[Bhullnatik]

Because you have to put a limit somewhere before people start to exploit it.

[prof_hobart]

If you need to put a limit, then don't claim it's unlimited. The problem is with the marketing, not the cap itself.

[pyre]

How do you market a variable cap where the actual value of the cap is a moving target depending on the circumstances?

[vidarh]

That should not be our problem. If they find that difficult to communicate without lying (by calling it "unlimited"), perhaps they should set a non-variable cap.

[prof_hobart]

That's something they are already presumably doing (it's what "fair usage" equates to), and isn't the problem.

The problem is making the marketing claim that this is "unlimited" when it's not. Call it "almost unlimited" or something similar and you're fine.

[Lawtonfogle]

Market it based on the rules by which it moves.

[deveac]

That's reasonable. So is stating the limit instead of saying it doesn't exist.

But I get it. Marketing.

[company]

Do people not really understand it? Man half of HN is childish.

[Karunamon]

In which case it's not unlimited, in which case they're lying.

The first person who gets kicked off for this should file a false advertising suit. The marketing doesn't get to give you something which the ToS immediately takes away.

Maybe then these idiots (yes, idiots, because it takes an astounding lack of either morals or intelligence) will learn that lying to your customers is not okay.

[jasonlotito]

Other "idiots" that are "lying" about "unlimited" and should be sued for "false advertising."

https://github.com/pricing

https://www.dropbox.com/plans

https://www.google.com/work/apps/business/driveforwork/

https://www.box.com/pricing/

[Karunamon]

If they boot someone off for that particular reason, then yes, they absolutely should.

Again - explain to me how Verizon can be successfully sued for "unlimited" data (with throttling) and how these companies cannot with "unlimited" data (with undisclosed caps).

Explain how the two cases are substantially different, please. Just because Verizon are generally bastards and the companies above are generally not does not make false advertising okay or legal.

[jasonlotito]

> explain to me how Verizon can be successfully sued for "unlimited" data

Just curious, but you say "successfully sued." I assume you mean they were sued, went to trial, and lost. I've actually tried looking this up, but I can't find this case. I've never really paid much attention to that, so forgive me.

[Karunamon]

Found it: http://www.fiercewireless.com/press-releases/verizon-wireles...

It was a settlement, rather than an outright adverse ruling, but the net effect was the same - someone had to tap them on the shoulder and tell them to cut it out, they did, and had to pay out for their trouble.

[tashoecraft]

It's not lying, come on. 99.9% of people will see it as being unlimited. The person who decides to create a megaupload clone and use it to store petabytes worth of stuff that is constantly reading and writing is not what personal unlimited storage is meant for.

[Lawtonfogle]

>It's not lying, come on.

Yes it is.

[chrisper]

It is Unlimited^.

^Conditions and Restrictions apply.

[Karunamon]

That's still contradictory. Unlimited means "without limits", not "without limits except for these".

Verizon got smacked around for exactly this behavior a while ago (selling "unlimited" data, with throttling after some arbitrary cap). This is not substantially different.