FCC To Fine AT&T $100M For Throttling Unlimited Data Customers

New submitter Wargames writes: According to the article in the New York Times, AT&T is getting fined $100,000,000 for its doublespeak redefinition of the word "Unlimited". The FCC says AT&T failed to adequately notify its customers that they could receive speeds slower than the normal network speeds AT&T advertised and that these actions violated the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order. “Unlimited means unlimited,” Travis LeBlanc, the F.C.C.’s chief of the enforcement bureau, said in a statement on Wednesday. “As today’s action demonstrates, the commission is committed to holding accountable those broadband providers who fail to be fully transparent about data limits.”

Comments

Return to unlimited

[serano]

I used to have one of those "unlimited" accounts but because the throttling was interfering with my work so much, I was forced to "upgrade" to a much more expensive plan. Does anyone know if there will be a path back to the unlimited plans we were pushed out of?

Re:$100,000,000

[rmdingler]

AT&T assumed that their advertising was fine until told otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It doesn't matter how long they evaded law enforcement with double-speak. They were violating the law and should be held accountable for the full magnitude of the crime they've committed. That's how justice works in this country.

"If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." Fight Club narrator

Fines like this are a calculated cost of doing business, to be sure, but they are also an important part of punishment theatre. Companies of this size negotiate fine amounts and punishments as forms of appeasement when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, every Wall Street banker ever, etc.

Re:$100,000,000

[AK Marc]

Why would you fine a person based on revenue, and a corporation based on profit? Either revenue for both, or profit for both would be the "fair" solution.

Re:$100,000,000

[linuxrocks123]

Re the Honduras thing:

The woman convicted was in the US, did no business with Honduras, did nothing other than RECEIVE a shipment of lobsters from a company that had ultimately gotten them from Honduras. She didn't know this: do you know what country the stuff you buy from Walmart ultimately comes from?

And the shipment was in clear containers. And the Honduran government filed a brief saying that that law had been invalidated by the Honduran courts. And she still went to jail.