• HobbitFoot
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.

    Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.

    • UsernameLost@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Oh no, a small number of my users are actually using my service the way I advertised it. Better change it

    • splendoruranium@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.

      Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.

      Absolutely! But I don’t think that’s the point of contention here. The problem is the “abuse” rhetoric, since it’s not just incorrect but disingenuous to basically claim that the users did anything wrong here. They’re imposing limits because they miscalculated how many heavy users they could handle.
      Again, that’s a completely reasonable move, but framing it as anything but a miscalculation on their part is just a dick move.