from the that-word,-I-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means dept

Now Telecoms Are Fighting Among Themselves Over Who Lies More About ‘Unlimited Data’

For decades now, U.S. wireless carriers have sold consumers “unlimited data” plans that actually have all manner of sometimes hidden throttling, caps, download limits, and restrictions. And every few years a regulator comes out with a wrist slap against wireless carriers for misleading consumers, for whatever good it does.

Back in 2007, for example, then NY AG Andrew Cuomo fined Verizon a tiny $150,000 for selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited (Verizon kept doing it anyway). In 2019, the FTC fined AT&T $60 million for selling “unlimited” plans that were very limited, then repeatedly lying to consumers about it (impacted consumers ultimately saw refunds of around $22 each).

It’s gotten slightly better, but it’s still a problem. Providers still impose all manner of weird restrictions on mobile lines and then bury them in their fine print, something that’s likely only to get worse after Trump 2.0 takes an absolute hatchet to whatever’s left of regulatory independence and federal consumer protection.

In the interim, telecom providers are even bickering about the definition of “unlimited” between themselves. For example Verizon is mad that Charter Communications (a cable company that got into wireless) is advertising its wireless service as “unlimited,” while telling users they can “use all the data you want.”

As usual that’s not true. There’s all manner of deprioritization that goes on should users actually try to do that. Once you hit a certain download amount, your connection speeds are “reduced.” Charter doesn’t tell you up front that the speeds you’re reduced to are often less than 1 Mbps; so basically a trickle:

There are also usually restrictions on video resolution and tethering downloads for a lot of these companies. So yeah, it’s kind of unlimited? But also not really purely “unlimited?” Same old industry tactics. As an aside, when they say “no hidden fees,” there are almost always hidden fees.

Verizon apparently filed a complaint about Charter’s marketing with the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau, sort of an industry-self regulation apparatus designed to pre-emptively justify our feckless regulators not doing their jobs. And unsurprisingly, NAD ruled in favor of Charter, claiming that technically because your line still technically functions after hitting limits, it’s still “unlimited”:

“The National Advertising Division (NAD) concluded that the advertising conveys the message that Spectrum Mobile customers who subscribe to an Unlimited or Unlimited Plus plan will be able to consistently engage in typical online activities, regardless of the amount of data consumed in any given month.”

Even if NAD had found Charter lied, it’s a feckless pseudo-regulatory apparatus that results in no actual meaningful penalty. So the misleading marketing efforts surrounding “unlimited” data survive another day to confuse and mislead everyone.