Hmm I dont know maybe in the word unlimited. 3gb is a limit, throttling is a limit. Unlimited = "without Limits"
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 Revamps Throttling Policy, Only Slows Unlimited Users above 3GB/Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmm I dont know maybe in the word unlimited. 3gb is a limit, throttling is a limit. Unlimited = "without Limits"
Let me guess, if there's an LTE iPhone this year, there will be a new iPhone LTE 3GB plan and all grandfathered unlimited users are forced to switch plans if they want the new iPhone.
Well said. But you can show the damages for every month you paid and were throttled. Might not win much that way though.
They should have simply DISCONTINUED THE UNLIMITED PLAN at the end of people's contracts. Problem solved. Instead, they decided to use it as a carrot to get us to stay with their lackluster service.
In all honesty, I agree with you. I also, have not read the contract, so there may well be statements in the contract that state that AT&T doesn't guarantee 3G speeds due to network congestion or other factors.
Again, I don't know what's in the contract. I won't assume that the contract agreement is based on what the network is capable of. I'm sure AT&T has decent lawyers that have protected AT&T's interest in the wording of the contract.
As far as the $850 judgement. I don't know the details of that case. Did AT&T even show up? If not, then the guy wins automatically. I'm gonna google that a little after this post.
ADDEDLooks like an AT&T rep did show up at the case. Some regional sales manager.
I think the confusion here is that AT&T calls their HPSA+ network a 4G network. The way the article is worded, 3G/HPSA+ will be throttled at 3GB and 4G/LTE at 5GB. One thing is for certain, iPhones are not 4G/LTE, at best, they are 4G/HPSA+ in AT&T vernacular.
Last edited:
Except that damages doesn't mean "money spent." It means "money lost," and that could be pretty hard to prove. For that reason, I wouldn't be surprised if the California case we've all read about gets overturned on appeal.
I do think a good case could be made for punitive damages, but most small claims courts wouldn't consider that, as it usually requires a jury.
Yes, the greed is however on both sides, except one is being mislead. (Consumer)
When smart phones with data started nobody could foresee what would be happening by when.
In order to entice and attract as many customers as possible ATT offered unlimited, but now doesn't want to admit that that was a mistake and the game changed.
If they wanted to be fair about it (Yeah right ATT being fair) and not offer unlimited as defined, they should reimburse consumers with unlimited plans for the data not used.
The way this will be worked out will be via a class action suit, perfect for lawyers to get rich. The first judgment was just a wake up call for ATT, hence their peace offering (misguided, but....) I bet they would lose every case like this.
When it's all done, the consumer gets a coupon for 30 free minutes or so, the lawyers are rich and when LTE goes full tilt wide spread unlimited will no longer be offered.
ImperialForces
macrumors regular
If you paid for a service and didn't get it, then the money was lost no? If I pay a contractor to retile my kitchen floor and he doesn't do the work, that money was lost and spent, and I would easily win since the contractor didn't do the work, i.e. abide by the contract. Same goes here.
Well, if they cut you off completely, they've broken their "unlimited data" claim because you would get zero data. But I get your point ... at what point is it deemed an unacceptable speed?
Here's another piece of semantics. I'd be willing to bet that the contract states that speeds and data are subject to network conditions or something like that. The spirit of that statement would be to protect AT&T if the network went down or was crippled for whatever reason and people wouldn't be able to sue if they couldn't get their data and/or speeds. I'd guess that a lawyer could argue that AT&T throttling a customer could constitute a "network condition".
But I digress.
I thought about it, and I actually kind of like this policy. Why don't they offer it to everyone?
I mean, here's how it works:
$30 gets you 3 GB/month at full speed regardless of whether your plan is unlimited or not. After the 3GB, "unlimited" users are throttled, while "limited" users are allowed to continue at full speed for $10 extra per GB of overage.
In fact, I just thought of this plan which I think is awesome:
$10/1GB of unthrottled. PERIOD. No per month, no expiring BS.
There's should be a simple flip switch for the user to go between throttled and unthrottled. If you try flipping to unthrottled, AT&T will check the current load already being caused by unthrottled users, and approve of your unthrottling if their network can manage it without slowing any of the already unthrottled users.
Anything you do throttled isn't billed at all. Throttled users could potentially/theoretically have unthrottled speeds if it turns out the network is no where near capacity anyways. Maybe providing users with info on how many people are currently in the area on throttle vs. unthrottled would also be a good idea.
Get rid of all the stupid plan crap. Everyone can pay for that.
I mean, here's how it works:
$30 gets you 3 GB/month at full speed regardless of whether your plan is unlimited or not. After the 3GB, "unlimited" users are throttled, while "limited" users are allowed to continue at full speed for $10 extra per GB of overage.
In fact, I just thought of this plan which I think is awesome:
$10/1GB of unthrottled. PERIOD. No per month, no expiring BS.
There's should be a simple flip switch for the user to go between throttled and unthrottled. If you try flipping to unthrottled, AT&T will check the current load already being caused by unthrottled users, and approve of your unthrottling if their network can manage it without slowing any of the already unthrottled users.
Anything you do throttled isn't billed at all. Throttled users could potentially/theoretically have unthrottled speeds if it turns out the network is no where near capacity anyways. Maybe providing users with info on how many people are currently in the area on throttle vs. unthrottled would also be a good idea.
Get rid of all the stupid plan crap. Everyone can pay for that.
Sort of. Courts like to be able to quantify damages and are usually concerned with administrability when making decisions. The problem in quantifying these damages is: How do you quantify something that's unlimited? How do you figure how much use of data was lost? You have to subtract 3GB from infinity.
This is not to say that it's impossible. It just gives AT&T more arguments and makes a small claims court judge's job tougher and more unclear. There are ways to calculate these damages across the market, as is sometimes done in product liability cases. For example, the court could take the records of every AT&T data customer during the period prior to throttling, find the mean data usage/month and use that as the figure from which to subtract 3 GB to calculate damages.
Last edited:
In my opinion, none of these companies should have ever been allowed to call their plans unlimited in the first place. What next... ?
FREE OF CHARGE*
*Free Of Charge Plan subject to monthly fair payment of up-front fees, during which time Free Of Charge Plan does not apply.
FREE OF CHARGE*
*Free Of Charge Plan subject to monthly fair payment of up-front fees, during which time Free Of Charge Plan does not apply.
When does this go into effect?
I'm in day 28 of a 29 day cycle, and was throttled today. My usage is just over 2.1GB for the month. I hate checking my usage each morning, and not being able to use the phone the way I want to
As others have mentioned, the throttled speed is better this month than last month (~.2mbps vs. ~.1mbps)
I'm in day 28 of a 29 day cycle, and was throttled today. My usage is just over 2.1GB for the month. I hate checking my usage each morning, and not being able to use the phone the way I want to
As others have mentioned, the throttled speed is better this month than last month (~.2mbps vs. ~.1mbps)
This is a good point. I wouldn't be surprised if such a clause existed, the question is what can a reasonable consumer be expected to understand by "subject to network conditions". As stated earlier, if there is ambiguity, then the advantage seems to rest with the consumer and not the contract maker. So, does throttling constitute the type of conditions one is likely to suspect is being implied when agreeing to the contract?
I'd say no. It means you can get a blackout, or degraded service if they are experiencing technical difficulties, not randomly imposed constraints. Again, if AT&T throttled in accordance with network congestion, removing the throttle during off-peak hours, their claim would be more plausible. But the hard cap + throttle is the problem here.
And another valid argument:
If AT&T's justification for throttling as stated in the contract and its public statements is that they need to manage the network, throttling should only remain in effect as long as there is measurable stress on the network that results in measurably detrimental performance by the network as a whole or in a defined region. In other words, they should do what Verizon does.
There is currency here to the fact that AT&T's actions in the matter don't align with its stated reasons for taking the action. This is also a valid claim in a contract dispute.
If AT&T's justification for throttling as stated in the contract and its public statements is that they need to manage the network, throttling should only remain in effect as long as there is measurable stress on the network that results in measurably detrimental performance by the network as a whole or in a defined region. In other words, they should do what Verizon does.
There is currency here to the fact that AT&T's actions in the matter don't align with its stated reasons for taking the action. This is also a valid claim in a contract dispute.
I love people who say they will sue and class action suit blah blah blah. In reality, I bet you'd spend a very long time/money looking for a lawyer who would be willing to represent you in this case. The reason: you wont win.
Also for the people who claim to switch, go right ahead. There are "so many options", but look at them. Both verizon and sprint have slower data speeds than at&t and both dont have data&voice at the same time. You arent winning in this situation either.
That's their problem. They sold something they didn't have.
Or an all-you-can eat buffet with rationing. Seriously!
Define "over" in the context of unlimited.
That may be their plan. You voluntarily leave and their messy problem goes away.
...This is a deal breaker. My next iPhone, as well as the other four on our family plan, will not be with AT&T.
I feel the same. I've never gone over 2GB in four years (usually stay well under 1GB, in fact) but I liked having "unlimited" (and paid an extra $5/mo these past two years) as insurance against surprises. Seems the insurance was worthless.
I have four iphones on a family plan too. I'll be looking at alternatives.