T-Mobile will buy you out of your contract

[fishonjazz]

but they DID limit the amount. Slowing down controls the amount.

Holy cow!

How is this so hard to understand.

Thats like a buffett saying you can eat all you want, but we are only going to give you one crumb per day.

Would you say that is still all you can eat food? Good god hell no.

I get your point but since they didnt specify the quality.....
Im mean if i pay for unlimited data from verizon and im trying to watch a long *** movie on my phone and it says buffering for even one second then i guess that they limited me right?

When i opened this very thread it took about 1/4 of a second and i think it should open immediately so they are limiting me.

They say i get unlimited minutes but one time i was on the phone driving up a canyon and the call dropped, so my minutes got limited right.


Technically you are correct about your definition of limiting, but it would depend on the courts definition of limiting...... they might see it as tmobile gave you really crummy internet, but still unlimited.

Im on your side hack, just sayin

 

[Hotdog]

Amazing that you use the word limit to describe what they were doing but try to explain how its not limiting... smh


I know what you are saying. Big print giveth and small print taketh away right?

It just sounds like you are trying to defend it. It effing b.s. kicky.

Also, they did not have all these different plans and explanations about how it works back then. It was one choice. Unlimited data. Thats it. They deliberately tricked people into thinking they could use unlimited data.



awww... eff this argument. Its so dumb..


unlimited means unlimted. Sorry. Dont give an eff what anyone says.

 

[fishonjazz]

but they DID limit the amount. Slowing down controls the amount.

Holy cow!

How is this so hard to understand.

Thats like a buffett saying you can eat all you want, but we are only going to give you one crumb per day.

Would you say that is still all you can eat food? Good god hell no.

Also i have been to an all you can eat buffet before and they ran out of a specific item.... in fact that happens all the time and by definition that is limiting how much of that particular food i could eat

 

[Hotdog]

I get your point but since they didnt specify the quality.....
Im mean if i pay for unlimited data from verizon and im trying to watch a long *** movie on my phone and it says buffering for even one second then i guess that they limited me right?

When i opened this very thread it took about 1/4 of a second and i think it should open immediately so they are limiting me.

They say i get unlimited minutes but one time i was on the phone driving up a canyon and the call dropped, so my minutes got limited right.


Technically you are correct about your definition of limiting, but it would depend on the courts definition of limiting...... they might see it as tmobile gave you really crummy internet, but still unlimited.

Im on your side hack, just sayin

What you are describing is not the same things. Dropping calls and internet slowing down to reception issues is not the same thing as purposely limiting my data and how much I can use.

Sent from my SM-N900V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[sirkickyass]

I suspect what actually happened with hack is that he happened to get lucky during the ATT/T-Mobile attempted merger. As part of due diligence you have to disclose all outstanding arbitrations and litigations. It was well known that T-Mobile, in an effort to speed the merger along, chose to forgo adding to its litigation count so it wouldn't have to continually produce new due diligence materials on a rolling basis. Specifically they chose not to pursue a multi-million dollar regulatory claim against some Dutch Telecom officials that they likely would have won. The production requirements were enhanced because the attempted merger was subject to antitrust review from the DOJ and the FCC and those agencies were demanding similar document productions.

I'd be willing to bet money that Hack just happened to fall through that particular crack because his case came up for referral during the non-prosecution window.

 

[Hotdog]

I suspect what actually happened with hack is that he happened to get lucky during the ATT/T-Mobile attempted merger. As part of due diligence you have to disclose all outstanding arbitrations and litigations. It was well known that T-Mobile, in an effort to speed the merger along, chose to forgo adding to its litigation count so it wouldn't have to continually produce new due diligence materials on a rolling basis. Specifically they chose not to pursue a multi-million dollar regulatory claim against some Dutch Telecom officials that they likely would have won. The production requirements were enhanced because the attempted merger was subject to antitrust review from the DOJ and the FCC and those agencies were demanding similar document productions.

I'd be willing to bet money that Hack just happened to fall through that particular crack because his case came up for referral during the non-prosecution window.

Now you say that. I think it was close to that time. I remember wondering what would happen after ATnT bought them out since I was with ATnT at the time.

Maybe I did get lucky and fidnt have a chance. But thats only because the laws are a joke and the people that practice law make a mockery of the English language and human morals.

It doesnt change the fact that I am 100% right. What they did is the exact opposite of what they said they were offering. They went against the exact definition of unlimited. It was a bold face lie. And I was willing to take it all the way to court to fight out.

Sent from my SM-N900V using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[TroutBum]

After reading your stupid *** responses, I really wish they had let you "take them" to court. I wish I could have watched the judge's face as you presented "your case", along with all of your "evidence" and "recorded calls" -- whatever, write4u -- and laughed heartily as he threw your case, and you, out on your ***.

 

[Hotdog]

After reading your stupid *** responses, I really wish they had let you "take them" to court. I wish I could have watched the judge's face as you presented "your case", along with all of your "evidence" and "recorded calls" -- whatever, write4u -- and laughed heartily as he threw your case, and you, out on your ***.

Is that right?

Ur dumb

Hows that high interest rate thing going for ya?

 

[TroutBum]

Is that right?

Ur dumb

Hows that high interest rate thing going for ya?

Yes.

True.

Don't know, didn't buy the car.

 

[default]

Hack, the one leg to stand on for you that I see, is that when you are dropped to their 2G signal almost nothing datawise even processes. Based on experience, like 90+% of web sites will not even open on TMobile's 2G service. You pretty much can only text and make voice calls. By definition, they are only dropping the quality of the signal, but in reality on THEIR network dropping you to 2G (3G does not exist on T-mobile) in effect eliminates your ability to use the internet which is essentially dropping that entire component of your legal contract with them.

 

[TroutBum]

Hack, the one leg to stand on for you that I see, is that when you are dropped to their 2G signal almost nothing datawise even processes. Based on experience, like 90+% of web sites will not even open on TMobile's 2G service. You pretty much can only text and make voice calls. By definition, they are only dropping the quality of the signal, but in reality on THEIR network dropping you to 2G (3G does not exist on T-mobile) in effect eliminates your ability to use the internet which is essentially dropping that entire component of your legal contract with them.

This is pretty much the argument I had with their customer service reps. It took way too much time and effort before I finally got someone who kind of got it. Too little, too late though.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hack, the one leg to stand on for you that I see, is that when you are dropped to their 2G signal almost nothing datawise even processes. Based on experience, like 90+% of web sites will not even open on TMobile's 2G service. You pretty much can only text and make voice calls. By definition, they are only dropping the quality of the signal, but in reality on THEIR network dropping you to 2G (3G does not exist on T-mobile) in effect eliminates your ability to use the internet which is essentially dropping that entire component of your legal contract with them.

This is a better argument, but given that a fair number of data-based services (e-mails, google life-tiles, networked games that primarily are processed on your local device) will all work with essentially no interruption it's still not sufficient to win any arbitrations.

I actually just added a line on my T-Mobile account yesterday (turns out after you get married it's cheaper to bundle things, who knew?) and, without me saying anything, the sales rep specifically explained the data plan to me including using the word throttling. Of course, this was as part of an offer to upsell me to true unlimited data but still.

It's fair to say that you'd prefer to pay overages than have your data throttled. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that other services are better. It is, however, kind of ridiculous to blame your service provider because you didn't read your contract and/or didn't care to understand what you were buying.