Nate Lanxon
Nate Lanxon is CNET UK's Senior Editor of News and Features, and covers every aspect of technology for Crave. He also enjoys popular-science books, obscure Japanese animation and plays 'technical metal' on the drums, whatever that is.
Next: WWDC '08 needs a 3G iPhone, for Apple's sake
Previous: Vote for me: I'll ban full-screen software installation
Friday 23 May 2008, 11:48am
Letter to Oxford English Dictionary: Redefine 'unlimited'
I've decided to write an open letter to the Oxford English Dictionary to suggest it adds an extra definition to its entry for 'unlimited', so consumers can realise that 'unlimited' also means 'limited'.
I, along with pretty much everyone in the tech industry, am sick of companies advertising 'unlimited' bandwidth, downloads and the such, only to impose stringent 'fair use' limits.
Since the Advertising Standards Authority isn't willing to force telecoms companies to stop using the word 'unlimited' when, in fact, they should use 'limited', it's time to take a more drastic interim measure.
The full letter is below, and for further reading, be sure to check some of our previous coverage of 'unlimited' claims made by companies.
1) Unlimited broadband may 'disappear'
2) They call it unlimited, but it really isn't
3) ISPs reject uSwitch 'unfairness' claims
Dear Sir/Madam,
For over a century, the Oxford English Dictionary has stood as an authoritative, comprehensive and complete written record of the English language. Revisions to the text have compensated for the literary evolution that takes place throughout our lives, and the inclusion of new words and emerging definitions have accurately reflected the language's growth as it moves with us through our modern world.
So it is with great respect for the work undertaken by the editors -- both current and past -- that I suggest an amendment to the existing definition of the adjective 'unlimited'. I believe I'm in a position to appreciate that this is a word that modern linguistic evolution has had a profound and confusing effect, which may have escaped the attention of those who reside outside the consumer technology industry.
The existing definition of 'unlimited', as ascribed by OED, is as follows:
un{sm}limited, ppl. a.
---1. Not limited or restricted in amount, extent, or degree:
a. Of power or authority, a rule, etc.b. In other applications.
2. Not limited in number.
3. Math. (See quots.)
4. Of a hydroplane: having no limit placed on its engine capacity. Also absol. as n. U.S.
'Unlimited', however, has been subject to evolution via common verbal usage, into an adjective that describes the properties of, in fact, 'having a limit' and being of 'exhaustible supply'. This evolution has taken place inside the vernacular language of telecommunications advertisers in the 21st Century. But as this directly affects the entire general public, both native speakers of English or otherwise, I feel an additional definition is required to allay confusion:
5. Surreptitiously limited in quantity
While I appreciate it is not customary to change or alter definitions as a result of isolated usage, I believe it is worth you being made aware that the nature of competitive advertising is forcing some companies to redefine words for their own benefit. The repercussion is that the general English-speaking public is forced into confusion over what should be a simple English word.
Your thoughts on the matter are most welcome, and above all valued.
Yours sincerely,
Nate M. Lanxon
Next: WWDC '08 needs a 3G iPhone, for Apple's sake
Previous: Vote for me: I'll ban full-screen software installation
Comments on this post
Amazing Nate - somehow we have to convince companies that their linguistic trickery is not appreciated, nor in fact overly legal!
Posted by Kat Hannaford on Fri 23 May, 2008 12:20 PM
Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment
Advertisers will always be ambiguous with their interpretation of language, however their clause in terms and conditions that reference "Fair Use" is subjective. Subjective definitions vary over time, what would fair use have meant 10 years ago? What about in 10 years time? I think the way people in general are using the internet has changed a lot and fair use now should cover things like iPlayer and video download services. The next step will be hi-def services. I think if someone challenged a decision to disconnect them for downloading legal multimedia content then they would have a good case to argue regarding what is fair use.
Posted by Glyn on Fri 23 May, 2008 1:18 PM
Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment
The letter would be even more impressive if the adjective "unlimited" had not been referred to as a noun... This isn't a matter of "fair use" being valid, it's the fact that an ad will say "unlimited texts (fair use applies)" and the fair use policy will then say "limited to xxx texts per month" (a linguistic contradiction) so the ad could have easily said "xxx texts included". The only reason to use "unlimited" is to try to fool people (most of whom don't scour the small print) into thinking they are getting more than they are. I'm just surprised this issue hasn't blown up well before now.
Posted by Mark on Fri 23 May, 2008 1:43 PM
Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment
The problem is is that 'unlimited' meaning 'limited' it has been used so frequently in advertising campaigns that whenever we read unlimited, we (usually) go right ahead and check what the limit actually is. I myself am on a phone contract offering 'unlimited texts' however im well aware that this limit is actually 3000. Its not really a problem as i usually fall several hundred short of that per month. The problems arise when when the companies decide youve had enough 'unlimited' amounts of their product. Again. i was offered unlimited bandwidth on an orange (wanadoo) internet connection, but when my usage peaked over 30gb, i got angry letters threatening to end my service. I can't believe that its still something thats allowed to be done, considering the other restrictions put in place for false advertising, which is what it boils down to. Having an asterisk next to unlimited does not mean its ok to say it. "Miracle age defying cream, will make you look 20 years younger within a week!" * *product will not make you look younger, in fact, you may look a couple of years older.
Posted by Andrew Peter Lanxon Fisher Hoyle on Fri 23 May, 2008 2:39 PM
Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment
Mischievous! But regrettably entirely justified by the disgraceful behaviour of the Advertising Standards body.
Posted by David Hutton-Squire on Mon 19 January, 2009 4:24 PM
Offensive? Inappropriate? Report this comment
Articles by Nate Lanxon
What does Google Suggest suggest about the state of humanity?
Crave People ask Google some exceptionally worrying questions. We poked through the things it suggests you might be asking and offered some answers to the hard of thinking
Why won't they die? The tech we won't forget
Crave If you were born, it's highly likely you'll die. Sorry about that. For consumer tech though, it's not quite so cut and dried. We explore the technology that just refuses to be killed off
EMI baffles us: Offers Beatles MP3s... on memory sticks
Crave EMI and Apple Corps have released a £200 USB memory stick in the shape of an apple, with all The Beatles' albums in MP3. We're so unimpressed we felt compelled to complain
Interview: Zero Punctuation's Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw reveals all
Crave Zero Punctuation is a wonder, truly one of the greatest online video shows of the age. Its creator -- Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw -- sits down to take us behind the scenes of its creation
Every BBC iPlayer device tested
Crave The BBC's iPlayer is compatible with so many portable devices now it's almost funny. So here's your ultimate reference resource: we've tested and judged every single one of them
Firefox 3.6 beta tested in-depth
Crave The next major revision of Mozilla's Firefox Web browser is version 3.6. Mozilla promises speed boosts and many new features. We've been testing the beta for a few days
Sony Reader Pocket Edition PRS-300
Review Dispensing with bells and whistles, the Reader Pocket Edition PRS-300 ebook reader does one job and does it well. It's extremely easy to read text on its e-ink display, it's attractive and pocketable, and it's very simple to use. Overall, we think it's the best ebook reader currently on the UK market
Sony Reader Touch Edition PRS-600
Review The Reader Touch Edition PRS-600 is a decent ebook reader with some intriguing capabilities, such as its touchscreen, which not only lets you turn pages with a swipe of a finger but also allows you to make annotations. It's not as simple to use as Amazon's Kindle, but it offers much more freedom when it comes to finding books






