I've heard of instances like this over the years. It's not unheard of.
I have heard the same thing as well. But never have I heard one being presented with a higher bill.
I personally know of a couple that were so huge, i.e., over 400 lbs, that they were refused service on their return visit. They took it to court and the judge threw their case out due to sense of reason. That and the signage on the restaurant's menu that they had the right of refusal.
It's super easy to be a bandwidth hog. For example lets say you enjoy pandora while at work. Here's a simple scenario that involves nothing but pandora:
Streaming Pandora at: 128 kbps
16,000 bytes per second
960,000 bytes per minute
57,000,000 bytes per hour (~57meg)
Assuming that you listen when you are at work:
9,216,000,000 bytes per month (based on 160 hours of work per month)
So you have used almost 10 gig of your infinity of bandwidth your contract says you can have.
That's without a single e-mail, web page, youtube video etc.
5 gig a month is easy even without tethering. So don't blame the jailbroken.
Sheldon
Thats quite a job to be sitting pretty just listenting to your iphone all day lol. In all honesty i think 1-2 hours is what most spend listening to Pandora a day if even that. I use mine when i dont feel like listening to music on my Bold and want something different in the car. Assuming you listen 1 hour everyday for 30 days, you only use 1.7GB of data.
So 1.7GB from streaming Pandora, lets allocate 1GB for emails/MMS and you would have 2.3GB of web surfing/youtube goodness/moderate app downloads. Its very easy to fall within 5GB or less a month even with moderate usage.
When you start going on streaming binges for hours upon end or tethering is when it becomes a grossly apparent problem. It was silly of AT&T to offer unlimited because of course there are those that will abuse the system, if a 5GB cap was in place already we most likely wouldnt be even having this discussion.
This doesn't really have anything to do with speed. It's about total usage (data consumed). AT&T's problem is that they sold an 'unlimited plan' and are now trying to place limits on it.
Yes, I know and the go kart thing wasn't meant to mean "speed" in a literal sense but rather that technology advances, consequently the world changes and so do promises have to change along with that.
Moving to the parallel comments about restaurants: The "all you can eat" deals typically don't allow people to show up at 11AM and stay until 11PM, stuffing their faces all day long. "All" generally implies all one could eat for a meal with the knowledge that every person is going to want a different amount. So, yes, there are practical limits on things that are often advertised as unlimited with the understanding that it still provides everything 99+% of us could want (to eat in this case).
Yes, I know and the go kart thing wasn't meant to mean "speed" in a literal sense but rather that technology advances, consequently the world changes and so do promises have to change along with that.
Moving to the parallel comments about restaurants: The "all you can eat" deals typically don't allow people to show up at 11AM and stay until 11PM, stuffing their faces all day long. "All" generally implies all one could eat for a meal with the knowledge that every person is going to want a different amount. So, yes, there are practical limits on things that are often advertised as unlimited with the understanding that it still provides everything 99+% of us could want (to eat in this case).
I've never seen an all you can eat that says you can only eat for X number of hours. About the only limit I have ever seen posted is that you cannot share your food with others. That's about it.
I've never seen an all you can eat that says you can only eat for X number of hours. About the only limit I have ever seen posted is that you cannot share your food with others. That's about it.
Yes, there really are places that advertise "all you can eat" but don't let you feed yourself for 12 hours. Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?
Yes, there really are places that advertise "all you can eat" but don't let you feed yourself for 12 hours. Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?
It only makes sense if they state as much. That's the whole reason a business will post a 'we reserve the right' sign. If they don't post it, they put themselves in legal hot water. Just because something sounds right, doesn't mean it's legally sound.
To all those who are criticizing people here for "hogging" bandwidth, without bandwidth hogs, what incentive would there be for AT&T to improve its network? I'm sorry, but if you use less than 5GB/month, you don't actually use data, period. Quit griping and be thankful because you ultimately have a better network than if you didn't have people stressing the network. Companies improve their products or services for those who actually use said things, NOT for those who don't (the former actually get their money's worth from the network, the latter are poor saps who are being raped by AT&T because they are "sub-par" users). Sorry, but its true, and I know it hurts. And AT&T won't "throttle back" hogs, as that act has already been sternly condemned by the FCC when Comcast (most notably) did so to P2P clients not that long ago. It falls under net neutrality, and discrimination is bad- whatever form it may take. Also, the terms of the contract are UNLIMITED data usage for iPhone users. Not an iPhone user? Quit crying and get over it. AT&T has no right to be coming down on iPhone users for "hogging" bandwidth when they offer an unlimited service. This all sounds to me like AT&T is cracking under the heat from Verizon's flamethrower... AT&T, we know your network lacks infrastructure, but punishing users of the phone which has made your company prosper during the last few years is the wrong, wrong move. You can bet that if AT&T does implement such a data cap, Verizon will unmercifully have a field day with it. I'm also pretty sure Apple would be none too pleased with having its flagship product castrated.
To all those who are criticizing people here for "hogging" bandwidth, without bandwidth hogs, what incentive would there be for AT&T to improve its network? I'm sorry, but if you use less than 5GB/month, you don't actually use data, period. Quit griping and be thankful because you ultimately have a better network than if you didn't have people stressing the network. Companies improve their products or services for those who actually use said things, NOT for those who don't (the former actually get their money's worth from the network, the latter are poor saps who are being raped by AT&T because they are "sub-par" users). Sorry, but its true, and I know it hurts. And AT&T won't "throttle back" hogs, as that act has already been sternly condemned by the FCC when Comcast (most notably) did so to P2P clients not that long ago. It falls under net neutrality, and discrimination is bad- whatever form it may take. Also, the terms of the contract are UNLIMITED data usage for iPhone users. Not an iPhone user? Quit crying and get over it. AT&T has no right to be coming down on iPhone users for "hogging" bandwidth when they offer an unlimited service. This all sounds to me like AT&T is cracking under the heat from Verizon's flamethrower... AT&T, we know your network lacks infrastructure, but punishing users of the phone which has made your company prosper during the last few years is the wrong, wrong move. You can bet that if AT&T does implement such a data cap, Verizon will unmercifully have a field day with it. I'm also pretty sure Apple would be none too pleased with having its flagship product castrated.
At least you kept on topic for the first part, ranting though it may have been. The last part of your post is just flamebait and trolling.
To all those who are criticizing people here for "hogging" bandwidth, without bandwidth hogs, what incentive would there be for AT&T to improve its network? I'm sorry, but if you use less than 5GB/month, you don't actually use data, period. Quit griping and be thankful because you ultimately have a better network than if you didn't have people stressing the network. Companies improve their products or services for those who actually use said things, NOT for those who don't (the former actually get their money's worth from the network, the latter are poor saps who are being raped by AT&T because they are "sub-par" users). Sorry, but its true, and I know it hurts. And AT&T won't "throttle back" hogs, as that act has already been sternly condemned by the FCC when Comcast (most notably) did so to P2P clients not that long ago. It falls under net neutrality, and discrimination is bad- whatever form it may take. Also, the terms of the contract are UNLIMITED data usage for iPhone users. Not an iPhone user? Quit crying and get over it. AT&T has no right to be coming down on iPhone users for "hogging" bandwidth when they offer an unlimited service. This all sounds to me like AT&T is cracking under the heat from Verizon's flamethrower... AT&T, we know your network lacks infrastructure, but punishing users of the phone which has made your company prosper during the last few years is the wrong, wrong move. You can bet that if AT&T does implement such a data cap, Verizon will unmercifully have a field day with it. I'm also pretty sure Apple would be none too pleased with having its flagship product castrated.
LOL! Verizon invented the "unlimited" "capped" wireless data plan. Get your facts straight!
It only makes sense if they state as much. That's the whole reason a business will post a 'we reserve the right' sign. If they don't post it, they put themselves in legal hot water. Just because something sounds right, doesn't mean it's legally sound.
How many lawsuits have filed over what "all you can eat" means at some two-bit buffet? That 99% of customers have no problem with an eating limit ought to tell us something.
How many lawsuits have filed over what "all you can eat" means at some two-bit buffet? That 99% of customers have no problem with an eating limit ought to tell us something.
I would imagine because it would cost them more to get a lawyer and sue than to buy a meal.
LOL! Verizon invented the "unlimited" "capped" wireless data plan. Get your facts straight!
Of what relevance is Verizon's inventing of "unlimited capped" usage to what I was saying? The issue is that AT&T may change the data usage rates after the fact because their network can't handle the bandwidth load. Get my facts straight? Why don't you go read and understand the article first and then come back.
Of what relevance is Verizon's inventing of "unlimited capped" usage to what I was saying? The issue is that AT&T may change the data usage rates after the fact because their network can't handle the bandwidth load. Get my facts straight? Why don't you go read and understand the article first and then come back.
Then why did you choose to comment on it in the first place if you supposedly weren't interested. I was simply making a passing comment, as a side note no less. I couldn't give a rats ass if you care or don't care about my political beliefs, but I none the less have a right to express them anyway I choose, however I want to, without being called a troll. Please.
Then I have the sane right to express my beliefs.
You a troll. Your post was off topic and irrelevant and we called it as such.
Of what relevance is Verizon's inventing of "unlimited capped" usage to what I was saying? The issue is that AT&T may change the data usage rates after the fact because their network can't handle the bandwidth load. Get my facts straight? Why don't you go read and understand the article first and then come back.
Then why did you choose to comment on it in the first place if you supposedly weren't interested. I was simply making a passing comment, as a side note no less. I couldn't give a rats ass if you care or don't care about my political beliefs, but I none the less have a right to express them anyway I choose, however I want to, without being called a troll. Please.
It doesn't belong here.
It belongs in here (the PoliticalOutsider forum). You can argue your politics to your hearts content there, but you can't here. I quoted you for posterity sake, to document that you are posting in violation of the TOS.
In the future, keep your political opinions, fears, leanings, outbursts, etc. where they belong and not here in the iPhone forum.
Haha ok. Thanks for serving as the troll police. I'll be sure to look out for them too.
My political leanings (which you have mischaracterized) aren't the issue.
There is a TOS for AI, you agreed to it when you signed up. You violated it with your above political rant of a post. You did it again when you personally attacked me.
One of the great things about AI is that we can have civil discussions about Apple without degenerating into all the political or religious crap. They even created a separate forum (PoliticalOutside) for you guys who live/eat/breathe that stuff. You can pontificate your politics to anyone there who cares to listen.
Comments
And you have evidence that this has happened?
Actually I've heard news reports of restaurants asking people to leave when they 'abused' these 'all you can eat'.
http://www.mightybargainhunter.com/2...eat-yah-right/
I've heard of instances like this over the years. It's not unheard of.
Actually I've heard news reports of restaurants asking people to leave when they 'abused' these 'all you can eat'.
http://www.mightybargainhunter.com/2...eat-yah-right/
I've heard of instances like this over the years. It's not unheard of.
I have heard the same thing as well. But never have I heard one being presented with a higher bill.
I personally know of a couple that were so huge, i.e., over 400 lbs, that they were refused service on their return visit. They took it to court and the judge threw their case out due to sense of reason. That and the signage on the restaurant's menu that they had the right of refusal.
It's super easy to be a bandwidth hog. For example lets say you enjoy pandora while at work. Here's a simple scenario that involves nothing but pandora:
Streaming Pandora at: 128 kbps
16,000 bytes per second
960,000 bytes per minute
57,000,000 bytes per hour (~57meg)
Assuming that you listen when you are at work:
9,216,000,000 bytes per month (based on 160 hours of work per month)
So you have used almost 10 gig of your infinity of bandwidth your contract says you can have.
That's without a single e-mail, web page, youtube video etc.
5 gig a month is easy even without tethering. So don't blame the jailbroken.
Sheldon
Thats quite a job to be sitting pretty just listenting to your iphone all day lol. In all honesty i think 1-2 hours is what most spend listening to Pandora a day if even that. I use mine when i dont feel like listening to music on my Bold and want something different in the car. Assuming you listen 1 hour everyday for 30 days, you only use 1.7GB of data.
So 1.7GB from streaming Pandora, lets allocate 1GB for emails/MMS and you would have 2.3GB of web surfing/youtube goodness/moderate app downloads. Its very easy to fall within 5GB or less a month even with moderate usage.
When you start going on streaming binges for hours upon end or tethering is when it becomes a grossly apparent problem. It was silly of AT&T to offer unlimited because of course there are those that will abuse the system, if a 5GB cap was in place already we most likely wouldnt be even having this discussion.
This doesn't really have anything to do with speed. It's about total usage (data consumed). AT&T's problem is that they sold an 'unlimited plan' and are now trying to place limits on it.
Yes, I know and the go kart thing wasn't meant to mean "speed" in a literal sense but rather that technology advances, consequently the world changes and so do promises have to change along with that.
Moving to the parallel comments about restaurants: The "all you can eat" deals typically don't allow people to show up at 11AM and stay until 11PM, stuffing their faces all day long. "All" generally implies all one could eat for a meal with the knowledge that every person is going to want a different amount. So, yes, there are practical limits on things that are often advertised as unlimited with the understanding that it still provides everything 99+% of us could want (to eat in this case).
Yes, I know and the go kart thing wasn't meant to mean "speed" in a literal sense but rather that technology advances, consequently the world changes and so do promises have to change along with that.
Moving to the parallel comments about restaurants: The "all you can eat" deals typically don't allow people to show up at 11AM and stay until 11PM, stuffing their faces all day long. "All" generally implies all one could eat for a meal with the knowledge that every person is going to want a different amount. So, yes, there are practical limits on things that are often advertised as unlimited with the understanding that it still provides everything 99+% of us could want (to eat in this case).
I've never seen an all you can eat that says you can only eat for X number of hours. About the only limit I have ever seen posted is that you cannot share your food with others. That's about it.
I've never seen an all you can eat that says you can only eat for X number of hours. About the only limit I have ever seen posted is that you cannot share your food with others. That's about it.
Yes, there really are places that advertise "all you can eat" but don't let you feed yourself for 12 hours. Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?
Yes, there really are places that advertise "all you can eat" but don't let you feed yourself for 12 hours. Kinda makes sense, doesn't it?
It only makes sense if they state as much. That's the whole reason a business will post a 'we reserve the right' sign. If they don't post it, they put themselves in legal hot water. Just because something sounds right, doesn't mean it's legally sound.
To all those who are criticizing people here for "hogging" bandwidth, without bandwidth hogs, what incentive would there be for AT&T to improve its network? I'm sorry, but if you use less than 5GB/month, you don't actually use data, period. Quit griping and be thankful because you ultimately have a better network than if you didn't have people stressing the network. Companies improve their products or services for those who actually use said things, NOT for those who don't (the former actually get their money's worth from the network, the latter are poor saps who are being raped by AT&T because they are "sub-par" users). Sorry, but its true, and I know it hurts. And AT&T won't "throttle back" hogs, as that act has already been sternly condemned by the FCC when Comcast (most notably) did so to P2P clients not that long ago. It falls under net neutrality, and discrimination is bad- whatever form it may take. Also, the terms of the contract are UNLIMITED data usage for iPhone users. Not an iPhone user? Quit crying and get over it. AT&T has no right to be coming down on iPhone users for "hogging" bandwidth when they offer an unlimited service. This all sounds to me like AT&T is cracking under the heat from Verizon's flamethrower... AT&T, we know your network lacks infrastructure, but punishing users of the phone which has made your company prosper during the last few years is the wrong, wrong move. You can bet that if AT&T does implement such a data cap, Verizon will unmercifully have a field day with it. I'm also pretty sure Apple would be none too pleased with having its flagship product castrated.
At least you kept on topic for the first part, ranting though it may have been. The last part of your post is just flamebait and trolling.
At least you kept on topic for the first part, ranting though it may have been. The last part of your post is just flamebait and trolling.
Flamebait- perhaps (if others disagree)
Trolling- not in the least (I'm not a troll)
Accurate analogy- indisputable (no explanation needed)
To all those who are criticizing people here for "hogging" bandwidth, without bandwidth hogs, what incentive would there be for AT&T to improve its network? I'm sorry, but if you use less than 5GB/month, you don't actually use data, period. Quit griping and be thankful because you ultimately have a better network than if you didn't have people stressing the network. Companies improve their products or services for those who actually use said things, NOT for those who don't (the former actually get their money's worth from the network, the latter are poor saps who are being raped by AT&T because they are "sub-par" users). Sorry, but its true, and I know it hurts. And AT&T won't "throttle back" hogs, as that act has already been sternly condemned by the FCC when Comcast (most notably) did so to P2P clients not that long ago. It falls under net neutrality, and discrimination is bad- whatever form it may take. Also, the terms of the contract are UNLIMITED data usage for iPhone users. Not an iPhone user? Quit crying and get over it. AT&T has no right to be coming down on iPhone users for "hogging" bandwidth when they offer an unlimited service. This all sounds to me like AT&T is cracking under the heat from Verizon's flamethrower... AT&T, we know your network lacks infrastructure, but punishing users of the phone which has made your company prosper during the last few years is the wrong, wrong move. You can bet that if AT&T does implement such a data cap, Verizon will unmercifully have a field day with it. I'm also pretty sure Apple would be none too pleased with having its flagship product castrated.
LOL! Verizon invented the "unlimited" "capped" wireless data plan. Get your facts straight!
Flamebait- perhaps (if others disagree)
Trolling- not in the least (I'm not a troll)
Accurate analogy- indisputable (no explanation needed)
Of what possible interest are your political beliefs to me or anyone else on this board, in a thread about AT&T policy?
It only makes sense if they state as much. That's the whole reason a business will post a 'we reserve the right' sign. If they don't post it, they put themselves in legal hot water. Just because something sounds right, doesn't mean it's legally sound.
How many lawsuits have filed over what "all you can eat" means at some two-bit buffet? That 99% of customers have no problem with an eating limit ought to tell us something.
How many lawsuits have filed over what "all you can eat" means at some two-bit buffet? That 99% of customers have no problem with an eating limit ought to tell us something.
I would imagine because it would cost them more to get a lawyer and sue than to buy a meal.
LOL! Verizon invented the "unlimited" "capped" wireless data plan. Get your facts straight!
Of what relevance is Verizon's inventing of "unlimited capped" usage to what I was saying? The issue is that AT&T may change the data usage rates after the fact because their network can't handle the bandwidth load. Get my facts straight? Why don't you go read and understand the article first and then come back.
Of what relevance is Verizon's inventing of "unlimited capped" usage to what I was saying? The issue is that AT&T may change the data usage rates after the fact because their network can't handle the bandwidth load. Get my facts straight? Why don't you go read and understand the article first and then come back.
Then why did you choose to comment on it in the first place if you supposedly weren't interested. I was simply making a passing comment, as a side note no less. I couldn't give a rats ass if you care or don't care about my political beliefs, but I none the less have a right to express them anyway I choose, however I want to, without being called a troll. Please.
Then I have the sane right to express my beliefs.
You a troll. Your post was off topic and irrelevant and we called it as such.
You a troll. Your post was off topic and irrelevant and we called it as such.
Haha ok. Thanks for serving as the troll police. I'll be sure to look out for them too.
Then I have the sane right to express my beliefs.
You a troll. Your post was off topic and irrelevant and we called it as such.
There's a difference between expressing one's beliefs and making a personal attack.
Of what relevance is Verizon's inventing of "unlimited capped" usage to what I was saying? The issue is that AT&T may change the data usage rates after the fact because their network can't handle the bandwidth load. Get my facts straight? Why don't you go read and understand the article first and then come back.
Then why did you choose to comment on it in the first place if you supposedly weren't interested. I was simply making a passing comment, as a side note no less. I couldn't give a rats ass if you care or don't care about my political beliefs, but I none the less have a right to express them anyway I choose, however I want to, without being called a troll. Please.
It doesn't belong here.
It belongs in here (the PoliticalOutsider forum). You can argue your politics to your hearts content there, but you can't here. I quoted you for posterity sake, to document that you are posting in violation of the TOS.
In the future, keep your political opinions, fears, leanings, outbursts, etc. where they belong and not here in the iPhone forum.
Thankyouverymuch.
Haha ok. Thanks for serving as the troll police. I'll be sure to look out for them too.
My political leanings (which you have mischaracterized) aren't the issue.
There is a TOS for AI, you agreed to it when you signed up. You violated it with your above political rant of a post. You did it again when you personally attacked me.
One of the great things about AI is that we can have civil discussions about Apple without degenerating into all the political or religious crap. They even created a separate forum (PoliticalOutside) for you guys who live/eat/breathe that stuff. You can pontificate your politics to anyone there who cares to listen.
But we don't care to listen to it here.