ATT is not the bad guy because the terms are unmanageable, but rather because they are grossly disproportionate.
No disrespect but I have no idea what this means. Disproportionate to what?
There are only a handful of companies that still offer unlimited data plans, and if you want to have a GSM iPhone, ATT is practically the only game in town. That makes the smaller (and let's face it, in fine print) terms of a contract non-negotiable for the customer. As a matter of fact, I bet it takes you more than 5 minutes to find the precise fee schedule in your contract (page, paragraph, and line). Did you read all the terms in your contract? Do you really sit there and read all 50, 75, or even 200 pages of boilerplate that gets stuffed into a wireless contract?
There are two GSM providers, not including the the carriers that resell ATT or TMO services. TMO, not ATT is the only one offering unlimited plans (ATT grandfathered accounts aside)
As far as the contract, did YOU read it? There is no price schedule written into the 17 page contract. The pricing of the contract is available online in the form of your rate plan. In the real world, pricing schedules are almost always added as addendums. Because you can change your rate plan at any time, it would be foolish for ATT to write your rate plan into an addendum each time you decide to change your rate plan, add a feature or remove a feature. You would end up with a 100 page document by the end of your contract.
At some point we have to say that what is unreasonable can't be included in the terms of the contract. ATT might have written into my contract that I have to deposit 20lbs of lamb meat every fortnight. Should that be an enforceable term in a contract? What if the ETF was 3 times the total value of the contract? What if the contract stated that data would be counted at twice the rate for outgoing traffic?
ATT, or any other company for that matter, wouldn't write something so ridiculous. Even if they did, that 20lbs of lamb would be part of the consideration of the contract and cannot be hidden in some random section. If it were, that portion would not be enforceable. The "fine" print people are so scared of and talk about is never in the contract, its in the promotion that brought you in. Contracts are laid out clearly if you ever read one. You see, in order for a contract to be valid, there have to be certain contained within 1) An agreement 2) between competent parties 3) based on the consent of the parties 4) that is exchanged for or supported by consideration 5) for a lawful objective.
Is your world so black and white that nothing exists outside of a document you yourself have never read in entirety?
I work with contracts and lawyers every day. Contracts exist so there is no grey area. Oh, you're wrong... I have read that contract word for word. Do you always make stupid assumptions or is everything in your life one big irony?
There is a big difference between overdrawing on an account and using 1% more data that is generally available. When you overdraw on your account, the $1 has to come from the bank's reserve of credit. The same applies for a credit card, which is financed by a bank. Granted, it does not cost the bank a full $34 to process the additional $1 of credit, and that's exactly why overdraft fees have been heavily scrutinized lately (and as EricNau pointed out, banks have sometimes lost this fight).
In the case of data on a network, ATT incurs only marginal cost to deliver the additional 2MB. What's more, it can deliver 900 times the amount of data for far less than what this overage fee was. I can understand if ATT implemented a $/MB overage schedule (like how minute overages work, where each additional minute costs you some set rate rather than $15 just for stepping over an imaginary line).
Strangely, we are actually closer to agreeing than disagreeing on this part. What you fail to understand is that these are for profit companies. They are in the business of making money while providing goods and services to their customers. They are under no obligation to you or our government to provide the cheapest fees and waive costs that you don't think is fair.
Do I think bank fees are too high? Sure. I know it doesn't cost a bank $34 to process the $1 "loan" but its also up to the bank to decide what they want to charge me. What do I do about it if I don't want to pay those kind of fees? I don't bounce checks or I change banks. I learned basic addition and subtraction in kindergarten and it still seems to work fine. If I disregard that basic principle, I suck it up and pay the fine. In regards to ATT, it costs them nothing to let someone go over their monthly data but what does cost have anything to do with it? You agree to a plan and they provide the service. If someone goes over than plan, you agreed that they will charge you.
What we have here is a predatory practice made possible because too many people have forgotten that they signed a contract of adhesion. It disgusts me that ATT employs this practice to make a quick dime, but it disturbs me that so many are willing to defend such a grossly distorted fee structure.
Predatory practice? not even close. Last time I checked, people lined up at ATT's doors for their services, not the other way around. The contract and the pricing is clear as day. Again, if you choose to use on every kb of your plan, you better anticipate going over from time to time. And if that happens, you better suck it up and pay. If you don't want to pay overages, get a prepaid plan.
It does. It absolutely does. Customer satisfaction is important if AT&T wants to retain their customers (and I know they do). 
