Which is ultimately the problem here. They didn't spell this out or make explicit this practice.

I agree with you, it makes sense, and I find it acceptable...but they definitely should have made it obvious and well documented.

I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

Marketing and sales is the root of all evil.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that 'unlimited' in the case of data/telecom services should be a controlled and regulated word, much like 'organic' and 'natural' are in food.

You can't falsely advertise.

The only reason that "natural" and "organic" are regulated terms is because they are nebulous. But "unlimited data" is not nebulous, it's clear cut.

IANAL

1 month multiplied by the maximum speed of the technology, the actual capacity of the network, the fact that they throttle heavy users, etc.

And if such a small number hurts them in the feels, they could make their network better so that they could say a bigger number.

Sure, that's obvious.

> the actual capacity of the network

Shouldn't that be enough to handle at least the actual usage given that not everyone uses it at full capacity all the time? Probably there's some capacity at which they're mostly capable except the rare event that brings in an extremely large num of users. Probably not obvious?

> the fact that they throttle heavy users

This is definitely not obvious.

> Shouldn't that be enough to handle at least the actual usage given that not everyone uses it at full capacity all the time? Probably there's some capacity at which they're mostly capable except the rare event that brings in an extremely large num of users. Probably not obvious?

That sounds about right. I would expect to get my promised speeds the vast majority of the time.

Now if only we could get hard SLAs I would be really happy. (Max speed 99.9% of the month measured in seconds?)

I guess if you did somehow get one they wouldn't guarantee much of a connection.

[0] https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling

That is, the infraction is about honesty. I think rulings like this are important. If you can't know if your plan throttles more aggressively than another, you can't make the choice and competitive pressure is taken off the market.

If you actually happen to NEED unlimited data, and someone offers you unlimited data at some speed, and when you go to use it it is not that speed. And now your system does not work as designed.

Are you a happy consumer then? and since everyone get fooled by the false marketing, the actual providers of unlimited data at a certain speed is now out of business, because they had to charge for the real deal.

This is not about having sane limits. It's about false advertising with the only goal of killing competition and stealing business.

And btw, all carriers do that. It's a shame FCC is a tool for AT&T and Verizon nowadays on their plan to split the country into two monopolies. I will bet you money that they will never get a fine like that. ever.

Offer unlimited. Or don’t. I don’t see why they use that word and then not honor it.

Well, maybe.

But given the context, it's like if a car dealer had sold you a new car, then delivered an old and rusty one, and you'd be saying that delivering an old and rusty one is consumer-friendly practice as compared to billing them double what was agreed for the new one.

Also, no, this is not about "marketing language". This is about contract language. Would you also agree that there was a discussion to be had about the "marketing price" that the customer agreed to pay? I mean, the customer only intended to pay half of what they agreed to, so why should they be required to pay the full amount? Marketing language is the catch phrase that you clarify in the fine print. Contract language is what you actually agree to.