Re: [TELECOM] NYS AG Cuomo settles with VZ Wirelss on "unlimited" data

In article ,

>***** Moderator's Note ***** > >I didn't see the ads either, and so I may be talking nonsense, but I'm >still uneasy with the idea. I can't speak for anyone but myself, and >I'm a U.S. citizen with all the emotional and philosophical baggage of >a typical Yank. > >IANALB, we have a concept called "The Reasonable Man Standard" in >U.S. Common law (practicing attorneys, feel free to jump in). As I >understand it, a Reasonable Man is expected to understand that "All >You Can Eat" means "All You Can Eat in a reasonable time without >depriving other patrons of their meal".

"Not Exactly". The 'reasonable man' test does not dictate that any _one_ particular interpretation of a statement is THE WAY that the statement shall be interpreted.

Something 'passes' the 'reasonable man' test *IF* said (hypothetical) person _could_ rationally come to that conclusion from what was given. Note well the word "could" is used -- as in 'within the realm of reason', *NOT* 'would' -- which would require that it be 'the _most_likely_' interpretation.

Neither "a reasonable time", nor "without depriving other patrons..." is forced by the 'reasonable man' doctrine. 'Reasonable man' restrictions -would- include "between when you start to eat and the regular closing time", and "without being force-fed by someone else".

>I don't know if Verizon offered "Unlimited" service with the expressed >promise that it didn't include limits on use: given the large legal >staff that Verizon pays for, I'd be very surprised if the ads didn't >have an asterisk somewhere.

The ads -did- have an asterisk. *NOT* for qualifying 'unlimited' use, but restricting the 'type of things' that the service could be used for. It was restricted to 'e-mail', '_limited_ web-browsing', and 'connecting to corporate databases'. Certain things -- file-sharing, 'streaming' media, included -- were expressly listed as prohibited uses.

People were being terminated "for breach of contract" - engaging in proscribed use of the service", _because_ , according to Verizon, "you couldn't have the kind of traffic levels shown for your account, _without_ violating the 'type of use' restrictions. *NO* evidence that any such proscribed use -had- occurred, just the claim "you _must_ have, because...."

Even if they didn't, though, my question >remains the same, and I'll state it another way: don't those who use >technology have an obligation to investigate claims that they don't >understand?

You have to "know what you don't know", in order to ask questions. And you don't see any need to ask, if you _think_ you DO know, but your interpretation happens to be different from that of 'those who make the rules'.