AT&T Revamps Throttling Policy, Only Slows Unlimited Users above 3GB/Month

[Moof1904]

Where does it say, Unlimited at a guaranteed speed?

I'm getting really tired of this argument.

Would being limited to 25 calories per day still be considered unlimited food?

How about being forced to drive 5 mph on the tollway that you paid to have unlimited access to? Would you still feel like you had unlimited use of the road if it took you five hours to get to work each day?

There's such a thing as saying "unlimited" and then acting in such a was as to effectively limit. That's what they're doing.

Not to mention that speed * time = quantity and limiting speed for a given time is limiting quantity.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Throttle unlimited data users? Sure, you can use unlimited data at a horridly slow edge-like speed. Go for it.

These companies are bastards.

 

[rjohnstone]

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.

Nope... you can still keep your unlimited plan even when you switch to an LTE device.
I know. I did it a couple of weeks ago.

I'll let the lawyers figure it out. In the mean time it's nice to know I don't have to start sweating until I get close to 5GB.

 

[Menel]

The LTE part is interesting. When the iPad and iPhone go LTE am I to understand the ceiling will be 5GB before throttling? I think I'd be pretty happy about that but one question: is there anything inherent about LTE that causes data to be used faster? Logically it seems, for example, the data rate of any given steaming video would be constant whether it's being kicked via 3G or 4G.

In general, faster LTE, just means the document will load faster, you spend less time waiting. But the data amount is fixed.

However; with some audio/video services, it may autonegotiate for higher quality when it detects better bandwidth. Then you'll use more data.

Also with audio/video, they cache ahead, ala youtube. Start a video, decide you no longer want to watch it and close it down. LTE would have eaten much more data caching ahead than 3G would have.

 

[JohnDoe98]

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.

Good post!

 

[chakraj]

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.

If by slower data speeds you mean over 10X faster then yes you are correct. I get 45 to 35 Mbs down on Verizon LTE.

 

[claygreenberg]

Good post!

Thanks, but the problem is: If AT&T is telling the truth that 95% of customers use less than 3 GB/month, the figure the court comes up with may very well be less than 3 GB, and the court would award no damages.

 

[chiefsilverback]

The major flaw in ATT's argument that bandwidth/spectrum is limited hence the need to throttle is that they won't throttle you if you pay overage on the limited plans!

 

[BC2009]

Fine. But this still gives me no reason to switch to a tiered plan since it costs the same. It does give a reason to switch to sprint though.

Except switching to sprint is like 24/7 throttling.

It should be some value above 3GB, what's the advantage of unlimited except having dreadfully slow speeds after 3GB. Make it 3.25/3.5 or 4 or something..

This is certainly a step in the right direction. When they announced their original plan I advocated on this forum for a minimum data usage of 4GB before being subject to throttling since that was the limit of their DataPro plan (with tethering option) at the time. 3GB seems like a step in the right direction, 4GB or 5GB would have been gracious of them.

 

[ftaok]

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.

I would agree with you on all points. I'm no lawyer, I don't know which way the law would go with. I'm cynical, so I guess the side with more $$$ lawyers will win.

 

[heved]

Listen people!

People! What wasn't fair, and what I was prepared to take AT&T to small claims court for, was that being throttled on a case by case basis (depending on other users' usage on their network that month) we were being throttled at 2GB or under where our plan costs the same $30 that the 3GB tiered plan users were paying for up to 3GB un-throttled data usage. That was clearly unfair especially given that I personally have been using way less than 2GB per month for several years. I'm using more now because I have a new iPhone 4S and it's quicker and more enjoyable to use online, which is the exact problem AT&T faces with many new phone users. To solve it they cancelled offering new unlimited plans but that tactic hasn't gone far enough to ease the burden off their network, hence, the throttling. Thanks to Matt Spaccarelli's winning law suit against AT&T they changed that policy today making it more in line with the 3GB tiered plan at the same price of $30. The benefit we unlimited users STILL have is that we don't have to worry about overage charges going over 3GB/mo where tiered plan users do risk that. THAT is the benefit and that is why I'm satisfied with AT&T's change today. I would have liked to see them only throttle starting at 5GB maybe but I do see how the 3GB limit matches the current $30 3GB plans for new customers. Just remember that the new customers don't even have the option of an unlimited plan when you are complaining.

Here's Matt's website where he posts his court documents to help anyone else who wants to file a small claim with AT&T: http://www.taporc.com/ I won't be doing so now that AT&T changed their throttling policy today and I'll be offering Matt a big thank you for instigating their change!

http://www.taporc.com/

 

[AbSoluTc]

WTF?? So I pay for unlimited for what reason again now? To get screwed over? WTF AT&T??? Really? Then you're going to charge me a tethering fee as well?? Yeah, no. Go to hell!

I will be calling them to complain today. This is UNACCEPTABLE. On any level. Unlimited is unlimited. Way to screw over your customers. *******s.

 

[chakraj]

Their bandwidth limitation is not the problem here. The problem is that ATT thinks they can sell it for more to someone else even though they already sold it to you. So they are making money on your data again.

 

[boredandlonely]

I'm curious how "usable" the new throttled speed is. Anybody there yet?

 

[tigress666]

You know, I think they are at least being more reasonable now at least (rather than the throttling before the limit you get if you had a limited plan).

You people do realize they could have just not grandfathered those plans and forced you on the limited plans in the first place? There is no law saying they have to grandfather you once your contract runs out. They could have said, tough, we don't have that plan anymore, if you want to sign up, you'll have to go with what we offer now.

Honestly, maybe in the long run they would have been better off doing that (Though I for one am glad they didn't. And yeah, I'll get throttled after 3 gigs of use but at least I won't get an overcharge, I prefer that honestly so I still think it's better than their limited plan. <- it helps though that I don't even go over 2 gigs usually and I do use my phone a lot but when I'm at home I'm on my computer using my internet provider cause it beats trying to use some cellphone connection). I guess it's more upfront and they'd piss people off but they wouldn't have people moaning and groaning now about it (But I for one am happy they tried to be nice and grandfather it cause I prefer slower speeds and no overcharges over overcharges).

And you people realize that even unlimited buffets usually have some sort of rules to keep people from eating into their profits. You do realize that they are there to make a profit? Not to be nice to you.

And I do realize they are going to try to convince people off the 3g plan. I had just assumed it would be if you wanted a 4G plan when they have those that you'd not get the unlimited offer and they'd say since it's not technically the same plan they can't grandfather you.

 

[jasvncnt]

Well then they better throttle my bill since i wont be getting the "unlimited" I pay for

 

[WannaGoMac]

People! What wasn't fair, and what I was prepared to take AT&T to small claims court for, was that being throttled on a case by case basis (depending on other users' usage on their network that month) we were being throttled at 2GB or under where our plan costs the same $30 that the 3GB tiered plan users were paying for up to 3GB un-throttled data usage. That was clearly unfair especially given that I personally have been using way less than 2GB per month for several years. I'm using more now because I have a new iPhone 4S and it's quicker and more enjoyable to use online, which is the exact problem AT&T faces with many new phone users. To solve it they cancelled offering new unlimited plans but that tactic hasn't gone far enough to ease the burden off their network, hence, the throttling. Thanks to Matt Spaccarelli's winning law suit against AT&T they changed that policy today which was unfair to unlimited plan users making it in line with the 3GB tiered plan at the same price of $30. The benefit we unlimited users STILL have is that we don't have to worry about overage charges going over 3GB/mo where tiered plan users do. THAT is the benefit and that is why I'm satisfied with AT&T's change today. I would have liked to see them only throttle starting at 5GB maybe but I do see how at $30 it makes sense to start at 3GB where the new customers. Just remember that the new customers don't even have the option of an unlimited plan when you are complaining.

Here's Matt's website where he posts his court documents to help anyone else who wants to file a small claim with AT&T.
http://www.taporc.com/

You don't get it. We should be grateful for AT&T not sticking by the implied terms of the contract they made me just sign?

If they didn't want me to have unlimited data, simple remove that as a contract option. Instead they decided to use it as a carrot to keep me on their network instead of moving to Verizon

 

[The Wedge]

To me it seems as though some of you are destined for lawsuits. You are stuck on the unlimited verbiage, sure it was used when you bought your data plan and should stick.

Looked at another way, most of us have heard that the biggest data hogs fall into the smallest percentile eg: 5%. This to me is a blatant example of data hogs abusing the infrastructure at its finest.

It has long been unthinkable that a person would expect extra minutes for free if they went over their voice plan so why should data be any different?

In today's world you get what you pay for, and I don't think a company with major assets and infrastructures to worry about is asking much by throttling.

Yet those who are hung up on the literal interpretation of "unlimited" are destined for their day in court.

Greed is a deadly sin remember.

Oh please. I was sent the 5% warning at 1.6 Gb a week ago. Who's the greedy one?

 

[jtara]

Here the the falacy with the (now abandoned) 5% policy, and why it was destined to this end. The big red flag is that they were throttling the speed to practically zero.

So, that means that the top 5% are going to effectively drop off the map for the rest of the month, and eventually all together, when they drop a plan that doesn't make sense for them any more.

Then, then NEXT 5% is going to do the same thing. Sure, you get the top 5% hogs to drop the unlimited plan. Then, the next month, you get the next level of somewhat less-piggy users to drop the plan.

Ad-infinitum. There will always be a next 5% to drop. The GB cap would have just kept dropping every month.

I'm a proponent of a simple "pay for what you use" plan. But American consumers are drawn to the fallacy of "unlimited".

If you have to have unlimited - because that is what the foolish public insists on, then throttling should be REASONABLE, and they should endevor to first do it by throttling EVERYONE during peak periods. Maybe you throttle the top users more than others when the network is maxed-out. Maybe you do it on a sliding scale, so that the heaviest users get throttled the most, the next-heaviest somewhat less, etc. The least piggy users might be able to get full speed even at peak hours.

But THAT WOULD MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE.

The policy obviously wansn't created by technical folk, but by executives who probably don't understand a thing about the technology. It was designed to force all users of the unlimited plan to drop the plan, and for no other purpose, IMO.

 

[LordJohnWhorfin]

New throttling speed...

I find the choice of the new throttling speed interesting. Still too low to effectively stream Netflix on lowest quality, but high enough that you can stream satellite radio without problems, with room to spare. I can live with that, until there is an acceptable alternative to AT&T.
I've been looking at SmartTalk, $45/month for unlimited calling/texting/3G data... over AT&T's network.
I'm still considering suing AT&T, and part of what I would demand is the court compel them to unlock my iPhone so I can use it with another carrier.

 

[DiamondMac]

The fact that AT&T continues with this ridiculous policy shows how utterly clueless and ridiculous they are with their consumers

We are supposed to believe that throttling around 2gb helps the network? How? Why? Can you actually give us any facts whatsoever supporting that ridiculous notion? Oh, now it is 3gb? Gee, wonder where that number came up?

They offered people contracts with unlimited and consumers should be given unlimited. Yes, I know what the specific terms where about AT&T changing the terms but as the Small Claims Court Judge very nicely put it, stop screwing with consumers. AT&T stated unlimited everywhere and offered it as such.....

AT&T throttling consumers AND DOING SO STRICTLY for extra money should be blatantly illegal

 

[JohnDoe98]

Thanks, but the problem is: If AT&T is telling the truth that 95% of customers use less than 3 GB/month, the figure the court comes up with may very well be less than 3 GB, and the court would award no damages.

Why is the market important here? You gave a way to quantify damages. So couldn't the user run the same argument? Take the record of all my data usage prior to throttling, and compare that with the record showing how much data I used since throttling. Based on the difference, you can use AT&T's own capped data rates to then quantify the amount of damages. Heavy users could claim quite a bit of damages!

 

[crookedcharlie]

To me it seems as though some of you are destined for lawsuits. You are stuck on the unlimited verbiage, sure it was used when you bought your data plan and should stick.

Looked at another way, most of us have heard that the biggest data hogs fall into the smallest percentile eg: 5%. This to me is a blatant example of data hogs abusing the infrastructure at its finest.

It has long been unthinkable that a person would expect extra minutes for free if they went over their voice plan so why should data be any different?

In today's world you get what you pay for, and I don't think a company with major assets and infrastructures to worry about is asking much by throttling.

Yet those who are hung up on the literal interpretation of "unlimited" are destined for their day in court.

Greed is a deadly sin remember.

It's sad that you've chosen to view people using as much something they've paid for as they're able to as "data hogs." They paid for unlimited data. The amount of data they use is none of your business.

 

[ericinboston]

I have a few questions/points:

1)If only 5% of ATT's user base is using more than the average user, why does ATT even CARE about this (other than to make money)!? So what if 5% of the users use more? It's not like they are using 100GB/month. 5% of their customer base is getting a PLAN THEY PURCHASED but now ATT is unhappy. Boo hoo. All ATT wants is to charge the 5% people more money so ATT can pull in a few hundred thousand bucks more a year.

2)Forget tiers...let's look at the entire ATT customer base...so out of the millions of ATT iPhone users, how many are using a very insignificant amount?! Say, 200MB/month (like me). I don't get a refund. I don't hear ATT mentioning these stats or thanking me for keeping their network unclogged. Let's see ATT give us some global stats on usage. They won't.

3)I am an ATT unlimited customer...I should be treated a)with respect from ATT and b)AS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO. Period. End of story. 2, 3, 10 years down the road and ATT's network supposedly can't carry the weight? Tough luck ATT...either fix the network or go out of business. My contract is legally binding.

4)I love how ATT states "The reason reduced speeds only apply to unlimited smartphone customers is because their data usage is significantly higher than those on tiered plans." Um, you're lumping all the Tiered plans in comparison to a set of 5%. You can't do that in math, sorry. It doesn't work. It's called lying. What ATT is doing here is saying that Fred uses 4.5GB/month which is 50% more than a 3GB/month tiered plan...or super significantly more than a 250MB/month plan. ATT purposely leaves out specifics in their quote. Plans: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/data-plans.jsp?fbid=TKC1oFqMXLo

5)I (and others) purchased Unlimited for a ******* reason! We didn't want overages and we didn't want to have to check every month where our stats were. For those that tether, it provides other devices with connectivity. ATT SOLD US THIS PLAN!!!! THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY ADVERTISING THAT WE COULD USE IT IN AN UNLIMITED FASHION. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Now they want to rescind on their product/service. Tough luck. You think my mortgage company calls and asks for more money because they can't handle the volume of mortgages with their current staff?! Do I call ATT after signing a 2-year contract and tell them I want to pay them 1/4 the price each month because I make very few calls even on their lowest plan? Oh no sir'eee Bob!!



I applaud everyone who is taking ATT to small claims court.

The issue here is that ATT simply wants to make (more) money. Fine. I understand it...but a contract is a contract and the reason why they call it a "contract". Please don't tell me the ATT network is collapsing due to a few thousand users out of millions who use 4.5GB/month compared to others using 3GB/month.

 

[claygreenberg]

If AT&T wanted to act reasonable and in good faith, here's what they should have done: When they determined that their profits relied on doing away with truly unlimited data, they should have sent a letter to all current unlimited data customers informing that the plan would no longer be offered when their current contract expired. And then they should honor unlimited data as it was originally offered until the customer's contract is up and not include it the next contract. Period.