Read the Fine Print

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

See update below.

A few years ago I switched to T-Mobile. The price was good, and their plans included tethering at no extra cost. I mostly use my phone as a mobile hotspot with only occasional forays into text, talk, and apps, so this was a good deal.

A few weeks ago Marian switched over too. When we did that, we also switched to their unlimited data plan. We didn’t really need it, but it was only a few dollars more than our old plan, so why not?

Well, ever since then my hotspot performance has been lousy. At first I paid no attention. Sometimes this stuff happens. But it went on and on, and eventually I wondered if I had missed something. It turns out I had: the unlimited plan includes unlimited 4G except for the hotspot. Here’s the fine print: “Tethering at Max 3G speeds.” That’s bad enough, but in practice it seems to mean “3G except when we don’t feel like it,” since about half the time my hotspot performance reminds me of using a dial-up modem back in the 80s. Why? Because I didn’t read the fine print to the fine print: “Smartphone and tablet usage is prioritized over Mobile Hotspot Service (tethering) usage.”

As you can see, it’s all right there in the description of the plan. How could I have missed it? It’s plain as day if only I’d looked at it with a magnifying glass or the sales rep had pointed it out. But I didn’t and he didn’t. So now I’m stuck paying more for a plan that delivers less of what I actually want. And why did T-Mobile do this? Because they now have a new product: for $20 per month, you can get 4G hotspot performance. Fabulous.

I’m so tired of this shit. It seems like it applies to practically everything I buy these days. There’s always something.

UPDATE: I remain annoyed about this, but when I complained to T-Mobile about this they promptly switched me back to my old plan. In fact, they switched me back a better, cheaper plan than I used to have. So it all worked out.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend