RedPocket Mobile
View company profile →
"Unreasonable" Service
I switched to Red Pocket from Verizon in early May 2024 and kept my account active through January 2025. Any reasonable consumer will understand the word unlimited to mean “unrestricted, unconditional, without limit” (see dictionary definition) and expect their service to continue to be functional, no matter how slow it may be. When I first saw this word in Red Pocket’s advertising and policies in early May, that is what I understood it to mean. Yet Red Pocket uses the word in the complete opposite manner: with restriction, conditional, and with limits. In their email responses to me (attempting to resolve the issues described below), they seemed to repeat this refrain ad nauseam: "We want to clarify that while we offer unlimited low-speed data, this does not equate to unrestricted or unreasonable usage.” They are literally redefining the word before our eyes. What is more, they explicitly claim the right to cut off service “for any reason at any time, in [their] sole discretion.” On that point alone, they should be held accountable for the crystal-clear and even brazen misuse of this word. Their conduct conflicted with their own policies. Now, it is totally reasonable that a cell service provider will need to manage their service to ensure that all subscribers have fair access. That is why they say that “unlimited does not mean unreasonable.” Okay, so how do they define unreasonable? In their policy, they explicitly define it as exceeding “an average of 30GB during the current billing month.” Once again, if they use the word unlimited, there shouldn’t be a limit. Notwithstanding, I asked them to provide my usage for the month in question. Altogether, it was a grand total of 6.7 GB. As you can see, that is nowhere near 30GB and their definition of unreasonable. As such, I was totally within the bounds of their policy; I did not use their services “unreasonably,” and yet they still cut off my data service. They state that the resulting reduction of one’s service decreases to speeds of “approx. 64-256kbps, which is usually sufficient for most mobile internet activities, such as email, social media (e.g. Facebook), and maps, but is not suitable for video or audio streaming.” First, as far as I’ve researched, they make false claims to suggest that any of these apps can function at 64 kbps. Most require at least 100kbps. Also, their Open Internet Statement shows that the absolute bare minimum speed I should be experiencing on any type of service is 5 mbps (500kb) with 4G LTE under the GSMT coverage. So their policy is also inconsistent with their Statement. I can attest that audio and video streaming did not work, but I will add that none of the other apps—any, mind you, that required internet—worked, either. They throttled my data to such a slow speed that every single one of my apps timed out, even if I used the most basic apps, and only had one open at a time. So, not only did they misuse the word unlimited by definition, not only did they falsely label my usage as “unreasonable” even according to their own policy, they also slowed my speeds to a dysfunctional state. Once again, I see no way to reasonably explain how this is unlimited, by any stretch of the imagination. I therefore contend that they should not be allowed to use this word, but must use a different word that implies limits. Or, if they continue to use the word, they must actually guarantee unlimited (without restriction, condition, or limit) service for each paid period at low, functional speeds after the subscriber’s high-speed balance runs out. This is because the usage of the word unlimited as described above and their application of their policy is misleading, unethical, and perhaps even classist. They also do not abide by their own clearly-outlined policy; claiming that my usage was “unreasonable” even though I was clearly well below their prescribed amount and providing low-speed data that was below functional thresholds for even the most basic of apps. They need to be held accountable.