I would say to AT&T, "prove it". Prove that the extra 1GB of data I used in that one single month adversely impacted your network or service level, or hindered you in ANY way. Prove it.
Because I can guarantee that it didn't!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Clauses in AT&T Contracts Have Always Provided for Limits on 'Unlimited' Data Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would say to AT&T, "prove it". Prove that the extra 1GB of data I used in that one single month adversely impacted your network or service level, or hindered you in ANY way. Prove it.
Because I can guarantee that it didn't!
AT&T works at home where Verizon doesn't. Millions still use AT&T and this throttling debacle won't change that.
We either need nationalized "last mile" infrastructure or to regulate the separation of last mile infrastructure from retail companies. Anything less is just asking for continued buggering from these companies that own this precious and limited commodity.
The thing AT&T did wrong was not tell us what was going on. We were all hearing from message boards and rumor sites that AT&T had started throttling people as low as 1.5GB. This pissed off a lot of people, including myself. That for $30, we weren't at least being given the same amount of data as the $30 limited plan. So, they stirred things up due to uncertainty.
If they had just immediately come out with their now official 3GB before throttling plan, I wouldn't have been nearly as annoyed. I used to actually wish they would do something like this. That it would be an excuse for me to pay the $50/month for the tethering plan. They went about this so wrong, that I now can't wait to leave AT&T.
If they had just immediately come out with their now official 3GB before throttling plan, I wouldn't have been nearly as annoyed. I used to actually wish they would do something like this. That it would be an excuse for me to pay the $50/month for the tethering plan. They went about this so wrong, that I now can't wait to leave AT&T.
Exactly! If ATT can SHOW that the unlimited users using over 3GB/mo are putting negative impact on the network - then they have to STOP SELLING 3G PHONES until they improve capacity! If adding 25,000 new 3G phones a month is not negatively impacting the wireless network, then SURELY some grandfathered user using 6 gigs instead of 3 isn't either!
Bottom line is clear to EVERYONE - Unlimited users are impacting ATT ability to bill for overages.
Nothing complex here! They lost the T-Mobile bid and now want to make up the loss from existing customers!
Once all the carriers are on LTE, I hope to god competition returns... for now - we need more small claims court lawsuits against ATT!
Wow! 6GB/month, lots of porn huh?
Also, I think that the lowest ATT is 200MB and not 300 as stated in the article. I know because I am on it.
Oops, nevermind. updated plans in January. DataPlus: 300MB for $25 instead of 200MB for $15
Quote:
AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network.
Or, in other words, anyone who takes unlimited to mean it's dictionary definition. It seems as if they expressly prohibit the very feature they use to solicit new business: UNLIMITED. An airline that promises unlimited free flights to get you to sign a contract, after which they say that your unlimited free flights would hinder their ability to offer flights to others - so you are now grounded, would not be in business very long.
AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network.
Or, in other words, anyone who takes unlimited to mean it's dictionary definition. It seems as if they expressly prohibit the very feature they use to solicit new business: UNLIMITED. An airline that promises unlimited free flights to get you to sign a contract, after which they say that your unlimited free flights would hinder their ability to offer flights to others - so you are now grounded, would not be in business very long.
Sorry but...
I don't take critique of mobile ISPs from people who think that tethering is a "useful" paid option. Tethering is double-dipping for more profit on the data I've already paid for.
I don't take critique of mobile ISPs from people who think that tethering is a "useful" paid option. Tethering is double-dipping for more profit on the data I've already paid for.
Such BULL *****. How about this ******* T&T. If $30 is 3 gigs, why can't I get 1gig of data for $10? Oh, because that's really what most people need and you won't make as much money. OH and Verizon etc are all the same.
As long as we have media conglomerates that own the "last mile" infrastructure we will het hosed. Despite what we pay every month for broadband our needs will play second fiddle to their entrenched copyright interests.
That's exactly what AT$T did a couple years ago. The grandfathered in unlimited users were grandfathered in ONLY because had they not been the consumer had a right to end the contract without paying a termination fee.
That termination fee is a lot of money to the carriers.
Hey people trying to justify AT&T because of TOC or saying 'nothing is free'... I one thing to say to all of you: AT&T SHOULD NOT HAVE USED THE TERM UNLIMITED. It could have used the term Unlimited* , then clearly shown that there would be slow downs/throttling after 3GB. They could have used "Unlimited until 3GB" or "3G until 3GB". But to just use the word UNLIMITED and having a moving target for what abusive or top 5% is is completely ridiculous and would never hold one day in court, guaranteed.
You can't go to court and say, 'darn, I didn't know we'd sign up so many people and they like using the internet so much, so we started to tell them they were in violation of a new limit they never knew existed.' Wouldn't fly. Sorry AT&T apologists.
You can't go to court and say, 'darn, I didn't know we'd sign up so many people and they like using the internet so much, so we started to tell them they were in violation of a new limit they never knew existed.' Wouldn't fly. Sorry AT&T apologists.
Imagine pumping gas and facing this kind of billing BS. You can only buy in quantities of 1gal for $12, 7gal for $20, or 15 gallons for $30, and whatever fits in your tank, gas station keeps the rest and offers no refunds. If you buy 15, they'll threaten and punish you once you pump the first 7 of it, and if you buy 7 and it's not enough, they charge you $20/gallon til you're full.
There'd be killings.
A company can fool around with whatever it wants, but playing games with people over their billing is the most effective way of angering and alienating your customers and as we see, get sued til you adopt a straightforward approach.
Slimy company. At this point you lost a whole pile of customers for life. Nice work.
There'd be killings.
A company can fool around with whatever it wants, but playing games with people over their billing is the most effective way of angering and alienating your customers and as we see, get sued til you adopt a straightforward approach.
Slimy company. At this point you lost a whole pile of customers for life. Nice work.
Last edited:
The word "UNLIMITED" should not be permitted for use by ANY provider in it's marketing or description of services . It is misleading at the very least and downright purposefully deceiving in this case...
AT&T has culpability here and is trying to play the "innocent"...
It seems to me that in order for this clause to hold up in court, the onus is on AT&T to show that the plaintiff's usage "adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network." However, unfortunately, it does not say that the end-user has to be adversely affecting the network in reality, but AT&T just has to "believe" they are doing so. In any case, I'll remember this next time I sign my contract...with Verizon this time.
I don't mind throttling me so long as AT&T provides me with a detailed breakdown of their network usage in my area and shows how my usage in excess of 2gb, 3gb, etc... in any way affected other users or the network as a whole. As part of that disclosure, I want detailed information about network capacity and usage.
(edit) I do pay for the data I use, I have an unlimited data plan.
(edit2) The bigger issue is why the F doesn't AT&T upgrade their network capacity and/or speed to meet the needs of the people who pay them?
(edit) I do pay for the data I use, I have an unlimited data plan.
(edit2) The bigger issue is why the F doesn't AT&T upgrade their network capacity and/or speed to meet the needs of the people who pay them?
Unfortunately, the contract doesn't say this. It says that AT$T can throttle anyone it "believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network..."
Real mature. I don't think most would mind paying, we just want AT&T to be honest in the contract and in their obligations to live up to the terms of *current* 2 year contracts.