Slashdot Mirror
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."
I think there a tons of folks that want to throttle AT&T
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Isn't addressing accusations of fraud kinda their mandate?
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.
Given the low UID, I'll allow it.
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."
More likely every AT&T cellular customer will receive a $.50 credit, and the lawyers will receive millions.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It is a combination of Commander Taco and Cowboy Neil. A very old account (5327 UID).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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?
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).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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).
I wouldn't say very old.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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."
$.50 credit and an additional 'completely unrelated' fee of $3.79
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
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.
It's all being groomed for appeal, never to be actually resolved.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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)
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
If that were true...why did Cricket always use CDMA Phones that wouldn't work on AT&T's GSM network?
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?
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
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.
Go prepaid. Half the cost, same networks.
Once Washington State gets on the case, you know the corporations quake in their socks and sandals.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
(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.
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".
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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).
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
That's the best AT&T's vaunted legal strategists could come up with?
"You're not the boss of me, FTC!"
/facepalm
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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."
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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. :)
Let me guess... LG G3? If so, unfortunately, it won't solve the certificate error issue, at least in my experience.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.