XT Non-stop text - Fair Use policy??

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › XT Non-stop text - Fair Use policy??

funnyfela

350 posts

Ultimate Geek

#68738 27-Sep-2010 16:29

A mate of mine today got a text from Telecom:
Fm Telecom: We've noticed again an extreme # of texts being sent frm this mobile. Please reduce to avoid it being removed as per the provisions of Non Stop Text

Telecom's twitter refers me to
http://www.telecom.co.nz/terms/nonstoptext

That only says fair use policy applies,
"This Fair Use Policy is referenced against average customer profiles and estimated customer use of this service based on historic text usage of our text customers"

Considering that the biggest text plan they've had (before they 2500 released) was 2000 text, lots of my mates used several phones, so of course their patterns won't show a high usage, at 10c overage on the 2000 Boost plan, each customer would use 2000 over a few phones though.

They have sent 15000 texts, just to mates (which happen to be on XT Non-stop as well), not like they were using bulk text/spam text.
I just can't understand why call it 'Non-Stop' text if they then threaten to remove you off the plan....

'Fair Use Policy applies'....
I think they need to be a little bit more specific, fair use could be 3000 or could be 30,000!
Fair use to me means person to person texts, not spamming, not bulk texting, not using a pc to spam texts, there are only so many texts you can send without spamming/bulking.

Any thoughts on what their Fair Use policy may be, My mate really doesn't want to be kicked off

If you have to run heating in winter, you don’t own enough computers.

1 | 2

393 posts

Ultimate Geek

#385030 27-Sep-2010 16:41

15000!@!!!

quite honestly i dont think that is a "fair" amount to be using

500 a day, if you count 8 hours for sleep then that would mean you send a txt every 2 minutes for every waking moment of every day

this is where a signature goes

funnyfela

350 posts

Ultimate Geek

#385031 27-Sep-2010 16:44

I know, but they have alot of mates

I'm just annoyed that they market it as 'Non Stop' yet they threaten....
Just like they did with Go Large, Unlimited Broadband, but it was actually 700mb a day...

If you have to run heating in winter, you don’t own enough computers.

boby55

1539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#385034 27-Sep-2010 16:55

funnyfela: I know, but they have alot of mates

I'm just annoyed that they market it as 'Non Stop' yet they threaten....
Just like they did with Go Large, Unlimited Broadband, but it was actually 700mb a day...

They have always said it was subject to fair use policy.

Even back when they were promoting it, I remember the bold "Fair Use Policy Applies" on every advertisement.

The way I read the policy, It is based on the Txt usage of that particular number. So if your mates use to use 5 or so phones, the usage would be based on what ever number was signed up to that plan, Be it CDMA or XT. Much the Same if it was a New Number ( I assume it would be based on the Network Average.)

If they are seriously sending 15k texts a month, they need to get out and talk to the people in person. and I thought I was bad, Hitting 2200 text last month.

Oh and on Go Large, I almost every month exceeded the 700mb limit (By about 600mb an hour)

pageweon

393 posts

Ultimate Geek

#385036 27-Sep-2010 16:59

yeah thats why they called it non-stop and not unlimited

this is where a signature goes

quickymart

13950 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#385038 27-Sep-2010 17:02

15 000 texts?? Dear God, what kind of a life is that? Tell your mate to call their friends, it would be a tonne easier.

funnyfela

350 posts

Ultimate Geek

#385039 27-Sep-2010 17:04

pageweon: yeah thats why they called it non-stop and not unlimited

Nonstop - not easing or letting up

Unlimited - boundless, infinite

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

Seem the same to me

If you have to run heating in winter, you don’t own enough computers.

boby55

1539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#385042 27-Sep-2010 17:06

funnyfela:
pageweon: yeah thats why they called it non-stop and not unlimited

Nonstop - not easing or letting up

Unlimited - boundless, infinite

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

Seem the same to me

You Said it yourself....

"Unlimited - Boundless, Infinite."

It is not an infinite plan which has a limit hence the term non stop not unlimited text

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#385054 27-Sep-2010 17:24

Non-stop should allow a text every 2 minutes, it is extreme but if they are going to apply a limit they really need to state that limit.

To set a limit based on historic usage is stupid in this situation. They have no relevant historic usage to look at because the old plans always had published limits.

boby55

1539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#385059 27-Sep-2010 17:36

graemeh: Non-stop should allow a text every 2 minutes, it is extreme but if they are going to apply a limit they really need to state that limit.

To set a limit based on historic usage is stupid in this situation. They have no relevant historic usage to look at because the old plans always had published limits.

Telecom Always said there is not 1 set number, It's fair usage policy is on a user by user basis.

Non of Telecoms plans had "Limits". They had free txts provided, Much the same as Calling Plans.
E.g $10 you send 50 Telecom to Telecom Txts, Then you get a further 1950 Free, Once you used these you could still send txts but at normal rates.

If your mate decided to use more than one mobile fine... But Telecom (Or any other Provider) haven't limited you to ONLY XYZ amount of messages a month.

If your mate each month paid the extra $$$ for the amount of messages they sent, they would benefit now, having a high history, Hence there current amount would not be out of place with their previous usage.

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#385061 27-Sep-2010 17:43

boby55:
graemeh: Non-stop should allow a text every 2 minutes, it is extreme but if they are going to apply a limit they really need to state that limit.

To set a limit based on historic usage is stupid in this situation. They have no relevant historic usage to look at because the old plans always had published limits.

Telecom Always said there is not 1 set number, It's fair usage policy is on a user by user basis.

Non of Telecoms plans had "Limits". They had free txts provided, Much the same as Calling Plans.
E.g $10 you send 50 Telecom to Telecom Txts, Then you get a further 1950 Free, Once you used these you could still send txts but at normal rates.

If your mate decided to use more than one mobile fine... But Telecom (Or any other Provider) haven't limited you to ONLY XYZ amount of messages a month.

If your mate each month paid the extra $$$ for the amount of messages they sent, they would benefit now, having a high history, Hence there current amount would not be out of place with their previous usage.

Their plans did have limits. The limits were imposed by prohibitively high pricing of the excess usage. If they charged 0.5c per additional text then that may have given a more realistic historic pattern.

I agree that a text every 2 minutes is high but how is this "unfair"? Unfair to who?

If you wanted to argue it further then once every 2 minutes is hardly "non stop" and it doesn't matter what disclaimers Telecom attempt to put in their advertisements, if they advertise with a headline of "non stop" then that's what they have to deliver. Anything else risks being charged for misleading advertising.

scorpiworld

192 posts

Master Geek

#385133 27-Sep-2010 19:52

Just to clarify your mate will get 2 separate txt warnings before they will be removed from the Not Stop plan and charged at normal txt rates. They won't be kicked off the network.

Fair Use Policy clarification - There is no fixed number of txt's TNZ deem as over their fair usage (It just makes it a fixed number of txt's plan!).

The number of txt's deemed as fair use is variable each month and depends on the average usage of all mobile customers on the network that month.

Think in terms of standardising normal random variables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#Standardizing_normal_random_variables

Take the upper bound (2SD) of the graph as excessive and above the fair usage policy for that month.

Your friend currently sits in that area of the bell shaped curve and just needs to change his texting habits to fit back in the mean.

Damager

2125 posts

Uber Geek

#385162 27-Sep-2010 20:32

15,000 texts..

Person 1 "wot u doin"..

Person 2 "nuffing"

Person 1 "oh true, wot u doin?"

Person 2 "watchn tv"

Person 1 "kewl"

Person 2 "boring"

Person 1 "ur boring"

I can understand now how there are users who reach the 15,000 text plateau...

- Telstra HTC Touch Pro2 - Energy ROM WM6.5.5 20 Oct/Cyanogen Mod Froyo 2.2 - R.I.P
- AT&T Galaxy S Captivate 16GB on XT (now with brother)
- Samsung Galaxy S2 on XT- Runs ICS 4.0.3 Resurrection Remix 9.2
- Business Hours - Work In The Electricity Industry, After Hours - DJ/Turntablist - Will Scratch Vinyl For Free'
- What's next??? S3?

zjod

1 post

Wannabe Geek

#395206 24-Oct-2010 13:18

I understand why the Fair Use Policy is in place HOWEVER I believe that the Telecom offer is not consistant with imposing the Fair Use Policy. This is because;

1) they cannot advertise 0.5cent per text, unless they feasibly would allow a user to use all 2500 txt messages under some form of Fair Use. If there are NO circumstances where a user will be allowed to use the full 2500 txt messages under Fair Use; then they cannot market the plan as 0.5c per text. The plan should be marketed under basic "historical use level", the same level they use to determine fair use.
i.e. if historically and average use is 100txt per month then the plan actually costs 12c pertxt.

2) and, the Fair Use policy is based on historical data and there is no historical data for this type of plan.

I do not believe that Telecom's behaviour would be changed unless this is tested in a court. Advertising standards authority could be used for point 1), BUT point 2) would only succeed if you could argue that your plan dictates your texting behaviour, there fore there is no historical data that is relevant.

This is my response to them if I am pulled up on the level of my txt use.

jjnz1

1363 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#395231 24-Oct-2010 14:23

1) they cannot advertise 0.5cent per text, unless they feasibly would allow a user to use all 2500 txt messages under some form of Fair Use. If there are NO circumstances where a user will be allowed to use the full 2500 txt messages under Fair Use; then they cannot market the plan as 0.5c per text. The plan should be marketed under basic "historical use level", the same level they use to determine fair use.
i.e. if historically and average use is 100txt per month then the plan actually costs 12c pertxt.

2) and, the Fair Use policy is based on historical data and there is no historical data for this type of plan.

No one said they would limit you @ 2500 texts. This conversation is based on the op using 15000 texts.

IMO, 15000 texts is ridiculous! I take it the op is still at school or not working?

The telco's have these fair use policies in place so people like you and your 15000 texts don't limit my service in any way.

The limits are normally based on a bell shaped curved as mentioned in the post above, and are calculated from the top percentile of this curve.

Based on 2500 upper limit, I would imagine the average text usage per user over a network would be in the range of 400-600 texts per month.

I think the telcos should send warnings at anything above 5000 texts per month. Seriously, 15000!!!!!!

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#395236 24-Oct-2010 14:59

funnyfela:
pageweon: yeah thats why they called it non-stop and not unlimited

Nonstop - not easing or letting up

Unlimited - boundless, infinite

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

Seem the same to me

You can argue all day about the definition of the english language, however as part of using the service you agree to the TOS which has a fair use plicy. 15,000 texts is excessive, I think expecting this many for that much money is ridiculous!!

1 | 2