AT&T On Data Throttling: Blame Yourselves

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T On Data Throttling: Blame Yourselves

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @06:46AM from the reap-what-you-sow dept.

zacharye writes in with a story about Senior EVP of AT&T technology and network operations John Donovan's blog post detailing why customers with unlimited smartphone plans are getting throttled. "In an effort to justify its policies surrounding data service throttling for subscribers with unlimited smartphone data plans, AT&T on Tuesday issued a brief report regarding data usage on its nationwide wireless network. Senior EVP of AT&T technology and network operations John Donovan wrote on a company blog that data traffic on AT&T's network has grown a staggering 20,000% over the past five years. Usage has doubled between 2010 and 2011 according to the executive, due in large part to the proliferation of smartphones. AT&T sold more smartphones in the fourth quarter of 2011 than in any other quarter in its history. And because its smartphone subscribers use so much data, AT&T seems to suggest it has no choice but to put measures such as data throttling in place."

301 of 406 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's all the customers' fault... by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-02-15 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

...for trying to use the product they bought.
AT&T needs to learn from the insurance companies - the REAL profit is in selling a product you never intend to deliver.

--
This space available.
1. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  and airlines... "overbooking," anyone?
2. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by AmigaMMC · 2012-02-15 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Data throttling is happening after 1.5GB to people on an unlimited plan whereas it doesn't happen to people who have 2GB or 3GB plans. That tells me that AT&T is coercing customers with an unlimited plan to drop it and go with a limited plan. It would be just fair for Data Throttling not to occur before 2 or 3GB of usage, to be in par with the other consumers. I think the FCC should step in and stop this abuse of consumer rights.
3. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  and airlines... "overbooking," anyone?
  Overbooking is awesome. I don't understand what the airlines get out of it, but it just never happens that you get bumped off a flight you MUST be on, because there are always people willing to take the perks of getting bumped. If you don't need to be that on that flight, then you get the perks.
4. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by 18_Rabbit · 2012-02-15 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sounds like that's exactly what they were doing. UNLIMITED data plans, shouldn't, you know, have a LIMIT.
5. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-15 07:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It does happen, it just happens exceptionally rarely. The airlines have elaborate models they can use to minimise the chance, but they can't eliminate it entirely.
6. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, I've been bumped from flights that I _had_ to be on... 3 times in the last couple of years. Really sucks.
7. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by sjames · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently they already did. What they need to learn now is how to hire the sort of high quality weasels the insurance companies do. They have some good ones, but the want the ones who can condemn someone to death for a dime.
8. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by NonUniqueNickname · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite as profitable as selling insurance, but AT&T has the second-best thing: SMS. Astronomical margins, barely takes any airtime. If it were up to AT&T they'd probably be happy to get more text-loving customers and ditch all the data-loving customers.
9. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by MikeFM · 2012-02-15 07:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As somebody that had an unlimited data plan for a couple years.. AT&T already has this down. My unlimited data plan on my iPad, with a solid 3G connection, struggled to pull down data fast enough to pull down a simple web page or email. So when are they going to refund money to people with unlimited plans that didn't get what they paid for?
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
10. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by BDZ · 2012-02-15 07:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think the main reason they don't throttle the customers with the limited plans is that they very much wish to see those people go over the limit so they can then charge them for additional usage.
11. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by ackthpt · 2012-02-15 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ...for trying to use the product they bought.
  AT&T needs to learn from the insurance companies - the REAL profit is in selling a product you never intend to deliver.
  I'd mod this to +6 if I could.
  AT&T is still running a lot of traffic, last mile/last feet, in copper and doesn't want to go through tens of thousands of neighborhoods and replace copper with glass. They also don't want to upgrade switches. It was such a shock to their crappy infrastructure when the first iPhones saturated their networks in New York City. Excuse me while I mock the blank, stupid looks on their faces, because some engineer, somewhere must have done the math and warned them it was coming. Dur. Got some great publicity out of that gaffe, didn't they?
  And so little of that, if any at all, was dependent upon copper.
  I sit and read about Euro telecoms running networks up to 100 Mb/s all over the place and see AT&T (among others) looking for ways to throttle the pokey 6 Mb/s I'm getting, or even figuring how to charge me for using it, effectively threatening the Golden Goose of the Internet for any company selling a product requiring high bandwidth, which really is the future growth direction. What do they want, a government subsidy? Of course they do, just like Big Oil, I bet.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
12. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can forgive airlines overbooking, to a degree. Most airlines only overbook a few seats, and it works out fine the majority of the time (I don't have exact numbers, but I'm a very frequent flier and rarely hear about people being bumped) And in the few case when it doesn't work out and too many people show up, the airlines go out of their way to accommodate people. They'll ask for volunteers, provide free upgrades, meal vouchers and anything else.
  ATT on the other hand, has overbooked their network by a LARGE margin. They've invited easily double the amount of people they can handle, and all of those people are showing up. And in response to this problem, ATT says "just deal with it," I received no free upgrades, no discount on my bill, nothing to offset the fact that they didn't provide the service I payed for.
13. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by ackthpt · 2012-02-15 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  and airlines... "overbooking," anyone?
  Overbooking is awesome. I don't understand what the airlines get out of it, but it just never happens that you get bumped off a flight you MUST be on, because there are always people willing to take the perks of getting bumped. If you don't need to be that on that flight, then you get the perks.
  I've been tempted to take the perks of being bumped, but usually I'm in a rotten mood because my flight is being held up while they look for volunteers.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
14. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by jeffmeden · 2012-02-15 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...for trying to use the product they bought.
  AT&T needs to learn from the insurance companies - the REAL profit is in selling a product you never intend to deliver.
  Really? Sounds like someone is forgetting why insurance (and reinsurance) is one of the biggest industries in the world (and rightly so). Insurance, the kind commonly purchased by an individual (as has been beat to death in many a /. thread) is merely the sale of a share in the risk of an event happening, as a way of mitigating the personal loss by pooling resources of everyone who has exposure to that specific kind of risk. There isn't an insurance company in the world that operates solely by taking in money and never paying it out in the form of claims. Instead, they have a constant churn of subscribers, claims, and modifications to their risk assessments to try to better price the products they sell (risk share is a VERY tangible product.) If anything, the nature of insurance as a product makes the industry very competitive and efficient (health "insurance", which is not really insurance in this definition, notwithstanding) so using them as an example of a marketplace as bent as the wireless one is pretty ignorant.
15. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by gorzek · 2012-02-15 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  SMS doesn't technically take any additional airtime at all: the messages are sent via the control channel required to keep your phone "alive" to nearby cells in the first place--the marginal cost of a text message is zero, since the data is going to be used regardless. Charging extra for SMS is nothing but a naked money grab.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
16. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Dunbal · 2012-02-15 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Pan Am used to regularly upgrade me to first class flying from London to Miami because they overbooked. Sigh, those were the days.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
17. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by cixelsyd · 2012-02-15 07:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What I want to know is, why do they throttle down to ridiculously low throughput?
  
  Is there no way to traffic shape over wireless? Why can't I choose between several "unlimited" packages with varying speeds, like I can with a regular wired ISP?
  Wouldn't this solve their "problem" users issues? Or is there something about wireless networking that I'm not aware of making this difficult/impossible?
  
  --
  Take a dollar, divide it by 100, take two and call me in the morning.
18. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by rolfwind · 2012-02-15 07:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Can't it be about screwing both?
  It's like listening to a used car salesman whose motto is "We screw the other guy and pass the savings onto you!" and believing you're the one getting a good deal when in reality the "savings" only gets passed onto the salesman himself.
19. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Dunbal · 2012-02-15 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Astronomical margins, barely takes any airtime.
  Takes NO airtime. SMS are sent over the control channel which your cell phone is talking to every now and then anyway to know which towers to use. And because the messages are so short, there really is no overhead.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
20. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by PRMan · 2012-02-15 07:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  One time my family was going to Hawaii on vacation and we were overbooked. This one family was completely rude to the airline staff, screaming profanities at them and making a giant scene in the terminal. They boarded the plane with them still standing there. Finally, after boarding, they brought the family to the front of the plane and said "Can we get 4 volunteers to be bumped to the next flight that leaves in 2 hours?"
  I told my mom, "Let's do it! We might get free flights or money off the tickets. It's only 2 hours and we gain time during the flight." So we raised our hands and the flight attendant said, right in front of the rude family, "OK, if you 4 would come up to FIRST CLASS, we can get underway."
  That was cold revenge right there, but we had a great flight.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
21. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  I accidentally read that as a "naked monkey grab" and was deeply troubled.
22. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Ihmhi · 2012-02-15 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. Some aspects of a business are inherently unprofitable, and you can make up for those aspects with the profits from the parts of a company that *do* make money.
  However, I agree that $0.20-$0.25 per text is egregious. It should either be $0.01-$0.05, or they should automatically be sold in "blocks" (every 100 texts costs $1 or something like that).
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
23. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by fahrbot-bot · 2012-02-15 07:39 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  UNLIMITED data plans, shouldn't, you know, have a LIMIT.
  
  Well... Technically they have an inherent limit of (max_bandwidth * time) but carriers assume *much* smaller usage by users and that's, of course, the problem. If they would run metrics on typical usage they'd know better. Of course, I assume they *do* run metrics, to come up with their various data plans, and gear their data plans to fall just short of typical usage blocks to allow easy overruns and extra charging. Ya, I'm cynical.
  Of course, AT&T would argue that they are not technically limiting the amount of data, just lowering the bandwidth - which is: tomato - tomahto.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
24. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-15 07:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Question: Has anybody been able to successfully get out of their contract because they were throttled?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
25. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're exactly right.
  Also, many changes you make to an AT&T plan involve a mandatory switch off your unlimited plan, which they obviously don't offer anymore. Want to add tethering? That's wonderful... you'll pay the monthly tethering fee and you have to step down to the 2gb plan. I'd understand that they just didn't want to offer unlimited data for tethered devices, but I can't do it separate from my phone's data plan? That's a pretty big "gotcha".
  Our company phone plans were grandfathered in from Cingular when it became AT&T, and I'm sure there was a contractual obligation to maintain those plans in perpetuity, as part of the deal. AT&T apparently thought, "sure, no problem, we'll fuck them later".
26. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Pharmboy · 2012-02-15 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  AT&T needs to learn from the insurance companies - the REAL profit is in selling a product you never intend to deliver.
  Yeah, looks like they already have. They have created an all you eat buffet, then make you wait in a long line if you try to get a second helping, hoping you will lose your appetite.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
27. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by postbigbang · 2012-02-15 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm not sure how much you travel, but when I sit in various terminals across the USA and EU, I hear lots of requests for volunteers on popular, oversold routes. Some people are joyous to get the free pittance offered to them in "compensation". Others sit in airports, sometimes for days, waiting for flights.
  Your term "exceptionally rarely" is both meaningless, and in common use, not how the real world works. Those elaborate models you cite make most flights into cattle cars, sardine cans, with overhead storage bulging to the bursting point.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
28. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by poetmatt · 2012-02-15 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  the TLDR of what they've done is basically refuse to spend on upgrades when their profits weren't up.
  The reality is that this is backwards finances when it comes to infrastructure, because you should always spend if possible when your company is down to increase efficiencies and save when your company is up for when it is eventually down again. ATT's executives are about as smart and up with the times as the RIAA.
29. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Envy+Life · 2012-02-15 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Unless under contract, why complain? Stop renewing and switch carriers. When all carriers do this, then whine, raise a fuss with the FCC, BBB, write congressmen, etc.
  The thing is AT&T has always been the carrier with the highest cost, not to mention data upcharges, and slower speeds (markets their 3G+ network as 4G), yet people flock to it en masse and then complain... I don't get it.
30. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by bubbageek75 · 2012-02-15 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  They already get government subsidies. It's called the Universal Service Fund. We all contribute to it when we pay our phone bills.
31. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by gorzek · 2012-02-15 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My argument is that the marginal cost of SMS messages is zero, so whatever it costs the cell phone carrier to offer that service to you should be a flat fee for unlimited usage, or just be bundled into your plan from the start, but not metered by how many texts you use. Essentially, it costs just as much for the carrier to offer SMS to a person who texts once a month as it does to offer that service to someone who sends 10,000 texts a month. It should be priced accordingly. Obviously, they are entitled to put a profit margin on it so it goes above and beyond what it costs to provide that service, but I think it's difficult to justify charging for texts based on how many you use.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
32. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by msmoriarty · 2012-02-15 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'd mod your reply to +6. Thank you for posting that.
33. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Nadaka · 2012-02-15 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  You would be absolutely wrong if you count the hundreds of thousands of claims that insurance companies got out of paying in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
34. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Solandri · 2012-02-15 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Data throttling is happening after 1.5GB to people on an unlimited plan [...]. I think the FCC should step in and stop this abuse of consumer rights.
  The real abuse of consumer rights is that an "unlimited" plan even exists. Because of bandwidth overallocation, it's impossible for a company which promises unlimited bandwidth to actually deliver it to all its customers. Common sense says that tiered plans are the way to go. It's just that the marketing department found the term "unlimited" so sexy they overruled the engineering and accounting departments to be able to call their plans "unlimited". And as a competitor, how can you compete with your 1 TB plan when your competition is offering unlimited? You can't. You have to adopt their crappy marketing decision and label your plan as unlimited as well.
  
  Now they're being hoisted by their own petard. The FTC should've cracked down on this a decade ago back when it first began, with wireless companies selling unlimited data plans but having secret data caps, which if you surpassed they would warn you and/or drop you as a customer. That practice has come under increasing criticism from the government, so they're now resorting to throttling. The root cause of the problem isn't that consumers are using too much bandwidth. It's that "unlimited" plans are snake oil. Yes I know that tech geeks love their unlimited plans (I'm on one myself). But be realistic - given your pipes to the Internet have a finite amount of bandwidth, can you think of any way in which you can make your "unlimited" plan truly unlimited? You can't. It's unlimited only as long as the bandwidth per customer * number of customers
  So while the blame doesn't fall upon the customers who were sold and bought unlimited plans, neither do I think it's realistic for them (and me) to truly expect unlimited data.
35. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Christian+Henry · 2012-02-15 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  AT&T needs to learn from the insurance companies - the REAL profit is in selling a product you never intend to deliver.
  Hmm, as AT&T can't deliver the product (or service) they've sold, and apparently never really intended to, it appears they've learned very well. :-)
36. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2012-02-15 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can forgive airlines overbooking, to a degree. Most airlines only overbook a few seats, and it works out fine the majority of the time (I don't have exact numbers, but I'm a very frequent flier and rarely hear about people being bumped) And in the few case when it doesn't work out and too many people show up, the airlines go out of their way to accommodate people. They'll ask for volunteers, provide free upgrades, meal vouchers and anything else.
  Fortunately the airlines have reduced overbooking a lot from the past and while it is true that they ask for volunteers when they have to bump someone, what is no longer true is that the compensation is worthwhile. Typically it's a credit towards a future flight and not a free flight, yet people remember how it was 20+ years ago and assume that the generous payments for self-volunteering still exist when in fact they do not. If you throw a fit you might get a crappy meal voucher that will buy you a hamburger and a coke. Upgrade? Unlikely unless the only empty seat on the next flight is one that's an upgrade for you and they have nowhere else to put you. The "compensation" is actually pretty bad most of the time but I guess if that $400 (or possibly less) credit towards a future flight is really useful to you, you might consider volunteering. Note that I am speaking of the USA and things may well be different in other countries.
37. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by dimko · 2012-02-15 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  knowing how customer services operate - that family wouldnt get first class flight in the first place. So it's your luck that you got this deal, thank that family. A story when bad is good actually.
38. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by jitterman · 2012-02-15 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  You haven't been modded up (as of now), but I believe you should be.
  
  If I am using lots of data, but at off-peak hours (say, Netflix at 2:00-4:00AM), how does throttling me help anyone? It doesn't. I fork out a certain amount each month to my ISP to secure a certain amount of bandwidth, not a certain amount of gigabytes (at least, that's how it currently works). If AT&T sold the types of packages you suggest, they would have the benefit of knowing what their theoretical maximum required bandwidth would be, and using whatever formulas are appropriate they could determine what their infrastructure requires to be stable and adequate.
  
  --
  For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
39. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Rakishi · 2012-02-15 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand what the airlines get out of it,
  Airlines want a flight that is 100% filled (they also want to make the most money out of those sales but that's a different point). Every empty seat is money thrown out the window for them so it's something they really want to avoid.
  Unfortunately people cancel flight all the time so even a flight that's 100% booked can end up with empty seats on the day of the flight. So airlines try to predict how many people will cancel and overbook just enough to compensate for that.
  The models they use are very sophisticated but it's impossible to perfectly predict something as random as cancellations.
40. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by dissy · 2012-02-15 08:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Data throttling is happening after 1.5GB to people on an unlimited plan whereas it doesn't happen to people who have 2GB or 3GB plans.
  In Ohio, AT&T throttles unlimited plans down to 128kbps, while limited plans can reach speeds near a megabit.
  I tested this on my phone (3gs) with a friends SIM.
  My plan is unlimited, and I never could get speeds above 128kbps, even if I only used <100mb that month.
  My friends SIM/plan is 2gb, and when put in my phone I peeked just a touch under 1mbit, and most of that time of testing was getting around 600kbps average, over a 30 minute period.
  Ironically, I purchased the phone in LasVegas (Poker winnings FTW!) and I did get faster data service there. Unfortunately I didn't think to do any speed tests at the time, but I was happy enough with the bandwidth at the time. I just assumed it would remain the same once I got back home. Oops.
  I am extremely far from a heavy data user. Automated email checking on two accounts is all that is 'normal'. Perhaps 4-5 times a month I will do a Google look up for something. Most all of my high bandwidth needs are done on wifi.
  Note that this is directly because of the throttling, on top of the normal latency. A google query can easily take 2-3 minutes to just get the listing of search results, never mind tapping the first link to read it. It's just that painful.
  My bill date was the 10th, so my plan reset just 6 days ago.
  In the past 6 days, I've used 13.3 MB. Last month I used a total of 88.747 MB
  So I can confirm that for my city they throttle purely based on plan type, not how much you use.
  
  That tells me that AT&T is coercing customers with an unlimited plan to drop it and go with a limited plan.
  The sad thing is, it is working too. A 2gb cap on my usage would pretty much not require ANY changes in my data habits what so ever, although it will only lower my bill by $10/month. Once I renew my contract, I just know there will be more than $10 in random mystery fees to make up the difference, and likely my bill will go up.
  At least I can get them to pay for part of a new phone this way I guess :/
  
  I think the FCC should step in and stop this abuse of consumer rights.
  I very much concur. Sadly, there isn't much of a chance in hell the FCC will do anything about it.
41. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by CrackerJackz · 2012-02-15 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Speculating here ... since the only people that can have unlimited are the ones that have been grandfathered into it, and that was over two years ago (I think) my guess is that everyone in that group is now legally in the clear to pack up their stuff and walk to the exit whenever they want to.
42. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by EvilBudMan · 2012-02-15 08:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Damn I have mod points but I want to reply. I have the 2 gig plan and AT&T throttles this app called "Wireless Tether". So basically you are paying extra to AT&T for that privilege. I think data should be data. I don't care to pay for it but I don't want to be raped either. I normally don't even get close to 2GB and get throttled but hey they wont kick me off because they are getting money.
43. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by _Lint_ · 2012-02-15 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  "...for trying to use the product they bought."
  Seriously. My wife and I have the family plan, and it works well for us. I lost my non-smartphone, and wanted to replace it with a cheap phone. I don't text, and I have no interest in paying an additional $500/year on data plans ($250 per phone, per year). They were very pushy trying to convince me I needed a smartphone and data plan. Worse than any car dealership I've ever been to.
44. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by TubeSteak · 2012-02-15 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  There isn't an insurance company in the world that operates solely by taking in money and never paying it out in the form of claims.
  There's a difference between the GP's claim of "never intend to deliver" and "never paying it out"
  Insurance companies have been sued and investigated and settled multiple times in multiple states over denying claims.
  This happens to be the first article I found: http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/02/26/california-investigating-7-health-insurers-for-denying-claims-hiking-rates/
  
  In September [of 2010], California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC) released a report that which states that since 2002 the state's largest health insurers rejected more than one in five medical claims. Data from the last half of 2009 shows the rejection rate has jumped to more than one in four (26 percent), with PacificCare leading the way, rejecting 41.7 percent of claims, according to the CNA/NNOC report.
  An insurance company denying 41% of claims never really intended to deliver the coverage you're buying.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
45. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by jank1887 · 2012-02-15 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  the marginal cost isn't zero. the additional bandwidth cost is zero. however, there is some processing and relaying going on in the background to get your message where it needs to go. some up front hardware changes to handle it, some initial software costs, then about the same cost as an email per text.
46. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by trongey · 2012-02-15 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I accidentally read that as a "naked monkey grab" and was deeply troubled.
  I dare you to google the images for that, and it only counts if you're at work.
  
  --
  You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
47. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by jank1887 · 2012-02-15 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  if they made you a bandwidth promise, you might have a case. they promised you unlimited usage. doesn't matter to them if your bandwidth is only 1page/month.
48. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by bws111 · 2012-02-15 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is not difficult to justify charging for usage, it is just a pricing decision. You can have exactly the same revenue with a flat rate as with charging for usage. The only question becomes: which do your customers prefer? Obviously people with very low usage are going to prefer a 100% metered rate (I sent 1 text this month, why is my bill $50). People with very high usage are going to prefer a 100% flat rate. Most people are somewhere in the middle, so a flat base rate with some usage charges makes sense.
49. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Obfuscant · 2012-02-15 08:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Those elaborate models you cite make most flights into cattle cars, sardine cans, with overhead storage bulging to the bursting point.
  What has made overhead storage bulging is not the practice of overbooking, which is a natural response to the tendency of people to book flights and then not show up, expecting a full refund, so the airlines would have empty seats that make no money.
  The cause is the creation of baggage charges for every checked bag. This, naturally, makes the frugal among the fliers buy the biggest bag they can that will meet airline standards (and often those that obviously don't) and try to stuff it into the overhead for free, because it won't fit under the seat in front of them.
  These are the people, of course, who would take advantage of the free gate checking of bags but they've managed to pack something valuable into the bag and don't want to let it go baggage class.
  I do wish the airlines would enforce their policies on carryon bag sizes and number, which would go a long way towards easing the crunch in overhead space. Stop the people at the gate from carrying on the big bags (or bypassing the pay-to-check system by gate checking them) and force them to check everything more than 2.
50. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by dmarcov · 2012-02-15 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  Honestly, the voucher is better than the free flight most of the time. The free flight is subject to a seat in the "free" bucket being available, and you can ask anyone trying to use miles how easy that is, and you don't get miles for the flight.
  Whereas a voucher can be used for any flight, and even if the voucher covers the entire cost, you still "earn" miles. The risk, of course, is that you plan on flying someplace really expensive and only get a $150 voucher - but for me, when they get to about $400/$500, I know just about anywhere in the continental US I want to go, that's going to cover most, if not all, of the ticket.
  If you've been pleasant about it, you can sometimes snag the upgrade on the later flight too. Not as much nowadays, but ...
51. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Faw · 2012-02-15 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike other states, in Puerto Rico there's a division in the goverment dedicated to Consumer Protection, companies can get fined for false advertisement if the consumers report them. Just today there was something about this in the local newspaper AT&T could get a multi-million fine. (translation, it is in spanish)
52. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by tdc_vga · 2012-02-15 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if they overbook the flight too much and no one will take their offers, the airline's involuntarily deny passengers entry and hand them a form detailing 14 USC 250.9 ( link ). The law is a protectionary measure that says, any airline can break our contract with you at any time by handing you a maximum of $200.00 and finding you an alternative flight within 2 hours of your flight, or by handing you $400.00 and telling you to piss off. Though, you can refuse the payment, and opt to sue them in court.
  Of course, airlines loathe paying any money back, so they offer you the free flights instead. All-in-all I guess the law works decently well, but I can assure you getting one of those forms and being told your next flight will be available in 8 hours after a red-eye flight from California is not a fun experience. Though, here's a tip, tell them you're refusing the payment and opting to seek compensation in court while booking the first available last-minute ticket on whatever airline is leaving next. In my case, they, amazingly, found me a seat.
53. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by postbigbang · 2012-02-15 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's true-- it's a byproduct of stuffing flights to the gills, and financially prodding people to do their own baggage porter work. They should be ashamed.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
54. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by swillden · 2012-02-15 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  Hmm.
  I was involuntarily refused boarding once. Delta gave me a $400 check and booked me a first class seat on the next available flight to my destination, which was an American Airlines flight. They also apologized profusely. This was about five years ago, but I don't think anything has changed in that time.
  It may have been a little different in my case because I not only had a confirmed reservation, I actually had an assigned seat.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
55. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Panaflex · 2012-02-15 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Essentially, it costs just as much for the carrier to offer SMS to a person who texts once a month as it does to offer that service to someone who sends 10,000 texts a month.
  That's not true at all - I've built messaging systems in telecom and delivering texts reliably and swiftly is a fairly large proposition. First, there's protocol gateways that must interconnect with wireless, email and web systems. Secondly, there's the network of fault-tolerent messaging systems that are custom-developed and maintained by a team of developers and network admins. These systems are spread out geographically and are expected to be available 100% of the time.
  The texting load is actually pretty small, peaking around 2600 texts/second in a large metropolitan area. But delivering a message reliably means that you need on-site staff and equipment designed for reliability.
  That said - it sure as hell isn't worth 25 a pop. I think 5 or 10 cents would be pretty high. As it is, texting is pretty much gravy profit.
  
  --
  I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
56. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Forever+Wondering · 2012-02-15 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  A friend of mine has an unlimited data plan and regularly gets spammed by AT&T that he's [in effect] "a data hog". Trouble is, his biggest usage is to listen to NPR [audio only]. They can't really do anything about it because he's grandfathered in on his plan, but this hasn't stopped them from trying.
  
  --
  Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
57. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by sexconker · 2012-02-15 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  Why not:
  Sell tickets at time X for price Y*W, where Y is the minimum amount for flying a plane that holds at least as many passengers as booked, that yields Z profit per (passenger * classWeight), where classWeight is some cost factor based on how much first class, business, and coach cost the airlines. Z is somewhat fixed. W is some statistically-generated factor based on the expected price when the plane is full and some encouragement for people to book early.
  People booking early pay a lower price due to W, and perhaps get a rate guarantee (if the price drops below Y*W more than a certain number of days before the flight, you get the lower rate), and get a more flexible cancellation policy.
  As time goes on, tighten the cancellation policy (perhaps with a small fee), and firm up details (like what plane will be used, where people will sit). People booking later pay more.
  1 week before the flight, no cancellations allowed, prices jump up to reach or exceed Z, and everyone knows which slot they'll be in in which sardine can.
  If there are any open seats, sell them 12 hours before the flight. No cancellation policy, prices drop and drop until all the seats are filled.
  Don't overbook (just don't do it) and let the late comers eat the cost of expected empty seats.
  With all the time saved from not having to do the "We are now looking for volunteers to not get on the plane" dance, you could probably squeeze in an extra flight per gate a day.
58. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by praxis · 2012-02-15 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I am not. I was grandfathered in a while back and yes my contract ended, but I renewed it to get the 4S. I still have my grandfathered unlimited plan, but a two-year contract.
59. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Rockoon · 2012-02-15 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Most airlines only overbook a few seats, and it works out fine the majority of the time (I don't have exact numbers, but I'm a very frequent flier and rarely hear about people being bumped)
  Behold the power of the Poisson distribution, sometimes called "The Law of Small Numbers."
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
60. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Pokermike · 2012-02-15 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, when AT&T first offered GSM service (around 1999 or 2000), they gave me so many free perks (minutes, upgrades, etc.) for staying with them through their growing pains that it was impossible for me to imagine leaving. I ended up leaving them because somewhere during the AT&T->Cingular->AT&T shenanigans, they'd essentially done a 180 with regard to how they treat their customers. Now I'm with Sprint and have few, if any complaints.
61. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Darinbob · 2012-02-15 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is like the all-you-can-eat-buffet. The food is provided assuming a certain level of consumption. But then a couple very large families come in who keep going back in line 5 times or more and the system doesn't handle that. Basically the world has an internet and phone infrastructure that absolutely can not handle the load if even 10% of users insisted on the "unlimited" part, and the infrastructure won't be there anytime soon either. The idea of television over internet is absolutely impossible except for a select few elitist individuals that mock others who use broadcast.
  What should have happened is that this throttling happened a decade or more ago, so that people would realize that the network is not unlimited. Remember those guys who used to brag about how their cable modem was so awesome and that they could download everything they wanted, then they started complaining about performance a few years later when their neighbors started using the net too? Get a clue people.
  Download stuff in off-peak hours, time shift your recordings instead of demanding an on-demand service, use your computer for serious network use instead of a damn phone (the phone is for talking or those emergencies when you're away from computer and need to send a message). Otherwise if you keep up with the fiction that you an get unlimited bandwidth then everything will be capped and you'll be charged by the byte. In fact they should have started charging by the byte a decade ago too!
62. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-15 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, we were lured with shiny new iPhones to extend our contracts. (The assumption being that our services would remain the same...)
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
63. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by eyrieowl · 2012-02-15 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  They surely have enough data about their customers usage patterns that they can make better plans for upgrading their infrastructure as needed. I don't see anything about, "We're sorry, we were more successful than we expected, this is a short term measure which is necessary to preserve your QOS, we're making upgrades and in the meantime here's some something for your trouble." No, instead they're basically saying, "We've been really super successful, so screw you." There's nothing wrong with having unlimited plans, the abuse is in refusing to do the necessary traffic forecasting and, even more, in refusing to remediate the problem when it comes to light.
64. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by catmistake · 2012-02-15 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  In the past 6 days, I've used 13.3 MB. Last month I used a total of 88.747 MB
  Sounds like you and I have the same bandwidth habits. I have a 200MB plan I have never come close to going over. Why would you pay for something you aren't using? Why wouldn't you reduce your data plan?
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
65. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by pckl300 · 2012-02-15 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a thought... if your network can't handle that many smartphones and you refuse to upgrade it, don't sell that many smartphones.
  
  --
  In the beginning, there was null.
66. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Sarius64 · 2012-02-15 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Recently, there was a lady that did not partake in a class action against Honda and won $9,800 in small claims. If everyone getting 128kps (at best) took individual cases to small claims (where the participants generally cannot use lawyers, either) I bet something would change.
67. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by enrgeeman · 2012-02-15 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  That was most disappointing. I was expecting at least one item on the first page of results to be at least a little disturbing.
  
  --
  sent from my slashdot browser.
68. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2012-02-15 10:37 · Score: 2
  
  Some people are joyous to get the free pittance offered to them in "compensation"
  It depends on the route. II find I usually get paid over $100 an hour to sit and read a book. Sometimes, I get an extra night of vacation (with paid hotel), and get $500 for my troubles.
  Now, it does depend on what they are offering, but most domestic flights (in the US) happen every few hours (or even every hour)... at least between hubs.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
69. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by sjames · 2012-02-15 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't an insurance company in the world that operates solely by taking in money and never paying it out in the form of claims.
  True, but a great many aren't above denying a few legitimate claims here and there (or just underpaying) to boost their profits just a bit higher.
  They would just deny all claims but they know nobody would pay them premiums then.
70. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by bondsbw · 2012-02-15 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  I still have my grandfathered unlimited plan, but a two-year contract.
  Does the new contract spell out details for the "unlimited" plan? I'm just speculating, perhaps they changed the terms to allow throttling for grandfathered accounts.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
71. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Obfuscant · 2012-02-15 11:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Why not:
  Because when I book a flight I do so, in some part, based on the current seating availability. That's if I have flexibility in deciding when to fly. I'll take a later flight if it is currently emptier, and I've absolutely refused to book a flight where there are no aisle or window seats left. Your system keeps me from knowing any of that until after I've paid for the ticket.
  
  People booking later pay more.
  That already happens.
  
  If there are any open seats, sell them 12 hours before the flight. No cancellation policy, prices drop and drop until all the seats are filled.
  There is a price point where the airlines will lose money by doing this. Your weight uses fuel, which costs money. In addition, you'll simply create confusion and problems for those who wait until the last minute specifically to get good deals, and then wind up with no seat at all because they were too late. That is, of course, their problem, but it does impact the business of the airline.
  
  With all the time saved from not having to do the "We are now looking for volunteers to not get on the plane" dance,
  Which is essentially zero. I've never been on an airplane that was delayed by overbooking. The airline knows well before the departure that they're in an overbooked state and can (and do) ask well in advance of departure for the volunteers. Sometimes they ask for volunteers and then it turns out they aren't overbooked, so they tell the volunteers to get on the plane as normal. Any volunteers that are used are dealt with after the doors close, not causing any delay of the plane. At least that's how United does it. If other airlines do it by delaying departure, they are creating the problem for themselves and they're stupid.
72. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by FunkSoulBrother · 2012-02-15 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me the flaw in this plan is that people are cheap -- you'd encourage a lot of them to sit out for the drop, drop, drop in prices in the last 12 hours. So you'd miss out on:
  A) the logistical sanity of just having the plane mostly full well in advance.
  B) A good chunk of the interest you make from holding on to several hundred dollars per passenger for what is often a few months.
  plus, you'd probably end up with a lot of grumpy people who missed out during the last minute firesale. Sure, its their own fault, but people don't care -- you spill your fries, it's McDonald's fault, you show up late on Black Friday, it's Best Buy's fault that they only had 8 doorbuster sale HDTVs. People who missed out on a seat due to their own lack of planning would probably just rage at the airline.
73. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by karnal · 2012-02-15 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  With my company discount, the grandfathered unlimited plan that I am on costs 5$ more than if I bought the 200 meg plan. Turns out my discount doesn't apply on the lowest tier plan. This person might have the same deal going on.
  
  --
  Karnal
74. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Kalriath · 2012-02-15 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  And it sounds like you're not even including interconnect costs with other carriers (read: competitors). I'd say that accounts for a fair whack too (where I'm from, networks charge each other ~$0.03 to deliver a text message. Overseas carriers aren't charged unless there's a huge imbalance in message numbers).
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
75. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by dj245 · 2012-02-15 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Some people are joyous to get the free pittance offered to them in "compensation". Others sit in airports, sometimes for days, waiting for flights.
  
  This often isn't a nefarious thing. The last time I took a bump, I got a $400 voucher (I believe this is the minimum required by the government for most flights) and they put me on a direct flight instead of having a layover somewhere else. I got home sooner than I would have otherwise, and I have tons of miles so I sold the vouchers for $300 cash.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
76. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by jquirke · 2012-02-15 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know how this myth keeps getting propagated. It is absolutely not true, for both the GSM and UMTS systems.
  You don't need to have a background in cellular engineering to understand that if you want to use a service in near real-time (i.e. SMS), it is going to have to consume resources then and now.
  Your phone is not using control channels constantly. This is for good reason - the control channels are extremely limited in capacity, and using them frequently would consume your battery as well.
  Your phone is only using control channels typically when moving between cells or locations areas. You can easily see this on GSM phones if you have an old radio nearby; you will know when the phone is transmitting and it most certainly isn't often.
  So if you want to write an SMS, and send it now. a radio connection must be established. In GSM, this requires an SDCCH (Standalone dedicated control channel). This is a finite network resource (even if you are using it for 5 seconds or so, it is still a finite resource). In most cells, a static reservation of 8 SDCCHes exists only. Also, setting up this SDCCH involves other temporary channels - it occupies capacity on the AGCH (access grant channel) and RACH (random access channel - to establish the request in the first place). If it is an incoming SMS, it additionally requires capacity on the PCH (paging channel). All of these latter channels have particularly finite resources.
  In UMTS ("3G"), the scenario is similar. SMS is typically delivered over the FACH (forward access channel) mapped to the S-CCPCH. The S-CCPCH has very limited capacity in most networks, and is being shared between other requests to establish channels, mobility updates from phones moving about, etc etc etc.
  The point is SMS does consume finite network resources, and they are more finite than you think. Your assumption/myth might be valid if you can piggy back SMS onto the back of the (typical) hourly location updates that occur, but who wants their SMSes to all be buffered once an hour?
77. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Nethead · 2012-02-15 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a T-Mobile "Unlimited 2GB" plan. After 2GB they throttle it down to 3G speed. I have a 3G android phone so I actually do have unlimited for my phone. Also, T-Mobile doesn't mine tethering, comes installed on the phone, both wifi and USB.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
78. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by LordArgon · 2012-02-15 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Don't we all know this already? I mean, yes, there are physical limitations, but that's clearly not an acceptable fallback argument for AT&T. The point is that if they say UNLIMITED, it implies that the organization won't place any arbitrary limits on your access, not that they can somehow break the laws of physics. What they're doing is deceptive at best and outright lying at worst.
79. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by postbigbang · 2012-02-15 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not often, but often enough. I've received quite a bit of income for my inconvenience. And I've slept in airports waiting 37hrs for the next flight that was still 120mi away from my home airport. Oversubscription might work for virtual machines, but not for confirmed airlines reservations.
  Don't let them buy you off. It's boorish to do what they do. It shouldn't have to happen. Full is full.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
80. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Firehed · 2012-02-15 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Changing the terms of a contract is generally grounds to have it voided if you're not happy with the new terms. That's kinda the whole point: "we have mutually agreed upon the following circumstances for the following amount of time".
  Is it worth going to court over? Probably not, unless it sets a clear precedent for the rest of the cell phone owners of the world.
  I too have a grandfathered unlimited plan, with a renewed 2-year contract as of the day of the iPhone4 launch. If they decided to change the terms, I certainly was not notified. IANAL, but logically that tells me either the terms have not changed or I can't be expected to abide by any changes. But FWIW, there's still the AUP that I have to abide by even with unlimited data, and the contract is probably worded in such a way that they can change the terms of the AUP without annulling the contract.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
81. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Firehed · 2012-02-15 14:33 · Score: 2
  
  They should have advertised it as "unmetered" rather than "unlimited", since that's what they were actually selling*. Unfortunately, unmetered doesn't mean anything to most people. People would do well to think of it like their water bill - there's obviously not an unlimited supply of water, but it wouldn't be infeasible to have an "as much as we can provide without ruining it for everyone else" pricing tier. The flaw there is that it's very easy to get a sense of how much water you're using, and that's not really the case with bandwidth. Webpages that contain about 1kb of useful information often take half a meg or more to load once you factor in images, scripts, and horrendously verbose code, never mind leaky applications that have chosen pointlessly high-quality formats (like streaming lossless audio) or simply have lousy data access patterns.
  Because of this, anything other than what's advertised as an unlimited plan just doesn't make sense. I can't predict my bandwidth usage for the month, even if I have a rough idea of past months. This is just as true for text messaging, especially since we're billed for incoming texts (which is obviously absurd). I'd be perfectly content to have a reasonable use-based charge (say $5/gb billed to the nearest 100mb), and be able to set up an automated warning that alerts me if I go over a specified threshold. The real problems I have with the current plans are a) too expensive and b) not granular enough. It should either be fairly-priced usage-based, or a flat fee that allows unmetered use (which may be throttled if it's degrading the network, but not simply because you downloaded a ton of shit at 2am when nobody was using the network). They're trying to have their cake and eat it too - and unfortunately for us, they're getting away with it.
  * Well, that was the claim at the time. Obviously that's changed.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
82. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-02-15 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  These are the people, of course, who would take advantage of the free gate checking of bags but they've managed to pack something valuable into the bag and don't want to let it go baggage class.
  I was with you up until this point. I'm one of those people who refuses to pay to check bags unless I absolutely have to. I'm also a stickler for the rules, if for no other reason that I don't want to give the airlines any reason whatsoever to make me pay for extra services I don't want. Because of that, my bag is completely within regulation size and weight limits, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for airlines who can't find a way to make my standards-compliant carryon luggage fit into the space it was designed for.
  Furthermore, because it's now so expensive to check luggage, all of my daily necessities are in my carry-on. The fact is that sometimes the airlines lose luggage. Another fact is that I've never once lost my own luggage that I was carrying with me. Unless forced, I'd rather take responsibility for my own belongings so that I won't find myself going to a job interview with unbrushed teeth and wearing the same clothes I wore during travel.
  There are plenty of selfish reasons to want to bring as much possible in a carryon. That doesn't automatically make those reasons bad or invalid.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
83. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by [Zappo] · 2012-02-15 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it seems to me that what we're seeing is that it's easier to make and sell new smartphones -- and ways for them to consume bandwidth -- than it is to build out new mobile data infrastructure to grow the available bandwidth.
  That is, I see this choice: Would you rather
  1) that many people have smartphones but be forced to share the limited resource of bandwidth (meaning that each person gets only a certain amount); or
  2) that a few people have smartphones and never encounter bandwidth constraints?
84. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by T-Bucket · 2012-02-15 15:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I keep volunteering to be bumped, but the gate agents feed me this line about the plane "needing" both pilots.
85. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-15 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  ...for trying to use the product they bought.
  It's total B.S. since once they start blocking it continues to the end of the billing period. AT&T likely isn't suffering congestion at 2am, or if you go to a completely different area. They should be sued out of existence as a warning to the other cell phone companies over this sham!
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
86. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-02-15 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, apart from having a father who worked in insurance most of his life, and having worked for an insurance company for a short while myself, and now being on government disability because the insurance company of the guy driving the truck who ran over me wormed their way out of paying what they'd agreed to pay, you're right - beyond that I know very little about insurance.
  
  --
  This space available.
87. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by nazsco · 2012-02-15 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm wondering. I have to pay a fine if i break the contract earlier... Wouldn't not providing the offered services be a breach on their end, entitling me to the same fee?
88. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by MaskedSlacker · 2012-02-15 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm also a stickler for the rules, if for no other reason that I don't want to give the airlines any reason whatsoever to make me pay for extra services I don't want
  Airlines (most?) don't charge if your bag is too big when you get to the plane. They only charge if you check the bag at check-in.
  Because of this I have a bag that is bigger than the guideline, but still fits on anything the size of a 707 or bigger. Since it's a travel backpack no one ever tries to stop me with it, even on tiny planes (I routinely fly on a turboprop route). I've never paid to check it, even when checking it on roughly 50% of my flights.
89. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by fahrbot-bot · 2012-02-15 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  What they're doing is deceptive at best and outright lying at worst.
  
  It's called "marketing". Otherwise, you are correct Lord Argon!
  I also take exception to companies offering "free" things - like "free HD channels with your digital service" - when those should simply be called "included at no extra charge". If it were up to me, I'd pop all the marketing executives first, then all the lawyers. { That's a joke thought police. }
  Note to self: Don't tweet that joke.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
90. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by DTemp · 2012-02-15 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  I got bumped off a flight that I bought a ticket for 6 months in advance, and had shown up for 30min before take off. No one on the flight volunteered to get bumped. I asked the girl at the ticket counter if I could go on the plane and wave a hundred dollar bill around to solicit a volunteer, because I NEEDED to be on that plane. She refused to let me do that, and I missed my flight, and I was screwed. This was Delta, BTW.
91. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by mjwx · 2012-02-15 18:04 · Score: 2
  
  ...for trying to use the product they bought.
  AT&T needs to learn from the insurance companies - the REAL profit is in selling a product you never intend to deliver.
  This is why I'm glad Australia has an advertising standards board. You're not allowed to sell an "infinite" service unless your service is 100% infinite. We had a case back in 02 or 03 where ADSL providers were selling "infinite" plans, the thing is that throttled you down to dial-up speeds after so many GB's. They put a stop to this practice pretty quick.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
92. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Flawi · 2012-02-15 20:34 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know how it works on the other side of the pond, but here in Finland our mobile data plans are tiered according to speed just like a regular wired ISP. You can get a 386kbps, a 1Mbps, or an unlimited connection which goes up to 15Mbps depending where you are, usually without data caps. Prices vary between carriers but the slowest one is usually around 5€/month, the 1Mbps you can get for 10€/month, and the unlimited for 20€/month. All of these can be had for next to nothing if you choose to go with a 2-year package plan, the previously quoted prices are just normal monthly subscriptions.
  
  --
  Your flesh is an insult to the perfection of the digital.
93. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Pieroxy · 2012-02-15 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  The sad thing is, it is working too. A 2gb cap on my usage would pretty much not require ANY changes in my data habits what so ever
  Be aware that the faster it will go the more bandwidth you will use. You go to Google only a few times a month because it is so slow and painful. With a fast connection you will get there much more frequently because it is now convenient.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
94. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by dissy · 2012-02-15 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you and I have the same bandwidth habits. I have a 200MB plan I have never come close to going over. Why would you pay for something you aren't using? Why wouldn't you reduce your data plan?
  I am an old Cingular customer, who became an AT&T wireless customer when the former bought the latter. I still have my old minute rate from the Cingular days.
  Basically I have 500 minutes per month plus rollover for $30. Then the unlimited data and SMS for another $30.
  With a little over 6000 minutes saved up in the rollover queue, that's way more minutes than I could ever hope to exceed.
  A year ago when I last looked, the smallest package they had was 700 minutes for $45.
  I obviously haven't checked on it myself recently, but I could have sworn someone told me they don't even have the 700 package anymore either.
  I just don't see lowering my data bill by $10, just to raise my voice bill by at least $15 (if not more) on top of needing a 2 year contract.
95. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by EvilBudMan · 2012-02-16 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad that we only have Verizon & AT&T to choose from, well really AT&T on Verizon's lack of coverage. I was just thinking how I would like to have a T-mobile phone. With AT&T tethering is on the phone but once you use their version you will pay $20 to $30 extra per month just to use it. Now apparently they have equipment to detect usage and if you have a rooted phone so that you load an app that doesn't charge you speed will be similar to dialup. My Phone also comes with all of these things but I don't understand 2G unlimited being throttled up to 3G when you pass the limit. Ah they will make money one way or another for stuff they don't provide. WOW!
96. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by jeffmeden · 2012-02-16 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't an insurance company in the world that operates solely by taking in money and never paying it out in the form of claims.
  There's a difference between the GP's claim of "never intend to deliver" and "never paying it out"
  Insurance companies have been sued and investigated and settled multiple times in multiple states over denying claims.
  This happens to be the first article I found: http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/02/26/california-investigating-7-health-insurers-for-denying-claims-hiking-rates/
  
  In September [of 2010], California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC) released a report that which states that since 2002 the state's largest health insurers rejected more than one in five medical claims. Data from the last half of 2009 shows the rejection rate has jumped to more than one in four (26 percent), with PacificCare leading the way, rejecting 41.7 percent of claims, according to the CNA/NNOC report.
  An insurance company denying 41% of claims never really intended to deliver the coverage you're buying.
  You missed the part where I exempted Health "Insurance" from the argument; there was never a deeper perversion of a word than trying to label as "insurance" what companies like Anthem, BCBS, UHC, etc provide. The packaging, sale, and delivery process for that product is so beyond fucked up that there isn't even any way to compare the two.
97. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Nethead · 2012-02-16 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I wasn't that clear. It's 4G up to 2GB, then it drops to 3G. But since I have just a 3G phone I never notice anyway. Sorry to hear that you don't have them available where you're at. They have the best customer service. They even let me drop a phone from my plan 8 months early without any fees because I had been with them for so long.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
98. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Panaflex · 2012-02-16 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I got out before interconnect became monetized - we looked up numbers by prefix and shot those messages out by email to the subscribers's gateway. Obviously, this was before number portability... I didn't realize they were charging so much for interconnect!
  
  --
  I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
99. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by sexconker · 2012-02-16 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me the flaw in this plan is that people are cheap -- you'd encourage a lot of them to sit out for the drop, drop, drop in prices in the last 12 hours. So you'd miss out on:
  A) the logistical sanity of just having the plane mostly full well in advance.
  B) A good chunk of the interest you make from holding on to several hundred dollars per passenger for what is often a few months.
  plus, you'd probably end up with a lot of grumpy people who missed out during the last minute firesale. Sure, its their own fault, but people don't care -- you spill your fries, it's McDonald's fault, you show up late on Black Friday, it's Best Buy's fault that they only had 8 doorbuster sale HDTVs. People who missed out on a seat due to their own lack of planning would probably just rage at the airline.
  The last minute price plummet already happens, though, and most people do NOT play that game - most people traveling have plans at the other end and need the flight to go there at a specific time.
  Hell, the Simpsons did it 13 years ago:
  Lisa: [counting money] I don't think there's enough here for a vacation.
  Marge: There is for a *mega savings* vacation. [looks at pamphlet] Chuck
  Garabedian says you can fly mega-cheap if you don't care where you go.
  Chuck: [looks in through window] That's right! Just go to the airport and
  wait for some no-shows, then you can buy their seats for a fraction of
  the price!
  Marge: Are you going through our garbage?
  Chuck: That's right! You fat cats didn't finish your plankton; now it's mine!
  [runs off with cans]
100. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by cthulhu11 · 2012-02-16 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Many of the "credit towards a future flight" that I've seen have been worthless: they are applicable only to a full-price unrestricted fare, which generally cares a premium that's greater than the credit is for, especially when factoring in the expense of getting to/from the airport, wasted time, etc.. Meal vouchers are worthless - the one time I got them, everything in the airport closed 10 minutes later -- and these days airports tend to have roughly nothing I can eat.
101. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by EvilBudMan · 2012-02-16 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah they will let you buy 4G phones. AT&T is crappy. So is Verizon. Verizon is probably the only company left that still charges $3 or 5$ to pay your bill by phone. The fact is T-mobile & Sprint will never have nationwide coverage. As far as AT&T's 3G speed, it actually seems faster than the 3G CDMA phones.
102. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by colinnwn · 2012-02-16 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is extremely unusual. You are saying that on all 3 flights, the airline requested volunteers to give up their seats, you didn't volunteer and they did not get enough other volunteers, and they had to pay you cash compensation because they were unable to find you a seat?
103. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by colinnwn · 2012-02-16 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  Actually now it is $650 for 1-2 hr delay / $1300 for more than 2 hrs - in cash plus you get to keep your ticket to travel on a later flight or get a refund on (which must be provided). http://airconsumer.dot.gov/publications/flyrights.htm#overbooking
104. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-02-17 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Unlimited traffic, is what I usually interpret Unlimited as, now if only it was unconditional as well.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
105. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-02-17 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Cellular networks are inefficient in todays' usage model. The problem is in the network, when it requires firing up a nuclear powered Rube Goldberg contraption for establishing a fucking CONTROL link. Second. An SMS is 140 bytes. That alone mutes any arguments for billing SMSes. It probably costs more to bill for them than for actual transmission.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
106. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Coren22 · 2012-02-21 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they have bought a phone in the meantime. Every time you "upgrade" your phone, you get pushed out another two years, but are allowed to keep the unlimited.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
107. Re:It's all the customers' fault... by Coren22 · 2012-02-21 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, SMS takes an additional control channel time slot. The price of the SMS is to cause a limitation to the service to prevent people from overwhelming the control channels on the towers and causing dropped calls more often than currently.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Throttle sales by sunderland56 · 2012-02-15 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

If their infrastructure wasn't up to it, why didn't they throttle sales of smartphones?
1. Re:Throttle sales by GodInHell · 2012-02-15 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder . . .
2. Re:Throttle sales by CannonballHead · 2012-02-15 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  ... who wrote the book of love?
3. Re:Throttle sales by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, don't worry, they are. After all, since my grandfathered unlimited data is now taken away, and my 2-year contract is long expired, I don't have any reason to stay with AT&T anymore aside from their *cough* superior prices, coverage, reliability, and customer service.
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
4. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-15 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If their infrastructure wasn't up to it, why didn't they throttle sales of smartphones?
  Or why didn't they just allow people to not buy a data plan?
  
  Seriously, if that is the issue they why should they be:
  
  1. Requiring all devices with a full keyboard to have atleast a text-messaging plan?
  2. Requiring all touch-screen devices to have a full data plan?
  
  While many customers may want that, not everyone does. So let them have the cheaper plans if they want.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
5. Re:Throttle sales by jimbolauski · 2012-02-15 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  The better question is if they are receiving and increased sale of smartphones and data plans why is that money being spent to try to buy T-Mobile instead of improving their network.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
6. Re:Throttle sales by brainzach · 2012-02-15 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  If their infrastructure wasn't up to it, why didn't they throttle sales of smartphones?
  Because they can.
  The majority of customers are unaffected by throttling or data caps. Those that do complain, will have to put up with it because their competitors have similar polices.
  There is no incentive to stop selling phones because it brings them money. There is some incentive to invest in the network, but they only have to do the bare minimum to stop customers from leaving them.
7. Re:Throttle sales by rwv · 2012-02-15 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So let them have the cheaper plans if they want.
  You mean give the customer what they want? Seriously, I would love to have a Wifi-only Smartphone that can't access a 3G Data network. Though, FFS, $30/month for a data plan ought to be enough for them to beef up their goddamned network. Where is all that money going?
8. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  So let them have the cheaper plans if they want.
  You mean give the customer what they want? Seriously, I would love to have a Wifi-only Smartphone that can't access a 3G Data network. Though, FFS, $30/month for a data plan ought to be enough for them to beef up their goddamned network. Where is all that money going?
  Hint: Join the Android Developer Community (https://market.android.com/publish/signup) and then buy a Developer Phone at full price.
  
  I have a Nexus One that I got a full price, outside of AT&T, without a contract, and simply moved my SIM card over from my previous 2G phone. I even went into AT&T and got them to replace the 2G SIM card with a 3G SIM card. I have no data plan, and have disabled the (Celluar) Data Network access on the phone, so I only get data via WiFi.
  
  Disclaimer: I've heard some here on /. do the same only to have AT&T force them into a data plan. However, I don't know if they did everything I did - e.g. turning off the Data Network access, etc; which I did pretty much immediately after getting the phone. Still, it can be done.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
9. Re:Throttle sales by Widowwolf · 2012-02-15 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Because Tmobile is more profitability, more customers to charge even more for and they had the added bonus of not having to outbid people on extra spectrum Tmobile owned
  
  --
  ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
10. Re:Throttle sales by puto · 2012-02-15 08:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I work for ATT and none of us are happy with the decision. As to your phone. What is going to happen is once every couple of months our systems match imeis on file, to the imei actually in your phone, and when it does a data plan will be added automagically to your account.
  
  --
  The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
11. Re:Throttle sales by somarilnos · 2012-02-15 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't agree more. If you can't deliver what you're promising, don't promise it. If you do promise it, and you don't deliver, it's not reasonable to blame the people who gave you money based on your promise.
12. Re:Throttle sales by wanzeo · 2012-02-15 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  And yet all of that should not be necessary. If I produce a phone compatible with their network technology, I should be able to activate it as pay-as-you-go. But alas, there is not a single cell provider who will activate a smart phone this way. Not even the resellers.
  So I am stuck using my phone from 2006 until either me or othe carriers give in. And my battery is dying.
13. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-15 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  And yet all of that should not be necessary. If I produce a phone compatible with their network technology, I should be able to activate it as pay-as-you-go. But alas, there is not a single cell provider who will activate a smart phone this way. Not even the resellers.
  So I am stuck using my phone from 2006 until either me or othe carriers give in. And my battery is dying.
  So grab a Pay-as-you-go phone, rip the SIM card out (you may have to dismattle the phone) and use it instead. I've heard of some people moving SIM cards from them to other phones for that exact reason. Yes, I know what you mean.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
14. Re:Throttle sales by dissy · 2012-02-15 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, I would love to have a Wifi-only Smartphone that can't access a 3G Data network.
  
  Those exist.
  On the Apple side, it's called iPod Touch + VoIP / SIP / Skype apps.
  On the Android side, you used to be able to get a Nexus One this way, I believe they were intended for developers to test apps on but didn't want/need a data plan.
  I bet a lot of smart phones will operate without a SIM in them as well.
  You can buy a used Android phone off ebay or what ever, and pop the SIM out (assuming it came with one in the first place)
15. Re:Throttle sales by rwv · 2012-02-15 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Unless I'm mistaken, the system you describe REQUIRES a Wifi network to operate as a Phone. I want a Phone that has an added Wifi (when it's available) data connection. Big difference. One can get calls ALL THE TIME. One only gets calls when the Wifi network is present. Unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible).
16. Re:Throttle sales by NewWorldDan · 2012-02-15 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of business plan would that be? It's certainly not going to maximize their network infrastructure investment.
  I'm really not surprised by this at all. No one, not Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint can produce the infrastructure to match the data demands of all the smart phones out there. You've got people streaming music and videos all day long. You've got people using their phones as the internet connection for their computer. There simply isn't enough over the air bandwidth available to meet these demands. So either you've got to go to throttlling or tiered pricing. And I think most people are going to find throttling to be more palatable.
17. Re:Throttle sales by Darinbob · 2012-02-15 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  This will happen with every carrier. Use it responsibly or lose it permanently.
18. Re:Throttle sales by Darinbob · 2012-02-15 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's actually a good point. I don't have a smart phone. I need a new phone, I don't care if it's dumb or smart as long as I don't have to pay an exorbitant amount for a data plan I won't use. If it does wifi if I'm in range then I'm fine with that. But any phone that has any 3G capability _requires_ a dataplan, you are prevented from getting voice-only service.
  I think the whole concept is just silly. If you're in wifi then use wifi, if you're out of range of wifi then use voice.
19. Re:Throttle sales by triffid_98 · 2012-02-15 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I have a Nexus One that I got a full price, outside of AT&T, without a contract, and simply moved my SIM card over from my previous 2G phone. I even went into AT&T and got them to replace the 2G SIM card with a 3G SIM card. I have no data plan, and have disabled the (Celluar) Data Network access on the phone, so I only get data via WiFi.
  
  You sir have violated the terms of service of your contract. If AT&T finds out (and that's not particularly hard to do, they just compare your actual IMEI to the IMEI registered to your SIM) they can retroactively bill you for the required data plan in their TOS and cancel your service (with penalties if you're under contract), probably in that order.
  
  This in no way means I think you should be billed for a service that you neither used nor intended to use, but that's one of the reasons so few people hopped on board the Nexus train.
20. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-15 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  On the Apple side, it's called iPod Touch + VoIP / SIP / Skype apps.
  Only good for WiFi networks as it doesn't provide voice cell service.
  
  On the Android side, you used to be able to get a Nexus One this way, I believe they were intended for developers to test apps on but didn't want/need a data plan.
  Last I checked, you can still get a Nexus One, but only as a registered developer for the Android. However, as a registered Android developer there are other phones available too under the same scheme.
  
  I bet a lot of smart phones will operate without a SIM in them as well.
  You can buy a used Android phone off ebay or what ever, and pop the SIM out (assuming it came with one in the first place)
  Yes, they'll operate without a SIM card. In that mode, they can still make emergency phone calls as required by law for all cell phones.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
21. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-15 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I have a Nexus One that I got a full price, outside of AT&T, without a contract, and simply moved my SIM card over from my previous 2G phone. I even went into AT&T and got them to replace the 2G SIM card with a 3G SIM card. I have no data plan, and have disabled the (Celluar) Data Network access on the phone, so I only get data via WiFi.
  You sir have violated the terms of service of your contract. If AT&T finds out (and that's not particularly hard to do, they just compare your actual IMEI to the IMEI registered to your SIM) they can retroactively bill you for the required data plan in their TOS and cancel your service (with penalties if you're under contract), probably in that order.
  No I haven't, and no I am not in violation of the contract. That's the point of having a SIM card to start with. They also have the N1 listed online, so I know they already know about it. I'm also pretty sure I renewed my contract after making that change - namely for the other lines on my account, otherwise I'd just operate it without the contract. I also never upgraded the original phone (a Motorola v180) that I got back in 2004.
  
  And if they did try to do that, I would promptly move to another provider, taking all 4 phones and phone numbers with me; and not pay above my normal bill.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
22. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-15 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  If AT&T finds out (and that's not particularly hard to do, they just compare your actual IMEI to the IMEI registered to your SIM)
  Forgot to mention in my other reply - the N1 is the registered device for the 3G SIM. ;-)
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
23. Re:Throttle sales by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-02-15 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  This will happen with every customer. Use them responsibly or lose them permanently.
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
24. Re:Throttle sales by GodInHell · 2012-02-15 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  I had similar issues with VZ for awhile -- there is a minimum speed and up-time in the contract -- but its very minimum, same with my comcast cable modem "up to 12" "6 guaranteed" "up to 25mbps" "6 guaranteed" -- wut?
  
  So, yes, companies are out to fuck us. The world goes on.
25. Re:Throttle sales by will_die · 2012-02-15 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  That is what I wanted and got, it is an Apple itouch mp3 player.
  You get everything as a smart phone but no GPS and phone. Everything is wifi. Great while traveling load everything into the device(do not get 8 Gigs to small) and if hotel or restaurant has free wifi just update the info I want.
26. Re:Throttle sales by dissy · 2012-02-15 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I just don't understand what you want.
  You want a device not on the 3g network, but still to place 3g calls?
  Or do you mean a device that IS on the 3g network, and just using it for voice and not data?
  Either of those seem way too obvious to warrant a post to ask, so I pretty much ruled both out heh
  The first is not physically possible.
  The second just requires a voice only plan with no data, aka avoid AT&T and Verizon and just purchase such a plan...
  If you are really wanting to route voice calls over wifi first and fall back to 3g, then I can see what you mean.
  That would be 'possible' but extremely complex and expensive. This is possible, by the slimmest definition of the word too, and I wouldn't bother doing it as it works fairly poorly and the price is outrageous with the current types of services that would be needed. Likely even as much as 3x a normal phone plan, let alone a smart phone plan!
27. Re:Throttle sales by dissy · 2012-02-15 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Only good for WiFi networks as it doesn't provide voice cell service.
  Indeed. He asked for a wifi-only device, that can't access the 3g network...
  So yes, a wifi only device is sorta wifi only, as it's a bit hard to place voice cell calls without being on a cellular network.
  But voice calls != cellular voice calls
  Wanting to be on the 3g network for voice and not data (not what was asked, but still) would be as simple as buying a 3g plan with voice only and no data (Only AT&T and Verizon do this bundled forced-data thing on 3G in the US that I am aware)
28. Re:Throttle sales by negge · 2012-02-15 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like you really have to go through hoops to get a decent deal in the U.S.
  When I bought by Samsung Galaxy S in 2010, I got it on a contract from one provider, which meant I had to take a subscription too. Luckily the cheapest one is only 69 cents a month (just minute-by-minute voice calls). Wanna guess what I did then? I went to another provider, bought the plan I liked and popped in the SIM card in my phone. This is how it's supposed to work. This is the reason the SIM card is a SIM *card*, so that you can actually take it out and put it into other phones.
  Talking about buying a phone without a subscription. Over here it's of course possible (every phone is sold without a subscription, and no the prices aren't completely ridiculous), but it's much smarter to get a contract and pay it off all at once. I got a ZTE Blade for my girlfriend last year, it cost 4,90€ / month on a two year plan (plus the aforementioned 69c / month mandatory subscription), which is a bit under 120 euros. You can pay it all at once and the phone is yours. Meanwhile the retail price is 189 euros.
29. Re:Throttle sales by lexman098 · 2012-02-16 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  I would love to have a Wifi-only Smartphone that can't access a 3G Data network.
  
  That's exactly what I have. If you buy an unlocked smartphone from amazon you can just transfer the sim from the dumbphone you got for free. I think they will only automatically apply the 30 dollars if your phone is not unlocked (to prevent hand-me-downs). As an added measure you can get a smartphone that only works on T-Mobile's 3G network (which is incompatible with ATT's).
30. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-16 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Only good for WiFi networks as it doesn't provide voice cell service.
  Indeed. He asked for a wifi-only device, that can't access the 3g network...
  No. He asked for a cell phone that only did data over the WiFi network. That is much different.
  
  Wanting to be on the 3g network for voice and not data (not what was asked, but still) would be as simple as buying a 3g plan with voice only and no data (Only AT&T and Verizon do this bundled forced-data thing on 3G in the US that I am aware)
  And the bundled issue is the problem. There are aways around it, which is what I pointed out.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
31. Re:Throttle sales by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-16 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like you really have to go through hoops to get a decent deal in the U.S.
  When I bought by Samsung Galaxy S in 2010, I got it on a contract from one provider, which meant I had to take a subscription too. Luckily the cheapest one is only 69 cents a month (just minute-by-minute voice calls). Wanna guess what I did then? I went to another provider, bought the plan I liked and popped in the SIM card in my phone. This is how it's supposed to work. This is the reason the SIM card is a SIM *card*, so that you can actually take it out and put it into other phones.
  Exactly, and you can do that with phones in the US, provided they have a SIM card too. However, they are a bit more picky about it, especially if they subsidized the phone.
  
  Talking about buying a phone without a subscription. Over here it's of course possible (every phone is sold without a subscription, and no the prices aren't completely ridiculous), but it's much smarter to get a contract and pay it off all at once. I got a ZTE Blade for my girlfriend last year, it cost 4,90€ / month on a two year plan (plus the aforementioned 69c / month mandatory subscription), which is a bit under 120 euros. You can pay it all at once and the phone is yours. Meanwhile the retail price is 189 euros.
  I'm sure you could probably try to pay the contract off like that; but they probably won't let you. Typically if you pay too much, they give you an immediate refund, or credit on the overage. (They don't like to hold onto too much money.)
  
  Also, contracts in the US typically are costly enough that doing it that way would be more expensive than just buying the phone outright.
  
  For example, if you buy a new iPhone you get a contract that will probably run you about $80/month - $50 standard +$30 data plan. Over the life of the contract - 12-36 months (sometimes longer), the data plan alone more than pays for the phone; and you may have paid $199 to a newer model.
  
  Now what is not stated, is that if you don't want the data plan then they will let you cancel it during the contract; but how long before they will let you cancel it depends on the device. For an iPhone, you can't cancel it. For a feature phone with full keyboard, you probably have to wait 3-6 months. Other phones are in between - it all depends on the subsidies on the device and they won't tell you up-front what that time-period is.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
32. Re:Throttle sales by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-02-17 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  What happens if someone somehow screws with the IMEIs, and how can that be done.?
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
33. Re:Throttle sales by hobarrera · 2012-02-18 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Companies in Argentina work quite differently.
  We have plans where you don't get a bill - ever. You pre-load cash onto your line at some stores or supermarkets, and pay-as-you-go. You can *never* be billed anything for these line (you can even buy the SIM on the train without any papers or anything), so there's no way you can be forced into a dataplan.
  Also, on normal lines, if you have a dataplan, you get ~200MB per month, and $0.63 per extra MB.
  If you don't have a dataplan, you get charged $13.00+taxes per MB.
  They never FORCE you to have a data plan. But accidentally activating data over the cell phone network will cost you *a lot*. Plus, most non-data plans are expensive, since they have "3000 free SMS to just 3 numbers", and stuff like that. The difference in minimal really.
Alternatively by macemoneta · 2012-02-15 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alternatively, they could not sell a service they can't actually deliver. Crazy, I know.

--
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
1. Re:Alternatively by VortexCortex · 2012-02-15 07:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Or, perhaps they could use a portion of the money they've obtained from their "staggering 20,000%" growth over the past five years to improve the network instead of lining their higher-ups pockets? You would think that since "AT&T sold more smartphones in the fourth quarter of 2011 than in any other quarter in its history" they would have SOME profit available to them for reinvestment?
  Oh, but investing in your company's future means that your share-holders see less profits short term, and thus sell shares. It's really too bad that stock price is based on opinions and feelings instead of actual value...
  Sadly, it's more profitable to increase prices and reduce service quality than to actually provide better services. YAY FREE MARKET!
2. Re:Alternatively by Sir+Realist · 2012-02-15 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But whats cool about the article is that AT&T is actually producing statistics demonstrably proving their own staggering incompetence as the reason why we should feel good about giving them more money.
  I mean hello? So this trend of staggering growth has been going on for FIVE YEARS, and even after finally noticing that the problem has already gotten pretty bad, and noticing that its directly related to smartphone usage, you sold more new smartphones last quarter than ever before without first doing something to fix it? And I got all those numbers from YOUR OWN PR?
  I can't decide which is more incompetent: the management of your core buisiness, or your EVP's attempts a damage control.
  Perhaps a tie.
3. Re:Alternatively by ScentCone · 2012-02-15 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing the 20,000% increase in the load on their network with being a 20,000% increase in their revenue. It's not even close to anything like that, which is exactly why they're running out of network to serve that enormous demand.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
4. Re:Alternatively by Phrogman · 2012-02-15 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Its funny to see a company screw itself so badly with regards to PR. Sadly, only the technical will see this, the vast majority of people will still say "Oh Shiny" and sign up for a smart phone they barely utilize, thus encouraging AT&T to rape as many customers as possible for the short term profits. Whoever is running the company is probably looking forward to the fat bonus they get at the end of the y year, why chance reducing that by investing in infrastructure BEFORE they have to.
  I want a phone carrier that offers me a phone service that costs me $20 per month but includes CallerID, Answering services, SMS, some Data usage, and Unlimited local calling after 5pm. That would mean I spent $20 a month (btw I use my phone a maximum of say 30mins per day). Up here in Canada thats impossible, even the "companies" created to offer "competition" (but actually owned by one of the big carriers) don't offer that. The above probably costs around $45 per month or more when you sign up with Koodo (owned by Telus).
  There is zero incentive for real competition up here because the market is controlled by a few carriers who would rather collaborate to suck the customers dry while they can.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Horseshit by redmid17 · 2012-02-15 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Looks like ATT didn't plan or execute their long term strategy well. And they wonder why they weren't allowed to buy T-Mobile
1. Re:Horseshit by ackthpt · 2012-02-15 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Looks like ATT didn't plan or execute their long term strategy well. And they wonder why they weren't allowed to buy T-Mobile
  They're plans for T-mobile probably included making a lot of money in bonuses and executive backslapping. It had nothing to do with improving service.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I Agree by wisnoskij · 2012-02-15 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with him. They only have themselves to blame for picking AT&T in the first place.
If they wanted good honest service then they had every reason to believe that AT&T was the last place they would find it.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Instead they should... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

In one of the rare moments of clarity our federal government has, they told AT&T to spend some of the cash they wanted to use to buy out competition to expand their infrastructure instead (there was a link on slashdot a while ago).
Seems like they do have a choice, but aren't willing to do anything but screw their customers.
What? Spend money? Inconceivable! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:51 · Score: 1

Bonus points if the relevant voice from the Princess Bride read the post title to you.
I cannot believe that any sane company would simply ignore that it is falling behind and instead punish its customers for attempting to use its service.
1. Re:What? Spend money? Inconceivable! by PerlJedi · 2012-02-15 06:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I don't think that word means what you think it means. :-)
2. Re:What? Spend money? Inconceivable! by Megane · 2012-02-15 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  I've spent years developing an immunity to bandwidth throttling!
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
3. Re:What? Spend money? Inconceivable! by hal2814 · 2012-02-15 08:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the throttled phone in front of himself or his enemy? Now, a clever man would put the throttled phone in front of himself, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the phone in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool. You would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the phone in front of me.
  Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
  Vizzini: Not remotely! Because iPhones use AT&T as a carrier, as everyone knows! And AT&T is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the phone in front of you.
IPhone by the_Bionic_lemming · 2012-02-15 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is like selling 5,000 tickets to a show that can only host a thousand people, and blaming the people who complain about not getting what the paid for.

--
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
1. Re:IPhone by ynp7 · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Sort of, but isn't it really like selling those 5,000 tickets and then kicking everyone out after they've seen 1/5 of the show so that the other customers also get to see an equal portion of the whole thing they paid to see?
2. Re:IPhone by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's called overbooking, and it's actually standard practice for events like shows: You can sell a few more tickets than you have seats, because it's unlikely everyone will turn up. It only goes wrong when the business pushes the sold-to-available ratio dangerously high, which AT&T have done.
3. Re:IPhone by future+assassin · 2012-02-15 07:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  >Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is like selling 5,000 tickets to a show that can only host a thousand people, and blaming the people who complain about not getting what the paid for.
  I think this is like selling 5000 tickets to an all you can eat buffet and when you realise all those 5000 people are obese and are about to eat you alive you narrow down the door so only the skinniest people can get it on at a time. Also once in a while you get someone stuck in the door which gives your cook some extra time to cook up new food and get closer to business closing hours. THEN you call all those people fat pigs and blame their weight for you not being able to supply the amount of food that was needed.
  
  --
  by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
4. Re:IPhone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No, its even worse than that.
  It's like selling users unlimited bandwidth and then throttling them when they try to use it.
5. Re:IPhone by StikyPad · 2012-02-15 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty good analogy, aside from the fact that skinny people can generally eat more than fat people.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
6. Re:IPhone by GKThursday · 2012-02-15 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Can I get this as a car analogy?
7. Re:IPhone by PhotoJim · 2012-02-15 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, but you won't like the implication.
  The solution is to not sell unlimited bandwidth. If AT&T sold data in packages by amounts, people would use that amount. If they went over, they'd pay more. They could raise their package to a higher allotment for a higher cost.
  This would do two things:
  1. AT&T would generate more revenue which would let them develop better cellular infrastructure to meet demand.
  2. (And more importantly in the short term) It would discourage consumption. Lower consumption equals higher levels of service for those who choose to pay. If consumption is far below what the network can handle, a rate reduction will increase demand. If consumption is too high, a rate increase will reduce it (or supply extra funds for network improvement, if demand remains high).
  Cellular never was unlimited at its beginning. We paid for blocks of minutes. As technology improved and supply of airtime increased, airtime prices went down. Unlimited airtime didn't appear for years after networks began.
  Unlimited usage services are great if that usage doesn't harm other users. This is often true. Landline capacity is so high that local calls rarely interfered with others who wanted to make calls. There was no need to reduce call length. Long distance bandwidth, on the other hand, was relatively scarce (it wasn't uncommon to be unable to make long distance calls on Mother's Day or Christmas due to the trunks being full) so long distance rates discouraged people from calling unless they had the need. That also kept call length down which freed up the resource.
  I'm not saying data needs to be expensive... it's just not practical for it to be unlimited, that's all; not, at least, until there's enough LTE and other technologies deployed so that everyone can use the technology and not be greatly affecting other users.
  As a final point, some might argue that competitors are managing their bandwidth better. That might be true, and if so, people will be motivated to change providers. This will do as much to solve the problem as anything.
  The cellular companies let us down in a way, letting us taste this cheap bandwidth and now we want to stream video and audio over it, download huge files, and access network content like we're at home no matter where we are. The airwaves can't handle it. It's time for a paradigm shift.
  (I live in Canada, but we have similar problems. This isn't unique to AT&T.)
8. Re:IPhone by tgeek · 2012-02-15 09:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  More like they sold you an all you can eat buffet, and then when they started running out of food replaced the dinner plates with saucers.
9. Re:IPhone by stretch0611 · 2012-02-15 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is like selling 5,000 tickets to a show that can only host a thousand people, and blaming the people who complain about not getting what the paid for.
  Yes, but you have to add that in the middle of the show they come around and say, "You have watched too much, cough up more money or we are throwing you out of the arena."
  
  --
  Looking for a job?
  Want your resume written professionally?
  DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
10. Re:IPhone by Darinbob · 2012-02-15 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Or the unlimited buffet. Sucks to be the guy behind the fat person who's taking all the food, whereas the fat person is complaining that there's not enough mashed potatoes left because there's a tiny part of his plate still empty.
11. Re:IPhone by SuricouRaven · 2012-02-15 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Then don't blame the fat person. Blame the restraunt, for overestimating the number of people their all-you-can-eat buffet is able to serve. They have models, they should be taking the fatsos into account.
12. Re:IPhone by sc7007 · 2012-02-16 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Car show. Specifically a car show.
Bullshit by swv3752 · 2012-02-15 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is called build up your damn infrastructure. Stop taking our money and using it to give the excutives bonuses, and start investing in infrastructure. They get gobs of tax breaks and straight up funding to build infrastructure.
Now they have the gall to complain about folks actually using the unlimited data plan they get sold, because they have not properly built up their infrastructure. Fuck them. Fuck them in the skull.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
1. Re:Bullshit by Dhalka226 · 2012-02-15 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I agree completely.
  I could maybe, maaaaaybe feel sorry for regular ISPs. There's undeniably a lot of piracy that goes on that inflates bandwidth usage beyond their predictions for reasonable.
  But that's not a significant issue on phones. Instead the phone companies are complaining about users doing the exact fucking things they market their phones as doing! "Your phone now plays YouTube videos!" "Whoa whoa whoa! Why are you guys watching so many videos on your phone? How could we possibly have predicted such a thing?" "Hey, now you can review that PowerPoint presentation in the cab!" "Whoa whoa whoa, why are you downloading files and shit?!" Well let me think about that for a while guys. Clearly the thought I've given the matter in this post alone exceeds what AT&T and their billions of dollars of profit gave it.
  Infrastructure is expensive. We get it. Hey, guess what? So are your phones, the mandatory data plan, smartphone fee and regular service fees over a multi-year contract. Nobody feels sorry for you for overselling your service even more than you calculated you were going to. Shut up and provide customers the service they bought with those billions of dollars of profit you make every quarter, even in one of the worst economies since the Depression. You'll find nobody here shedding a tear for you.
2. Re:Bullshit by unity100 · 2012-02-15 07:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I could maybe, maaaaaybe feel sorry for regular ISPs. There's undeniably a lot of piracy that goes on that inflates bandwidth usage beyond their predictions for reasonable.
  no you cant be sorry for them. pirates pay for their bandwidth. period.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
3. Re:Bullshit by CannonballHead · 2012-02-15 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  But it's difficult to predict. I'm guessing it's be extremely expensive to actually presume everyone is going to utilize their bandwidth fully 100% of the time.
4. Re:Bullshit by epine · 2012-02-15 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  It is called build up your damn infrastructure. Stop taking our money and using it to give the excutives bonuses, and start investing in infrastructure. ... Fuck them in the skull.
  Nothing is more aggravating than the alpha dog that sits around licking its balls.
  
  John Donovan wrote on a company blog that data traffic on AT&T's network has grown a staggering 20,000% over the past five years
  Wow. That's the ball-lick hall of fame.
  Normally I presume that "skullfuck" precludes
  <invisible tag="sarcasm/">whoosh</invisible>
  so I had a good ROTFL moment.
5. Re:Bullshit by Kenja · 2012-02-15 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  How can they be expected to build infrastructure when we wont let them buy their competitors?
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
6. Re:Bullshit by CaseCrash · 2012-02-15 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody feels sorry for you for overselling your service even more than you calculated you were going to. Shut up and provide customers the service they bought with those billions of dollars of profit you make every quarter, even in one of the worst economies since the Depression. You'll find nobody here shedding a tear for you.
  Oh, they knew how badly they were overselling their service, it was just too tempting for them to go ahead and take all that extra money and hope the problem goes away eventually. All the data providers seem to be doing it. My mom recently switched from Comcast to Century Link for her home internet and television to save some money. In the three months before I got her to switch back it never worked a full day. The Century Link guys came out five times and couldn't ever fix it, then one of them let slip that our area was around 10x oversold compared to capacity and that was why the television and internet would die often and not work again for 20 minutes to a few hours.
  
  I think the plan for both of them was to oversell now then use that income to build the network you already promised you had. Only they never got around to that second part.
  
  --
  No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
7. Re:Bullshit by Shatrat · 2012-02-15 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  They're trying, but even a small agile telecom takes months and months to build fiber and turn up new network systems. AT&T is the least agile company in the industry, even if they start their deployment of new tech at the 'early adopter' stage they'll still always be behind the curve when it comes to what they have in the wild at any given time.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
8. Re:Bullshit by Darinbob · 2012-02-15 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I fully imagine that the idea at AT&T and every single other mobile provider was that unlimited was for business users to not worry about sending/receiving email while on the road and didn't expect people to actually spend all day watching videos. So both sides are at fault.
no opt-out either by fred+fleenblat · 2012-02-15 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

I like the way AT&T mandates that all smart phones on their network have a data plan. God forbid someone have a smart phone, do smart phone stuff over wifi, and just use it as a regular phone the rest of the time not eating into AT&T's precious bandwidth.
1. Re:no opt-out either by tilante · 2012-02-15 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you can have a smart phone without a data plan. It's just that the data plan is how they get back the money they subsidized the phone with, so you have to keep a data plan on the phone for a certain amount of time if you got your phone at a discount from them.
  Of course, the fact that they can use the data plan to recover the subsidy like that implies that, sans the subsidy recovery portion, the data plan generates large profits for them.
2. Re:no opt-out either by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but no. The Data plan is required. When you activate the UN-subsidized smartphone, they will tack on the data plan that you neither requested nor wanted. At no point should you be required to get a service you have no intent on using or want. I completely understand for subsidized phones, but on my phone that I own, no way in hell will you get me to pay it. Unfortunately, there are few companies you can go to with your own smartphone and not be required to get data.
3. Re:no opt-out either by MikeFM · 2012-02-15 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  I still have my doubts about the claims that an iPhone costs $600 when a comparable iTouch costs $200.. for a 3G antennae and a better camera? And it seems I've read that the better camera doesn't cost very much more and should just be included in the iTouch too.. so how much does that 3G antennae cost?
  
  --
  At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
4. Re:no opt-out either by i.r.id10t · 2012-02-15 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  This. Or better, a pay-as-you-use-it data plan. I'd happily pay $50 for 5gb of data transfer... of course, I've had an iPhone for 8 months now, and I've not used 200mb over 3g...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
5. Re:no opt-out either by Hatta · 2012-02-15 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Someone should write a dumb-phone emulator for smart phones.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
6. Re:no opt-out either by Emetophobe · 2012-02-15 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you can have a smart phone without a data plan.
  One of my friends bought a used iPhone 3 from another buddy for $30. He signed up for a basic $20/month AT&T plan (no data, just minutes). A few months goes by and AT&T catches wind of this. They contact him and give him an ultimatum: he either upgrades to a more expensive smartphone plan or they drop him. He ended up dropping AT&T instead.
  I'm in a similar situation. I own a Nexus S but I don't use any data, just wifi with very light cell usage.. yet I'm forced to pay $40/month for a "smartphone plan". Such a nice little racket they have going. I'm not entirely sure how it's even legal but they get away with it.
7. Re:no opt-out either by gman003 · 2012-02-15 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nope.
  I was given a Droid 1. Completely mine - Verizon didn't even know I had it until I went in to have my number transferred from my old dumbphone.
  They flat-out *would* *not* *let* *me* use it as "dumb phone with an integrated wifi computer". I was forced to upgrade to the bare-minimum 3G plan. And then they told me that if I had done the number transfer myself, they would have *automatically* added 3G charges to my bill (without telling me), even if I never used 3G.
  I imagine AT&T is just as despicably evil as Verizon in this matter.
8. Re:no opt-out either by IorDMUX · 2012-02-15 07:52 · Score: 1
  I still have my doubts about the claims that an iPhone costs $600 when a comparable iTouch costs $200.. for a 3G antennae and a better camera?
  You are missing three very large cost sources.
  
  3G licensing - Apple did not invent the 3G technology and does not hold the patents. Companies like Qualcomm did, so Apple must pay for the patents they want to license on their phones.
  3G electronics - modem, 3G antenna power amplifier, higher quality power supplies, and all the off-chip inductors and other components. They cost money and take up space, and probably require that the rest of the iTouch's components be miniaturized in order to fit everything else.
  Apple's R&D - It's market segmentation. Apple put in serious R&D to develop the iPhone, so it sells at a high price point. The same R&D also produced the iTouch, but who would want to pay nearly as much as an iPhone for fewer features? Instead, the iTouch is sold at a lower price point to reach a market to whom the iPhone does not appeal.
  --
  >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
9. Re:no opt-out either by PhotoJim · 2012-02-15 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I use GoPhone on a Canadian iPhone and it works fine. I buy 200 MB of data when I need data for a US trip. I understand that AT&T iPhones may not work on GoPhone (because AT&T prevents it from working) but non-AT&T ones (e.g. unlocked ones sourced from Apple, or officially unlocked by foreign providers) seem to work fine. So it can be done.
10. Re:no opt-out either by tunapez · 2012-02-15 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  A Pay As You Go plan would eliminate the vast majority of users who pay for data contracts they never/barely use. It's the few bad apples that are ruining the gravy train the Telcos enjoy. If it wasn't extremely profitable, the required data contracts that created this "wireless data tsunami" would no longer be required.
  It's hard to pity the glutton who cries about their ilk's selfish behavior...
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
11. Re:no opt-out either by Githaron · 2012-02-15 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  All the carriers need to get together and start standardizing the tech. New infrastructure would be a lot cheaper since the parts would be manufactured for all carriers rather an a few. The more of something you manufacture, the cheaper the manufacturing cost, the cheaper the product. An added benefit would be that consumers would have more choice since they could easily move to another carrier without buying a new phone.
12. Re:no opt-out either by generalhavok · 2012-02-15 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  God forbid someone have a smart phone, do smart phone stuff over wifi, and just use it as a regular phone the rest of the time not eating into AT&T's precious bandwidth.
  I have a smartphone (Galaxy S2), on AT&T. I don't have a data plan. It's called go-phone. They'll happily give you a SIM card, and the plans are reasonable. I can pay as I go, or pay $25 a month and get 250 minutes and unlimited SMS. I can choose to buy data to go along with that too. The only drawback is you have to pay for your phone upfront.
  So don't let facts get in your way. If you buy your phone up front, you have plenty of options for service, and choose to buy precisely what you need, for less than being on a contract. If American consumers were smart enough to buy their phones up front and use pre-paid phone plans, we'd see more competition in the wireless market. Instead, most people see a free or heavily subsidized phone, and gladly sign up for 2 years paying much more for service to pay back the cost of the phone, and then they complain when the carrier they are locked to for two years doesn't deliver what they thought they were getting.
  Save up your money, buy an unlocked phone, and then shop for pre-paid service. Thats how most other civilized countries do it.
13. Re:no opt-out either by Darinbob · 2012-02-15 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  But this would mean that the heavy volume users would not be subsidized by the light users, and we all know that the heavy users whine the loudest so you have to keep them happy!
14. Re:no opt-out either by Insightfill · 2012-02-16 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  And then they told me that if I had done the number transfer myself, they would have *automatically* added 3G charges to my bill (without telling me), even if I never used 3G.
  I imagine AT&T is just as despicably evil as Verizon in this matter.
  Yup: AT&T employee on the discussion says it happens there too:
Wait wait wait.... by cshark · 2012-02-15 06:52 · Score: 2

If they're selling more smart phones than they ever have... and they're overselling their resources, which they seem to know they're doing... why not just upgrade the network?

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
1. Re:Wait wait wait.... by DaMattster · 2012-02-15 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  If they're selling more smart phones than they ever have... and they're overselling their resources, which they seem to know they're doing... why not just upgrade the network?
  It isn't as simple to just upgrade the network. They have only a finite amount of frequency spectrum to squeeze a large number of data hungry devices so it will not necessarily help to just add more towers. Of course, if AT&T is sitting on unused spectrum, they should be upgrading the network.
2. Re:Wait wait wait.... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Then maybe stop requiring data plans for all smart phones? Poor AT&T was forced against its well to have to sell all these smart phones then also forced to make their evil customers purchase a data plan. And *gasp* hope dare those asshole users actually use the data plan they were forced to purchase. All this is making the executives at AT&T cry.
3. Re:Wait wait wait.... by Terwin · 2012-02-15 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  A whole new area of spectrum is only needed if you are broadcasting at powers that blanket the whole countryside.
  Cellular towers have a certain pattern of spectrum reuse (I think the standard pattern requires 8 sets of distinct frequencies), so if you need more bandwidth in a certain area, just make the towers closer together(they already do this in cities vs the countryside, you need not even change the operating voltage). As an added benefit, the phones will use less power because the tower will be closer and have a stronger signal.
  It may bee 'too expensive' to provide the improved coverage needed to handle the bandwidth requirements, but there is no real technical reason they could not do it with the bandwidth already in use...
4. Re:Wait wait wait.... by DaMattster · 2012-02-15 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, to your point. I make no apologies for AT&T. AT&T is evil and so are the other big 3. At least consumers have a choice to go with an MVNO. I use PagePlus Cellular which uses Verizon Wireless' network and 55.00 per month gets you 1GB of data and no contract.
wait, Capitalist rationing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:52 · Score: 1

Can't they solve it with a free market solution? Or I us somebody going to blame obstructive government regulations?
1. Re:wait, Capitalist rationing? by Tanktalus · 2012-02-15 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'll do it. If the government weren't so tightly regulating the spectrum making the barrier of entry into the market unbearably high, we'd see more competitors, some of which would understand that "selling the customer what they want" and "following through on contractual commitments" would net them a fair chunk of the customer base. And then AT&T would have to compete for customers instead of dictate to them.
  Now, I get that regulation of the airwaves has some benefit. But here is one of the costs.
2. Re:wait, Capitalist rationing? by sandytaru · 2012-02-15 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I picked the capitalist solution: I use Metro PCS instead. Their 4G unlimited dataplan is unthrottled and unlimited, and cheaper to boot.
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
3. Re:wait, Capitalist rationing? by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-02-17 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  What benefit?
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Quite the opposite by Shadowhawk · 2012-02-15 06:53 · Score: 1

Sounds like AT&T has only itself to blame.

--
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
I see this man is not an Engineer by Necroman · 2012-02-15 06:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Logic does not seem strong with this one.
1) Provide unlimited data
2) Sell people devices to use said data
3) Take away unlimited data because people are using it.
Unlimited data was (I think) introduced with the original iPhone in 2007 (or at least that's when a lot of people got the plan). AT&T then continued to grandfather people with the plan as they renewed their contracts. And now that we've been paying AT&T for 4.5 years of unlimited service, they are taking it away because our devices made it easier to consume the data.
I'm sure by the data usage models AT&T was using 4 years ago, they didn't think people would use all that much data with their phones. But companies like Apple and Google have made cooler services and made it easier to use bandwidth. Now AT&T is calling foul? AT&T should either stop grandfathering the plan forward or leave us alone.

--
Its not what it is, its something else.
1. Re:I see this man is not an Engineer by treerex · 2012-02-15 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  And now that we've been paying AT&T for 4.5 years of unlimited service, they are taking it away because our devices made it easier to consume the data. [...] Now AT&T is calling foul? AT&T should either stop grandfathering the plan forward or leave us alone.
  Amen. Are so many people grandfathered into the unlimited plans that they feel the need to throttle us? Really? Piss off.
2. Re:I see this man is not an Engineer by b0bby · 2012-02-15 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  3) Take away unlimited data because people are using it.
  That's not exactly what throttling is though, is it? You still have data access, but at a lower speed than otherwise. I don't use AT&T, but Virgin is doing this too & I don't really have a problem with it. Admittedly I have the $25 unlimited data & 300 minutes plan grandfathered, and Virgin at least only throttles over 2.5Gb, but I feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of the plan. If I ever hit 2.5Gb, I'll still be able to check email & stuff, just maybe not stream Pandora. I can live with that.
  I might be more upset if I were paying AT&T prices...
I call bullshit... by bleh-of-the-huns · 2012-02-15 06:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seriously, they stated the top 5% in congested markets would be throttled, which would be fine, if they utilized the actual top 5%. Not the arbitrary number they pulled out of their ass that stated the top 5% used approx 2G of traffic.
Yet they are selling tiered plans with 3G caps.. If throttling should occur, it should not start until the 3G mark.
I was going to go on a rant, but I have been ranting about this shit for months now every since I found out about the throttling, and ended up being throttled at 2.2G.. in the DC area, I seriously doubt 2.2G is even close to the users in the top 5% for the DC Metro area.
This is strictly a money play, ATT can go fuck themselves for all I care.... The only reason I stay with them.. is because when I am not throttled, I get between 30 and 50mbit rates on the LTE network in DC... Verizon does not even come close, and I hate Verizon more than I hate ATT..

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
1. Re:I call bullshit... by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-02-15 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, they stated the top 5% in congested markets would be throttled, which would be fine, if they utilized the actual top 5%.
  Not if you bought an unlimited plan, it shouldn't be fine. Also, 5% always means "1 in 20". If you kick the top 5% of users off your network this month, next month there'll be a new top 5%. Eject them and there's a new 95th percentile the following month.
  Disclaimer: I don't even use AT&T. I just hate when companies blatantly lie by misrepresenting statistics.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
A follows B by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:55 · Score: 1

Since they have no choice but to throttle the plan, I have no choice but to switch providers.
standard l. car analogy by vlm · 2012-02-15 06:56 · Score: 2

standard /. car analogy for AT&T mgmt:
1. The new Ford Focus seems to be selling well.
2. I know, lets manufacturer fewer of them!
3. .....
4. Profit!

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Truth in advertising by U8MyData · 2012-02-15 06:56 · Score: 1

I am so sick of watching commercials, doesn't matter which carrier, of watch this, watch that, surf, surf, surf, unlimited (sort of), etc, etc, etc. Then they turn around and blame the users, their customers? Build a better network and quit bitching. Better yet, stop telling your customers they should really use your network and we are the fastest, the best, more coverage when there are plans to limit use not encourage it. Truth in advertising needs to make a come back and have some bite. Corporatocracy needs to end and consumer rights re-emerge as the standards bearer.
The problem with AT&T's throttling policy by StikyPad · 2012-02-15 06:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is not throttling per se, but that the threshold for reaching throttling on an "unlimited" account is *lower* than on a tiered plan (the top 5% is allegedly between 1.6 GB and 1.8 GB), and that using a sliding metric will trend usage downward over the long term. People will be fearful of reaching the throttling threshold, and so they will be unreasonably conservative in their use, which in turn lowers the bar for what constitutes the top 5%. Theoretically, "unlimited" could eventually be even more limited than a 200MB plan.
Obviously the best (and only) way to push back is to use as much data as possible on an unlimited plan, driving the ceiling upwards.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
1. Re:The problem with AT&T's throttling policy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-15 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously the best (and only) way to push back is to use as much data as possible on an unlimited plan, driving the ceiling upwards.
  Somebody should write an app for that -- once you get to that point where you throtttled, it just burns as much bandwidth as it can 24x7 for the rest of the billing cycle.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This is what happens when you LIE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:57 · Score: 1

IT IS A LIE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
"unlimited", "infinite" and the various other terms used to define "limitless" services should be BANNED.
They are an outright lie that has been abused by pretty much every industry.
If I actually get an unlimited package, then damn it, I expect to be able to download the entire internet on it at full bandwidth until completion.
But I don't. I pay for a capacity which I know I stick to, with a backup of an extra 40gigs if I do go over on the months where I am consuming a little more, only for an extra £5.
I pay for electricity I use. I pay for gas I use. I don't pay for others use of the service through some crap flat-rate nonsense. It is a broken model.
AND I AM HAPPY WITH THAT.
I don't like being lied to. I want to know exactly how much I can use of a service. If I don't get that, then they can go the hell away since I don't want to do any business with liars everywhere.
Same goes with the whole "All you can eat" thing. If I can't eat the very store itself, NO DEAL.
It should already be banned under advertising standards to be honest. It still isn't even in the UK, which is annoying since we made such a huge fuss about it with help from The Gadget Show campaign and many others.
Me thinks another campaign is needed. I'm getting sick of seeing this unlimited making a comeback again.
1. Re:This is what happens when you LIE by Pope · 2012-02-15 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  You're not being lied to, you simply have ridiculous expectations.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:So.... wait.... what? by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-02-15 06:57 · Score: 1

Thats like blaming rape victim for not putting out.
And they should invest in some new machinery.
I was going to post the same thing. "She was dressed slutty!"
1. Sell tons of smart phones.
2. Discover that the infrastructure is overtaxed.
3. Blame the customers.
4. Profit?!?!?!
Simple Solution by hammeraxe · 2012-02-15 06:59 · Score: 1

Just don't advertise your data plans as "unlimited"
Why even call it unlimited? by nhat11 · 2012-02-15 06:59 · Score: 1

When in the end it gets throttled and the extreme end your service gets cut. Poor and misleading choice of marketing words
Re:It's not unlimited... by SJHillman · 2012-02-15 07:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Virgin Mobile (my provider) recently announced your speed will be throttled to 350kbps once you've downloaded 2.5GB for that billing month. Once the end of the month comes, or if you pay your next bill early, the cap is lifted. I still consider this to be "Unlimited" because I associate the word with how much you're allowed to download - that is, there's no extra charge for going over the "cap". I like Virgin Mobile, although their coverage could be better - but none of the carriers have good coverage in New York.
Sure, you can argue there's technically a cap because you can only download X gigabytes over the course of Y hours when limited to Z speeds, but this is the case on any sort of infrastructure, including roads and pipelines.
Sprint.... by JDAustin · 2012-02-15 07:03 · Score: 3, Informative

And this is one of the reasons why I stay with Sprint. Yea, they have a a more limited coverage and WiMax is slower then LTE but their unlimited data plans are truly unlimited.
How about a " no ads" plan? by Animats · 2012-02-15 07:04 · Score: 1

A phone plan that filters all ads at the central office end would cut way down on over-the-air bandwidth.
Wow, 20,000% eh? by ledow · 2012-02-15 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

20,000 % is 200 times. That's not a lot when you're considering total data, and not just maximum theoretical speed. For a start, if I use something everyday now that, five years ago, I only used one a month, that's 30 times more data already.
But it would be a lot in speed capability. The mobile I had when I was a kid years ago could only handle GSM data (i.e. 9600 bps at best at the time). If that speed had increased 20,000%, I'd have a 230Gbytes/s phone today.
I'm sorry but it's just poor planning. You know exactly how many customers you have and are likely to have. You know exactly what the theoretical maximum of those phones are. You know exactly what the average person will do (slowly use it more as time passes and upgrades pass by). Yet you still sell an unlimited package.
It's just bad business, but they don't want to admit that, like the small businesses that let Groupon sell 20,000 coupons for a free cupcake, etc. You didn't plan. You didn't extrapolate. You didn't price your products properly. You didn't expand the capability of your network. You didn't do anything that I would expect a large business like AT&T to do.
Ramp your prices up. Then wait for your customers to see all those Japanese telco's that give everyone huge allowances at top data rates for manageable prices on both mobile and fixed-line broadband. I don't care about your bad business planning, all I look for is value-for-money. If you can't provide it, I won't buy from you. If I do buy from you, I expect to get what I bought without any wording-tricks and revisions of the contracts. How hard is this to understand?
1. Re:Wow, 20,000% eh? by rezalas · 2012-02-15 07:58 · Score: 1
  would you mind providing the math on how 9600bps increased by 20,000% comes out to 230GB/s ? I've looked it over a few times and I'm not seeing it. The network bandwidth speeds have increased massively in the last 31 years, but we're talking about substantial increases in usage following those bandwidth increases. It is essentially the same as building an extra lane on a highway and then wondering why the new highway lane is always full too - you made more room, so now more people use it. The same goes for mobile - they made the networks faster, and more people started using it because they could. Now they are finding that no matter how much they increase bandwidth the customers will increase usage.
  
  1981: 2.5KB/s - 5.7KB/s (1G)
  1991: 7KB/s - 14.37KB/s (2G)
  1998: 25KB/s - 6.87MB/s (3G)
  2009: 12.5MB/s - 125MB/s (4G)
2. Re:Wow, 20,000% eh? by Bengie · 2012-02-15 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  5 years ago, smart phones were only emerging. It's more like growing from 51kb/s to 10mb/s. It's still not much data relative to wired speeds. 4G LTE will bring wireless fairly close to home broadband speeds in the USA. I think it will taper off a lot.
  Kind of like how SSDs went from 16GB to 512GB and dropped price in only 5 years. It's not that tech was growing fast, but that SSDs were catching up to tech.
Anyone but AT&T by Picass0 · 2012-02-15 07:04 · Score: 1

I recently changed cell providers to Sprint. My number one criteria when shopping for new cell service was "anybody but AT&T"
Re:Boycott by firex726 · 2012-02-15 07:06 · Score: 1

You're deluding yourself if you think they will lower costs due to people not using the cellular data.
So long as there a cartel which colludes between members to fix prices there will not be any headway in getting a more fair pricing scheme.
Re:Boycott by ScooterComputer · 2012-02-15 07:07 · Score: 1

This -WOULD- make sense, only AT&T won't let me use an iPhone on their system without a data plan. Further, even when out of contract I should discontinue the data plan, I LOSE the functionality of Visual VoiceMail, an integral feature of my handset.

--
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
20,000% by PortHaven · 2012-02-15 07:11 · Score: 1

That's the mark-up on text messages right?
1. Re:20,000% by rezalas · 2012-02-15 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, that isn't anywhere close to the markup on a text message sadly.
  My 2.5GB data plan costs $20 per month. So divide $20 by 2,500,000,000 and that is the cost per byte (0.000000008 dollars per byte, or hairs of a penny). Meanwhile, you pay 30 cents per text message that you send (160 bytes). So the comparison is 0.30 (sms) vs 0.00000128 (160 bytes of data) or roughly 23,437,500% markup.
Re:I'll start here with this post by wiegeabo · 2012-02-15 07:11 · Score: 1

I've complained to AT&T. Time to keep that pressure up, I guess. I'm actually going to contact my Representative too. I think a congressional investigation might be in order ;)
In other news: by Amphetam1ne · 2012-02-15 07:13 · Score: 4, Funny

AT&T buys all you can eat shrimp restaurant. Complains that it attracts too many fat people.

--
I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
Reminds me of AOL's 'no busy signal' promise by oneiros27 · 2012-02-15 07:14 · Score: 1

I don't know if it was a local thing, or nation wide, but in the late 1990s, after AOL went to per-month rather than per-minute plans, they got hammered. You'd have to leave the machine re-dialing 'til you finally connected. So they had a 'no busy signal' promise.
Instead, they'd not connect a modem to the last number in the rollover, so it'd just ring and ring and never pick up .... but it wasn't the busy signal.
(disclaimer : in the late 1990s, I worked for a small regional ISP)

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
So they sold a service by future+assassin · 2012-02-15 07:14 · Score: 1

that they could not deliver on. They sold more smart-phones then their system could handle even with overselling already calculated into the business model.
Unlimited - Last time I checked selling me a product that is unlimited and then reducing my unlimitidness is bait and switch.
Now maybe they're still looking at the Internet salesman book from the late 90's where Unlimited was referred to Unlimited access to the network not unlimited usage of the network.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I don't understand you people by rat7307 · 2012-02-15 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

You DO have unlimited data......
Just not at unlimited speed
Am I missing something here?

--
Burma?
1. Re:I don't understand you people by crakbone · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Reducing your speed based on how much you use is not unlimited. Because you have now put a limit on it. But AT&T has taken it a step farther by setting up limits that are below the maximum on their pay tiers. So unlimited users get slapped at 2 gigs and tier users get slapped at 3gigs. But to make it even worse than that, they choose the ones to slap not by full data use over the month but by the 5% of the users maximum on the tower that seems to be getting hit the worst. An example would be Fred, Jill and Sam all live in an area. Fred and Jill are near the outskirts and watch a ton of movies on their IPhone (Hey they got kids) and uses 2.7 gigs of data in their month. Sam is downtown and uses 1.8 gigs on his phone and gets slapped because the tower he is connected to gets congested and he can't fix it till the month rolls over. So instead of increasing the amount of towers with the money that all three people have paid for the last four years, AT&T slaps the people in the most congested areas and sells more advertising about how great their network coverage is.
2. Re:I don't understand you people by Bengie · 2012-02-15 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're getting reduced service.
  Car analogy ahoy!
  Rent a car. You get unlimited miles and the car has a governor set to 75, but after 100 miles, it limits down to 25.
3. Re:I don't understand you people by LandoCalrizzian · 2012-02-15 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  If my cellular data speed is realistically able to hit 7mb/sec at that very moment then my past usage should have no bearing on my current speed. If you're going to knock me for data usage take away unlimited data plans. If you're going to knock me for my data speed then add speed packages. If you're going to knock me for my data and speed usage, then I'll switch to Verizon, Sprint,...[insert carrier C who will do the same thing without regulation].
4. Re:I don't understand you people by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-02-15 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  Rate * Time = Usage
  There is a fixed amount of time in a month.
  If your rate is limited, your usage is limited.
  
  --
  Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
5. Re:I don't understand you people by roman_mir · 2012-02-15 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Am I missing something here?
  - yes, a lot of freeloaders.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
6. Re:I don't understand you people by clairity · 2012-02-15 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  i've said this elsewhere, but yes, you are missing something: the amount of data you use and the date rates available are inextricably linked (a rate is the derivative of an amount in calculus). since these things are not mathematically independent, it doesn't make sense to say that one is limited, while the other isn't (saying a slower rate is not equivalent to limiting data is logically incorrect).
Because you know... by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-02-15 07:16 · Score: 1

...instead of giving you a service you paid for, they're just going to say "fuck you". Don't you just love one sided contracts?
Hey AT&T, here's a novel idea, if you're selling all this crap and making all this money, INVEST IN YOUR GOD DAMN INFRASTRUCTURE TO HANDLE THE NEW USERS.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
AT&T Take Your Profits & Upgrade Your Equi by ItsPaPPy · 2012-02-15 07:17 · Score: 1

Example
2,000,000 million smart phones x $100 monthly payment = $200,000,000
$200,000,000 x 24 month contract = $4,800,000,000

I know AT&T has sold more than 2 million smart phones, so the overall number is a lot larger.

AT&T is saying it is the user's fault for buying a smart phone and is throttling customer's download speed.

AT&T how about you take some of the billions you make in profit and put it towards upgrading your archaic infrastructure?

Facts pulled from ATT.com 2011 4th Quarter Earnings Data
-For the quarter ended December 31, 2011, AT&T's consolidated revenues totaled $32.5 billion
-9.4 million smartphone sales
-Best-ever quarter for Android and Apple smartphones, including 7.6 million iPhone activations
-571,000 branded computing device (tablets, aircards, etc.) sales
So what you're saying is... by Medievalist · 2012-02-15 07:18 · Score: 1

"All right, this is it! I'll talk to this Humungus! He's a reasonable man open to negotiation."
About that real estate windfall... by scottbomb · 2012-02-15 07:18 · Score: 2

As recently discussed here on /., AT&T is about to cash in big by shedding un-needed real estate.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/02/12/0340214/all-ip-network-produces-100b-real-estate-windfall
Perhaps they can use that money to build out their infrastructure. Build it to the point where they can actually deliver on unlimited smartphone data plans and watch the customer count soar as people flee other carriers that can't keep up. Seems like a smart business decision to me.
1. Re:About that real estate windfall... by sandytaru · 2012-02-15 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Stick more cell phone antennaes on all those buildings before they sell them!
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
.... and your solution. Straight Talk. $45 a month by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2012-02-15 07:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't know how long this hack will last but here's what I'm doing... I just went to StraightTalk.com, bought a Nokia E-71, activated it. (It's WalMart's $45.00 a month unlimited text, web and phone plan). Pulled the SIM card from the Nokia and put it in the iPhone. Turn on the WiFi connection on your iPhone. Using Safari, go to http://unlockit.co.nz. I changed my IMEI to ATT and BAM! Unlimited phone, web and text. I just pay 45.00 a month to WalMart. Just YouTube search for iPhone on Straight Talk. Works with the 4 too.
Re:So they're blaming the consumer... by ackthpt · 2012-02-15 07:20 · Score: 1

For purchasing too much of their product? Why are they selling a service they can't provide?
Is there a law saying you can't do this? I know it doesn't sound right, but is there a law?
You can do anything you like if there isn't a law forbidding it.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
translation by nimbius · 2012-02-15 07:21 · Score: 1

the product must be consumed, but never at our expense.
expect the latest generation of slave-labor constructed smart phones to come out next week, and always remember to upgrade every two years regardless of the quality of your service. Finally, as a reminder: Your telephone, its screen size, and proprietary applications define your human worth regardless of your comprehension or our truthfulness in marketing.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
Well that did it. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-15 07:24 · Score: 1

I was reasonably happy with having a data plan for my iPad, but since it hurts AT&T so much to use data I'll learn to live without it and save a few bucks in the process.
That's bad news for AT&T, it's not an unlimited plan I'm dropping.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Boycott by hawguy · 2012-02-15 07:25 · Score: 1

Dont use data! Wifi only people.. if we all do so together for a week, they wil be forced to start charging less for something that costs them less to use in the first place.
yes your texts and FB posts all use less data than a simple 2min phone call. so why are you paying for it?
I fail to see why AT&T would care if everyone stopped using data for a week? It's not going to reduce their revenue, everyone has already paid for their data use for the month. All it will do is reduce their network congestion for a week and people that choose not to participate will experience better service. It's not like I can use voice to replace my data usage - I'm not going to call home and ask my wife to prop her phone up next to the stereo as a Pandora substitute, nor am I going to call all of my friends to tell them that I just saw the most amazing sunrise as a substitute for posting it on my facebook wall so they can ignore it at their leisure.
What lesson is this supposed to teach AT&T?
This sounds like the misguided "protests" against gas prices by telling everyone to not buy gas on Tuesday. All it does is makes everyone shift demand to another day. Now if you could convince people to give up driving for a month (or to cancel their data plan for a month (which of course, they can't do under most cellular contracts)), that might send a real message.
I think the best tactic would be to sue AT&T for breach of contract by selling an "unlimited" service and then capping that service lower than 3GB and 5GB "limited" plans. I could understand if they rate-limited only during peak periods, but why 24 hours a day until the end of the billing cycle? If they can't support unlimited plans, they stop selling them and stop grandfathering people in when they renew their contract - they have the right to set new terms at the end of the contract, so they should just stop selling unlimited plans they have no intention of fulfilling. (of course, I know the answer - they grandfather "unlimited" plans because that's the only carrot they can dangle to get someone to stay with AT&T when their contract is up)
Re:blame us? by Dunbal · 2012-02-15 07:26 · Score: 1, Funny

Ahh but they know that most AT&T users are Apple-crack addicts and thus will bend over and take it anyway. Remember these are the people that camp out in a line for the latest cell phone because, well, waiting a whole extra day to get one would be just too much. Apparently Steve Jobs only used to masturbate on the first 1000 phones sold at any Apple Store, so you had to get the first ones.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Capitalism 101 by ScooterComputer · 2012-02-15 07:26 · Score: 2

I posted this the other day, but I'll post it again: AT&T is trying to fundamentally go against the basic tenets of Capitalism. And although it seems pretty well established at this point that Americans don't understand Capitalism, this is actually pretty easy to grok.
Capitalism 101 says that pricing acts as a regulator between supply and demand. AT&T is arguing that they have a supply problem. The capitalistic approach would be to price plans such that moderation would be rewarded, and excess would be limited. We would expect to see AT&T increasing data caps at the lower end to try to get more users onto those plans at a price they find equitable, to promote a more balanced usage pattern that includes cellular data and WiFi. Yet AT&T, has done the exact opposite. They have continued to increase prices on the low end, such that any user with even half a brain sees that the value proposition lies with the more expensive plan. The low end plans are NOT sufficient for even a near majority of users, by AT&T's own numbers (700MB - 1200MB per month average use).
It is ridiculous to believe that a company the size of AT&T doesn't understand basic Capitalism. The only other option is that they are lying. And their recent price hike disguised as a data cap expansion is proof. The "new" plans do nothing to ameliorate the proffered issue of too much data use, since they do not fundamentally change the value proposition of the data plans. Their continued insistence on pushing this particular narrative belies a strategy of thinking the American people are stupid. They might be right; but we'll know they aren't truthful until we see a FREE base plan that includes Visual Voicemail and AT&T WiFi access, and a $10-15 plan that includes 250MB-750MB.

--
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
1. Re:Capitalism 101 by jeffc128ca · 2012-02-15 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Capitalism 101 says that pricing acts as a regulator between supply and demand."
  Your incorrect, price is where the supply curve intersects with the demand curve. It is the result, not the input. That is economics 101. Price is a regulator of nothing unless your a government that sets price controls (which always fail).
  Capitalism 101 just says charge people what you can get away with and pay as little as possible. The difference is profit.
Re:OK. Now will all you Rand fanbois by cpghost · 2012-02-15 07:28 · Score: 1

Your mythical "free market" has failed here.
In a totally "free market", AT&T and other carriers would simply squat a bigger part of the RF spectrum without caring for regulations. So the limitation isn't brought by the free market, it's brought by government regulations. Of course, those regulations are inevitable in the case of the RF spectrum, since without them, everyone would be stomping on everyone elses radio feet, so to say, and the medium would be not only saturated, it would be nearly unusable.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:So.... wait.... what? by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-15 07:31 · Score: 1

1. Sell tons of smart phones.
1a. Profit

2. Discover that the infrastructure is overtaxed.
2a. Profit some more from 'overage charges'

3. Blame the customers.
3a. Even more Profit while simultaneously screwing the few who were smart or lucky enough to have gotten an unlimited plan prior to the new "screw the customers as much as possible" policy took effect

4. ?!?!?!
4a. More inexplicable Profit derived from future morally questionable corporate ethic decisions
FTFY.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:It's not unlimited... by AvitarX · 2012-02-15 07:31 · Score: 1

I would love it if T-Mobile did that. They throttle me to about 100kbps when I break my 5gb (which they said it was, no surprise). With the high latency of wireless, it becomes useless for anything interactive. It can take 5 minutes to program and load a trip, vs about 45 seconds normally.
Still does my email though, so the important part doesn't break.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by SuperKendall · 2012-02-15 07:32 · Score: 4, Informative

AT&T has the second-best thing: SMS.
The funny thing is - they used to.
With iOS5, any iPhone owner who sends an SMS to another iPhone owner actually sends it through Apple, not over SMS! So suddenly the vast numbers of iPhones they are selling mean a dramatic drop in SMS revenue.
It makes you wonder if that's why the sudden squeeze in other areas, as they need to adjust for making less money from the same customer base.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by Dahamma · 2012-02-15 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Probably one of the reasons AT&T dropped all of their SMS plans except the $20/month unlimited one - most heavy SMS iPhone users are now going to send closer to 100 than 1000 SMS message per month, so they can now be screwed into paying $20 for something they rarely use, or screwed into paying $0.20 per message (ie $20 per 100) for something they rarely use.
  My grandfathered plan has 200 SMS for $5, which would probably be perfect for many iPhone users (and which I have never exceeded even before iOS5), so of course that one is long gone...
2. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by SuperKendall · 2012-02-15 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I had not noticed that. Also the data plans seem to cost more now. That is warranting a serious thought of moving to any other carrier...
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by edmicman · 2012-02-15 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Anecdotally that doesn't work nearly as simple as described; I've heard stories of the button not turning the right color, etc., so people still end up using the SMS way instead of the iPhone to iPhone way. Not to mention it doesn't do a damn thing for every non-iPhone user. Really wanna stick it to the carriers? Make a true cross platform SMS/MMS replacement that goes over the data network. BlackBerry could have done it if they release BBM for everyone, and I had hopes for Google+ Messenger.
4. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by SuperKendall · 2012-02-15 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Anecdotally that doesn't work nearly as simple as described; I've heard stories of the button not turning the right color, etc., so people still end up using the SMS way instead of the iPhone to iPhone way.
  Perhaps sometimes it fails; I never really look, but it mostly seems to work without intervention or setup.
  The thing is, even if it's only working partly or as you mention some friends do not have iPhones, any reduction in the number of SMS sent is a large revenue loss in aggregate for any carrier.
  Really wanna stick it to the carriers? Make a true cross platform SMS/MMS replacement that goes over the data network.
  There are a number of apps that try to do that (like GroupMe). Wisely though they piggyback on SMS as a (sort of) optional transmission mechanism, since SMS are still a very solid form of transmission.
  I agree Blackberry should have worked at opening up BBM for everyone, really they could probably still do so and get traction.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
5. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by billrp · 2012-02-15 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  AT&T has the second-best thing: SMS.
  The funny thing is - they used to.
  With iOS5, any iPhone owner who sends an SMS to another iPhone owner actually sends it through Apple, not over SMS! So suddenly the vast numbers of iPhones they are selling mean a dramatic drop in SMS revenue.
  It makes you wonder if that's why the sudden squeeze in other areas, as they need to adjust for making less money from the same customer base.
  That's the initial, default behavior in IOS5, but it's possible to disable that and send messages with normal SMS.
6. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by elashish14 · 2012-02-15 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly - because the billionaires are entitled to their profits even when their models are obsoleted by better technologies.
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
7. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by Y-Crate · 2012-02-15 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I had not noticed that. Also the data plans seem to cost more now. That is warranting a serious thought of moving to any other carrier...
  Yeah, it was the final thing that pushed AT&T off the table for me.
  Sprint is giving me 450 minutes a month, free nights and weekends, unlimited minutes to, and from any mobile phone on any carrier at any time of the day or night, unlimited data and unlimited voice / data roaming and unlimited SMS for $79 a month. Sprint roams on Verizon's network.
  If you get a corporate discount through your employer, it comes out to exactly $77.90 after taxes (in California).
  Is Sprint the super-fastest network ever? No. Is it bad? No. Is it worth signing the contract? Yes.
8. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by sootman · 2012-02-16 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  iMessage is the wrong thing at the wrong time. I already have an unlimited texting plan (and there's pretty much no other choice anymore ) and I have a limited data plan to save money... and guess what? When I'm out and about, iMessage wants to send "texts" over my data connection. That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I want. Pretty fantastic, eh?
  (And before anyone says "but texts are tiny!", my unlimited texting plan included pictures too. And yes, I know I can disable it, and I do sometimes, but I like the '...' chat-like interface of iMessage at times.)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
9. Re:Perhaps that is why there's a new focus... by Coren22 · 2012-02-21 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  On Verizon, the Skype app offered in the Android store is specifically designed to use the Verizon network rather than data for text chat, and phone calls. How silly is that?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Basic product pricing fail by Orsmo · 2012-02-15 07:32 · Score: 1
OK, so here's the process as it is supposed to work:
- Step 1: Decide what it costs to create the product.
- Step 2: Project sales.
- Step 3: Price the product based on costs vs. sales required to profit to the required margin within the time required by your business plan.
- Step 4: Adjust prices and/or improve infrastructure to maintain target margin after the profitability goals are reached.
This normally means that prices have downward pressure as your infrastructure gets paid for. In opposition to this is the upward pressure of the cost of investing profit into improved infrastructure. Generally, people do a good enough job at forecasting adoption rates, infrastructure costs, and other product costs to have prices drop over time. Failure to do so basically means you've screwed up pricing your product.
What they're claiming is that they have to limit the bandwidth because they don't have the infrastructure to support the level of average utilization they're seeing because they have the "problem" of too fast an adoption of their product (bandwidth). But the reality is this falls under the heading, "nice problems to have." They *should* be able to simply scale up the infrastructure to handle it, but they have not invested the required money and man-hours to do so fast enough to meet demand.
The difficulty is that what they sold people was "unlimited" data usage. Data usage is just bandwidth over time. You can't call it unlimited if your response to too much demand is to throttle what's supposedly unlimited. Hint: throttling is also called limiting bandwidth. Unlimited data usage != limited bandwidth.
Failure to plan and invest properly on their part does not free them from the obligations they've made to their customers.
--
-- Begin thoughtfuly, end insensitively.
It has more impact that way.
And what about the additional tethering fee... by Elliott+in+NJ · 2012-02-15 07:32 · Score: 1

So even if it were not throttled, if it's an unlimited plan then who cares how many devices I'm using to take advantage of it. If I connect my tablet or netbook to my phone for access it shouldn't make a difference. Once again here is something that we, the unwitting public, have let them get away with.
So much data? In Japan/Korea this is daily use by WillAffleckUW · 2012-02-15 07:34 · Score: 1

Seriously, does AT&T think we can't compare the much larger data usage in Japan and South Korea in one day compared to their fake limited monthly caps?
It is to laugh.
Get real, AT&T.
Stop lying to the customers.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Blame shifting by oDDmON+oUT · 2012-02-15 07:37 · Score: 1

"It's not that we didn't maintain our infrastructure, or improve it, didn't do cost analysis on expected usage, expect that our heavily subsidized sales would result in an explosion of users, or were incapable to realizing that you would actually believe our marketing.
No, it's because YOU surf to too much."
Right. I have some wonderful retirement property in Death Valley I'll sell ya cheap.

--
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Re:I'll start here with this post by jimbolauski · 2012-02-15 07:38 · Score: 1

Congressional Investigation will do nothing but increase campaign donations from AT&T what you need is a class action lawsuit.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics by PortHaven · 2012-02-15 07:38 · Score: 1

So let's talk truth (something AT&T has never been fond of).
20,000% - about the markup on a txt msg by the way.
But lets talk 4G. How much faster is 4G than 3G?
Cellular cost of service is tied to tower utilization cost - connectivity. When I connect and make a 60 minute phone call. I have put 60 minutes of draw on AT&T's celluar capacity.
AT&T makes the argument that if I download 100 MBs verus 1GB that clearly, we are talking about a 10 time utilization, right?
And at first it would appear to be so. But I call BS!!!!
If 4G offers 5x-10x the performance over the older 3G. That means I can download a 50MB-100MB file on 4G in the same time it used to take me to download a 10MB on 3G.
The amount of time I must be connected to the cell tower has been reduced by an order of magnitude (theoretically).
In which case, I am in fact not putting as much of a draw on AT&T's system. Now granted there are other aspects, theoretical performance is never the same as actual performance.
But AT&T's celluar system usage per MB has very likely gone down dramatically with 4G. And every 4G phone while it may be downloading twice as much content as a 3G user, it's in fact using less resources.
Something AT&T is NOT talking about.
Re:OK. Now will all you Rand fanbois by Xandrax · 2012-02-15 07:42 · Score: 1

Just to play devil's advocate. If regulators had not kept AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, AT&T would have been able to use the additional spectrum available to them from that merger to help solve this issue. In fact, this is one of the very issues AT&T was trying to solve by acquiring T-Mobile. Your likely response would be to mention what could happen if there was a lack of competition, and there are valid points there. However, that does not change the fact that regulators did just keep AT&T from doing something that was, among other things, intended to help correct this issue.
Re:OK. Now will all you Rand fanbois by jeffc128ca · 2012-02-15 07:46 · Score: 1

If you think the free market is suppose to give consumers everything at low cost you don't understand the concept. Free markets produce the most accurate real cost of a product, not the friendliest.
AT&T is not acting in a free market, it is regulated. The government controls who can compete with AT&T and this is why they act the way they do. This is the real racket you are referring to. If it were an open market anyone could put up a network to compete for your dollars. That's what the Rand fanbois would tell you.
However that argument is as ill conceived as your post. Barriers to entry and interfering transmissions between carriers destroys that notion. You could have light but intelligent regulation but that requires Congress to act like mature adults. Good luck with that.
Re:OK. Now will all you Rand fanbois by jader3rd · 2012-02-15 07:46 · Score: 1

While I'm not a Rand fan, I don't see how the free market failed here. AT&T is still providing the service, they just being forced to put reasonable expectations around the service now.
Re:It's not unlimited... by SJHillman · 2012-02-15 07:56 · Score: 1

I just re-read Virgin Mobile's announcement. After the 2.5GB mark, you're limited to 256kbps (not 350), but from the sound of it, that's still a better deal than other carriers are offering. Here's a few key points copied from their announcement:
How will it work?
Starting March 23, 2012, if you use over 2.5GB of data in a month on your Beyond Talk Plan:
Data speeds may be reduced to 256Kbps or below for the rest of your month. During this time,
you may experience slower page loads and file downloads and lags in streaming media.
If data speeds are reduced, they will return to normal as soon as your next plan month starts.
If you'd rather not wait for your new month to start, you can restart your plan immediately through
My Account
How will I know if my data speeds have been reduced?
If you reach 2.5GB of data in a month, you will receive a text message letting you know your data speeds
will be reduced for the rest of your plan month.
EDGE should be free by CmdrPorno · 2012-02-15 08:02 · Score: 1

I've had an AT&T iPhone since the beginning, and have lived through their dicking around with their data plans. I was fine with the 200 MB plan and switching to the 2 GB plan when I go on vacation and consume a lot of data. With their latest data plan revisions, I will be locked out of my current 200 MB plan if I ever try to temporarily switch to a plan with increased capacity, and would have to switch back to the 300 MB plan which is $5 per month higher.
I live in a rural area that is slowly being upgraded to 3G. I propose the following: AT&T's data limits should only apply to 3G service. Anything downloaded over EDGE should be free. If you run out of your limited data plan, you should be able to switch to EDGE and download as much as you want. Texts should be free or something reasonable like $5 per month for 1,000 messages, not $20 per month for an unlimited plan. I'm tired of paying $80 per month for a phone I seldom talk on in order to get a limited data plan and texting capabilities.
Since I know they won't do this, I'm planning to switch to one of the MVNOs once my contract is up. Either Republic Wireless if they open their beta again, or TracFone's "bring your own phone" program which recently launched (yes, it uses AT&T's network, but at a lower cost to the consumer).

--
Sent from my iPhone
are you kidding me? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-02-15 08:15 · Score: 1

are you fucking kidding me? no, AT&T it's YOUR fault for wanting to be the exclusive iphone service contract. you can't tempt users with the promise they can use these devices like average computers and then dictate how they use data. if you can't provide the data, then you shouldn't have tried to monopolize the service contracts. go fuck yourselves.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Math skills. by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-15 08:16 · Score: 1

The mobile I had when I was a kid years ago could only handle GSM data (i.e. 9600 bps at best at the time). If that speed had increased 20,000%, I'd have a 230Gbytes/s phone today.
You're off by several orders of magnitude, as well as being wrong with simple integer multiplication.
9600 bps = 9.6 Kbps
9.6 * 200 = 1920 Kbps
1920 Kbps = 1.92 Mbps.
1.92Mbps != 230GB/sec. Not even close.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Just to add to the BS by koan · 2012-02-15 08:24 · Score: 1

I have an unlimited plan, I use less than 100 megs a month and I am throttled, so it isn't always done by usage it seems to be a b;blanket throttle where I am.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Quick Tethering Quiz by DickBreath · 2012-02-15 08:25 · Score: 1

Which costs more and which puts more stress on the wireless network:
1. A 1 kilobyte packet transmitted between my phone and the tower.
2. A 1 kilobyte packet transmitted between my phone and the tower.
(Please note in the case of (1) the packet was from my mobile browser, and in the case of (2) the packet was from my laptop browser.)

If I have a 2 GB monthly data limit, which of the following activities will use more data on the network:
1. Downloading 2 GB of data to my mobile phone?
2. Downloading 2 GB of data to my laptop?

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Suggestion to the FTC by Overzeetop · 2012-02-15 08:26 · Score: 2

If a data company throttles any data plan, they may only advertise what the lowest capped rate is. Actual rates may be included in the contract between the subscriber and the utility.
If a data company limits total download capacity, even if it is a "soft" limit (TOS limit), the plan must be advertised with the cap noted at the same relevance as the speed of the connection.
If the connection has a minimum acceptable (or guaranteed minimum) speed for a given price point, only the minimum speed may be advertised. No advertising of temporary, limited, or "burst" speeds is allowable. Maximum or burst speed may be included in the in the contract between the subscriber and the utility, provided the minimum allowable speed is also provided.
Utilities may not advertise speeds in markets where such speeds are not available in at least 1/2 the landmass area. National advertising may only note the minimum speeds or availability available to all subscribers in the US.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Tasting by DickBreath · 2012-02-15 08:26 · Score: 2

I have an interesting situation. My water utility sells me metered water for washing dishes, watering the lawn, showering, and other limited purposes.

The utility offers a Tasting plan for an additional monthly charge. Under this plan, I am allowed to use the water also for cooking and drinking. (Even though my water use is metered, and each gallon of water for cooking and drinking is delivered by the same pipes!)

Dear customer: our records indicate that you have been using water for cooking and/or drinking. Please upgrade your water rate plan to our convenient Tasting plan that allows for this usage. If you continue to use water for cooking and drinking, you will be signed up for the Tasting plan automatically.

I think the Tasting plan is just a fee that they made up. It isn't a service they provide. They just want more money from me. I've got a workaround of using a container to obtain water from another room for the purposes of cooking and drinking.

Some people shout: Theft of service! But what service? They're already delivering water to me, and metering it, and I'm paying for it, and its delivered by the same pipes!

Some people shout: but you signed an agreement and using the water for cooking and drinking is a breach of that agreement! Ask a lawyer about the term "unconscionable contract". Nobody in their right mind would agree to this if they had any actual choice in the matter. Just because they have the power and can force you into paying this ridiculous fee or doing without doesn't make it right.

I say that this Tasting "service" is no service at all, it's just a fee for delivering nothing at all extra to me. It's a case of the utility wanting something for nothing. Yet people seem to think it is somehow wrong to use the water I'm paying for for drinking or cooking unless I sign up for the more expensive Tasting plan.

In order to add legitimacy to their Tasting plan, the water company says that the Tasting plan is actually delivering something: it includes an additional 2 Gigabytes of water per month, giving you 4 total Gigabytes of water.

But what if I only need 2 Gigabytes of water and therefore my existing monthly 2 Gigabyte plan is plenty? The water company already charges $10 per extra Gigabyte of water I use over the limit. So if I used excess water, it's not like they wouldn't get paid.

Furthermore, once I sign up for the Tasting plan, they don't make any distinction between water used for drinking/cooking and water used for other purposes. I could use 3/4 of it for tasting, and 1/4 for bathing/dishwashing. Or any other split. Or all of it purely for tasting. So then if I paid for Tasting and used only 2 Gigabytes of water, which I already had paid for, then why did I need the Tasting plan?

I seem to be very confused about stealing water for tasting. Someone please set me straight.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Sound fishy? by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-02-15 08:28 · Score: 1

Like so many other collapsed fisheries, this is another example of over-exploitation of a scarce resource. "The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen." And the fishermen always argue for the status quo.
Either complain about dropped calls and other service defects OR complain about rationing or usage-proportional tariffs OR complain about AT&T attempting to buy out a competitor to absorb their under-utillized network. But you cannot take all three sides.

--
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
They're saying they sold something they don't have by Karmashock · 2012-02-15 08:28 · Score: 1

I don't know what to call that... is it fraud? I'm not sure. They honestly thought they did have it but at what point in smartphone sales did it occur to them "you know we've sold more of these then we have data capacity to support!" I don't believe that didn't occur to them. And despite their statement about too many smart phone buyers are they still selling more?
The whole thing seems odd. I don't know... ATT has always had a crap network.
Happily a sprint customer. I don't know what people's experience is with it where ever... but where I live, rock solid on all counts. ATT doesn't work in half my city.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
can't wait for iphone 5 by conark · 2012-02-15 08:39 · Score: 1

because i'll go back to Sprint and get rid of my crappy Android and even crappier AT&T service. don't ever say shit about your customers!
Customers to AT&T... by TheDawgLives · 2012-02-15 08:55 · Score: 1

Go sit on a large, dark phallus.
Seriously, they are all too eager to take our money, but then they get all upset when we complain that they don't deliver what they promised. If they want out of the smartphone game, then all they have to do is STOP SELLING THEM!!!

--
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
Another AOL example, phone booth by tiltowait · 2012-02-15 09:02 · Score: 1

Here's a similar gem, made by Steve Case in 1997, in response to gripes from people unable to connect to swamped AOL servers after their switch to unlimited hours:

Just as you would be sensitive about using a public phone booth if others were waiting in line to use it . . . try to show some restraint at night during the next few months when we're in this transitional mode.
In other words, it's your fault for trying to use what you've paid for.
Re:Well by Githaron · 2012-02-15 09:29 · Score: 1

Listening to music streams.
Re:AT&T Take Your Profits & Upgrade Your E by Bengie · 2012-02-15 10:05 · Score: 1

I'm not saying their profits aren't good, but you're talking revenue.
Both are related by aepervius · 2012-02-15 10:37 · Score: 1

If you limit speed you will limit the plan. If you limit the speed to 10 Kb.s-1 , then it comes down to a maximum of 843 Mb a day or about 24 Gb a month (assuming a 24/7 download rate of 10kb.s-1).m

If you limit the speed you are essentially limiting the data plan. You cannot have an "unlimited quantity to use" if you throttle intentionally the speed of consumption , this means throttling the data quantity. Now if speed was limited by hardware , or by network congestion that would be something else. But it is misleading to say that limiting speed still leave the plan "unlimited".

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What about Sprint? by pauljlucas · 2012-02-15 12:50 · Score: 1

Because of bandwidth overallocation, it's impossible for a company which promises unlimited bandwidth to actually deliver it to all its customers.

Just curious: heard anything about Sprint's unlimited data plan and whether Sprint customers are being throttled? If Sprint is, in fact, doing it, why can't AT&T?
(Sprint was my first wireless carrier way back with my Kyocera 6035. I hated them and couldn't wait until my contract was up and can't see myself going back. Hence, I have no recent experience with them.)

--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Different Department by Walt+Sellers · 2012-02-15 13:29 · Score: 1

The sales side of the company has no reason to slow things down. They get paid on commission or on number of accounts generated. They never have to deal with the costs of delivering service to those accounts.
The production side of the company has to deal with providing service to those accounts. It takes a considerable amount of time to upgrade systems. Before you can do that, they have must fight for the budget to do it. Before that, the need to find out that they have a need.
Pffft! That's nothing! by zmollusc · 2012-02-15 13:50 · Score: 1

You should see the percentage increases in data use over the preceding twenty years!

--
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
AT&T by Nethead · 2012-02-15 14:06 · Score: 1

American Telephone & Telegraph.
Now you're seeing the telegraph part of the network.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
great expectations by itchybrain · 2012-02-15 14:13 · Score: 1

Is it possible at all to pay for a service and be reasonable about the expectation (from both sides)?

If you rent an apartment and electricity comes for free, would you feel guilty if you use more than you normally should?

I am sure there were times when we all tried to get our money's worth when we dined in a buffet restaurant. Is this the same mentality here as well? In all likelihood, it is possible to break the buffet restaurant business model as it is to the AT&T model.
Capitalism 102 by fortfive · 2012-02-15 14:26 · Score: 1

When a market player has a monopolistic position, it will optimise price to maximise profit/income.
They price the higher plans higher because they know options are limited, and anyone who at all can afford it will pay for it.
AT&T needs to totally re-think the way they ch by jonwil · 2012-02-15 18:18 · Score: 1

AT&T needs to totally re-think the way they charge for services.
Eliminate the need to buy a "data plan" to have a smartphone and just have people sign up to different plans.
Bring in new plans that are closer to what it actually costs to provide the services
So a $20 per month plan could have 300 minutes of voice, 100 texts and 500mb of data.
A $50 per moth plan could have 500 minutes of voice, 150 texts and 1GB of data.
And so on with a top tier $100 per month plan having maybe 2000 minutes of voice, 500 texts and 4GB of data.
Any minutes, text or data you use above the plan is charged at the relevant per-minute, per-text or per-megabyte rate.
Oh and change the way charging and billing works so that people no longer have to pay for incoming calls and texts and make the originator of those calls and texts pay instead.
Unintended consequences by Done+Scotus · 2012-02-16 05:22 · Score: 1

Back in the '60's, I remember a municipality in California that had a water shortage, so it created a clever and effective campaign to get people to lower their water consumption. It worked. In fact it worked so well that the utilities revenues fell to a point that they had to raise the rates to cover the over-head.
It's a False advertising! by rhalstead · 2012-02-16 06:41 · Score: 1

IF AT&T sells *Unlimited" contracts they they should be held legally to providing *unlimited* service. IF OTOH they do not have the capacity to provide it then selling such is false advertising. If I *pay for* unlimited then I expect to be able to run 24 X 7 eve though it would be almost impossible for me to do so. IOW if they can't provide it then they are breaking the law by selling it any way. As individuals, if we advertised like that we'd most likely end up in jail because we have to deliver what we advertise.
Give me my donuts! by ancientt · 2012-02-16 15:25 · Score: 1

"Unlimited" means "as much as any device we support can use" rather than "any device anywhere that could exist could potentially use."
When you sell "Unlimited" to 500 uses who can potentially use 50GB daily, then you are stating that you have the hardware to support 500 users using 50GB daily. There is no abuse here; there is no misrepresentation here. When you sell it to 5000 users and advertise "Unlimited" then you are lying.
I really don't mind that I am sold tiered bandwidth allocations. I like knowing what I'm paying for and so long as they meter it fairly, I make the decision to buy and use or not buy the service. I do mind that they call it 4G ( 4G is a lie.)
Really annoying is thinking (but not having done sufficient research to know with certainty) that when I purchase 5GB/monthly service, what I'm really getting is sometimes maybe throttled without telling me and often insufficient for demand service. If I buy "5 free donuts daily" and I get "5 free donuts daily when maybe not everybody we sold them to is actually picking up their donuts and sorry, today you get 1 donut because it looks like a good dounut day" then yeah, they've sold me something they are incapable of guaranteeing delivery of. Fine. I can deal with that. You sell something thinking you can deliver it and you can't, then you failed; your bad, you broke the contract. GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK.
You sell me 5 donuts, I expect 5 donuts. You can only deliver 3? I don't care about your other customers, that is between them and you, but I have every right to depend on 5 donuts and you failed. You failed. GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK. Okay, so you acknowledge that you can't give 5 donuts a day to eveybody you sold 5 donuts daily to? Fine, you broke your contract, offer only what you really can deliver. Sell me 1 donut a day guaranteed and if you give me 5, then I'm your biggest fan.

So while the blame doesn't fall upon the customers who were sold and bought unlimited plans, neither do I think it's realistic for them (and me) to truly expect unlimited data.
You sell me A, you owe me A. It is that simple and I have every right to truly expect A.
The FTC needs to say "the new rule starting June 1, 2008 is: you sell only what you can really supply. You can say 'up to 5GB' but you must also say 'actual guaranteed rate of 'X' where X is what you can actually deliver if every customer you have is using everything you sold them."

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Re:OK. Now will all you Rand fanbois by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-02-17 03:53 · Score: 1

Some regulations are good and efficient. The current set are worse than useless.

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.