| Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:26:17 -0800 (PST)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Tons of AT&T and Verizon customers may not have "broadband" on Thursday
Message-ID: <e3d5d6ff-2ffc-4919-b5a2-4891cd1e3314@googlegroups.com>
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 10:26:17 AM UTC-5, unk wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:33:55 -0600, Gordon Burditt wrote:
> >> There's no way around it: "unlimited" is "impossible".
> > And therefore advertising it is "false advertising".
> Is there not a defense to the effect the impossibility of something is
> so obvious that claiming it was to be believed and relied upon is
> unsupportable?
Not in our context of telephone service.
Based on the other offerings of telephone service, "unlimited" means
just that--no limits or rate issues of any kind. The customer paid a
flat rate and could use the srevice as much as he wanted.
For instance, some folks with residential unlimited phone service were
heavy talkers and used the phone all day and evening. They could do
so. (Admittedly, in the old days the phone company had only limited
means to test individual lines for very heavy use.) But overall, when
the phone company chose to offer the unlimited packages, they knew in
advance from experience that some people would be heavy users and were
prepared for it.
Today, the carriers know full well that some digital users will be
heavy. If they expect that some heavy users will "break the bank" as
it were in terms of capacity, than it is simply impractical to offer
"unlimited" digital service. If they offer it but also have in place
rate surcharges or digital limits, then they are indeed falsely
advetising their service.
Some old voice carriers did not offer unlimited service, but rather a
very high number of calls for a flat fee. For most users, this would
be the same as unlimited, but some heavy users still had to be
careful. There's no reason modern carriers couldn't do
likewise--advertise different tiers of digital service, so that light,
moderate, and heavy users can all pick the best plan for themselves.
While it's not fair to consumers to advertise a service as unlimited
when it's not, it is also unfair for heavy users to "suck out" too
much of the infrastructure when they should be really be using a
thicker heavy-duty connection. An analogy: generally speaking, a
business won't be allowed to route its big tractor trailers over small
neighborhood streets, but will have to use arterial roads instead.
P.S. IMHO, it's dishonest for a company to claim "unlimited", stick
an asterisk, and then say, in fine cryptic print, that there ARE
limits to the service. But nowadays, every business does that.
Doesn't make it right.
|
| Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:34:13 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Verizon Wireless admits to hoarding spectrum
Message-ID: <mch9gc$ks3$1@dont-email.me>
Verizon Wireless admits to hoarding spectrum, ends any argument about a
spectrum crunch
by William Neilson Jr.
Recently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received a
record-breaking $44.9 billion worth of bids in the spectrum auction of
AWS-3 airwaves. As I noted at the time, this was proof itself of the
absurdity in wireless carriers claiming that Title II rules would deter
industry investment.
But the auction also proved that wireless carriers, such as Verizon,
should stop crying about a "disastrous spectrum crunch" coming if
regulators don't do precisely what the major carriers want. It wasn't
even three years ago that Verizon told the FCC that they were running
out of spectrum. Verizon was telling the FCC this because they were
pushing the FCC to approve a spectrum and marketing deal with the cable
industry. Of course, Verizon was at the same time telling investors in
2012 that they had more than enough spectrum for a variety of future
projects.
http://www.androidauthority.com/verizon-wireless-admits-hoarding-spectrum-ends-argument-spectrum-crunch-588913/
-or-
http://goo.gl/VWocfJ
--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)
|
