Unlimited WhatsApp fair use limit explained

DJ... said:
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...
Click to expand...

I agree, but I mean.... advertising.
Is it ever honest?
It's all about jargon - yes, I agree, the English language does not require re-tooling by marketers but that is what they do.
If you're not going to single out this particular example of 'unlimited' then the entire advertising industry needs to reprimanded - from Ford claiming "the city is in your hands" with the "first Urban Activity Vehicle" (Really?) to Savannah claiming "It's dry but you can drink it" Really? - We all know advertising jargon is just that.

I would like to know if there is a single person who has reached the 1GB limit on whatsapp?
 
Because calling it 1GB Whatsapp data for R5 would be bad marketing. Let's call it unlimited even though we know it's not.
 
There is NO such thing as "unlimited" when it comes to broadband and data when there is a time limit linked to it..
 
I'm a Cell C fan,but yeah calling it unlimited just isn't right.Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Look R5 for 1GB whatsapp data is an awesome deal and I have it activated on my contract and no other operator can touch that deal right now but I still disagree with the ruling.Cell C should stop with smoke and mirrors marketing especially when you have such a value for money offering like this that doesn't need lies to sell,it's a lousy 5 bucks for your monthly whatsapp needs for crying out loud.
 
C4Cat said:
I agree, but I mean.... advertising.
Is it ever honest?
It's all about jargon - yes, I agree, the English language does not require re-tooling by marketers but that is what they do.
If you're not going to single out this particular example of 'unlimited' then the entire advertising industry needs to reprimanded - from Ford claiming "the city is in your hands" with the "first Urban Activity Vehicle" (Really?) to Savannah claiming "It's dry but you can drink it" Really? - We all know advertising jargon is just that.

I would like to know if there is a single person who has reached the 1GB limit on whatsapp?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that marketing gets a free pass on things simply because historically they've always tried to shaft consumers and been able to get away with it. I also don't believe that adopting a defeatist attitude that it cannot change, is correct. I cannot fathom an interpretation of the word 'unlimited' that imposes limits. Imposing any limit is by the very definition of the word and nature of definitions, the very antithesis of unlimited. Seeing as imposing a limit results in the polar opposite description of what the word means, it's quite a binary outcome - things are either unlimited or they are not. To say anything else is to either misunderstand the dictionary definitions or to intentionally ignore them for the sake of making up a new definition, that will by the very nature of the redefinition, be misleading considering that the majority of people will know and interpret it as the dictionary definition instead <--- ASA's argument back at them.

How can anyone be OK with that?
 
I cannot fathom an interpretation of the word 'unlimited' that imposes limits.
Click to expand...

there is an inherent limitation that use must be legal, nothing else
 
dominic said:
there is an inherent limitation that use must be legal, nothing else
Click to expand...

With legal by and large being covered by an AUP, not an FUP. Cell C and the ASA found common ground on the FUP side of things here. What's stopping an ISP from successfully defending the same argument to the ASA after rebranding their capped product range above the average usage (or 3 times) to "unlimited"? Or switching from uncapped marketing to unlimited marketing while imposing FUPs? It's fundamentally the exact same argument, only augmented across all layer 7 protocols rather than just one...
 
Last edited:
DJ... said:
I don't believe that marketing gets a free pass on things simply because historically they've always tried to shaft consumers and been able to get away with it. I also don't believe that adopting a defeatist attitude that it cannot change, is correct. I cannot fathom an interpretation of the word 'unlimited' that imposes limits. Imposing any limit is by the very definition of the word and nature of definitions, the very antithesis of unlimited. Seeing as imposing a limit results in the polar opposite description of what the word means, it's quite a binary outcome - things are either unlimited or they are not. To say anything else is to either misunderstand the dictionary definitions or to intentionally ignore them for the sake of making up a new definition, that will by the very nature of the redefinition, be misleading considering that the majority of people will know and interpret it as the dictionary definition instead <--- ASA's argument back at them.

How can anyone be OK with that?
Click to expand...

The majority of people will experience it as unlimited, that's why it's ok.

It's the same as restaurants that offer bottomless soda or unlimited coffee - yes, technically it's neither bottomless, nor unlimited but for the consumer it is exactly that, since nobody can practically consume all the coffee in the world.
Same way with whatsapp - it's unlimited in a practical way, even if not strictly by definition.
Does anybody even actually believe unlimited data is even possible?
 
C4Cat said:
The majority of people will experience it as unlimited, that's why it's ok.

It's the same as restaurants that offer bottomless soda or unlimited coffee - yes, technically it's neither bottomless, nor unlimited but for the consumer it is exactly that, since nobody can practically consume all the coffee in the world.
Same way with whatsapp - it's unlimited in a practical way, even if not strictly by definition.
Does anybody even actually believe unlimited data is even possible?
Click to expand...

In product definition terminology for data, it is incredibly simple and the outcome is very much binary. There's no requirement for caveats. These caveats are creating more confusion rather than defining it for regulatory, legal, and marketing purposes. If the limitation is imposed on line speed, then that is covered by the product definitions and not the FUP. We are however talking about an FUP here which is the consumption of data based on these product terms.

The only ethical way to market a product called unlimited is to carry such terminology in your FUP. If however your FUP is used to prevent unlimited use, your product is not unlimited. Is this not a far easier method with which to regulate such marketing right now and in the future? Does it not provide clear guidelines and set a standard that is both beneficial to consumers and advertisers as they both understand the product terminologies correctly? Is this not easier than running back and forth to the ASA and ICASA to please mediate where a consumer is rightfully upset about a product being labelled as unlimited where by it's own FUP it simply cannot be called that? Does this not strike you as more logical than "experience is unlimited but may not be for everyone"?
 
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...

Cell C could have avoided all of this by calling it "unmetered" instead of unlimited. Unmetered connections can still be rate-limited, and in this case they could have capped Whatsapp traffic at a certain bandwidth limit in order to not lose buckets of money over it.
 
DJ... said:
With legal by and large being covered by an AUP, not an FUP. What's stopping an ISP from making the same argument to the ASA after rebranding their capped product range above the average usage to "unlimited"? Or switching from uncapped marketing to unlimited marketing while imposing FUPs? It's fundamentally the exact same argument, only augmented across all layer 7 protocols rather than just one...
Click to expand...

ethics, decency
i also do not like the decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X