No it is not fair or reasonable. If I get a certain plan I should be able to utilize it to the full extent. If a company is incapable of providing the service they should not sell that service plan.
I sort of see your point, but what you're arguing is that they should just change the wording of the contracts. You're not going to get what you want anyway.
We ran into that issue with the marketing department and upper management when I work at a telco. We where starting to sell 3G USB modems, and "plan" was that we'd start to push internet via 3G, because it was 7Mbit at the time and that would be plenty fast. There would be no need to sell ADSL connections anymore.
The issue, which the people responsible for the network pointed out is that the 7Mbit was SHARED. It assumed that the user was alone on that tower. Also there's a limit on the connection to the tower it self, these are fiber now, so not a major issue, but a limiting factor at some point.
Internet via 4G is certainly faster than 7Mbit now, but it's still a shared capacity. If you surf the net, check your emails and such, it's in burst so it's fine to share. Streaming is you using a constant amount of traffic for a sustained period of time and that's not what the cell network is designed to do.
That is fine if I don't get exactly what I want, but companies should not be allowed to blatantly lie and over promise. Do I get to violate the contract for the service I was unable to utilize? Companies need to stop over promising and under delivering and hiding behind a 20 page one sided contract.
I don't really see where the blatant lie is. ISPs never advertise dedicated speed and most have long documents describing how they manage their network.
