Slashdot Mirror


T-Mobile Fined $48 Million By FCC For Mischaracterizing 'Unlimited' Plan and Throttling Users' Data (bloomberg.com)

T-Mobile will have to pay $48 million in fines after reaching a settlement with the FCC over the way it promoted its unlimited data plans. T-Mobile's unlimited data plans don't charge you for going over a certain data limit, but the carrier can slow down connection speeds after you reach a certain threshold. From a Bloomberg report: The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday announced the settlement, including a $7.5 million fine and $35.5 million worth of discounted gear or data for customers of third-largest U.S. wireless carrier T-Mobile and its MetroPCS unit. An investigation found that company policy allows T-Mobile to decrease data speeds when customers on plans sold as unlimited exceed a monthly data threshold, the FCC said in a news release. The agency heard from hundreds of "unhappy" customers who complained of slow speeds and said they weren't receiving what they were sold, according to the news release.

151 comments

  1. A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is infact a limit, so the FCC is correct - the plan is not unlimited.

    1. Re:A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So I guess it would be impossible for any company to offer unlimited anything since there will always be some sort of limit.

    2. Re: A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's constantly available and there are no limits on when you can use it. In one very clear use of the word unlimited, the plan is unlimited.

      I thought they were very clear about the throttling. This is ignorant people being upset because they aren't smart enough to understand their plan.

    3. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1
      It depends on whether you take "unlimited" to mean that it has no limits, or whether you take it to mean only that no limits have been imposed by the provider. In a notion of a "limited" plan, the provider decides what those limits are, and either directly limits usage to within those limits, or else charges the subscriber a larger fee for exceeding them. Note, in this case, it is not physical infrastructure that is imposing any limit, but rather, it is a particular policy that is being used by the service provider. "Unlimited" therefore, should reasonably mean only that no such policies are utilized by the provider, and that the provider is not taking any action to actually "limit" the subscirber's usage beyond what provider's infrastructure could have otherwise provided for an arbitrary user.

      The difference depends on whether you take the words "limited" or "unlimited" to be adjectives describing a plan, or transitive verbs that operate on a plan.

    4. Re:A speed limit by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A speed limit is infact a limit, so the FCC is correct - the plan is not unlimited.

      So you're demanding unlimited speed? Good luck with that.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, thanks FCC. I would not have guessed this. Now, if only there were competitors and a free market so I could choose among numerous caries. Oh well, TMOBILE now knows $40 million in fines, or $10 million in bri...campaign and foundation contributions.

    6. Re: A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... What kind of shitty fine is this? All their customers suddenly decided to start throttling their payment to 10%.

    7. Re:A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also depends on what is/isn't "unlimited".
      I always took it to mean the amount was Unlimited.

    8. Re: A speed limit by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      ... and the court sides with the ignorant. It's always been quite clear to me, and it's not just T-Mobile.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:A speed limit by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Does a really unlimited service actually exist? In US market? A side question - do US authorities punish anybody else these days than companies coming from German speaking countries?

    10. Re:A speed limit by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether you take "unlimited" to mean that it has no limits, or whether you take it to mean only that no limits have been imposed by the provider. In a notion of a "limited" plan, the provider decides what those limits are, and either directly limits usage to within those limits, or else charges the subscriber a larger fee for exceeding them. Note, in this case, it is not physical infrastructure that is imposing any limit, but rather, it is a particular policy that is being used by the service provider. "Unlimited" therefore, should reasonably mean only that no such policies are utilized by the provider, and that the provider is not taking any action to actually "limit" the subscirber's usage beyond what provider's infrastructure could have otherwise provided for an arbitrary user.

      The difference depends on whether you take the words "limited" or "unlimited" to be adjectives describing a plan, or transitive verbs that operate on a plan.

      This is "precedent" in the future. Now the definition will be clearly defined or fine print enlarged/bolded. Actually, they probably won't do any of that, but hey. Precedent! I expect all of us will get mailings (non T-Mobile customers) about the specifics of our data plans just to cover ass.

    11. Re:A speed limit by geek · · Score: 1

      A speed limit is infact a limit, so the FCC is correct - the plan is not unlimited.

      So you're demanding unlimited speed? Good luck with that.

      No just the maximum speed allowed by the technology. Is it really that hard to understand or are you being purposefully ignorant?

    12. Re:A speed limit by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      A speed limit is infact a limit, so the FCC is correct - the plan is not unlimited.

      So you're demanding unlimited speed? Good luck with that.

      This being Slashdot, I think it's high time we had a car analogy!

      Imagine I built a race track for cars. I advertise nationally that my track is "unlimited" - anyone can go as fast as they can manage to achieve in their car for as long as they want on my race track as long as they pay their entry fee. It's one of the biggest advertised draws for my track. Then, when customers show up with their car and have already paid their fee, I install a governor in their car that will cap their car's top speed if they've been going really fast for longer than I'm uncomfortable with. After all, at speeds that fast they're tearing up my track and hogging its usage, and that's not fair to everyone else who wants to use the track.

      The issue isn't that people couldn't achieve the speed of light on my track. The issue isn't even that I wanted to solve the problem of overuse of my track by a few people. The issue is that I told everyone that my track was something that it isn't and I never bothered to qualify my statement until my service had already been sold.

    13. Re:A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay I'll just drive forever on your track and when you say it's closing time I'll complain it's not ~unlimited~

    14. Re:A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They need to say what they mean when they advertise.

    15. Re:A speed limit by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Well from my experience with T-Mobile, my unlimited plan is unaltered for 4g. I hit around 90gb transfer in 1 month with no slowdown. Then again, I'm on some wonky legacy plan, so that is probably why.

    16. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case the deprioritization (read: not throttling) isn't a limit imposed by the provider, it's a method of minimizing the number of people affected by the physical limits of the network by deciding who bears the brunt of that impact.

      And the end result is less network congestion and better speeds for everyone on the network. Yes, that includes the heavy users who get deprioritized, as it allows the lighter users to finish their downloads and get off the network faster.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    17. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The maximum speed allowed by a congested link (this is deprioritization, which has no effect when bandwidth is available; it's not throttling, which would take effect even if you were the only user) approaches zero as more users hop on at the same priority level, for every user.

      Deprioritizing the heavier users increases speeds for everyone by allowing the lighter users to finish their downloads faster and get off the network, freeing up bandwidth for the heavier users.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    18. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting that it's not necessarily an essential thing for the ISP to do for the good of the largest number of people, but the choice to throttle high capacity users beyond what their network could have otherwise handled at the time based only on the amount of prior usage by those subscribers is still a choice of the provider to *limit* the activity for those people to certain levels. In that sense, throttling cannot be considered unlimited because the provider is actively choosing to limit its usage, even if they are only doing so by imposing speed limits on it, those limits are an artifact of a *policy* that the company chooses that is outside of the parameters of the service that it offers, in the same sense that any limit that the ISP would have on an expressly limited plan is likewise only an implementation of a similar policy.

      It is absolutely no different than an electric company raising rates at certain times of day to discourage people from using too much electricity.

      Companies are perfectly entitled to do this, of course...and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be calling something "unlimited" when they are actively choosing to limit it, even if what they are limiting is not affecting when they could use the service or how often... it is affecting how much they will be able to utilize out of the service that would not have otherwise applied to anyone else, and so in that sense, it is most definitely a limit.

    19. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      You keep saying "throttle". I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously when you keep referring to prioritization/deprioritization as throttling, as they're two distinctly different actions. That said, I'll do my best.

      It is absolutely no different than an electric company raising rates at certain times of day to discourage people from using too much electricity.

      Actually, it's entirely different. If an electric company reduced the availability of power to heavy users when local load was high, well, that'd be no different. In fact, that's precisely what many electric companies are beginning to do with things like HVAC cutoff devices and it's a damned sight better than what some (including my local utility, PG&E) have been doing for years with structured rolling blackouts independent of individual usage.

      To flip it around, what you describe is exactly what HughesNet does for their satellite internet service. You pay for between 5GB and 50GB of data each month, which can be utilized 24hr/day, but they make the hours of 2AM to 8AM effectively cheaper by giving you a 50GB bucket of data that is only available during those hours.

      If you think T-Mobile and HughesNet are doing the same thing, you're too hopelessly far gone to be saved.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    20. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I have no issue with companies that impose limitations on usage of their services on anyone for any reason they see fit to impose them on. I have an issue with companies that call services "unlimited", when they *do* impose limitations on the usage of their services over and above whatever limits may have physically existed in the first place to support the infrastructure. Those limits are nothing but a policy decision, and I again have no dispute with companies that wish to implement such policies, but by the exact same reasoning that any so-called "limited" plan has limits imposed on it by virtue of policies decided by the company, any plan that they can fairly call "unlimited" should be entirely unencumbered by *any* such policies. If it has policies that create limits (even if they are only speed limits and not time or usage limits) on what they would otherwise call a limited plan, how can they continue to call that plan unlimited in the first place?

    21. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Right... You're missing the point entirely.

      The only limit to T-mobile's unlimited 4g (not the tiered plans for which they do state limits) is their network capacity. They prioritize based on usage, but that's not a limit, it's prioritization and, in fact, it improves network performance, even for the deprioritized users, by reducing competition for a scarce resource when there's not enough to go around, allowing lighter users to finish their downloads faster and get off the network sooner.

      There is no speed limit here, nor a time or usage limit.

      Consider this: If they didn't have the deprioritization policy, excessive congestion on a given tower would result in a completely unusable connection for everyone. Giving a subset of users priority to allow them to get off the network sooner avoids that; it effectively increases the speed limit for everyone by more efficiently utilizing the available bandwidth, which is limited by physics.

      If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    22. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      "flooding the network"... heh..

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    23. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If two people are paying a particular rate for a particular service, as long as they are operate within the parameters that the service allows, they should always be receiving identical (or nearly identical) levels of service at any given time. If there are parameters that can be exceeded by a given userr such that the level of service is altered for that user only, then those parameters are limits on that service, and the service cannot reasonably be called unlimited.

    24. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather have contention prevent anyone from using the service, rather than network management that allows everyone to use it?

      From your previous posts, it seems as though you think there's a speed limit or throttle placed on users exceeding 26GB when this is, in fact, not the case.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    25. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      When that network management is being used only for subscribers that have exceeded certain thresholds, then those thresholds are, in fact, limits on the levels of service offered by the plan that they paid for, and the subscribers whose packets have been deprioritized have been relegated to an alternate plan while others are unaffected. I have no problem with companies that want to do this, what I take exception to, however, is when the companies call them "unlimited" when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize such a plan before they relegate that subscriber to a a different level of service than what others who might be paying the exact same amount for the same service might enjoy at the exact same time.

    26. Re:A speed limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you call it a mallard, it's still a goddamn duck.

    27. Re:A speed limit by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I am suing the city because they posted a 45 MPH speed limit on main street and I hit traffic and I couldn't do 45 MPH. Oh, and an ambulance went by they were able to get through traffic faster than me. How dare the city limit my usage of the street!

    28. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize

      Funny, I routinely hit 50+GB and have never run into an imposed limit. The limit is that of the network itself, a physical one, minus everyone else's traffic. Implementing some form of contention control ensures that I'm consistently able to access what many people refuse to accept as a scarce resource.

      It's not like wireline or fiber, where you just run more cables and everything is good; wireless bandwidth is, really and truly, a scarce resource. Network management is not limiting usage, it's enabling it. That some ISPs *cough*Comcast*cough*AT&T*cough*Time Warner*cough* implement usage limits and hard throttling and call it network management does not make it so.

      The reality is that T-Mobile queues the packets of heavier users behind those of lighter users, but it does not drop or refuse those packets (not that would be a limit), and it does deliver them before connections time out (save for network issues, where they would time out regardless of priority).

      I get what you're saying, though. I do. It's just logically impossible. You want everyone to be deprioritized equally when there's congestion and, well, if everyone starts out at the highest priority and they, simultaneously, all drop to the lowest priority, they're all still the same priority, there is no hierarchy, everyone's still equal, there's still contention and everyone is still trying to talk over everyone else and the network is still completely unusable.

      I'm sure there are providers who do this. Go find one, switch to them, and tell me you still want that.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    29. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      A duck always quacks. A mallard always quacks.

      A throttle always slows your connection. Deprioritization queues some packets behind others, but results in faster speeds for all users.

      This is not a duck.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    30. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If that contention control is implemented after your usage exceeds some threshold, then they are limiting the amount of your usage without any contention control. They should be allowed to do this, but they shouldn't say that it is unlimited, when they are, in fact, putting a limit on how much you can transfer without contention control, which is a different level of service than what another subscriber would have received at the exact same time on the exact same plan as you if they had simply not previously downloaded as much data as you had.

    31. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      You're always affected by the contention control, you never transfer so much as a single byte without it. You benefit from it when you're not the one being deprioritized, by being placed ahead of those who are; and you benefit from it when you are being deprioritized, by actually having available bandwidth due to the contention control being implemented in the first place.

      I'll repeat: contention control actually effectively increases the limit of overall available bandwidth (e.g. you get faster speeds no matter which side of the priority queue you're on) by preventing people from talking over each other and causing massive floods of retransmitted packets.

      I would agree with you if anyone were receiving worse service as a result, but the reality is quite the opposite.

      I'm not sure how many different ways I can word that, but I feel as though I'm just repeating myself at this point. Since I'm already repeating myself:

      If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.

      It's literally the opposite of a limit; it enables everyone to use more data. Period.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    32. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If they are deprioritizing your traffic only after you exceed some threshold then that threshold is certainly and quite literally a *LIMIT* on that level of service, and they are relegating you to a different level of service after that point. While physical limits to usage will always exist, those limits apply to everybody equally, regardless of what level of service they have paid for, and are not artificially imposed upon you by a policy that the company has chosen to follow, even if that policy only exists to maximize the overall throughput of the greatest number of subscribers.

      I have a cell phone plan with unlimited nation-wide calling anytime... I pay extra for this service, and I regularly make use of it. if the company decided to change my terms of service so that if should make too many long distance calls that month because they determine that they don't have the capacity to allow me to make the number of calls that I am and still provide acceptable service to other customers, and so they started limiting the quality of service for my phone calls for the remainder of that billing period, as reasonable as it might be for my cell phone service provider to do this, they aren't offering me the same package that I signed up for, are they? How could they continue to call it unlimited when they are imposing a hard limit on it

    33. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      What you're missing, the point I'm really trying to drive home, is that deprioritizing heavier users increases available bandwidth for everyone, even the heavy users . This is true because it frees up bandwidth that would be wasted by the contention it prevents.

      A limit, in the context of a service, is something that reduces your ability to utilize the service. This increases your ability to do so, regardless of which side of the queue you are on, ergo not a limit.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    34. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for. That they wouldn't be able to continue to get such service during periods of heavy congestion anyways is irrelevant because all users are affected equally at those times, and that is not a limit imposed directly by the provider but by the underlying physical architecture and the real-time demand for it.

      You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.

      My objection is not that providers do this... my objection is only that they call a package "unlimited" when they have actually set a real limit on how much you can use it without deprioritization before they start deprioritizing your packets.

    35. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for.

      I'm not missing that at all, actually. As I've stated previously, deprioritization increases the overall available bandwidth by eliminating retransmits caused be contention; that is, it stops people from having to talk over each other and repeat themselves, so everyone can talk, hear, and be heard. Without it, when there is congestion, throughout quickly approaches zero, for everyone; with it, everyone gets their data.

      It's a logical fact that some (and I mean explicitly some, not all) users must be deprioritized when there is contention over limited available bandwidth (e.g. congestion) in order for the network to remain usable. If you deprioritize every user equally, you may as well have done nothing, the contention remains, and nobody can use the resource.

      You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.

      And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.

      That is a limit. Properly implemented QoS, which is what T-Mobile has here, is a workaround for that limit.

      You very clearly aren't capable of understanding this. Again, I don't fault you for that, it's not something that's obvious (or, really, believable) unless you've actually seen it in action as I have. I'd say we should just agree to disagree, but I can't do that with someone whose opinion is based on a factually incorrect understanding.

      It appears we're at an impasse, here.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    36. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.

      That is a limit.

      True... but that is not a limit that is determined by the provider, that is a limit created only by whatever threshold the current demand exists on the service is as it approaches its own limitations to provide that service. It is limited in the sense of "limited" being an adjective, but it is not "limited" in sense of it being a verb because the provider is not actually limiting anything... the only limits that apply are physical limitations that the provider themselves is just as subject to as any of their customers. If a provider does not have the capacity to cope with the threshold of so-called unlimited bandwidth users without affecting everybody's ability to use the service, and if continued quality service for the largest number of their customers is genuinely important to that company to the point that they will deprioritize packets of particular customers based on their historical patterns of usage rather than only on whatever current demands they are placing on their network, then that company should not call the service unlimited in the first place. And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.

    37. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.

      Whereas, with properly implemented QoS, as we have here, nobody's usage suffers during periods of high or low congestion.

      I'm done trying to educate you, though; you simply do not want to learn, because to do so would require you to admit you were wrong. Peruse my posting history and see what that looks like.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    38. Re:A speed limit by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Deprioritized packets = inferior quality usage to what one would otherwise have received at the time. So yes... somebody's usage suffers, even if that suffering is for the good of the many, it is caused by a policy that the ISP decided upon rather than by the physical demands that are being placed upon the network at the time.

    39. Re:A speed limit by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      Well, I was going to be done with you, but you've finally made clear which part of this you aren't understanding.

      Deprioritized packets = inferior quality usage to what one would otherwise have received at the time.

      Wrong. When there is no congestion, priority doesn't have any effect and it doesn't matter of you're at the front of the queue or the back. However, when there is congestion, if left unmanaged it causes packet loss as more packets try to fit through the "pipe" than can actually fit, which leads to retransmits; that is, everyone's talking and trying to be heard, bot nobody can really hear anyone else, so everyone keeps repeating themselves. All of this just exacerbates the congestion, as more and more packets are dropped and begin the re-send cycle. It's a snowball effect, at first it's just one dropped packet being resent, so that packet has now been sent twice, but in that time 10 more packets were dropped and must be re-sent; and some of those re-sent packets will get dropped, so they'll have to be sent a 3rd time, maybe a 4th or a 5th, until you've got so many packets not making it through that the bulk of your traffic is retransmits. Eventually, those retransmits will exceed the available bandwidth (on top of new traffic which is already exceeding that physical limit) and the majority of those will be dropped, as well.

      In that situation, once the snowball has gotten itself rolling, nobody gets any of their data until everyone shuts up and lets the noise die down. And nobody is coordinating to allow that to happen, so it never does unless network management is applied, to force the issue.

      By queuing the packets of some users, you prevent this contention for bandwidth and avoid the dropped packets and eventual retransmit storm.

      To be clear: left unmanaged, heavy users get nothing (just like everyone else) on a congested node; managed, they get the data they request.

      Did you, after I've explained it several times, honestly not understand that? Or are you attempting to claim an unusable connection is of superior quality to one that is stable and usable?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  2. AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    AT&T does this, too. Are they gonna get slapped down for this, too?

    1. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The new "unlimited" plans clearly state that your connection will be throttled at a certain point. That should give them cover going forward.

      This ruling is on plans where the customer was not told they would be throttled.

      At least that is my understanding.

    2. Re: AT&T by Khyber · · Score: 2

      No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.

      If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:AT&T by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

      Depends on the terms of the contract and how it was marketed. There is now precedent, so feel free to go after them if this has happened to you

    4. Re: AT&T by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Any technically-competent person would realize that there are always limits. There is a limit to how much data you can download in a pay period regardless of whether you are being throttled. "No-Throttling" and "unlimited" don't mean the same thing, because "unlimited" is either impossible or incoherent, and "no-throttling" is something that is realistic.

    5. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T Mobile has always been clear that they throttle you too, but you are unlimited at that throttled speed. You pay for the 4G / high-speed data usage (like 1GB or 10 GB) -- after you hit that cap, unlimited throttled data for free.

    6. Re: AT&T by tsqr · · Score: 1

      No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.

      If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.

      The ATT advertisements I've seen don't use "unlimited" or any other term that implies "no limit". What they do advertise is "no data overage fees".

    7. Re: AT&T by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot if you can't fix unlimited to a specific item. It's like an all you can eat buffet; they advertise all you can eat WITHIN TWO HOURS (or some places, an hour; My place did two) or you advertise that you can eat all you ca which is heaped upon these massive plates.

      If you think otherwise, you've been brainwashed and need to get back in touch with reality.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The device can be used an unlimited amount of time, the data rate changes. The terms were very clear.

      The population is dumbing down, but are judges and lawyers becoming functionally illiterate too ?

    9. Re: AT&T by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem here is that words mean things. And when the carriers throw out words like "unlimited", when what they're selling is not in fact unlimited; they are being duplicitous. And they absolutely deserve to be slapped down for that. And whether a technical person should know that they are lying does not change the fact that they are lying. Remember, not everyone is a technical person. If they'd just spell out EXACTLY what they are selling at EXACTLY the price they're charging upfront, with no "gotchas" buried in the fine print, there'd be no issue.

      Honestly? They're dumb data pipes, like any other. There's no good reason they should be treated like anything else. And I wish they'd stop trying to imagine themselves otherwise and just sell me bandwidth like any other provider: Give me guaranteed and burstable Mbps rates; and sod off as to whether I use it for voice, data, video, music, tethering, VPN, running a web or email server, or just downloading Linux ISOs to /dev/null 24/7 because I can.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    10. Re: AT&T by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot if you can't [incoherent rambling that doesn't address or suggest comprehension of what actually I said]

      WTF are you talking about?

    11. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is more like an all-you-can-eat buffet that, if it's your 10th trip to the omelette station, makes you wait for other diners to get their meal before number 11. Still all-you-can-eat, but with stipulations.

    12. Re: AT&T by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "what they're selling is not in fact unlimited"

      I think the term "unlimited" should never be used. The laws of physics always limits a person to a finite amount of bandwidth. Also, customers are always throttled to some degree. No system allows a customer to download 500 exabytes a day. That sounds like there is a limit.

    13. Re: AT&T by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that words mean things. And when the carriers throw out words like "unlimited", when what they're selling is not in fact unlimited; they are being duplicitous. .

      Oh, just shut up, you whiny liberal bitches. We paid for our monopoly, fair and square. How we choose to exploit it is our business. Besides, "free market". Right?
      Regards,
      Your Friends at Big Telco

    14. Re: AT&T by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Unlimited "data" can mean many things. The most simple definition, "You can download as much as you want and you'll never be cut off or charged overages" is one T-Mobile met.

      Unlimited by all attributes, including bandwidth, is technically impossible. Bandwidth available will never be infinite, and will even vary depending upon the number of other people using the network. I doubt anyone subscribes to an unlimited mobile phone plan and expects them to be able to stream the UHD version of PBS twenty four hours a day.

      I don't think it's unreasonable for use of the word "Unlimited" to describe a system where the user can download as much as they want during the month, but if they hit certain usage levels that would cause problems for other users they may find the experience less optimal than it would otherwise be.

      That said, there is a legitimate debate as to what that might be. T-Mobile's current version where if you use over a certain amount of data, your service is de-prioritized seems semi-reasonable, though even there I'd expect a minimum level of service to be maintained.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC's job is to protect the consumer who isn't savvy. If tons of customers are buying an unlimited service and are surprised when their service is throttled then it's very possible that the provider isn't doing a good enough job communicating with them. T-mo could have branded their service as "No data cap" instead of "unlimited" and been fine. The FCC is just saying that T-mo needs to improve how it discloses the throttling to customers so they aren't surprised in the future.

    16. Re: AT&T by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Yes words mean things. Unlimited means something. It means something that no ISP ever could possibly deliver.

      Every ISP is going to reach network capacity at certain times and be required to make a decision about who gets throttled. T-Mobile decides to give a priority to people who have not already transmitted a lot of data. Another ISP may decide to throttle everyone on the network at any given time equally. Or maybe they will just always pre-throttle everyone to the point where they can basically guarantee that everyone can access their data without further throttling

      Let's say you have capacity to transmit 6 packets a second. We have 2 customers A, and B that can transfer data at 4 packets a second (pps). If they never try to transfer at the same time, then they can always go at full speed. But what do you do when they want to transfer at the same time?

      Scenario 1:
      Fair throttling base don instantaneous rate
      Both A and B are throttled to 3 pps whenever they are both transferring.

      Scenario 2:
      Fair throttling based on total data sent over time.
      Throttle the person who has sent the most data to 2 pps
      Let the other person go at 4 pps until they become the heavier user

      Scenario 3:
      Throttling based on ensuring consistent quality of service:
      Throttle both A and B to 3pps at ALL times, even if they are the only one using the network.

      Which one is more fair? It is subjective, but the point is that there is not way to deal with the demand on a network exceeding supply other than limiting the amount of data that some people can get.

      None of them are "unlimited". They all employ some type of "throttling" strategy when at network capacity (although Scenario 2 is what is most associated with ISP throttling).

      My point is not that T-Mobile is right in advertising "unlimited" data, but that a savvy customer should be skeptical of the term "unlimited data" and find out specifically what this means, because it certainly can't mean getting data any time you want at unlimited speed.

      In the case of T-Mobile, I don't even think they ever specify data rates at all other than vague terms like 4G and 3G, which refer vaguely to the generation of network rather than the actual rates. You can have a really slow 4G connection.

      You can have a throttled connection on a fast network that's faster than an unthrottled connection on a slower network.

      It's not that T-Mobile advertised something and didn't deliver it. It's that they advertised something vague and/or impossible.

      People are mad because they have an expectation of how fast/consistent their connection would be and their experience didn't match their expectation. I'm saying that terms like "unlimited" don't do anything to help clarify expectations in any scenario, with or without throttling.

      Maybe ISPs could present a standard set of statistics like:
      minimum rate, maximum rate, data cap

      Gold Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = none
      Silver Plan: min: 1 Mbps, max 15 Mbps, cap = 2 GB then throttled to min: 0.5 Mbps, max: 1 Mbps, cap: none
      Economy Plan: min: 0. 5 Mbps, max 0.5 Mbps, cap = none

    17. Re: AT&T by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      An all-you-can-eat buffet. Are you really so dense you can't see the parallel between that and "unlimited"?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    18. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words mean things, but they also have context. Every "limited" data plan talks about "1 GB" or "3 GB" or "50 GB" of data. The context is therefore the quantity of data consumed, not the speeds. So when T-Mobile said "unlimited" they were quite clearly in context talking about the quantity of data. They were also (at least when I bought the plan years and years ago) absolutely up front that while the data amount was unlimited, they reserved the right to throttle down the speeds if that usage exceeded more than about 5GB / month.

    19. Re: AT&T by magarity · · Score: 2

      T-Mobile is very clear that they mean there is not an amount of data beyond which a user will incur additional fees or penalties. Such an amount would be a limit. Their advertising is completely true for that meaning of unlimited. They are quite up front with this; it is not buried in the small print that over a certain amount the user's speed may be throttled. This is fine is definitely a case of some crybaby nitpicking definitions. I've had every one of the major carriers and T-Mobile is the only one that's not only easy to understand but actually has this kind of plan for a long time now. I'd like to know if some congresscritter who gets big donations from ATT or Verizon called the FCC to "look into it".

    20. Re: AT&T by Immerman · · Score: 2

      As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.

      Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.

      Still, it would be really nice to see "unlimited" plans disappear completely. With the exception of the not-artificially-limited plans customers actually expect: No matter how much you download, you'll always be treated just like every other customer. Yeah, there's still technical limitations, but if you object to technical limitations, "unlimited" becomes a completely useless word in almost every context, not just phone plans.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could this be that they are Germans and did not bribe the party A or/and B and this decision is just a reminder that they should behave?

    22. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.

      Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.

      You're describing the plans T-Mobile previously marketed as limited....

      A "3 Gig" plan meant 3 GB at LTE or 4G speeds, with no charge for overages (but overage got throttled to 2G speed, regardless of congestion).

      The plans they previously marketed as unlimited were different...

      Unlimited at LTE or 4G speeds, but if you transferred a certain (very large actually) amount, then your traffic after that was given lower priority, so that your speeds were more affected by congestion.

      To distinguish these behaviors, they called the first "throttling" and the second "deprioritization".

      Honestly, that's about as close as you can get to "unlimited" while still retaining some semblance of fairness.

    23. Re: AT&T by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.

      If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.

      Agree, but disagree on a point... "Unlimited" is the volume of data that you can use in a month (in those companies' eyes). The public understand it as that, as well. "Unlimited without throttling" is another definition that involves speed+amount are both unlimited (I can't imagine what that plan would cost). Having said that..

      In the future, I'm sure companies other than T-Mobile will offer Unlimited without throttling, but have random slowdowns that they can limit by node (so your friend sitting by you pulling the same data at the same time will also be "slower") so it doesn't look targeted with proof. The companies will say it's natural bandwidth limitation (hey, you wanted unlimited so now everyone's overusing) and unless tech stats are pulled and reviewed, it's not arguable. Unless there's a whistle-blower.... and.... Scene!

    24. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile is very clear that they mean there is not an amount of data beyond which a user will incur additional fees or penalties.

      That was true on their "limited" monthly data plans as well. Only the pay-as-you-go data plans actually had unbounded fee increases.

    25. Re: AT&T by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Go take some college courses and learn critical thinking if you can't draw a parallel between "all you can eat" and "unlimited" you technological crackhead.

      Actually, correction; go back to middle school to re-learn basic reading comprehension.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re: AT&T by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.

      It is not triggered by congestion, but the purpose of it is congestion mitigation. Throttling people to 3G speeds when the network is not congested is dumb. But this practice is pretty much standard for all ISPs. If you have a 5 Mbps cable internet plan, it's not like they let you go at 100Mbps when there is no congestion.

      Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.

      I agree. But I think the term "unlimited" is misleading, because all plans from every ISP are limited in some way. So seeing "unlimited data" in an advertisement, doesn't tell you anything. You have to look at what that means specifically.

      Still, it would be really nice to see "unlimited" plans disappear completely. With the exception of the not-artificially-limited plans customers actually expect: No matter how much you download, you'll always be treated just like every other customer. Yeah, there's still technical limitations, but if you object to technical limitations, "unlimited" becomes a completely useless word in almost every context, not just phone plans.

      I would love to see "unlimited" advertisements be replaced by a clear specification of what the limits are by all ISPs.

    27. Re: AT&T by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "No system allows a customer to download 500 exabytes a day."

      You've obviously never managed a bank of Camfrog video chat cloud servers. One good fully-loaded Asian server can knock out 300 exabytes within 24 hours.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re: AT&T by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think T-Mobile is relatively clear compared with other carriers. But they, as well as most ISPs, could be clearer.

    29. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst analogy ever.

    30. Re: AT&T by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Telling someone to go back to middle school to learn how to comprehend incoherent sentences is pretty laughable. I have a degree in computer science from a reputable university, but still I only know how to decipher properly formed sentences.

    31. Re: AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you can't fix unlimited to a specific item.

      You're the idiot if you think it's okay to lie. "Unlimited" has a specific meaning and no amount of spin doctoring by marketing parasites can change that simple fact.

    32. Re: AT&T by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "One good fully-loaded Asian server"

      But could a 'merican server pull those numbers?

    33. Re: AT&T by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      It did say unlimited on AT&T. Infact up until last month when I finally switched off of unlimited, it was on every bill of mine as "Unlimited Data Plan". I switched because "Unlimited" meant I got 2GB of fast data then, everything after that was painfully slow (2G/Edge), and the 5GB plan was cheaper, and it did essentially the same thing. 5GB of LTE/4G, then I get throttled back to 2G/Edge.

    34. Re: AT&T by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Before the move to the cloud, no. Now, yes, a US server absolutely can.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  3. 48 mil... pocket change by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Do something real, like making them refile for a new corporate charter.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:48 mil... pocket change by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Refiling for a new corporate charter would cost far less than the current fines. Try using your brain and researching once in a while.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:48 mil... pocket change by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Your cheery response is noted, but they could be rejected.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:48 mil... pocket change by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      How about an extra 2 or 3 zeros instead. How much does T-Mobile make per year in profits?

      For the full-year 2016, T-Mobile expects Adjusted EBITDA to be in the range of $9.7 to $10.2 billion, up from the previous guidance of $9.1 to $9.7 billion.

      https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/...

      So 48 mill is right around 5% of their yearly income. If they were just doing this in the U.S. you can exclude their international income, and the number starts to sound more reasonable. Take away any profit they could've made with their illegal maneuver, and an extra slice on top for being jackasses. Then the question is just how big to make the slice so that the message gets through (hint: may not be possible).

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:48 mil... pocket change by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe my numbers are bad. Cf. https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:48 mil... pocket change by qeveren · · Score: 1

      In 2014 (most recent year I found numbers for) before income taxes they made ~$413 million in profit (revenue, obviously, was much much higher). After tax it was ~$247 million. So the total fines work out to be on the order of 12-20% of their yearly profits.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    6. Re:48 mil... pocket change by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Your cheery response is noted, but they could be rejected.

      I like your style!

      Unfortunately, there are always decision makers to be "bought out".

  4. "Fines" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All they will do is pass it along to the customer.. Nothing to see here.

  5. No sense by jwymanm · · Score: 1

    This kind of makes no sense. You'd have to be living in a cave to not know that they throttle your service after a certain amount. I'd much prefer that than being cut off or forced to pay extra like Comcast is/will be doing for "unlimited service". *That is as long as the throttle was sufficient to use the Internet*. Some ISPs (not all) think a couple mbps is still good enough for an entire family. Fining Comcast for 2.3 million while they were actually stealing money from customers for services they did not ask for.. what the hell? This will just go towards eliminating unlimited tiers.

    1. Re:No sense by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      This kind of makes no sense. You'd have to be living in a cave to not know that they throttle your service after a certain amount. I'd much prefer that than being cut off or forced to pay extra like Comcast is/will be doing for "unlimited service". *That is as long as the throttle was sufficient to use the Internet*. Some ISPs (not all) think a couple mbps is still good enough for an entire family. Fining Comcast for 2.3 million while they were actually stealing money from customers for services they did not ask for.. what the hell? This will just go towards eliminating unlimited tiers.

      You have a good point, but I can only see abuse-picking by limiting of resources, like they would do what dialup providers did in the old days (circa 1995). If there was too much use and people were complaining about busy signals (in this case read: "my wireless data xfer is so slow"), you would knock the longest time online users off to allow slots for others.

      In this case, it could be a system of: sure, allow unlimited for everyone... But, after a week or less, people would complain about how slow their unlimited data is and companies could respond with "Ah. We see someone who is pulling 50mbps and has been for over an hour now, we'll block their data access for 5 minutes (or until they call in)." A war will start over what "need" is -vs- "want" and yadda yadda... things would become more restricted for everyone or end up where they are now.

      It's a hopeless battle because people want something that they can't get unless companies have the money and desire to provide a medium capable of giving them what they want. That's where the confusion lies. I have "unlimited data" but it's a "just in case". When I'm at work or home, I turn on the WiFi. Unless I, for some reason, lose all access to the 'net, I don't know why I would need (or even want) 80mbps up to and over 17gb of data (my cutoff at this moment due to my less use and 'rollover' which I didn't even ask for). I don't see using LTE as a "money savings" of $49.99/mo for my 50mbps hardline 'net at home being logical or viable.

  6. Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To someone who makes minimum wage $48 million is devastating. To a multi billion dollar company, $48 million is barely an itch. That's the equivalent of a $100 speeding ticket to them; annoying, but it won't stop you from speeding again.

    1. Re:Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure this? Do you have their financial records?

  7. Something's missing by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I feel like there's something more to this story.

    T-Mobile's "unlimited" plans are what I use, and they've always been pretty straightforward about what that means... They don't hit you with a hard-stop limit, but after a particular chunk of full-speed data, they cut you back to "3G speed". All of their marketing material that's I've paid attention to has stated that plainly (to an engineer), in print that wasn't particularly small.

    I can't say I've ever found the advertisements to be particularly misleading (or the policy to be particularly limiting), but I'm not as touchy as some consumers are, I guess.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Something's missing by almitydave · · Score: 2

      Yeah, same here. We have a 3GB/line plan, but they've always been clear that you can use more than that but at a slower speed. I've only ever seen marketing to this effect. Were they offering something somewhere without including that disclaimer? That'd be surprising to hear, as they're generally quite up-front about the conditions. As for those saying "unlimited means unlimited, and any limit of any kind means they're lying", well, no, they've specifically said the amount of data is unlimited, not the speed. Two different things.

      More worrisome to me is that they just announced they're going to implement throttling of wi-fi tethered data when the network gets "busy", which seems a clear violation of net neutrality. What happened, T-Mobile? You use to be cool!

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    2. Re:Something's missing by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Naturally I commented before RTFA. T-Mobile was doing exactly this, see CheeseTroll's comment below.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    3. Re:Something's missing by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't call something unlimited if they limit your speed after a specific amount of data has been transferred. They should call it a "26 gig plan with no overage charges".

    4. Re:Something's missing by ichthus · · Score: 1

      All-you-can-eat shrimp is still all-you-can-eat shrimp, even if the fifth plate is served slower than the first four. In T-mobile customers' case, it's still unlimited data, even if some of the data comes through slower than it did before you hit 4 gigs.

      --
      sig: sauer
    5. Re:Something's missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very happy with my T-Mobile Pre-paid $50/month 5gb @ 4G LTE Unlimited plan. I've always known I get throttled after I hit 5gb.

      "Unlimited" is marketing for: "we don't turn it off or charge you more after you hit the limit". This is an industry standard definition. The only reason the FCC went after T-Mobile is because they were undercutting Verizon's more expensive plans.

    6. Re:Something's missing by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      That tethering limit was explained to me as a permanent throttle, not just when the network gets busy. Maybe they've changed it. Honestly, I'd switch to them in a hot minute if they didn't screw with tethering, even knowing about the 26 gig threshold for throttling. I wish wireless carriers would get over their tethering prejudice. It's childish.

    7. Re:Something's missing by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      I just looked. It now says, "Tethering at Max 3G speeds." That's a step up from the 2G they stated the last time I looked.

    8. Re:Something's missing by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Me too. They always said they would throttle it after some amount. They have lots of different plans though, maybe they forgot to put that language on some of them. Or maybe this is just government indulging whiny trolls looking for freebies. It could be either one.

    9. Re:Something's missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Ting, which considers all of your data to be data. Tethering or not tethering is up to you. If you hit 26 GB, though, it may not be ideal for you. Rate chart

    10. Re:Something's missing by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      But your analogy fails. Going from an LTE average of 12 Mbps to 250 kbps max. By your analogy it be like going from typical 5 minutes wait per plate to 4 hours minimum for the last plate. You would validly be ticked off if your server disappeared into the kitchen for 4 hours would you not?

      I am all for the FCC clamping down on the deceitful language and double speak. Don't call something "unlimited", then throttle it to near uselessness.

      The cellular carrier make very high profits, yet rather than invest in a denser network to match customer usage they resort to throttling and other cost cutting schemes along with rapacious data prices to make their existing wimpy networks keep shambling on. Meanwhile they market themselves with claims of blazing fast speed that can burn through your data cap in mere minutes. The FCC is the 20 lb gorilla we have, I wish they would bulk up and bring more sanity to the whole situation.

    11. Re:Something's missing by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      That tethering limit was explained to me as a permanent throttle, not just when the network gets busy. Maybe they've changed it. Honestly, I'd switch to them in a hot minute if they didn't screw with tethering, even knowing about the 26 gig threshold for throttling. I wish wireless carriers would get over their tethering prejudice. It's childish.

      I'm on tmobile and I've never seen my tethering throttled. I live out in the sticks and can still get around 10mbps. I'm on the 3G/month plan though not unlimited. When I go over the 3G, my speed still stays fast as it just switches to my data stash. If I used a heavy amount every month and emptied my data stash then presumably I would be throttle at that point but my tethering speed is the same as my phone speed.

    12. Re:Something's missing by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I use Ting, which considers all of your data to be data. Tethering or not tethering is up to you. If you hit 26 GB, though, it may not be ideal for you. Rate chart

      Tmobile does too for most of their plans. The only plan they separate it on is their unlimited plan. Their unlimited plan has a cap on the amount of tethering data but the rest of their plans the plan cap can be used for any combination of tethering up to 100% tethering data without a problem.

    13. Re:Something's missing by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      All-you-can-eat shrimp is still all-you-can-eat shrimp, even if the fifth plate is served slower than the first four. In T-mobile customers' case, it's still unlimited data, even if some of the data comes through slower than it did before you hit 4 gigs.

      No. Not really. It's kindof like how someone discovered that netflix by mail used to put people at the back of the line that requested a lot of dvds per month. If this is publicized, fine, but otherwise it's deceitful. To use your example of all you can eat shrimp, if after the first plate you had to wait 20 minutes for each additional plate then really the max you can eat in an hour lunch period is around 3.

    14. Re:Something's missing by mmell · · Score: 1

      Agreed and seconded. Don't get me wrong - I was pretty unhappy when I spotted the throttling clause (and they described it as being throttled back to "modem speed" IIRC. Actually an overstatement on their part in my experience; even throttled, the connection is usable for basic network functionality).

    15. Re:Something's missing by Holi · · Score: 1

      Yeah but I really don't consider 128kbps to be 3g speeds. That is what T-Mobile throttles your connection to. I just had to deal with it.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    16. Re:Something's missing by almitydave · · Score: 1

      I have a backup phone with Ting, and am this close to switching over. I just have to disentangle our multiple lines from our T-Mobile family plan in a coordinated fashion.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    17. Re:Something's missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unlimited" is marketing for: "we don't turn it off or charge you more after you hit the limit".

      Sadly, yes.

      This is an industry standard definition.

      It's a lie.

      All industry members telling it should be fined, hard, until they stop.

    18. Re:Something's missing by umghhh · · Score: 1

      This is an industry standard definition.

      It's a lie.

      All industry members telling it should be fined, hard, until they stop.

      They maybe should but they will not. What does that tell you?

    19. Re:Something's missing by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      They never said 3g speeds, they said 2g speeds from the very first day of their Simple Choice plans.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    20. Re:Something's missing by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      There's a very good chance that I'm remembering it incorrectly as 3G, when really it's supposed to be 2G. It's been a very long time since it affected me enough to care.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    21. Re:Something's missing by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Likewise here. It affected me for an hour the first month I was with T-Mobile, several years ago; then, I upgraded to unlimited.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  8. I thought this was obvious? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been a T-mobile customer for several years, and I thought it was pretty obvious that they'd throttle the data when you reached your plan's threshold. Did they, at some point, market the plans as "unlimited data at 4G speeds"? Or are certain customers being deliberately obtuse?

    Beats the heck out of getting cut off completely, or worse - getting charged a zillion bucks for data overages.

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    1. Re:I thought this was obvious? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 4, Informative

      Like a good Slashdotter, I originally posted without reading the article, but then went back and read the details.
      Sounds like this applies to their "unlimited" plan which was not clear that they'd *eventually* throttle that plan, too.

      FTA: "T-Mobile failed to adequately inform its unlimited data plan customers that, under a “Top 3 Percent Policy,” their data would be slowed at times if they used more than 17 gigabytes in a given month, the FCC said. It said the company had agreed to update its disclosures to better explain who may be affected."

      Oops.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    2. Re:I thought this was obvious? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "Top 3 percent"? wouldn't that necessarily move the threshold downward over time?

    3. Re:I thought this was obvious? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      Shut up! You're giving away the plan!!!

    4. Re:I thought this was obvious? by hawk · · Score: 1

      That 3% was all over the lace when I went into their store to activate phones a couple of weeks ago.

      I want today that I also initialed it but it may just be that I read things before signing.

      And it's not even automatic throttling at that point, but rather lower priority on the available bandwidth: if there's enough bandwidth you still get LTE.

      Im also looked at MetroPCs, which was quite clear that their data was lower priority on the network than Tmobile accounts.

      hawk

    5. Re:I thought this was obvious? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      OK, thanks for RTFA because I didn't, but let's now get at how this deserves a fine of $48 million? Especially if we're talking about the "top 3 percent," which could easily be interpreted as people who are abusing the service?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:I thought this was obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a cash grab by an over-reaching government agency.

    7. Re:I thought this was obvious? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No. Why would it?

    8. Re:I thought this was obvious? by Beetle+B. · · Score: 2

      Must be a different plan than mine.

      Mine is "Unlimited Data", but very clearly states that it will be throttled after 5 GB. It's not hidden or in fine print.

      --
      Beetle B.
    9. Re:I thought this was obvious? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If you're in the top 3 percent of data volume, then throttling reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus the top 3 percent of data volume becomes lower.

      If you're in the top 3 percent of users, then throttling moves reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus others would fall into the usage range of the top 3 percent of users, and the spot group of top-3%-users would become volatile. This would bring more users's use downward, increasing this effect until they cluster together enough to not drag down further.

    10. Re:I thought this was obvious? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yes, if if was the top 3% of users, it wouldn't continually move lower, it would reach an equilibrium. It it was the top 3% of volume, it would also reach an equilibrium.

    11. Re:I thought this was obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to have thought this through. Throttling reduces your data volume, but never below the threshold since that's when throttling kicks in. To affect the 97th percentile of a distribution, you need to move some data points from above to below the 97th percentile value.

    12. Re:I thought this was obvious? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If it were the top 3% of users, it would reach an equilibrium well-below the top 3% of typical user demand.

      If it were the top 3% of volume, it would reach an equilibrium at the maximum volume possible at the throttled speed, as that is eventually the amount of use below which you cannot reduce by throttling, and any use above that would eventually push you into the top 3% as the top users are drawn downward.

      They're throttling customers in the top 3% of data usage, rather than data users. Supposedly the mean data usage is around 2GB currently, so 17GB at less than 3 standard deviations out seems ludicrous.

    13. Re:I thought this was obvious? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And that clear warning might be because the FTC came calling. This is one of the reasons we need the FTC because without them companies start doing shit like hiding these types of conditions or costs until after the customer is signed up. The FTC isn't saying T-Mobile can't do what they did, what they are saying is you can't advertise one thing and provide another, it's called bait and switch and it's been illegal for longer than anyone alive in the US.

    14. Re:I thought this was obvious? by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      And that clear warning might be because the FTC came calling.

      Doubt it. It's been this way since 2012.

      --
      Beetle B.
  9. Drosselkom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telekom has been trying to throttle in its home country germany back in 2013. It failed.

  10. They didn't conceal this by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Their data policy is right there in their name: T-Mobile, ie Throttling-Mobile.

  11. Looks suspicious to me by ninthbit · · Score: 1

    Being paranoid, I'd venture that AT&T and/or Verizon pulled some weight to have them nag T-Mobile. Now that LTE is prolific/mature on all four networks, their real advantage over T-Mobile and Sprint is dying away.

  12. Slaps on the wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to cut the hand off.

  13. GrumpyCat by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 0

    Good.JPG

  14. They make it pretty clear by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    T-Mobile made it pretty clear, this is what they did when signing up. I think it's a better solution than exorbitant fees, when you're unaware you crossed a threshold.

  15. Haven't we covered this before? by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    Over the last year or two, T-Mobile has redefined and even re-labeled what their unlimited plan means. Regardless, they have always been absolutely forthcoming about detail changes. Although I can see where that might get confusing, especially for customers who renew into a new plan without realizing it. So I guess it must be a slow day at the FCC.

    On a personal anecdote, I very recently ditched my business plan for AT&T after a T-Mobile business rep tried to sell off my unused lines for a full year cash up front. Same rep then managed to deactivate my primary phone. I filed a complaint and he still works there.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  16. Yeah, ouch. by ashshy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's barely a slap on the wrist for Big Magenta. More of a gentle tickle, really.

    Using free data sources like Yahoo Finance, you can easily see that TMUS collected $33.9 billion in revenue over the last four quarters. $1.1 billion trickled down to become bottom-line profit. This $48 million fine is a rounding error compared to the company's sales and just 4.4% of its trailing profits.

    Put another way, the company has 67 million total subscribers. If T-Mobile paid back the entire fine directly to its customers, it'd be a grand total of 72 cents each. Please sir, may I have another?

    --
    #o#
    O Moo.
    1. Re:Yeah, ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So T Mobile will assess a $1 fee to each customer to cover this fine and collect the additional profits. Sounds like a good plan on their part.

  17. It's unlimited! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Unless you hit this limit.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  18. Corporate Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's odd that the most honest (least dishonest) of the carriers is getting slapped with a fine, when my wife, who's technical competency is right on track for a 3rd grade teacher, figured it out very quickly from reading the marketing material. However, AT&T deliberately defrauds their customers and continues to get away with it. I guess T-Mobile needs to buy better lobbyists.

    1. Re:Corporate Fraud by umghhh · · Score: 1

      If this is a subsidiary of t-mobile in Germany then no ,they cannot or rather they can but then they would be violating the law and possibly get punished by German authorities. Siemens had that problem already. Not all industries are so loved by German government as the banks and car makers.

  19. settle down grandpa! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, do these sound like the actions of a man who has had all he can eat?

    It's sad, we have a whole generation who've never known that the Simpsons used to be funny.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  20. "Unlimited" != unlimited by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 2

    Let's get some truth in advertising please? Anything less than full bandwidth 24x7 should not be called "unlimited".

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    1. Re:"Unlimited" != unlimited by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Let's get some truth in advertising please? Anything less than full bandwidth 24x7 should not be called "unlimited".

      Don't be silly. 24x7 at full bandwidth is still limited, unless "full bandwidth" is infinite. And if network bandwidth were infinite, then they'd be guilty of selling you a phone that limited your usage because it couldn't exploit that infinite bandwidth. You shouldn't be satisfied until you can download the entire Internet instantaneously, endlessly; then you can turn your attention to bitching about the quality of the content.

  21. PAYG Plan User here - buy 1G data7 days; 0 kbps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PAYG Plan User here - buy 1G data for 7 days only to find that t-mobile coverage maps are worthless. I seem to always be roaming-data and they don't allow that with PAYG plans.

    Did 3 weeks in Alaska - paid for data, got ZERO.
    Did a week in rural NC mtns - paid for data, had ZERO ... and ZERO phone coverage too.

    They refused to refund money because I had used 20kbs (CSR had me test it). Talk about a sham.

    At this point, t-mobile has burned me twice. I won't be fooled again and will only use the $3/month stuff.

    Guess t-mobile really is the un-carrier.

  22. Synonymically Deceptive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep reading comments where people say that it's unlimited but throttled. Throttling and limiting are synonyms... why are people using the two words like they're not? If you have unlimited anything it means it's not throttled. If you have unthrottled anything it means it's not limited. Using these terms in a way to suggest they are not synonyms I believe is the reason for the underlying deception.

    1. Re:Synonymically Deceptive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about context. Unlimited was always in the context of data limits on cell networks which were always about quantity not speed. Just like AOL's old unlimited service didn't imply max line bandwidth all the time either, just unlimited hours.

  23. greedy managers are the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that only we in Russia so)))

  24. Slapped down? by dfm3 · · Score: 1

    At $48 million they're not being slapped down. that's not even a slap on the wrist. It's more like shaking your head from across the room, then following up with a quick wink and tiny nod.

    1. Re:Slapped down? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      At $48 million they're not being slapped down. that's not even a slap on the wrist. It's more like shaking your head from across the room, then following up with a quick wink and tiny nod.

      Comments along this line always make me wonder: is the set of people who believe that these companies leave no stone unturned in their evil quest to wring every possible cent from each customer, the same set of people who believe that these companies don't care about paying a $48 million fine?

    2. Re:Slapped down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sets a precedent.

  25. Were they not completely transparent? by hackel · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that T-Mobile US, unlike its competitors, was actually completely transparent about their plans and policies. Am I missing something? They specifically offered different data amounts labeled as "high speed data", with the unlimited data always being at a lower speed. I don't see the problem here, or why they should be fined. Now, if they had a secret cap that they didn't tell their customers about up-front, or only in the fine print, like other carriers, that would be serious. This just makes no sense to me.

    I really think T-Mobile has the right idea with their offering, I just wish they offered a way to toggle whether high-speed was on or off. High-speed data is of little use to me on a phone. I know it is to other people, and that's great, they can pay for that. All I want is the ability to get directions, send/receive IMs and email, and ideally enough to do VoIP or low-quality video chat. T-Mobile already offers high-speed streaming of music and video from most major sites that don't count against your high speed data limit.

    I know I sound like a total corporate shill here, and that's not my intention. I just hope that the FCC is targeting the worst offences, and this doesn't seem to be one of them.

    1. Re:Were they not completely transparent? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      People are complaining that the unlimited 4g plan is throttled after 26GB. People are wrong, though, because it is not throttled after 26GB, just deprioritized. What that means is simple: if bandwidth is available, you get it; if it's not, other people have dibs.

      The end result is that lighter users get off of congested towers faster and free up bandwidth for heavier users, rendering everyone's connections faster.

      The $48mil fine is the result of idiots not knowing the difference between throttling and deprioritization.

      I say this as a T-Mo user who tops 35GB each and every month. No, it is not a throttle; if it was, I'd be throttled at least 25% of the time but, as I'm typically not on overcrowded towers, I've never actually been impacted by the deprioritization. Not once since they implemented it years ago. If they were throttling, I'd be complaining; since they're actually protecting my available bandwidth, I'm not.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  26. equivalent to a few bonuses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    48 million is similar to what they are paying as bonuses to a few top execs. A paltry fee to pay.

  27. 48 million? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    T-Mobile: "48 million? Pretty sure I've got that much on me right now. Once sec... Yep. Hundreds good?" (counts bundles of bills) "I was worried there for a minute 'cause I don't have my checkbook with me and I was expecting, you know, a real fine."

  28. neat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neat, when do I get my money back for getting ripped off? Oh, that's right, never. This is just a cost of doing business, what a joke.