AT&T Changes TOS, Limits Streaming, Tethering

MojoKid writes "Just one day after announcing plans to subsidize netbooks, AT&T wised up to the fact that those netbooks and connections could be used to download movies and enjoy other bandwidth-intensive applications. Apparently trying to avoid bogging down their network, the company revised its data plan service terms to single out and prohibit 'downloading movies using P2P file-sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, and web broadcasting...' The license agreement further prohibits tethering the device to PCs or other equipment. That's a pretty strict set of rules. After all, the new terms of service seems to limit applications such as SlingPlayer, Qik, Skype, and Jaikuspot, which many AT&T customers are currently using without issue." Update — April 4, 02:50 GMT by SS: Reader evn points out an Engadget report that AT&T quickly retracted the changes.

Comments

Well, you need to use the internet the right way

[tkrotchko]

In AT&T's world, you can have unlimited access to the Internet, provided all you want to do is look at static web pages and check your email.

Simple solution

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Don't use AT&T as your provider.

Existing customers?

[JSBiff]

First, yes, I know people have posted that ATT has already retracted this particular TOS.

But, I have a more general question. When I sign a contract with any mobile company for service, shouldn't the TOS be fixed at that point? If ATT (or whoever the mobile co is) wants to require me to accept new TOS in the future, does that entitle me to get out of the contract without an early-termination fee?

Seems to me that a contract where one party can change the terms at any time and I must accept those terms without being able to terminate the contract, is a pretty darn aweful contract. So aweful, I would think it would be illegal?

Re:Existing customers?

[dfm3]

Ever notice how just about every contract/eula has some statement to the effect of "we reserve the right to change these terms at any time without notice"? When that happens, you have the option of dropping the service at that point, but that's about it. Continuing to pay your bill after the company changes their terms is considered "acceptance" of the new terms.

Of course, they'll do everything in their power to prevent you from noticing the changes while doing the bare minimum required to "notify" you. My credit card company is notorious for this. Whenever there's a change in the terms of service or interest rates, they mail you the notice as a tiny slip of paper with 5-point legalese text buried in an envelope that looks deceptively like a piece of junk mail, then cram the envelope full of glossy fliers advertising related "services" in hopes that you toss the whole thing out without giving it a second look.

If you find out about a pending change and you want to get out of a service contract without any fees, that's the time to do so. Of course, I'm sure if they could legally keep you from backing out without a fee, they would.

Re:Well, you need to use the internet the right wa

[wraithguard01]

Yes, it's quite ridiculous. Their terms of service are like not letting a fat person into a buffet, because they will eat more. Quite frankly I think terms like that are preposterous. I hope their TOS will get challenged at some point.

Re:Already been reversed

[syousef]

Perhaps they realised that people pay for Internet access so they can fucking well use it.

Genuine bandwidth scarcity?

[syncrotic]

I'm the first to argue that transfer caps on fixed broadband are bullshit: nothing but thinly-veiled attempts by cable companies to strangle video downloads in the hope of protecting their broadcast revenues.

Might mobile broadband be a different story though? There's only so much data you can push through the air on a given frequency range with a given SNR... might it be that the cellular network can't support a significant number of video-downloading mobile users? It was, after all, designed to support voice calls at somewhere around 9.6kbit/s, with data capabilities grafted on as a bit of an afterthought.

We'd all like a future in which cellular companies are generic wireless bit pipes, carrying voice, video, and everything else the internet has to offer at the best possible quality... but what kind of cellular network would it take to make that a reality? With the spectrum we have available, would we need a low-power cell on every street corner?

Re:To Avoid Bogging Down Their Network?

[sjames]

I notice that all of the broadband providers advertise endless about how studly their network is while constantly whining to regulators about how it's coming apart under load.

Regulation

[ieatcookies]

There needs to be more regulation on how services are advertised in general. It's pretty retarded to say "unlimited" service when in fact it's nothing of the sort. You should not be required to learn what "unlimited" means in the scope of that contract. Companies should be responsible foe literal terminology.