Court Refuses To Dismiss AT&T Throttling Case

Taco Cowboy sends news that a federal judge has shot down AT&T's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the company deceived customers by throttling their mobile data speeds. The suit was filed by the Federal Trade Commission after it found AT&T was charging customers for "unlimited" data plans, but then throttling their bandwidth once certain thresholds were reached. AT&T tried to have the suit thrown out by saying the FTC was exceeding its authority. Judge Edward Chen disagrees (PDF), saying jurisdiction for their conduct had not yet passed to the Federal Communications Commission when it occurred. The throttling affected "at least 3.5 million customers."

Comments

DantheMan

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there a tons of folks that want to throttle AT&T

Re:DantheMan

[Tablizer]

Indeed! We are almost forced to use them due to various circumstances. They play billing games with surprise fees all the time. They fart fees. And their telemarketers keep calling us and won't get the clue that we don't want to talk to them.

Competition is sorely needed in telecom. Oligopolies suck rotting eggs. I think I'd rather have "commie" gov't services than the current batch of clowns we have to choose from. Socialists have fewer telemarketers, at least, and they are too lethargic to add so many new and creative fees.

what sorcery is this.

[nimbius]

In what magistrate, what court or patrio-tastic american legal system in this foul year of our lord 2015 is it possible for the 38th largest corporation in the entire world to be forced to answer for their actions? This is america for christ sake, land where a corporation is a person! its homophobia enshrined in law as a manifestation of its unquestionable religious beliefs. If we're going to start with AT&T being forced to abandon its totally legal and fair court of arbitration for this disgusting "justice of the people" then whats next? Companies that cant commit wage theft and union busting? Christ its enough to make me lose my appetite this very instant and had it not been for my sizeable campaign contribution I would turn this bugatti right around and head back to the manor post-haste. But given as its always election season, and dogs will bark, I suppose ill entertain a morsel of caviar for whatever politician has me in gucci shoes this afternoon but I warn you america....you're making corporations feel very hurt and sad.

Regards, The plutocracy.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to pop your monocle, my good man. You are indeed correct that a corporation is a person. Persons have the right to freedom of speech. And money (thanks to the Supreme Court) is speech. The more money you have, the louder that speech, and the more politicians will listen to it. Simply exercising their free speech into the pockets of a few politicians will clear up this misunderstanding and it will be back to business as usual. At least until the proles wise up and start rolling out the guillotines again.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Coren22]

I would love to see a class action lawsuit against all the companies that treat salaried workers as hourly when it benefits them, and salaried when i benefits them.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[TheGratefulNet]

OT, but related to your comment: I have been fighting battles with companies in the bay area who want to hire people but only if they can sleaze by via 'contract to hire' (really, its a misspelling: the correct spelling is 'contract to FIRE'). this saves them 3 or 6months of benefits, all the while treating you like an employee (long hours, occasional unpaid weekends, take your work laptop home (yes, contractors are being told this).

companies know its all about denying benefits to americans. mostly its us older guys (ie, the ones who need health insurance the most). and they try to convince you its about 'try before you buy' but that's just a stupid lie. I've known contractors stuck on that role for way more than 6mos. look employers, if it takes you even 3 months to know if the guy you have working for you is good or not, I'd be surprised. 6mos? that's just a cost savings for YOU. lets push the benefits cost down on the employee for as long as we can.

its because none of us in tech have unions anymore. there's no one to fight for our rights. sure, as a kid, you think you don't need them. come back in 20 or 30 yrs when you find that to be untrue for you. its not what you need NOW, its what all of us eventually need. WE NEED UNIONS. and yes, they can be evil, but companies are already the definition of modern evil. it takes a monster to fight a monster and lets have the 2 monsters fight each other rather than one of them fighting ME.

and so, I spend the last 10 years doing contracts, unwillingly, since that is ALL that is offered to me. 30 yrs of software and hardware, doing lots of things, but I have 'dont give this guy a fulltime job with benfits' written all over my forehead. apparently.

the overall name of the american game: become rich, screw everyone you can, deny you are doing anything ethically wrong. seems to be working for the elite. for the rest of us, life was better 20 or 30 yrs ago before all this 'deny you benefits ... becase we can!' shit started happening.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've been doing contract work "unwillingly" in the Bay Area for ten years, you're not bothering to find something better or you're not very skilled or motivated. That was plenty of time to establish yourself as a respected contributor to any of a number of well known open source products that would result in you being courted by many companies in the area. That is if you're good at technical work, have the knack for it and enjoy it.

Now, if you really enjoy "fighting battles with companies", you've made the right career choice by spending your energy on that rather than developing and refreshing your technical skills. Unfortunately, usually picking battles with companies is usually a hobby and, like wine making or other hobbies, usually doesn't result in much income.

There's no shame in working on the line at Walmart or McDonalds and maybe that's a better solution for you - they pay by the hour, no work to take home, no thought, no career planning. Very simple.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[sumdumass]

Well ,there is also barber college. But barring that, he should look into legal representation because many government agencies will consider him an employee. If the description and complaints is an accurate description, he needs to complain to the right people.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ...

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put 50 people in the room and you have to hire one, who would you choose? The one that you liked best. Would you want a union to pick that person for you? If you are a person in that room of 50 to be picked from and you never seem to get picked, it it because of YOU. Just like the last person that was picked in kickball on the playground. There is a reason they usually are last. Having a union there is equivalent to having your mom on the playground forcing them to pick you earlier.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because discrimination based on age and other factors isn't a thing. I really don't understand why the programming crowd is filled with so many selfish antisocial cunts.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Lodlaiden]

Contract work is by the hour. If you're not clocking your hours and getting overtime, you're doing it wrong.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[armanox]

My benefits were far worse working union jobs then when I branched into non-union (systems administration). I won't name the union I worked in before I entered IT, but they were far worse then dealing with management directly. And to pick on your statement - the union bosses are just as elite as the people they're supposed to be against.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[facetube]

I would love to see the IRS enforce the rules they already have.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions don't pick who to hire. They never have. You're making that up.

Re:what sorcery is this.

[Anonymous Coward]

and so, I spend the last 10 years doing contracts, unwillingly, since that is ALL that is offered to me. 30 yrs of software and hardware, doing lots of things, but I have 'dont give this guy a fulltime job with benfits' written all over my forehead. apparently.

Working contracts for 10 years... you were smart and lived under your means? You must have saved a sizeable nest egg in order to purchase your own insurance, right? With the widsom you are claiming of your years of experience, I have to assume that's the case and your post is about those younger and less wise who maybe won't make the same decisions and need their employers to do it for them?

Re:what sorcery is this.

[DiEx-15]

Dear Plutocracy:

LULZ.

Love,
The Rest Of The World

Outside their authority?

[jythie]

Isn't addressing accusations of fraud kinda their mandate?

Re:Outside their authority?

[Moof123]

Yes, but they thought they had bought their quota of senators and should not have to answer to the little people anymore.

Re:Outside their authority?

[Trepidity]

As I read it (but this is getting into some nitty-gritty agency-jurisdiction law I might misunderstand), the jurisdictional argument is about what "common carrier" status does for oversight. Telecommunications law gives the FCC exclusive authority to regulate common carriers, because they aren't quite normal market participants, but instead more like a regulated utility with special requirements that apply to them. So the FCC is tasked with drawing up those rules and overseeing them, and the FTC doesn't oversee them the way it would oversee other market participants.

Mobile data did not used to be classified as a common-carrier service, but was reclassified recently (3 weeks ago, in fact). The court found: 1. The fact that AT&T provides a common-carrier mobile service doesn't mean that it automatically is immune from FTC jurisdiction in any mobile-related case. Instead it needs to show that the specific conduct in dispute is related to its provision of common-carrier telecommunications services, and therefore exclusively within FCC jurisdiction; 2. The specific conduct at issue here happened before the reclassification as common carrier, so the FTC properly has jurisdiction.

Re:Outside their authority?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh AT&T, doesn't want to be classified as Common Carrier unless it helps them get out of a lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds.

Re:Outside their authority?

[Rich0]

Ahhh AT&T, doesn't want to be classified as Common Carrier unless it helps them get out of a lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds.

Actually, they still don't wan to be. They argued to another court that the FCC didn't have the right to make them a common carrier.

I think their goal was to get this case dismissed since they're a common carrier, and then get the controls of being a common carrier tossed since they aren't one.

Re:Outside their authority?

[armanox]

Yup, but ex post facto applies to this one, so they are tried by the laws that were in effect at at the time of the offence.

Re:Outside their authority?

[AK Marc]

Too bad estoppel doesn't apply. They when they use contradictory arguments, replay one of their earlier arguments in the new case, and hold them to the least favorable statement they've made.

AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

God I hate these guys.

Hope they get sued for everything they own and get taken to the cleaners.

Maybe there still is some justice in America.

Re:AT&T

[Coren22]

More likely every AT&T cellular customer will receive a $.50 credit, and the lawyers will receive millions.

Re:AT&T

[dunkindave]

I just hope this case finally sets a precedent that "unlimited" means UNLIMITED, you know, that they advertised! I am looking at you Comcast (and all your industry siblings).

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Would've modded you up, but not wasting them on A/C posts. I agree, AT&T is crap. Every year I had to call them from a payphone or borrowed phone to come and fix the corroded connection at the pole. And, every time they wanted to send someone in my house to check the wiring, at a fee of course. After 12 years of the same yearly crap, I ditched all services. All they had to do was run a new line and replace the tap, but instead only cut and spliced. Also, it's so nice not getting bombarded with telemarketing calls. I had an unlisted number and still got about 3 per day, now I get about 1 every 3 months.

Re: AT&T

[jd2112]

$.50 credit and an additional 'completely unrelated' fee of $3.79

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

The only WINNERS here will be the lawyers. Assuming AT&T looses, their subscribers will pay more for their service to pay for the cost and The lawyers will walk away with 2/3rds of the award. You might argue that the subscribers would win, but the few bucks you might get back is but a small percentage of what you already paid.

Re:AT&T

[OhPlz]

Why? At least for mobile, most of the unlimited plans are grandfathered. The number of account holders that have them can only decrease. So now we'll all have advertised 3GB data caps. In the end, you still don't have quality service past the arbitrary threshold. It doesn't really improve anything for us.

Re:AT&T

[AuMatar]

Sure it does- we'll know what we're buying. And when they have to advertise 3 GB caps, the first carrier to offer 4 GB for the same price will get an advantage, forcing them to compete on data caps. But right now most people think they actually have "unlimited".

Re:AT&T

[dunkindave]

Why? At least for mobile, most of the unlimited plans are grandfathered.

That is one of the points of this lawsuit - these were grandfathered plans created under the promise of unlimited data, but AT&T went and created an effective cap by throttling the data rate. They weren't throttling the other customers so the cap wasn't a technical limitation, rather it was a punishment to the grandfathered plans to try and force them into a metered plan, which is more profitable for AT&T. The point is when a carrier, whether for mobile or wired, advertises that the data is unlimited then put arbitrary limits on the customer's ability to use the service, especially when such limits don't apply to other customers paying for different plans, then they are committing fraud by advertising it as "unlimited".

The number of account holders that have them can only decrease.

And one of AT&T's goals is to force the users to give up their "unlimited" plans since those are throttled, and to sign up for the metered plans which are not throttled. What AT&T is doing is fraud by my understanding. My original comment is that until now carriers have been arguing that this throttling was merely a network management function and not a force-the-user-to-change-plans measure, which is bullshit. We need a court to call them on it so others can cite the case for precedent and bitch slap them silly.

So now we'll all have advertised 3GB data caps. In the end, you still don't have quality service past the arbitrary threshold. It doesn't really improve anything for us.

It would be nice though if a carrier advertised and sold a service as unlimited that they do what they said instead of applying arbitrary thresholds to degrade the delivered service to force the users to change plans to ones that are metered/limited (and more profitable for the carriers).

Re:AT&T

[BronsCon]

At least for mobile, most of the unlimited plans are grandfathered. The number of account holders that have them can only decrease.

Or T-Mobile and Sprint's subscriber base can balloon.

Re:AT&T

[OhPlz]

Or T-Mobile and Sprint's subscriber base can balloon.

Trouble for consumers is that they have to put up with less coverage in the hopes that more will switch and generate enough revenue for them to improve their coverage.

Re:AT&T

[OhPlz]

I get it, but even if the courts brought down the hammer on AT&T, that loss will just be passed on to their customers. You can't hurt a corporation, you can only hurt its customers. So it's really a self inflicted injury. At some point, the carriers are just going to stop honoring those grandfathered plans.

I like honesty in advertising too, but this really seems like a waste of the court's time. These types of contracts aren't even available from the top tier networks anymore, AFAIK. I'd rather see action in removing data caps or improving coverage or getting rid of contracts or something that would actually benefit all mobile phone users. This is pining over ancient contracts for the dwindling cellular elite.

Re:AT&T

[BronsCon]

T-Mobile's coverage has vastly improved in the 2 years I've been with them. I've never been without coverage, though LTE was spotty at first; within 6 months, LTE was solid, too. Even in my old office, where Sprint, AT&T (my old provider) and Verizon all failed.

Sprint fairly consistently drops the ball with regard to expanding coverage, and AT&T has started letting their network rot in the past few years. My friends who have Verizon have dealt with the same dead spots for the 3 years they've been here. It looks like T-Mobile is the only operator currently actively expanding and upgrading their network, while AT&T and Verizon customers are left hoping their carriers will pick up where they left off years ago; Sprint customers know their network sucks and are very much willing to live in "you get what you pay for" land.

You must still be relying on 5 year old market research. Try looking at the current state of the market and things suddenly become much more clear.

Re:AT&T

[david_thornley]

Right now, my family has a 10GB cap, and we treat it as unlimited. I do whatever I want with my phone, and we don't come close to the cap. (Arguably we should reduce it, but our usage might increase, and I'd rather overpay month by month than get hit with a big surcharge.)

Re:AT&T

[david_thornley]

You can hurt a corporation, as long as it doesn't have unlimited ability to extract money from its customers. Besides, if a corporation could extract more money from its customers, it would already, so if you're going to tell me that a corporation is going to deal with a new cost by getting more money from its customers, you're going to have to explain to me why they didn't already do it.

Re:AT&T

[geminidomino]

It depends where you are. I recently finally got tired of Sprint's bullshit (like charging me a $10 "4G" fee because my phone was WiMax - i.e. has never, ever worked as a 4G phone) and switched to T-Mobile. It works pretty well around home and the office, but it has a lot of spotty coverage in the "in between" areas, and none at all at the SO's apartment. Wifi calling didn't work right there, either, probably because of having 20+ SSIDs pumping through her living room. So coverage can still be a very real concern for them.

OTOH, they seem to have the self-awareness to realize this: When I called them about the problem, they hooked me up with a "free loan" (i.e. I have to send it back if I change carriers) of a 5gHz WAP. Hopefully that nails down the problem, but it's sure a nice surprise either way.

Re:AT&T

[BronsCon]

Yeah, their network is far from perfect and I'm sure if I left the bay area I'd see some spotty coverage from time to time. Gotta love that CellSpot, though, it's actually a rebadged version of the Asus router I had already been eyeballing for a while. I have no plans to leave them before it outlives its useful life, so hey, free router.

Re:AT&T

[geminidomino]

You have one? I've still got to get mine set up when I get up there again.

How is it different from your basic off-the-shelf dual-band wifi router? I assume (hope?) they do something with the software to make the phone work better?

Re:AT&T

[BronsCon]

As far as setup, use, and general operation, it's no different. It's a bog-standard ASUS router with a few firmware modifications. From what the tier 2 rep told me, it makes the IPSec connection to T-Mo's network directly, so when your phone is connected it it, it doesn't have to spend CPU cycles on IPSec. Also, since the tunnel is persistent, there is no additional setup time like you may experience with wi-fi calling on other routers.

Personally, I've become accustomed to GSM calls taking anywhere from 1-10sec to set up and I've never experienced a wi-fi call connecting any faster or slower than that, so I can't say whether or not that's actually the case.

That said, it's a very good router, seems to have no issues handling whatever traffic I pass it.

Re:AT&T

[geminidomino]

Thanks, that's helpful to know.

I just hope it solves the weird issue of my phone's Wifi freaking out (bouncing around with "Certificate Error Er01") like the rep suggested it would. Hard to use WiFi calling in that situation. :)

Re:AT&T

[BronsCon]

Let me guess... LG G3? If so, unfortunately, it won't solve the certificate error issue, at least in my experience.

Re:AT&T

[geminidomino]

Actually, L90 Optimus. :P

I'll be able to test it over the weekend. Crossing my fingers, but I at least have a fallback in that I can forward calls to her house line for free.

Common Carrier?

[PineHall]

I find it interesting that these telecommunication companies want to be known as a Common Carrier only when it benefits them. They want it both ways.

Re:Common Carrier?

[DarkOx]

I find it interesting that these telecommunication companies want to be known as a Common Carrier only when it benefits them. They want it both ways.

I don't find it interesting that they want to read the rules in way that is most helpful to them whatever the situation is, most people want that.

What I find interesting is that the think they can get away with an inconsistent characterization of who/what they are.

Re:Common Carrier?

[fustakrakich]

They want it both ways.

And we do our part by giving it to them. Gotta stop buying their crap products and stop reelecting their 'preferred' candidates, otherwise this will go on indefinitely.

Re:Common Carrier?

[OhPlz]

Kind of like the tax/penalty for not having health insurance under the AHA? It was argued to the highest courts that it was a tax when it fit the argument, and at other times it was argued as a penalty when it fit the argument. The government got away with it, so why not business too?

In the end, the people always get screwed.

Re:Common Carrier?

[sumdumass]

I got one better. I actually saw a lawyer argue that a dead man was a worthless bum who was so frivolous with his income that he was a burden to the family and that the same man was the primary bread winner and the loss of his income had devastating effects on the family well being all in the same case and within 2 hours of each position. It was in a case to settle claims on his estate. A guy argued he was owed money from the deceased and he also left him assets in the will. The assets claim got the worthless bit trying to claim it wasn't his to give and the owed money bit was about how devastated the family was financially due to the loss of the deceased.

Taco Cowboy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a rip-off of the late great Cmdr Taco? Robo-poster?

Re:Taco Cowboy?

[Enry]

Given the low UID, I'll allow it.

Re:Taco Cowboy?

[Coren22]

It is a combination of Commander Taco and Cowboy Neil. A very old account (5327 UID).

Re:Taco Cowboy?

[Just Some Guy]

I wouldn't say very old.

Re:Taco Cowboy?

[Coren22]

Internet old?

Slashdot was founded in 97, so none of the accounts could exactly be called old

I have been reading for at least 15 years though.

Read the fine print

[Anonymous Coward]

You, the moron that you were, were handed a contract, told to read it and if you agreed to it to sign it, and you just signed it without reading a damn word of it.

You agreed to throttling. You probably also agreed to give up your first born. Yes, I know that part's probably not legally enforceable, but do you have the lawyer fees and patience to fight it in court?

Read the fine print before you sign a damn contract. I know it's long and has big words, but at least skim it, and if you disagree with any part of it, don't sign it.

Jesus Fucking Christ, it's not that hard.

Re:Read the fine print

[Anonymous Coward]

It's right in their contract:

"... We reserve the right to change this contract at any time. You will be given 30 days notice of these changes. If you do not agree to these changes, you can suck it."

Hinges on the definition of unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

You see the same thing at buffets. People are sold "unlimited" but instead of actually infinite it's just arbitrarily high.

Re:Hinges on the definition of unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

Just no doggy bags allowed....

4G speeds are slow

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why, but 4G LTE speeds are slow in suburban Philadelphia. I only use like 100 MB a month so I shouldn't be hitting any type of data cap. Maybe lots of people are using $500 smartphones to watch watch cat videos on Youtube. I'm really tempted to switch to another carrier like Cricket.

Re:4G speeds are slow

[Coren22]

That is hilarious...

Cricket = an AT&T MVNO, they are literally the same network.

I would recommend Verizon, they actually spend on their network, and I have never seen slow speeds (in Balt/Wash corridor).

Re:4G speeds are slow

[Anonymous Coward]

That is hilarious...

Cricket = an AT&T MVNO, they are literally the same network.

I would recommend Verizon, they actually spend on their network, and I have never seen slow speeds (in Balt/Wash corridor).

Yea, Verizon is great, when and where it works. Where I live the 4GLTE coverage is pretty spotty once you get into the suburbs and it's not like I live in some small town in the Midwest but just outside Dallas/Fort Worth. Around here AT&T has much better coverage and if I wanted data service where I work or at my home, Verizon didn't work for me, while AT&T does. Now if I lived in the north east like you, I'd be using Verizon because AT&T gets spotty around there.

Re:4G speeds are slow

[Coren22]

Dallas is a totally different animal to the Philly I was responding to.

Dallas has issues of low population density working against the 4G coverage (4G has much shorter range to 3G, therefore distance matters).

The reason that AT&T has better coverage is that they sacrifice speed (except when extremely short range) for coverage, you aren't getting anywhere near the data rates Verizon can give:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4...
(AT&T uses HSPA+ while Verizon uses LTE)

Re:4G speeds are slow

[RavenLrD20k]

If that were true...why did Cricket always use CDMA Phones that wouldn't work on AT&T's GSM network?

Re:4G speeds are slow

[Coren22]

Argue with them than:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

They are owned and operated by AT&T.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

It looks like they used to use Sprint's CDMA network, but no more.

Re:4G speeds are slow

[RavenLrD20k]

Ahh, I missed the date where Leap was acquired by AT&T. It happened a month after I left RadioShack which is when I stopped keeping up so much about what was happening with the carriers as I had no reason to care anymore. Well... shit.

Re:4G speeds are slow

[AK Marc]

Dallas is easy for 4G. It's flat, and laid out in a grid pattern with a few ring roads. No hills in the way, and the only thing casting shadows are buildings, and you put towers on them anyway.

Re:4G speeds are slow

[Coren22]

That has nothing to do with the range issues of 4G though. 4G is attenuated by water in the air (much the same as 802.11), not so much buildings.

Re:4G speeds are slow

[AK Marc]

So, 700 MHz 4G is absorbed by water in the air more than 2100 3G?

I think you know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to understand the issues.

Real punishment please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us jump carriers w/out fees for this shit. I'd love to go to Verizon and lose my unlimited account, but can't for another year. Anything else will just show up in our bills as - suck your lawsuit fine bitches fee number 12 (in the fine print of the PDF that requires a google crowbar to find).

Re:Real punishment please.

[Anonymous Coward]

most carriers will pay your ETF fees if you switch

Re:Real punishment please.

[OhPlz]

Go prepaid. Half the cost, same networks.

Please enlighten me

[txoutback]

I'm curious about what their reasoning is behind the throttling. Does providing the service become less profitable after a certain threshold of usage is reached? (Meaning there is a real cost-per-bit AT&T pays) Does this throttling preserve the fairness of access for all users because the network could not handle more capacity? Is it a matter of not wanting this particular service to compete with other AT&T offerings? Would it defeat a charade of some artificial cost being exploited?

Re:Please enlighten me

[DougOtto]

I believe the real reason behind the throttling is to harass you into switching to a metered plan where they can charge you for going over your cap.

Re:Please enlighten me

[Dunbal]

They do it because they can. It's as simple as that.

Re:Please enlighten me

[nehumanuscrede]

The reasoning is actually quite simple.

Once your speeds are throttled down to dial-up levels, the majority of users will cease using the service until their speeds are restored.
( Can you imagine loading web-pages of today on the equivalent of a 56k modem ? The Ads alone would make it impossible. )

Thus, X users not utilizing Y bandwidth equates to more available bandwidth to oversell to other customers without having to upgrade the infrastructure. It's far cheaper to save bandwidth by throttling users than it is to install new hardware and capacity.

Re:Please enlighten me

[Anonymous Coward]

At one point they had greatly oversold their bandwidth in urban areas. People were experiancing poor service. Limiting access allowed them to keep selling data plans to people.

Um, not so much....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure socialism (which is not in itself a bad thing) when combined with players of the same moral fiber as those in the telecom industry creates exactly the problem that you are trying to avoid, except now you have to sue the government for change.

Responsiveness to consumer needs comes along a curve drawn by the number of competitors. Monopolies are the worst, duopolies, almost as bad, I will argue quad-opolies as the inflection point and I'm surrounded by restaurants that will cook me anything they have ingredients for any time I want, so somewhere in the hundreds businesses become very accommodating.

The four big telco's in the US are competitive more than they are cooperative. T-Mo (the Walmart of carriers) does disruptive shit to the others all the time and they have to at least pretend to have a matching game. No-Contracts was their latest. Previously, the cost of your phone was spread into your bill, but your bill didn't drop when your phone was paid for. So you were either under contract, or you were paying a $20 a month premium for using your old phone, win/win for the carrier. That sucked for the consumer, but it's how every one did it until, in the spirit of competition, one company decided to muck with the rules. The consumers won.

I have my issues with all the carriers, but nation wide networks are a non-trivial investment and spectrum isn't infinite. I think 5 or 6 is all you could squeeze in, and I don't think you'd see much more benefit.

We need law suits like this to succeed, so lying to the public has a serious cost. We can give all the damages to some nice charity, I don't need a $3 a month refund for 11 months of service, I need AT&T's marketing department to think next time, "this lie will be expensive."

Re:Um, not so much....

[Tablizer]

We need law suits like this to succeed, so lying to the public has a serious cost

Based on our "inventive fee" experience, lawsuits couldn't keep up. They are quite creative in their ability and excuses to slap weird fees onto things. While being sued for Gimmick 7, they are already working on Gimmick 8 and 9.

The most successful liars don't outright lie; they skillfully milk the boundary between truth and lie.

Re:Um, not so much....

[jelizondo]

Regarding the cost of infrastructure, in Mexico there is an experiment going on. They married the 700 Mhz band (previously used for TV) with the 20 thousand something kilometer fiber network owned by the Federal Electricity Commission (a government body, charged with the production and distribution of electricity), mostly dark, to create a national network which is being auctioned off. AT&T, for example, is one of bidders, but the catch is they can't sell services to the public; they must sell services to other companies, which in turn will be selling broadband and celullar services to the public

The idea is that through this arrangement, there will be dozens (perhaps hundreds) of "virtual carriers" serving the public but without needing to invest many millions in infrastructure...

As an idea, I think it is very good but we have to wait and see what the actual implementation really is...

Now, this could not be done in the good ol' US of A because it would be socialist... So consumers gets the shaft, in the name of capitalism...

Re:Um, not so much....

[Pikoro]

This is essentially what we have in Japan with the FLETS system. All the infra is basically owned by one company, who lease it out to others. NTT, the company who owns the fiber, have their own ISP set up on their own fiber, but it is trivial to start your own ISP using their infra. They get a cut of every customer, but there are so many ISPs here that they compete on features since speed isn't really a factor when nearly every ISP can provide gigabit speeds.

Re:Um, not so much....

[armanox]

Which is a win for me - Verizon has lowered my bill by a fair amount per month for as long as I keep my old phones. Plus they recently doubled my data amount per month at no additional cost.

Re:Um, not so much....

[david_thornley]

One problem with that sort of tiered service is getting problems addressed. So AT&T is selling services to Pedro's Laundromat and ISP, you get your connectivity from Pedro, and something goes wrong. AT&T has no responsibility towards you. It has some towards Pedro, but it's going to argue that it's Pedro's fault as long as it can.

Re:Um, not so much....

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what though...

That lawsuit... even if we win... they just raise their rates to make it all back in 3 months.

Now if you made it a penalty, per line, per hour or per text / minute of voice / kb of data - so that it really hurts them - like they cannot bid on the next spectrum block, or they have to provide free service to all of their customers for a year, or they cannot merge with anyone for any reason, things that will really hurt them in the future, now that would be consequences that they would stop and go - Holy Shit, we fucked ourselves this time.

Re:Um, not so much....

[uninformedLuddite]

>

The most successful liars don't outright lie; they skillfully milk the boundary between truth and lie.

Telling the truth in a way that makes the listener decode what you say incorrectly is the best way.

Re:Um, not so much....

[mgcarley]

It's not just Japan - much of Europe, UK, AU, NZ, SK, HK, SG... all use an "unbundled loop" model and for the most part it works pretty well - personally, I like it.

There are some "open" networks in the US, but they are damn near impossible to get on to or use properly, in part because some of them have been built for the sake of being built - as far as I have been able to ascertain from a couple of those I've made inquiries for, they don't actually go anywhere (as in, they don't really reach end users in a meaningful way - that's up to the provider).

There are also some in India, but they have extremely limited coverage areas (there are a lot of them and they're all at war with each other) and take fairly a significant percentage of the plan revenue.

Re:Um, not so much....

[mgcarley]

That depends on how you define "problem".

As it is, you call AT&T to get your line fixed because something's wrong (say, it's noisy and your DSL signal is weak). AT&T may or may not give a shit about you because all you are is residential customer #146190480112 valued at a whopping $50 a month.

On the other hand, in a wholesale situation,the end user wouldn't be calling AT&T, they would be calling Pedro. Sure, Pedro has to raise the ticket, but Pedro has an SLA.and might be worth $5,000 or even $50,000 a month to AT&T, so they are a bit more likely to dispatch a tech.

Ultimately the end user shouldn't need to know or care who owns and operates the physical infrastructure, so long as Pedro has it taken care of when there's a problem.

Re:Um, not so much....

[stoatwblr]

"you get your connectivity from Pedro, and something goes wrong."

That's between you and Pedro, not you and AT&T. Let Pedro duke it out with them. He's not going to let them screw him over or you'll take your business down the road to Shnycorp.

The reality is that Pedro provides substantially better service for a couple of bucks more than Shinycorp

Shinycorp do big nationwide advertising and low prices, by cutting deals with AT&T for lower quality of service and longer times to get onsite than AT&T sells as standard.

The result is that when your line goes down with Shinycorp, you argue for hours with their phone droids and go through the entire modem waggling routine before they admit there might be a problem and someone will be out next week to fix it.

When you ring Pedro, you speak to Pedro's tech, who looks at your circuit and goes "I'm on it. There'll be someone onsite by the end of the day"

Shinycorp competes with Bastardcorp, Screwupcorp and Cheatemcorp. They all have low prices with various gotchas and they all offer the same poor level of service. They have the highest rate of customer complaints in the industry but everyone goes with them because they all put saturation advertising in the media, so joe average has never heard of the others. They make millions each day and everyone hates them but doesn't look elsewhere.

Pedro makes a comfortable income. You're happy with your level of service. He lives or dies on this, so it's in his interest to keep his customers happy.

Fantasy? No, that's what happens in places with LLU and fairly closely describes the way I buy my connection

About time

[Andy Smith]

Internet / telecoms companies really do seem to view their customers as enemies.

15 years ago in the UK there were dozens of broadband startups and big-name companies advertising "unlimited" broadband and then throttling you if you went over a couple of gigs. I don't think a single one of them got hauled through the courts for it. The biggest one, British Telecom, had their throttling exposed by a primetime TV show, and they just breezed on, lying to customers, untouchable.

Welfare for lawyers

[fustakrakich]

It's all being groomed for appeal, never to be actually resolved.

Why only AT&T?

[ganiman]

AT&T is not the only provider to pull this shady mob tactic of offering "unlimited" Internet while throttling users after certain thresholds. They should all be sued for this, and every "unlimited" plan subscriber should be compensated. I personally have expressed my frustration with this to T-Mobile, so I ask - why is AT&T the only carrier being sued about this? Surely if they lose this battle, it should open up cases against the rest, right?

Re:Why only AT&T?

[Anonymous Coward]

at&t gets the flack because they were the original exclusive carrier in the u.s. for iphones.. and there were a lot of those sold with "unlimited" data, which at the time was unlimited and not throttled. that caused major service issues in big city markets (supposedly) and is the main reason the plans were discontinued. the way at&t has treated the plan and its subscribers post-discontinuance is the main problem

any beef with tmobile you may have about 'unlimited' anything is your own fucking fault for not reading what's right in front of you. tmobile is the most transparent of the 'big 4' and is quite up front about handset costs and plan limits and terms... their biggest shortcoming is their smaller native on-network service area.

Re:Why only AT&T?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cricket pulls this crap where if you don't have their internet access, but only have voice & text, they will send an "upgrade your service" text every time someone tries to text you a photo. And there is no way to find out who sent the multimedia text, as it is only a text from cricket saying it can't be received. I've had to shut my cellphone off because of 20+ of the same upgrade text per hour. No way to block it either.

Re:Why only AT&T?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My beef with T-Mobile (the lack of coverage hasn't been a problem for me and where I don't get coverage no one gets coverage) is their sales staff who seem to be clueless if you ask any question that isn't about the features of the damn phone. When they were touting the WiFi call feature that doesn't eat your minutes on their phones I specifically asked if it was applicable to my plan (their legacy prepaid) and was told yes, but that and reality don't mesh. On their site it doesn't specify if it is applicable to my plan as it just states "applicable plans*" so I asked and got the wrong answer. Also they were shocked that I was still using my original SIM that was originally used in a Nokia 5190 handset under VoiceStream.

That said they have been very straight forward with their pricing, caps, and what you get in all other cases, and don't play the BS games.

Re:Why only AT&T?

[BronsCon]

I personally have expressed my frustration with this to T-Mobile

Why? They sell unlimited data with varying LTE quotas (after which, they make it clear you'll receive 2g speeds), and they sell unlimited LTE. If you buy unlimited LTE there is no throttling (don't take my word for it, I'll let my 30+GB/mo usage do the talking) and if you buy one of the plans that includes an LTE quota, you get an unthrottled connection until that quota is used up; and popular streaming services don't count toward that quota (or get throttled once you exceed it).

They advertise what they're selling and they provide what they advertise. What's the problem?

Re:Why only AT&T?

[BronsCon]

I should have read farther into the thread before giving my two cents, as you basically answered my question with this post. I asked "What's the problem?" and you just, very clearly, answered "Nothing nearly as related to the topic being discussed as I initially let on". You got a wrong answer from a bottom-rung lackey; what else did you expect from someone who couldn't hack it as a fry cook?

That said, now that you've clarified what the actually issue you have with them is, I've also noticed a complete lack of training, across the board (at basically all non-corporate levels), regarding any feature or plan T-Mobile has offered for less than 3 months or so. I'm usually an early adopter, so I get to see, first-hand, just how horribly trained they are at the onset; I'll got back a month later and ask the same questions and get different, still wrong, answers; likewise ath the 2 month mark but, pretty consistently, they seem to have their ducks in a row by month 3.

Part of that, I'm sure, is their rush to push out new features ahead of the competition, which is understandable. Training that should take a week or two for the entirety of their support staff, then, ends up taking several months because they're too busy putting out fires to complete the training. I keep hoping that they'll eventually figure this out and get the training out of the way before launching new plans and services, but it doesn't seem to make sense to them.

Still, that has nothing to do with what's being discussed here: throttling of unlimited data plans.

Re:Why only AT&T?

[mattventura]

Well, comcast used to give you "unlimited" and then instead of throttling you they just gave you the boot. Not sure which is worse.

Wait until our WA Atty General sues

[WillAffleckUW]

Once Washington State gets on the case, you know the corporations quake in their socks and sandals.

Light, Lite, Fat Free, Low Cal, Reduced Fat, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

(Light, Lite, Fat Free, Low Cal, Reduced Fat, etc) These are all regulated terms in the food industry. No reason not to regulate similar terms in the information services industry. If "unlimited" is not truly unlimited then it should be defined as such by some sort of industry authority. Obviously "unlimited" would be truly unlimited, but then they would need new terms like "unlimited data" (no speed limit), "no restrictions" (will have restrictions), "unlimited speed" (data limit), "dynamic connection" (BS for actual limits), etc.

But defined regulated terms that we know what they mean instead of a random definition in the small print of a contract (TOS) no one ever reads.

FCC? Isn't it simple fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this a simple matter of them making a commitment, then not honoring without any acknowledgment. It's got
nothing to do with the FCC.

Wait, wut?

[idontgno]

That's the best AT&T's vaunted legal strategists could come up with?

"You're not the boss of me, FTC!"

/facepalm

Wouldn't that be fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wonder why the FTC need necessarily be involved. Advertising one thing and then delivering another would be fraud... That's a crime in most places, resulting in damages for the victims and possible jail time for the offenders... Sounds to me like something for the various state Attorneys General... But then I've always been a fan of "rule of law" as opposed to "rule of bureaucrats".

Re:FCC? Isn't it simple fraud?

[geminidomino]

There are exemptions in FTC regulations for Common Carriers.

FTC is suing AT&T.

AT&T says "Step off, FTC. We're under the FCC until we win our lawsuit fighting it"

Judge says "Fuck you, you weren't Common Carriers when you pulled your scam."