T-Mobile CEO Angry With People Who 'Steal' From Carrier's 'Unlimited' Data Plans

[Dragon4570]

Very simple solution really. It is called the truth in advertising law. If it is advertised as unlimited and that is what the customers are being told in a face to face meeting then that is what they are being led to believe and that is what the contract is meant to enforce by both parties. Unless it is spelled out in black and white in the contract where anyone without an electron scanning microscope can read it then it is UN-enforceable. Those customers that T-Mobile is threatening could easily have a class action lawsuit in a matter of days that will at the very least cost that CEO his job

 

[George_4]

So can we file a class action based upon false advertising?!

 

[burkhartmj]

Your own screenshots include the 7GB tethering limit and the distinction underneath unlimited that it's only unlimited on smartphones. And what gives them the right to say how you use your bandwidth is that you agreed to it. Again, why do you think people should A] expect to use a cellular network not designed for terabytes of traffic per user as if it were a terrestrial ISP, and B] be subject to zero consequences for violating the TOS they already agreed to? This whole thing is bollocks, but no one bothers to read anything and just assumes if a company is doing it then it must be a terrible practice. If someone actually tried to sue T-Mobile over this they'd be laughed out of court, because nothing they're doing is hidden or shady in this area of their contract.

I did not fail to notice their 7GB tethering limit, and if you read what I said I was talking about that fairly directly. I reject the notion that it is ok for them to stipulate that your bandwidth can only be used for your phone. And no, I did not agree to it, as I am no longer a T-Mobile post-paid customer. If I did hypothetically agree to it, I would have to read the fine print which essentially contradicts the big bold writing to know what I was agreeing to. "UNLIMITED, until we choose to limit it, and only for one device."

Like I said, as far as I am concerned it is literally none of their business what happens to data packets once they reach your phone. For them to be allowed to insist that you only forward a maximum of 7GB of those packets to another device is opening the door to some rather intrusive relationships between ISP's and their customers. I am not a lawyer or an expert on the net neutrality legislation, but I sincerely hope that this will be proven illegal.

As an aside, I am a T-Mobile prepaid customer. I don't even have any data on my plan, because I live in an area that the only way I get service is through my own DSL line via wifi. If I wanted to connect to a T-Mobile tower, I'd have to drive for about an hour.

You talked as if you had the plan, so I followed your tone is all. I don't care if you personally have it, take the 'you' as a general one. The fact that you can't read anything past a single word [unlimited] is a failure of your reading comprehension, not a failure of T-Mobile's business practices. Of course it's ok for them to stipulate that unlimited is only for your phone, they're a MOBILE service provider for christ's sake! Does that mean if Verizon offered an unlimited plan their FiOS business should just close up shop? No, because they are 2 utterly different markets, with 2 utterly different reasonable expectations of use.

And you're literally wrong, it's very much their business, hell, it's literally their business. This has been the norm ever since tethering was a paid add-on to unlimited data on all of the networks years ago. When you added tethering, you added a small pot [rarely more than 2GB], not merely the ability tacked on to unlimited data. I understand what you're saying, and I'm saying that's an incredibly naive and borderline outlandish thing to expect. Reading the data itself is one thing, but all T-Mobile is doing is keeping an unlimited mobile plan on mobile, they aren't doing deep packet inspection or invading anyone's privacy. The fact that you resort to the slippery slope fallacy is enough evidence to me that what T-Mobile is doing isn't wrong, but sparks outrage from paranoid consumers at what they MIGHT do at some ethereal point in the future. That, or there's just an overabundance of ignorance about how the mobile market differs from the terrestrial internet market and what these companies have been doing since cellular data existed.

 

[atheus]

[And you're literally wrong, it's very much their business, hell, it's literally their business. This has been the norm ever since tethering was a paid add-on to unlimited data on all of the networks years ago. When you added tethering, you added a small pot [rarely more than 2GB], not merely the ability tacked on to unlimited data.

This first sentence is the core of our disagreement. When you open the door to allowing an ISP to regulate what you can do with data you send or receive from the internet, and alter their service depending on what you are doing, that's exactly what net neutrality is targeting. If, for example, an ISP decides that people streaming Netflix require more bandwidth than they are interested in providing, so they throttle Netflix traffic to reduce their network load despite the fact that they have sold people "unlimited" connections with plenty of bandwidth to handle Netflix, you have a problem.

Where is the line, in this case? How much restriction of your personal freedom is acceptable when it comes to your phone's internet connection? What if you want to connect a bluetooth device which requires internet bandwidth? Is that not another device? What if you want to feed video from an external camera into your phone to stream live to the internet, or cache data on a network drive? What if you want to stream the data through a tablet for processing first? At what point are you "tethering" vs. just using your phone's internet connection? Is it ok to forward packets through bluetooth, but not through WiFi? It's just stupid. If they are worried about network congestion, then their single policy of reducing packet priority after 21 GB accomplishes what they want to accomplish (although that pretty much flies right in the face of net neutrality laws too). If they absolutely don't want anyone to ever use more than 100 GB because they feel that would harm the network, then just write "100GB", not "UNLIMITED". Problem solved.

 

[Scott_3]

This guy. The same service overcharged me, acknowledged that had over charged me and then sent me a check to pay me back for it and when all was actually cool, but I changed providers, they then put a negative comment on my credit rating because they had over charged me?

Then when I changed service providers the company puts me on a call center list and calls me 20 times per day with an Indian call center on my publicly listed home phone line (which is with a competitor) to try to sell me the service again despite being told I'm on the do not call list. The nerve of the T telemarketer telling me what services I had - with the competitor? How would he know? You don't win customers by being a jerk.

 

[dgingeri]

This guy. The same service overcharged me, acknowledged that had over charged me and then sent me a check to pay me back for it and when all was actually cool, but I changed providers, they then put a negative comment on my credit rating because they had over charged me?

Then when I changed service providers the company puts me on a call center list and calls me 20 times per day with an Indian call center on my publicly listed home phone line (which is with a competitor) to try to sell me the service again despite being told I'm on the do not call list. The nerve of the T telemarketer telling me what services I had - with the competitor? How would he know? You don't win customers by being a jerk.

It's better than:
1. getting ignored for 3 months when trying to renew and get a new phone (Sprint)
2. having my contract extended by 6 months for calling in a customer service call (Verizon) and then charged an early termination fee ($350) after the extended contract had ended
3. having the CEO constantly berate and insult his own customers who used what was really supposed to be an unlimited data plan (AT&T)

This is a situation that was supposed to be understood from the start. Just because some people claim false advertising, after the terms of tethering had been made clear UP FRONT, because they were too stupid to understand those terms, and because some people are using hacks to purposely avoid the specified limitations to get more than what they paid for, does not make T-mobile a bad company. It just means stupid people are being stupid and cheating thieves are being thieves. T-mobile is still light years ahead of any other carrier when it comes to customer service, and still pretty good at customer service, data services, and cost.

 

[canadianvice]

It's semantics, but as long as they don't cut you off, it's unlimited. The word is used for quantity, not quality.

 

[Dave_4]

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN! I am using mine now in the way way i see fit.
1 I paid for it!
2 you sold it (UNLIMITED)
3 kinda pissed u cut me back the first day
4 data is data
5 would it matter if i google allday on the phone or pc?

 

[Dave_4]

I agree... u got me there... so go to vpn free for android

 

[Dave_4]

OK... how many customers do they have?????
lmao really kinda petty thinking about a couple thousand that actually get our moneys worth!

 

[dgingeri]

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN! I am using mine now in the way way i see fit.
1 I paid for it!
2 you sold it (UNLIMITED)
3 kinda pissed u cut me back the first day
4 data is data
5 would it matter if i google allday on the phone or pc?

1. You paid for a specific service with specific parameters outlined and explained before you signed up. If you did not want these terms, then you should have picked a competitor or a higher level plan.
2. They sold a specific service with specific parameters outlined and explained before you signed up.
3. if you don't go overboard, you don't have this issue
4. No. No it isn't. A full computer can pull a lot more data a lot faster than a phone. A full computer uses a lot more data than a phone because of larger resolution screen that shows a lot more information at once. A full computer game also transfers a lot more data more often than the games on a phone. Therefore, no, data is not just data.
5. Traffic. As I outlined in 4, full computers transfer a lot more data a lot more often, so it does matter.

 

[Sam Walker]

Is tethering mentioned in the contract? If not, the problem is with Tmobile's bad lawyering. Screw them. 9/11 is coming up. Watch movies on your phone all day if you have Tmobile. If not, find a better activity like hiking or sc***ing your girl for a day. Wow. Grow long hair and you think we all look up to you. Dipshit CEO.

 

[killerb255]

Is tethering mentioned in the contract? If not, the problem is with Tmobile's bad lawyering. Screw them. 9/11 is coming up. Watch movies on your phone all day if you have Tmobile. If not, find a better activity like hiking or sc***ing your girl for a day. Wow. Grow long hair and you think we all look up to you. Dipshit CEO.

What does 9/11 have to do with unlimited data and tethering?

 

[huxuca]

The CEO is the only criminal here, and the crime is FRAUD.

He sold something that he can't provide, knowing he can't provide it, and having no intention of providing it.


FRAUD: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

FRAUD: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

FRAUD: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

 

[dgingeri]

The CEO is the only criminal here, and the crime is FRAUD.

He sold something that he can't provide, knowing he can't provide it, and having no intention of providing it.


FRAUD: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

FRAUD: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

FRAUD: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

The parameters of the agreement are upfront and fully explained right from the start, including the limitations to tethering, in BIG FREAKING PINK LETTERS. If the idiots use hacked programs to hide their data usage, they are going against their agreement and taking more than they paid to get. If they want more, they can pay for more, or find a competitor that offers more, but they agreed to the stipulations in the initial agreement. Doing otherwise is STEALING.

 

[jerm1027]

I believe it should be unlimited with a disclosed fair use policy. Wind in Canada has such a thing in place, it's 5GB of full speed data, after which speeds will slow. The idea is a person can see as many webpages and do about as much streaming as they want, but they can't effectively use their phone service as home internet, which I fully agree with. Go buy an actual internet package for that.

In many places in the US, internet through phone service is the only viable option. Until the entire country is covered by a halfway decent broadband connection (by current definition, 25 mbps), I don't blame or look down on the ones that do this.

I think it's utterly ridiculous that I live in the heart of the Silicon Valley and a 6mbps connection that costs as much as on phone bill off promotion, and still has a data cap of 250GB/mo. Meanwhile, as a T-Mobile customer, I have a portable 25mpbs connection of "unlimited." Of course I'm going to use my mobile connection - it's better than AT&T U-Verse, more reliable, and not dependent on whether or not a family member is recording a show. Up until very recently, my local Starbucks had AT&T that barely delivered speeds faster than dial-up; I couldn't even playback a 144p YouTube video. Again, in the heart of the Silicon Valley! I'm 20 minutes away from Apple and Google headquarters! I love how people say use Wi-Fi, but it's nearly as available as it should be, with many still dial-up slow, and consumer ISPs also enforcing data caps. It's a work-around, not a solution.

 

[dgingeri]

I believe it should be unlimited with a disclosed fair use policy. Wind in Canada has such a thing in place, it's 5GB of full speed data, after which speeds will slow. The idea is a person can see as many webpages and do about as much streaming as they want, but they can't effectively use their phone service as home internet, which I fully agree with. Go buy an actual internet package for that.

In many places in the US, internet through phone service is the only viable option. Until the entire country is covered by a halfway decent broadband connection (by current definition, 25 mbps), I don't blame or look down on the ones that do this.

I think it's utterly ridiculous that I live in the heart of the Silicon Valley and a 6mbps connection that costs as much as on phone bill off promotion, and still has a data cap of 250GB/mo. Meanwhile, as a T-Mobile customer, I have a portable 25mpbs connection of "unlimited." Of course I'm going to use my mobile connection - it's better than AT&T U-Verse, more reliable, and not dependent on whether or not a family member is recording a show. Up until very recently, my local Starbucks had AT&T that barely delivered speeds faster than dial-up; I couldn't even playback a 144p YouTube video. Again, in the heart of the Silicon Valley! I'm 20 minutes away from Apple and Google headquarters! I love how people say use Wi-Fi, but it's nearly as available as it should be, with many still dial-up slow, and consumer ISPs also enforcing data caps. It's a work-around, not a solution.

That mean there's a market waiting to be served. Start your own ISP for your neighborhood.

 

[ReZtech]

That's why I use SPRINT, REAL UNLIMITED! Tethering, 4g Downloading Via torrents, frostwire, and Mp3hound, NO COMPLAINTS EVER FROM SPRINT. Don't offer a plan then complain when people use it to the full potential.

 

[dgingeri]

That's why I use SPRINT, REAL UNLIMITED! Tethering, 4g Downloading Via torrents, frostwire, and Mp3hound, NO COMPLAINTS EVER FROM SPRINT. Don't offer a plan then complain when people use it to the full potential.

They're using it beyond what they paid for using hacks, though. The plan parameters are plainly explained on the web page and in their pamphlets at the stores. You literally can't sign up for a plan without seeing the parameters.

 

[falchard]

Technically, T-Mobile offers Unlimited data for everything on any plan. Its just not at 4G LTE. Once you hit your limit, it drops you down to slower speeds making priority to the customers who paid more. They also clearly state how they will provide service when its more than just the phone. Up to 7GB, after that its thrown to the lower priority.

 

[burkhartmj]

[And you're literally wrong, it's very much their business, hell, it's literally their business. This has been the norm ever since tethering was a paid add-on to unlimited data on all of the networks years ago. When you added tethering, you added a small pot [rarely more than 2GB], not merely the ability tacked on to unlimited data.

This first sentence is the core of our disagreement. When you open the door to allowing an ISP to regulate what you can do with data you send or receive from the internet, and alter their service depending on what you are doing, that's exactly what net neutrality is targeting. If, for example, an ISP decides that people streaming Netflix require more bandwidth than they are interested in providing, so they throttle Netflix traffic to reduce their network load despite the fact that they have sold people "unlimited" connections with plenty of bandwidth to handle Netflix, you have a problem.

Where is the line, in this case? How much restriction of your personal freedom is acceptable when it comes to your phone's internet connection? What if you want to connect a bluetooth device which requires internet bandwidth? Is that not another device? What if you want to feed video from an external camera into your phone to stream live to the internet, or cache data on a network drive? What if you want to stream the data through a tablet for processing first? At what point are you "tethering" vs. just using your phone's internet connection? Is it ok to forward packets through bluetooth, but not through WiFi? It's just stupid. If they are worried about network congestion, then their single policy of reducing packet priority after 21 GB accomplishes what they want to accomplish (although that pretty much flies right in the face of net neutrality laws too). If they absolutely don't want anyone to ever use more than 100 GB because they feel that would harm the network, then just write "100GB", not "UNLIMITED". Problem solved.

Why does everyone make everything about "personal freedoms?" If you signed a contract ever in your entire life or accepted a EULA or TOS for anything ever then you willingly restricted your personal freedoms for the use of that service or application. As such, it's an empty emotional appeal with no rationality behind it, and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Absolutely nothing they're doing flies in the face of a SINGLE net neutrality law. Of everything you stated, the only thing that would violate net neutrality is deprioritizing Netflix specifically, which T-Mobile doesn't at all do for anything. T-Mobile isn't regulating what applications use your data, they're limiting the amount that a specific system based ability can use. And the tethering doesn't require a genius to figure out, if you're tethering another computing device to your phone under any methodology and using an internet connection then it's tethering data. Hell, all of these settings are even grouped together in the settings pane of Android under "tethering & portable hotspot." It really doesn't matter how you try to obfuscate or confuse the issue, tethering is tethering is tethering.

And again, 100GB wouldn't be true to the plan, nor would 7GB. The size of the PHONE plan is unlimited, with an added 7GB bucket of tethering. While they deprioritize at 21GB, this will only effect high congestion areas and makes a lot of sense for those areas, I've broken 30-50GB without any drop in speeds, as have many others in this thread. Would you rather they just offer their unlimited plan with zero tethering? That way it wouldn't have a limit attached to any part of the included services to satisfy the ignorant idealists [about HOTSPOT DATA], and everyone else would be worse off. Good compromise, right?

 

[John Bauer]

When i got my first smartphone i got unlimited data and i regularly used 5GB-6GB a month. When my contract run out and i got a new phone the unlimited plan was discontinued and i had to use a 2 GB plan.

When faced with a limit i made sure i used Wi-Fi whenever i could, i found out that my cable provider offered thousands of free WiFi spots and that i could walk home from the train and actually use their WiFi all the way until i reach my home.


When faced with a limit people start acting differently, they make sure they never cross their limit.

I should have added that i never once crossed the 2GB limit.

In most cases this is true. Unfortunately there are still places that don't have wireless everywhere and there are still some rural places without good high-speed access. I have a feeling that a good portion of these abusers are people that are using the "unlimited" plans to as their only internet access in remote areas (as long as they still have good cell coverage).

In cities with good wifi coverage this really is a non-issue but that is just one scenario.

You are exactly right. I live in a rural access with the only ISP available to me is AT&T and their fastest plan is 784kbps. However I get 4G out here with T-mobile and use it for my internet, not because i want to but because without it there practically is nothing else.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

Ok, I still don't get it.

How is it legal to have a service plan with different caps/rates/whatever for tethering and not tethering? That's identical to having your water company say you can only use 1 gallon a month on showers but an unlimited amount for anything else.

Do they get around this because they are technically charging you to use THEIR tethering app specificallly? If that's the case, that's entirely reasonable, but they still can't complian if people don't use their app.

Data is data. If they are allowed to charge you more for tethering then they are also allowed to charge you more for visiting certain sites, or cap you at 1GB of streaming video and 100GB of plaintext HTML and call it a 100GB plan...

 

[falchard]

Actually, they can track the type of data since when you tether you do it through 2 different methods. Either you connect directly to a device, or you use your phones wifi broadcasting. Its really convenient when you are traveling and just get an instant private network on your laptop.
What he is complaining about is people are spoofing their packets to seem like they are from the phone.
Also like has been said before, they don't charge you more for additional tethering beyond a certain limit. They unprioritize your connection. So you may end up on 2G, or on a busy tower you may be dropped for other users. If you are a customer to T-Mobile, you should already be aware of being dropped from cell towers in busy areas. T-Mobile rents connections on towers, and depending on the tower they may push the T-Mobile connections off.

 

[rmse17]

Thieves, abusers, hackers... that is a lot of name calling for people who pay for a service that is advertised as being "unlimited". I actually think that people who are using the service to their full advantage that they are paying actually intelligent and smart people. There is nothing wrong in trying to save money. It is T-Mobile that is in the wrong - selling an unlimited service that is not actually unlimited.

If the customer used tethering beyond 10GB, then customer is in violation of plan agreement.