AT&T Begins Warning High-Volume Data Users of Upcoming Throttling

[SJBMusic]

Except that you were never promised to get 100% of the available bandwidth. You were promised to get as much data USAGE (bytes) as you want. They may be throttling the avaiable BW if you're an abuser, and you may not like it, but rate was never a part of your "unlimited" plan.

Most of you don't even understand what you are arguing.

You and Miles can keep trying, but as I've already quoted from AT&T's own Customer Agreement, I know what I'm arguing. Show me something that says that only the data amount is unlimited, and not the data over time.

Here's another nugget from the Customer Agreement: "Actual network speeds depend upon device characteristics, network, network availability and coverage levels, tasks, file characteristics, applications and other factors. Performance may be impacted by transmission limitations, terrain, in-building/in-vehicle use and capacity constraints."

Nowhere there does it mention any limitations based on their whim, or that they will impose additional limitations.

Show me that you know what you're arguing.

 

[Jfondren3]

I highly doubt AT&T is using this 5% thing to continuously push the bar lower and lower. This sounds like how Comcast was being very nebulous about data usage before they finally instituted a cap. AT&T is likely trying to avoid making a target for people to hit. Crappy, but it is what it is.

As for those claiming they aren't getting what they promised: last I checked, advertising is not a binding contract. Read your contracts. It's been a long time since I read mine, but I'm pretty sure there is language in there to the effect of you agreeing to AT&T reserving the right to use network management to limit excessive use. If you signed the contract, you can't legally say you aren't getting what was promised. Yes, the advertising IS stupid. With this I do agree. "Unlimited" is quite obviously not the right way to advertise the service. But before accepting the service, you all had the opportunity to understand what you were agreeing to. The whining in here comes off as unfounded entitlement, IMO.

----------



Except unlimited users aren't getting throttled at 1GB, and once they (capped users) hit 2GB, they start paying for each extra gigabyte, whereas unlimited users do not.

----------



"Unlimited" advertising was never based on data rate.

No they aren't limiting me at 1GB, they are throttling me at roughly 10-11GB which is well under unlimited, so in that respect it's only fair that people on the 2GB data package get throttled half way through their use since I will be restricted way before I hit half of mine, since there is no halfway point for me. I don't feel bad or even care about all the people who have to pay more once they hit 2GB a month. It's not my fault that they didn't get the unlimited plan when it was available or that they changed their plan so they couldn't be grandfathered in. I was here when the plan changed and I have stuck to what I originally signed up for, so I expect to get what I have been paying for.

 

[SJBMusic]

Data allowance -- not data speed.

The data allowance is defined as the point beyond which you are either shut off, or else you start paying overage fees. The data allowance of an unlimited plan is, and always has been, infinity GB -- in any given month while the plan continues to exist, you'll never reach a point beyond which you're either shut off or required to start paying overage fees.

Data speed is just data allowance over time. It is another aspect of data allowance. You can't take data downloads out of the time factor that makes it possible.

And if my data allowance it to never be cutoff, then neither should the time it takes to acquire it. Throttling is a limit.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

No they aren't limiting me at 1GB, they are throttling me at roughly 10-11GB which is well under unlimited, so in that respect it's only fair that people on the 2GB data package get throttled half way through their use since I will be restricted way before I hit half of mine, since there is no halfway point for me. I don't feel bad or even care about all the people who have to pay more once they hit 2GB a month. It's not my fault that they didn't get the unlimited plan when it was available or that they changed their plan so they couldn't be grandfathered in. I was here when the plan changed and I have stuck to what I originally signed up for, so I expect to get what I have been paying for.

AT&T doesn't care, either. You can go to another carrier and pay a similar price for similar performance, who will also most likely throttle you at some point, if they even offer "unlimited" at all.

Are you really going to risk that? I think they are betting you won't.

 

[RebelScum]

You must be very disappointed at "All you can eat" restaurants as you begin to load your backpack up with food to take home because you can eat it eventually.

Well that's asanine. I'm not asking to take the ~data I'm not using over to Sprint if I decide to go next door.

Seriously, under current technology, 10 GB of cell usage is a little out of control. People like that make my service worse. They should either pay more use less. It isn't unfair.

ATT dug their own grave on that. If they couldn't support an unlimited plan, they shouldn't have offered an unlimited plan. Those under contract should expect to have the contract honoured by the supplier.

It is literally as simple as that.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

You could use the hdmi connector to stream Netflix and Hulu to your tv through your iPhone.

And then you go with why are you not using wifi.

I agree 10-11 gigs is quite a bit in a month and I find most people going that high tend to be tethering quite a bit.

 

[Stratus Fear]

No they aren't limiting me at 1GB, they are throttling me at roughly 10-11GB which is well under unlimited, so in that respect it's only fair that people on the 2GB data package get throttled half way through their use since I will be restricted way before I hit half of mine, since there is no halfway point for me. I don't feel bad or even care about all the people who have to pay more once they hit 2GB a month. It's not my fault that they didn't get the unlimited plan when it was available or that they changed their plan so they couldn't be grandfathered in. I was here when the plan changed and I have stuck to what I originally signed up for, so I expect to get what I have been paying for.

Your post makes no sense. It's akin to saying Smart car drivers should be limited on gasoline purchases after they buy five gallons because you use 200 gallons for your Chevy Suburban every month and started to get your purchases limited because our pipelines are running out of oil.

The reality is that we use a finite resource. Some of us are paying for what we use. Some are trying to abuse the system.

Edit: I realize it's not the best analogy. Gasoline is purchased by the gallon, whereas in the case of unlimited data, we do not all purchase by the gigabyte. For the sake of argument, assume you pay a fixed price for gas and ask yourself if your abuse of the system is fair. The correct answer is "no it isn't."

 

[Jfondren3]

AT&T doesn't care, either. You can go to another carrier and pay a similar price for similar performance, who will also most likely throttle you at some point, if they even offer "unlimited" at all.

Are you really going to risk that? I think they are betting you won't.

I will risk going to another carrier as AT&T isn't my first and only cell phone provider. I started with sprint and quickly switched to verizon before finally coming over to AT&T. It's not a matter if I will jump ship, but how many others will do the same.

 

[dodgerbluetx]

You and Miles can keep trying, but as I've already quoted from AT&T's own Customer Agreement, I know what I'm arguing. Show me something that says that only the data amount is unlimited, and not the data over time.

Here's another nugget from the Customer Agreement: "Actual network speeds depend upon device characteristics, network, network availability and coverage levels, tasks, file characteristics, applications and other factors. Performance may be impacted by transmission limitations, terrain, in-building/in-vehicle use and capacity constraints."

Nowhere there does it mention any limitations based on their whim, or that they will impose additional limitations.

Show me that you know what you're arguing.

It's right there in your own post.

 

[noisycats]

How is it "false"?

Sure, but there is something called FALSE ADVERTISING

I don't ever recall being offered unlimited forever.

Hell, I'm happy ATT still allows me to be grandfathered because they are under no obligation to do so. They could just as well say with my next contract renewal, "Sorry, that option is no longer available".

 

[dodgerbluetx]

Data speed is just data allowance over time. It is another aspect of data allowance. You can't take data downloads out of the time factor that makes it possible.

And if my data allowance it to never be cutoff, then neither should the time it takes to acquire it. Throttling is a limit.

Again, you have no clue here, it's quite evident.

 

[Stratus Fear]

It's right there in your own post.

Not to mention that "other factors" as stated in the contract takes care of this situation as well.

 

[Glideslope]

12GB per month? Streaming porn for sure...
Get off the internet, Reverend and try a social life...

Yup. Or really into National Geographic Wild Cams.

 

[SJBMusic]

You must be very disappointed at "All you can eat" restaurants as you begin to load your backpack up with food to take home because you can eat it eventually.

Seriously, under current technology, 10 GB of cell usage is a little out of control. People like that make my service worse. They should either pay more use less. It isn't unfair.

Hmmm... So AT&T saying you can get it eventually is the same as the restaurant saying you have to get it now. Sorry, I don't get it. (I do, really, but kind of a reverse example.)

Current technology should make it no big deal for AT&T to provide true unlimited access to the masses for a reasonable price. Instead of fixing their network problems, they are imposing limitations on those who are supposed to be unlimited. Why people would defend them for that is unfathomable to me, regardless of whether there is a difference in data amounts or data speeds. (And there is only the narrowest distinction - one can't exist without the other with current technology.)

 

[gretafour]

I agree with the school of thought that says "Unlimited" needs to become a regulated term. This seems analogous to the difference between food labeled "Natural" and food labeled "Organic". The difference there is that one means something, and the other means nothing.

There is plenty of regulation when it comes to quantifiable terms, and considering the meaning of "Unlimited", I see a need for regulation here. To put it simply, "fair use" policies are simply contradictory to the term "unlimited". A carrier should not be able to tell you they're giving you one thing, and then in the find print admit that they are not actually giving you that thing. That is called a scam.

 

[yg17]

Or they could invest more in the network... With the record profits they're making.

Like it's just that simple. People who bitch and complain about poor service are the same that bitch and complain when a carrier wants to build a new tower near their house to improve service, and they throw a fit about how they don't want a big ugly tower anywhere near their house. All them money in the world won't get you past the NIMBYs and all of the red tape.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

This is such bs. Fair usage? No, your paying for unlimited not kind of unlimited. I agree that the 5 percent is going to keep on shrinking until normal usage is included. Sprint will save us though, they are going to get so many customers because they dont throttle usage

And you still have unlimited. They're not cutting you off or charging you more after you reach X amount of data transferred a month. And if you thought AT&T was bad, just wait until Sprint lets iPhone users on their network with unlimited, unthrottled data. The network will go up in flames.

 

[SJBMusic]

Again, you have no clue here, it's quite evident.

Show me how throttling is not a limit, and we'll be done.

 

[dolphin842]

I'm surprised to see so many here blaming the users. 12GB of usage for your only internet connection is hardly much. Remember that there are many people in rural places who can't get wired broadband and must rely on wireless.

So who's at fault here: the user or AT&T? Here's one way to break it down. Assuming an average throughput of 2 Mbps (could be higher, but then again not every webpage load maxes out the connection):

2 Mbps / (8 bits per byte) = 0.25 MBps

12,000 MB monthly transfer / 0.25MBps = 48,000 seconds of network usage @ 2 Mbps

48,000 seconds = 800 minutes = 13.3 hours

So AT&T's claim here is that their network can't handle 5% of its customers using their 'unlimited' connection for less than 14 hours per month at 2Mbps. Either their network is woefully under-provisioned, or their claims of dealing with network congestion are less than genuine.

 

[jackc]

The people using 10+ GB are threatening to leave AT&T, but I doubt they'll miss them very much.

Although they should have just put a cap on it instead of calling it unlimited, and it would only affect a tiny number of users.

 

[noisycats]

Current technology should make it no big deal for AT&T to provide true unlimited access to the masses for a reasonable price.

And your background to be able to make such an assertion is what precisely?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Show me how throttling is not a limit, and we'll be done.

You can still use as much as you want, only it will be less because it's slower so it is still unlimited.

 

[SJBMusic]

It's right there in your own post.

"Network, network availability,... and capacity constraints" are not definitions of throttling. They are real limitations that already exist on the network, not justification for AT&T to apply artificial limits.

----------

You can still use as much as you want, only it will be less because it's slower so it is still unlimited.

Ummm... No.

Slower is a speed limit.

Try again.

 

[AppleScruff1]

"Network, network availability,... and capacity constraints" are not definitions of throttling. They are real limitations that already exist on the network, not justification for AT&T to apply artificial limits.

----------



Ummm... No.

Slower is a speed limit.

Try again.

Of course slower is a speed limit, but you can still use as much as you want as long as it is at a snails pace.

 

[yg17]

I'm surprised to see so many here blaming the users. 12GB of usage for your only internet connection is hardly much. Remember that there are many people in rural places who can't get wired broadband and must rely on wireless.

So who's at fault here: the user or AT&T? Here's one way to break it down. Assuming an average throughput of 2 Mbps (could be higher, but then again not every webpage load maxes out the connection):

2 Mbps / (8 bits per byte) = 0.25 MBps

12,000 MB monthly transfer / 0.25MBps = 48,000 seconds of network usage @ 2 Mbps

48,000 seconds = 800 minutes = 13.3 hours

So AT&T's claim here is that their network can't handle 5% of its customers using their 'unlimited' connection for less than 14 hours per month at 2Mbps. Either their network is woefully under-provisioned, or their claims of dealing with network congestion are less than genuine.

The million dollar question is, are those people out in the boonies using their 3G connection as their only source of broadband actually using every single byte of that data on their phone, or are they jailbroken and tethering? My guess would be the latter, and in that case, since tethering is not allowed on the unlimited plan, they should be lucky that AT&T is just throttling them rather than forcing them into the 2GB plan.

 

[SJBMusic]

And your background to be able to make such an assertion is what precisely?

How about the fact that they are actually able to currently do it, they just aren't happy about it?

It is just a greed factor for AT&T. I'm all for the company making money, but they shouldn't choke out their top 5% of their customers just so they can pull an extra $50+ per month out of them. That's what this really amounts to.