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."
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.
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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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?
Ahhh AT&T, doesn't want to be classified as Common Carrier unless it helps them get out of a lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds.
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."