Unlimited” seems to describe the plan fairly accurately regarding the types of data specified
Now, maybe I’m different from the general public, but when I read unlimited data, I don’t think, “Cool, I guess I get all the texts and phone calls I want, but I’ll have to read through the entire phone print to see what Internet data is included”
Actually Public Knowledge is the link you need to look at, or you can continue your uniformed rant while ignoring the key points. Vested interest perhaps? LOL…twit.
I read both, and it’s important. Newbie lawyer ranting on one side, and a clear indication that the unlimited was on the mobile device on the other. The more you read, the more it appears that the newbie lawyer didn’t even read the big print, let alone the fine print.
Rhodes:Last attempt at basic logic here Chris, you really are starting to be a bore. Again “the data types specified” which do not include the internet. Yawn..I tried. Go ahead Chris, continue to be a shill for the lowest common denominator of corporate practice. It seems to suite you well.
Streaming audio/video is not “the internet”. As I read the fine print, they say you may not access the internet except through their apps. If they include no apps to access the internet at all, then I agree that “data” is misleading, since that basically eliminates all data entirely under any definition.
Go ahead Chris, continue to be a shill for the lowest common denominator of corporate practice. It seems to suite you well.
How many times must I say it? Wal-Mart should have been more up front about their definitions. You keep trying to push the “Wal-mart Defender” angle, and I’m starting to think that perhaps I’m just feeding a troll . . .
Rhodes: I’m not a troll, but I was waiting for the switch to click into place. It did with this statement “Under your reading, however, I can see how “unlimited” would be seen as misleading, since the type of data allowed is, in fact, quite limited.”
We have a winner…..That’s exactly it. The type of data is limited. Either way saying they “should be more upfront” is again, IMO, an major understatement. It’s not just that they SHOULD be more up front, it’s that is appears to me intentionally misleading to do otherwise. Sorry for sounding troll like, but you really didn’t seem to get the point. My apologies if I crossed the line.
If Wal-Mart were being honest, they would have stated “unlimited texts and calling” instead of “unlimited data” like many other ads do, because neither most people nor most dictionaries consider the two to be equivalent
Much like if I saw the aforementioned buffet advertising “Unlimited Food!”, I would assume that “unlimited” was in reference to the available quantity of food and not that they necessarily offered an “unlimited” selection of food types.
I can see that you disagree with Wal-Mart/TracFone’s practices, but I don’t think absolving them of misleading advertising is as simple as showing that they meet the terms under their own definitions; as someone mentioned before, if this were the case then it would be effectively impossible to ever have false advertising.
For instance, most people would assume that any information you can legally download to your phone via provided outlet access(i.e. the internet) would be considered “data”–which it is. Most people also assume that all-you-can-eat buffets under common vernacular are limited to the amount of food the individual can consume in one sitting of the food provided by the establishment. In my mind, the effective analogy is that a restaurant advertises an all-you-can-eat buffet and then states in the legalese that the “buffet” is limited to just one of two buffet tables. The average person understands an all-you-can-eat buffet to included all food provided in all buffet tables.