Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

When you go to the page, you see three options: https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/unlimited

"Unlimited 4G LTE Data" for $40

"Unlimited 4G LTE Data (22 GB)" for $50

"Unlimited 4G LTE Data (75 GB)" for $60

There is a little (i) symbol next to each one, with a mouse over box that explains the throttling. The throttling is also explained if you click the link "important plan info."

The first option could be clearer with a parenthetical, but with the three right next to each other alongside the prices it's pretty clear what you're buying.

View on HN

I disagree that it's clear. Words have meanings, and

> By "unlimited", we really meant "limited".

shouldn't be a valid defense for misleading consumers. The plan would be more accurately described as "15GB 4G LTE Data". If the limits were stated more prominently, the fire departments could have avoided confusion and worked with Verizon or a competitor to get on a plan that wouldn't stop working at the worst possible times. Verizon could have also avoided some bad press by just waiving the fees and sorting things out later instead of demanding extra money during an emergency.

Your definition isn't accurate. That suggests that you don't get 4G speeds after 15GB, which isn't the case.

How is it clear? It contradicts itself. It’s not at all clear which part should be believed, unless you’re already familiar with ISP bullshit.

It's not contradictory. There are two dimensions: data usage, and speed. The plan is unlimited in the data usage dimension (there is no a priori limit on how much you can download). And it's not "bullshit" (at least, not more so than marketing generally). Instead of differentiating plans by data allowance, they differentiate them by who gets throttled first when the network is congested. That's actually a pretty sensible way to do it, and one that doesn't leave capacity on the table like pure data tiers or pure data caps.

It is pretty much impossible to construct a pricing plan for data service that will make power users happy. Data caps were crystal clear, but they are "gouging" because marginal bandwidth costs almost nothing. Fixed speed tiers are "false advertising" because sometimes the network is too congested to hit the advertised speed. The real issue is that companies are trying to achieve price discrimination, which benefits the average customer and the company at the expense of customers who use the product more intensively. It's like how Apple charges hundreds of dollars more for a few dollars worth of extra flash memory in an iPhone.

"Unlimited" doesn't mean "unlimited in one aspect if you squint." There's a limit, and then you get throttled.

It's perfectly sensible to design the plan that way. I'm not complaining about the technical aspects, I'm complaining about the naming.

I don't really see the relevance of your second paragraph. Yes, people will complain regardless. That doesn't make false advertising OK. The real issue is that companies want to sell something they cannot provide.

> There's a limit, and then you get throttled.

There is no a priori limit at which you get throttled. If there is no congestion, you can exceed your limit and not get throttled. Even if you get throttled, you don't get cut off, just slowed down.

There's certainly more accurate ways to describe that than "unlimited" but I don't think it's particularly egregious compared to U.S. marketing in general.

22GB and 75GB are limits. They may be soft limits, but they're still limits.

> It's like how Apple charges hundreds of dollars more for a few dollars worth of extra flash memory in an iPhone.

Unlimited iPhone X

small print: Actually only can hold 256GB.

Yes, what all carriers are doing is lying. The corrupt telecommunication and advertising industries allow it lobby for it, and the US government allows it. Many other governments do not.

It's more like Samsung advertising a "2.8 GHz processor" with an asterisk, when in reality it'll throttle far below that after a minute or so of load: https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-s9/specs. Or Olive Garden advertising "unlimited soup and breadsticks" when in reality waiters will start giving you dirty looks after a certain number of refills. Or a company selling a firewall that can do 10 gbps but only with no security features turned on. Marketing that's only true under specific conditions is pervasive, not just something in the telecom industry.

Samsung doesn't have an asterisk, they call it out as a "maximum" right next to the number.

(Strictly speaking there is an asterisk, but it indicates that there are multiple versions of the hardware, unrelated to throttling.)

In any case, this is not quite analogous. There's a difference between "you can only achieve this speed sometimes" and "your plan is unlimited only if you don't pass the limit." It's not that "unlimited" is only true under specific conditions, it's that it's never true.

I don't understand the purpose of your comment. Even if there are worse things out there, so what?

> I don't understand the purpose of your comment. Even if there are worse things out there, so what?

I think advertising is bullshit in general. Yogurt commercials talking about probiotics and whatnot. But that's a much bigger debate, and I suspect we agree on that front. But if we define "false advertising" to exclude most U.S. advertising, I think it excludes Verizon's data plans as well. It's technically true because they don't cut you off after a certain number of MBs. That's all advertising has to be in the U.S.

(And as a practical matter, it's not even really misleading for the typical consumer. I've never looked at my bandwidth usage after switching to Verizon's "unlimited" plans, despite having very heavy cell phone users in my household. Even if I'm exceeding the soft limits, where I live I never run into congestion that would lead to throttling. The marketing accurately conveys that the typical consumer can stop worrying about overages. Which is a lot better than the promises made by yogurt commercials.)

> But if we define "false advertising" to exclude most U.S. advertising, I think it excludes Verizon's data plans as well.

I guess this is the confusion. My point is not that Verizon is doing something unusual and should be singled out for it. My point is that Verizon's behavior here is emblematic of how this country treats advertisers in general, and an "unlimited" plan with limits is just particularly obvious example of how we let companies lie to us.

That page offers services for personal use. Verizon isn't making an offer to provide services to businesses/government via that page.

The appropriate offer is here where you must contact a rep who is probably trained to inquire about the business's requirements: https://www.verizonwireless.com/biz/plans/business-unlimited...

Where does it say that? I read the page and skimmed the "Important Plan Info" page, and couldn't find anything that restricted it to personal use.

For the $40 plan, the page says "For people who want unlimited, and no worries", and if I were buying a plan for fire command center, that's exactly what I'd want -- unlimited and no worries.

Though since none of the pricing they mentioned in the article matches what's on this page, it's likely that they did have some business plan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com