Unlimited WhatsApp fair use limit explained

Well it is WhatsApp. Must people's usage is just messaging with a sprinkling of image/video sharing so I don't see the 1 GB limit as being a big deal.
 
From a logical business point of view, if they were to offer truly unlimited What's App they run the risk of Cannibalizing themselves by offering a free service which people would use instead of their pay products...

I don't think that you could expect a SP to offer unlimited data for a service like this. For messaging and sharing pics 1GB is plentiful.
 
Any FUP should be well in excess of what an above average user would use so in this case ASA might have made the right call… still doesn't mean I agree with calling it "unlimited".
 
Makes sense - 1 Gb is huge for a cellphone allowance.
But the product shouldn't be called "unlimited".
 
So ISPs can now advertise unlimited based on the soft-cap simply being higher than what the average user on their network utilises?
 
Uncapped , unlimited. Those terms lost their meaning ages ago
 
DJ... said:
So ISPs can now advertise unlimited based on the soft-cap simply being higher than what the average user on their network utilises?
Click to expand...

I do agree. Should not be called "Unlimited"
 
dominic said:
no
Click to expand...

I haven't read the ASA judgement, but the article conveys the notion that the ASA are quite OK with the term's use and their basis for such agreement was that the average user was unlikely to be "duped" by the marketing on account of the average user utilising well below the stated FUP...
 
ponder said:
Don't you start getting ideas now! :D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. I find such an advertising ploy to be rather ill-conceived and unethical.

Uncapped has a definition and unlimited has traditionally been reserved for products where no limitations are imposed. This IMHO (until otherwise corrected) muddies the waters somewhat and I'm concerned about how consumers are supposed to in any way understand product terminology if it is a pick'n'mix of what any operator or the ASA "feel" it is on the day. My feelings are that unlimited should not be limited, as this is clearly defined in the English language, and while uncapped with limitations can remain true to the definition, unlimited with limitations cannot and requires a rather odd interpretation of the word...
 
Since unlimited is an actual impossibility I think It's fair to expect people to understand that when they offer 'unlimited' it means experientially - it's experienced as unlimited by the user. I doubt there is anybody that sends 5000 photographs over whatsapp every month so in your every day experience it's unlimited.
 
C4Cat said:
Since unlimited is an actual impossibility I think It's fair to expect people to understand that when they offer 'unlimited' it means experientially - it's experienced as unlimited by the user. I doubt there is anybody that sends 5000 photographs over whatsapp every month so in your every day experience it's unlimited.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Calling it unlimited is unethical and a lie. Rather then advertised it as "1 gig of Whatsapp for R5 a month". Then the user knows exactly what they get.
 
C4Cat said:
Since unlimited is an actual impossibility I think It's fair to expect people to understand that when they offer 'unlimited' it means experientially - it's experienced as unlimited by the user.
Click to expand...

That is a perfectly acceptable answer, however in this case it is very likely that some users will experience limitations. With user behaviour changing daily and usage increasing across the board, what is experienced today may not be the same tomorrow, and this could mean backwards and forwards between ICASA and the ASA on a fairly frequent basis for them to determine today what the acceptable usage for consideration for unlimited product terminology really is. That's outrageous, and quite unnecessary, as the English language does not require re-tooling by marketers who in this day and age are themselves often barely able to string a sentence together.

It really should be quite simple: stick with the definition of the word rather than making up new definitions to fit marketing strategies. Else consumers simply become the test-bed for ways that lawyers for marketing companies can rationalise things today, while having to go back and do it all over again shortly thereafter once supposedly "redefined", and the consumer certainly doesn't benefit from this redefining process.

What is stopping an ISP from adopting the same argument and rebranding their product range, other than their own sense of business ethics? If the majority won't be affected, and those who are affected exceed the average and therefore cost more money, changing to such a policy would be ideal for an ISP without ethics, for which there already exists too many of in this country...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X