly affect people with the unlimited plan so it's all of a sudden no longer the better plan. What do you mean it wasn't the high sought plan? If it wasn't, then why was there such a panick for people to sign up before it ended? I'll tell you why... because in this economy it's great to save $10 or $20. Not to mention, who really wants to sit there and count or wonder if you've gone over your data plan... when you signed up for unlimited?
Sure, you can say... well they warn you... they tell you how much data you've used, but they do the same with voice, yet plenty of people go over their limit and pay dearly for it... at 25 to 45 cents per minute... maybe more. I personally would rather have an unlimited data plan and not have to worry about my data usuage at all. Perhaps they should have "roll-over data"... because usually I wouldn't go over 2 GBs in a month... but there may be that month or two where I travel and use the phone more... watch some shows/movies and use it as a GPS. All of a sudden I'm now subject to paying quite a bit more because I went over.
It's a shame that you wingrider and your little buddy aristizzle both use one angle, and one angle only... that all of this is the consumer's issue. If they just would have read their contract better, they would know that at&t could do whatever they wanted to your contract.
Do you really feel it's right for at&t to put within the fine print of a long contract an escape route out of unlimited... when they used the word unlimited in such a different way to get you to sign up?
Again, there wouldn't be such an uproar if people on unlimited were getting the same speed and service others that pay $30 for the 3 GB plan are getting. It's like saying... well the 3 GB are paying for superior service. The problem is... that IF at&t suddenly says... okay, we'll let everyone on the unlimited plan go to 3 GB and then we'll throttle them... then NOBODY would leave their unlimited plan. The way at&t has taken this... they are saying to the consumers... you can have great service up to 3 GBs no problem for $30... or you can have up to 2.1 GB of great service... but if you want free "stuff" after the next .9 GBs... then we're going to do whatever we can to make sure you don't get to over 3 GBs by severely limiting you by speeds so ridiculously slow it makes dial up from 25 years ago seem speedy.
Your argument... it's in the contract is WEAK. At&t is playing people... and you think everyone is suppose to just sit there and take it.
sorry no "playing stupid" with you, lets leave that response at that. Would suggest that you be a little more accurate when you reference something that was discontinued years ago with the past tense forms of the words, the statement as written can and has been taken as current and not past tense.
As far as a "buffet" read the fine print they place of business reserves the right to limit you to what you take. same as a "unlimited" contract, the fine print is what you have to look for, read and understand.
Fine print in a contract, tos, fup,aup or any binding document is the life blood of any agreement, which makes it the most important thing in the binding agreement, if the end user does not read and understand it whne they place their signature on the document either electronicly or physically they are bound to the terms and it does not matter if you read or did not read the document, kind of like signing a lease on a car and not readingm understanding or comprehending the mileage limitations that are set in the agreement and the per mile cost for overages and bring the vehicle back with 70,000 miles on it when you agreement was for 35,000 miles - just because you did not know that it would cost you .15 a mile for anything over the limit does not mean that you don;t have to adhere to the terms.
Dealing with binding contracts a majority of the time, I do not see anything wrong with how they are written, the arguement about it "being in the contract" is not weak, it is binding even though you can't comprehend this simple fact.
Good luck in your future endevors, just make sure you read the fine print first.
