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.
AT&T CEO's "Only Regret" is Offering Unlimited Data Packages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You never paid for an unlimited amount of food and any restaurant that offers "all you can eat" has in their fine print clauses that allow them to cut you off or refuse service should you return at a later time. You never paid an unlimited amount of money for unlimited data or texts so what gives you the right to use 20 X or more resources than someone who only paid 5 bucks less for a plan without "unlimited" anything?
Last edited by a moderator:
So you're saying that those restaurants are guilty of false advertising??? If it's NOT "All you can eat" then don't PRINT "All you can eat" on your freaking signs because you will get SUED sooner or later for false advertising. Small print cannot say the exact opposite of what is said. That would be like a restaurant advertising a free steak dinner and in small print at the bottom it saying *This is a LIE. There is no free steak dinner at all* and that somehow excuses the bald-faced LIE.
If a company advertises UNLIMITED DATA, then it darn well better be UNLIMITED because otherwise, they're using the WRONG WORDS.
I think it's perfectly FAIR since that's the deal they offered him. If AT&T didn't think it was fair, then they shouldn't have OFFERED an "unlimited" plan in the first place. It's NOT the customer that said they felt like paying x amount for unlimited data. AT&T OFFERED that plan and you're trying to tell us they didn't really MEAN "unlimited" and that's got to be the most ABSURD thing I've ever read in my life. Say what you mean and mean what you say or don't say anything at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Relating wireless data to all you can eat buffets because the amount of food a person can eat remains constant - and there are things that buffets usually do to prevent people from abusing them. For example, some buffets (particularly ones in las vegas) don't have bathrooms inside them, and I'm pretty sure you won't be let back in if you leave to use the bathroom.
On the other hand, data usage will grow with time. Perhaps right now 2GB is more than enough for anyone, but on that same note - wasn't there a quote about how "640k is good enough for anyone"?
What about lossless audio? What if that catches on as a standard for internet radio and things like spotify and pandora? That's pretty heavy consumption right there.
Even then, 2GB is 2048MB, or 16.7 million kilobits. A 128kilobit/second internet radio stream would consume that 2GB of data in 36.4 hours. Could you reasonably listen to 1 hour of internet radio a day? More than likely.
In the future, that stream may end up averaging 384kbit/second (that'd be really good for lossless, really good). Then you'd be getting much less time to listen to internet radio before you blow through your pathetic 2GB cap.
At the end of the day, I think AT&T's CEO should be bellyaching about how stupid and frivolous U-Verse and their stupid fiber-to-the-node service is. The number of failed installations and trouble ticket calls with that disaster of a service must be eating up their profits like no tomorrow.
Just wait till they have to upgrade everyone to fiber. Man.. what a mess.
On the other hand, data usage will grow with time. Perhaps right now 2GB is more than enough for anyone, but on that same note - wasn't there a quote about how "640k is good enough for anyone"?
What about lossless audio? What if that catches on as a standard for internet radio and things like spotify and pandora? That's pretty heavy consumption right there.
Even then, 2GB is 2048MB, or 16.7 million kilobits. A 128kilobit/second internet radio stream would consume that 2GB of data in 36.4 hours. Could you reasonably listen to 1 hour of internet radio a day? More than likely.
In the future, that stream may end up averaging 384kbit/second (that'd be really good for lossless, really good). Then you'd be getting much less time to listen to internet radio before you blow through your pathetic 2GB cap.
At the end of the day, I think AT&T's CEO should be bellyaching about how stupid and frivolous U-Verse and their stupid fiber-to-the-node service is. The number of failed installations and trouble ticket calls with that disaster of a service must be eating up their profits like no tomorrow.
Just wait till they have to upgrade everyone to fiber. Man.. what a mess.
Comcast's cap is an interesting story though - streaming video is their worst nightmare just like online SMS services (such as google voice and now iMessage) are to wireless carriers.
They could increase the cap - but for now they're not going to because that would be a conflict of interest for them. When online video services really take off, Comcast will have to change because 250GB is just not enough for that.
Of course, Apple knows that now - and again they might be the first ones to really challenge it xD I kinda enjoy this. It's like how video chat is becoming quite popular (facetime!) I did my first video chat (with strangers on the internet, no less) back in 98 using dialup. It actually worked fairly well, too!
They could increase the cap - but for now they're not going to because that would be a conflict of interest for them. When online video services really take off, Comcast will have to change because 250GB is just not enough for that.
Of course, Apple knows that now - and again they might be the first ones to really challenge it xD I kinda enjoy this. It's like how video chat is becoming quite popular (facetime!) I did my first video chat (with strangers on the internet, no less) back in 98 using dialup. It actually worked fairly well, too!
Thanks for the backup...haha. I do appreciate it.
To everyone else, as i've stated the entire time, I don't even have a dog in this fight as I have an unlimited data contract with Verizon, not At&t.
However, I still believe that no matter the company, if you have a signed contract with that company for unlimited data, they owe you unlimited, unthrottled, untampered with data for the term of the contract. After the contract has expired, it is well within their right to remove the unlimited aspect or alter the agreement as they see fit. Until then, any other option is a breech of contract and is illegal. As the courts have ruled in recent cases, under contract, the user is owed unlimited, unthrottled data. They signed a contract, and the burden is on them to uphold their end. They have yet to prove with actual data, rather than broad assumptions, how unlimted data affects their networks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where in the contract does it say any of that? It doesn't.
The contract is to require you to stay a customer for x amount of time, ensuring the subsidy is not lost.
It is the TOS that applies whether you have a contract or not.
More importantly, the "contract" is not a marriage: either party is free to withdraw from it at any time. If the customer does so, they pay the ETF. If the company does so, they eat the ETF.
The only thing that can be argued is that the initial throttling speed made the service, essentially, unusable. That could be viewed as changing the service by AT&T, and grounds to get out of the contract without ETF. But AT&T has since increased the throttling speed to EDGE speeds. EDGE is all that is available on parts of the AT&T network so one can't make the same unusable claim, that was used in the small claims case in California.
As for "the courts have ruled in recent cases, under contract, the user is owed unlimited, unthrottled data," that is absolutely not true. The courts ruled no such thing.
Michael
Still illegal. Read up on these two wiki's before going into the Federal Law books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
RIM tried to bypass this with a jurisdiction ruling that went all the way to SCOTUS but it became a Pyrrhic victory for them.
One person's facts are another person's opinions, apparently. I disagree. I believe they are double-dipping here. If paying for a data plan it does not follow that text is extra, imo. I understand that the company has costs for R&D, Infrastructure, etc...we subsidize some of that with tax dollars already (triple-dipping?) they had a government sponsored monopoly for many years. However to say that their future costs justify any and all charges does not follow. That is why there is competition and why the free market finds ways around fees that seem unwarranted. A reason why when a company like Apple comes up with away around a seemingly unfair charge many people get on board.
Facts trump uninformed opinions every time.
Texts are not the same as internet data. They don't take the same paths as data. They work WITHOUT a data plan.
That's why they're not charged as data connections. They can't be. They're NOT the same as data connections.
If you're going to compare texts to anything, it's to phone calls, since they share much of the same infrastructure. Arguing that your phone plan should cover most of the cost of a text (but not all -- especially if it has to be stored and forwarded later) makes far more technical sense.
read up:
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/judge-awards-iphone-user-850-throttling-case-195042925.htmlorig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US
at&t has since chosen not to appeal the case.
more importantly, they cant claim unlimited data adversely impacts their network WITHOUT backing it up with real information; which they have been doing all along. by refusing to prove the actual, real world affects, they lost their case. and small claims is still court my friend.
i am now 100% done with this subject.
Why is it so difficult to provide what you offer?
Why so many consumers try to justify the poor management that these companies have?
If a company offers a service, in this case is a connection to a cellular network for data transfer, at a certain speed and during a time period.
Technically, if I subscribe for the service I am expecting that I can use this service to its fullest capacity.
If the speed of data tranfer, let's say it is: 1 per minute (unit of data per minute).
Then, I should have the ability to transfer 60 per hour, 1440 per day, 43200 in 30 days ( 40320 in 28 days - those years-, or 44640 in 31 days).
How on earth can I possibly be cheating the network to get a faster data transfer speed or get more data during a month? The speed of connection has a limit, and it is determined by the hardware they have. The total amount of data I can possibly get out their network is limited by the time and speed they provide.
They charge you for the service on a monthly basis. Therefore there is a specific amount of data that can be 'consumed' in 30 days.
To determine the price of this service is a different game. They made a model that is not giving them the results they expect, then what they want to do? Stick it up to the end user.
They were used to earn a lot o money on texting and now more and more people are texting less and calling less than what they were used to, and data transfer is where the money is.
Why so many consumers try to justify the poor management that these companies have?
If a company offers a service, in this case is a connection to a cellular network for data transfer, at a certain speed and during a time period.
Technically, if I subscribe for the service I am expecting that I can use this service to its fullest capacity.
If the speed of data tranfer, let's say it is: 1 per minute (unit of data per minute).
Then, I should have the ability to transfer 60 per hour, 1440 per day, 43200 in 30 days ( 40320 in 28 days - those years-, or 44640 in 31 days).
How on earth can I possibly be cheating the network to get a faster data transfer speed or get more data during a month? The speed of connection has a limit, and it is determined by the hardware they have. The total amount of data I can possibly get out their network is limited by the time and speed they provide.
They charge you for the service on a monthly basis. Therefore there is a specific amount of data that can be 'consumed' in 30 days.
To determine the price of this service is a different game. They made a model that is not giving them the results they expect, then what they want to do? Stick it up to the end user.
They were used to earn a lot o money on texting and now more and more people are texting less and calling less than what they were used to, and data transfer is where the money is.
For the last time, speed was NEVER defined or guaranteed in any contract.
Unlimited data means you will never be charged for overage since there is no predetermined or predefined data amount in a given billing cycle in the contract.
Throttling does not violate the agreement unless it is done in a manner that makes the service unusable.
This is how the ONE person won their case. The service was reduced to the point that it was unusable and the judge agreed.
I think AT&T's reasoning regarding network impact is BS for the most part.
I can see excessive use on a crowded tower being an issue, but to blanket throttle when no congestion or impact to other customers has occurred is BS.
Uh, that was a single case--which I already referenced--and it was small claims court. If that is your idea of supporting your absurd assertion that "the courts have ruled in recent cases, under contract, the user is owed unlimited, unthrottled data," then it failed, miserably.
I hope your reply was a joke, for your sake.
Michael
----------
Finally, someone who understand the reality of the situation.
And as you probably know, since that small claims case AT&T has raised the speed of throttling. So the chance of using that argument again is pretty much done (or else anyone could sue anytime they have EDGE as the only data available).
I will say, however, that the initial tethering speed did pretty much make the service unusable. That was going a little too far in my opinion (it was like GPRS "speeds")
Michael
I find it strange that people here can question ATT+T for trying to maximise profits, when they either own or are supporters of Apple who have a higher profit margin than practically any other manufacturer in the world.
Facts scmacts, then why does iMessage work? Why does any IM system that uses the internet rather than text plans work? Because texts can be data. This is the issue here, they are complaining that Apple has bypassed one of their revenue streams. And this is my point about texts being data rather than a phone call. There is not a technical issue with making texts part of a data plan and the amount of bandwidth that a text uses compared to a phone call is extremely small. Yet, at 10 cents a text compared to phone minutes, tell me how much a 250 minute phone plan should cost you. Lets jack up the time it takes for a text to be sent and say, oh 15 seconds to transmit a 10 cent text. That makes a 250 minute phone plan cost $100 just for texts. I think that it is pretty clear that a) texts can be part of a data plan - since they already are with iMessage and b) comparing texts to phone calls makes little sense.
Last edited:
My point is that technically there is a limit in the maximum speed that any cellphone can get while transferring data through the cellular network, therefore there is no way the user can abuse it.
And about the crowded tower issue, it is supposed to be a nice issue to have for the service provider = they have more customers than what they initially planned for.
Therefore they should invest in improving that particular area, once again the user is not abusing the system, the service provider is not providing the service paid by the user.
There is no justification for throttling unless there is national emergency situation and all the cellphone cells are needed.
They are two totally different things, as different as a telegram is different from email, even though they both convey words.
Those IM systems are not texts. They use the internet and thus require a data plan, which costs money per byte, NOT per message.
Texts don't require a data plan because they're not internet data. They require a text plan, because they're basically phone pages that can be stored and forwarded, thus they cost per message... NOT per byte.
IMs can be data. Texts are not. You're trying to use the same word for two totally different methods that just happen to made to look similar in some apps. I think that's what's confusing you.
Most voice plans start around 10 cents a minute, with a minute minimum. Adding Canada jacks that price up. However, the more minutes you pay for, the cheaper each minute gets. The same goes for texts.
It's not rocket science. IM texts may look like SMS texts, but they're not.
OK, I will give you that. I may have been spinning off topic. Going back to the story this thread is based on, and my lack of sympathy for AT&T's CEO was this quote, "Apple iMessage is a classic example. If you're using iMessage, you're not using one of our messaging services, right? That's disruptive to our messaging revenue stream."
So, if IMs can replace text - and this was originally about smart phones which require data plans, not forcing people to buy data plans in order to text - then lets say IM can replace text and if I am forced to buy a data plan why do I need to pay extra for texts? Someone was telling me that I needed to pay for R&D, infrastructure, etc...my feeling is that AT&T is double dipping and no, I don't have to pay extra now that a disruptive technology is messing up their business model. With email available, I expect to send email to more devices not continue to pay for telegrams. My feeling is you are telling me I still need to pay for telegrams to people who don't have email. I feel like a modern phone should be able get those text messages without resorting to paying extra for some guy to type out morse code and AT&Ts business model re:SMS is making me pay for the oats for a pony express pony when that horse has long ago been replace by, uh, Skynet. So, is there a technical reason that IM cannot replace text on a dumb phone? I am now thinking about voice mail. Comparing Apples visual voice and Google's google talk to the crummy voice mail systems we had for so many years with dumb phones. I know, they require data, internet access, etc... To perhaps sum up, I think AT&T should stop fretting about the demise of pagers built in to phones and go in the direction of at least limited internet on all comm devices, data plans per device need to go away or at least have much lower tiers for people who are just texting, and perhaps data share plans for heavier users and families. They should fret about innovating for the future rather than complaining that the old ways don't last. Thanks for the conversation - funny how an alternate view helps clarify the thinking.
You're right... IF everyone used data based IM services, then no one would have any need to pay for traditional SMS texts.
However, 2/3 of the world's phones have no data plan, and their owners don't want to pay for one. To them, texts are cheaper in bulk, or free with their plan, or only paid for when used.
Perhaps in five or ten years that will change.
First off, as pointed out above, their profit margin is quite slim as it is. What did we calculate, under $3 per customer per week. Hardly a rip-off.
Yes, the infrastructure has to be paid for. No customer is paying the true cost on their own. The low cost of long distance is aided by all those who call locally. The costs of someone using lots of texts on an unlimited plan are subsidized by those who use fewer texts. Ditto for the cost of data.
What the carriers are finding out, is that people are using more data than expected, and the infrastructure in different ways. Worse, a single disruptive app can instantly change what pricing should be.
So their smartest move is to stop predicting how to spreading out the cost, and instead charge people for their own personal usage. One trouble is, people really like phone plans with a price they can count on each month. They don't want to pay a variable amount like they do with electricity and water.
Darn. Have to go. Well, you get the gist. Nothing is free. The cost has to be paid from something, and if everyone stops using telegrams, then the lines have to be paid for by something else. It's like the way that airline prices are subsidized by the fact that planes also carry freight and mail. Drop one or more of those, and ticket prices go up.
People might be interested in knowing that AT&T draws a distinction between "service" and "plan." I had to argue with corporate for 2 months before they let me out of a contract due to a mistake their representative made in removing me from my grandfathered plan without my consent. They tried to argue that they were still providing me a service and that the terms of any plan are a separate issue from providing me with phone service. I eventually resolved the issue in my favor by going down to corporate headquarters in person and discussing the situation there rather than over the phone.
You are correct that they are not internet data but it should be noted that they do not cost anything for the company to send/receive. The information is sent and delivered in the unused portion of voice data packets. That doesn't mean they aren't entitled to charge customers if that's how they want to do business but it is not correct to claim they incur any additional cost over regular voice communications for texting.
Of course SMS cost something. From the end of your post (see below) I think you're really trying to claim that they shouldn't cost more than a call. (?)
Otherwise, if you actually think they're somehow magically free to send, then no:
Sure, one tiny piece uses a corner of a control packet from the tower to the phone. Which is nothing compared to the messaging infrastructure, network resources and cell comms and authentication to make that one single mallest piece of the whole thing work.
People hear the word "free" and mistakenly extrapolate that to mean the entire process.
As I've said before, it's like claiming that an overnight letter from across the country should cost you nothing because the last fifty feet from the FedEx truck to your door was in a "free" pocket of the delivery man.
Actually, texts can cost more than a simple phone ring, because texts have to be stored and forwarded later on if the recipient's phone isn't available. To do that on voice calls, you have to pay for re-calling service or voicemail.
Also often people address a text to someone's email, or vice versa, which requires the services of an SMS<->email gateway.