Vodafone, when unlimited texts arent actually unlimited and charging me £157 !

Ultrasonic

I'm usually of the 'you should have read the contract' persuasion, but in this case I'm with the OP. Unlimited should mean just that. I can't see any justification for using this term instead of simply stating a limit of 3000, or 5000 or whatever it actually is.

(There is a slight argument for using the term in relation to data usage since most people don't really have much idea how much data they actually download, but not for texts. Everyone knows what one text is!)

Buzby wrote: »

Even the Advertising Standards Authority are happy to allow 'unlimited' claims modified by a fair use policy if 95% of users never reach the limit.

Is that 95% figure actually what the ASA use? One person in twenty breaching an 'unlimited' threshold is bonkers. That's far too low a threshold in my opinion. 1 in 1000 would be closer to a sensible mark IMHO.

Buzby

The expression 'unlimited' is a marketing term and as such required to be qualified when it is subject to a fair use policy. That said, it would be a very naive customer who took it at face value and did not seek clarification.

As for the 95%', I recall this figure being reported in a number of adjudications when justification of a fair use cap was promoted. Since the majority do not exceed (or even get near the limit) the restriction is used to ensure service quality is not degraded for the bulk of users.

If you are concerned about misdescription, BT are allowed to promote 'fibre optic' broadband, yet the customer gets copper as before. As a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, BB use has always been 'fibre optic' as exchange interconnections use this technology. So what as changed? It now just gets slightly closer to the customer, but they STILL don't get fibre!

Marketing bullsh1t should be realised for what it is - and treated with the usual disrespect.

MillicentBystander

Buzby wrote: »

The expression 'unlimited' is a marketing term and as such required to be qualified when it is subject to a fair use policy. That said, it would be a very naive customer who took it at face value and did not seek clarification.

As for the 95%', I recall this figure being reported in a number of adjudications when justification of a fair use cap was promoted. Since the majority do not exceed (or even get near the limit) the restriction is used to ensure service quality is not degraded for the bulk of users.

If you are concerned about misdescription, BT are allowed to promote 'fibre optic' broadband, yet the customer gets copper as before. As a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, BB use has always been 'fibre optic' as exchange interconnections use this technology. So what as changed? It now just gets slightly closer to the customer, but they STILL don't get fibre!

Marketing bullsh1t should be realised for what it is - and treated with the usual disrespect.

Nope, it should be outlawed so no treating with disrespect required.

dealer_wins

Im in the "unlimited" means unlimited camp.

Anything else is specifically "limited" which is the complete opposite of what unlimited means.

Surely if a case like this goes to court the mobile phone company would be laughed out of court?

prowla

Sure - marketing is BS; Virgin get around the "fibre" thing by calling it "cable".

Of course, Sky's "unlimited" broadband is in reality limited by the available bandwidth, but they say that they do not configure any limits on the usage, which fair use of the term for me.

In the case of "unlimited" texts actually being limited to a particular count (ie. 3000), if nothing else it is pretty plainly false advertising.

Ultrasonic

Buzby wrote: »

The expression 'unlimited' is a marketing term and as such required to be qualified when it is subject to a fair use policy. That said, it would be a very naive customer who took it at face value and did not seek clarification.

The very idea that 'unlimited' has apparently been allowed to become a marketing term is just plain wrong.

As for it apparently being obvious to all customers to seek clarification, I disagree. It's only obvious when you know that it is. The word 'unlimited' has a very unambiguos meaning. The idea of being expected to have a conversation as follows for me just sums up the stupidity of this:

Sales person: 'You get unlimited texts per month with this phone.'
Customer: 'How many is that then?'

:mad:

Guys_Dad

Buzby wrote: »

The expression 'unlimited' is a marketing term and as such required to be qualified when it is subject to a fair use policy. That said, it would be a very naive customer who took it at face value and did not seek clarification.

I am struggling to think of any other industry or area where "unlimited" does not mean "without any limit".

Techhead_2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am struggling to think of any other industry or area where "unlimited" does not mean "without any limit".

There are quite a few.

The point your missing is that the ' unlimited ' on its own doesn't tell you about the context and sense of whatever communication it is in.

As an example take the the phrase ' unlimited soft drink refills ' ; there are obviously limits there. The unlimited here means you can fill the cup a many times as you like, during one visit to the restaurant, subject to the capacity of drink dispenser; the capacity of your bladder and any health issues . ( Those can also be further defined )

In the case of texts, there needs to be some way of stopping the sending of bulk commercial messages and to protect the service for other users. As such, as long as it can be shown that the vast majority of people use less than the fair usage policy, then I don't see an issue. For most people, they will be able to send as many texts as they want.

Or the network can have other limits for example, a soft limit to the number of different people you can send texts to in a day. My favorite is where the transmission of texts is intentionally slowed down for high volume users, thus limiting their usage. ( You can send as many as you like but the time to send one is purposely increased)

In the specific instance ( as opposed to marketing )suppose the real issue here is whether 3000 is enough for the OP and whether the fair usage policy is clear.

visidigi

*Sally* wrote: »

omg :eek:

The contract was taken out about 18 month ago but we changed the deal from Blackberry price plan to the one I have now, the only difference is its £5 cheaper as it doesnt have Blackberry messenger on. This was a 12 month plan so am tied to it till april 13........dont know if that helps.
But it deffinately does say on my online bill which i checked earlier "unlimited" texts and I print screened it.

That explains the number of texts - BBM was free before and if she used that alot as its instant messaging without per item costing its very easy when you switch it off to get hit by text charges as you don't realise its now a per message cost.

I'm with the others, unlimited should mean unlimited.

If they have a FUP on one contract but not on the other, then that, to me would mean false advertising.

macman

A limit of 3,000 texts per month is probably doing the OP a favour here, if it stops them spending most of their waking hours on the phone.