Clauses in AT&T Contracts Have Always Provided for Limits on 'Unlimited' Data Plans

[jjhrick]

1. You have to realize that abusive use is relative to the price of the plan. It's like insurance. AT&T knows that in aggregate, even if they offer a $200 35GB plan, so few users are going to buy it that it won't, in aggregate, have any meaningful effect on their network. They know that most data wasters aren't going to buy the $50/5GB plan just to get more data, so the network is safe.

Thus, defining the $30 level at ~3GB or a little less makes sense from an aggregate point of view. They are also counting on the fact that the vast majority of those users are using around 400MB/mo, which is too much for the $20 plan, and not enough for the $30 plan, so they have to buy the $30.

2. If you read it, it applies when AT&T believes it applies.

3. There is a limited amount of network capacity, and it is not fair to allow a bandwidth pig to be slurping 10GB of data and not be paying for it. Why should I experience a slow network on my $25/2GB plan because you're slurping down bandwidth like a pig. If you want to be a pig, use wifi. That's unlicensed, and you can slurp as much as you want through it.

There's no fraud in doing what's in the contract. It is unlimited, and even with throttling, it is still unlimited. AT&T actually has the right to cut off the service, according to the contract, but they are nice, and they throttle instead so that you get slower data speeds, but still have a fully functional iPhone.

This is not a joke. I have to defend reality and what is true because no one else will. Most people are acting like screaming three-year-olds who think they are entitled to whatever they want, and that the contract they signed doesn't apply to them.

You clearly don't understand the issue of aggregate consumption, as well as the many published statistics about average smartphone users and how much data they use, which is around 400MB.

I know what AT&T's motivations are. They want to protect their network, but they have no cajones. They need to grow a pair, and make it a pre-requisite that any upgrade on an account forces the whole account to de-grandfather everything, and once the last line is out of contract, the whole plan is automatically de-grandfathered. At month 25 after a plan is discontinued, the plan should be deleted from the system. This grandfathering is ridiculous.

There are many definitions for abuse. You could easily justify that more than double the median user is abuse. That number is below 1GB. I'd say that's a little draconian. It was simpler when the data plan was 2GB, as that was an easy number that all but the most extreme users fall under.

Deal what is in front of you. What is half of unlimited? If someone offers to sell you something that they know they don't have it is fraud. Their lack of network capacity is not relevent to abuse only their lack of planning. Again you complain about ATT lack of courage while ignoring the fact they are still offering this plan. Your aggregate user is fiction, I believe ATT does not have a contract with him, but even if he did what does that have to do with what ATT sells? Data use is not abuse it is use pure and simple. DUH!

Google grandfathering and why it occured, but it doesn't deal with the issue with throttling. If using a grandfathered plan is abuse then you are abusing the network on your plan which you have stated you do not intend to give up unless ATT forces you. Why are unlimited users held to a different standard. Don't tell me that ATT should do something about it they haven't and won't. Deal with what is front of you. See its so simple even a cave man would get it.

 

[BiggAW]

There's apparently some posts I missed because the forum software isn't putting me at the right point for new posts, and is not letting me get to the 13th page. So they're a little out of order. I'm pretty sure I missed a few, probably more junk posts crying about AT&T, WAH WAH WAH I'm entitled to as much data as I can suck down, screw everyone else, AT&T should give it to me because I want it WAH WAH WAH.

Deal what is in front of you. What is half of unlimited? If someone offers to sell you something that they know they don't have it is fraud. Their lack of network capacity is not relevent to abuse only their lack of planning. Again you complain about ATT lack of courage while ignoring the fact they are still offering this plan. Your aggregate user is fiction, I believe ATT does not have a contract with him, but even if he did what does that have to do with what ATT sells? Data use is not abuse it is use pure and simple. DUH!

There is a declining number of people on the Unlimited plan, since it is no longer offered.

Nothing is truly unlimited. People have been kicked out of the buffet for abusing unlimited food, nor are voice minutes truly unlimited. Deal with it.

Aggregate use is not fiction, it's not a specific user, but rather trends over millions of users. AT&T right now has something like 50 million smartphone users. That many users are going to show some really, really good trends. You apparently can't comprehend the concept that if everyone was offered unlimited (5GB full speed) data for $30, that x %, let's call it 4.5% would use between 3GB and 5GB, but in the current system, where it is $50 to do so, y %, let's call it 1.5% will choose to pay to use between 3GB and 5GB.

Because the average user between the 200MB, 300MB, 2GB, and 3GB plans is using 400MB, that means that tripling the number of users averaging 4GB/mo will have a noticeable impact on the network.

The bigger deal, however, and the much scarier numbers are what if unlimited was left unchecked and more and more of the unlimited users started using more and more data, the data usage of the 5% of the top users would start to become more and more of the total network capacity, likely well over 30%.

Just because you don't want to think about anything complicated doesn't mean reality isn't.

Yes, AT&T could have done a better job managing the data tsunami. If I were them, I would have kept unlimited, allowed unlimited tethering for free, and put a 200kbps throttle at 2GB, which would have applied to all customers, regardless of when they signed up for the plans, since it would be the same plan. Then, it would have been possible to offer an option switch to a tiered plan for users who want more than 2GB at full speed. But that' not what AT&T decided to do.

Not true, they pay for an unlimited plan, ATT is artifically limiting the speed by throttling it. It is not a bandwidth issue it is a payment issue. They offer both unlimited and 5GB plans they throttle the unlimited plans at 3 GB but not the 5 GB plans. If ATT has a network issue with capacity they should throttle all users in the affected area. Choosing unlimited users only to throttle and does not fix that issue. The area with the capacity problem might only have 3 or 5 GB users but they aren't throttled until they exceed their plan.

Again, you need to step your comprehension up a few notches, because the vast majority of users won't pay for the 5GB plan, or overages on the 3GB plan, so in aggregate, keeping the $30 price point at 3GB helps congestion.

BiggAW likes ATT so much he wants everyone to pay more. I am more of the mindset if they can do it to the unlimited users they will eventually do it to me.

No I don't. I am simply a defender of reality. Spectrum is limited, and the contract says what it says. Period.

i kinda wish at&t would start charging unlimited mobile->mobile calls if the user exceeds 3hrs of talk time..

...just to watch BiggAW (and the like) defend at&T
so ridiculous..

First of all, virtually no one talks on the phone for 3 hours straight, but there is no issue with voice. It is using 5% of HSPA+/IPRAN network capacity, data is using 95%.

 

[jjhrick]

There's apparently some posts I missed because the forum software isn't putting me at the right point for new posts, and is not letting me get to the 13th page. So they're a little out of order. I'm pretty sure I missed a few, probably more junk posts crying about AT&T, WAH WAH WAH I'm entitled to as much data as I can suck down, screw everyone else, AT&T should give it to me because I want it WAH WAH WAH.



There is a declining number of people on the Unlimited plan, since it is no longer offered.

Nothing is truly unlimited. People have been kicked out of the buffet for abusing unlimited food, nor are voice minutes truly unlimited. Deal with it.

Aggregate use is not fiction, it's not a specific user, but rather trends over millions of users. AT&T right now has something like 50 million smartphone users. That many users are going to show some really, really good trends. You apparently can't comprehend the concept that if everyone was offered unlimited (5GB full speed) data for $30, that x %, let's call it 4.5% would use between 3GB and 5GB, but in the current system, where it is $50 to do so, y %, let's call it 1.5% will choose to pay to use between 3GB and 5GB.

Because the average user between the 200MB, 300MB, 2GB, and 3GB plans is using 400MB, that means that tripling the number of users averaging 4GB/mo will have a noticeable impact on the network.

The bigger deal, however, and the much scarier numbers are what if unlimited was left unchecked and more and more of the unlimited users started using more and more data, the data usage of the 5% of the top users would start to become more and more of the total network capacity, likely well over 30%.

Just because you don't want to think about anything complicated doesn't mean reality isn't.

Yes, AT&T could have done a better job managing the data tsunami. If I were them, I would have kept unlimited, allowed unlimited tethering for free, and put a 200kbps throttle at 2GB, which would have applied to all customers, regardless of when they signed up for the plans, since it would be the same plan. Then, it would have been possible to offer an option switch to a tiered plan for users who want more than 2GB at full speed. But that' not what AT&T decided to do.



Again, you need to step your comprehension up a few notches, because the vast majority of users won't pay for the 5GB plan, or overages on the 3GB plan, so in aggregate, keeping the $30 price point at 3GB helps congestion.



No I don't. I am simply a defender of reality. Spectrum is limited, and the contract says what it says. Period.



First of all, virtually no one talks on the phone for 3 hours straight, but there is no issue with voice. It is using 5% of HSPA+/IPRAN network capacity, data is using 95%.

The reality ATT offers many plans including unlimited voice not just 5000 minutes. I do not contest that spectrum is limited. The average user is not part of this discussion except for your misguided attempts to drag it into it. The contract says unlimited unless there is abuse. Prove abuse.$50 vs $30 has absolutely nothing to do with abuse and everything to do with profit. So what if users above 4GB have an impact, ATT is selling those plans, if they can not support them that is fraud. All you are proving with the spectrum limitations is that ATT is not capable of supporting the plans that they are offering, but you "feel" that they are justified in blaming the user. Where is that in the contract? If they offer 5, 10 or unlimited plans they should honor the contract PERIOD. Why do you think that the clauses in the contract should ONLY apply to the user not ATT?

Each time I ask you to deal with the offerings from ATT you divert the arguement to spectrum or pricing both of these are controlled by ATT not the user. Who is abusing whom?

 

[BiggAW]

The reality ATT offers many plans including unlimited voice not just 5000 minutes. I do not contest that spectrum is limited. The average user is not part of this discussion except for your misguided attempts to drag it into it. The contract says unlimited unless there is abuse. Prove abuse.$50 vs $30 has absolutely nothing to do with abuse and everything to do with profit. So what if users above 4GB have an impact, ATT is selling those plans, if they can not support them that is fraud. All you are proving with the spectrum limitations is that ATT is not capable of supporting the plans that they are offering, but you "feel" that they are justified in blaming the user. Where is that in the contract? If they offer 5, 10 or unlimited plans they should honor the contract PERIOD. Why do you think that the clauses in the contract should ONLY apply to the user not ATT?

Each time I ask you to deal with the offerings from ATT you divert the arguement to spectrum or pricing both of these are controlled by ATT not the user. Who is abusing whom?

Pretty much any "unlimited" voice plan is actually 5000 or 10000 minutes. They can't charge you more, but they can kick you off if you continually use more than that.

The 3GB vs. 5GB has to do with overall data consumption. They can't support a large number of customers doing 5GB, and they know that. They are willing to opportunistically cash in on a few. You still don't seem to understand that they can support a few customers at the 5GB level, but not very many. It's all about the aggregate. If you were the only customer, of course they could support unlimited. Heck, they could support true unlimited for the next year on LTE (even with users pushing into the hundreds of GBs), but they are smart enough now to realize that if they did that, people would have a hissy fit down the road when they had to reign in the bandwidth porkers because there are 30 million people on the network.

They could also support true unlimited in some areas, but they are smart enough to realize now that location-based management pisses people off. Why should someone in Manhattan be getting less than someone in Eastern CT, just because they have almost endless capacity in Eastern CT, but a shortage in Manhattan?

They are honoring the contract. The contract gives them the right to modify the service, as I have shown you before. The contract also applies to AT&T, but it specifically says that speeds aren't guaranteed. If AT&T were to start charging unlimited users for overages, than that would be a material breach of contract, and would entitle those users to have their ETF changed to $0, but they are not charging overage fees, so they can manage their network as they see fit.

Spectrum is fixed. AT&T tried to acquire more PCS by buying T-Mobile, and the FCC said no. So AT&T has worse of a spectrum problem than they were anticipating.

 

[jjhrick]

Pretty much any "unlimited" voice plan is actually 5000 or 10000 minutes. They can't charge you more, but they can kick you off if you continually use more than that.

The 3GB vs. 5GB has to do with overall data consumption. They can't support a large number of customers doing 5GB, and they know that. They are willing to opportunistically cash in on a few. You still don't seem to understand that they can support a few customers at the 5GB level, but not very many. It's all about the aggregate. If you were the only customer, of course they could support unlimited. Heck, they could support true unlimited for the next year on LTE (even with users pushing into the hundreds of GBs), but they are smart enough now to realize that if they did that, people would have a hissy fit down the road when they had to reign in the bandwidth porkers because there are 30 million people on the network.

They could also support true unlimited in some areas, but they are smart enough to realize now that location-based management pisses people off. Why should someone in Manhattan be getting less than someone in Eastern CT, just because they have almost endless capacity in Eastern CT, but a shortage in Manhattan?

They are honoring the contract. The contract gives them the right to modify the service, as I have shown you before. The contract also applies to AT&T, but it specifically says that speeds aren't guaranteed. If AT&T were to start charging unlimited users for overages, than that would be a material breach of contract, and would entitle those users to have their ETF changed to $0, but they are not charging overage fees, so they can manage their network as they see fit.

Spectrum is fixed. AT&T tried to acquire more PCS by buying T-Mobile, and the FCC said no. So AT&T has worse of a spectrum problem than they were anticipating.

Look up their voice plan they offer 5000 and unlimited "Anytime, Anywhere, for however long"

Spectrum is not always the limiting factor, backbone number of towers, etc.

So you are ok with fraud, offering a plan(s) they have no intention of honoring. So be it. You are obivious to the truth. I wish you well but it is not a debate if you ignore the facts. Good luck to you.

 

[BiggAW]

Look up their voice plan they offer 5000 and unlimited "Anytime, Anywhere, for however long"

Spectrum is not always the limiting factor, backbone number of towers, etc.

So you are ok with fraud, offering a plan(s) they have no intention of honoring. So be it. You are obivious to the truth. I wish you well but it is not a debate if you ignore the facts. Good luck to you.

It's not fraud to enforce the clauses in the contract that the customer signed.

 

[jjhrick]

It's not fraud to enforce the clauses in the contract that the customer signed.

One clause is unlimited data. Why shouldn't ATT enforce that one? And you are wrong about the unlimited voice plan but being wrong doesn't bother you at all does it?

All your blather about ATT network speeds being guarenteed has nothing to do with throttling. Go back to thru the thread and revisit the examples of them throttling users a levels as low as 1.5 GB and now at 3.0GB They offer plans that exceed this cap but claim abuse when an unlimited user exceeds this amount. Some how this constitutes abuse but you and ATT have not proved that in any way shape or form. You can try complaining about $20, spectrum limits, statisical average users, the fact you don't like ATT data plans, don't understand ATT motives for grandfathering phone contracts or any other spurious issues you can dream up but the fact remains ATT offers the plan and if they have certain rights so do the users. At least one court case has supported that and ATT is now trying to reach an agreement with that plantiff before he teaches other users how to win their cases.

I have enjoyed your statisical arguments but statisics lie. One out of ten people are idiots, you are one of ten people. But I digress.

So I will repeat myself yet again why shouldn't ATT be forced to honor the unlimited data plan that they accept payment for? Please leave your feelings out of it and stick to the facts. Remember if you offer something you don't intend to honor that is fraud.

 

[BiggAW]

One clause is unlimited data. Why shouldn't ATT enforce that one? And you are wrong about the unlimited voice plan but being wrong doesn't bother you at all does it?

All your blather about ATT network speeds being guarenteed has nothing to do with throttling. Go back to thru the thread and revisit the examples of them throttling users a levels as low as 1.5 GB and now at 3.0GB They offer plans that exceed this cap but claim abuse when an unlimited user exceeds this amount. Some how this constitutes abuse but you and ATT have not proved that in any way shape or form. You can try complaining about $20, spectrum limits, statisical average users, the fact you don't like ATT data plans, don't understand ATT motives for grandfathering phone contracts or any other spurious issues you can dream up but the fact remains ATT offers the plan and if they have certain rights so do the users. At least one court case has supported that and ATT is now trying to reach an agreement with that plantiff before he teaches other users how to win their cases.

I have enjoyed your statisical arguments but statisics lie. One out of ten people are idiots, you are one of ten people. But I digress.

So I will repeat myself yet again why shouldn't ATT be forced to honor the unlimited data plan that they accept payment for? Please leave your feelings out of it and stick to the facts. Remember if you offer something you don't intend to honor that is fraud.

They still offer unlimited users unlimited. They can burn through 3GB on day one, and keep streaming Pandora all month long.

It has everything to do with throttling, as it obviously has to do with speed.

Again, there seems to be no comprehension of aggregate usage here.

They're trying to cut down on churn, but they should just grow a pair. It's not like anyone has anywhere else to go. With Sprint, you're basically throttled all the time because they have so few EVDO channels that the data speeds suck.

AT&T does honor the plan that they are being paid for. The contract has to do with an unlimited AMOUNT of data, but not at any specific speed. However, I do believe that they should kick people off of grandfathered plans as soon as they can (when an upgrade on the account happens, or when their contract runs out).

AT&T should have terminated that guy's service for going to court over the contract that he agreed to. If they had terminated it before the court date, he would have had no contract, and thus no damages. That, or sent a rep who knew what they were talking about, who could have won the case.

 

[jjhrick]

They still offer unlimited users unlimited. They can burn through 3GB on day one, and keep streaming Pandora all month long.

It has everything to do with throttling, as it obviously has to do with speed.

Again, there seems to be no comprehension of aggregate usage here.

They're trying to cut down on churn, but they should just grow a pair. It's not like anyone has anywhere else to go. With Sprint, you're basically throttled all the time because they have so few EVDO channels that the data speeds suck.

AT&T does honor the plan that they are being paid for. The contract has to do with an unlimited AMOUNT of data, but not at any specific speed. However, I do believe that they should kick people off of grandfathered plans as soon as they can (when an upgrade on the account happens, or when their contract runs out).

AT&T should have terminated that guy's service for going to court over the contract that he agreed to. If they had terminated it before the court date, he would have had no contract, and thus no damages. That, or sent a rep who knew what they were talking about, who could have won the case.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

What is "execessive" data on an unlimited plan. It is not defined in the contract, but I am sure you know exactly what that level is perhaps your aggregate user's level? Throttling data puts a cap on the amount of data since ATT is creating a bottleneck. If the user were to use the data service at maximum for the entire month there is a defacto cap, but ATT is willy nilly deciding what level to throttle. It does not have to do with abuse. According to you it is okay to sell a plan which specifies or leaves open the level of data the user may use but not allow them to freely do so. ATT says here is a data plan, pay us x dollars and you get y data, unless we think you are abusing the network. If ATT does not define "excessive" in the contract you previously quoted how can you? 1.5 didn't fly, 3GB may not fly, maybe ATT will settle on 5, 6 or even 10, but it will have nothing to do with your aggregate user but what the customers will put up with. We will not decide the answer ATT, the courts or perhaps the goverment will end up deciding.

 

[BiggAW]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

What is "execessive" data on an unlimited plan. It is not defined in the contract, but I am sure you know exactly what that level is perhaps your aggregate user's level? Throttling data puts a cap on the amount of data since ATT is creating a bottleneck. If the user were to use the data service at maximum for the entire month there is a defacto cap, but ATT is willy nilly deciding what level to throttle. It does not have to do with abuse. According to you it is okay to sell a plan which specifies or leaves open the level of data the user may use but not allow them to freely do so. ATT says here is a data plan, pay us x dollars and you get y data, unless we think you are abusing the network. If ATT does not define "excessive" in the contract you previously quoted how can you? 1.5 didn't fly, 3GB may not fly, maybe ATT will settle on 5, 6 or even 10, but it will have nothing to do with your aggregate user but what the customers will put up with. We will not decide the answer ATT, the courts or perhaps the goverment will end up deciding.

By your logic, a user on unlimited is entitled to unlimited speed, since limiting the speed to 73mbps on a 10x10 rollout is limiting their data consumption. Get real.

There is no more argument at the 3GB level, as the equivalent tiered plan is $30/3GB. The argument before was that people were getting throttled at 1.8GB when the same cost plan was 3GB. That's a valid reason to feel cheated, even though AT&T was well within their rights legally.

 

[jjhrick]

By your logic, a user on unlimited is entitled to unlimited speed, since limiting the speed to 73mbps on a 10x10 rollout is limiting their data consumption. Get real.

There is no more argument at the 3GB level, as the equivalent tiered plan is $30/3GB. The argument before was that people were getting throttled at 1.8GB when the same cost plan was 3GB. That's a valid reason to feel cheated, even though AT&T was well within their rights legally.

I was pointing out that throttling does limit the amount of data which you claimed wasn't the case.

Why is ATT within their rights of throttling without proving abuse? That is their logic for capping users isn't it?

Do you know what happens to a 3GB user who goes over his plan allotment? Is that user throttled for abuse? Is he cut off? Is he terminated? The answer is that user is charged $10 for another GB and if that user exceeds 4GB he is charged another 10 dollars. No case for abuse according to ATT. Now I would like to stretch your mind around the concept that when ATT sold users the unlimited plan they if fact meant to honor that plan but now realize that they are undercharging when compared to their courent data plan offerings. They have two choices. One is to honor that plan and provide unlimited data subject to the limitations of their network or two throttle the users by claimnig abuse of service. Your arguement all along as been that since ATT realizes that the unlimited plan is too good of a deal they should ignore the fact they still offer it as a grandfathered plan and force users to "upgrade" to a more expensive plan or be subject to throttling for imaginary abuse. Prove that they are abusing the network. If they allow other users to "pay" for addtional data useage without question then it is hypocritical to claim abuse simply because somebody has a really good deal in place, like you claim you have on your grandfathered plan. Then when pressed you say ATT should withdraw the grandfathered plans, which is not an option that ATT is applying so that point was and is moot. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It just bugs you that these users have been getting away with something that they have been paying for several years. This reeks of jealousy, to which you have pointed out that your plan allows tethering to which I say big whoop! That is an option which may be of some importance to you and others but it never was the point of this discussion of throttling data speeds. Everything else you have tried to bring into the discussion involves explaining how limited bandwidth could be limiting factor for users. Well so be it. ATT has several ways to deal with that more towers, faster backbones, etc, fewer customers, etc. Singling out one class of users and saying that they are abusing the network is nonsensical. You have to deal with the fact the contract with ATT forces certain obligations on the user and ATT not just the user. Managing the network is well within their rights arbitralily choosing one class of users and state they are abusing the network without any proof is not. Define execessive, if you dare ATT sure is having problems with that one.

 

[BiggAW]

I was pointing out that throttling does limit the amount of data which you claimed wasn't the case.

Why is ATT within their rights of throttling without proving abuse? That is their logic for capping users isn't it?

Do you know what happens to a 3GB user who goes over his plan allotment? Is that user throttled for abuse? Is he cut off? Is he terminated? The answer is that user is charged $10 for another GB and if that user exceeds 4GB he is charged another 10 dollars. No case for abuse according to ATT. Now I would like to stretch your mind around the concept that when ATT sold users the unlimited plan they if fact meant to honor that plan but now realize that they are undercharging when compared to their courent data plan offerings. They have two choices. One is to honor that plan and provide unlimited data subject to the limitations of their network or two throttle the users by claimnig abuse of service. Your arguement all along as been that since ATT realizes that the unlimited plan is too good of a deal they should ignore the fact they still offer it as a grandfathered plan and force users to "upgrade" to a more expensive plan or be subject to throttling for imaginary abuse. Prove that they are abusing the network. If they allow other users to "pay" for addtional data useage without question then it is hypocritical to claim abuse simply because somebody has a really good deal in place, like you claim you have on your grandfathered plan. Then when pressed you say ATT should withdraw the grandfathered plans, which is not an option that ATT is applying so that point was and is moot. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It just bugs you that these users have been getting away with something that they have been paying for several years. This reeks of jealousy, to which you have pointed out that your plan allows tethering to which I say big whoop! That is an option which may be of some importance to you and others but it never was the point of this discussion of throttling data speeds. Everything else you have tried to bring into the discussion involves explaining how limited bandwidth could be limiting factor for users. Well so be it. ATT has several ways to deal with that more towers, faster backbones, etc, fewer customers, etc. Singling out one class of users and saying that they are abusing the network is nonsensical. You have to deal with the fact the contract with ATT forces certain obligations on the user and ATT not just the user. Managing the network is well within their rights arbitralily choosing one class of users and state they are abusing the network without any proof is not. Define execessive, if you dare ATT sure is having problems with that one.

Throttling doesn't limit the amount of data. Abuse and negatively impacting the network are two different things. You have an impossibly high level of proof that you are requiring for network impacts.

Again, you obviously have no comprehension of aggregate use. The point is that the vast majority of users won't go over the 3GB market because they don't want to pay, even if some of them would have on an unlimited plan.

I am saying that they should kick everyone off of grandfathered plans. Because the 3GB plan loses the FAN discount, I would have to pay $9/mo more. I am saying that's what they should do to be fair, not because I'm jealous of others who have to pay more for their service.

So what do you want: AT&T to just get rid of their ETFs and blanket nuke all the grandfathered plans? They can't just let unlimited users slow down their network. Forcing people off during upgrades or when the contract runs out would be a much more graceful way to phase the plans out, but they have to be throttled in the mean time.

 

[diamond.g]

Because the 3GB plan loses the FAN discount, I would have to pay $9/mo more.

Why does the 3GB plan lose FAN discount? Last I checked the 3GB plan is 30$ which is means it should qualify for the discount, no?

 

[jjhrick]

Throttling doesn't limit the amount of data. Abuse and negatively impacting the network are two different things. You have an impossibly high level of proof that you are requiring for network impacts.

Again, you obviously have no comprehension of aggregate use. The point is that the vast majority of users won't go over the 3GB market because they don't want to pay, even if some of them would have on an unlimited plan.

I am saying that they should kick everyone off of grandfathered plans. Because the 3GB plan loses the FAN discount, I would have to pay $9/mo more. I am saying that's what they should do to be fair, not because I'm jealous of others who have to pay more for their service.

So what do you want: AT&T to just get rid of their ETFs and blanket nuke all the grandfathered plans? They can't just let unlimited users slow down their network. Forcing people off during upgrades or when the contract runs out would be a much more graceful way to phase the plans out, but they have to be throttled in the mean time.

Throttling at some point limits the amount of data. According to ATT abuse warrents throttling. Prove abuse. Negative impact is not abuse. Anyone who uses the the network has a negative impact, obviously the more you use it the more the impact. Aggregate useage has nada to do with throttling and has everything to do with marketing and sales. ATT figures that most user will stay under their caps, that enables them to have more users on the same spectrum/bandwidth without forcing them to upgrade their capacity. Just like airlines and hotels overbook they are risking not being able to provide the services they have committed to. You feel this is justified. I don't, the airlines and hotels are forced by the goverment to provide compensation to customers deprived of a flight or a room. They should and eventually will enforce similar compensations of data users deprived by the cell phone companies.

What ATT should do about grandfathered plans according to you is what they are not doing so give it up. Just like Warren Buffet no one is forcing you to continue the grandfathered plan with corporate discount, but you will accept the benefits while deploring it for others. Just like taxes no one is forcing you to take the deductions. If you were principled you would give up your "grandfathered" plan but you are not so you will wait for the day you are forced to give it up. You are no different the the "unlimited" users just less honest.

You cannot define abuse only negative impact. They are not the same thing at all.

Here is a thought for you if ATT reaches capacity in some areas and unlimited users are frustrated by the lack of throughput many they will leave on their own without forcing ATT to spend more money on the network or creating abuse charges where there are none. Of course ATT may loose other customers as well but that is the business world isn't it? Think of all the extra bandwidth you would have then.

I have given you repeated examples proving this is not about abuse but about profit, you continue to ignore that. Why?

 

[BiggAW]

If you were principled you would give up your "grandfathered" plan but you are not so you will wait for the day you are forced to give it up. You are no different the the "unlimited" users just less honest.
...
I have given you repeated examples proving this is not about abuse but about profit, you continue to ignore that. Why?

That would be stupid. I'll be glad to give it up when they force everyone else off it too.

It wasn't originally about profit. They opportunistically took a real bandwidth and spectrum crunch and used it to make more money.

----------

Why does the 3GB plan lose FAN discount? Last I checked the 3GB plan is 30$ which is means it should qualify for the discount, no?

It just doesn't qualify. None of the new plans do.

 

[jjhrick]

That would be stupid. I'll be glad to give it up when they force everyone else off it too.

It wasn't originally about profit. They opportunistically took a real bandwidth and spectrum crunch and used it to make more money.

----------



It just doesn't qualify. None of the new plans do.

Please note I did not say smart, I said principled. You have been asserting that the unlimited users were be selfish and greedy by attempting to use what there plan provides for. I thought that the comparison to your plan would somehow make you realize you too have favorable terms compared to the current offerings.

It was always about the money, it always is. They attempted to cap at 1.5-2.0 gb well below there current offerings if it was data management they would have throttled at the highest level, but as shown there is not "highest" level because ATT simply charges the user another $10 for 1GB you go over. It is even more obvious when you consider they were using regional numbers when calculating the cap base the the top 5% which in resulting in capping at 1.5GB. Which means in areas with low usage the caps were actually lower than in high usage areas which likely would have more bandwidth issues.

ATT tipped their hand,that it was not data usage but pricing. Since they won't terminate the grandfathered plans for whatever reasons they tried an underhanded approach and got called out. Next time they will be a little bit smarter about the next attempt. But knowing ATT only a little a very little.

 

[BiggAW]

Please note I did not say smart, I said principled. You have been asserting that the unlimited users were be selfish and greedy by attempting to use what there plan provides for. I thought that the comparison to your plan would somehow make you realize you too have favorable terms compared to the current offerings.

It was always about the money, it always is. They attempted to cap at 1.5-2.0 gb well below there current offerings if it was data management they would have throttled at the highest level, but as shown there is not "highest" level because ATT simply charges the user another $10 for 1GB you go over. It is even more obvious when you consider they were using regional numbers when calculating the cap base the the top 5% which in resulting in capping at 1.5GB. Which means in areas with low usage the caps were actually lower than in high usage areas which likely would have more bandwidth issues.

ATT tipped their hand,that it was not data usage but pricing. Since they won't terminate the grandfathered plans for whatever reasons they tried an underhanded approach and got called out. Next time they will be a little bit smarter about the next attempt. But knowing ATT only a little a very little.

No, I said unlimited users were greedy and selfish if they used insane amounts of data. 95% of unlimited users don't use insane amounts of data, and I can't use insane amounts of data unless I pay more, as I'm capped. I get a good deal, since I'm only paying about $21/mo after FAN discount for virtually unlimited data.

There's a lot of ways to analyze that data. What if Manhattan has lower data usage on average, because the network is so congested you just can't pull a lot? I don't know if that's the case, but it's not unfathomable to think. Or an area that has relatively few sites may also have lower usage.

I can agree with you that they need to grow a pair. They did it pretty sneakily, when they should have simply kicked people off the unlimited plans as quickly as possible and homogenized their offerings. If they had done that, it would have been perfectly fair to go to $30/2GB like Verizon did, without having to offer the carrot of $25 plans or more data. Or they could have just kept Unlimited* *you will be throttled to 200kbps after 2,048MB of use.

 

[DiamondMac]

No, I said unlimited users were greedy and selfish if they used insane amounts of data.

What is an insane amount of data?

 

[BiggAW]

What is an insane amount of data?

3GB definitely. 2GB maybe. Some users were way past that, up in the 5-10GB range. It's those abusive porkers that have made this whole mess.

 

[jjhrick]

3GB definitely. 2GB maybe. Some users were way past that, up in the 5-10GB range. It's those abusive porkers that have made this whole mess.

It is obvious that ATT does not agreed with your definition since they are actively promoting 5 GB plans with the no cap, since additional data is $10 per GB. They promote this level of usage in their commercials and advertising. I can only surmise that data usage in excess of 3GB is not an abusive situation that will bring the network to its knees. I understand your opinions about data usage and what is excessive and the fact that ATT should stop offering their data plans that are grandfathered but this will not stop ATT from going forward with their promotions for more and greater data plans. The only difference is that ATT will make more money with the new plans. Since you enjoy the benefits of your grandfathered plan, I believe the same should be held for those who are lucky enough to be enrolled on the unlimited plan. Since you correctly point out that if unlimited users use extreme (I respectfully disagree with your definition.) amounts of data the network will slow, that will eventually result in a natural throttling of users as a result of limited bandwidth. Several options are then likely to occur, ATT increases capacity in affected areas, users accept limitations, users leave ATT or a combination of all of the above. You need to understand this is ATT's business model not yours or mine we can not make decisions for them only state opinions. They are NOT doing away with grandfathered plans so lets leave that out of the discussion it is not productive. So if grandfathered plans are here to stay and plans in excess of three GB are also then ATT will have to adjust their model to handle more data. If you can accept these preconditions then we are just arguing about price and profit. As I said its about money.

 

[BiggAW]

It is obvious that ATT does not agreed with your definition since they are actively promoting 5 GB plans with the no cap, since additional data is $10 per GB. They promote this level of usage in their commercials and advertising. I can only surmise that data usage in excess of 3GB is not an abusive situation that will bring the network to its knees. I understand your opinions about data usage and what is excessive and the fact that ATT should stop offering their data plans that are grandfathered but this will not stop ATT from going forward with their promotions for more and greater data plans. The only difference is that ATT will make more money with the new plans. Since you enjoy the benefits of your grandfathered plan, I believe the same should be held for those who are lucky enough to be enrolled on the unlimited plan. Since you correctly point out that if unlimited users use extreme (I respectfully disagree with your definition.) amounts of data the network will slow, that will eventually result in a natural throttling of users as a result of limited bandwidth. Several options are then likely to occur, ATT increases capacity in affected areas, users accept limitations, users leave ATT or a combination of all of the above. You need to understand this is ATT's business model not yours or mine we can not make decisions for them only state opinions. They are NOT doing away with grandfathered plans so lets leave that out of the discussion it is not productive. So if grandfathered plans are here to stay and plans in excess of three GB are also then ATT will have to adjust their model to handle more data. If you can accept these preconditions then we are just arguing about price and profit. As I said its about money.

Do you not remember that I explained aggregate data usage a few posts back?

I don't want my data slowed down because some jerk is streaming TV and racking up 10GB on his unlimited plan. I'm glad they are capped to 3GB. Good for the LTE folks, that network has a ridiculous amount of capacity right now, since no one is on it.

Right now, the three price points are $30/3GB with throttling, $25/2GB with overages, and $30/3GB with overages. All about the same. I guess AT&T decided that 3GB of data is something that is sustainable for them as a maximum for the vast majority of customers. If I were them, I would have ratcheted it back to 2GB, but whatever, that's the way they went. Cost is enough of a disincentive towards data use that it will control it in the aggregate. I'm sure there are businesses slurping huge amounts of data, and paying by the GB for it, but that's few and far between (mobile newscasters who use wireless uplink maybe).

 

[jjhrick]

Do you not remember that I explained aggregate data usage a few posts back?

I don't want my data slowed down because some jerk is streaming TV and racking up 10GB on his unlimited plan. I'm glad they are capped to 3GB. Good for the LTE folks, that network has a ridiculous amount of capacity right now, since no one is on it.

Right now, the three price points are $30/3GB with throttling, $25/2GB with overages, and $30/3GB with overages. All about the same. I guess AT&T decided that 3GB of data is something that is sustainable for them as a maximum for the vast majority of customers. If I were them, I would have ratcheted it back to 2GB, but whatever, that's the way they went. Cost is enough of a disincentive towards data use that it will control it in the aggregate. I'm sure there are businesses slurping huge amounts of data, and paying by the GB for it, but that's few and far between (mobile newscasters who use wireless uplink maybe).

You are ignoring the 5GB plan, with overages.

I guess we are back to whether negative impact = abuse, if it does not then ATT has no vailid recourse for capping at 3 GB. I don't believe that neither ATT or yourself has made the case for it being the same. I do believe cost can be a disincentive but is it legal? On a plan with a cap plus $10 per additional GB I would say yes. But on an unlimited plan with NO pre-estabished cap that is inherently unfair. Could that adversely affect your throughput, yes. But it is what it is, not want you want it to be. It is up to ATT to change its business plan. As long as ATT offers a plan called unlimited the burden is on them to prove abuse, 3,4,5 GBs don't rise to that level. The price of the unlimited plan is not a factor, that price is set by ATT not by you, me, or any other customer. So if thirty for unlimited is inadequate that is ATT's problem the users. There is no provision for additional charges for exceeding an nonexisting cap on this plan. Overselling the network is not the users responsibility to manage but ATT's to plan for.

ATT should be able to set the prices for the plans that they offer, but once they do they should honor that plan, attempting to nudge users by unfair throttling should be punished.

ATT is spending a fortune on NCAA advertising extolling the speed and capacity of their network, including watching games, etc. How is a user abusing the network by watching a movie or a basketball game? Is it ok for ATT to lie to us in their commercials? Should we pay more and expect less? At what point do we get businesses to tell the truth in their advertising? Isn't it nonsensical to have an unlimited plan that is less than a capped plan?

Unlimited is not infinite but it should be the largest data usage allowed on the network. It is up to ATT to manage their network better not the users. I can think of many other methods of managing bandwidth that are more inherently fair to everyone but I don't believe ATT is interested. Your ideas may work as well but they are not ATT's. Imagine a user buying the unlimited plan then 3 years later ATT rolls a die and determines a new cap on your plan, and if you exceed it you are a bad boy and are abusing the network. Did it fool anyone, it didn't fool me and I don't think it fooled you either.

 

[BiggAW]

You are ignoring the 5GB plan, with overages.

I guess we are back to whether negative impact = abuse, if it does not then ATT has no vailid recourse for capping at 3 GB. I don't believe that neither ATT or yourself has made the case for it being the same. I do believe cost can be a disincentive but is it legal? On a plan with a cap plus $10 per additional GB I would say yes. But on an unlimited plan with NO pre-estabished cap that is inherently unfair. Could that adversely affect your throughput, yes. But it is what it is, not want you want it to be. It is up to ATT to change its business plan. As long as ATT offers a plan called unlimited the burden is on them to prove abuse, 3,4,5 GBs don't rise to that level. The price of the unlimited plan is not a factor, that price is set by ATT not by you, me, or any other customer. So if thirty for unlimited is inadequate that is ATT's problem the users. There is no provision for additional charges for exceeding an nonexisting cap on this plan. Overselling the network is not the users responsibility to manage but ATT's to plan for.

ATT should be able to set the prices for the plans that they offer, but once they do they should honor that plan, attempting to nudge users by unfair throttling should be punished.

ATT is spending a fortune on NCAA advertising extolling the speed and capacity of their network, including watching games, etc. How is a user abusing the network by watching a movie or a basketball game? Is it ok for ATT to lie to us in their commercials? Should we pay more and expect less? At what point do we get businesses to tell the truth in their advertising? Isn't it nonsensical to have an unlimited plan that is less than a capped plan?

Unlimited is not infinite but it should be the largest data usage allowed on the network. It is up to ATT to manage their network better not the users. I can think of many other methods of managing bandwidth that are more inherently fair to everyone but I don't believe ATT is interested. Your ideas may work as well but they are not ATT's. Imagine a user buying the unlimited plan then 3 years later ATT rolls a die and determines a new cap on your plan, and if you exceed it you are a bad boy and are abusing the network. Did it fool anyone, it didn't fool me and I don't think it fooled you either.

I already explained aggregate data usage. The short of it, for about the fifteenth time, is that very few subscribers will actually pay for that, so the load on the network will be minimal.

Right, unlimited means unlimited. That means there will be no overage charges. It doesn't mean that's guaranteed at any particular speed, be that the full network speed, 200kbps or anything else, and that's clearly spelled out in the contract. Their previous throttling plan was really shady, because they didn't disclose the throttle point, but still legal. Their current method of disclosing the throttle point is completely legitimate.

Their ability to throttle was in the contract since day 1, so no surprises there.

I do agree that AT&T should stop advertising streaming video in their commercials, as anything more than short, low bitrate clips is abuse. I think there is an issue where their marketing department has gone nuts and the network engineering department either doesn't have the cajones, or the sway within the company to make them be honest about what AT&T's HSPA+ network is intended to do, which is low- to mid- bitrate audio streaming AT MOST. Audio streaming is a HEAVY use of the network. Personally, last summer at work, I set Pandora on the 32kbps setting, and it worked fine without consuming totally ridiculous amounts of data.

The ability to cap/throttle without overages was in the unlimited plan since day 1. It was only a matter of time before they exercised that right. They are now being proactive, and not giving LTE unlimited either, as there would be a b*tch-fest later on when they started throttling that if they hadn't from day 1.

Basically, AT&T is well within it's right to do what it is doing, even if we don't think it is the best way to do what it is doing.

I think the ultimate in consumer choice would be to have a cap you hit, and get throttled, and get a text where you can choose to buy another GB of full-speed data. The idea of site-by-site throttling for congestion is nice, but in practice, if it were done fairly, the "unlimited" users would basically be cut off on the busiest sites, as they would get put to the bottom of the QoS, and basically wouldn't ever get anything through.

 

[jjhrick]

I already explained aggregate data usage. The short of it, for about the fifteenth time, is that very few subscribers will actually pay for that, so the load on the network will be minimal.

Right, unlimited means unlimited. That means there will be no overage charges. It doesn't mean that's guaranteed at any particular speed, be that the full network speed, 200kbps or anything else, and that's clearly spelled out in the contract. Their previous throttling plan was really shady, because they didn't disclose the throttle point, but still legal. Their current method of disclosing the throttle point is completely legitimate.

Their ability to throttle was in the contract since day 1, so no surprises there.

I do agree that AT&T should stop advertising streaming video in their commercials, as anything more than short, low bitrate clips is abuse. I think there is an issue where their marketing department has gone nuts and the network engineering department either doesn't have the cajones, or the sway within the company to make them be honest about what AT&T's HSPA+ network is intended to do, which is low- to mid- bitrate audio streaming AT MOST. Audio streaming is a HEAVY use of the network. Personally, last summer at work, I set Pandora on the 32kbps setting, and it worked fine without consuming totally ridiculous amounts of data.

The ability to cap/throttle without overages was in the unlimited plan since day 1. It was only a matter of time before they exercised that right. They are now being proactive, and not giving LTE unlimited either, as there would be a b*tch-fest later on when they started throttling that if they hadn't from day 1.

Basically, AT&T is well within it's right to do what it is doing, even if we don't think it is the best way to do what it is doing.

I think the ultimate in consumer choice would be to have a cap you hit, and get throttled, and get a text where you can choose to buy another GB of full-speed data. The idea of site-by-site throttling for congestion is nice, but in practice, if it were done fairly, the "unlimited" users would basically be cut off on the busiest sites, as they would get put to the bottom of the QoS, and basically wouldn't ever get anything through.

For the fifteenth time I don't care. Pricing something at price you hope no one will pay doesn't exempt them from supporting if people descide to purchase it in large numbers. The fact that it is offered is enough.

Again they lie you say they shouldn't do it, but they do. What no penalties?

Here is a clause from that might muddy the waters for you, from ATT

6.10 DataConnect Plans6.10.1 What Are the General Terms that Apply to All DataConnect Plans?

We may, at our discretion, suspend your account if we believe your data usage is excessive, unusual or is better suited to another rate plan. If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly MB/GB allowance and additional data usage rates, you agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 GB in a month; provided that, prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your Data Service.

Does not mention throttling, does it? Please note the 5GB in a month interesting isn't it. Kinda blows that 3GB cap out of the water doesn't it?

 

[maverikv]

If streaming Pandora, watching Netflix and Using iTunes match are abuse then maybe they shouldn't let me do those things or tout them as features.

Look at all of this awesome stuff you can do ANYWHERE on your iPhone! Cool right? Thanks for signing up! Don't you dare do any of those things abuser!