This actually goes back to my original devil's advocate point: the screen caps don't show anything suggesting "phone only". One is called gogo mobile, the other gogo.
As I said, a laptop is arguably a mobile device. Further, there is nothing there that states it is for a mobile device, just that it is the mobile page. It doesn't say "for phone users only".
As for my analogous situation: My bank said I could only sign in through IE to access my web banking. Does this mean I committed fraud to access via a Firefox with changed agent string? I used that log in to transfer money to my debit card account and get some cash. Definitely a deceit with value. (Note, the account was in fact mine).
No, because you had no intent to deceive and obtained no undue value from your bank. The bank in no way made it clear that they were requiring you to use IE as a term of service; the IE system requirement is for compatibility, and that's how reasonable people understand it.
On the other hand, when you see $7.99 for phone service and $25.99 for computer service, it's clear to a reasonable person what the intent of that price difference is: the company wants to charge more to computer users.
As for the clearness or not-clearness of the message: there's a lot of reasons why I think this case isn't going to the Supreme Court. If you want to suggest that the clarity of the pricing message is one of those reasons, I'm not going to disagree too strongly --- though I do disagree.
2 things: first of all, the "you need to use IE, to use this website, your browser is unsupported" message, is in fact much clearer on the bank site than the subtle difference in name for "mobile", and ambiguous term at best. I don't understand why one case of user string subversion is different than another, even if the clearness of terms is equal.
Second, what is the real line between say a macbook air or other keyboarded computer and an ipad or galaxy table or kindle fire or... they all run operating systems that let me use more or less the same software and access the same network resources.
The combination is really the difficult part for me, given I can do the same things - look at the same sites, get the same utility, and otherwise use the same bandwidth in both cases, particularly when usb tethering is a real option giving me the same deal but now without the act you are calling fraud, how is it even reasonable to think that the "mobile" case is other than a discount for some magic words?
Reasonable people all understand that the reason why an ISP would offer a lower rate to phone users is the anticipation that either phone users would use the service less, or that users who have only phones and not computers are less interested in paying a premium for Internet access.
As I said, a laptop is arguably a mobile device. Further, there is nothing there that states it is for a mobile device, just that it is the mobile page. It doesn't say "for phone users only".
As for my analogous situation: My bank said I could only sign in through IE to access my web banking. Does this mean I committed fraud to access via a Firefox with changed agent string? I used that log in to transfer money to my debit card account and get some cash. Definitely a deceit with value. (Note, the account was in fact mine).