Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
Is AT&T now an LLC? How can that clause hold up?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
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?
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
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.
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Check your premises.
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.
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.
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")...
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).
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.
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.