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."

91 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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...
17. 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)
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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!
27. 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.
28. 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 ...
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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!
34. 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.
35. 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?
36. 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?
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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
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 CannonballHead · 2012-02-15 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  ... who wrote the book of love?
2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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)
6. 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
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.
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.
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 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*
3. 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.
4. Re:IPhone by GKThursday · 2012-02-15 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Can I get this as a car analogy?
5. 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.
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
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 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.
2. 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!
3. 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.
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 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...
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 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
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. :-)
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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
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.
.... 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.
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."
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
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.
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.