AT&T Threatens To Shut Off Service of Customer Who Won Throttling Case

suraj.sun writes in about the recent small claims case against AT&T's throttling of 'unlimited' plans. From the article: "AT&T has about 17 million smartphone customers on 'unlimited' plans, and has started slowing down service for users who hit certain traffic thresholds. Spaccarelli maintained at his February 24 small-claims hearing that AT&T broke its promise to provide 'unlimited' service, and the judge agreed. In a letter dated Friday, a law firm retained by AT&T Inc. is threatening to shut off Matthew Spaccarelli's phone service if he doesn't sit down to talk. Spaccarelli has posted online the documents he used to argue his case and encourages other AT&T customers copy his suit."

Comments

Duh?

[MightyYar]

I have no love for AT&T and I'm glad the guy won, but if one of my customers sued me, I'd drop them in a heartbeat!

Re:Duh?

[teknopurge]

I have no love for AT&T and I'm glad the guy won, but if one of my customers sued me, I'd drop them in a heartbeat!

If you're not falsely-advertising your services, then you have nothing to worry about.

We run a hosting company and have been putting up with this for years. We provide underloaded servers that have packages with hard limits to prevent abuse and to ensure people get what they pay for. All these "unlimited" hosting plans have been scams from day-1 and we're glad someone is finally getting held to task for the dumbing down of the market.

Re:Duh?

[ClioCJS]

It's not actually always legal. For example, if you take government tax breaks for providing a publi service, you don't get to pick and choose which public, even if they are suing you.

Dunno the specifics here, but cell phones are a great way for companies to get a 2nd chance at changing the laws that were already settled for landlines, and that's part of what we're seeing here.

My landline company cannot legally deny me service, EVEN IF i'm suing them. But part of that is the psuedomonopoly of landlines, which doesn't apply to cell phones. But probably should. Especially if they take one penny from the government, even in the form of tax breaks.

Re:Duh?

[whatkey]

Seriously? I hope you don't own a company that solely generates revenue from long and short-term contracts. Your customer demands you live up to the terms of your own contract, you lose in a court case, and then you (potentially) illegally breach the contract again? Nice. I hope everyone threatens AT&T. I work in the telecom industry, and "most people" only know the tip of the iceberg about AT&T...

Re:Duh?

[slapout]

Can you say "two year contract"?
It works both ways.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently, the guy admitted to tethering, which the contract also forbids. You can argue whether it should be verbotten, or even allowed in the contract, but it is in the contract.

Re:Duh?

[Sponge Bath]

Somebody hasn't read the terms of their service. AT&T claims the right to terminate for any reason at any time.

Re:Duh?

[magarity]

and I'm glad the guy won

I for one wonder why he won; he admits to sucking down the bandwidth due to tethering which is a clear violation of the terms of service he signed up for as part of getting unlimited bandwidth. If he'd used it all watching videos and whatever else you can do with just the phone itself, I'd be completely supportive. But are all the people complaining about ATT throttling them using so much due to tethering? If so, I've suddenly lost all interest and sympathy. Here I thought all the complaints were from people using their phones' internal capabilities and getting cut off.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your landline company couldn't drop you for no reason, and they couldn't drop you solely because you had sued them, but that doesn't mean they can't drop you for any reason. The guy who sued has admitted he's used his iPhone for tethering, in direct violation of his ToS, which gives AT&T every right to drop his account. The only reason they haven't already is they were clearly hoping to avoid this publicity. It's hard to come up with a direct analogy to a landline since there aren't many limitations on landlines, but if you were using something like a blue box on your landline to get free long distance, then your phone company would disconnect you in a heartbeat, public service or not.

Re:Duh?

[BitZtream]

They can say anything they want in the contract, that doesn't mean it overrides the law even if you signed the contract. If the law (a judge ruling for instance) says they can't drop him, then they can't regardless of the paper they signed says.

Its important to note though, that no one said AT&T can't drop him. It seems they can so far until someone actually shows otherwise.

I think the point here however is that if everyone does this and AT&T 'drops them' thats a half a billion dollars or so in lost revenue per month from lost unlimited plans. They'd probably think twice.

Re:Duh?

[cpu6502]

It's small claims court.

Probably none of ATT's lawyers showed-up, so the judge never learned the customer was using tethering, and so he issued a judgement based on lack of knowledge. In a real court this guy would probably be torn to shreds by ATT's lawyers.

Re:Duh?

[mcavic]

I have no more sympathy for this guy since he admitted to tethering. Running Remote Desktop from your phone for 10 hours a day is something that might be considered fair use for an unlimited plan. Plugging your phone into your PC and spending the day on Netflix or Second Life isn't.

That being said, I think there are some other people who would deserve the win. All AT&T has to do is stop calling their plan unlimited, and then they can cap all they want. Just have two plans: Lite, and Standard. Advertise the caps for each of them, and be done with it.

It's really not difficult.

Re:Duh?

[tripleevenfall]

AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.

They should be ordered to clarify their advertising and say "3G speed up to 2GB" or similar.

Re:Duh?

[LoudNoiseElitist]

The data isn't unlimited, either.

Re:Duh?

[naasking]

AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.

Which means the data is effectively limited as well. If you sell "unlimited plans" and then throttle speeds to the point where downloading 24/7 for a month will only net you 1GB of data, that's not very unlimited is it?

Re:Duh?

[dgatwood]

All these "unlimited" hosting plans have been scams from day-1 and we're glad someone is finally getting held to task for the dumbing down of the market.

I have an unlimited hosting plan from DreamHost, and it has always worked quite well for me (currently in my second or third year, I forget). It works because they pay attention to what you're doing and assign you to a server based on how you use the service, e.g. poor-performing WordPress instances live in a festering cesspool all to themselves so that their search doesn't cause half-minute delays on other sites, static-only or nearly static-only sites are on servers with other static-only sites, high-bandwidth sites get sandboxed away from low-bandwidth sites, they limit the number of sites per Apache instance, etc. To be fair, if a site uses excessive CPU, they may ask them to move to a virtual private server, so I suppose it's not quite unlimited, but at least where bandwidth and storage are concerned, it is, and that's what most people mean when they call a hosting provider "unlimited".

As always, YMMV.

Re:Duh?

[teknopurge]

AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.

They should be ordered to clarify their advertising and say "3G speed up to 2GB" or similar.

It's misleading at-best.

Re:Duh?

[Bengie]

"AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited."

If I had an "unlimited" data plan, but after 5GB, I reduced your speed to 0, it's still unlimited, just relative to the new current rate.

Re:Duh?

[Lumpy]

"but if one of my customers sued me, I'd drop them in a heartbeat!"

And he will enjoy suing you again. It's a vicious cycle when you lie about service and whine about getting used because you lied about what you were selling.

Moral of the story? Dont be a scumbag company and you will not open yourself up for the vicious lawsuit cycle.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.

>

Only your bill is unlimited.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is what we're talking about here...

Since they don't CLEARLY disclose that it's "unlimited data" in their advertising, it's misleading at best. This is why they lost the damn lawsuit- you can't advertise it one way and then take it basically away in the fine print- that's called bait-and-switch and it's illegal.

I honestly wish people would QUIT trying to follow the weaseling that the companies use- the law is rather explicit on this subject,

"Unlimited" means just that- that they're not limiting the use of the resource to it's fullest. "Unlimited data" isn't even accurate as they're actually limiting just how much data you can consume by throttling. So, folks, QUIT running that one up the flagpole. Doesn't match the reality of things. Doesn't match their requirements per law.

Re:Duh?

[MightyYar]

And it shouldn't be, because that puts a huge fucking hurdle in a consumer's ability to get justice for you fucking them over.

I don't think that's true at all. There are 3 other major postpaid cell providers in the US, plus about a dozen national pre-pay. This guy won an $8000 judgement, which would pay for about 8 years of unlimited service on Sprint. I fail to see any "huge hurdle".

Re:Duh?

[Artraze]

Well, yeah. That phone wasn't actually free you know.

The major thrust of the contract is that they give you a phone in exchange for guaranteed business. Since you already have the phone, their part of that bargain is fulfilled and they can cancel the contract without penalty (as they are the ones that 'lose' in such a case). After two years, you've fulfilled your side and can cancel the contract without penalty too.

Re:Duh?

[CubicleZombie]

Somebody hasn't read the terms of their service. AT&T claims the right to terminate for any reason at any time.

Anybody can break a contract at any time for any reason. The only recourse for the other party is to sue for damages.

That's basic contract law.

In the case of AT&T, the damages are the cost of your phone subsidy. Thus the termination fee. For the customer? Harder to prove damages. Perhaps if you missed out on a Verizon sale to go with AT&T you could sue for the difference, but that's not likely.

Companies all the time are trying contracts for services. Whenever I cancel one, they cry, "But you agreed to the contract!". Sure, now I'm unagreeing to the contract. Prove damages, or STFU.

Re:Duh?

[GameboyRMH]

You are wrong, but at the same time it's true that unlimited isn't truly unlimited. Here's how it works.

Say you're on a "true unlimited" monthly data plan, and you get a download speed of 100kbps. You're actually buying 1 month's worth of data @ 100kbps, or about 259gb. Now that number is not infinity but that's what people expect when you say unlimited - unlimited data at the advertised speed, the only limitation being time itself. If you offer a 100kbps plan that doesn't let you download 259gb per month, and call it unlimited, that's when people will feel that they've been lied to. There is not only the natural limitation of time, but also you're not delivering the advertised speed.

Re:Duh?

[BradleyUffner]

AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.

Which means the data is effectively limited as well. If you sell "unlimited plans" and then throttle speeds to the point where downloading 24/7 for a month will only net you 1GB of data, that's not very unlimited is it?

So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?

They are obligated to provide what they advertise. If they can't provide it, they shouldn't advertise it.

Re:Duh?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually his logic suggests that ATT is legally obligated to not put artificial barriers like throttling to the data access.

Re:Duh?

[simtel]

I think it's more "don't artificially limit it via per-user throttles".

Re:Duh?

[khallow]

So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?

I must agree. If they didn't want to fall under that bizarre logic, then they should advertise as such.

Re:Duh?

[wierd_w]

If they actively advertise that such service is available there (infamous coverage map scandal material here), then yes.

Otherwise, it is false advertising.

They like to advertise spotty coverage areas with a black/white brush of "covered!" In the hopes that people in those areas will switch to them and become saddled with a contract. As a consumer who would be so saddled, I feel they are obligated to satisfy their promises of service to the people they dupe this way.

So, either:

1) they stop lying about effective coverage, and give a 60% theshold before declaring an area "covered" (meaning you get between 3 and 4 bars on a 5 bar indicator), or shade their coverage map with a gradient to show realworld effective coverage.

2) put up, or shut up-- and actually deliver on what their advertising drones spew.

Just because that is inconvenient or expensive for them, does not justify false advertising.

Re:Duh?

[queequeg1]

That again depends on the court. Here in Oregon (where I practice), a corporation that sends and attorney to small claims court without having received prior permission from the judge will get tossed from the courtroom and the attorney could potentially be sanctioned. And judges here rarely give such permission. When my employer gets sued in small claims, we generally send a non-attorney from our risk management department.

Re:Duh?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation."
-- Howard Scott

Re:Duh?

[jazman_777]

The smart ones go into politics, because that's where the real money is.

Re:Duh?

[idontgno]

Well, if you're wanted to be extremely literal about it, you can argue that AT&T is legally obligated to sustain infinite download speed to infinite data, because nothing which is finite can be called "unlimited". But that would be silly.

Obvious, there's a judgment call, and the difference between a customer's judgment and AT&T's judgment is the heart of the controversy.

Re:Duh?

[wierd_w]

Tethering is equivalent to the "3rd party handset or device" restriction that was considered so onerous back in the 60s and 70s.

Basically the phone company said "to ensure quality service, we need to prohibit unlicensed devices from being connected to the telephine network."

It was shot down at the end of the 70s, which is why you can attach answering machines, caller ID readers, and cheap chineese phones.

Tethering is the same principle: attaching an "unaproved" device (computer) to their network.

This is exactly in line with the gp's argument about 2nd chances to change the law.

The "it degrades our network!" Line didn't hold up then, it shouldn't hold up now. Last I checked, a bit originating from a computer instead of a phone was not directly deleterious to any hardware in a cellular network. You could argue that tetherers use more bandwidth, but that is an ancilliary argument. Tethering itself (what is forbidden) does not harm their cellular network in any way. Transmitting excessive data, which is not what is forbidden, is what causes QoS harm.

Re:Duh?

[forkfail]

So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?

Beautiful example of a strawman.

The argument is that ATT (and t-mobile, for that matter) should provide what they advertise, and it is their due diligence to make sure that those things that they control work as advertised.

So - no - they can't help you if you're in your basement.

But when they intentionally damage the service they've sold you as "unlimited" - yeah, that is flat out unethical and pretty much fraud.

Re:Duh?

[ooshna]

A cap due to technical restrictions is different from a cap with artificial restrictions. I don't hear anyone complaining about cable companies that advertise unlimited data but only give them close to the advertised speeds.

Re:Duh?

[forkfail]

They get the rights to spectrum, which is supposed to be publicly owned (though, that too may have been permanently sold off to the corporations).

Re:Duh?

[mattack2]

Tethering is equivalent to the "3rd party handset or device" restriction that was considered so onerous back in the 60s and 70s.

Then you or someone else should sue them, make that point, and win, extending the Carterphone decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone to cover this case.

Up until then, it's their equipment, and they can say how you use it (especially since you're legally agreeing to their decisions when you sign up for the service). I think it sucks too, but the end user agreed to those limitations.

Re:Duh?

[bondiblueos9]

Like Olive Garden after your first bowl of pasta.

Re:Duh?

[YojimboJango]

Straw man. Unlimited != Full speed all the time. Unlimited means that they're not limiting it. Your basement walls limit it and that's fine. Cosmic radiation limits it, and that's fine. Your other users clog up the spectrum and that's a grey area; maybe it's fine if you're making an effort to up the transmitters in the area, and maybe it's not if you're cutting costs by taking them down.

If you're paying money for software and hardware to limit, it's no longer unlimited. That is what they're doing.

Re:Duh?

[HapSlappy_2222]

If I go into a restaurant that advertises "all I can eat!" it means I can eat as much as I want, until I cannot or do not want to eat any more. If I'm a little dude, this will be far less than if I'm a big dude, but the restaurant shouldn't be allowed to prepare food for the buffet more slowly if a fat bunch of folks blunders through the doors. If they do, is it really "All you can eat"? No, it's "eat all that we're willing to bring you."

As far as inviting customers into a buffet type purchase... well, even the unlikely scenario of having just one single person consume ALL of the restaurant's resources is the risk of advertising an all-you-can-eat buffet. The risk is hedged against the very powerful advertising draw of a "limitless" purchase. What the owner is hoping for is the overall average of food consumed/person will be profitable. At the very least, the restaurant should inform customers that after x plates of food they can only have x more plates of food per hour, and let them decide if the price is worth it. But look what just happened! Our restaurant lost the draw of the "limitless" at the expense of hemming their (larger) customers in. When selling stuff, you can't have it both ways.

This is what AT&T (and others) have been advertising their "Unlimited" plans as. "Use as much data as you want; hell, glut yourself on it!! Err.... unless you're identified as a data glutton, in which case you have to consume your unlimited data no faster than we're willing to arbitrarily provide it.". Slowing the speeds artificially after a customer consumes an arbitrary amount of data is the issue. You cannot do this and still attempt to advertise the plan as "Unlimited". Nobody's asking AT&T to provide both unlimited speeds and unlimited data; we're simply asking them to allow us to use all the data we want, at the advertised rate, or to stop marketing the plan as "Unlimited" entirely, because it's not.

Now I'm hungry, and yes, I'm blaming AT&T for that, too. Dammit.

Re:Duh?

[myth24601]

AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.

They should be ordered to clarify their advertising and say "3G speed up to 2GB" or similar.

I bought a 6' fence one time that was 33% off. Come to find out, the 33% was off the hight, not the price so I ended up paying full price for a 4' fence.

Re:Duh?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Logically, we all know "Unlimited" is silly. Simply substitute "Unlimited" for "Infinite" and you can see how unrealistic the concept is. Your reasoning also shows what a farce "Unlimited" is, as well.

I think what most people assume they're getting when they buy an "Unlimited" product is they are able to consume as much of that product as they possibly can. When you buy "Unlimited" data, or "Unlimited" texts, "Unlimited" talk minutes, or "Unlimited" (all-you-can-eat) food, or "Unlimited" water from the city, or whatever the hell "Unlimited" else, all you're expecting is that A) it'll consistently and easily be there for you to use, no matter how much you use it, and B) you won't get charged more if you use "too much".

Unfortunately with "Unlimited" data plans, you get either A) or B), not both. If you use too much, you get less, negating A), and to undo this restriction, you have to pay more, negating B). That's not "Unlimited" by even the common advertising usage of the word. Let's say they did this with texts. Wouldn't it just piss your right off to if an AT&T rep told you "After 100 texts, all subsequent texts are only sent 30 minutes after you queue them. But, simply by paying $0.10 per text, you can have this *limitation* on your Unlimited texts removed. Shall I sign you up?"

Re:Duh?

[arth1]

Many restaurants can/will limit seating time to 1 hour, or maybe 90 minutes ... buffet or not.

Please tell us which restaurants those are so we can avoid them.

Amuse bouche, aperitif, cold apetizer, hot apetizer, main course, dessert, cheese, avec, wines - all in less than an hour? No thanks.

Re:Duh?

[hellop2]

"I have free long distance at home, but that doesn't mean I can run a long distance dialup connection 24/7."

Huh? I think you are confused about what free long distance means. Netflix also has unlimited online movie watching, which they don't throttle. You said, "Netflix got sued for it too, so all they had to do was disclose the fact that they might throttle." That's exactly what's supposed to happen and exactly what AT&T failed to do.

Re:Duh?

[Tom]

I for one wonder why he won

Because the matters are unrelated.

AT&T promised something they didn't deliver. That's the case he brought and won. His tethering or not does not change the fact of AT&T failing to provide the advertised service.

Re:Duh?

[wierd_w]

Certainly not. Have these things called principles, and a mental disorder known as "integrity."

These immediately disqualify me from work in the legal, corporate, and political vocational fields.

You can't please everyone, but you can lie to everyone. This is how politics works. A person with integrity and ethics who proposes a vitally needed, rationally grounded, but otherwise unpopular solution to current campaign related issues will never win against an unscrupulous liar who puffs smoke up voter's asses, and fills them with meaningless promises of a magical solution to all their problems (like obama's "change" platform....). This is because any realistic solution ot any controversial problem will have unavoidable consequences that will adversely impact at least one party to the issue, else it wouldn't be controversial. As such, any realistic solution will create very violent and outspoken resistance from at least some portion of the voter/supporter demographic, which the shister can still exploit in his/her election platform.

My integrity and sense of ethics precludes my being a smiling charismatic sociopath.

As such, I would never succeed in politics, and I have no interest in trying.

Does sitting down help?

[mattdm]

I mean, I'll try anything to improve AT&T signal reception, but I'm skeptical. I tried sitting, standing, and even lying down, and it doesn't really seem to change anything.

Re:Does sitting down help?

[WarpedCore]

Have you tried bending over?

Re:Does sitting down help?

[AliasMarlowe]

If I had mod points they would go to this.

Vaseline might be even more helpful...

Re:Does sitting down help?

[Guppy]

Have you tried bending over?

Well, that definitely made it easier to take what I was receiving from AT&T, but it didn't help with the cell phone signal one bit.

He violated the TOU though

[stevegee58]

He violated his terms of use with AT&T by accessing the internet tethered. That violation alone warrants termination.

Omitted in Summary

[JeanCroix]

In TFA, it is stated that AT&T's threat to discontinue his service is based on his admission of tethering, which is against the TOS he agreed to. Not that their tactics here aren't shady, but they do have a contractual basis (excuse) for the threat.

Re:Omitted in Summary

[DRJlaw]

In TFA, it is stated that AT&T's threat to discontinue his service is based on his admission of tethering, which is against the TOS he agreed to. Not that their tactics here aren't shady, but they do have a contractual basis (excuse) for the threat.

Two problems: 1. Terminating the contract is not going to nullify the money he was awarded for AT&T's violation of the original contract. He didn't get a judgment that forced AT&T to provide him with unlimited data, so terminating the contract only serves to release him from the obligation to pay for a capped service that he quite clearly dislikes. AT&T is presuming that he wants to remain an AT&T customer. Since TFA says that he doesn't care.. 2. Thousands of others have tethered their phones, and AT&T's response has been not to terminate their service, but to require them to buy the approved tethering package. While the language of the contract may permit termination for violation of the TOS, AT&T has likely waived termination as a remedy for this sort of violation through its own announcements and actions. If AT&T terminates the contract and attempts to impose a termination fee, expect a second small claims case where there's a reasonable likelihood that AT&T loses. "Settle with us or we'll kick you out of our lousy service and appeal (without being able to introduce new evidence or arugment)" isn't much of a threat. The internet is rife with people looking for "material changes" in their contract in order to escape without paying an ETF, and he's only risking an $850 'paper' loss of his original award.

Oops.

[errxn]

Spaccarelli has admitted that he has used his iPhone to provide Internet access for other devices, a practice known as tethering, which violates AT&T's contract terms. AT&T says that means it has the right to turn off his service.

Game, set, match. I have NO love for AT&T, but if this guy admits to violating their ToS, he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Re:Oops.

[shutdown -p now]

Assuming, of course, that a ToS provision against tethering is enforceable in the first place, which sounds dubious to me, at least from technical perspective (bits are bits).

Re:Disclosure.

[webheaded]

I do have a right for words to be used properly though don't I? The word unlimited means that there are no limits...you know UN-LIMITED. If they want to sell plans based on bandwidth, then just do it. All the other carriers do. If I go to T-Mobile right now, they tell me I can get different tiers of data at high speeds and after I hit my limit, I get bumped down to 2G. It's called, not lying. AT&T should try it some time.

Of course the whole idea of limiting our bandwidth is fucking ridiculous to me, but that is a different discussion that I'm not going to bother with right now.

Corporate Bullies

[MacGyver2210]

This is a cut-and-dry case of corporations pushing around the consumers. Given it is over internet service, this would make a great case of 'cyber-bullying' (as much as I hate that whole concept).

If American customers have any sense, they will file these suits in droves and this guy will never talk to AT&T again.

The Guy Admits He Violated the TOS

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Since they guy admits he violated the Terms of Service by tethering, is it really a surprise?

Re:The Guy Admits He Violated the TOS

[s73v3r]

No, because the judge correctly ruled that a "no tethering" rule was, in fact, a limit on the service they sold him, and therefore was not allowed if they gave him unlimited service.

Re:Here's a thought ....

[spire3661]

The problem is that wireless spectrum is owned BY THE PEOPLE, we lease it to these companies. It is this fact alone that moves telecomms from ordinary companies to necessary infrastructure, subject to special rules and regulations. We should be HAMMERING wireless with regulation right now. I have a problem with a corporation, denying access to PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves because he is taking them to task legally.

Re:Disclosure.

[Chatterton]

But AT&T doesn't say Unlimited but Unlimited* :-)

*For very low value of limited

Re:Disclosure.

[cpu6502]

>>>Of course the whole idea of limiting our bandwidth is fucking ridiculous to me

I don't know why? The wireless spectrum only has a limited amount of space, so a single tower can only stream a maximum amount of data in a month (deviced by thousands of customers).

It's the same as my dialup connection which is also limited (~12 gigabytes/month max) because of technical constraints. Wireless/cellular internet is not different.

Re:Disclosure.

[SecurityGuy]

The issue is not that they were unclear, it's that they LIED about it.

I have an iPhone. I have an unlimited data plan. I expect that means whenever I try to use it, AT&T will not impose limits on how much of that data I use. Now, there are a couple ways they might limit me. They could impose a cap after which I get zero data. They don't do that. They could restrict my data rate after I reach some threshold. They DO that. I know some people don't get that it's a limit, but it is, especially if they're throttling you to 1% of your normal speed. That's a cut off in all but name.

I'm not saying AT&T needs to provide me a Gb/s or infinite bandwidth, but if they sell me an "unlimited" plan, I should be able to get whatever their network is technically capable of delivering whenever I ask for it. I can accept that it may be slow if 10,000 other people are on the same pipe. That is not AT&T limiting me. When AT&T singles me out for using too much data on an unlimited plan and artificially restricts how much more data I can use, that's a limit, plain and simple.

The part that really galls me is how aggressively they advertised these things. Come and get an iPhone, they said. Browse the web! Stream music and video! The entire intarwebz are at your fingertips! NOW they want to back away from that. No. Honor your contracts, AT&T.

Re:Disclosure.

[Runaway1956]

If you offer me unlimited Bar-B-Que in exchange for fifty bucks, and I pay the fifty, you have to keep serving the chow until I call it quits. If you don't want to stay up all night serving spicy sauce covered meat, then you had BETTER make it clear in your offer that I have to consume all my food before your 9:PM closing time. And - if you don't want me to be waiting for you when you return to open in the morning, you had BETTER make it clear that I can only eat what I'm capable of consuming in one sitting.

In short - offer what you intend to deliver. Or, be prepared to deliver what you offer.

None of the telcos wants you to have unlimited data. They need to make that clear in their advertising, and in their contracts. Stop offering unlimited to induce people to sign up for overpriced 5 gig contracts.

Re:Here's a thought ....

[oh_my_080980980]

Just as he is free to sue do to breach of contract.

This is the world we live in.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

And it's nuts.
A company should be on their knees begging customers for business. Customers are the lifeblood for a company.
Ahh, but I suppose I'm just too old fashioned for this world...

Re:Disclosure.

[s73v3r]

You don't have a "right" to unlimited data, sorry

I do when that's what they were advertising, and that's what they sold me.

Another story

[U8MyData]

Anyone read the letter of resignation of Greg Smith over at Goldman Sachs? Me thinks AT&T is NO different.

Re:Disclosure.

[Svartalf]

"Unlimited Data"... I honestly and dearly wish people would QUIT running that tired old argument up the flagpole- it's flatly false. Let's run some numbers...

Presume, if you will the theoretical max AT&T is providing in their non-HSPA+/LTE areas. This is 1.7Mbit up/ 0.7Mbit down. You get billed for any data transferred. If you're mostly streaming, the upstream will be negligible. So...

In 1 second, you will pull down roughly 217 kibytes of data.
In 1 minute, you will pull down roughly 12 Mibytes of data.
In 1 hour, you will pull down roughly 783 Mibytes of data.
In 1 day, you will pull down roughly 18 Gibytes of data.
In 1 week, you will pull down roughly 126 Gibytes of data.

This presumes no throttling whatsoever. Now, presume they throttle to EDGE speeds at 5Gibytes transferred.

In 1 second, you will pull down roughly 217 kibytes of data.
In 1 minute, you will pull down roughly 12 Mibytes of data.
In 1 hour, you will pull down roughly 783 Mibytes of data.

In less than 1 day, you will hit your cap- in fact, it'll be somewhere around 6 and a half hours in.

With this, you'll pull down the following:

In 1 day, you will pull down roughly 6.82 Gibytes of data.
In 1 week, you will pull down roughly 21.9 Gibytes of data.

126 != 21.9 Quite simply it's not "unlimited data" in the slightest as they're limiting just how much data you CAN get through the link by limiting your speed. It's why AT&T LOST the case in the first place.

Upside Down Pyramid Scheme

[true_majik]

The problem with using the top 5% of data users is that it is an upside down pyramid scheme. As they slow down the top 5% our data usage becomes less and less because we are not able to use the services that we would normally use. Making the average become less and less. When this all started I was getting slowed at around 10 gigs then 8 then 5.

THIS!

Re:Disclosure.

[Svartalf]

The part where the judge agreed that no tethering was an arbitrary limit on the service they sold as unlimited, and was therefore null and void?

Heh... It utterly amazes me how many people buy into things begin legit, just because a company put it in the contract- and how few understand any aspects of contract law, but will say, "it's in the contract or terms of service," and therefore claim the company's in the rights. Especially here.