User Successfully Sues AT&T For Throttling iPhone Data

An anonymous reader writes "Matt Spaccarelli has won a judgement of $850 from AT&T for data throttling. From the article: 'Nadel's ruling could pave the way for others to follow suit. AT&T has some 17 million customers with "unlimited data" plans that can be subject to throttling, representing just under half of the company's smartphone users. AT&T stopped signing up new customers for those plans in 2010, and warned last year that it would start slowing speeds for people who consume the most data. In the last few months, subscribers have been surprised by how little data use it takes for throttling to kick in —often less than AT&T provides to those on limited or "tiered" plans. Spaccarelli said his phone is being throttled after he's used 1.5 gigabytes to 2 gigabytes of data within a new billing cycle. Meanwhile, AT&T provides 3 gigabytes of data to subscribers on a tiered plan that costs the same — $30 per month.'"

Comments

"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[elrous0]

It would be nice to think that rulings like this might have some effect on the traditional corporate practice of making new users sign "contracts" that basically give one party the right to change the terms any damn time they want and in any damn way they want, while giving the other party the right to pay their money and shut up. It would also be nice to think we may live in a country some day where consumer protection laws will actually be geared towards protecting *consumers* and not just the corporations who write all our the laws in the U.S., making these kind of rulings unnecessary in the first place.

Of course, while I'm dreaming, I had may as well wish for a threeway with Katee Sackhoff and Natalie Portman in my new Ferrari.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Huge_UID]

Don't hurt your back. And watch out for the gearshift.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[g0bshiTe]

If that's the case, perhaps there should be an "opt-out", where in the event the contract does change the consumer has the right to terminate the contract without fees if they so choose.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the gearshift" is .. okay, look, we'll have this conversation when you're older.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to think that rulings like this might have some effect on the traditional corporate practice of making new users sign "contracts" that basically give one party the right to change the terms any damn time they want and in any damn way they want, while giving the other party the right to pay their money and shut up.

The contract can say anything that isn't illegal.

But you can't market your service as "unlimited" when it clearly isn't - that is FRAUD.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to think that rulings like this might have some effect on the traditional corporate practice of making new users sign "contracts" that basically give one party the right to change the terms any damn time they want and in any damn way they want, while giving the other party the right to pay their money and shut up.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but the law of unintended consequences applies as well. Suppose the law changes, making it illegal to modify a contract without active two party consent (i.e. none of this 'if you used it after we change the contract, you implicitly agree to the new rules' crap). The logical conclusion of businesses trying to make money by providing a service would be to limit contract lengths. Now, you get to sign up for a year of service (more likely 6 months) at agreed upon rates, etc., but then you would have to sign up for a new contract every year. That new contract would not grandfather unlimited data plans, and it likely wouldn't lock in your current rates. In practice, it becomes nothing more than what you already have. Throw in the fact that they would likely stop paying for your new phone every few years and the end result is more money out of pocket for little to no gain.

In the end, if you don't like being screwed by AT&T, let Verizon, Sprint, or one of the others doing the screwing for a while. Or don't participate. I know that means effectively joining a societal lepers colony, but laws are not going to make this problem better. That's been the problem all along: something must be done, I have done something, therefore something has been done. Whenever you or someone you know says "there should be a law against this", just remember that it is likely happening because at some time, someone wrote a law that caused exactly "this" to occur.

Typical obvious laws against murder, etc. don't follow the same rules, so all you ./ lawyers just shut the hell up and go troll foursquare for a while.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they change the terms of the contract, you have the right to reject it and cancel your service with out paying the ETF

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[WrongSizeGlass]

If that's the case, perhaps there should be an "opt-out", where in the event the contract does change the consumer has the right to terminate the contract without fees if they so choose.

If you have the 'Unlimited' data plan your initial contract has already 'expired', but you'll lose the 'unlimited' part of it if you opt-out of your existing contract. O think it's better that AT&T have to be worried about these small, annoying lawsuits. It probably cost them more than the $850 settlement in legal fees.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[fred911]

Additionally suprising is how this user got a court to hear the case. Most EULAs have a clause that forces a litigant to binding arbitration.

It will be a long time and real costly before he sees a dime from this judgement, if ever.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[ackthpt]

It would be nice to think that rulings like this might have some effect on the traditional corporate practice of making new users sign "contracts" that basically give one party the right to change the terms any damn time they want and in any damn way they want, while giving the other party the right to pay their money and shut up.

The contract can say anything that isn't illegal.

But you can't market your service as "unlimited" when it clearly isn't - that is FRAUD.

No, that's deception.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[GrumpySteen]

That already exists (at least in the US). Any time your provider changes the contract, read the fine print of the contract. You'll find you have a certain time period (usually 14 or 30 days) in which you can discontinue your service without any early termination fee. The person you talk to to try to end the service will generally lie and say that the clause doesn't apply to you, but ultimately the company is bound by the terms of the original contract until such time as you agree to the new contract by paying your next payment.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[forkfail]

They don't change the contract. t-mobile and AT&T just redefine "unlimited data" to mean "all the data you can get, but at 5% of the maximum speed that your 4G device can deliver it".

Which may keep them in the letter of the law and contract, but absolutely not in the spirit. Especially if you take into account the inherent and explicit promises of their advertisements.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Mister Whirly]

This has been successfully done many times. The law states if one party changes a contract the other party does not have to agree to the terms and may chose to cancel the original contract. Of course with cell phones that means you may not get to keep your original number which can be a deal breaker for some.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[uigrad_2000]

It would be nice to think that rulings like this might have some effect on the traditional corporate practice of making new users sign "contracts" that basically give one party the right to change the terms any damn time they want and in any damn way they want, while giving the other party the right to pay their money and shut up.

I'm thinking that even if you made your own cell carrier, that you'd still be upset with the service you provided yourself.

Guaranteeing "unlimited use" forever, in spite of how the market and usage patterns change, is just impossible. It's like your Natalie Portman dream plus hot grits. If you want to argue that AT&T should have never made such bogus claims in the first place, then I could agree with you. If you think you are justified to take 30% of the bandwidth of your tower just so you can run a Natalie Portman fansite off your phone, then you and I come from different planets.

AT&T should just admit that they goofed. Tell all of us that our unlimited contracts will not be continued past the end of the year, and offer us some token discount on our next phone. Sure, some people will have hissy fits, but for customers like me, I'll just be pleased that for once they aren't trying to lie to me.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate this sort of rubbish. People always think "binding arbitration" clause, with disregard that it's illegal to have "binding arbitration" as it circumvents several laws.

Arbitration is NEVER binding. You ALWAYS have the right say you disagree with the arbitration. You will be required to go through the motions of arbitration, but that doesn't mean you have to live with the outcome. With a house I'd contracted to be built, the company declared bankruptcy while building it, I felt this was breech of contract and wanted my deposit back feeling how can I trust the build quality on a company which knows damn well won't have to honor any warranties, there was an arbitration clause, I went through arbitration, it went against me, I disagreed with said arbitration, got a lawyer and prepared to sue. The builder heard, realized they had no prayer in court, and suddenly, literally within 1 week, I had a check for my deposit.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[HapSlappy_2222]

I don't like this either, actually. It would be a better solution than being stuck in the contract, surely, but I'm still inconvenienced by the changed contract. In other contractual situations (divorce, building a home, buying a car, whatever) a party that changes the contract is typically responsible for providing a damn good reason for why the change is happening in the first place, and in cases where the contract is no longer tenable, the offending party pays up. As in:

"If either party fails, without reasonable cause, to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then the other party may give written notice requiring the default to be ended. If the default continues for 7 days after receipt of the notice then the employment of the Building Contractor may be terminated upon receipt by the defaulting party of a further written notice stating that the employment of the Building Contractor is terminated forthwith. The Building Contractor will then be entitled to payment for work carried out that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the determination, provided that the Householder may deduct reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a new Contractor if the Building Contractor was the only defaulting party."

Note that last line? In legalese, the "Householder" gets to take the money for a new contractor right outta the original contractor's pocket (within reason, of course).

These "contracts" we all sign for our phones aren't really contracts, at all; that would mean that a thing of mutual benefit or interest to 2 or more parties is being officially agreed upon. If they were, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or whoever would owe ME money for every dropped call, EULA change, or asshole customer service rep, the fucks. But I guess there's no real reason to supply a reasonably reliable service at an agreed upon rate with a friendly smile these days. Bah.

On the other hand, I wonder if I can start charging my print shop's customers for the bandwidth I use to send their images to my printers. It's just ripe for the picking. Hmm.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[bobcat7677]

How about we keep contracts contracts and hold them to the contract you signed up under. If they want to do something else, then they can do that for new contracts, but the existing contracts have to stay intact until terminated. If they breach the contract with stuff like intentionally not delivering the service they are contractually bound to deliver, then you sue their pants off but the contract is breached and done with. No more of this insane "sign here but we can change it on you at any time just because we want to" shite.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[sjames]

No, it' not impossible. There exist natural limits on the connection unrelated to any imposed limitation. An honest company wishing to offer 'unlimited' service will make sure their offer is profitable at that natural limit. Meanwhile, provision is getting cheaper over time, not more expensive.

They offered 'unlimited' with secret limits so they could take customers away from providers offering what was actually a better deal but were honest about the actual limits. They had no interest in that honesty thing.

At this point, they should just fess up and take their lumps, but they're trying to avoid even that by driving their customers (who did nothing wrong) to 'voluntarily' abandon the unlimited plan.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[gnick]

You ALWAYS have the right say you disagree with the arbitration. You will be required to go through the motions of arbitration, but that doesn't mean you have to live with the outcome.

Right - Hire a lawyer, take a dozen man-hours off of work, travel to wherever the "motions" are taking place, listen to non-sense, and then hope that you get your $850 back to recover part of your costs. It's noble, but only makes sense for the big game, not for the small rip-offs where the fat cats make their money.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[RoknrolZombie]

oh AT&T would absolutely love it if those of us on "Unlimited" plans cancelled our contracts. That doesn't help anyone but AT&T.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[jamstar7]

Every data plan contract I've seen includes the words 'up to', as in 'We guarantee connectivity up to 4G speed'. If they throttle down to 5%, they're still inside their advertising claims per the letter of the law. By the spirit of the law, not even close. It's like saying 'You are paying for X bandwidth, but we'll make sure you never get more than Y bandwidth', they just don't come out and say that directly.

There's a reason why I don't get a smart phone. Data plan ripoffs is a big part of it.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[WrongSizeGlass]

The deal with the old Cingular clients that came over was that they could keep unlimited data virtually forever. The trick is that you can never modify your plan with AT&T, or they'll stop you and say, "then you'll have to choose another plan". You can't add or remove tethering, etc.

Same thing for those of us with the unlimited AT&T plan.

As for the legal fees, I'm sure they use so many legal services for small things like this that they'd barely feel it unless a million people hit them... in which case you'd end up with a class action.

The 'contract' specifically excludes class action lawsuits.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[SydShamino]

Fraud is deception, when done intentionally and for profit. That's its definition.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[trawg]

We went through this same shit years ago in Australia.

ISPs started selling Unlimited* data, and hiding what the asterisk meant in T&Cs under what they called an "Acceptable Use Policy". The Acceptable Use Policy usually said something like, "you can use unlimited data up to this particular limit at which point you will be charged X/throttled/something else".

Our consumer watchdog group, the ACCC (which IMHO is a truly excellent example of well done government regulation that works for the people) took exception to this after user complaints. I can't remember the exact details (and am too lazy to search) but the gist of it was that this was not transparent enough and not clear enough for the end users.

The end result is that every ISP was forced to stop selling these bullshit "unlimited*" plans and required to label them accurately and concisely.

We have quite low monthly download quotas compared to the rest of the world (I work in broadband content and regularly talk to people that struggle on 12-20GB a month because it is all that is available for them), but the plans are clearly labelled and generally very transparent and easy to understand - and while many people are still pretty pissed about the low quotas and sometimes high overage charges (especially on mobile)... the problem of getting bullshitted into an "unlimited" plan only to find out that it is not at all unlimited has all but vanished.

I am not sure what the US equivalent of our ACCC is (FTC?) but I find it staggering that this has not brought their attention yet. Does the FTC have no teeth (seems unlikely from previous readings) or is the government just completely in the pocket of these giant telcos, or is it just user apathy/ignorance...?

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[neonKow]

Nono. Paddles we like.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[nolife]

That new contract would not grandfather unlimited data plans, and it likely wouldn't lock in your current rates. In practice, it becomes nothing more than what you already have. Throw in the fact that they would likely stop paying for your new phone every few years and the end result is more money out of pocket for little to no gain.

I disagree. Without these long contracts, cellular companies would have to compete for your continued business with competitive prices, better choices on phones, better phone service and better customer service. If they were no longer competitive, people could and would leave immediately. Just like VOIP has done to the land line market. The consumer would ultimately benefit from from this. Hell, it might even get to the point where you buy a phone yourself completely separate from the carrier and then shopped for a carrier. It would be in their interest to support all phones and they could make some type of install package for your model phone you could download and install to make it work correctly with their service. I believe the market and the prices would work themselves out and we would all benefit.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[s73v3r]

Are you trying to say it's better for the ISP to be able to outright lie, and not define the caps at all? At least having them publish the caps means they can't change them secretly at will.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[s73v3r]

The person you talk to to try to end the service will generally lie and say that the clause doesn't apply to you

That should be flat out illegal, and punishable by HUGE fucking fines, both on the part of the agent and the company.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Mitreya]

"you can use unlimited data up to this particular limit at which point you will be charged X/throttled/something else".

There is a big difference between "charged" and "throttled". I assume that if they ever tried to charge users for an "unlimited" plan, they would be sued much faster
I believe the argument is that "unlimited" refers to amount of data and not the speed. You certainly can't argue that you expected "unlimited" download speed because obviously you'd be limited by the physical link capacity
Why _does_ wireless plan cost 30/month for 3Gigs of data? It's not like other competitors are rushing in to offer something better.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Rennt]

I suspect the 12GB ceiling is for 3G. A typical home internet plan in Australia ranges from 150GB to 400GB (for between $50-$100). After that you are shaped (no overages). And yes, I do believe that knowing what you are paying for - and getting it - is better then the US system.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Dodgy G33za]

If it is legal in your state you should start by saying that you are recording the conversation. Just like they are.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Dodgy G33za]

Are you saying that you don't have portable mobile phone numbers in the States?

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

Oh we do, but it's tricky. You would have to port your number out of your carrier BEFORE telling them you want to cancel for XYZ reason without ETF, which means you're pretty much committed to the fight at that point. If you cancel your service first, you just gave up any right to that phone number and you're pretty much SOL for porting it.

(IANAL but I used to work in number porting for a telecom)

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[chrismcb]

Most EULAs have a clause that forces a litigant to binding arbitration.

So you are disputing the EULA... But in order to dispute the EULA you have to abide my the EULA? Yeah I don't think it works that way. Take them to court.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[tjhart85]

That can't be accurate at all! You people with unlimited (who are paying the same as people who want 3GB) are only getting 1.5-2GB a month! You're paying the same and getting less. I think they want to keep you!

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Eponymous Coward]

It depends on what state you are in. Some small claims courts don't even allow lawyers.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[Eponymous Coward]

I would just like them to explain how data caps help them. As I understand it, the problem is that there are a couple of peak usage times every day where congestion is a problem. Throttling heavy users will only help this situation if their heavy usage coincides with the periods of congestion. If, instead, the heavy users are using the bits watching Netflix late at night, throttling them won't help.

Somebody who saturates their network connection from midnight to 6 am every day is less of a burden on the network than a user who only uses the connection during the peak usage times.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[sjames]

There seems to be a general trend towards using data transfer as a proxy for peak rates even though it is only poorly correlated.

OF course they could just be greedy and making the same bad assumption that all demand is perfectly inelastic like the *AA does.

Re:"We can change this anytime" EULA didn't work?

[froggymana]

Why _does_ wireless plan cost 30/month for 3Gigs of data? It's not like other competitors are rushing in to offer something better.

With US cellular I get 5GB of data, and free tethering (within that 5GB, tethering plans just add data to your max). And it's the same $30/month for the data. My only complaint is that they don't have full nation wide coverage but, you get free roaming on sprint, verizon, etc. You just need to make sure you use at least half of your total data on US cellular's network.

Can't change contract without compensation

[Russ1642]

They claimed they needed to limit usage on their network, so they throttled users. What they forgot was the part where they're supposed to compensate the affected users for this.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[slapout]

If the network is so limited, they should be trying to upgrade the network.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Russ1642]

Upgrading the network doesn't happen overnight. Throttling is their way of delaying the upgrade, which is acceptable if only they hadn't screwed over their customers. They should have sent out an email stating that they were throttling the connections, and they'd also have to suspend any early termination fees. To keep customers at that point they'd probably have had to reduce rates as well. I'm not saying that throttling is ok with me, just that they could have held up in court if they hadn't been greedy dicks.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they upgrade their network when they can just charge oligopoly prices, and return the profits to the CEO^D^D^D shareholders?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

when was the first iphone released?

how long has att been claiming they need to do this?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[forkfail]

If the network is so limited, they should stop selling "unlimited data" and then saying that bandwidth is not the same as data (which is their core argument).

t-mobile does the same thing, and it is absolutely false advertising. The level of deceit is amazing - they have showboat aps on their front webpage for streaming video and TV, they show ads with people watching the game in a restaurant, but if you do these things, you're going to get throttled to the point that your smartphone becomes useless.

It's like going to an all you can eat buffet, and getting your first plate of food with no problem, but each subsequent bite of food has to be acquired spoonful by spoonful after waiting in line each time.

Maybe instead of spending all their money on tricking customers and attempted mergers, they should, oh, I don't know, build out their infrastructure to meet the level of use that is to be expected with the products they sell?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[LordArgon]

Whoa! Hold on, guys... Can't it be both?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[camperslo]

They should innovate their way out of this. There are other ways to shift traffic, incentives to use or support a WiFi traffic path for others, and some advancing picking of video/music so it can be downloaded during traffic dips or via WiFi etc.
It's simple, cheap to do, and customers can be compensated in some way for doing something. Then it's a win for all involved.

If regulatory agencies wont help, some should sue AT&T over the continuing unjustified price bumps even for slower grade DSL. It looks like a conspiracy to make it less viable for customers to get video programming from other providers. And at the same time, the shift away from reliable copper phone services may leave some areas very vulnerable if an extended emergency hits. Boxes around town with batteries (powering optical to copper converters), and techs hundreds of miles away, can mean serious widespread downtime over a large area in an extended disaster.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Desler]

How is it false advertising? TMobile never guarantees a minimum bandwidth. They only guarantee a constant connection.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

In addition, they could also have published clear specifications on when this throttling would occur and relaxed just how limited it was.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[forkfail]

Sure they do. When you buy a 3G or 4G device, you are buying bandwidth capability. Plain and simple.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Sancho]

False advertising--and indeed most law--involves what a reasonable person would expect. A reasonable person seeing particular speeds advertised right next to an unlimited plan does not expect the unlimited plan to be throttled. A reasonable person who signed up for an unlimited plan at a certain speed isn't going to expect that speed to suddenly decrease while other people with a limited plan are seeing the original speeds.

Most of meatspace isn't highly technical or bound by discrete laws, and judges (particularly in small claims court) tend to favor the little guy who doesn't get paid to know the law inside-and-out. They rule based upon common when there's any wriggle room. Contract law also favors the weaker party any time there is lack of specificity.

This is honestly not that surprising.

That said, AT&T can almost certainly cancel this guy's service, and should do so. You don't want customers who are going to sue you.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[flowwolf]

They did stop selling unlimited data. RTFA much? This concerns people who contracted into the unlimited data plan while they were selling it.

Also, unlimited data does not mean unlimited bandwidth. The only way you could consider it false advertising is if you decide to be complacent about consumers not educating themselves about the issues at hand. If you bothered to educate yourself about what unlimited data meant, then you wouldn't have made the wrong conclusions and come out of the deal feeling tricked.

I understand that they probably are overselling network capacity. I also understand that perhaps they are not. Maybe they're just maintaining a normal load across the network. Who knows? The point is, you can't blame the corporation entirely. You, the consumer, are jumping into their 3 year contracts with as much enthusiasm as the sales guy has signing you up. Maybe even more.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[forkfail]

So, bandwidth is data divided by time (by definition).

If they are reducing bandwidth there are two possibilities. They are either decreasing the amount of data involved (meaning that data is not unlimited) or increasing time (in which case, they're God and I'm in a world of hurt for criticizing).

I understand that they can't support some of the usage. And while I do think that they should be putting more into infrastructure than they are, I also realize that you can't build the level of systems that they run overnight. It's the deception that bothers me. Especially for those of us who had a pre-throttle unlimited plan and didn't get any sort of grandfathering. It's deceitful and it's unethical.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[gl4ss]

natural throttling happens on the network without extra effort when it's transferring near it's limits.

at&t's throttling is throttling just for the sake of being dicks, regardless of the network congestion. it's not qossing, it's just making it unfeasible for you to actually use the network to create data transfer bills for them.. you know, running torrents during the night or whatever it is that normal internet connections are used for.

it should be noted that at&t has plenty of moolah in bank to upgrade the network, but why bother when american sheeple are happy with paying for more?(and they can use not upgrading the backbone as an excuse for mergers to get more air bandwidth).

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[R3d M3rcury]

This concerns people who contracted into the unlimited data plan while they were selling it.

Then why do they let people keep it?

I had an iPhone 3GS with AT&T's Unlimited plan for about two-and-a-quarter years. When I decided to upgrade to the iPhone 4S, I figured I'd have to forgo my Unlimited plan. "Nope," according to the AT&T person--they were quite happy to give me my old plan with the new phone.

If they're trying to get people off these plans, why are they still offering them to holdover people?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[ackthpt]

If the network is so limited, they should be trying to upgrade the network.

Building your infrastructure does nothing good for short-term profit, which is what Wall Street and Electronic Trading are all about.

Great for long-term, but it's all about leaving that for the next CEO to wheedle out of banks and assauge fears of robo-investors to raise capital for investment. Us landlubbers are mostly still on copper because it costs money to upgrade to glass. And why upgrade when you can make the same money on the same old crap?

Now, if there were real competition in the market, AT&T would be going at it hammer and tongs. Thanks government oversight, for letting the pieces of the T-1000 come back together...

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[HapSlappy_2222]

Neither does a study in future usage projections, but they should have done that 10 years ago, too.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[randallman]

It's like going to an all you can eat buffet, and getting your first plate of food with no problem, but each subsequent bite of food has to be acquired spoonful by spoonful after waiting in line each time.

The perfect slashdoter analogy.

Much better than car analogies. Long live restaurant buffet analogies!

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[imuffin]

That said, AT&T can almost certainly cancel this guy's service, and should do so. You don't want customers who are going to sue you.

If AT&T cancels the service of a customer who is under contract, does AT&T owe that customer an early termination fee?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[sjames]

Analysis shows they could have done the needed upgrades cheaper than the cost of buying T-Mobile. Since they have been told NO, I notice they didn't take the money they had at the ready and start upgrading their network.

Essentially, YES, they just wanted the cute girl in the pink dress to quit telling people how crappy they are.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Sancho]

Generally, no. They have clauses that let them cancel for any reason.

But AT&T killed their unlimited plan slightly less than two years ago. It's pretty unlikely that this guy is under contract anymore. Possible, but unlikely.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/06/23/why-verizon-dropped-its-unlimited-data-plan/ - it seems AT&T spent 19 billion dollars upgrading their network over the last couple of years. Verizon spent 17 billion. I sincerely doubt either company could sustain higher levels of investment in their networks without significantly raising prices. Is that what you'd prefer?

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[gnick]

The perfect slashdoter analogy.

Much better than car analogies. Long live restaurant buffet analogies!

Agreed - This sounds exactly like a chain-restaurant all-you-can-eat crab night. "You'd like more? I'll be back in 30 minutes w/ 2 more legs and 30 minutes after that to ask you if you'd like another 2."

Let's try cars: How about "A full tank of gas for as long as you can drive - With a free sheet to use as a sail for any miles after that!"

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[jamstar7]

Far easier and cheaper to just throttle everybody. Every data network in the US is oversold for capacity. If everybody used the full capacity 24/7 that 'they pay for', they'd need hundreds of times the network that they have in place right now.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[gman003]

Here's my modest proposal:

(Deliberate) throttling is a result of not having enough resources to allow all your customers to use your product/service fully. It is sometimes necessary, in the case of truly explosive growth in usage.

But, adding more users to an already overused service is tantamount to false advertising. If you say "25mbps", people expect to be able to use that fully.

Therefore, I would allow companies to engage in throttling, but forbid them to add any new subscribers while the throttling is in place.

It's a logical solution. Companies will be able to use throttling when it is truly necessary, but will have a strong disincentive against overusing throttling. Either they'll upgrade their resources to the point that throttling is no longer necessary, or they'll lose (and not be able to replace) enough customers (through regular churn) that throttling is again unneeded.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[wernst]

If the network is so limited, they shouldn't be selling devices where network access is marketed as the primary feature.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[realityimpaired]

No, you're buying maximum speed. The dreaded car analogy: if you buy a Ferrari, are you surprised when the police take umbrage to your driving it at 200km/h down the highway? The car is quite capable of handling that speed safely, but the road network can't safely handle cars travelling that fast. Do you sue Ferrari when you start driving in traffic and can't get over 50km/h?

Now, it's a bit of a flawed analogy... in this case, some of the people who bought the fast car are being told "have fun, but you can only drive 3000km in a month or we'll charge you", and others are being told "have fun, but keep it in first", on the same roads. That's where the disagreement is coming from, and the user is right to challenge it.... if the network can handle the speeds, then they should be allowed to use them. If the network can't handle the speeds, then how come I'm being told to keep it in first, and the guy next to me is zooming along in 5th? Shouldn't we both be throttled?

But when you buy a 3G or a 3.5G device, you are not buying the network capacity, you're buying the ability to use the network capacity when it's not needed for somebody else. There's a very fine distinction to be made there... the capacity belongs to the carrier, and they have an obligation to ensure quality of service for everybody, not just you. If that means everybody experiences slowdowns because a particular cell is congested, then that's what it means, and you've got no recourse. The problem is when they do not remain neutral on who gets throttled.

Though honestly, it's a little weird to be having this discussion in the first place... my cell provider uses the same frequencies as ATT does for LTE and HSPA. There's 2 other major networks on the same frequencies, and something like 10 MVNO's on one of those 3 networks. There's 3 providers using different frequencies (they're all on 1700/2100), but between them they have a very small portion of the market, less than 10%. And I live in a city with a population well over a million. This city has 5 major universities, about 20 colleges, and is home to a major military presence (national defense headquarters) and large numbers of government offices. Yet somehow, I never have problems with speed. I consistently get 5.5mbit or higher down, and 4mbit or higher up on my 3G HSPA phone. ATT is the only provider in the US that's using 850/1900 for its HSPA network (not counting the MVNO's that hang on their network, but they don't really count), and yet they're having severe congestion problems? They're doing something horribly, horribly wrong with their network design.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[Dodgy G33za]

But you are not buying a Ferrari - you are buying a road usage package with with the Ferrari thrown in for free (or for a modest additional payment).

I think it is entirely reasonable to expect to be able to drive said Ferrari at the speeds advertised on the roads. If the person selling you the roads package sells more than the road can hold, that sounds awfully like fraud to me (no different from selling 110 tickets for a 100 seater sit-anywhere plane).

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

I wish I hadn't commented yet. That's the best idea I've ever seen.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

Not necessarily. I have unlimited data with AT&T, and I am still under contract for quite a while yet. I signed up with AT&T with unlimited data on my iPhone 3g, and when I upgraded to a 4, I got to keep my unlimited data but I got the upgrade price for the 4 by renewing my contract (and the unlimited data was grandfathered). Hell, if I did the same thing with the iPhone 5 or whatever this fall I could still have unlimited data and be under contract until 2014.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

I think they'd expect to lose a lot of customers (more than from throttling) if they didn't allow us to keep our unlimited plans?

Just a guess.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[sjames]

Yes, I do. It STILL would have been cheaper for them to build out their own network even with the rest taken into account. Nobody put a gun to their heads and made them offer all that money if the deal didn't go through.

Re:Can't change contract without compensation

[AtomicSymphonic]

I guess the reason you don't have a higher score is because you're speaking the truth... What follows now is not the majority opinion of the Internet. I will be modded down to oblivion. I know this. But I will state my argument anyway. Corporations, with as big wallets as they do, still have budgets. To upgrade a cellular network takes a LOT of investment. It's not a simple software upgrade like taking out data "chokepoints" like with working on servers in an IT environment or something like that. They literally have to buy more and install more towers to improve backhaul on given area. There very much is a physical and electromagnetic element to this equation. (I've worked with Nokia. I've worked with T-Mo. I know my shizzle.) If everyone would rather have super strong signal but super cruddy phones (ala Verizon before 2007, exception being the Razr), then live with that. There is a balance between getting nice phones and having good signal. Some of the loud critics of ATT and/or Verizon need to get their facts straight. They're doing the best they can while trying to maximize their profits and keep their incomes steady. Yes, ATT coverage sucks in New England and California (geek havens), while it's amazing in the southern US (they were formerly Southwestern Bell Corporation, so this would explain things...) Believe it or not, Verizon actually has quite a few dead spots around where I live, Texas...

Finally, unlimited =/= limited?

[Mithent]

I wish they couldn't get away with this in the UK... at least as far as advertising standards goes, "unlimited" can mean anything as long as the company can claim that the majority of users don't run into the limit, it seems.

AT&T LLC?

[g0bshiTe]

FTFA

Companies with as many potentially aggrieved customers as AT&T usually brace themselves for a class-action lawsuit. But in its subscriber contract, the Dallas-based company prohibits customers from taking their complaints to class actions or jury trials. The agreement specifies that customers must go to arbitration or small claims court instead. The Supreme Court upheld that clause last year.

Is AT&T now an LLC? How can that clause hold up?

If this was a car rental

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine if you went to rent a car that advertised unlimited mileage that had the same contractual caveats that unlimited data plans have. Your conversation with the agent might go something like this.

"Yes you do get unlimited mileage but if you drive too much then the car will slow down and only go 5 MPH."
"Well how much is too much?"
"There is no set amount, it varies by how much other people are driving. It is only the top 5%"
"Then how am I supposed to know if I am driving to much?"
"Well there is really know way to know, just try to drive as little as possible and you should be fine."

I don't think anyone would stand for that kind of car rental contract.

Re:If this was a car rental

[forkfail]

Good analogy; I like the "all you can eat buffet one" myself. The first plate is fine, but after that, you have to go to the back of a long line, and are only allowed to take a single spoonful of food back to your table. And no eating in line.

And while you're doing this, you have to look at the posters on the walls proclaiming how yummy the food is, how much better your life is because you're eating it, and how filling it is.

Re:If this was a car rental

[idontgno]

I always thought I could set up an outstanding and wildly profitable "All you can eat" place. Suckers ^w Customers would get their first plateful, and then I'd throw them out, telling them "That's all you can eat. Beat it."

And if they get uppity, I'd prove that they are no longer capable of eating by breaking their jaws.

But, alas, you can't do things like that in the real world. Just services and software.

Re:If this was a car rental

[eth1]

Can you imagine if you went to rent a car that advertised unlimited mileage that had the same contractual caveats that unlimited data plans have. Your conversation with the agent might go something like this.

"Yes you do get unlimited mileage but if you drive too much then the car will slow down and only go 5 MPH."
"Well how much is too much?"
"There is no set amount, it varies by how much other people are driving. It is only the top 5%"
"Then how am I supposed to know if I am driving to much?"
"Well there is really know way to know, just try to drive as little as possible and you should be fine."

I don't think anyone would stand for that kind of car rental contract.

Well... that IS in fact what happens when everyone is driving too much... The rental agency is happy to rent you a Corvette for lots of money that can do almost 200MPH, in spite of the fact that most roads are "throttled" to 30-70MPH. And if there are too many people driving, you might only get 5MPH.

Re:If this was a car rental

[Mitreya]

The rental agency is happy to rent you a Corvette for lots of money that can do almost 200MPH, in spite of the fact that most roads are "throttled" to 30-70MPH. And if there are too many people driving, you might only get 5MPH.

Sorry, how is this "informative"? No one is complaining that they got throttled because of network overload or state-based network link regulation (your analogy). People are complaining of being throttled after using up 3Gigs of data (or so). In your analogy it'd be after your first three hours of driving the Corvette, regardless of speed limits or road congestion.

$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[PatPending]

The customer contract specifies that those who win an award from the company in arbitration will get at least $10,000. Spaccarelli picked the same amount for his claim. Judge Nadel instead awarded him $85 for each of the 10 months left on his contract.

Er, what part of contract law does this Judge not understand?

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[MickyTheIdiot]

The part every judge doesn't understand anymore: that people and corporations are supposed to be treated equally in court.

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[Russ1642]

Going before a judge isn't third party arbitration. Is it?

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judge understood fine. Spaccarelli didn't go to arbitration, so why should the clause that pertains to damage awards in arbitration apply in court?

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[X0563511]

So you're saying a contract can override a decision by a judge? That doesn't seem right.

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[PatPending]

Good point. IANAL; my understanding is: in small claims court one can't sue for punitive damages, just actual damages, so this is apparently how the judge arrived at the amount. Then again, isn't $85 greater than what he was paying per month anyway, so he must be getting some "extra" money above and beyond his actual damages, right?

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[sglewis100]

Good point. IANAL; my understanding is: in small claims court one can't sue for punitive damages, just actual damages, so this is apparently how the judge arrived at the amount. Then again, isn't $85 greater than what he was paying per month anyway, so he must be getting some "extra" money above and beyond his actual damages, right?

The contract probably was $85 a month. AT&T never sold $30 unlimited Internet for mobile phones. It was sold on top of a plan.

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[guspasho]

Talk about a double standard. When the RIAA or MPAA sues their customers, huge - HUGE - punitive damages are involved. But when a customer sues a big corporation like AT&T, there's no punitive damages, and the required award is even disregarded in favor of something resembling actual damages? Where's the disincentive that's supposed to keep AT&T honest?

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[scorp1us]

It was during the New Deal that the judicial modification of contracts was hotly debated. The jurisprudence was created that judges can indeed alter contracts with a stroke of their pen. "Pray [they] do not alter it any further"

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[Jaytan]

Small claims court isn't arbitration.

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[jd2112]

The part every judge doesn't understand anymore: that people and corporations are supposed to be treated equally in court.

They are, Show up to court with a legal department the size of AT&T and you will be treated the same.

Re:$850 vs. $10,000 -- WTF, Judge!

[gl4ss]

if he had gone to arbitration, he wouldn't have won, so the judge should also have made this a case about that and award him the ten grand he would have gotten in arbitration(...IF he had won there..).

Re:GoDaddy is doing this to me

[Troke]

I have an "unlimited" account with GoDaddy

There's your problem.

Re:GoDaddy is doing this to me

[dyingtolive]

It's GoDaddy. I hate to blame the victim, but are you surprised?

ISPs ...

[issicus]

My ISP did not upgrade my dsl speed to what a new user would get. I noticed one day while looking at their data plans that I was not getting the 3mbits I was supposed too, far from it in fact 700kbits. I had to call them and have them and tell them to increase it. I think that says a lot about the industry.

US Cellular

[na1led]

I get 5GB per month plus free Wifi HotSpot tether for only $30 a month. They may not have iPhones, but who cares if it's going to cost a fortune to use it.

Re:US Cellular

[RightSaidFred99]

I have something better than iPhone - a Galaxy Nexus and I'm getting same plan. They throttle at 5 gigs, but I understand and have no issue with this.

I have a sense this is an entitlement issue. People feel entitled to unlimited _and_ unthrottled data, when it doesn't seem AT&T is promising that. Maybe AT&T just needs to make clear that you get X gigs of data at 4g speeds, and unlimited data beyond that at slower speeds. I have a feeling people would still cry about it.

Re:US Cellular

[fred911]

So buy an Iphone or an Android or whatever device you want. Sounds like a decent price on the bandwidth. Does it matter what device you use?

btw, I have unlimited, unthrottled 3.5g service for the equivalent price of $23, in SA. I absolutly abuse the service, torrenting, tethering, running an ap, using voip even swapping the sim to another device and I dont use any voice services they sell. All on a prepaid sim. I've never had a problem.

A big oops for AT&T

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I have an unlimited plan on my phone and so far I have not been throttled. I also have a 2 gig plan for my iPad. Last week I subscribed to Clear, now I have a mobile wifi hotspot. In my area the coverage is pretty good and I can hook up to 8 devices up to it. As a result I am canceling my iPad data plan. In short, even though I wasn't directly affected, I am dropping their service.

I wouldn't have even looked into Clear if they hadn't started messing with their customers.

Re:A big oops for AT&T

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm not on a contract witg Clear. They're welcome to try it.

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[forkfail]

So, do you understand what the definition of bandwidth is? It's real simple: bandwidth = data / time

If they lower bandwidth, they have to be either lowering data (meaning not unlimited within the constraints of 3G or 4G), or they are increasing time (which obviously is impossible).

Furthermore, the throttling was not in the older contracts; those got changed without grandfathering. And the text concerning the redefinition of unlimited, while present, is buried pretty deep in the contract.

Ice this cake with the sort of advertisements shown, the aps show cased (streaming video, watching the game wherever you are, etc) along with the whole push of fastest network capabilities and such, and absolutely a false picture is generated.

You wouldn't accept an all you can eat buffet that you can only remove food from one teaspoon at a time, unless it was made abundantly clear to you before hand that this was the case. And even then, you'd look askance at anyone offering such a deal with a name like "unlimited food" or "all you can eat".

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[prestonmichaelh]

So someone with a clear head please explain, is this just bullshit whining of people who don't understand that there is no _speed_ component in the phrase "unlimited data" and it's perfectly legitimate to throttle at some point as long as it's disclosed, or is it truly AT&T advertising unlimited data at guaranteed 3g or 4g speeds?

The problem is that, at the time these "unlimited data" plans were sold and the contracts were signed, there were no constraints (i.e. throttling). iPhones started killing AT&Ts network, so they stopped selling "unlimited data" plans and started only selling only plans with a specified amount of data and prearranged overage charges (2 GB, 5 GB, etc.)

The people with existing "unlimited data" contracts were grandfathered in and for a time, nothing changed. Recently they have started throttling the grandfathered "unlimited data" customers, something that was never part of the original agreement. That is what everyone is so upset about.

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[Nexion]

I think the point is that this is deceptive marketing. You maybe look at the term "unlimited data" and separate out the speed component, but most people do not. This is intentional on the part of their marketing. Otherwise they would advertise it as "unlimited data, throttled throughput" and sell far fewer contracts because of it. Whatever they bury in the contract makes it a case of bait and switch. Like taking a test drive in a Ferrari, agreeing to pay only $10,000 for it and then they put a massive contract in front of you where the fine print reads that they actually deliver a Pinto.

True, your an idiot for thinking you were going to get a Ferrari for 10k, true you could have read every word of that contract, but in the end you have grounds to take this before a judge to rectify the situation. In the end you either get the Ferrari you test drove, or the contract nullified.

I've had the iPhone since they came out and have an unlimited plan. I have a second iPhone on the account given to a friend as well that is not unlimited. Service is terrible. In fact saying it is terrible gives it too much credit. We've both suffered not just throttling or extreme slowness, but at times network outage in areas where we typically have connectivity.

I've been pondering a lawsuit to end the contracts and move to Verizon. True, I wont have unlimited service, but at least I'll be getting that for which I have paid. I left Verizon because AT&T was the only game in town for iPhones. I have regretted it ever since, but only in the last three months has service been so terrible as to think worthy of showing up to court to sue them. They've ruled out class action lawsuits to allow them to conduct themselves in a manor that would cause great financial loss if the customer didn't have to show up to court.

It's sad they didn't just upgrade their network. They say the best part of AT&T is me, but I disagree. The best part are the customer service representatives. The worst part by far is their executive management.

Obligatory..

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[R3d M3rcury]

It's a good point: You don't get charged for data overages or the like.

Part of the issue is that, while T-Mobile is clear about what will happen, AT&T is not. You purchase Unlimited Data on your 3G plan, you expect an unlimited amount of data at 3G speeds. To suddenly get a note saying, "Guess what? You use too much data so we're slowing you down" is a bit off. There isn't even a, "We're going to start throttling your speed when you download 5GB, 3GB, or whatever." It's completely arbitrary.

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they lower bandwidth, they have to be either lowering data (meaning not unlimited within the constraints of 3G or 4G), or they are increasing time (which obviously is impossible)."

Uh, no it's not. They can (and are) increasing the amount of time it takes to transmit the data to you.

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[HapSlappy_2222]

Flatly agree with Fork on this one, Fred.

Frankly, phone companies with a fervor for fixing frustration and financial feasibility really need to free us to flood our phones at a flat fee for the foreseeable future while factoring in a fleet and fixed.... uh.... flandwidth (?).

Maybe alliteration will help them remember. Shrug.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[neurocutie]

VERY naive... witness what Sprint has done this past year... MULTIPLE changes that affect the bottomline, i.e. what the customer actually has to pay or what the customer actually gets in the way of services, discounts or equipment upgrades. HOWEVER, Sprint merely says "these changes are not "material"". They are not changes to the contract, and therefore not grounds for leaving ETF-free. Furthermore Sprint says, "if you disagree, tough. You CANNOT sue us as a class action. Your ONLY recourse is arbitration or small claims court." and the kicker "We INVITE litigation". Oh and about arbitration, Sprint change the rules as to how the arbiter is chosen: Sprint gets to choose and it chose a pro-corporate arbiter that it pays (can we say "conflict of interest")...

Re:One of two things is happening here.

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol, yeah. Was going to write same (seemingly obvious to me and you) reply. What in the world is he talking about? They certainly can change time (the time it takes to download shit).

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[Digicaf]

IANAL. That being said, they may claim the changes are not material but that doesn't mean anything. Any change to the service agreed upon in the contract that results in an increased cost or decreased service would be "an important part of the instrument" and therefore constitutes a material change.

In other words, they can say whatever the heck they want, but if you take them to court (small claims or otherwise) they will lose.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Material+Changes
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/instrument

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[GrumpySteen]

I used to have a Sprint phone under contract. They upped the monthly cost less than six months after I signed the contract and I told them to piss off. They said the change wasn't material and charged the early termination fee to my credit card. I explained the situation to my credit card company and they reversed the charge and told Sprint to piss off. Sprint pissed off and never bothered me again.

There's nothing naive about my post. I simply refused to take "it's immaterial" as an acceptable response and I know how to deal with companies that do shit like that.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[GrumpySteen]

They will absolutely try to claim that the changes aren't material (Sprint did this to me). Your credit card company will have no problem reversing early termination fees if they try to charge them and your cell phone provider isn't about to piss off their main source of cash by arguing about a couple hundred dollars.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[GrumpySteen]

Nope. I just had to have my credit card company reverse the early termination fee when I did this less than six months into a contract with Sprint when they upped the monthly fees.

Re:There's a reason why I don't get a smart phone

[neonKow]

That's like pulling your battery out of your laptop and throwing it away. Yes, the device will still . . . do stuff. It just doesn't do everything it's supposed to.

Oh, and that extra functionality you're cutting out? It's one of the primary purposes of paying more money for a smaller, slower device.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[fast turtle]

The only thing is, as a Sprint Customer, I can say these changes they've made do not apply in California as California has already ruled on the state level that an ETF is ilegal and tantamount to "Adhesion". As to class action status and the requirement to go to arbitration, that also is not legal in California as you can never give up your right to pursue legal remedies. That aribtration clause has been thrown out of our contracts as a requirement though they can insist on it as it reduces the case load upon our court system.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[Dodgy G33za]

Good to you standing up to telcos GrumpySteen.

Last year I got out of a contract for two phones with Vodafone. The service they were providing was woeful - hardly able to get data access at times. They made the mistake of sending out a letter from their CEO apologising for the bade service and saying it was because they were too successful (i.e. had sold more capacity than they had). I used it as a trigger to get out of the remaining 8 months of both contracts. It did take a few emails and a complaint to the Australian Telco ombudsman though.

If we all act less like sheeple there would be a whole lot less of this shit about.

Re:There's a reason why I don't get a smart phone

[The Rizz]

Enter: iPhone on AT&T's GoPhone Plan. No Data Plan at all. Just buy minutes/text. Then you go to any McDonald's to use their Wifi free for data.

If only. Pretty much every cell phone company in the country requires a data access plan if you have a smartphone. No opt-out, even if you didn't buy the phone from them.

All I have to say on the subject.

[cshark]

Bout fucking time.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[ThatsMyNick]

The only thing is, as a Sprint Customer, I can say these changes they've made do not apply in California as California has already ruled on the state level that an ETF is ilegal and tantamount to "Adhesion".

The decision was for the specific contract signed by the people who took part in the class action suit. Sprint has corrected their contract since. Sprint even made the ETF prorated (the ETF amount depends on how long you have been with Sprint), after this law suit.

So, if you signed up for sprint after they had corrected the contract wording, they can still collect ETF. The concept of ETF is still valid in California. Just use you imagination, how do you think people would reach if they can buy a phone cheap and get out of contract, without paying an ETF.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[chrismcb]

Your ONLY recourse is arbitration or small claims court." and the kicker "We INVITE litigation".

Then take them to small claims court. No lawyers, no lawyer fees, and more likely to side on your side.

Re:There's a reason why I don't get a smart phone

[TaoPhoenix]

I'll see your If Only and raise you the Anecdote. I bought my iPhone "in the usual way", had it for a few months while I used the full strength plan, then just canceled the plan and paid about a month's worth as the termination fee (but cheaper than retaining the other 8 months of the plan!). Then he rep at the AT&T Store just switched it over. She did warn me it was unusual and creative and he/she wasn't sure it would work, but here I am and there it is. I now have all the fun of the hardware without the data plan.

Re:the device will still . . . do stuff

[TaoPhoenix]

Your analogy isn't quite right. We don't pay $80/month for batteries. It's that ominous slow financial drain that's the issue for me.

Oh, and I live a quiet life, so at home I do comp stuff such as this on my desktop, work has Wifi as well, so it's the "third rail" scenario when I'd "theoretically" want a data app out and about - so then I simply plan to go somewhere that has it. I'm not a crackberry exec so the times I *haven't* wanted Wifi but been unable to get there are very rare - hasn't happened for about a year.

Worth it to me to save about $800 a year in phone fees.

who cares

[argontechnologies]

Where I live near Dallas, Texas, throttling would have little effect since their service is so darn slow anyway. It's the most inconsistent service I've ever had. Just try and SSH into something from the airport in Miami. You can't keep a connection long enough to log in. It at least worked in Puerto Rico.

He Got 1.5 Gigabytes Across AT&T's Network?

[Greyfox]

I'm impressed. I thought AT&T's network throttling plan was called being on AT&T's network. Out in the sticks where I live, you're lucky to get voice across it. Sprint's coverage is spotty out here, but at least I can usually take a call with them. Sprint's not too bad either, as long as you never have to talk to their customer service (God help you if you ever do, though...)

Re:the device will still . . . do stuff

[davewoods]

Yup! I did the exact same thing with my G1 (First Android phone) and it worked swimmingly. Cheap plan plus Wifi, I never felt like I was missing out on "All the phone had to offer". Sure, I WAS missing out, but the things I was missing out on could wait until I got to a Wifi zone.

Re:"We can change this anytime" and Sprint DOES!

[T Murphy]

Be sure to write to your state's AG, get enough complaints against a company and he may jump on the chance for popular headlines. He isn't subject to arbitration clauses.