Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Suffers Another Blow In Court Over Throttling of 'Unlimited' Data (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A federal judge has revived a lawsuit that angry customers filed against AT&T over the company's throttling of unlimited mobile data plans. The decision comes two years after the same judge decided that customers could only have their complaints heard individually in arbitration instead of in a class-action lawsuit. The 2016 ruling in AT&T's favor was affirmed by a federal appeals court. But the customers subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the arbitration decision, saying that an April 2017 decision by the California Supreme Court "constitutes a change in law occurring after the Courts arbitration order," Judge Edward Chen of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in the new ruling issued last week. The state Supreme Court "held that an arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and therefore unenforceable," Chen wrote.
AT&T argued that the court shouldn't consider the new argument, saying that plaintiffs raised it too late. The plaintiffs could have made the same argument before the April 2017 Supreme Court ruling, since the ruling was based on California laws that "were enacted decades ago," according to AT&T. Chen was not persuaded, noting that "there had been no favorable court rulings" the plaintiffs could have cited earlier in the case. "The Court also finds that Plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence once there was a ruling favorable to them," Chen wrote. As a result, the plaintiffs can now proceed with their case in U.S. District Court against AT&T. However, AT&T will appeal Chen's latest decision, presumably in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
AT&T argued that the court shouldn't consider the new argument, saying that plaintiffs raised it too late. The plaintiffs could have made the same argument before the April 2017 Supreme Court ruling, since the ruling was based on California laws that "were enacted decades ago," according to AT&T. Chen was not persuaded, noting that "there had been no favorable court rulings" the plaintiffs could have cited earlier in the case. "The Court also finds that Plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence once there was a ruling favorable to them," Chen wrote. As a result, the plaintiffs can now proceed with their case in U.S. District Court against AT&T. However, AT&T will appeal Chen's latest decision, presumably in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Stop calling plans with limits 'unlimited'.
Throttling, data-caps, whatever else are still limits.
WTF! Go away!
After its all said and done. AT&T gets hit with a slap on the wrist fine. Fine em $12, that'll teach em not to do it again.
The exact problem is - you cannot PAY for an unlimited plan which is truly unlimited. I understand your rage against those who may use more than you feel is their rationed share, but it's a fact - the users who might WANT to pay their fair share cannot. No carrier offers what they would like to have. At best, the carriers offer EVERYONE unlimited and limit it.
Let's be honest here. Nobody wants to pay for it.
And Google Fi offers all you can eat. Others may too; I don't care enough to check ((shrug))
If the plan promises !10Mbps unlimited, then the plan needs to provide 10Mbps 24/7 as I FUCKING PAID FOR IT!
That doesn't mean that they can restrict(LIMIT) my service 25% of the way through the month because they don't feel like providing the service that they sold me. They sold the service. I paid them for the service. They must deliver the fucking service!
Oh look, a conserv-tard shill.
You can get unlimited data at "full speed" on many plans. You just have to pay by the GB. It's rather like you can get unlimited electricity at your house (bounded only by the amps of service you have - i.e., max bandwidth), you just pay by the number of KWH you use if you use a lot.
This thread seems to be infected with a huge number of AT&T shills trying to defend the indefensible.
Bandwidth isn't free, pumpkin.
It is if you're AT&T.
This thread seems to be infected with a huge number of AT&T shills trying to defend the indefensible.
Speaking of AT&T internet. Does anyone know how much their $40 (1 year) 50Mbps fiber really costs? I think I'm at $69 with charter, and they are refusing to give me another deal. I figured they might be more agreeable after a year away.
is a nice piece of Pai to help things along
The exact problem is - you cannot PAY for an unlimited plan which is truly unlimited. ... At best, the carriers offer EVERYONE unlimited and limit it.
The carriers COULD divide the available backhaul bandwidth at the edge routers, moment-by-moment, proportionally among the subscribers currently trying to use it, with those on capped plans stopping at their caps and any remainder distributed among those who haven't reached their caps. Further toward the backbone, any traffic would be divided among flows (ignoring the identity of the users of the flow) by the normal internet protocols' bandwidth-at-bottleneck sharing procedures. If they did this, oversubscription issues would be distributed fairly and I doubt there'd be complaints.
ANY other limit on the "unlimited" users is, IMHO, an obvious violation of the advertised and contracted service level. Doing it to the customers deliberately would be consumer fraud.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is IMPOSSIBLE to let everyone download unlimited data at 10Mbps all the time - IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Also, the plan is probably called "10Mbps, unlimited data" or some shit. In my example the comma is there for a reason.
You can hate the marketing departments all you want, but it won't change hardware limitations of the networks, whatever ISP you're using.
#DeleteFacebook
I'd say the bigger news is that binding arbitration clauses were struck down in California. Expect AT&T to take this to SCOTUS rather than let it stand.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Youâ(TM)re ignoring the fact that the paper work the customers sign (and itâ(TM)s really not that much, about 2.5 pages - theyâ(TM)re also automatically emailed a digital copy) has all the stipulations about the plans. I work in their sales department. I donâ(TM)t like that itâ(TM)s called unlimited, however all the information about the plans is there to be read and every ad Iâ(TM)ve ever seen about the unlimited plans says something like âoeafter 22gb AT&T may slow speedsâ. There are many people that are willfully ignorant and only see what they want to see. I make sure my customers know the details about their plans, but I canâ(TM)t speak for everyone.
Donâ(TM)t forget that literally every major carrier does the exact same thing - itâ(TM)s not just AT&T.
http://www.al-awa2el.com/%D8%A...
Yes thats the only way. Call it 100gb, 500gb, 10tb. So the user will know and its all ok. Ozgun ve kurumsal logo tasarim www.alkapgo.com
Definition of unlimited
1 : lacking any controls : unrestricted unlimited access
2 : boundless, infinite unlimited possibilities
3 : not bounded by exceptions : undefined
Every attempt made by AT&T to restrict the amount of data sent to your device is a clear violation of the definition of "unlimited". If they want to re-brand their plans, then thats fine. You cant however, take a word that is commonly used and well defined and then create an alternative marketing definition for the word.
It's like why they have to call Froot Loops "Froot" instead of "Fruit" as "Fruit" implies that there is actually "fruit" in it.
It's the exact same debate about boneless wings....they have to be called "wyngz" if they do not use 100% wing meat. The problem is that people were using breast meat, which is not wing meat, and then calling them "wings".
Using marketing mumbo-jumbo to redefine commonly used terms to make people think they are getting something they arent is patently false advertising.