Does ST really cancel your service for overuse of data??

[pitflyer]

Simple mobile is mvno which throttles efparri

Sent from my Galaxy Tab

[efparri]

The carrier, T-Mobile, is doing it for everyone.

Sent from my GtabComb using HowardForums

[pitflyer]

The MVNO still has different throttles than T-Mobile throttles at different amounts (100 megs, 2 gigs, 5 gigs, or 10 gigs, depending on your plan). Simple throttles to a lower bandwidth and at the 1 or 2 gig mark.

[Endeavor]

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled, however, that arbitration clauses are subject to the same state-law standards as any other contract, and can be invalidated under standards that apply to any contract. California Courts have long applied this standard to invalidate arbitration clauses like the one used by ST, and the Supreme Court has affirmed those decision. So, again, if you're in California, feel free to file a case in small claims Court.

The Federal Arbitration Act is the law of the land and state legislatures cannot pass laws to exempts its citizens from the act as so ruled by the United States Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_..._v._Concepcion

[Endeavor]

Nope. In my example, I just brought my car and myself. I didn't bring along a tractor trailer or a modular home.

ST's web-site specifically promises unlimited data:

"$45 per month – Unlimited Data, Talk & Text"

http://www.straighttalksim.com/shop.php

Nothing in their advertising limits data to "mobile web."

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has long held that making promises in advertising that are taken away in the fine print (i.e., the TOS) is a deceptive practice. 61 F.T.C. 326, 348 (1962).

Only instead of a car, you bring a tractor trailer loaded with a modular home and demand the "unlimited car" ferry price. Never mind the fact you're driving up his fuel costs and reducing his ability to load paying customers because you're hogging his entire deck.

ST internet is unlimited if you abide by the TOS (only mobile web browsing and email). Data intensive activities like streaming and tethering are prohibited.

[Endeavor]

For more information on what constitutes deceptive advertising, see:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm

[jkool]

So from what I gather...the unwritten ST rules are as follows:

Unlimited calling (just dont stay on phone hours at a time)
Unlimited text (No worries)
Unlimited Data ( NO more than 100 mb a day / 2.5GB a month)

Is that correct?

[silentjudge]

So from what I gather...the unwritten ST rules are as follows:

Unlimited calling (just dont stay on phone hours at a time)
Unlimited text (No worries)
Unlimited Data ( NO more than 100 mb a day / 2.5GB a month)

Is that correct?

I would say

Unlimited calling (just dont stay on phone hours at a time)
Unlimited text (No worries, just dont international text out, receive is fine)
Unlimited Data (NO more than 120 mb a day / 2GB a month)

Honestly, I tell my friends and anyone else whos looking at ST, if you currently use more than 1.5GB of data a month, you should probably not get ST.

[efparri]

The Terms of Service of most carriers permit either arbitration or small claiims court. California is no different from other states. This is an excerpt of the AT&T Mobility Terms of Service:

Summary:
Most customer concerns can be resolved quickly and to the customer's satisfaction by calling our customer service department at 1-800-331-0500. In the unlikely event that AT&T's customer service department is unable to resolve a complaint you may have to your satisfaction (or if AT&T has not been able to resolve a dispute it has with you after attempting to do so informally), we each agree to resolve those disputes through binding arbitration or small claims court instead of in courts of general jurisdiction. Arbitration is more informal than a lawsuit in court. Arbitration uses a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury, allows for more limited discovery than in court, and is subject to very limited review by courts. Arbitrators can award the same damages and relief that a court can award. Any arbitration under this Agreement will take place on an individual basis; class arbitrations and class actions are not permitted. For any non-frivolous claim that does not exceed $75,000, AT&T will pay all costs of the arbitration. Moreover, in arbitration you are entitled to recover attorneys' fees from AT&T to at least the same extent as you would be in court.

In addition, under certain circumstances (as explained below), AT&T will pay you more than the amount of the arbitrator's award and will pay your attorney (if any) twice his or her reasonable attorneys' fees if the arbitrator awards you an amount that is greater than what AT&T has offered you to settle the dispute.

[RBBrittain]

The Terms of Service of most carriers permit either arbitration or small claiims court. California is no different from other states. This is an excerpt of the AT&T Mobility Terms of Service:

Unlike AT&T's Supreme Court-approved arbitration clause, ST's does *NOT* permit small-claims lawsuits; it also requires arbitration to be held in Miami (TF's hometown) unless BOTH parties agree to hold it elsewhere. Either of those could STILL invalidate the clause under state law in California or other states, even though California's ban on anti-class-action clauses was overturned in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

In addition, ST reserves the right to sue customers over "the unauthorized resale, export, alteration, and/or tampering of your Straight Talk phone, its software, the Service and/or PIN numbers". Here in Arkansas, our Supreme Court has held that one-sided exceptions like this generally render arbitration clauses "void for lack of mutuality", i.e., the arbitration requirement is NOT equally imposed on BOTH parties. The issue arose in arbitration clauses used by payday lenders about a decade ago in a futile attempt to block customer lawsuits under Arkansas' strict usury laws while still allowing the lender to sue customers who didn't pay. (Usury lawsuits eventually drove them out of business.) As that rule is based on common-law principles applicable to ALL contracts, it is *NOT* overruled by Federal arbitration law; indeed, it relies on a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Prima Paint, 1967) that at Federal law arbitration clauses are legally separate from the agreements that contain them (i.e., the TOS).

Edit: That is IN ADDITION TO the so-called "first sale doctrine" which IMO invalidates Tracfone's on-box language attempting to prohibit resale of its phones--though ironically the BYOP program is a way around that. (Neither AT&T nor Moto put such language on my Atrix 4G's box.)

[AndroidFoneFan]

I have a better example.

Suppose that you pay, in advance, for a ferry driver to take you and your car across a river. The ferry owner tells you that he can carry any load across the river, no matter how heavy you and your car are. His abilities are UNLIMITED. Half way across, the ferry driver says to you: You're too fat and your car is too heavy. Lose some weight and dump your cargo and fuel right away. You reply that you can't, and so he throws you and your car overboard.

I think that's a better example.

I will agree with this much. If you have paid to have service for a month. Whether you exceed there non published limit or not they should not cancel your service till the end of your paid service time.
And I also agree that their unlimited is not unlimited, and we know this so what is the point of further debate. Whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not. It is what it is. Like paying taxes. I for one feel like I get more for my 45 than the government gives for the hunk of my income that is stolen from me every month.
But that's just me.

[GTwannabe]

I will agree with this much. If you have paid to have service for a month. Whether you exceed there non published limit or not they should not cancel your service till the end of your paid service time.
And I also agree that their unlimited is not unlimited, and we know this so what is the point of further debate. Whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not. It is what it is. Like paying taxes. I for one feel like I get more for my 45 than the government gives for the hunk of my income that is stolen from me every month.
But that's just me.

If you let data abusers ride out the month, they will suck down 80GB+ torrenting. After they're banned, they will buy another $15 SIM and start a new account with a fake billing address and Walmart refill card.

[efparri]

A small claims court lawsuit would not correct the point of dissatisfaction with Straight Talk. It cannot force a defendant to change its practices. It can only compensate a victim for financial losses caused by the actions or inactions of the defendant. The account would still be cancelled and the telephone number would still be lost.

[Endeavor]

There is no such thing as "abuse" of an "unlimited" resource. Unlimited means no limits. If ST doesn't want to carry people who use 80GB+ of data in one month, they should advertise a limit, instead of falsely advertising that they are "unlimited."

If you let data abusers ride out the month, they will suck down 80GB+ torrenting. After they're banned, they will buy another $15 SIM and start a new account with a fake billing address and Walmart refill card.

[Endeavor]

If enough people brought small claims actions, it would. You could also file an arbitration claim and seek injunctive relief in arbitration. There's some debate in the Courts over whether arbitrators can award injunctive relief, but the trend is towards allowing it.

A small claims court lawsuit would not correct the point of dissatisfaction with Straight Talk. It cannot force a defendant to change its practices. It can only compensate a victim for financial losses caused by the actions or inactions of the defendant. The account would still be cancelled and the telephone number would still be lost.