Does anyone, beside me, think it's funny how usa cell phone customers pay more than customer in other countries. Add to that the fact that you never hear anything about over seas users being throttled. Could it be because they have anywhere from 15% to 50% more throughput because those cell phone companies spent "real" money on infrastructure. It's such a shame that we keep paying more & getting less but no one in Washington cares to do anything about it.
It means you gain access to universal healthcare, live with lower odds of getting shot, and become better accepted around the world and generally considered nicer.
What's the complaint going to read? AT&T are douchebags?
"Sustained. This court finds in favor of the plaintiffs. *gavel* Next item on the agenda: Crybaby Android Manufacturers vs. Apple... oh, this should be good."
About time. I pay 10 bucks a month extra for each additional gig. So should others. However, AT&T needs to spend less on advertising and more in infrastructure. They don't need T-Mobile to make the network they already have more reliable and faster.
"Like other wireless companies, we're taking steps to?"
"?violate the spirit of our contracts in order to maintain high profits without investing in infrastructure. Our goal is to continue paying massive dividends to the wealthiest 5% of Americans while screwing everyone else. We're the phone company: we don't care, we don't have to."
The more things change, the more the stay the same. Telecomm companies embody everything vile in human nature, and given that the own Congress, nobody is going to do a thing about it.
I don't understand why many people around here are so staunchly against telecom companies maximising their profits wherever possible but tend to be more than happy for Apple to do exactly the same. Surely if you are pro Apple making as much profit as possible, you also have to be pro telecoms making as much profit as possible? The argument typically goes that if you don't like what Apple does, don't buy Apple. If you don't like what AT&T are doing, why not just leave and join another network?
I don't understand why many people around here are so staunchly against telecom companies maximising their profits wherever possible but tend to be more than happy for Apple to do exactly the same.
I explained it to Parttimer in another thread for the opposite reason, so I guess I can do it here again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
OH GOOD.
We've distilled this to the "they're overpriced" argument.
So here's how we end it.
I say that you don't know the definition of the word 'overpriced'. You say enlighten me. I say if Apple products were overpriced, no one would buy them. As millions of people buy them in all forms, they are not overpriced.
Then you say that's not what I meant; I meant that Apple could sell their stuff for much less money and still be making a profit. And then I end it by reiterating that you're unfamiliar with the concepts inherent to capitalism, primarily that consumers dictate prices. If consumers did not feel that Apple products were worth the money they spent on them, they would not be purchased at their current prices. That's how this whole system works.
Then you fail to rebut it by saying that it's wrong for Apple to sell products at prices extortionately higher than at which they can afford to sell them. To which I reply, yes, it is; another example of which being the corn industry selling corn products at 1000% cost because people and many other companies are (basically) forced to buy corn products for their multitude of purposes. Another example would be a home Internet provider having plans at twice or 3x cost plus a comfortable profit, because they'd get away with it as we basically have monopolies on phone and home Internet service in this country.
But I finish my reply by stating that Apple is not only an example of neither of these instances, but exists outside this example entirely. As Apple products are not required for life (as corn is... you'd be surprised how much crap corn is in) or has become a standard in quality of living (as home telephony is; the Internet's secondary but useful to mention in the example). Apple products are a luxury item. They are not required for life or expected for comfort. Those who buy them know their price and expect quality from them equivalent to their perception of said price.
As a dozen other computer manufacturers exist, one is not forced to buy Apple products for any reason at any time, and as such can purchase from another company if they so choose, particularly if they believe that another company will be receiving a smaller profit margin on each item purchased than from Apple.
Now go away, silly troll, and take your styrofoam arguments with you.
The bit about the telecoms is in the middle. I can expound upon it if need be.
Quote:
Surely if you are pro Apple making as much profit as possible, you also have to be pro telecoms making as much profit as possible?
Not in the freaking least.
Quote:
If you don't like what AT&T are doing, why not just leave and join another network?
Except they ALL do it. So that's not even part of the argument.
Maybe if the AT&T mucky-mucks didn't take umpteen millions in bonuses, they could afford to live up to their agreement to provide unlimited data. What language do you have to translate "unlimited" into to get it to mean "limited."
Pretty sure the definition of the word 'unlimited' is 'without limit', regardless of how any company tries to spin it in the Terms of Service.
It has just never been taken to court, so they're allowed to get away with it.
1) They clearly specify what they mean in the contract you sign. You agree to it and take your chance if you break the rules.
2) Does an all-you-can-eat buffet need to be taken to court because they don't specify on their marquee that it's for one sitting and within a reasonable amount of time? Of course not. They say unlimited and they don't limit the hours or days in which you can use the data. AT&T, though not all, also have unlimited amount of data that can be had. It does not mean that they don't have the right to throttle.
3) Restating #2, consider the unlimited weekend and evening minutes you get on your phone. Are those really unlimited? OF course not! They are limited to the number of minutes that fall within the limitations of 7 days in a week, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an for, 2 days in a weekend, and the hours from when the evening starts and ends. That's a limitation, but we all know perfectly well that they don't limit you within that limitation.
PS: This is coming from someone who has been tethering outside their contract for years and will be negatively affected by AT&T's move. I don't like it, but I also don't feel entitled and think it's a shrewd pal on their part.
1) They clearly specify what they mean in the contract you sign. You agree to it and take your chance if you break the rules.
They do, absolutely; I agree with that.
So that means I can put "Free cake!" on fliers and not offer free cake. Because the words used to represent what I am selling don't actually have to mean anything as long as I put fine print below stating what the words actually mean.
Which is ridiculous.
Quote:
PS: This is coming from someone who has been tethering outside their contract for years and will be negatively affected by AT&T's move. I don't like it, but I also don't feel entitled and think it's a shrewd pal on their part.
Give 'em one for the Gipper, though. Download absolutely everything in sight. If you manage to make it into the "top 5%" of users, consider it an honor!
So that means I can put "Free cake!" on fliers and not offer free cake. Because the words used to represent what I am selling don't actually have to mean anything as long as I put fine print below stating what the words actually mean.
Which is ridiculous.
No, you have to offer something that can be defined as cake just as carriers offer something that is unlimited. Somethings you even see it stated as unlimited/unlimited to mean two variables like duration and amount. They are within the law and their right.
Quote:
Give 'em one for the Gipper, though. Download absolutely everything in sight. If you manage to make it into the "top 5%" of users, consider it an honor!
Considering I've had months over 100GB I'd like to think I'm in the top 1%.
I explained it to Parttimer in another thread for the opposite reason, so I guess I can do it here again.
The bit about the telecoms is in the middle. I can expound upon it if need be.
Not in the freaking least.
Except they ALL do it. So that's not even part of the argument.
I guess it depends whether you consider owning a mobile phone a right or a luxury. Your other option, if you disagree with the policies of all networks, is to not own a phone at all. If enough people care to disagree with the policies, we'll see them leave the networks in droves, and they'll then be forced to alter their terms.
However, as is the case with Apple, most people probably don't care that these policies are changing. As such, those who are bothered will likely just have to accept the will of the majority, or take their business elsewhere.
I guess it depends whether you consider owning a mobile phone a right or a luxury.
Luxury. Period. There's no reason for anyone to need a phone wherever they are. Particularly if they're on welfare, food stamps, or in any other financial situation where having a cell phone is ridiculous. But that's a different argument.
Quote:
Your other option, if you disagree with the policies of all networks, is to not own a phone at all.
Or to fight for your rights as a consumer.
Quote:
If enough people care to disagree with the policies, we'll see them leave the networks in droves, and they'll then be forced to alter their terms.
Not when EVERYONE does it. That policy only works when you have a loner, like Apple, with, say, higher prices. Market demand would shift from higher-priced computers if it so chose because there are a dozen cheaper alternatives. But the demand doesn't shift, so Apple's obviously doing something right.
With the telecoms, there's nowhere to go. You move from one set of extortionate rules to another set of extortionate rules that are next to identical because they've all colluded over them.
It means you gain access to universal healthcare, live with lower odds of getting shot, and become better accepted around the world and generally considered nicer.
It would be impossible for me to be considered any nicer than I am all ready am .
I always thought the maple leaf on a travelers pack was silly. When I was in Europe people often spoke to me in their native tongue assuming that I lived there.
There's a changing dynamics in a way we handle our calls, multimedia & browsing usage. Taking example of Google Chromebook: a laptop with no hard drive, no software programs on board, no files or folders, no traditional operating system. All it does is connect to the Web. files, programs, e-mail and photos are all ?in the cloud,? meaning ?on Web sites?.
Then there?s Apple?s new iCloud initiative. These are not the only mega-trends. There're enormous shifts going in TV and movie watching. Those, too, are raining down from ?the cloud?. And for phone calls, more and more people avoid using up their cellular minutes by relying on the Internet to carry their voices, using apps like Skype and Line2.
All of these mega-trends consume enormous amounts of bandwidth. All of that uploading and downloading, all of that syncing, all of that cloud computing assumes you have a fast & infinite access to the Internet. These are all great and exciting and money-saving.
And that means that they?re about to run into another, far less exciting mega-trend: data caps. We can understand the cellphone carriers? point of view. All of these iPhones and Android phones use enormous amounts of wireless cellular capacity, and it was slowing down the connections for everyone. Caps are necessary.
AT&T has done it. Verizon is doing it. The point is how are we supposed to enjoy our cloud if we?re allowed only selective access to it? How is the bold new world of online computing going to take off if the meter is racking up punishing overage charges every time we look at our photos? But that?s not the worst mega-trend. The worst is caps on home data plans. That?s right: Time Warner, Comcast and other broadband providers are putting limits on how much data you get every month, even at home.
Comments
Does anyone, beside me, think it's funny how usa cell phone customers pay more than customer in other countries. Add to that the fact that you never hear anything about over seas users being throttled. Could it be because they have anywhere from 15% to 50% more throughput because those cell phone companies spent "real" money on infrastructure. It's such a shame that we keep paying more & getting less but no one in Washington cares to do anything about it.
Are you sure? http://wiki.maemo.org/Data_plans
Civil lawsuit.
Class-action this mofo, stat.
Isn't there a statute of limitations on how long you can wait after an illegal action begins before filing a lawsuit?
Because AT&T has been lying about the word 'unlimited' for at least a decade, so the case might be thrown out immediately.
Does that mean I have to go to hockey games now?
Get. I meant do I get to go to hockey games.
It means you gain access to universal healthcare, live with lower odds of getting shot, and become better accepted around the world and generally considered nicer.
Civil lawsuit.
Class-action this mofo, stat.
What's the complaint going to read? AT&T are douchebags?
What's the complaint going to read? AT&T are douchebags?
"Sustained. This court finds in favor of the plaintiffs. *gavel* Next item on the agenda: Crybaby Android Manufacturers vs. Apple... oh, this should be good."
What's the complaint going to read? AT&T are douchebags?
Maybe something about false advertising?
About time. I pay 10 bucks a month extra for each additional gig. So should others.
Pretty darn sure they're not going to be charged any extra, seeing as that would be illegal. They're throttled.
"?violate the spirit of our contracts in order to maintain high profits without investing in infrastructure. Our goal is to continue paying massive dividends to the wealthiest 5% of Americans while screwing everyone else. We're the phone company: we don't care, we don't have to."
The more things change, the more the stay the same. Telecomm companies embody everything vile in human nature, and given that the own Congress, nobody is going to do a thing about it.
God how I hate them.
I don't understand why many people around here are so staunchly against telecom companies maximising their profits wherever possible but tend to be more than happy for Apple to do exactly the same.
I explained it to Parttimer in another thread for the opposite reason, so I guess I can do it here again.
OH GOOD.
We've distilled this to the "they're overpriced" argument.
So here's how we end it.
I say that you don't know the definition of the word 'overpriced'. You say enlighten me. I say if Apple products were overpriced, no one would buy them. As millions of people buy them in all forms, they are not overpriced.
Then you say that's not what I meant; I meant that Apple could sell their stuff for much less money and still be making a profit. And then I end it by reiterating that you're unfamiliar with the concepts inherent to capitalism, primarily that consumers dictate prices. If consumers did not feel that Apple products were worth the money they spent on them, they would not be purchased at their current prices. That's how this whole system works.
Then you fail to rebut it by saying that it's wrong for Apple to sell products at prices extortionately higher than at which they can afford to sell them. To which I reply, yes, it is; another example of which being the corn industry selling corn products at 1000% cost because people and many other companies are (basically) forced to buy corn products for their multitude of purposes. Another example would be a home Internet provider having plans at twice or 3x cost plus a comfortable profit, because they'd get away with it as we basically have monopolies on phone and home Internet service in this country.
But I finish my reply by stating that Apple is not only an example of neither of these instances, but exists outside this example entirely. As Apple products are not required for life (as corn is... you'd be surprised how much crap corn is in) or has become a standard in quality of living (as home telephony is; the Internet's secondary but useful to mention in the example). Apple products are a luxury item. They are not required for life or expected for comfort. Those who buy them know their price and expect quality from them equivalent to their perception of said price.
As a dozen other computer manufacturers exist, one is not forced to buy Apple products for any reason at any time, and as such can purchase from another company if they so choose, particularly if they believe that another company will be receiving a smaller profit margin on each item purchased than from Apple.
Now go away, silly troll, and take your styrofoam arguments with you.
The bit about the telecoms is in the middle. I can expound upon it if need be.
Surely if you are pro Apple making as much profit as possible, you also have to be pro telecoms making as much profit as possible?
Not in the freaking least.
If you don't like what AT&T are doing, why not just leave and join another network?
Except they ALL do it. So that's not even part of the argument.
Maybe if the AT&T mucky-mucks didn't take umpteen millions in bonuses, they could afford to live up to their agreement to provide unlimited data. What language do you have to translate "unlimited" into to get it to mean "limited."
They never said you had unlimited usage
They never said you had unlimited usage
Pretty sure the definition of the word 'unlimited' is 'without limit', regardless of how any company tries to spin it in the Terms of Service.
It has just never been taken to court, so they're allowed to get away with it.
Pretty sure the definition of the word 'unlimited' is 'without limit', regardless of how any company tries to spin it in the Terms of Service.
It has just never been taken to court, so they're allowed to get away with it.
1) They clearly specify what they mean in the contract you sign. You agree to it and take your chance if you break the rules.
2) Does an all-you-can-eat buffet need to be taken to court because they don't specify on their marquee that it's for one sitting and within a reasonable amount of time? Of course not. They say unlimited and they don't limit the hours or days in which you can use the data. AT&T, though not all, also have unlimited amount of data that can be had. It does not mean that they don't have the right to throttle.
3) Restating #2, consider the unlimited weekend and evening minutes you get on your phone. Are those really unlimited? OF course not! They are limited to the number of minutes that fall within the limitations of 7 days in a week, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an for, 2 days in a weekend, and the hours from when the evening starts and ends. That's a limitation, but we all know perfectly well that they don't limit you within that limitation.
PS: This is coming from someone who has been tethering outside their contract for years and will be negatively affected by AT&T's move. I don't like it, but I also don't feel entitled and think it's a shrewd pal on their part.
1) They clearly specify what they mean in the contract you sign. You agree to it and take your chance if you break the rules.
They do, absolutely; I agree with that.
So that means I can put "Free cake!" on fliers and not offer free cake. Because the words used to represent what I am selling don't actually have to mean anything as long as I put fine print below stating what the words actually mean.
Which is ridiculous.
PS: This is coming from someone who has been tethering outside their contract for years and will be negatively affected by AT&T's move. I don't like it, but I also don't feel entitled and think it's a shrewd pal on their part.
Give 'em one for the Gipper, though. Download absolutely everything in sight. If you manage to make it into the "top 5%" of users, consider it an honor!
They do, absolutely; I agree with that.
So that means I can put "Free cake!" on fliers and not offer free cake. Because the words used to represent what I am selling don't actually have to mean anything as long as I put fine print below stating what the words actually mean.
Which is ridiculous.
No, you have to offer something that can be defined as cake just as carriers offer something that is unlimited. Somethings you even see it stated as unlimited/unlimited to mean two variables like duration and amount. They are within the law and their right.
Give 'em one for the Gipper, though. Download absolutely everything in sight. If you manage to make it into the "top 5%" of users, consider it an honor!
Considering I've had months over 100GB I'd like to think I'm in the top 1%.
I explained it to Parttimer in another thread for the opposite reason, so I guess I can do it here again.
The bit about the telecoms is in the middle. I can expound upon it if need be.
Not in the freaking least.
Except they ALL do it. So that's not even part of the argument.
I guess it depends whether you consider owning a mobile phone a right or a luxury. Your other option, if you disagree with the policies of all networks, is to not own a phone at all. If enough people care to disagree with the policies, we'll see them leave the networks in droves, and they'll then be forced to alter their terms.
However, as is the case with Apple, most people probably don't care that these policies are changing. As such, those who are bothered will likely just have to accept the will of the majority, or take their business elsewhere.
I guess it depends whether you consider owning a mobile phone a right or a luxury.
Luxury. Period. There's no reason for anyone to need a phone wherever they are. Particularly if they're on welfare, food stamps, or in any other financial situation where having a cell phone is ridiculous. But that's a different argument.
Your other option, if you disagree with the policies of all networks, is to not own a phone at all.
Or to fight for your rights as a consumer.
If enough people care to disagree with the policies, we'll see them leave the networks in droves, and they'll then be forced to alter their terms.
Not when EVERYONE does it. That policy only works when you have a loner, like Apple, with, say, higher prices. Market demand would shift from higher-priced computers if it so chose because there are a dozen cheaper alternatives. But the demand doesn't shift, so Apple's obviously doing something right.
With the telecoms, there's nowhere to go. You move from one set of extortionate rules to another set of extortionate rules that are next to identical because they've all colluded over them.
It means you gain access to universal healthcare, live with lower odds of getting shot, and become better accepted around the world and generally considered nicer.
It would be impossible for me to be considered any nicer than I am all ready am
I always thought the maple leaf on a travelers pack was silly. When I was in Europe people often spoke to me in their native tongue assuming that I lived there.
Health care would be great.
So would not getting shot.
Then there?s Apple?s new iCloud initiative. These are not the only mega-trends. There're enormous shifts going in TV and movie watching. Those, too, are raining down from ?the cloud?. And for phone calls, more and more people avoid using up their cellular minutes by relying on the Internet to carry their voices, using apps like Skype and Line2.
All of these mega-trends consume enormous amounts of bandwidth. All of that uploading and downloading, all of that syncing, all of that cloud computing assumes you have a fast & infinite access to the Internet. These are all great and exciting and money-saving.
And that means that they?re about to run into another, far less exciting mega-trend: data caps. We can understand the cellphone carriers? point of view. All of these iPhones and Android phones use enormous amounts of wireless cellular capacity, and it was slowing down the connections for everyone. Caps are necessary.
AT&T has done it. Verizon is doing it. The point is how are we supposed to enjoy our cloud if we?re allowed only selective access to it? How is the bold new world of online computing going to take off if the meter is racking up punishing overage charges every time we look at our photos? But that?s not the worst mega-trend. The worst is caps on home data plans. That?s right: Time Warner, Comcast and other broadband providers are putting limits on how much data you get every month, even at home.
It's the collision course out there.