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?

[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

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.

Bait & switch

[mwvdlee]

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

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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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: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: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.