T-Mobile Slashes Fair Use Policy, Says Download At Home

nk497 writes "T-Mobile in the UK has revealed a new fair use policy, cutting caps from 1GB and 3GB to 500MB, saying mobile browsing doesn't include videos or large downloads. 'If you want to download, stream and watch video clips, save that stuff for your home broadband,' the company said. All those people who have bought smartphones with the aim of doing such things on the go may not agree with the mobile operator, however. Any user that goes over the new limit won't be charged, but will be blocked from downloading or streaming for the rest of the month."

Comments

slow network?

[Nuno Sa]

I hope the public sees that as admission of having a bad network and move elsewhere :-)

Re:slow network?

[rtb61]

The reality is the public will soon realise this cap is not about downloading but screwing people when they make video calls and don't realise how quickly they are chewing up the cap, as you can only make video calls via the internet (double billing upload and download).

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is. there is nowhere to migrate that's substantially better (in the united states). att is just bad. verizon has good coverage but [very] slow throughput. tmobile was fast but with spotty coverage. sprint can roam on verizon... could be better or worse. any /.'er experience w/ sprint?

had thought about buying a droid once and cdma-flashing it over to metro-pcs or boost-mobile. that may be the best option available if you can get it working, for both perf and price.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is. there is nowhere to migrate that's substantially better (in the united states). att is just bad.

Um, nobody in the US imposes a 500 MB maximum cap.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

with att in many areas you may as well not have data (or voice) at all. so yes, it's often worse than a 500mb cap. that's at least reasonable for limited browsing when you're away from wifi.

Re:slow network?

[dangitman]

the problem is. there is nowhere to migrate that's substantially better (in the united states).

If you live n the UK, why would you be looking for a US carrier?

Re:slow network?

[Z00L00K]

Another factor may be that they have experienced that too many users are now using data communication - at least in some areas and that means that too many persons are sharing the same bandwidth which results in an overall bad experience for all users. So this is a way for them to provide a good experience for most of the users.

And providing more bandwidth is expensive - so maybe they will come with an offer that allows users to pay more for more data. Especially business users are willing to pay for that.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

you wouldn't. but this is coming to t-mobile usa next, if it hasn't already. these cap restrictions were predicted months ago for tmobile's usa division; iirc their ceo confirmed it.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you on crack?

Please mod this insightful.

Re:slow network?

[ChrisLambrou]

If you live n the UK, why would you be looking for a US carrier?

T-Mobile is a German company, owned by Deutsche Telecom, I believe. They have customers all over Europe, as well as in the US.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-mobile is German. Started out as Deutsche telekom

Re:slow network?

[dangitman]

T-Mobile is a German company, owned by Deutsche Telecom, I believe. They have customers all over Europe, as well as in the US.

No shit, but T-Mobile Germany or USA is not going to provide you with service in the UK.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile is a German company, owned by Deutsche Telecom, I believe. They have customers all over Europe, as well as in the US.

Incorrect. T-Mobile UK is owned by Everythingeverywhere

They are a UK based company managed by clueless tossers who understand very little about telecoms who only care about how to hide the debts they have accrued over the last 5-10 years. Obviously this is about making sure they can reward themselves with large bonuses at the end of the year, for dodging the taxman once again.

Apologies for the slightly bitter rant.

Re:slow network?

[tehcyder]

That might be a valid point if anyone actually made video calls.

Re:slow network?

[Adam Hazzlebank]

T-mobile are amazingly cheap right now. For 20GBP (I guess not far off 20USD now) I have 6 months of data access on pay as you go (i.e. I pay 20GBP and nothing else for a SIM which gives me 6 months data access). That's amazingly cheap.

Re:slow network?

[jimicus]

That may be, but TFS specifically says "T-Mobile in the UK".

I don't know how it works in continental Europe, but between UK, Ireland and the USA it's not unusual to find that while they may adopt the same name, logo, strapline and colourscheme in different countries, the actual nuts and bolts of what they offer varies so much they may as well be totally different companies. And you often don't get preferential pricing if your phone roams from SuperMobileNetwork (UK) where you live to SuperMobileNetwork (Ireland) or SuperMobileNetwork (France).

Re:slow network?

[SuricouRaven]

This would almost be an acceptable justification, if not for one detail: They previously promised more then they are now able to deliver. This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish. If they don't have the ability to deliver larger amounts of data, they shouldn't have promised customers they would

Re:slow network?

[Xugumad]

Worth pointing out that O2 has already dropped down to 500MB usage cap, up to 1GB on the most expensive plans.

Although mobile Internet access here is sufficiently useless that sending an e-mail is typically faster by travelling the rest of the distance to my destination, and typing it into a computer, so suffice to say I'm nowhere near the cap...

Re:slow network?

[Neil Boekend]

...This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish.

Dunno about the US, but her in NL you cannot change a contract without giving the other party a chance to break the contract. No small print can invalidate that. And that is how it should be IMHO.

Re:slow network?

[Snospar]

T-Mobile are always the cheapest UK provider and they have always had the worst coverage to go with it. I'm sure most urban areas in England are now fairly well covered but here in Scotland it's a different story where many areas don't just have bad reception, they have zero signal (and no, I'm not talking about up in the mountains where it's accepted that coverage may be spotty at best).

To be honest, I'm surprised anyone was able to download large amounts of data over their network.

Re:slow network?

[Kam Solusar]

T-Mobile is a German company, owned by Deutsche Telecom, I believe. They have customers all over Europe, as well as in the US.

Incorrect. T-Mobile UK is owned by Everythingeverywhere

And according to this page, Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom each own 50% of Everythingeverywhere.

Re:slow network?

[91degrees]

This is T-Mobile UK. Like the rest of Europe we do have consumer protection laws. But actually taking advantage of them will require you to complain, and go through the tedious process, and even the informal complaints processes are rarely worth the effort.

Re:slow network?

[Builder]

than. Than. THAN!!!!

Re:slow network?

[SausageOfDoom]

Section 7.2.3.2 in their terms and conditions says that if they introduce a change which "is of material detriment" to you, you can terminate your contract without charge.

Now, what exactly does "material detriment" mean? I'm guessing T-Mobile's lawyers are sufficiently competent that it will not mean "I just signed up for a 24 month contract which I can cancel but keep my new phone" as I hope it does.

Even if it means exactly that, I bet they won't give me time to port my number.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are in the UK, you can now cancel your contract renewal and get out of it early with no penalty.

They changed the T&C's, you no longer agree, you can drop your contract!
Or continue... but on non-fixed term basis.

Re:slow network?

[xaxa]

Another factor may be that they have experienced that too many users are now using data communication - at least in some areas and that means that too many persons are sharing the same bandwidth which results in an overall bad experience for all users.

Until last month, Orange's data network was pretty much unusable at lunchtime in the area I work in London (not central London, a few miles out). It worked fine for the rest of the day. I'm not sure if they've added extra capacity, or if enough people have gone skiing over December/January to make a difference, but recently I've finally been able to settle^H^H^Hincite lunchtime debates with Wikipedia.

Re:slow network?

[bcmm]

If this does provide a way out of the contract, without losing one's N900, where will t-mob customers run? Who is currently providing a decent mobile internet service in the UK?

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile is a German company, owned by Deutsche Telecom, I believe. They have customers all over Europe, as well as in the US.

No shit, but T-Mobile Germany or USA is not going to provide you with service in the UK.

No, but T-Mobile UK will....

History: T-Mobile in the UK started life as "One2One", before being bought by T-Mobile. T-Mobile UK have recently merged with Orange (who also started out as a "UK" network, though with a Hong Kong parent company, and are currently owned by France Telecom), though at the moment the two are still in the early stages of integrating.

Orange have for a long time been less generous with data allowances than T-Mobile, so I suspect this may be related to that.

Re:slow network?

[RobertLTux]

In a number port DO NOT CANCEL YOUR CONTRACT. ensure that the rep for the new carrier knows you are doing a number port (and for what reason) your new carrier will basically do this

1 make a for request to port the number
  A as required the old carrier will release the number (after some song and dance)
2 do the needed network magic to ring your ported number
3 remind the old carrier that this account is now thiers so the old account needs to be closed and a final bill needs to be presented to the customer

Re:slow network?

[MoonBuggy]

Interesting, they claim "Unlimited internet for 6 months" for £20. The fine print then reads (as per the /. story) "This Booster comes with a fair use policy of 500MB a month.". Comparatively speaking that actually isn't a bad deal, but is quite simply not unlimited - I'm rather tired of this kind of very blatant false advertising; at least the pay monthly plans are upfront about £x for y MB/month.

I've made a complaint to the ASA, and I suggest any other UK residents reading this do the same.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty fucking stupid to charge separately for voice, texting, and data anyway. It's all just data! Whether I'm calling a friend or sending an email, it's bits encoded on a carrier. Data is a commodity now, like water and electricity and gas. I don't pay one rate for washing machine electricity and another rate for microwave electricity. When are these sacks of shit in the cell phone marketing departments going to realize that we're on to them, and that we know that it's all just data? I'f you work in the marketing department of a cell phone carrier and you are reading this, I hope you die of ball cancer and spend eternity sandwiched between Hitler and Saddam.

Re:slow network?

[Neil Boekend]

This is T-Mobile UK.

I am sorry. Dunno how I got that wrong.

Re:slow network?

[MoonBuggy]

I've made a complaint to the ASA [asa.org.uk], and I suggest any other UK residents reading this do the same.

My mistake - that should've been Ofcom (or perhaps Consumer Direct), not the ASA.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least customers can drop them for changing the terms of the contract. I would encourage everybody to do this.

Re:slow network?

[Pojut]

So...you want someone who's saying you shouldn't expect to get what you pay for to be modded insightful?

Re:slow network?

[AmiMoJo]

I am currently in a dispute with T-Mobile about them changing the deal after I had been using the phone for six months.

When I signed up their web site said that the 3G signal around my house and my place of work was strong. I also asked the woman on the phone repeatedly about their download limits and she swore blind there were not any. "Download as much as you like," she said. Reading the policy later that isn't the case, there is in fact a 3GB limit.

Things were okay for the first six months. Then I started to get no signal at home. Couldn't make calls or access the net. After faffing about with technical support for a while they said the only option was to send my phone off for tests, but if it turned out to be okay there would be a charge (£29 IIRC). Since I had tried the SIM in other phones with the same results I was unwilling to do that. Since T-Mobile were no longer providing service to me I cancelled my Direct Debit.

I noticed that now their web site says that the signal in my area is listed as "poor". Six months after they said it was good. Clearly something has changed because it used to work. They are unwilling to do anything to fix it or end the contract, yet seem to think it is fine not to provide me with any service. As far as they are concerned once the contract is signed that's it, they could turn all their masts off and there would be nothing you could do. Well, fuck that.

The law does not allow contracts where you can be forced to continue to pay for a service after the provider is no longer able to provide it. It isn't that I don't want the service any more, they simply cannot deliver it. See you in court assholes.

Re:slow network?

[dwandy]

No.

Please mod this informative.

Re:slow network?

[Laurence0]

I'm currently with Three. I originally signed up for the standard HTC Desire plan, which got me 500MB (plus enough minutes), but when I phoned them up to ask for more data, they gave me an extra 2GB without additional charge. That said, I don't think I've gone over the 500MB yet - I've not been using as much data as I expected to.

As for network quality, they seem to always be either very good (excellent signal, HSDPA) or very bad (no signal), and very rarely anywhere in between. So it depends whether you live in the middle of a city, I guess...

Re:slow network?

[mpcooke3]

It's "not made legal" by that small print.

Only a UK court could rule whether or not the change in contract is permissible under consumer protection laws.

I would guess that if challenged legally, it would be deemed that it is not legal to enforce this contract change on existing customers, or existing customers would have the right to leave the network.

There are many terms that one can put in a contract that are automatically overruled by consumer protection laws, so the enforcement of such a term might be illegal.

Re:slow network?

[IronSight]

This would almost be an acceptable justification, if not for one detail: They previously promised more then they are now able to deliver. This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish. If they don't have the ability to deliver larger amounts of data, they shouldn't have promised customers they would

I agree one hundred percent here. The phone companies show their phones watching streaming videos/sports/etc and such on commercials, then wonder why their customers use it for that?

Re:slow network?

[stiggle]

This is not a contract change - the "Fair Usage Policy" conditions are already in the contract, and they can modify the terms of the policy whenever they want without a change to the contract.

I had this problem with O2 when they changed their meaning of "unlimited" to 500Mb.
So I told them they can can an unlimited amount of money from my account to pay for my unlimited bandwidth - upto £5 pcm. Oddly enough, they complained that that wasn't an unlimited amount of money.

Re:slow network?

[rapiddescent]

I currently pay 25GBP /month for a few of these sticks on an old web'nwalk plan (used as backup connections for draytek vigor routers etc) - so you should simply buy 4x Pay As You Go and use a different stick every week up to its limit and it's still cheaper than some of the contracts out there.

PS: since I started reading this slashdot article; my normally 'blue' tmobile service (i.e. for the last two years at this desk) has gone down to green... hmmm.

Re:slow network?

[commodore64_love]

>>>They previously promised more then they are now able to deliver.

That's true. Anybody who understands EM spectrum also knows it can only carry so much information. With DSL or FiOS or Cable you can multiply spectrum by laying more cables, but not so with the wireless spectrum. It fills-up and then you're done. It sounds like T-Mobile UK has simply run out of space.
.

>>>This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish.

At which point you can refuse
to accept the new terms, and
terminate the contract.

 

Re:slow network?

[GameboyRMH]

This is not a contract change - the "Fair Usage Policy" conditions are already in the contract, and they can modify the terms of the policy whenever they want without a change to the contract.

Exactly. The contract with your mobile provider basically says that the contract is whatever they say it is at the time, and if you don't like it, you can go pound sand.* So there's almost nothing they could do that would actually count as a contract change.

*Termination fees may apply.

Re:slow network?

[commodore64_love]

Breach of contract (no service) and by their own admission (map shows poor). You no longer need to pay.

Re:slow network?

[GameboyRMH]

They don't care if we're onto them or not, we're still fucked. What are you gonna do, sell your rusty '96 Civic and start your own telco?

Re:slow network?

[timeOday]

But money talks, and people like low monthly bills. T-Mobile might drain off all the high-profit customers who don't want or need video, and not care to subsidize others' use of it.

Not even offering high-end plan (for a higher price) does relegate them to the low-rent district of mobile providers, though.

Re:slow network?

[petermgreen]

It fills-up and then you're done
Not really true with cellular. You can increase bandwidth per unit of area by packing the basestations more densely. Obviously this doesn't help if you have a huge number of people in exactly the same place but that is rarely the case.

Re:slow network?

[Thud457]

I have altered the agreement. Pray I don't change it further.

This kind of horseshit is blatantly anti-consumer. How can this be in any way legal? Oh, wait, legislative entrainment by big business, never mind.

Re:slow network?

[pacinpm]

This kind of horseshit is blatantly anti-consumer. How can this be in any way legal? Oh, wait, legislative entrainment by big business, never mind.

Not everywhere. In Poland it allows you to break the contract.

Re:slow network?

[cHALiTO]

It's not.

IANAL, and I don't know how it is in the UK or the US (though I guess it must be pretty much the same), but here we have

Constitution > laws > contracts

So, no matter what a contract says, or if you signed in blood or anything like that. If it's against a law, it's not valid. period.
Same goes for laws that go against something in the constitution. The problem usually is that to prove that something in a contract is against a law (or in a law vs the constitution) you need to get lawyers and court involved, which for many people is very expensive and/or time consuming, and a relatively MUCH bigger deal than it is to a big company.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been to New York or San Francisco have you?

Re:slow network?

[commodore64_love]

Like one base station per house? ;-)

Might as well just install fiber directly into the owner's wall.

Re:slow network?

[Joe U]

I have altered the agreement. Pray I don't change it further.

This kind of horseshit is blatantly anti-consumer. How can this be in any way legal? Oh, wait, legislative entrainment by big business, never mind.

In the US, most courts frown upon contracts like this. They'll most likely vacate it if you fought, however, you're going to spend over your $200 ETF in court costs.

Re:slow network?

[scamper_22]

At least they are not charging customers more for going over. Instead they just stop you from downloading more.
I wish all companies did this. Then you have to manually buy more GB or minutes.

In any case, anyone know if the wireless data protocols allow the cell phone tower to 'throttle' devices.
Wireless is a bit different from wired in that for wireless the mere act of trying to send/receive data from the device takes up precious bandwidth.
In wired networks, most of the problems occur inside the network operators equipment.

What I mean by this is the cell-phone tower sends a command to the device like: "limit your upload to 5 kb/s"
Is something like this part of the standard?
In this way, it would be puzzling why they even have bandwidth caps. Just throttle heavy users down so all they can do is browse webpages once they pass a certain point.

Re:slow network?

[xgr3gx]

To quote their US commercial "The new MyTouch 4G, video chat with out needing WiFi. On America largest 4G network" (please don't use the video chat feature, it's killing our network)
It's like the high speed internet providers who run all these ads touting how fast their service is, and how easy it is to "download music, and watch streaming video" then they go and cap you from downloading too much music and streaming video. I understand they have to manage their bandwidth capacity, but come on.

Re:slow network?

[Anne Thwacks]

I don't pay one rate for washing machine electricity and another rate for microwave electricity.

Well you better start praying that T-Mobile doesnt buy EDF!

Re:slow network?

[sumdumass]

Of material detriment

In this, we need to look at both words, material in contract law means something effecting the terms of the contract in a way that changes something that is expected to be performed by the contract. Detriment, like it implies, degrades your portion of services, obligations, or position of the contract.

Of material detriment would mean something like charging the same fees for less service. If it is noticeable that you are receiving less then you were capable under the contract, it's a material detriment.

In contrast, if they change the contract to clarify a statement without changing the intent or effectiveness of any obligations by using "customer" instead of "he" or a new company logo or something, then it wouldn't be material or detrimental.

Re:slow network?

[Duradin]

"I don't pay one rate for washing machine electricity and another rate for microwave electricity."

I pay different rates for my water heater electricity and everything-else electricity.

Re:slow network?

[hedwards]

Actually, that's more or less what it means. If you sign up for a plan, and they change the ToS, even if it's only a few weeks later, and you don't agree to the new set of conditions, they're required to let you decline that contract. And since they generally won't allow you to stick with the old contract, their only option is to let you out of the contract for free.

It's based upon the fact that in pretty much any jurisdiction you have to have the opportunity to decline a contract otherwise there is no consent involved, and it's a lot cheaper for them to let people out of their contract than to be party to a class action suit that they can't win for violating their contract.

Re:slow network?

[hedwards]

Citation, the Fair Usage Policy is a part of the contract, they can't attach a rider like that and change that without that being a change in the contract itself. What you agreed to when you signed up for a cell plan was the contract, which includes Fair Usage Policy, they can't change that and expect that the rest of the contract is still valid.

Re:slow network?

[anyGould]

This would almost be an acceptable justification, if not for one detail: They previously promised more then they are now able to deliver. This is bordering on false advertising, made legal only by a line of small print that allows them to change the contract any time they wish. If they don't have the ability to deliver larger amounts of data, they shouldn't have promised customers they would

Which is why they always use the weasel words "up to" (as in, "speeds up to 30 kiloquads per lunar cycle"). That lets them put the biggest number they figure they can get away with, without *actually* committing to providing those speeds.

And caps don't actually solve bandwidth problems - it just means you'll get better speed at the end of the month (when everyone else is out of data). If you want to manage your networks, you slow the downloads down.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the article is about T-Mobile UK not T-Mobile USA...

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that there's no data limit on T-Mobile US handsets, genius. There's a 5GB limit before throttling on netbooks, tablets, and websticks, but not the handsets. You can go crazy with video chat on a MyTouch 4G, maybe call someone who's done their homework.

       

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically:
#include "fair_use_policy.h"
And if fair_use_policy changes, the program as a whole doesn't. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Re:slow network?

[oldmac31310]

than Than THAN THAN - I know - it's Beethoven, isn't it?

Re:slow network?

[mikael]

My last university had a high-speed fibre-optic link for internet connectivity, something in the range of 100 Gigabits/second, but by the time that was spread out between student residences, 100+ research groups, staff and undergraduate labs, the actual bandwidth per PC was around 25K/second. Any linux user could log into their home PC via ssh, do a wget and have an mpeg or PDF file downloaded instantly, but still have the frustration of not getting it onto their lab PC. Students would resort to viewing Youtube videos on videos and even doing downloads using their mobile phones to get around this. Some of the larger PDF research papers are around 15 Mbyte in size, more than the size of the average video file. I can see why users are choosing to use their mobile phones rather than a landline.

Re:slow network?

[AK Marc]

Citation, the Fair Usage Policy is a part of the contract, they can't attach a rider like that and change that without that being a change in the contract itself.

They get to define "fair use." And they are defining "fair use" on a 2 GB plan to be under 500 MB. That is within their rights without being a modification of the contract. So they assert that doesn't require any changes in the contract.

they can't change that and expect that the rest of the contract is still valid.

Google severability. Even if they determine that the fair use definition they are using is wrong, that doesn't change the contract at all. And even if it did, they likely have language in there that says "if any clause is found invalid, the rest of the contract still stands."

Re:slow network?

[AK Marc]

RF holds an infinite amount (theoretically) of bandwidth through frequency reuse. Since your premise is wrong, we can assume your conclusion is wrong and that you have a habit of stating incorrect opinion as fact.

They may choose to not use this option, as it can be expensive, but then if you meant that, you'd have pointed out that the same restrictions are true with laying fiber. Oh, and the fact that there isn't unlimited bandwidth over land-lines in that they all have some fixed capacity and at some point adding more lines is useless (running 1,000 DSL lines into my house to provide me with high enough speeds is not "unlimited" would be massively expensive, and there exists no gear that would allow me to utilize those lines).

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

operative phrase: exactly the same place.

Re:slow network?

[vanyel]

The reality is that wireless spectrum is not infinite and trying to pretend it is won't make it so, not matter what their marketing department promised.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe.

Please mod this 'funny'.

Re:slow network?

[petermgreen]

I haven't but I'd expect even there an operator could densify their network if they had too. They just would have to start thinking 3D instead of 2D.

Re:slow network?

[rtb61]

Well that is the real problem, they are simply lying and fraudulently trying to sell something they do not have. Now they can most certainly create the infrastructure that would support the bandwidth but for psychopathic corporate executives it is not as profitable as lying. So modern reality corporations will lie to inflate profits as a matter of course, they will also pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to cripple government consumer protection organisations in order to protect those lies.

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're really saying is 'Yes Nuno Sa you're right. This does mean they have a slow and unreliable data network. This must be their way of trying to hide that fact.'

Now wasn't that just easier...

Re:slow network?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>T-Mobile in the UK

I don't think U.S. contract law is relevant here, fella.

But...

[moosehooey]

If they don't want you doing all these gee-whiz things with your phone, they should stop featuring them in their television commercials.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got to wonder -- do you watch their (i.e. T-Mobile UK) commercials? Or are you assuming that T-mobile UK is advertised the same as T-mobile USA?

T-mobile USA, FWIW, lets me have unlimited data (as in, >20 GB last month, and similarly for most months) at 1 Mb/s down, 0.5 Mb/s up -- I know the speed throttling is due to the fact I'm on Flexpay (prepaid with the same monthly minutes+data packages as post-paid, instead of standard pay-as-you-go plans, but no contract), and I guess the unlimited is because they advertised it as unlimited back when I signed up.

So when their policies are this different, I have to wonder whether their advertising is equally different.

Re:But...

[aliquis]

.. or just sell iPhones.

Most of the videos are streamed using Flash so they would be safe then ;)

Re:But...

[Gaygirlie]

If they don't want you doing all these gee-whiz things with your phone, they should stop featuring them in their television commercials.

But.. that would be like actually making sense, and we're talking about T-Mobile here, you know!

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

they probably have a disclaimer at the bottom which no one reads. "your experience may vary." "as seen when streamed over 802.11n." or, "streaming in this commercial refers to copying video data over the computer's memory bus and to the display controller."

Re:But...

[rapiddescent]

but they don't. here in the UK, they feature people singing in airports or dancing in train stations

Re:But...

[prefec2]

But then you would not buy the stuff. BTW it is no difference to other mobile ISPs like Vodaphone. The best thing would be: The EU commission kicks their butts and forces them to make it uncapped or stop advertising it that way. The commission tries to end roaming fees in Europe. As one single market and international telecom providers should result in international networks and therefore roaming is not necessary.

Re:But...

[gnapster]

Maybe T-Mobile doesn't, but BT does. ("Take your home broadband with you.") I doubt that many users think about the difference.

Bait & switch

[mwvdlee]

I'm assuming this switch does not apply to people they've already baited?

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

no. either it won't affect current customers, or the change of contract legally allows you to terminate the existing contract sans termination fee.

if it's the latter case then you've just potentially made $200-500 for free. go and sell that nexus-s on ebay.

Re:Bait & switch

[arivanov]

1. It applies to everyone. They invoked the small print in the contract which says that they can alter it any time they like.

2. Everyone is misreading the switch. T-mob is from now on treating Google, Facebook, etc differently from video downloads and over-the-top media for billing purposes. Next stop on this train is called "bill per app" exactly as was originally intended with 3G/LTE VAS and IMS.

3. As per UK contract legislation all T-mob customers who are affected now have 30 days to terminate the contract if they do not like it. Very few will do though - most phones on T-mob are subsidised so to terminate the contract one has to pay the balance on it (at the outrageously inflated "not-locked-in price).

Re:Bait & switch

[kailoran]

3. As per UK contract legislation all T-mob customers who are affected now have 30 days to terminate the contract if they do not like it. Very few will do though - most phones on T-mob are subsidised so to terminate the contract one has to pay the balance on it (at the outrageously inflated "not-locked-in price).

What's the point of this legislation then if it doesn't protect you from inflated termination fees? Can't you always just cancel the contract and pay up?

Re:Bait & switch

[SharpFang]

I'm pretty sure EU consumer protection laws disallow this kind of practices. Yes, they can change what they like. No, I don't have to agree, which leads to termination of contract with no additional fees.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anne Thwacks]

What is the point? The legislation is a sop. Its only value is so the government can say "we did something about it" without actually doing anything about it.

We have a telecomms regulator with the regulatory ability of a bribed, wet cabbage in a soggy brown paper bag.

Yes I am a bloody angry t-mobile customer with an Android phone, and I will go elsewhere as soon as I can afford it. This is not the only example ot t-mo UK being scum.

Re:Bait & switch

[Mister Xiado]

AT&T's policy for data connect devices (PC cards, USB dongles) is if you lost an unlimited data plan (and you will, because the system is putting EVERYBODY on 5GB automatically), you can cancel that line with no ETF, keep the device, even if you just upgraded.

Of course, not every CSR reads the contract text, so you may need to speak to the right person.

Not the case for phones, though.

Re:Bait & switch

[Lehk228]

tell them to shove their contract, their termination fee, and their phone up their ass.

Re:Bait & switch

[clarkkent09]

I don't know about UK but as far as I know in the US if they change the terms you can terminate the contract without any consequences. What's the point of a contract if one side can change it at will after you sign it.

Re:Bait & switch

[gnasher719]

3. As per UK contract legislation all T-mob customers who are affected now have 30 days to terminate the contract if they do not like it. Very few will do though - most phones on T-mob are subsidised so to terminate the contract one has to pay the balance on it (at the outrageously inflated "not-locked-in price).

My understanding is that if they change the contract in a way that is significantly detrimental to you, you have the right to cancel the contract without any cancellation charges. See the link below about details. Summary: You have the right to cancel without charges. They may disagree. Cancel your direct debit and pay the last payment by cheque. And NEVER give anyone the right to take money out of your credit card.

http://www.bitterwallet.com/want-to-cancel-your-t-mobile-contract-heres-how-to-do-it/18286

Re:Bait & switch

[tosh1979]

T-mobile is just catching up. Vodafone did this over 12 months ago changing the unlimited package to 1gb and then again to 500mb.

Re:Bait & switch

[Mr_Miagi]

I think it also doesn't apply to people on T-Mobile Pay-As-You-Go SIMs? I'm one such customer, and I purchased a £20 "Unlimited Internet" Allowance. Its fantastic, and I've got 6 months of all-you-can-eat internet. The amount of video streaming I can do on my mobile in this case is for the most part limited by the battery life of my smartphone.

Re:Bait & switch

[ommerson]

The termination clauses of the contract will probably be considered unfair and thus unenforceable in situations like this.

Service providers and utilities rely on customers not being sufficiently aware or motivated to exercise their rights.

Re:Bait & switch

[L4t3r4lu5]

Invoke the 30 day cancellation. They terminated your contract, and you do not accept the new one which takes its place. Your obligations under the old one are fulfilled, and you suffer no penalty for not accepting a new contract. If they try and charge you, reply with "Sue me." I guarantee their lawyers cost more than the phone in your pocket.

This is the internet. Nothing is legal advice, even when it may seem like it is.

Re:Bait & switch

[Sockatume]

It's not just media they're targetting. As the press release says:

"Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games."

Those apps you downloaded over 3G? No dice. You should've gone and found a wifi hotspot.

Re:Bait & switch

[tehcyder]

You are talking about the US again, the many furious people here are talking about T-mobile UK (yes, I am one of them).

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the phone companies are going to totally shoot themselves in the foot over this, and people will do two things:-

(1) revert to ordinary non-smartphones for all the phone stuff like phone calls and texting, and

(2) get a wi-fi only tablet with a proper sized screen for downloading videos, looking at facebook, reading ebooks, etc.

As most people can get buy on a pay as you go contract for phone usage, the phone companies will find their income slashed dramatically. It's only fairly heavy business phone users who will be prepared to pay GNP40+ per month on their contract if it's not a smartphone.

Hopefully a few of the fuckers will go out of business entirely.

Re:Bait & switch

[tehcyder]

I don't know about UK but as far as I know in the US if they change the terms you can terminate the contract without any consequences. What's the point of a contract if one side can change it at will after you sign it.

You are making the classic mistake of thinking that because there are two parties to a contract, they are by definition on equal bargaining terms.

Re:Bait & switch

[jimicus]

3. As per UK contract legislation all T-mob customers who are affected now have 30 days to terminate the contract if they do not like it. Very few will do though - most phones on T-mob are subsidised so to terminate the contract one has to pay the balance on it (at the outrageously inflated "not-locked-in price).

I've got out of contracts where my telco has done exactly that on one or two occasions - I've never been asked to repay the subsidy.

Normally, while they're quite open about the fact that the phone is subsidised by signing you up to an 18 or 24 month contract, the contract itself says nothing about it. It just says that if the telco changes what they charge (as they have here), the other has every right to cancel without penalty.

I have been given the argument that changing what's included free doesn't alter what they're charging - the per-minute rate for calls is the same and that's what they mean by if the charges change. Usually, asking where in the contract it says that - repeatedly if necessary - resolves that.

Re:Bait & switch

[jpapon]

If credit ratings in the UK are anything like those in the US, they won't sue you for not paying.

They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating and prevent you from ever buying a house, getting a subsidized phone, buying a car using a loan, getting a credit card etc etc etc.

Re:Bait & switch

[jimicus]

I don't know what the OP was talking about but I have never heard of termination fees in the UK.

I have, however, heard of being asked to pay the outstanding line rental for the remainder of the contract term in order to cancel. Obviously if you only entered the contract two months ago, this isn't such a palatable option - but being as T-Mobile are changing the terms, I suspect you could probably get out without having to pay the outstanding line rental.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Your #3 is wrong.
You can cancel your contract and escape without fees. They broke the contract, not you. You are not liable. This has been done many times before around small changes.

Re:Bait & switch

[am 2k]

1. It applies to everyone. They invoked the small print in the contract which says that they can alter it any time they like.

I'd like that clause to be known as the "Darth Vader clause" to get things into perspective.

Re:Bait & switch

[jimicus]

Here's what you do.

Read your contract. While they're usually in pretty small print, the important clauses that apply here are probably not all that long or complicated - and there is every chance that there really is no clause in the contract that allows them to do this, particularly if you're signed up through a retailer like Carphone Warehouse.

Once you've done that - and assuming I'm right and they have broken the contract - call cancellations and ask for a PAC code to move your number elsewhere. When they say you're still under contract, point out that T-Mobile have broken the terms of that contract.

They may try a number of tricks to argue that it still applies. I've faced a similar issue with a different provider and I've been told:

• "You aren't doing the thing we're charging you more for anyway, so it doesn't affect you and therefore doesn't apply". (Really? Where in the contract does it say they can do that? How do they know that your circumstances aren't about to change such that you will be doing it in the near future? Because you've got it in front of you, you're looking at the cancellation clauses and can't see anything of the sort. Ask these questions politely, calmly and firmly - don't back down until they've finally admitted it says no such thing in the contract.)
• "Every other telco has done something similar." (Again, where in the contract does it say that they're allowed to do what they like without notice if everyone else is doing it? Again, don't back down)
• "This affects everyone on T-Mobile, not just you." (Where in the contract does it say that it's perfectly OK if they do this to everyone rather than singling out one customer?)

No doubt they'll invent some other argument. Same question applies though: where in the contract does it say that their argument is valid? You just have to remain calm, polite and firm.

Re:Bait & switch

[digitig]

More likely they'll just debit your bank account anyway, because most contracts are on direct debits.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the OP was talking about but I have never heard of termination fees in the UK.

I have, however, heard of being asked to pay the outstanding line rental for the remainder of the contract term in order to cancel. Obviously if you only entered the contract two months ago, this isn't such a palatable option - but being as T-Mobile are changing the terms, I suspect you could probably get out without having to pay the outstanding line rental.

That's just symantics.

However if they do change your contract mid-way through the term you can (at least I know I can with Orange) not agree to the new terms and cancel without any financial loss.

However that does leave you without a carrier/phone etc.

That is an entirely different issue though.

Re:Bait & switch

[Tim C]

I'm pretty sure #3 is incorrect, as you can break your contract and pay off the remainder of it (at the normal monthly rate * months remaining) at any time.

Re:Bait & switch

[Sockatume]

Contract schmontract, you have a statutory right to break the agreement if they make a change which is to your detriment. That's true even if the contract explicitly gives them the right to make such a change. Statutory rights trump contracts, warranties, fine print, and everything else.

Re:Bait & switch

[dima]

You can cancel you direct debit at any time.

Re:Bait & switch

[91degrees]

In the UK, you'd be entitled to dispute the credit rating. Also a single issue isn't going to affect your credit score that much.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, you'd be entitled to dispute the credit rating.

Couldn't you also sue for libel?

Re:Bait & switch

[jimicus]

Contract schmontract, you have a statutory right to break the agreement if they make a change which is to your detriment. That's true even if the contract explicitly gives them the right to make such a change. Statutory rights trump contracts, warranties, fine print, and everything else.

Be that as it may, I guarantee you the CSRs haven't been told that. In fact, there's a very good chance that everyone up the chain of command (or at least everyone you're likely to be able to get on the phone) doesn't know that.

It's almost certainly going to be easier to get out of using the contract than it is to invoke your statutory rights.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have consumer protection laws worth a damn, T-Mobile are not allowed to report disputed claims, so challenge their right to payment in writing. If they choose not to continue fulfilling their obligations under the old contract, then they give up their rights from that contract too. Knowingly reporting false credit information to a credit rating agency is libel IMHO. (IANAL, this is not legal advice.)

Re:Bait & switch

[91degrees]

You know - I don't know if anyone has tried... Considering the screwy UK libel laws it's possible. You can certanly prove damages, and they can't prove truth. The factors against are that you are entitled to add essentially any additional information at the top of the credit report, and they don't give an opinion, so much as a "score". I think it's just a series of numbers.

Once upon a time, you were entitled to be removed from any database on demand. Those with really bad credit scores would simply ask to be deleted from the credit databases and have their credit score reset.

Re:Bait & switch

[nosferatu1001]

Even better - you take them to small claims court for the damages and any costs accrued if they sendyou to debt collection. Once you show that you have complied with the UK legislation (UCTA mainly) you will be able to show you have no valid debt with teh company. The credit ratings agencies are then required to update this fact.

IF they bother showing up then laugh, as simply appearing will have cost them more than your contract value. They should still lose, and most magistrates arent big fans of large companies obviously breaking the law....

Re:Bait & switch

[nosferatu1001]

3. Incorrect, usually. The phone was advertised as "Free", therefore it is. If there is no lease arrangement you cannot be held liable for the phone - it was a gift contingent on signing for a 12 / 18 / 24 month contract.

Having done this before (started charging for billing that was originally inclusive, took phone and left them) I find the threat of a SCC referral normally helps smooth them out. Simply turning up will cost them more than your phone + contract is worth, never mind spending any time preparing a defense - although I'd love to see one which tries to spin this change to terms as NOT detrimental, it would require truly epic doublethink to do....

Re:Bait & switch

[nosferatu1001]

Usual IANAL, but I have done this before with mobile phones.

As above. Unfair Contract Terms Act, mainly - any contract of adhesion which contains unconscionable terms, which clauses allowing unilateral changes to terms are, falls under this legislation and any clause permitting is considered null. (as they normally have a severability clause to ensure that one invalid clause doesnt invalidate the whole contract)

This means that enforcing new terms unilaterally requires that they have a) terminated the old contract (as due to UCTA they cannot vary any terms unilaterally) and b) are *offering* you a new one. You do NOT have to accept their offer, at which point your business arrangement with them has ended.

If the phone was a gift (advertised as Free, or witha nominal cost) then you keep the phone and owe nothing more. No termination fees, nothing.

Make sure you follow up any phone call with a registered letter giving notice of termination due to non-acceptance, with a copy to their legal department, and a requirement to provide the PAC within 14 days (ofcom requires 3, but 14 is a "reasonable" minima given the circumstances - and you need to show you have been reasonable at every step) to get your number out. Ensure that you reserve the right to pursue them through small claims court. Make sure you cite either your enumerated rights to do so, which most contracts have somewhere in the small print, or point out UCTA which means you have those rights REGARDLESS of what they say.

Re:Bait & switch

[91degrees]

That's just symantics.

Yes and no. The legal difference matters, and semantics ae important legally. If there's an agreement to remain with the company for a certain time and a separate agreement to pay a rental fee for the phone, then legally cancelling one does not automatically mean the other is cancelled.

If they give you a "free" phone, then all payments are for the contract, and if they terminate the contract they can't ask you to pay for the phone because you never agreed to. It was "free". They may be entitled to ask for the return of the phone depending on the nature of the agreement.

Re:Bait & switch

[RobertLTux]

NO NO NO

You get a lawyer rated at least 0.025MOFO to tell them where they can shove ...

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you have recourse to false claims (at least in the USA) such as this of no payment? I thought the credit agencies had to remove it if you reported it?

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

The factors against are that you are entitled to add essentially any additional information at the top of the credit report, and they don't give an opinion, so much as a "score". I think it's just a series of numbers.

You misunderstand. I don't mean that you would sue the rating company for the record they put out. (I suppose you could.)

I mean that you might sue the phone company for (falsely) telling the rating company that you don't pay your debts.

Re:Bait & switch

[TheRaven64]

You can get false reports removed from your credit rating, and you may also be able to claim damages (see: credit libel) from whoever provided the false report. Take them to the small claims court - they probably won't show, because it will cost them more to defend than to lose, get a default judgement and hand it off to a debt collection agency (who will just add £40 to the amount being collected to cover their costs) if they don't pay immediately.

Re:Bait & switch

[ambrosen]

You can certainly cancel the contract though. The comment above ( http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945144&cid=34834280 ) tells you how.

Re:Bait & switch

[jrumney]

And you will request that the bank returns your money, and they will without argument, because UK law protects you against unauthorized direct debits.

Re:Bait & switch

[Jaysyn]

Actually, in the US this would constitute a materially adverse change to your contract & by law they'd have to let anyone who requested it out of their contract with no fee.

Re:Bait & switch

[commodore64_love]

>>>They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating

Hardly. If you have an already-excellent rating, and just one dispute ("guy terminated contract"), you will STILL have a very-high rating overall.

Re:Bait & switch

[Cytotoxic]

. Cancel your direct debit and pay the last payment by cheque. And NEVER give anyone the right to take money out of your credit card.
 

In the US at least it is the opposite. Don't use a direct debit, use a credit card whenever possible. There are many more protections for credit cards.

Re:Bait & switch

[coofercat]

Read your contract? Are you kidding? Mine was 2 pages of A4, all printed in a font about 1-1.5 mm tall. Hell, I'd need to scan it and double size-it just to be able to make out any characters on it for more than 5 seconds.

Re:Bait & switch

[Pollardito]

luckily in the US they don't look at your credit rating when you buy a house, or so two years worth of news reports would have me believe

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

You can dispute items that affect your credit score.

Also living in a smaller community makes it possible to be much more familiar with the employees of local businesses, like loan officers at a bank. Face to face social networking will almost always grease the wheels.

Re:Bait & switch

[Tuoqui]

Sorry but I'd argue that unless they get your signature on a new contract that the old one is the one they should be operating under. Naturally any contract that includes a one sided 'i can change anything but you cant' would easily be considered unconscionable in court.

Re:Bait & switch

[garyebickford]

... and you believe the news. That's so cute! :D

(The first thing a bank will do when you go in to talk about a loan is check your credit score.)

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

That is *EXACTLY* what they did to me many years ago when they were still One2One.

I took out a contract for £75/month; they arbitrarily set a credit limit at £75/month; they ran their billing cycle a fortnight out of sync with the direct-debit-retrieval cycle, so every month they said "you're over limit!" and cut me off for a fortnight unless I paid more. So after many long arguments, I simply stopped paying them. Next thing you know, credit-rating shot to hell. Fortunately, the amount to settle that was not great so after a couple of years, when I needed to get a mortgage, I paid up and then avoided them like the plague.

Then last month, I had a change of heart and went back to them, now T-Mobile. New shiny Desire HD and everything. How shafted am I? :P

Re:Bait & switch

[operagost]

You have to be non-white or, ironically, very poor and have kids. This has been going on since 1999, when FM was pressured to give loans to ""low-income people". You heard it: give houses to poor people. Here come the down-mods...

Re:Bait & switch

[Rich0]

I find this pretty amazing - in the US contract law would almost certainly protect customers from these kinds of significant changes, and the US tends to be much less consumer-friendly than the EU.

In the US if a mobile carrier unilaterally decided to change terms of this level of significance I'd write them a letter telling them that I consider this a material change to our agreement, and that I'd like to maintain service under the previous contact, or consider the previous contract terminated on their part - their choice as to which.

If they chose to terminate the contract I would just hang onto the phone and not pay any termination fees. The phone was mine outright when we signed the contract (I paid for it, perhaps a token amount or just by my agreeing to the termination fees). The termination fees only apply if I terminate the agreement, and not if they terminate it.

A US company would be hard-pressed to secure a judgment in court for the termination fees, since they wrote the entire contract themselves (not even a meeting of the minds), and they unilaterally changed the contract that they wrote in the first place. If I don't consent to the new contract then it certainly cannot be binding, notwithstanding any fine print in the original (you can't enforce a contract term that allows you to make unilateral material changes to the agreement after the fact).

This is just basic contract law - a contract is when two parties come together and agree on something for something. That happened, and now one party wants to change the agreement and try to force acceptance by the threat of financial penalty clauses that were onerous to begin with.

Re:Bait & switch

[Rich0]

Agreed, although in the US I wouldn't put it past them to just put it on your credit rating anyway, and let you fight it out in court. It is really up to the company to behave well.

I think this is a big problem with credit bureaus in the US. Random companies can put whatever they want in your file, and it is on the consumer to try to contest this legally and get injunctive relief (which I doubt you can even get in a small claims court - now you're talking a MUCH more expensive court of common pleas, with no loser-pays system in the US).

They should just pass a law that nothing goes into a credit ratings file without a court judgment. If you don't pay your bill, they sue you, and then as part of the judgment they get to collect and report you, assuming the court finds in their favor. Credit bureaus are an end-run around presumed innocence/etc.

Re:Bait & switch

[Rob the Bold]

If credit ratings in the UK are anything like those in the US, they won't sue you for not paying.

They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating and prevent you from ever buying a house, getting a subsidized phone, buying a car using a loan, getting a credit card etc etc etc.

You know what we need? A reverse of that process. So if you're ever unhappy with a provider of some good or service, you can report the business as delinquent in its obligations. This would naturally cause their stock to tank, prevent them from issuing bonds or getting corporate credit. And it would only take one report. accurate or not to do this. Of course, they could go through the dispute process, but that could take months, maybe years.

Now I know what you're thinking: "We don't need government intervention like that." But aha! I'm not suggesting legislation. After all, credit bureaus are not gov't agencies -- they're private entities. Ours would be too. This would just be a nice, tidy, free market thingy. No need to get Uncle Sam or the crown or Parliaments, Legislatures, Diets, or any other government or part thereof involved.

Keep dreaming, Robbie, keep dreaming.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! I won't be able to buy stuff without first having the money to pay for it!

Re:Bait & switch

[Rob the Bold]

Read your contract? Are you kidding? Mine was 2 pages of A4, all printed in a font about 1-1.5 mm tall. Hell, I'd need to scan it and double size-it just to be able to make out any characters on it for more than 5 seconds.

And for a 2 year phone service contract! I can see no legitimate reason that a contract like that needs to be so long and dense. OK, I can see one reason, to statistically reduce the number of customers who read it (and even greater reduce the number of customers who read and understand it), thus allowing the company to put anything in there they want.

It's our lack of consumer power that allows this, of course. I we had any real choice, almost everyone would pick the company with the shortest, fairest and clearest contract. It would be the free market at work -- sort of, "the free market at work" usually means something somewhat different . . .

I once worked for a very small company that provided services to county jails. The market was competitive, the my company and our competitors were all very eager to sign on as many jails as possible. But the county sheriffs, who made the decisions on which company to use, were rather savvy. They realized that they had bargaining power due to the competition. The little companies -- and a few big ones too -- often had to make special contract concessions. My boss, a lawyer, had one particular tactic to get ahead of the competition. He squeezed the contract on to a single page. Legal size, to be sure, and a somewhat "cheated" text and margin. But still one page. Sheriffs saw this and compared it to they other guys' multiple page contracts and presumably said to themselves "Now there's a straight shooter!"

We also made sure to send the sheriffs Christmas presents every year, and had the salesman drop by periodically to do some glad-handing and wine-and-dining.

We may never -- as consumers -- get to that point. The county sheriffs of the US have an annual convention where they can shoot the breeze about such stuff with each other. And there's not really a big enough convention hall for every consumer in the country. (Or is there?) But what we can do is try finding no-contract service "plans" where possible. And outright owned phones. We're not getting a "free" phone with 2 year contract, we pay for it over the duration. So many people just don't like big up-front costs.

I've gone this route, and I think I'm happier than when I had a contract. I might not be if I couldn't find another non-contract service if my provider suddenly got worse. And I also might not be if the provider I had to switch to required a different radio technology -- forcing me to get a new phone. But so far, so good.

Re:Bait & switch

[coofercat]

I'm (now) with you. I've been getting to this point for a while, but today's done it for me. By coincidence, I just got a bill. I got billed more for "outside of contract" things than I did for the contract, which of course they don't break down into line items unless I pay them to do so.

As soon as this is up, I'm either just going to keep the phone, or else buy another outright. I'm then going on a 30 day contract, or maybe PAYG.

Re:Bait & switch

[Galestar]

+1 Insightful

Re:Bait & switch

[mlk]

This kind of exists in the form of Consumer magazines and TV shows such as Which and Watchdog. The problem is shareholders don't really care about consumers, they care about profits and you would have to do something that would really fuck off a lot of consumers before it affected profits. Irritating a small number of people will not (which is what T-Mobile have done here).

Re:Bait & switch

[grahamm]

Except nowadays the local staff, even those calling themselves 'bank managers', have no digression. It is a case of "the computer says NO!" (or yes) and that decision cannot be overridden..

Re:Bait & switch

[Anne Thwacks]

See if I care - my credit rating is already zero, after a dispute with Carphone Whorehouse and O2 for charging me, but not supplying a phone, and then lying about it. They sent a bunch of debt collectors after me, but I told them to sod off, as I did not owe money if they failed to provide a service. The debt collectors did as instructed, once I showed a lack of politeness.

Re:Bait & switch

[destine]

It can knock you down pretty far depending on how much you owe. $300 is probably not going kill your credit outright if it's very good, but if it's average, you could see some serious problems including rate hikes to your credit cards and trouble qualifying for loans or possibly even housing or jobs. In which case, they wrongfully damaged you and you can take them to court for a small pile of money and have it taken off your credit. It's your responsibility to show that you were wrongfully affected by their actions(so save any documents on such things)but they must show that they properly put this on your credit report and some places are harsher than others for that. Also you can dispute it in the meantime although that has mixed results generally if they have your signature on a sheet of paper. The credit bureau's don't take a lot of time to handle disputes and tend to take the word of the businesses over the individual.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

you can report the business as delinquent in its obligations. This would naturally cause their stock to tank, prevent them from issuing bonds or getting corporate credit

Except it would be the exact opposite. Many reports of customers that they were billed but didn't receive the service would certainly send the stock price sky high. Everybody wants a piece of the fraud money as long as it can be gotten legally.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Informative, actually.

Re:Bait & switch

[hedwards]

3. As per UK contract legislation all T-mob customers who are affected now have 30 days to terminate the contract if they do not like it. Very few will do though - most phones on T-mob are subsidised so to terminate the contract one has to pay the balance on it (at the outrageously inflated "not-locked-in price).

I find that hard to believe, even in the US, when they do that you get to keep the phone gratis. Changes to the contract have to allow for a person to opt out to be valid and they can't legally charge a termination fee for opting out. On top of that, the subsidized phones are free, the termination fee is to cover that cost for the carrier if you opt to break the contract. If they break the contract, they have to pay whatever was left on the phone.

Re:Bait & switch

[hedwards]

Actually, they can't do that in the US. If they do that, you can definitely file suit against them. For both breach of contract as well as defamation of character.

Under that situation you've fulfilled your contractual obligations, and they can't claim otherwise just because you opted not to agree to a new contract.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes anyone so sure that T-Mobile is or will be the only company to do this? I get that sinking feeling T-Mobile is just the first. So, who ya gonna trust?

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I guess everyone will be able to just switch to one of those OTHER carriers that aren't actively screwing people over.

Oh, wait...

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

If they cancel. I've heard of credit cards that were cancelled, which years later the previous card carrier gets a letter from the company saying their terms are being changed.

I had a Ameritrade account, which I kept like $100 in after a stock loss (I was learning stocks on that account). I went to close it, rep said there was no fee on standing accounts, so I kept the account open. 1 year later, they imposed a $15 a month or quarter fee and started pulling money out of the account for non-use. I never received a change in terms; it was simply changed and I saw it in the statement they sent.

Most of the time, these companies send it to a collections department or simply report it on your credit rating. I realize this is a UK issue, but in the US, that totally fubars your credit score, whether it's an extended late payment, and esp. if they "write off" the amount and report that.

I had a situation just over a week ago, I learned Citibank changed my credit card terms, imposed a yearly fee, applied the fee, never billed or notified me, and closed my account for nonpayment (of that fee and the interest they applied to it). They reported a 120+day late on my credit report. Note--I never bought anything. They applied the fee unilaterally, on a card that was advertised as never having a fee (MasterCard Citi Simplicity).

They DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE TO PROVE THEY CONTACTED YOU nor does that matter to the big 3 credit agencies. They can simply CLAIM they have.

What do lawyers have to do with it? None of it reaches them. It's reported. You have to kiss Citi's ass and hope they take it off. In fact, they have an entire department on this, which you have to arm twist to find out about--I went through 4 reps before I learned of it from them--hell I knew the department existed, and the first 2 reps claimed it didn't, and the 3rd claimed they were unreachable.

If that department doesn't like you, esp. if you keep the account closed, they have nothing to gain in helping you. So you contest the report. That's all you can really do.

The amount DOES NOT MATTER. Mine was $60 and I think like $1 in interest. The bulk of your score is what happens, not the amount where it happened on.

All in all, I actually don't worry about getting credit in the traditional sense. What I worry about is the denial of services that comes with not having credit--it's not the easiest thing purchasing things online if you don't have a credit card. Or getting new internet service or changing cell phone providers if your score is in the tank.

The good thing is most companies are transitioning to serving people like me. Just right now, strangely, the plans for those who have credit and don't pay up front is greater than those who would prepay for fair service. I don't think I've heard of a prepay 4G service that's widespread in the US.

Re:Bait & switch

[AK Marc]

Random companies can put whatever they want in your file, and it is on the consumer to try to contest this legally and get injunctive relief (which I doubt you can even get in a small claims court - now you're talking a MUCH more expensive court of common pleas, with no loser-pays system in the US).

The loser can be made to pay in the US, but it isn't automatic. Also, you have the option to "contest" the item. They are then required to "substantiate" their claim. However, that doesn't require the company that put it on do anything other than respond "yes" to the question of "is this a valid entry." They aren't required to produce a contract or any other indication there was any business relationship with the person who is negatively affected.

Credit bureaus are an end-run around presumed innocence/etc.

Because they are private companies, they aren't held to any such standards. The real solution is to have the records held by the government with a government rating. I know the Libertarians go apeshit over such a suggestion, but it couldn't be worse than what we have now. At least then, they might actually see their "customer" as the person who has the information stored about them, and not the companies that give credit.

Re:Bait & switch

[AK Marc]

Here come the down-mods...

They show up because you are lying. They check credit on poor people. And the rate of foreclosure wasn't the cause of the "subrpime" crisis. It was all the rich white bankers lying about the risk of those subprime loans when selling them to other rich white bankers who then lied about the risk (that was already fraudulently assigned) and bundled it into an investment that greatly multiplied the risk.

We were in a period of historically low foreclosures because of the bubble. When foreclosures returned to normal levels, the multiple lies and fraud by all the rich white men caused the system to collapse.

If the rich white men hadn't lied and defrauded each other to make a buck, it wouldn't matter if the default rate made it to 10 times normal, they wouldn't have needed a bailout.

But no, it's all the black people getting loans, and all the government workers that "forced" FM to make those loans that caused the fraudulently packaged securities to explode when foreclosures were still below historical norms. I can see an argument where FM loans could have helped support the bubble, but the burst of the bubble was not the cause of the "subprime" crisis. That was all the rich white bankers, who, since they have all the power, managed to name the crisis after poor black people to confuse simple minded people like you.

Re:Bait & switch

[russotto]

luckily in the US they don't look at your credit rating when you buy a house, or so two years worth of news reports would have me believe

I believe it was the same in the UK, but the problem is that in both places that fun situation ended in 2008. Nowadays to buy a house you need spotless credit, six months of bank records, sufficient liquid assets to cover the down payment and 6 months of property tax, two months of paystubs (even if you haven't got that many, because YOU JUST MOVED TO START THE NEW JOB), and a note from your mother (UK only).

(No, I'm not exaggerating. Except about the note from your mother. Maybe.).

Re:Bait & switch

[russotto]

Because they are private companies, they aren't held to any such standards. The real solution is to have the records held by the government with a government rating. I know the Libertarians go apeshit over such a suggestion, but it couldn't be worse than what we have now.

It doesn't even take much of an imagination to figure out how it could be worse. You've heard of the no-fly list, right? Unelected bureaucrats put you on a secret list for any reason or no reason, and you can't get on a commercial flight. And they aren't too careful either. Now imagine the same thing applied to credit reports. Credit reports used by banks, landlords, employers, credit card companies, etc. Now imagine that the the story gets out that various anti-government protestors, or Wikileaks followers, or people who post nasty YouTube videos about the TSA (or Credit Security Agency), mysteriously end up on this list.... maybe you'll think twice before complaining, eh, citizen?

Re:Bait & switch

[AK Marc]

How do you know it's not done now. Despite the places that sell access to your "triple score" you don't actually get to see all the data on you. Even when required by law, they still don't show you today. So your complaint is that the system will be as bad as now. I don't think that's possible because the credit companies are currently paid almost solely by the companies that issue credit, and having them funded solely by the citizens, even with the abuses done in the name of corporations or terrorism, couldn't be worse than what we have now.

Re:Bait & switch

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a process - its called a county court judgment, though it wont make stock tank. Its actually relatively easy to get a default CCJ against big companies, usually they dont turn up to court and you win by default.

Re:Bait & switch

[L4t3r4lu5]

AnonCoward: "I hate One2One! They screwed me over!"
T-Mobile: *Pulls out keys and starts to jingle them over Anon's head*
AnonCoward: "... OOOH EEEEH AHHHH WOOOO SHINY SHINY!" *Lies on back pawing at keys*

That's you. Well done for sticking to your principles; You sure showed them!

is it costlier?

[lazydog]

I'm just wondering - is it costlier to provide internet on the mobile phone compared to internet at home?

Re:is it costlier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is. The fixed line infrastructure already exists in nearly all cases.

Re:is it costlier?

[Kitkoan]

I'm pretty sure it is, but more due to licensing fee's. While I'm not sure about how landline fee's work, 3g networks in the UK were bought a while ago (in 2000) 2 and now each spectrum is owned by certain companies. Now I don't think they are as limited in their power over their networks (like in broadbands case) which could let them charge more, a lot more, for their usage. Combine this with the fact that they need to build, maintain and power cell towers (which I'm guessing is more expensive then landlines) and you have a recipe for expensive mobile internet. That and the technology for decent 3g internet speeds is newer so they are going to want to charge to recoup their fee's for the upgrades needed to get were they are now.

I'm bracing myself

[QuantumBeep]

I'm bracing myself to see where the line is. Maybe this is it.

Mobile providers will keep abusing their customer's tolerance until the customers start leaving. I'm pretty sure 500MB falls below the "basically usable for most people" line.

Of course, I could be wrong. People could decide to just put up with it. Then the data limit will be reduced again...

Re:I'm bracing myself

[Dexter Herbivore]

I'm bracing myself to see where the line is. Maybe this is it.

Line? There is no line. People will continue to use T-mobile's service or move to some other provider. Chances are, the other provider will take the lead from T-Mobile and institute a similar policy. However it happens, the consumer goes through an endless cycle of getting screwed until a new business model comes along to break the cycle and then it all starts over again.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[mwvdlee]

At about 320KB per webpage (http://code.google.com/intl/nl-NL/speed/articles/web-metrics.html), you could watch about 50 pages per day on average. If caching is used, this would be more.
Ofcourse, if some of those webpages have movie files, you're screwed.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[Anonymous Coward]

And if those movie files have movie files, you are very screwed.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[slim]

I'm on a 500MB tariff. I use my phone's data connection quite a lot -- a Twitter client, email and browsing, and uploading 5MP pictures from the camera. I seldom get anywhere near the limit. I don't stream videos or -- extensively -- audio over the mobile internet, because I know that would use up my allowance quickly.

The difference is, I *chose* a 500MB tariff because it was cheaper. If I'd bought an "unlimited" tariff, I'd be wanting to stream audio and video all the time.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[skyride]

I have to say, It really depends on your intent. I live in the UK and get a pretty good 3G signal everywhere I go. I'm on a 500MB plan data wise, but I don't really find it to be an issue. In practice, I agree with that "download at home" message, but I don't agree with Verizon's motives or intentions for suggesting that.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[PatrickThomson]

Actually, that brings it in line with the data allowance from most other plans. I do watch the occasional clip on the phone but I've never even gone over half of that. The solution is probably to spend some portion of life not using the internet as fully as possible.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[tehcyder]

If I'd bought an "unlimited" tariff, I'd be wanting to stream audio and video all the time.

That's precisely the problem though. T-mobile say you have to have "unlimited" internet access package when you buy a smartphone, but they are relying on the fact that most customers only use it for basic web browsing.

Obviously, more people than they expected have been using it for downloading videos/music, constant on twittering or whatever (i.e. all the stuff 3G phones are designed for) and T-mobile aren't making any money out of it.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[marc_gerges]

Mmmh.

I have 500MB a month (for which I pay 10EUR), and am usually getting along fine with it. That includes surfing, emailing, the odd app and video during train rides. I could upgrade to 2GB for 20EUR, but I don't see a need for that right now.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[Jaysyn]

But the article is about T-Mobile, not Verizon.

Re:I'm bracing myself

[stoanhart]

"I'm pretty sure 500MB falls below the "basically usable for most people" line."

Actually it doesn't. Most people use less than 250 MB per month. Even I, as a "power user" (aka geek) use less than 500 MB per month. Of course, I don't regularly stream video or radio; people that do will obviously exceed the cap. Most people use their phone for e-mail, IM, and navigation.

Far too low.

[Renraku]

Wow. I use 300MB a month just casually browsing between classes at school when it would take too long to pull out my netbook. That's JUST reading news/weather/fark, all of which use mobile sites and not much in the way of graphics. I couldn't imagine what would happen if someone watched a youtube video or was in a heated session of sending/receiving dirty pictures from their significant other.

Re:Far too low.

[mjwx]

Even Aussie telco's are offering 1 GB plans everywhere. I'm on a rolling month by month contract and I pay A$20 to get 1 GB of downloads put onto my phone. Because usage is metered the evil government says the telco can't dictate how I use the allotment I've paid for. I can tether, download porn, torrents or just use it to buy a nose picker, VHA dont get a word in sideways if they want my 20 bucks.

If I went on a 12 month contract, I'd get 2 GB for the same price (or the same amount for A$10). Metered usage has it's downsides but it gives the perfect opportunity to remove telco controls from what you can do with your internet.

Download at home my arse.

Fair use

[countertrolling]

Whatever the customer thinks is fair.. I guess

impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this is proof that the telcos know that they can't be replaced, that it's impossible for a community telco to spring up.

Reality setting in

[jmorris42]

I seriously doubt any mobile operator will be able to satisfy smart phone usage long term. They build out a new generation of towers with a higher data rate, then people buy new phones and saturate it.

As soon as smartphones stopped being $500 up front + $100/mo yuppie and power user toys and aspired to become mainstream products the math of wireless bandwidth simply must be taken into account.

Now if someone would tell the marketing depts at the mobile operators so they stop running endless ads showing users watching movies and music videos on their phones.... and video chatting. And downloading huge attachments.

Re:Reality setting in

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt any mobile operator will be able to satisfy smart phone usage long term. They build out a new generation of towers with a higher data rate, then people buy new phones and saturate it.

As soon as smartphones stopped being $500 up front + $100/mo yuppie and power user toys and aspired to become mainstream products the math of wireless bandwidth simply must be taken into account.

Now if someone would tell the marketing depts at the mobile operators so they stop running endless ads showing users watching movies and music videos on their phones.... and video chatting. And downloading huge attachments.

...all of this could be a non-issue if north american cell phone companies actually invested in their network instead of squeezing every red cent out ancient technology.

People buy smartphones to consume media - there should be no surprise ther. I Its a hugely profitable endeavor for the companies that set themselves up for it - and obviously this is not one of those companies.

Re:Reality setting in

[auLucifer]

Funny how you say that, seeing how even the summary said T-mobile UK. We all love a bit of US bashing but come on now.

Re:Reality setting in

[Anonymous Coward]

New technology will always emerge to use the bandwidth available. I can not see how mobile is any different from home broadband in this matter. Youtube, netflix, hulu etc would not exist if we were still using 14kbps modems to access the internets. The solution is not to tell customers you can't have that but to build a better network.

Re:Reality setting in

[SJ]

Actually, there is a real-world amount of data that a smart phone can consume. Once the networks are able to supply this, data usage on smart phones will scale linearly.

Not counting things like tethering, I would put that figure (completely out of my rear-end of course) at the 5 or 6Mbit mark. That is ample for streaming a movie at the viewable resolution of an iPhone 4 or even an iPad.

I don't think there is anything, mass-market, more bandwidth intensive than video.

Re:Reality setting in

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality the bottleneck is not the wireless link, it's the bandwidth from the tower to the rest of the provider network, those links were designed to support much less traffic. To increase the downstream wireless bandwidth it's enough to just add more directional antennas. If you want to increase the capacity of the backhaul links you have to dig the whole city.

Re:Reality setting in

[Mia'cova]

Well, here's a difference. Mobile is different because a faster consumer alternative exists. If phones did more to preload content over wifi at home, we wouldn't be so bored on the go. For example, instead of the youtube app streaming everything, cache your subscriptions, reddit frontpage videos, etc while on wifi. Dedicating say 1GB of phone storage and 5GB/month of broadband to caching would probably cut the average user's mobile consumption by half. Perhaps more in some cases. In addition, it would really improve the user's experience. Instead of staring at loading bars on the bus, you'll find your phone cached a bunch of stuff overnight or at work/school. Honestly, it'd be a nice feature. As far as I'm concerned, the less I have to transfer over mobile, the better. Because when I do have to transfer media, it's basically a last resort. I honestly hate high-bandwidth applications on my phone. The experience always sucks.

And I think that's a fair thing to do. I just wish the mobile operators would focus on improving efficiency rather than limiting plans.

Re:Reality setting in

[jmorris42]

Yea it is going to always be the wireless link. Unless we end up with microcells the size of WiFi access points. There are hard limits on bits per Hz of radio spectrum and there just ain't no way around it.

Hard wired we can always just go with fiber to the premises and there ain't muc of an upper limit anymmore. With radio that just isn't possib;e. And no matter how fast the cell network if you stick enough people using ever more bandwidth you hit the wall. It hits the dense urban areas first but sooner or later even flyover country saturates.... in the few areas where the cell companies even bother installing the current tech.

Re:Reality setting in

[gentry]

Charge per use. Stop the 'unlimited' bundles and charge per MB downloaded. Low usage users aren't subsiding high usage users and the price paid reflects the benefit from the service. 'Free' and 'unlimited' are anything but on these contracts.

Re:Reality setting in

[xtracto]

They should allow it, but charge per MB or per KB/s. That way the market of "mobile data tansfer" would sort by itself. People who want to download more will pay more. Companies that *can* afford the same bandwidth or speed for smaller price will provie a better price.

Re:Reality setting in

[EastCoastSurfer]

The problem is you're wrong. AT&T spent billions on network upgrades last year.

Re:Reality setting in

[garyebickford]

For all but the highest usage customers (and maybe even them as well), the vendor's marginal cost per MB is trivial compared to the relatively fixed cost of the cellphone infrastructure. Nearly all of the bill you are paying is based on the fixed costs. The cost of tracking and billing the MB used is almost certainly more than the marginal cost of delivering those MB.

As a case in point, someone above mentioned that ATT in the US spent 'billions' upgrading their network last year or two. Those billions are spent whether anyone uses the phone or not. So their goal is to collect the largest number of customers with a large enough fixed monthly bill to cover their costs (including debt service on the bonds sold to build out the infrastructure) and make a profit.

So, deciding how much to charge different users is entirely a marketing question ("how do we structure prices to get the maximum income with minimal complaints"), up to the point where the pricing (for all different tiers) is so low that the demand during peak times exceeds the available capacity. Max bandwidth rules are a strategy to make 'excessive' demands by some individuals essentially infinitely costly, to assure that everyone has 'reasonable' access.

Re:Reality setting in

[demonbug]

The problem is you're wrong. AT&T spent billions on network upgrades last year.

Yeah, they painted over literally millions of old SBC logos, ensuring a maximized branding experience for their end users.
These things don't happen by themselves.

Re:Reality setting in

[gentry]

That cost can be divided over a time period to produce a 'true' cost and add that to the cost per MB. So to provide the infrastructure costs X. The company decides it wishes to recoup that cost over time period and predicts Z MB of data over than time period. So cost per MB becomes X/Z. Add the maintenance, profit margin, support overheads etc. in the same for the cost.

Re:Reality setting in

[gentry]

Ok I'm replying to myself I should have read the parent. Regarding the maximum bandwidth rules, I see what you're saying. Strategies for that are either more expensive MB units or increasing costs per MB depending on usage. Back to the original story and what is being shown is that some (all?) providers cannot provide the service at a price point palatable to the general user. A different approach may prove more sustainable.

So what they are saying is...

[worx101]

Don't buy a smart phone? I think they are SERIOUSLY hurting themselves here in the long run.

Re:So what they are saying is...

[Kelbear]

This sort of thing is exactly why I don't have a smart phone. Like many other /.ers I'm fascinated with new technology and gadgets, but my cellphone is ancient. The most advanced feature it supports is 16-bit color. I don't want texts at a ridiculous monthly rate, or even the absurd .10cents per text rate(I've got texts completely disabled). I don't want to take pictures on a phone if I can't get it off the phone or send it to anyone without an expensive data plan. I don't want an expensive data plan when the caps are so low that I can't enjoy using it because of constantly worrying about getting nailed with a huge overuse bill.

However, hearing that some companies are offering to cut off your data instead of just letting you rack up a ridiculous bill gives me at least some comfort. I might be willing to try it out under such circumstances.

I suppose I'm just trucking along on the belief that there's no way this implementation can stay this primitive forever, and that a worthy package is right around the corner...somewhere. But maybe I'm just wrong, maybe it really is just that expensive to support a mobile data network.

Hey, why not...

[xMrFishx]

Just limit voice usage to 60 seconds a month. I mean, it's not as if you have anything good to say anyway. Why upgrade the network when you can just spread the current one thinner. It's fine.

Re:Hey, why not...

[sorak]

Just limit voice usage to 60 seconds a month. I mean, it's not as if you have anything good to say anyway. Why upgrade the network when you can just spread the current one thinner. It's fine.

I say voice usage needs to be set at 60 minutes per month. When you call to cancel, they're sure to put you on hold for at least thirty.

Re:Hey, why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you want to talk more on the phone, do it from home!

Re:Hey, why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, voice counts as a multimedia application, so you better wait until you get home to use your landline. Besides, we don't want distracted people, perhaps killing kids while driving. Please think of the children!

Way to go, T-Mobile!

[DurendalMac]

Wow. They're already slipping bad enough as it is in market share and now they pull this. The smartphone market continues to grow and they just gave people a GREAT reason not to get a smartphone on their network!

Fucking idiots. Yes, people can use a lot of data on their smartphones. It can tax a network. Screwing customers isn't the best way to fix the problem.

This Makes Me Smile

[Anonymous Coward]

They just made the case for HTML5. I like to see them try to block it then.

Is there an app..

[zmollusc]

Is there a modem app? I could set up a modem at home and dial into it and route data from my home broadband. Although my ISP doesn't want to supply the service they sold me either.
Maybe I should introduce a 'payment cap' ?

Re:Is there an app..

[jimicus]

Maybe I should introduce a 'payment cap' ?

Ha! I like that. I may have to try it myself - write to my phone provider and tell them I'm introducing such a thing. If they turn around and say "You can't do that" I'll say "I'm doing it for all companies I deal with, you're not being singled out and you have no right to complain".

Re:Is there an app..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that'd be much cheaper with the costs of mobile calls. On the other hand you could install an aggressive compression cache server on your home pc and connect through it :D that'd do the job :D but the web would look like crap.

Re:Is there an app..

[rrossman2]

And you'd really want to browse the web on your phone/laptop at a blistering 33.6kbps connection? Might as well just turn off the 3G part of your phone and use the EDGE only (most phones you can do this too).

Re:Is there an app..

[zmollusc]

Hey, sonny, I used to browse the internets at 9,600kbps (uphill both ways).
If i can get 7.5 Gb a month over my phone @ 33.6kbps or 500Mb a month @ 2Mbps and the faster connection costs me an extra £10 a month, I will be browsing with Lynx. At least I won't have contention issues. :-)

I don't get it

[Trogre]

This really seems like a we-don't-want-any-customers kind of move.

Then again perhaps they don't have any decent competition. I live in New Zealand where entry-level ADSL plans are still capped at 500MB.

*facepalm*

Re:I don't get it

[ctid]

There's plenty of competition in the UK. They must think that their competitors are going to pull a similar stunt. I wonder what will happen when people on T-Mobile contracts start complaining to the regulator.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

This really seems like a we-don't-want-any-customers kind of move.

Then again perhaps they don't have any decent competition. I live in New Zealand where entry-level ADSL plans are still capped at 500MB.

*facepalm*

Entry level ADSL plans in New Zealand are at least 5GB... do you mean wireless plans?

Re:I don't get it

[jimicus]

There's plenty of competition in the UK. They must think that their competitors are going to pull a similar stunt. I wonder what will happen when people on T-Mobile contracts start complaining to the regulator.

They probably will. While the mobile companies do their damnedest to make it difficult to compare, if you put together a spreadsheet of price plans detailing "Monthly cost", "Maximum value of subsidy offered for that cost", "Number of Free minutes", "Number of Free text messages" and "Amount of data", you'd be surprised how similar they generally come out at.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out that an entry level adsl data plan is 3GB fixed with line speed limiting after cap. who in nz sells a 500MB adsl plan?? 3G data on the other hand..

Re:I don't get it

[91degrees]

Don't have details, but I'm pretty certain last time I looked, most of the other mobile pohone companies had the same cap.

Dear T-Mobile,

[YA_Python_dev]

I was a customer until this morning, spending approximately £50/month with you for three years.

Today I'll switch to Vodafone UK, they have a suckier network but at least they offer reasonable caps. Look for a number portability request today from a customer with a number ending in 573 and you'll know it's me.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear disgruntled customer, look for a number of dropped calls and a botched number portability transfer in the near future and you'll know it's us.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Customer,

Your decision to cancel today comes as a clear indication that you make up one of the 1% of our customers who consume 90% of our network resources.

As we don't make any money off you, we won't be sorry to see you go.

Sincerely,

T-Mobile.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Inda]

Try Tesco first (they run on the O2 network)

£20 buys you 750 minutes (phone them to get this), unlimited texts and unlimited internet.

But, don't most people use a WiFi connection for this sort of downloading?

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear T-Mobile,

This sounds like exactly the kind of regulation that we want to promote for UK infrastructure.

Keep up the good work,
Ofcom

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't make money off of smartphone owners like every other operator does? Whoa, no wonder you're broke.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I do (use WiFi), but it's WiFi from my PocketMobile (a 3G Access point). The provider offers 7.2Mbps and up (to 42Mbps, depending on your hardware) for about $45 per month. when they said "unlimited", I was suspicious, but when I asked them "ok, but there really is a limit, like 5GB per month or something, right?" - they looked offended. "No, of course not!" they told me. Since I canceled my home connection, and use only the 3G link for my laptop, my home desktop, and my iPhone - including itunes downloads and BitTorrent, I am pretty sure they really don't have a limit, or they would have come to get me by now. If eMobile can do it profitably, i am sure carriers in the UK and US could do it too.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[tehcyder]

But, don't most people use a WiFi connection for this sort of downloading?

The thing is, if you have to be at home to use your wi-fi connection to download stuff, what's the point of having a smartphone? It's a lot cheaper just to have an ordinary phone and a cheap netbook/laptop.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[csteinle]

I'd check out both the "1 Plan" on Three and giffgaff as well.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

You might like to read their T&Cs as to what unlimited means. It's 500Mb.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

Much as I dislike three, they have stopped calling anything where an FUP applies "unlimited" and then recently introduced: http://blog.three.co.uk/2010/12/15/new-all-you-can-eat-data-on-the-one-plan/

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Anonymous Coward]

Vodafone's cap is also 500Mb/Month. However, 3 are moving towards unlimited, although whether they're charging for it is unclear (http://www.reghardware.com/2010/12/15/three_the_one/).

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[mSparks43]

Don't do it!!!!!!!!!
Vodaphone makes T-Mobile look like saints.
I know three people who have received £700+ bills from vodaphone UK for "cancelling their contracts" - that they never asked to be cancelled......
O2, 3, virgin, orange etc fine.
But never T-Mobile or Vodaphone.
How do people not know this yet?

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[Timmmm]

At £50/month (seriously? that's insane), I'm pretty sure they were making money however much bandwidth he was using! It's people like me who spend £8/month they they probably don't make money from.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[noidentity]

P.S. Enjoy your higher cap until Vodafone implements similar.

Re:Dear T-Mobile,

[DiscoDave_25]

Vodafone have the same cap I believe (500Mb). It got introduced in the back end of last year and I missed it completely until the 30 days had passed so am stuck, for now...

Poor Windows 7 Users

[ace123]

What will they say to those users who use up 500MB in a week without even touching it?

I can just imagine the customer service call when someone starts using their new Win7 phone for the first time and is already blocked from streaming.

Fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a netbook during my stay at hospital and the only internet access I could have was 3G.

New overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't surprising. This is the fair usage policy of their overlords Orange. Orange was hardly going to increase their limit but it would have been nice...

Re:New overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Orange are not their new overlords, the bottom line is that T-Mobile were in the shit, had outsourced all of their useful telecoms functions to T-Systems to the point they were no more that a marketing and PR company.

If you look carefully, both Tom Alexander (of Orange), and Dick Moat (of T-Mobile) both made sure they lined each others pockets.

They formed a new company called everythingeverywhere, which allowed both companies to hide their incompetent management for a while longer.

T-Mobile still to this day have a handful of decent engineers, but mostly its lots of ex BT (used to be engineers, but generally moved out of harms way) types.

Perhaps if T-Mobile had been able to run a company competently, they would have needed to be rescued (and that was the reality of the situation).

T-Mobile is the worst thing that ever happened to Orange!!!

Nice to see the screwing happens in the UK too.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

After years and years of having my UK brethren taunt me for lousy wireless, I get to see this.

HA HA.

I wonder if O2 or any other GSM provider in the UK is going to follow suit.

Re:Nice to see the screwing happens in the UK too.

[teh kurisu]

Follow suit? O2's standard packages have come with 500 MB of data for some time now.

Re:Nice to see the screwing happens in the UK too.

[csteinle]

Or 1GB on the ones above AFAIR £35/month. However, they didn't change existing customer's terms.

Re:Nice to see the screwing happens in the UK too.

[slim]

Follow suit? O2's standard packages have come with 500 MB of data for some time now.

But did they call that "unlimited"? That's the difference.

Re:Nice to see the screwing happens in the UK too.

[slim]

3 do genuinely unlimited data "from" £25/mo

False Advertising?

[nukem996]

Every smart phone commercial you see boasts about how when you buy smart phone X on network Y you can browse, e-mail, watch videos, stream music, download huge documents and do anything you can with a laptop on your smart phone. Hell the phones come with apps preinstalled to do many of these high bandwidth thing. However when you look at the agreements most will specifically say only basic web browsing and e-mail is allowed. Isn't that considered false advertising? How long until a law suit comes up?

Re:False Advertising?

[L4t3r4lu5]

As soon as lawyers cost £25 pcm.

Re:False Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

About 10 years ago, when the mainstream started to adopt 802.11b WiFi on their laptops, there were some TV ads in Germany where a man on an arctic expedition could receive pictures of his family on his laptop, over WiFi. Because it's now all "wireless", you know! It was ridiculous. Later, i think it was when EDGE became popular, similar ads turned up again.

Re:False Advertising?

[slim]

Every smart phone commercial you see boasts about how when you buy smart phone X on network Y you can browse, e-mail, watch videos, stream music, download huge documents and do anything you can with a laptop on your smart phone. Hell the phones come with apps preinstalled to do many of these high bandwidth thing. However when you look at the agreements most will specifically say only basic web browsing and e-mail is allowed. Isn't that considered false advertising? How long until a law suit comes up?

Well, lawyers in a false advertising case are wont to get pretty pedantic; so I'll play devil's advocate. You *can* do all of that high bandwidth stuff, on your smartphone, without using up your mobile internet quota. You simply have to use WiFi when it's available, and restrict the high bandwidth stuff -- e.g. video -- to those times. This is essentially what the T-Mobile statement says.

Not that I'm defending T-Mobile. In my opinion if it says "unlimited" it should be unlimited.

I bet their T&Cs allow them to pull this kind of thing though -- the solution is to vote with your wallet next time your contract is up.

Re:False Advertising?

[AusIV]

I don't know about T-Mobile UK, but T-Mobile USA actively advertises that, unlike on certain other networks, you don't have to be on wifi to do high bandwidth things.

Re:False Advertising?

[garyebickford]

I'm curious - I've seen the ads, I'm looking at a new phone+laptop wireless broadband deal. Do they have a cap?

I was on T-Mobile US several years ago, liked their support and attitude. But I went to work at a place where their coverage was poor, and my management required me to move to a different carrier (I was on call a couple nights a week). That requirement no longer stands, so I could move back.

Re:False Advertising?

[Enigma23]

Maybe all of these new phones have an AOL CD pre-installed with the entire Internet on them?

Analogue TV spectrum

[giles hogben]

Apparently in the EU at least, the analogue TV spectrum about to be freed up will solve the problem for the next few years.

Re:Analogue TV spectrum

[trigpoint]

Apparently in the EU at least, the analogue TV spectrum about to be freed up will solve the problem for the next few years.

Nothing will be freed up. The digital MUXs operate on the same channels as analogue. At present they are, in most places, running in parallel with the digital MUXs on reduced power to avoid interfering with the analogue signals. When analogue is switched off the digital power will be wound up.

T Mobile

[Lehk228]

I had a nexus one on T mobile for 2 days before i sent it back. phone was pretty nice, service was terrible. I seriously doubt that a customer would be able to maintain a 3G connection with T Mobile long enough to use up 200 megs let alone 500 or 3 gigs

Re:T Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a nexus one on T mobile for 2 days before i sent it back. phone was pretty nice, service was terrible. I seriously doubt that a customer would be able to maintain a 3G connection with T Mobile long enough to use up 200 megs let alone 500 or 3 gigs

I average 500MB-1GB a month actually. People think because they get bad coverage in their area, that means everyone else does too.

Re:T Mobile

[Rich0]

T-mobile actually has great service in a lot of areas, but the extent of that coverage is nowhere near as large as the other networks.

I get great 3G service just about everywhere I go, but that is in the NY-DC corridor. If you live in arkansas or something your mileage could vary GREATLY. Indeed, if you just live in a smaller metro area you might be spotty.

T-mobile has online coverage maps on their website. I've found them to be very honest - they use a Google-maps like interface. If the shaded map says 3 bars you might have 2 or 4, but that's about it - they're very up-front about their coverage.

We've used them for two years and haven't had problems even on vacations. However, we don't do camping - if we did they would probably not be adequate.

Re:T Mobile

[Lehk228]

oh i do not doubt that T mobile has great coverage in new york city, which is (at least was) ironically one of the worst areas to have an AT&T phone.

Wind Italy got it right

[giuseppemag]

There's this company in Italy that I believe has nailed just the right policy: you pay a monthly fee of about 9 euros and you get 1GB high speed Internet. Should you download more than 1GB, your browsing speed will slowly decrease so that you do not weigh too much on the network.

This way you get a limited amount of videos, music, large downloads but you are never left without access to the essentials like email...

Re:Wind Italy got it right

[inAbsurdum]

I got about the same deal on my contracts here in Sweden. One is 7 euros/mo, 500 MB cap, the other is an unlimited call/SMS/MMS plan with 10 GB data included for a grand total of 60 euros/mo (also including an iPhone 4). When I hit the cap in either plan, my telco imposes a 120kbit/sec limit, which still is sufficient for all but high bitrate video. I get what I pay for, and I never have to worry about being cut off completely. I'm a happy customer, and my telco makes money and gets to keep me as a customer. Win-win. The market works. Capitalism as it should be.

Re:Wind Italy got it right

[jgostling]

Italy is not the only place. I've had such conditions for over a year in Chile. I have full 3G speed up to 400 MB in a month. Go over, I'm down to 128 Kbps for the remainder of the month. Start next month, back to full speed. There are cheaper plans that throttle you to 64 Kbps after 100 MB. So far I haven't noticed any slowdowns, so I assume that I have never gone over the limit. This was all explained to me very clearly when I signed up.

Cheers!

Phew!

[91degrees]

I was tempted to go with T-Mobile because the 3GB cap is better than their rivals. Good enough to compensate for the fairly poor coverage.

They'v got rid of their only seling point.

Re:Phew!

[ukgod]

I did go with them despite the crappy voice network and chargeable voicemail for exactly that reason (and because it was cheaper than I could find the Desire elsewhere). But now I'm tempted to try and move.

Its information facism

[Super Dave Osbourne]

Plan and simple, you want to get information you have to do it when and where the carrier (in this case TMobile) decides you get it. The problem is there are not an unlimited supply of carriers to choose from that vary by any reasonable means. In the old days if you wanted to find alternative media, you either got letters or packages of papers from free thinking markets. Today, if you want to get information you have to do it when, where and how someone tells you to do it. If there were alternative info highways for many users this would not be an issue, but there are not, so this is a major factor and a step toward information facism.

Meh

[atari2600a]

At least they have the decency to kill your connection; Here in the states AT&T & Verizon probably wouldn't even allow that as an opt-in option.

I just don't buy this whole hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

There is something weird about this hysteria.
When I was recently traveling in Europe lat year, I needed to log into my office machine back here in North America. So for pay-as-you-go, I paid something like $20 and that got me 7GB of data.
So I don't understand what all this screaming is about.
Now, maybe we are talking about lock-in plans? then it's completely stupid on T-Mobile's side, and a honey bargain for the customer, because if they terminate the 1-GB/mo contract from their side, that means the consumer got a free smartphone.

Pretty bad news for WP7 phone users

[jsse]

as they've to pay full for merely first few days of internet access every month...

All you can eat

[Anonymous Coward]

With this change its making three all you can eat one plan very tempting.

Enough of this shit

[McTickles]

Are they bandwidth providers (because at the end of the day this is the job description of any ISP/Mobile provider) or NOT?

They have to make up their minds, they can't keep selling stuff they can't deliver, it is called "false advertising" and leads to enormous fines and possibly jail time where I live.

--

http://www.twilightcampaign.net/

And I was considering switching too

[mykos]

Oh well. I guess if I have to choose the lesser of two evils, I'll at least get an Atrix out of the deal with ATT.

meanwhile in the US...

[sv_libertarian]

I pay for 5gb at full speed, and then anything over that at reduced speeds. Then I pay another $15 to purchase tethering, and use my HTC Magic as my home internet connection, which I believe gives me more data as well. With 500 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data (with the first 5 gigs at full speed) and unlimited tethering and wifi sharing, fees, etc... my bill is $95 per month. I'm happy. I hope this never goes away.

Re:meanwhile in the US...

[js_sebastian]

I pay for 5gb at full speed, and then anything over that at reduced speeds. Then I pay another $15 to purchase tethering, and use my HTC Magic as my home internet connection, which I believe gives me more data as well. With 500 minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data (with the first 5 gigs at full speed) and unlimited tethering and wifi sharing, fees, etc... my bill is $95 per month. I'm happy. I hope this never goes away.

Not to poop on your party, but $95 per month is at least 2 to 3 times more than you pay for a similar service in most European countries. For instance in Austria you can get 19GB (with no restrictions on tethering) per month for 15 euros from Drei. Add voice and sms and you will spend maybe 30 euros a month.

Re:meanwhile in the US...

[RogerWilco]

Exactly, I got my iPhone 3GS for free with a 25 euro/month 2 year contract in August 2009. As I see it, I paid 24 x 25 = 600 euros for the phone and got the voice, sms and internet (unlimited !) for free.

Re:meanwhile in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, I have an equivalent plan on TMo and I'm only paying $60/month. I wonder how that happened? Did you get a discounted phone?

Re:meanwhile in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's quite a big deal.

Meanwhile in Italy for 17€/month you get unlimited data, free calls to landline phones, free tethering (and they also give you a router and an internet key).
Anyway signal strenght sucks when you're far from big cities or densely populated areas, but I think it's quite the same in the US. (And I think almost everybody always take with themselves high-gain directional antennas)

Re:meanwhile in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi guys ,whats up,fine will tell you some inf.

online alveri yapn maazaya gitmekle uramayn
viagra

Cinsel salk en önemlidir
dizi izle

izle
backlink de ünlü marka: siteniz hitlensin,googleden index aln.
mp3 indir
film izle
tercüme bürosu
film izle

film izle
evcil hayvan malzemeleri
share house brisbane
otomobil testleri
film izle

dizi film izle
bedava film izle
Sukubidu Oyunlar

siki
eskiehir hakknda herey burada!

Re:meanwhile in the US...

[Enigma23]

US carriers also bill customers for receiving incoming calls and text messages too, just to add insult to injury...

Too much demand

[joh]

Think what you want, but the demand for 3G bandwidth is growing too fast to satisfy it. With ever more smartphones and very soon a flood of tablets sold you can not have unlimited data if you really use it.

What I don't get is the methods they're applying here. They should offer cheap 300 MB, not so cheap 2 GB and not at all cheap 10 GB or so. And then they shouldn't just cut you off but throttle speed to EDGE speeds if you hit your allowance. Nobody would complain then. In fact in Germany almost all carriers do exactly that and most people seem to see such offers as quite reasonable especially since the lower bandwidth offers are rather cheap (like 7 Euro a month for 500 MB 3G and unlimited EDGE after that).

Anyway, the practice of selling phones with contracts bites the customer here. If you outright buy an unlocked handset and then buy your bandwidth month by month where it's cheapest there's some real competition. If enough people are bound by a 2-year contract or so there's hardly any.

Re:Too much demand

[mattbee]

And then they shouldn't just cut you off but throttle speed to EDGE speeds if you hit your allowance. Nobody would complain then.

If you hit your bandwidth limit (sorry "fair usage policy", because it's unlimited, silly!), T-Mobile UK put you behind a firewall for 30 days which restricts your service between 4pm & midnight. It only lets you access web sites (ports 80 & 443) and it did feel a bit slower. I found out when I was moving house and used my phone as broadband for a few weeks. From midnight-4pm the service is normal though.

Re:Too much demand

[TheRaven64]

When you're behind this firewall, can you still run SSH on port 80 on a remote machine and tunnel everything through it?

Re:Too much demand

[mattbee]

From memory, they still force you through their image-degrading web proxy, so no. I didn't try DNS or ICMP tunnels :)

Re:Too much demand

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, the practice of selling phones with contracts bites the customer here. If you outright buy an unlocked handset and then buy your bandwidth month by month where it's cheapest there's some real competition. If enough people are bound by a 2-year contract or so there's hardly any.

They DO compete, just on a different scale. The only difference would be people potentially switching every month to new carriers because of whatever random promotion was going on, more volatility, and slightly higher costs to the carriers because of higher sub/unsub rates.

The carriers continuously see their subscription numbers change, regardless of how you see it, but the contracts give them a buffer to react to change. I don't think a one to two year buffer is unreasonable for the infrastructure involved, and I don;t see any clear advantage to higher volatility.

You have to really think it out, is a more volatile cell subscriber market a win-win, lose-lose, win-lose, what? Food for thought.

P.S.
Look at cable/satelite/prepaid phones/etc
If contracts go away you'll get nasty 6mo/12mo promotional rates in return, or some other feature that ties you to their service, like rollover minutes/bandwidth. Some prepaid phone plans even list unused rollover minutes in $.
Think about the lock-in effect of showing people in $, their unused rollover bandwidth.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

10 months ago, I signed up for a 24 month contract with an HTC HD2. The phone was 'free' but there was an airtime contract minimum of £35, but that (a) included 1600 minutes airtime, and was 'necessary' in order to support the advanced features of the phone - including its function as a wi-fi hot-spot. While, in a typical month, I've used only ~160 minutes, I've regularly used the wifi hotspot facilities... in fact, those facilities were *exactly* the reason I signed up for the deal. The sales pitch was clear - 1GB cap per month is insufficient for the type of device being sold.

While I've no objection to the terms of service being changed - if they expect me it to apply retrospectively to existing contracts, they must accept that they are in breech and allow the contract to be dissolved. I'm happy to terminate early if they can no-longer supply me with a suitable airtime contract. I think, in the first instance, I need to write to them (on paper) laying down why I consider them to be in breech, and offer them various ways to amicably exit if they are no longer able to supply.

My iPhone...

[Burnhard]

When I decided to buy an iPhone, I had the choice of 1Gb per month with Vodaphone, or 3Gb per month with T-Mobile, for approximately the same price. I chose the latter entirely on that basis. If they've now changed the terms, what can I do to get out of my contract? The problem is that it's a 2 year contract where I'm paying for the phone alongside it; I didn't buy the phone outright.

Re:My iPhone...

[jimicus]

You are not paying for the phone alongside it! Where did you get that idea? Lose it!

While it's technically true, most mobile phone contracts aren't worded like that. I wouldn't be surprised if your contract simply says you are obliged to pay them £N/month for two years and the nice girl in the shop was under strict instructions not to let you walk out with an iPhone until you had signed such a contract.

I've got out of phone contracts myself before - unless the T-Mobile contract is dramatically different to the ones I've seen, this technique works quite well:

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945144&cid=34833832

Re:My iPhone...

[Burnhard]

Are you saying I should be able to cancel the contract without paying a charge (apart from call and text fee for the month) and keep the iPhone? An offer like that would be too good to pass up.....

Re:My iPhone...

[jimicus]

You'll have to give the usual 30 days notice, but you should be able to use this to get out provided you do so immediately (if you don't, they could argue that you've accepted the change). And no, they shouldn't ask for your phone back.

I did exactly this when O2 changed the terms to take 08xx numbers out of the free minutes (they were one of the last operators to do this). I was a Carphone Warehouse customer - they did try and claim it was perfectly OK but the contract just said any change to your [the customer's] detriment is grounds for cancellation.

Which it probably would be under UK consumer law anyway, but IME most CSRs aren't too hot on UK consumer law so it's much easier to get out using the contract.

You could probably use UK consumer law to a similar effect but you'd have to write to them, when they (inevitably) refuse to cancel the contract you'd very likely have to either take them to court or cancel your direct debit and let them take you to court - either way, you'll be looking at several months of aggro and a good chance of your number being blocked. Much easier to get out on the basis of the contract itself.

Caution: ICBW, IANAL.

Re:My iPhone...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I decided to buy an iPhone, I had the choice of 1Gb per month with Vodaphone, or 3Gb per month with T-Mobile, for approximately the same price. I chose the latter entirely on that basis. If they've now changed the terms, what can I do to get out of my contract? The problem is that it's a 2 year contract where I'm paying for the phone alongside it; I didn't buy the phone outright.

How did they advertise the phone?

Was it iPhone 4 for x pounds with a 2 year contract, or maybe free with a 2 year contract? That's them giving you the phone so long as you buy a 2 year contract. You bought the contract, they gave you the phone, they change the contract, the phone should still be yours.

If not then they are falsely advertising their products, because it's not free with a 2 year contract, its x pounds per month for 2 years, like a loan. No where do they advertise it as buy now, pay later, instead it's "free with a contract".

It'll no doubt take some arguing with a con artist^M^M^Msales representative, but I can't help but think that it'll be worth it in the end...

Luckily I worked out it would be cheaper for me to just buy my phone and get a sim-only month to month contract, so I can (and will) close my account easily. Good luck.

Three OnePlan

[Anonymous Coward]

With these changes it makes the Three All you can eat one plan look good,

Re:Three OnePlan

[tehcyder]

But Three has shitty coverage and appalling customer service, just like T-nobile, O2, Orange, Vodafone...)

Truly free market competition is a wonderful thing.

it's not just about phones

[rapiddescent]

many people bought the Huawei U220 USB data modems a couple of years ago and use the T-Mobile service just for data. These were sold as "broadband replacement" services and cost GBP25/month on contract. There's no way I'm paying that much for 500Mb pcm. My data volumes usually are in the 1.5Gb per month for work and the odd yum -y update that sneaks by unnoticed.

I have one plugged into my Draytek Vigor home office router as a backup for when the broadband service goes down - it has a Solwise high gain antenna attached to it. I also have one plugged into my work Linux laptop ("it just works" with network manager).

TFA referenced in the TFA says: "Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games."

WTF? I was sold "mobile broadband" - it's a data service, nothing is mentioned about browsing at all.

Re:it's not just about phones

[rapiddescent]

Linux users who use the U220 etc from day to day (like I do) might find knemo has been updated to monitor ppp0 and warn on configurable data usage limits.

Re:it's not just about phones

[vlueboy]

TFA referenced in the TFA says: "Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games."

They should be reminded that all our "browsing" is harder to find in plain text format because of all the Flash feature-creep, let alone the ads. CNN news gives us all a hard time with all these ad-prepended videos, and Yahoo is starting to do that too.

Re:it's not just about phones

[drinkypoo]

My data volumes usually are in the 1.5Gb per month for work and the odd yum -y update that sneaks by unnoticed.

That's okay, 1.5 gigabits is less than 500 megabytes.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You now have 30 days to cancel your contract. Good luck with that because you'll be paying for that phone one way or another.

Happening all around

[dsnbaka]

This is happening all around Europe as we speak,

Smartphone users are consuming such an amount of data that the flat-fee subscriptions are not enough to cover the costs any longer. Operators will change to basic subscriptions with limitations and bolt-on offerings for additional traffic. You can run away from T-Mobile now but the others will adopt until there is no where to go to.

Re:Happening all around

[ledow]

Erm, the evidence points to the contrary in that T-Mobile Germany (same company, different country) just did the exact OPPOSITE.

However, if that really is the case, and they want to make it more expensive to download a STUPIDLY TINY amount (Seriously? Accounting in Megabytes? Outside mobile telecoms the last time I saw that was on dial-up), with things like the Blackberry tablet on the market supporting speeds up to 100Mbit download (25Mbps is the fastest you can get "in real life" at the moment), it's an incredibly stupid thing to do, overloaded or not. Don't cut the limit, build the capacity and thereby gain customers instead.

Seriously - QoS on the radio channels (should be done anyway or emergency calls get swamped by idiots texting home, etc.) and then join the base station to a cheap business ADSL connection. I don't really care if I get 8Mbps or 0.5Mbps but if I buy a) a smartphone or b) a "broadband" dongle from a telecoms company, I expect them to support its ordinary use. Hell, I can do 30Gb a month on ADSL just browsing as much as I do. 500Mb? My dad could piss through that in one click online. Every other country in the world doesn't have problems with this - they are all capable of supplying broadband speeds in the most crowded of cities to multiple mobile users simultaneously. It's purely a "pay through the nose" venture to make profit. And some people are idiots enough to join in.

"You can run away from T-Mobile now but the others will adopt until there is no where to go to." - fine. Then I stop using mobile broadband or smartphones, like I completed avoided ever using GPRS (again, they accounted in Mb) - when you can't charge sensibly for a half-decent service, I won't tolerate it just because it's the only thing available. I'll just adjust so that I don't NEED it. In this case, and in my entire life, that means I carry a cheap, shitty £10 PAYG phone for calling people (and thus you make almost zero off me because I only pay for a call or two a month, if that, and mostly people call me, and I no longer have a contract, a device, or a mobile internet package with the telecoms company) and if I need internet access I *did* have a T-Mobile dongle. Now that my usage has just been chopped in at least quarters, that just means I throw the dongle away and use Wifi instead. Hell, it's free and I live in London so it's never hard to find a legitimate connection. I'd happily give my money to something like The Cloud now because they do wifi in London that you can always find if you need it. Or do without Internet on the move like I have for pretty much the entirety of my life.

It's only idiots that buy smartphones and MUST USE THEM so much that they will pay stupid money, or tolerate crappy limits, that are the problem. Fortunately, not *my* problem. But my employer will probably re-think all their mobile comms now because they were reliant on Blackberries over a T-Mobile connection for certain things. 500Mb? Hell, you can hit that just browsing.

If you don't want people to use it like broadband, don't call it mobile broadband and sell mobile broadband dongles (which is what I bought from them, and is also affected by their stupid limits - smartphones are the owner's fault, but a mobile broadband dongle? The clue is in the name and the usage pattern). If you don't want people to download lots, limit the speed to a sensible value instead of cutting off internet for the rest of the month (stupid idea). And if you want to be a cutting-edge telecoms firm formed by a merger of the two largest UK mobile telecoms firms (Orange and T-Mobile are now the same company in the UK), don't cut off your highest-paying customers for the rest of the month, in the middle of a smartphone boom, just weeks after merging, for downloading a pitiful amount of data. Idiots. Anyway want to buy a Hauwei E660 dongle?

Re:Happening all around

[garyebickford]

Minor quibble: I'm guessing, but I suspect it's not because of costs, but because of bandwidth. The usage is exceeding their bandwidth, which impacts all users and results in complaints. It takes two-three years (and $$) to build out the infrastructure to the next level to support the required bandwidth. So in an indirect sense it still has to do with cost, but also with time lag.

and in korea

[Anonymous Coward]

all the providers just switched to offering unlimited data with any monthly plan that is 55000 won or more (about $49) per month in order to compete.

They live in the past

[YA_Python_dev]

Try Tesco first (they run on the O2 network)

Thanks for the suggestion but O2 shares the same corporate overlord with T-Mobile, so I don't trust them to not pull a similar stunt a few months down the road.

But, don't most people use a WiFi connection for this sort of downloading?

What "sort of downloading"? 500 MB/month is 16 MB/day on average. That's bandwidth for a full day shared between upload and download. I got more by my f*cking 56k modem in a single hour in 1999, even counting only downloads.

500 MB/month is on average less than 187 bytes per second. I know there are peak times, but is their network really so suckish that this is the cap that they have to impose?

Seriously? In 2011?

Re:They live in the past

[csteinle]

Try Tesco first (they run on the O2 network)

Thanks for the suggestion but O2 shares the same corporate overlord with T-Mobile, so I don't trust them to not pull a similar stunt a few months down the road.

That's Orange, who along with T-Mobile are now both part of a France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom joint venture called "Everything Everywhere" (presumably as long as it's less than 500MB). o2 are owned by Spain's Telefonica, and already reduced their caps to 500MB/1GB (dependant on plan). However, they explicitly only did this for new contracts. I'm still unlimited and as it's a SIM only plan I don't intend to change that.

Re:They live in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the suggestion but O2 shares the same corporate overlord with T-Mobile, so I don't trust them to not pull a similar stunt a few months down the road.

They already have. From their Terms & Conditions page:

"If your tariff includes unlimited calls, texts, web & data, a fair use policy will apply, monthly data allowance 500MB. iPhone tariffs include 1GB of data."

The funny thing is, on some of their deals they offer "1GB data" as a selling point, whereas on others, the same selling point is "unlimited data". Now, I think putting up a huge billboard offering 'UNLIMITED DATA*' (* limits apply) is bad enough, but now 1GB twice as much as "unlimited?" They're just pissing on the rules while laughing at us.

Re:They live in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

and vodaphone are the scum that don't pay their taxes.

I think I'd rather go with T-monbile than those wankers at vodaphone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs

Re:They live in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

O2 is owned by Telefonica. T-Mobile UK is owned by Everything Everywhere, a joint venture between Deutsche Telecom and France Telecom. They don't share a corporate anything.

Tesco are an MVNO so set their own rates, independent of O2 or whoever else were running the underlying network.

Re:They live in the past

[hattig]

What "sort of downloading"? 500 MB/month is 16 MB/day on average. That's bandwidth for a full day shared between upload and download. I got more by my f*cking 56k modem in a single hour in 1999, even counting only downloads.

500 MB/month is on average less than 187 bytes per second. I know there are peak times, but is their network really so suckish that this is the cap that they have to impose?

Seriously? In 2011?

Don't use a Windows Phone 7 device on T-Mobile then! ...

Re:They live in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the suggestion but O2 shares the same corporate overlord with T-Mobile, so I don't trust them to not pull a similar stunt a few months down the road.

You mix that up with Orange. Orange UK and T-Mobile UK are a 50-50 joint venture of Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom. O2 is Telefonica (of Spain).

What "sort of downloading"? 500 MB/month is 16 MB/day on average. That's bandwidth for a full day shared between upload and download. I got more by my f*cking 56k modem in a single hour in 1999, even counting only downloads.

500 MB/month is on average less than 187 bytes per second. I know there are peak times, but is their network really so suckish that this is the cap that they have to impose?

Seriously? In 2011?

Data usage is currently going through the roof thanks to the popularity. I think any provider is struggling to keep up with demand. It might be 187 bytes per second and user averaged over a month, but that is defenitely not the bandwith you want to get when you are waiting for data (often during peak hours, at the same time with thousands of others in the cities, on your commute etc.).

Re:They live in the past

[Anonymous Coward]

..."popularity of smartphones" I meant to say... :)

Has anyone cancelled yet?

[DeanLearner]

I am with T-mobile and it is my first ever contract phone. I went in to a shop and specifically asked for their cheapest tariff with unlimited internet access (Flext 30). It was more expensive than other options but I was happy with this because I wanted a plan with unlimited internet. So basically, what I pay is absolutely no better than anyone else? Is this grounds to cancel my contract without a fee? What really takes the piss is that they say to do "that stuff" on my broadband connection. 1) Don't assume I have broadband. 2) Don't tell me an alternative solution to you fucking up my current one.

Loving Telstra in Australia now in comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to complain about mobile internet down in Australia. It seems we are getting a great deal now. On Telstra I can choose if I want to change the amount of data I get (ranging from 1GB to 12GB, ranging from AU/US$10 to AU/US$69, and I signed up with a special promotion getting 50% off the data pack price) at speeds that are often in excess of my ADSL connection. Even with Telstra massively expanding it's advertising of using Wireless modems and taking on a large number of new smartphone users they haven't been congested in my own experiences.

pitty job terminations dont pay 24months

[cheekyboy]

I would love a job where if they terminate you for any reason then the remainder of the 24month contract is fully paid, ie and ofcourse its renewable every 24mnts.

That would stop many wreckless fireings.

Re:pitty job terminations dont pay 24months

[garyebickford]

Become a major league sports player or coach. Here in the US, at least, one hears about coaches being 'fired' and going home holding a multi-million $$ check for the final three years of their contract.

That's weird

[kahizonaki]

Huh, that's weird. Does anyone know when this new policy is supposed to start? I use T-Mobile and I^&a



Connection Lost

Never contracting again

[bastett]

I learnt my lesson a couple of years ago, after being on a terrible carrier but contracted and couldn't leave without paying out the rest of the contract. Now I buy my devices outright and sit on rolling 1 month contracts only. Might be time to say bye-bye to T-Mobile.

"In line with the industry"

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly T-Mobile UK are making this change to be "in line with the industry".

However maybe they should look to their parent company, where T-Mobile Germany's latest tariff updates last month removed the data transfer limits on all their data plans, instead (for the cheapest tariffs) introducing a reasonable speed cap instead.

and t-mobiles custmer base declines

[luther349]

with smartphones being the craze an d t-mobile basically saying we don't want you they are gonna see a hit for this. yet you got other careers totally removing any usage caps. as everyone hear has said stop flooding the tv with ads of these phones doing heavy task on your network if it cant do it. i hope more then just t-mobile get hit with false advertising. well accept for virsion they just totally unlocked there 3g so at least they are offering there network as advertised, of course false advertising them will just add the limits in a 1 second fine print at the end of a ad.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That's how it is in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how it is in the UK, but there's no consequence for insisting that a company can do this change unilaterally and you're stuck, so you have to take them to court. Trading Standards don't care (unless you're BT complaining that some ordinary punter is "stealing" your network bandwidth).

Re:That's how it is in the UK

[nosferatu1001]

The contract has to allow you to break it if they change terms to your detriment, as part of the UCTA in the UK.

So they can change the terms, if you dont agree with them and they are detrimental to you you are free to cancel your contract and retain any "free" phone. (as it was free, not contingent on you seeing out your contract)

Of course IANAL. But formally notify them of your intentions (registered post), give one month notice (as good will) and then, if they dispute ensure you transfer your number out (so they dont hold it hostage) and make them take YOU to court. It will require them to file in small claims court, ad they will have to show how drastically cutting your limits and then blocking you from using data at all if you breach them somehow ISNT detrimental - which they will struggle with.

If they dont take you to court, and instead try to use debt collection, then you take them to court to show that there is no debt as you were not bound to the contract due to their actions and your reasonable response. Again, small claims court is your friend - IF they show up it will cost them more than your contract value.

Re:That's how it is in the UK

[certain death]

Just get a google voice number and point it to any phone you want...that way you don't have to jump through the hoops of transferring numbers if you switch carriers. EEZ-PEEZEE.

wireless providers never cease to amaze

[troll -1]

They have managed to turn the free airways into the most expensive form of communication ever. There is nothing in the physics of the electromagnetic spectrum to support their saturation theories. If they ran the Internet your ISP bill would list every site you went to, overseas sites would be billed at a higher rate, and email would be sold as separate service.

The problem with wireless isn't a lack of regulation but lack of competition that results in governments allowing a few companies to oligopolize a medium that costs nothing.

Re:wireless providers never cease to amaze

[jimicus]

The problem with wireless isn't a lack of regulation but lack of competition that results in governments allowing a few companies to oligopolize a medium that costs nothing.

Yes and no. The cost of running the service itself is peanuts - there is nothing intrinsic to the act of carrying a call - or for that matter data - which costs money over and above that required to run the network idle with nothing at all going over it.

The cost of buying all the equipment, installing power for it (quite often these base stations are in areas where you'll have to pay a fair wedge to the electricity company to lay on power), networking it (it's a wired network once it leaves the base station; you need thousands of base stations and again, not all of them are going to be in areas where it's cheap & easy to get wired networking) is actually pretty expensive.

Re:wireless providers never cease to amaze

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's T-mobile... what did you expect from the company with monopoly, oligopoly and just plain extortion being first line business? I'd rather not use internet than pay whatever to any T-like.

Re:wireless providers never cease to amaze

[garyebickford]

They have managed to turn the free airways into the most expensive form of communication ever.

The Pony Express (US, 1860-1861) charged $5 per 1/2 ounce (about two sheets of paper?), with a ten day delivery time from the East to Sacramento California. Two sheets of paper is probably good for 2000 words or (let's say) 20,000 characters = 200 Kbits. So the data rate was 20 k bits/day or 1/4 bit per second - not counting local pick up and delivery. Cost per k bits was 40 cents, so cost per MB was $400 in 1860 dollars. The only inflation calculator I found only went back to 1913. $400 in 1913 dollars is about $8500 now.

A monthly cap of 500 MB would cost $425,000 via Pony Express.

So, I would argue that the Pony Express was substantially more expensive. :D

That was also merely the point-to-point transit cost (equivalent to the backbone), so one must add on local collection and distribution costs (the ISP) , probably another couple of 1860 bucks.

Re:wireless providers never cease to amaze

[ShooterNeo]

There isn't? Ever heard of the Shannon limit? As a matter of fact, there ARE inherent bandwidth limits to the electromagnetic spectrum using a particular signalling technology. (and advancing the technology requires R&D funding and upgrading all of the equipment)

Internet is a completely different case. For the most part, a coaxial cable or a fiber optic cable is a private fully contained space within a certain frequency range. Every subscriber or small group of subscribers is basically getting a private reserved channel just for them.

Re:wireless providers never cease to amaze

[jc42]

They have managed to turn the free airways into the most expensive form of communication ever.

You should google the phrase "whatever the market will bear". It's the primary explanation of most corporate behavior. If people will pay a price, that's the price that will be asked. If people will accept a decrease in service with no price change, then that's what will happen. As people keep reminding us here, the primary (and often only) intent of any corporation is maximizing income while decreasing expenses. Supplying a service is an expense, so you'd expect them to supply the minimum service that doesn't result in a major loss of paying customers. And you should expect them to constantly probe the market to see if they can charge higher prices for the same service.

There's nothing at all amazing about this behavior. It's the expected behavior.

Re:wireless providers never cease to amaze

[Anonymous Coward]

If I call my neighbor next door why doesn't my wireless 'device' talk directly to his instead of going 10 miles to the tower and back? The whole system is ill designed.

MIT has a great idea for mesh networking that could allow everyone multiple times the bandwidth they currently have. The problem is it's not conducive to profit.

If only the government would stop selling the spectrum to the highest bidder and give it back to the people for real competition, we could all communicate with each other for free -- my device talks to your device. Why do we need to have anyone in charge?

Well

[TheSpoom]

I was looking into getting a smartphone. T-Mobile have now excluded themselves from my options.

Euphemism

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fair use" in this case is a despicably loaded euphemism.

Limits not so bad.

[yomammamia]

I stream video, download, fetch email, use maps and browse the web casually on my phone. I was surprised to find that my monthly usage has not yet exceeded 200MB and rarely exceeds 100MB. It is not easy to use 500MB on a phone and very difficult to use the 1-2GB some providers offer.

Irony of their US commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

Search youtube for TMobile Pink Motorcycle to view their ads in the US.

Soooo... how much gas you got in the tank there? 500ml?

I've taken action

[tobyp]

Just phoned T-Mobile up and cancelled my contract, told them exactly why I was doing it.

Switch to unlimited Three

[Anonymous Coward]

three.co.uk had just added "All-you-can-eat Data" plans.

no smartphone for you!

[datapharmer]

So I guess they aren't pushing the new windows mobile phones real hard with a 500MB cap? Some quick math estimates they could consume 2Gb a month by just being turned on, so that means you should realistically be able to use it about 1 week out of every month before it gets cut off...

Also, a 500MB cap and telling customers "no streaming video" while they are running commercials for real time video chat without wifi? what gives?

Re:no smartphone for you!

[Khue]

I mean, you do realize this is T-Mobile UK right? Network may be different there. I figured this out by reading the part that says "T-Mobile in the UK..."

Re:no smartphone for you!

[jc42]

Hmmm ... I think you mean you can run a Windows Mobile phone about a week at idle before it gets cut off by a 500MB cap. If you actually use it for what it's advertised for, you'll hit that cap in a much shorter time. If you visit any site that sends a video ad, you might hit the cap in a single day.

T-Mobile is irrelevant

[StuartHankins]

I hear later today there might be some news which makes them even less important in the market.

Perhaps they should sell peaches instead of this whole phone thing. Peach selling is a developed market and it's bloody obvious they don't understand the phone business. Also, they might have an upside and possibility for growth instead of being slapped around as a distant #3 or #4.

I hope they begin to show competence at something and wish them good luck in their new peach venture.

Or perhaps strawberries is a better idea. I can't help but believe with all the manure they have on hand that strawberries are a very good move for them...

Re: Payment Cap

[VortexCortex]

Is there a modem app? I could set up a modem at home and dial into it and route data from my home broadband. Although my ISP doesn't want to supply the service they sold me either.
Maybe I should introduce a 'payment cap' ?

Obligatory Penny Arcade.

It seems to me...

[rrossman2]

they are thinking like the RI/MPAA.. living in the past and not growing with the future. This is a horrid business plan, period. The world is moving to mobile, that's a known fact. Be it business (video conferencing while away from the office or on a business trip) to people playing games or watching videos while waiting somewhere. If you look at how much of a profit these companies are earning, why they wouldn't be building out the network to handle the (obvious) demand and potential (if not guaranteed) growth in the future to capitalize even more on the demand.. well then they should just switch 3G off and stick with EDGE or GPRS only.

Re:It seems to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon for devil's advocate. The RIAA/MPAA are not a backwards organization. In fact, they are actually shaping the Internet as we use it today, and have been doing so for a while. In fact, can you think of any other organization which has as big an impact on the way things go now worldwide without a single technological achievement? Maybe the ITAR bill in the 1990s and dealing with crypto technologies.

When I was in college in the 1990s, the college had a modem bank of 9600/14400 bps modems. However, the sysadmin would only allow them to connect at 2400 baud max. Reason? "The less data transferred, the fewer things our users can get in trouble with."

Same idea nowadays. Except instead of the paranoid sysadmin fearing hackers, it is large, well-heeled organizations doing everything they can to guard the status quo.

I doubt anyone here...

[Khue]

Is an actual T-mobile customer at all. I am a T-mobile customer and this doesn't affect me in the least. There are at least 3 or 4 models of phones (that I know of off hand) T-Mobile offers that natively can jump on open wifi connections and call and transfer data over Wifi networks as opposed to traditional cell networks. The data speed over Wifi is obviously superior to cell networks and only limited to the connection at the wifi host. I have a Blackberry and my phone is set to prefer wifi networks over the cell networks. Moreover, I've had a T-mobile phone that has done this for... I want to say, like 5 years? I do use the cell network occasionally to download content (on the road, out away from the city, etc), but the phone clearly indicates when the cell network is in use and makes you conscious that the speeds are going to be slower for retrieving video and content. Lastly, I think T-mobile must be one of the cheapest phone services around. You get what you pay for. Sidenote: can't RTFA. Page has been /. or something.

They must have some Win 7 phones on the network

[bdsesq]

Sounds like they have a bunch of people using the spiffy new Win 7 data eater!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12152517

T-Mobile = Out-of-term

[doubl3dge]

That decision would make sense some years ago, but it will cost T-Mobile more than they suspect. It would make sense in a world where mobile phones are technologically limited and where no killer apps that result in those high traffic values existed (like 2-3 years ago), but what happens when Facebook, Twitter and others turn to be the reason for those same amounts of traffc? You'll have a lot of unsatisfied costumers, a last-century network, and no content providers interested in making business with you because they know T-Mobile users won't be the ones consuming their contents. While previously the average user did in fact simply browse, nowadays user will inherently consume AND produce information which results in levels of traffic way beyond that 500 MB cap.

I Guess I'll keep my dumb phone

[fuzznutz]

It's funny, I was just checking on the new Nexus S for T-Mobile last week because my contract was up this past weekend. Thanks T-Mobile. You just saved me a shitload of money. I'll just keep my cheap, dumb-as-a-brick voice phone and use my iPod Touch when I have Wifi. Give me a call when you fix your network problems and I'll reconsider you...

Re:I Guess I'll keep my dumb phone

[mlts]

I am in a similar position. I was thinking of buying an unlocked Nexus S and going with T-Mobile US myself. Obviously T-Mobile US != T-Mobile UK, but policies tend to leap across the pond fairly quickly.

Now, I'm going to wait and see. Today may bring some interesting announcements when it comes to smartphones.

The situation is likely different in the US. T-Mobile US will just bury itself if it enacts similar policies, because as of now, what attracts people to T-Mobile is the fact that unlocked GSM devices are welcome there (the Android Dev Phones, the Nexus S, etc.) Their quiet policy of allowing 5GB, then dropping to EDGE is also a good one. However, if this changes, it might be a nail in their coffin.

Re:I Guess I'll keep my dumb phone

[drinkypoo]

Their quiet policy of allowing 5GB, then dropping to EDGE is also a good one. However, if this changes, it might be a nail in their coffin.

Since they changed it in the UK, I will assume they will change it in the US, and I will avoid getting a smartphone on T-Mobile. Problem is, all the other carriers are canned crap, too. Guess I will continue to use a tracfone.

Re:I Guess I'll keep my dumb phone

[mlts]

You hit the nail on the head. It pretty much is finding the carrier which sucks the least. CDMA carriers are pointless if one travels unless one buys a "world phone" that has dual GSM/CDMA radios and one pays the insane roaming charges. The GSM carriers have completely incompatible 3G bands with each other, and the rest of the world.

Hard to say which sucks the least, especially with T-Mobile's new actions. Probably AT&T. At least they stab you from the front by stating their fee policy ahead of time.

Nothing wrong with a Tracfone. Less hassle in a lot of cases.

Coming next at T-Mobile

[Bearded Frog]

Voice calls will be limited to 100 calls per month. "Use your LAN line phone if you want to make phone calls you greedy basturds." says T-Mobile

Why are people surprised ?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile has always been the worst of the worst, why the heck do people still use them?

Android Apps to Monitor Your Usage

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are on T-Mobile at the moment and want to keep an eye on your usage, be sure to install 3G Watchdog (http://www.appbrain.com/app/3g-watchdog/net.rgruet.android.g3watchdog) which will monitor the amount of 3G traffic your phone uses.
I've been using it for 2 months on my HTC Desire, and I end up using around 400-450MB, even with 2 push email sources, constant internet usage (minus Youtube) and a number of other apps that sync in the background daily.

double-billing is their plan

[Thud457]

Like one base station per house? ;-)
Might as well just install fiber directly into the owner's wall.

That's what wifi's for.
Whoops! I let the cat out of the bag!

i can't find it

[jcombel]

i searched the page for someone commenting "bandwidth costs money, you get what you pay for"

no-one seems to realize this

these companies aren't here to offer you an awesome service, they are here to profit. offering unlimited internet no longer equals profit.

Actually feasible, except Google gets in the way

[Anonymous Coward]

This is doable with today's tech. Sort of. And sort of not. ;-)

Install Squid on your phone, write a script that scrapes those websites looking for large objects and then curls or wgets the large objects, making sure it goes through your local proxy. Then cron your script to run every night, when your phone is on your wifi or other more efficient/cheaper network.

Here are the main problems you'll run into. They're all solvable, though not all by the user.

1. Youtube doesn't want to be cached. That's right, the one site on all the internet that most needs caching, possibly more than all the rest of the web combined, isn't cachable. If 20 people in my office all watch the same Youtube video, then we have to transfer that video through our gateway 20 times. I've tried to get squid to be able to cache youtube videos and while some people say they've sort of done it, I never got it to work. This is an absolutely insane problem to be having. There's no excuse for this. Hey Google, maybe the first step of "don't be evil" is "don't be weirdly incompatible with caching proxies."
2. Your scraper isn't going to see clean references to video files; it's going to see Flash objects. You can deal with it and eventually get the URLs, but it's a very silly problem to be having in 2010. Continued migration to HTML5 should eventually solve this problem.
3. And then, of course, some phones still don't let the user install squid, cron, write scripts, etc. That's another insane problem to be having in 2010, though some phones like the N900 have shown the necessary future. It's taking a long time for this market to mature, but it'll eventually happen. In the mean time, it's up to the user to pay attention to what they're buying.

I'm not a laywer but isn't that fraud or something

[josepha48]

If you buy an unlimited plan, the word unlimited means there is no limit. This is saying that there is a limit. Isn't this fraud? Any laywers up for a class action lawsuit? What does this mean for video conferencing??

"Visual Voiemail" forces you off of wifi

[Turmoyl]

Another ironic facet to this is that T-Mobiles "Visual Voicemail" service (it's not what it sounds like, just your contact's photo attached to a visual list of downloaded voicemail messages) won't work over wifi in any fashion, and generates no less than 2 errors each time I get a voicemail message on my phone while connected to a wifi.

When you call to get support for this issue their "fix" is to turn off the wifi antenna and just let the phone live on their 3G network full time.

That doesn't lend itself to a 500MB data cap now, does it?

Never say never...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never say never, nothing is impossible, but the Unlimited is Limited.

Subscribe now to out UNLIMITED BROADBAND INTERNET! (*) FOR ONLY 19.95 PER MONTH! (**)

(*) Use is subject to a fair use policy which effectively limits the unlimited to xxGB/mo.
(**) for the promotional period of 3 months with one year plan. After 3 months the regular fee of 59.95 per month applies.

True limited data is good!

[HTH NE1]

Any user that goes over the new limit won't be charged, but will be blocked from downloading or streaming for the rest of the month.

Finally, a carrier doing it right! Now just take the next step and allow the user to unblock for the cost of advancing their billing cycle rather than what the other carriers do: keep the data flowing while overcharging per datum for usage over the cap.

It works for Giganews.

Seems par for the course

[mutube]

Have you seen the BT adverts for the iPhone4 with that guy out of My Family using FaceTime to share moments with his wife? Including being at an amateur football match in a field...when FaceTime requires an active WiFi connection.

Don't let facts get in the a nice advert!

Seriously though, this will continue until people go to the Advertising Standards Agency about it. They're actually pretty responsive, if everyone affected by this complained you would likely see an effect.

Obligatory

[Hugues999]

They're altering the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.

Not all customers are impacted

[Cederic]

T-Mobile sent out text messages to affected customers yesterday. I didn't receive one, so checked my contract (which had been sold to me as 'unlimited internet') and didn't spot any cap.

So I rang them and asked. I've had it confirmed that my tariff does not get a 500MB cap put onto it.

I took out the Flex30 with free uber-internet package when I got my G1, and I'm still on that package. Today I renewed it for a 20% discount - the service is generally good, it's hard to find uncapped mobile 'net these days and the bandwidth should improve now other users are getting capped.

In other words, t-mobile do still offer higher download options, just not cheaply. So it's up to you: pay up, switch network or deal with it.

(Had the cap applied to me, I'd have switched network. Today.)

Oh the Irony!

[brakarific]

Que the current T-Mobile My Touch 4G commercial... Hipster: What's that on your back? Loser: Oh, it's my AT&T wireless contract, but say..what do YOU have on YOUR back? Hipster: Oh, um....(looks slightly embarrassed), I see what you mean...

Re:Oh the Irony!

[Anonymous Coward]

You presumably missed the part where this article was about T-mobile UK?

Justwanttoremindppl

[Anonymous Coward]

This is T-Mobile UK. In the US the threshold is still 5GB and there is no sign it will change.

That's fine

[calmofthestorm]

My paying my cell bill doesn't include a check. "If you want to get paid, get a job".

Capitalism at it's finest...

[Anonymous Coward]

F*** T-Mobile...

T-Mobile USA != T-Mobile UK

[gamrillen]

To be fair, T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile UK operate as separate companies. Just because T-Mobile UK does something doesn't mean that T-Mobile USA will be following suit.

Technically justify the mod down please... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See my subject-line above: Whoever modded this down surely could be man enough to try to say why my post I am replying to here was down modded, and for what technical grounds in the computer sciences, couldn't they?

Somehow, I don't think I'll ever see that from whoever the "hero" was that downmodded my initial post here -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945144&cid=34835910 and that's all I have to say to whoever did that. They're the TRUE "Anonymous Cowards".

APK

From a t-mobile customer in the USA

[proudhawk]

I happen to be a blind t-mobile customer here in the US. I can see a very good reason that t-mobile would do this.
Their infrastructure was not designed for such high loads being placed on it. these loads may cause service problems
for anyone else on that cell node. also, bandwidth is not exactly cheap anywhere you go.

As a blind customer with a smartphone, I have no need to download videos. podcasts (audio only) are far smaller and can be transferred
from my mac at home to my phone easily. with 32 GB available on my micro SD card, I can store as much media as I will
need. Thus I am not using Bandwidth to transfer these on t-mobile's network and thus am not limiting another user's ability to use the service.

Frankly, its common sense. if you want to view a video on your phone, get it via broadband and watch it offline. it will cost you
a lot less and save the rest of us from having to pay higher fees for your hoggishness.

Life is for corporate lieing.

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to the whole life's for sharing theme. You can only share so much, eh? Sounds like Communism.

New slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

"T-Mobile: Get more ... with less"