AT&T Urges FCC to Drop $100 Million Fine, Says Data Throttling Doesn't Harm Customers

[jlc1978]

If AT&T had been smart, the unlimited data plan would be stuck at the network speed that was available when the plan was entered into. I don't see any reason why LTE speeds necessarily should be offered to unlimited plans that AT&T stopped offering while the network was only 3G.

Or simply eliminate grandfathering unlimited plans and giving users a choice to leave ATT or go to a capped plan. They do not have to continue to offer unlinited plans but have done so for business reasons. Get rid of them at the end of the contract date and the problem goes away; and I say this as someone with a grandfathered unlimited plan.

 

[LordVic]

It's the only realistic way for everyone to have an uninterrupted connection. I don't think it warrants a $100M fine.

It's like fining the water company for not "adequately warning customers" that when they use a kinked garden hose, they won't get the full pressure. On a larger scale, if the entire district is using water at the same time, they won't get full pressure.

Found the ATT PLANT!

(hopefully i'm kidding)

No. The CORRECT solution, that actually betters EVERYONE, including ATT is to take those mass amounts of profit, and upgrade infrastructure in order to support increased demand. Especially if you're selling that service.

Data Throttling is nothing more than artificially witholding service in order to preserve sanity of your existing infrastructure while maintaining high profit margins

it's pure, 100% corporate thuggery.

 

[bladerunner2000]

I'll throttle my bill payment, surely it won't 'harm' AT&T.

Brilliant.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Found the ATT PLANT!

(hopefully i'm kidding)

No. The CORRECT solution, that actually betters EVERYONE, including ATT is to take those mass amounts of profit, and upgrade infrastructure in order to support increased demand. Especially if you're selling that service.

Data Throttling is nothing more than artificially witholding service in order to preserve sanity of your existing infrastructure while maintaining high profit margins

it's pure, 100% corporate thuggery.

Corporate thuggery + customer buggery = AT&T skullduggery!

 

[jlc1978]

So, fraud doesn't harm one of the two parties, the one being defrauded?

Let's say you go to an "all you can eat buffet", at 8am, and it closes at 10pm. They sell you a card that allows you to buy the "all you can eat buffet" henceforth, but you have to pay them a monthly stipend. There is no sign on the door that says that management can limit the amount you eat, because we just opened the restaurant, and we want to get all the people in, and we have "Frank's wonder Jell-O", which no one else has. (It's apple flavored.)

(Rest snipped to save space)

You analogy is flawed in two aspects:
1. Unlike your example, ATT has said in their T&C that they ill continue to provide you with data just at a slower rate, instead of cutting you off.

2. To use your jello example, they would simply be putting out smaller sizes and at a slower rate since they cannot make it fast enough to keep everyone supplied with jello; so the limit it's availability. You can still take all that is available, even if you still want more. They made no guarantee that a specific amount or quantity would be available, but simply that you are free to take as much of anything that is put out.

 

[groovyd]

Great idea. Evil bastards. Coordinated action from everyone and they'd soon get the message.

Not really, everyone doing this would soon get a bad credit rating. Billing in America is a one sided system after all.

 

[LordVic]

Corporate thuggery + customer buggery = AT&T skullduggery!

The NEW, improved Skullduggery plan, exclusively to AT&T!

now, with free anus stretching!
Who else would you trust more with the stretching of the size of your rectum, than AT&T!


(Did I go too far? Sorry )

 

[k1121j]

it does when you do it in a bait and switch fashion

 

[KdParker]

It's the only realistic way for everyone to have an uninterrupted connection. I don't think it warrants a $100M fine.

It's like fining the water company for not "adequately warning customers" that when they use a kinked garden hose, they won't get the full pressure. On a larger scale, if the entire district is using water at the same time, they won't get full pressure.

Not really.

But I am not even sure that is the real issue. Why is data so expensive anyway in the US when speeds are faster and cheaper in almost every other developed country?

It seems to me that data is a cash cow for the US carriers which have been slow to update their infrastructure to provide better service. I don't mind paying for data as long as speeds improve and cost per gb starts to drop.

 

[k1121j]

I'm a throttled customer. It harms me.

This crap about only throttling when on a congested tower doesn't mean much when you work in downtown Los Angeles and the towers are always busy.

and it if you notice its not just a congested tower there message states " your speeds may be reduced at TIMES and in areas with network congestion" so they do it even if you are not in a congested area it just needs to be a certain time and I'm guessing that means during the day when people are awake.... so pretty much always

and i got that message 7 days ago so they still throttle more then just certain towers

 

[HenryDJP]

Sure, no harm involved. I could have lost my job because I couldn't connect to the internet at a reasonable speed. I could barely send an email with the throttled speed. Absolutely absurd statement on ATT's part.

No disrespect, but if you were going to lose your job over not being able to connect to the internet on your AT&T phone then you were already on the verge of losing your job in the first place.

 

[mambodancer]

Sure, no harm involved. I could have lost my job because I couldn't connect to the internet at a reasonable speed. I could barely send an email with the throttled speed. Absolutely absurd statement on ATT's part.

Agreed. When you are suddenly unable to get map directions in order to make it to your client there is very real harm done.

 

[KoolAid-Drink]

This is one of the biggest loads of bull I've read from ATT. It's also a huge reason why a friend of mine dumped them recently for a smaller carrier to save money because he's deaf and needs to text under an unlimited plan. But they offered something else that he didn't want.

I'm also pet of the deaf demographic here in VT which is very small. Most I've known relied on Sprint Relay for an exclusive data only plan under 3G or higher ( LTE ). Coverage around here is not that bad but could be better even though it gets the job done. The only drawback is that any incoming voice calls are blocked but outgoing calls are on a surcharge.

However it is quite expensive at close to about $55 plus the data fee that comes up close to about $65 a month.

Unfortunately there is no T-Mobile coverage and only the big three ( Verizon, ATT and Sprint ).

I was told by my friend that ATT tried to throttle him at one point and it had been an issue with others. Throttling deaf customers who rely on unlimited text and data is wrong. I wasn't quite impressed with ATT's data offering as capped and ridiculous.

It's especially true when I rely on it for local GPS driving and data usage on Dropbox or other apps for my visual art/design profession.

To say throttling doesn't hurt customers is BS. It harms our ability to communicate or do business.

I'm deaf myself, and am on AT&T's "TAP" (text accessibility plan) for 2gb. Compared to back in 2011 when I signed up for this plan, it's a pain having to watch my cellular usage. Deaf people rely on videos/texts to communicate with each other, and AT&T/Verizon are too limited/expensive, Sprint's coverage sucks, and T-Mobile is a bit too pricey as well. How can we win?

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I'm deaf myself, and am on AT&T's "TAP" (text accessibility plan) for 2gb. Compared to back in 2011 when I signed up for this plan, it's a pain having to watch my cellular usage. Deaf people rely on videos/texts to communicate with each other, and AT&T/Verizon are too limited/expensive, Sprint's coverage sucks, and T-Mobile is a bit too pricey as well. How can we win?

TAP is exactly what he was under and when I was told of this regarding the GB cap, I wasn't impressed. As for video chatting and texting, yes, this is very true especially if you're at home or someplace with wifi, it's helpful. 4G or higher usually makes it a bit more convenient than 3G.

Otherwise, I'm on 3G around here unless I go northbound to the larger city and LTE shows up. Oddly. I used to be on Verizon several years ago because the bills were getting too high and I never got that many calls to justify the expense. So I switched to Sprint under the Sprint Relay plan that's for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing which offers a flat rate of $55 a month plus fees for Unlimited data and text only. I text almost all the time and use Skype to contact a family member in the midwest over wifi so it's justifiable there. FaceTime is never used because no one around here actually uses it. It's really bizarre.

Although, you're probably aware that most deaf people use video phones via operators or directly but I find them useless for my case scenario because I don't use sign language, preferring to read lips. And besides, the video phones I've seen have poor UI or UX ( user interface experience ) I've seen despite the fact they're free to use.

Sprint Relay has been my only option for a long time. In fact, back around 2005, Sprint Relay's Unlimited Plan used to be about $35 a month when Blackberries were king. That was awesome and especially how comfortable the 7250 BB keyboard was at the time. Communication was very reliable with that device. Classic!

 

[macsrcool1234]

After increasing upgrade fees? **** you AT&T.

 

[4jasontv]

I'm deaf myself, and am on AT&T's "TAP" (text accessibility plan) for 2gb. Compared to back in 2011 when I signed up for this plan, it's a pain having to watch my cellular usage. Deaf people rely on videos/texts to communicate with each other, and AT&T/Verizon are too limited/expensive, Sprint's coverage sucks, and T-Mobile is a bit too pricey as well. How can we win?

^ This. I am not deaf, but I know a good number of people in the Deaf community. As a result my data usage is higher than it would be, because I rely on FaceTime and Skype. Throttling wouldn't just make loading macrumors slower, it would make it impossible for me to speak to many of my friends.

In my Blackberry days, Verizon used to have a "hearing impaired" plan. Problem was that even if you could convince them to sign you up without being deaf yourself, it didn't come with any minutes.

 

[brendu]

The FCC should tell att they can't have the direct TV merger if they don't pay the fines they have been issued.

 

[ccavaliere]

I was throttled last month by AT&T and even got the text message that told me I was being throttled now being over 5gb in a month. I tweeted it to AT&T and the T-Mobile CEO responded instead telling me he would welcome my business at full data speeds.

 

[Technodynamic]

They should pay more, because they can afford it. don't advertise "unlimited" if its only 5GB. its a lie.

I hope the CEO gets a lot of cr@p for this.

 

[Mr. Donahue]

My theory is tablets are expensive and reliable enough that people are not buying new ones often enough. My wife still enjoys her iPad 2 with retina display. She won't get a newer one probably for a couple more years.
I'm still good with my 2012 MacBook Pro I like disc drives so I can burn CDs. I'm old school like that.
I do want to buy an iPAD Mini 4 tho. It will replace my iPhone 6 in 2 years then I'll I'll buy a prepaid Light Phone for calls. I really don't have a need for an iPhone. It's small enough to carry like a phone but I don't use it as a phone you know? I use it to type on this website and watch Netflix and HBOnow on my lunch break. I just came to the realization that I'm using the wrong device.
Plus maybe it's just me but the iPhone eat speaker isn't loud enough. Whenever I talk to people I wish I could turn the volume louder but it's maxed out already.

 

[eac25]

Lastly, AT&T argued that the FCC has no authority to order the company to inform its customers that it violated the Transparency Rule in not telling them about speed changes when throttling data because the statement would both be untrue and a violation of AT&T's First Amendment rights.

Um, First Amendment rights? How? Seriously...how?

 

[skellener]

No way! Pay up!

 

[currocj]

They should fine AT&T for their absurd now $45 per phone "upgrade fee" i.e. tax on those on grandfathered unlimited plans.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Like a typical three year-old, AT&T is stomping their feet and not wanting to eat their vegetables, and soon Congress will be showered in money and the FCC will be left a toothless and fang-less shell...

Regulations, and regulators, cost politicians contributions.

Such is life in the Capitalistic States Of America, where everything has a price, everything has lost its value, and nothing is sacred...

 

[iMas70]

Some would argue it's because of threads like the 200gb a month usage thread we had yesterday and the day before. Where someone has used their phone connection as Internet for the whole house after closing their broadband account. If you sell a contract on the word unlimited you should stick to the contracted term, not talk about throttling in the small print.

I had the 200GB of usage thread. There was another member that went over that because he doesn't have wired internet at home so he uses his jailbroken phone.

I've have the UDP for years and would almost always be throttled after I went over 5GB. I stuck with them hoping that it would eventually be like they advertised to be... unlimited. I could still use it after I was throttled but like was mentioned before, it was like getting drops of water out of the shower instead of full pressure. Now I can do the same things with 40, 50 or 60+ Mbps instead of .5. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it wasn't even worth trying at that speed.