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.
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)
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.
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")...
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.