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

[BiggAW]

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?

There are many, many cases the world over where there are things in limited supply, and they are priced higher because there aren't enough of them to go around. It's called supply and demand, and free-market economics. Why you can't seem to understand this, I don't know. They know what the take rate is, and it's not going to change overnight.

You can't penalize a company because you don't like the way they are doing things. AT&T did nothing illegal, and nothing that was a violation of the contracts customers had with them. Even if they had violated contracts, the worst that could happen is the customer's ETF would be set to $0, and they would be free to go to Verizon, and get 4GB for $30 on an LTE phone if they so choose.

No, that has no bearing on the 3GB cap, as that's for data cards, which are more expensive, and far fewer of them are out there. It's clearly stated that the customer is entitled to unlimited while in contract, and that if AT&T wants to charge them more, then the contract is terminated, and the customer is free to go elsewhere or discontinue the service altogether. I don't know what point you're trying to get out, that AT&T's plans are confusing as *****. Yes, they are. That doesn't mean that there is something illegal about what they are doing.

It would be nice if the plans were flat rate across all devices, but they aren't. At least they are getting less awful with some stuff, the data overages on data cards used to be $50/GB billed by the KB, now they are in line with data industry-wide at $10/GB. Global data is still absurdly expensive, but at least now their global data plans won't create any massive bill shock, as they are billed in $10 increments, as long as you know what countries are not included in the plans.

 

[BiggAW]

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!

You can do those things, just not in excess. On the 2GB data plan, you can stream Pandora on the low setting for over 100 hours a month, and still have several hundred MB left over for normal data use. iTunes match over cellular is pretty dubious, but that is Apple's thing, not AT&T's, and AT&T, AFAIK, doesn't advertise it. It's also a stupid feature, you could just sync your whole library locally, and not have that issue. That's what I do.

You can do all the normal iPhone stuff as much as you want, and never get anywhere near the 2GB or 3GB limits. I do, and I have. It's when you start doing high bitrate streaming, video, tons of speedtests and full bitrate audio streaming like Google Music that the data really starts to slurp. Google Music is a bad offender, as it doesn't re-compress the music, so you end up streaming 256 and 320kbps files. I demoed it on my Android phone (at the time) one month that I was close to the end of the billing cycle, and hadn't used anywhere near my 2GB, and HOLY #$*% that thing rips through data.

I think a legitimate gripe would be how insanely expensive AT&T prices international data, when we know for a fact that places like Canada, and all of the EU have cheaply available data. That does impact the usefulness of stuff like mapping, uploading photos to Facebook, and getting data about attractions, as the base plan for international is only 50MB, which would be easy to go through just doing normal info lookups, a few short VOIP calls, email, etc. I know I tend to burn quite a bit of data while traveling. It seems like they price the data for some tiny island in god knows where that has no fiber, where $.60/MB would be reasonable, instead of adjusting rates by the country, like for Canada where it should be included in domestic plans.

 

[jjhrick]

There are many, many cases the world over where there are things in limited supply, and they are priced higher because there aren't enough of them to go around. It's called supply and demand, and free-market economics. Why you can't seem to understand this, I don't know. They know what the take rate is, and it's not going to change overnight.

You can't penalize a company because you don't like the way they are doing things. AT&T did nothing illegal, and nothing that was a violation of the contracts customers had with them. Even if they had violated contracts, the worst that could happen is the customer's ETF would be set to $0, and they would be free to go to Verizon, and get 4GB for $30 on an LTE phone if they so choose.

No, that has no bearing on the 3GB cap, as that's for data cards, which are more expensive, and far fewer of them are out there. It's clearly stated that the customer is entitled to unlimited while in contract, and that if AT&T wants to charge them more, then the contract is terminated, and the customer is free to go elsewhere or discontinue the service altogether. I don't know what point you're trying to get out, that AT&T's plans are confusing as *****. Yes, they are. That doesn't mean that there is something illegal about what they are doing.

It would be nice if the plans were flat rate across all devices, but they aren't. At least they are getting less awful with some stuff, the data overages on data cards used to be $50/GB billed by the KB, now they are in line with data industry-wide at $10/GB. Global data is still absurdly expensive, but at least now their global data plans won't create any massive bill shock, as they are billed in $10 increments, as long as you know what countries are not included in the plans.

Supply and demand wow what a concept. You miss the point entirely, It is not that they set a price higher than what many will pay for it, but once you sell something you have to support it. This discussion would not be happening if users did not go out and buy the top of the line plan at the time it was offered. So what happens if we all go out and sign up for it? Will ATT say no go away? Sure you can pay us $50 bucks for 5GB but we may decide to not honor that if our network suffers. BTW we won't refund your money either.

Much like their commercials your arguements are so 15 seconds ago. They promote data use then complain when users actually try to use it.

If your arguements concerning data capabilities have a valid foundation then ATT is using unfair business practices in promoting the plans. If they offer a plan they need to step up and support it. You are not the data police, you are not setting the pricing, you are not maintaining their network, you are not the final arbitrator of what is legal and what is proper usage. When you are CEO of ATT then you can fix their failures as to how they plan and operate their business. If I walk into a ATT store and order a phone that will be used in an area that is at capacity does ATT refuse to sell it? No they just say speeds are not guarrenteed. That is not management that is greed. You can dance all around it but ATT just wants more money for the same data.

You have argued both sides saying that there are few unlimited users because the plan is no longer available to new customers and at the same time "all those" unlimited users will bring down the network. But what if it's the 2GB users the vast majority of them that use their plan bringing down the data speeds? Perhaps it's the 400MB users? Maybe it is everyone.

It is interesting the read the contract, where it states that if a clause is found to be invalid the rest of the contract remains in force. ATT fully expects some of the clauses not to be unable to stand up to legal challenges. By pursuing these shady practices they are insuring that they will spend time and money defending them in the courts.

 

[maverikv]

You can do those things, just not in excess. On the 2GB data plan, you can stream Pandora on the low setting for over 100 hours a month, and still have several hundred MB left over for normal data use. iTunes match over cellular is pretty dubious, but that is Apple's thing, not AT&T's, and AT&T, AFAIK, doesn't advertise it. It's also a stupid feature, you could just sync your whole library locally, and not have that issue. That's what I do.

You can do all the normal iPhone stuff as much as you want, and never get anywhere near the 2GB or 3GB limits. I do, and I have. It's when you start doing high bitrate streaming, video, tons of speedtests and full bitrate audio streaming like Google Music that the data really starts to slurp. Google Music is a bad offender, as it doesn't re-compress the music, so you end up streaming 256 and 320kbps files. I demoed it on my Android phone (at the time) one month that I was close to the end of the billing cycle, and hadn't used anywhere near my 2GB, and HOLY #$*% that thing rips through data.

I think a legitimate gripe would be how insanely expensive AT&T prices international data, when we know for a fact that places like Canada, and all of the EU have cheaply available data. That does impact the usefulness of stuff like mapping, uploading photos to Facebook, and getting data about attractions, as the base plan for international is only 50MB, which would be easy to go through just doing normal info lookups, a few short VOIP calls, email, etc. I know I tend to burn quite a bit of data while traveling. It seems like they price the data for some tiny island in god knows where that has no fiber, where $.60/MB would be reasonable, instead of adjusting rates by the country, like for Canada where it should be included in domestic plans.

I didn't sign up for an unlimited data plan so I could listen to Pandora on the low setting on "AMERICA'S FASTEST 3G NETWORK!"

Who's to say what excess is? I have a job and a family. I don't sit watching Netflix movies 24/7. I don't see why I should be considered an abuser for casual use of advertised features. But here we are!

 

[BiggAW]

Supply and demand wow what a concept. You miss the point entirely, It is not that they set a price higher than what many will pay for it, but once you sell something you have to support it. This discussion would not be happening if users did not go out and buy the top of the line plan at the time it was offered. So what happens if we all go out and sign up for it? Will ATT say no go away? Sure you can pay us $50 bucks for 5GB but we may decide to not honor that if our network suffers. BTW we won't refund your money either.

Much like their commercials your arguements are so 15 seconds ago. They promote data use then complain when users actually try to use it.

If your arguements concerning data capabilities have a valid foundation then ATT is using unfair business practices in promoting the plans. If they offer a plan they need to step up and support it. You are not the data police, you are not setting the pricing, you are not maintaining their network, you are not the final arbitrator of what is legal and what is proper usage. When you are CEO of ATT then you can fix their failures as to how they plan and operate their business. If I walk into a ATT store and order a phone that will be used in an area that is at capacity does ATT refuse to sell it? No they just say speeds are not guarrenteed. That is not management that is greed. You can dance all around it but ATT just wants more money for the same data.

You have argued both sides saying that there are few unlimited users because the plan is no longer available to new customers and at the same time "all those" unlimited users will bring down the network. But what if it's the 2GB users the vast majority of them that use their plan bringing down the data speeds? Perhaps it's the 400MB users? Maybe it is everyone.

It is interesting the read the contract, where it states that if a clause is found to be invalid the rest of the contract remains in force. ATT fully expects some of the clauses not to be unable to stand up to legal challenges. By pursuing these shady practices they are insuring that they will spend time and money defending them in the courts.

The fact of the matter is, AT&T knows that very few people will get the 5GB plan, and many of the ones who do are using a few hundred MB's, but have it on business phones and want MHS. They know that. You need to realize that fringe cases aren't reality, and that the entire cellular system as we know it today is built on the concept that only a small fraction of users are actively using bandwidth (voice or data) at one time. If that simple concept wasn't true, modern cellular systems as we know them today would be impossible. Yes, systems have bulked up capacity significantly, especially systems like Verizon's CDMA 1x voice system, so that they are extremely reliable, but even then, it is oversubscribed by huge multipliers in many cases.

No wireless company that I've ever heard of has ever denied customers because a tower is overloaded, at least not since before AMPS was around, and channels were extremely limited. The basic argument here is as to whether what AT&T did with the unlimited plans is legal and in accordance with their contract, and the answer is a resounding yes.

They are absolutely opportunistically using the spectrum and capacity crunch to make more money. The thing is, they're not making more off of the unlimited users. The price didn't go up.

The thing is, when your average user uses 400MB, and you have someone using 12GB, they are now using the effective system capacity of 30 users. Even over a couple of % of the user base (let's say 2%), that ends up being a large percentage of the total data moved on the network. You reign them in back to 3GB, and the numbers crunch a lot better for everyone.

What is scary is that they are betting on people not using their 2GB or 3GB plans fully, which is mostly true right now. However, data usage is slowly creeping up on a per-user basis while new smartphone subs are added, which means that AT&T has to keep adding network capacity to keep where they are. Luckily, after they lost the iPhone exclusivity, it looks like they finally are moving forward, not only with improvements to HSPA+, but also with moving subs off to LTE, which will start happening in meaningful numbers by the end of December 2012, when the LTE iPhone has been out for 4 months, and a sizable number of subs have moved over.

The factor working in AT&T's favor is that the heavy data users tend to be faster adopters of new systems, so they will embrace LTE much faster than your average person who goes on Facebook and uses web and email and uses <400MB of data.

There's nothing shady in the contract. They way AT&T has dealt with data has been rather obtuse and bizarre at times, but that's not illegal to offer a confusing, constantly changing product, it's just bad business.

It's part good, and part bad. The good is that the data card overages were brought back into reality, and they offer more options for smartphone data. It is also that they don't seem to give a rat's @$$ if you tether on the capped plans. The downside is that they have not been transparent about how they manage unlimited, and while the initial change to $25/2GB was a pro-consumer move, the move to $30/3GB was basically a price increase, without actually going back to unlimited.

I didn't sign up for an unlimited data plan so I could listen to Pandora on the low setting on "AMERICA'S FASTEST 3G NETWORK!"

Who's to say what excess is? I have a job and a family. I don't sit watching Netflix movies 24/7. I don't see why I should be considered an abuser for casual use of advertised features. But here we are!

Casual use of even the 64kbps setting wouldn't get you anywhere near the 2GB or 3GB limits that AT&T has used/uses. Just because it's the fastest doesn't mean that everyone can get that speed all the time.

I stream, but streaming is an extremely bandwidth-intensive activity for a mobile network, even more so than HD video streaming on DOCSIS is, so I take very simple, easy steps to manage the bandwidth consumed so that I don't go over my cap, and I do my data slurping on wired or unlicensed wireless systems.

 

[jjhrick]

The fact of the matter is, AT&T knows that very few people will get the 5GB plan, and many of the ones who do are using a few hundred MB's, but have it on business phones and want MHS. They know that. You need to realize that fringe cases aren't reality, and that the entire cellular system as we know it today is built on the concept that only a small fraction of users are actively using bandwidth (voice or data) at one time. If that simple concept wasn't true, modern cellular systems as we know them today would be impossible. Yes, systems have bulked up capacity significantly, especially systems like Verizon's CDMA 1x voice system, so that they are extremely reliable, but even then, it is oversubscribed by huge multipliers in many cases.

No wireless company that I've ever heard of has ever denied customers because a tower is overloaded, at least not since before AMPS was around, and channels were extremely limited. The basic argument here is as to whether what AT&T did with the unlimited plans is legal and in accordance with their contract, and the answer is a resounding yes.

They are absolutely opportunistically using the spectrum and capacity crunch to make more money. The thing is, they're not making more off of the unlimited users. The price didn't go up.

The thing is, when your average user uses 400MB, and you have someone using 12GB, they are now using the effective system capacity of 30 users. Even over a couple of % of the user base (let's say 2%), that ends up being a large percentage of the total data moved on the network. You reign them in back to 3GB, and the numbers crunch a lot better for everyone.

What is scary is that they are betting on people not using their 2GB or 3GB plans fully, which is mostly true right now. However, data usage is slowly creeping up on a per-user basis while new smartphone subs are added, which means that AT&T has to keep adding network capacity to keep where they are. Luckily, after they lost the iPhone exclusivity, it looks like they finally are moving forward, not only with improvements to HSPA+, but also with moving subs off to LTE, which will start happening in meaningful numbers by the end of December 2012, when the LTE iPhone has been out for 4 months, and a sizable number of subs have moved over.

The factor working in AT&T's favor is that the heavy data users tend to be faster adopters of new systems, so they will embrace LTE much faster than your average person who goes on Facebook and uses web and email and uses <400MB of data.

There's nothing shady in the contract. They way AT&T has dealt with data has been rather obtuse and bizarre at times, but that's not illegal to offer a confusing, constantly changing product, it's just bad business.

It's part good, and part bad. The good is that the data card overages were brought back into reality, and they offer more options for smartphone data. It is also that they don't seem to give a rat's @$$ if you tether on the capped plans. The downside is that they have not been transparent about how they manage unlimited, and while the initial change to $25/2GB was a pro-consumer move, the move to $30/3GB was basically a price increase, without actually going back to unlimited.



Casual use of even the 64kbps setting wouldn't get you anywhere near the 2GB or 3GB limits that AT&T has used/uses. Just because it's the fastest doesn't mean that everyone can get that speed all the time.

I stream, but streaming is an extremely bandwidth-intensive activity for a mobile network, even more so than HD video streaming on DOCSIS is, so I take very simple, easy steps to manage the bandwidth consumed so that I don't go over my cap, and I do my data slurping on wired or unlicensed wireless systems.

The real fact of the matter is if they offer it eventually enough users will order and it will affect the network. Your over used example of pandora is audio only why don't you use an example of video from one of ATT's own commercials and show how fast a user will churn throught their data allotment. You don't get to decide what the people do with their phones or how the use their data. Maybe you can become the goverments DATA CZAR someday on tell us all what to do. I do not care how you manage your data it is not part of the discussion. ATT oversells their network and you seem to feel that its ok for them to do so, users attempting to copy the ads are abusing the network what bias on your part. Pricing is a silly assed way to manage data.

If they sell it they will come (eventually).

 

[BiggAW]

The real fact of the matter is if they offer it eventually enough users will order and it will affect the network. Your over used example of pandora is audio only why don't you use an example of video from one of ATT's own commercials and show how fast a user will churn throught their data allotment. You don't get to decide what the people do with their phones or how the use their data. Maybe you can become the goverments DATA CZAR someday on tell us all what to do. I do not care how you manage your data it is not part of the discussion. ATT oversells their network and you seem to feel that its ok for them to do so, users attempting to copy the ads are abusing the network what bias on your part. Pricing is a silly assed way to manage data.

If they sell it they will come (eventually).

No. They know how many people will get that plan, and it's not very many, and many of those are only getting it for MHS to expense to their company anyways, and probably averaging 200MB/mo.

AT&T's marketing department is basically lying in their ads, I'll give you that. Streaming video over licensed wireless is not, and will not be in the forseeable future, a practical use of licensed wireless services. The marketing department doesn't get it at all, the network engineering people get it, and the suits seem to kinda get it, but sometimes they don't.

Pretty much every service is oversold, that's just a fact of life. If everything were virgin bandwidth, and guaranteed, smartphones and smartphone data wouldn't exist.

 

[jjhrick]

No. They know how many people will get that plan, and it's not very many, and many of those are only getting it for MHS to expense to their company anyways, and probably averaging 200MB/mo.

AT&T's marketing department is basically lying in their ads, I'll give you that. Streaming video over licensed wireless is not, and will not be in the forseeable future, a practical use of licensed wireless services. The marketing department doesn't get it at all, the network engineering people get it, and the suits seem to kinda get it, but sometimes they don't.

Pretty much every service is oversold, that's just a fact of life. If everything were virgin bandwidth, and guaranteed, smartphones and smartphone data wouldn't exist.

They don't know they make assumptions, however educated, the point again is if you sell it you have to be able to support it and not assume they will only use 200MB/mo. or whatever. If they can't they are dishonest. They assumed they could support unlimited plans.

The marketing group is not a separate company, their promises are the companies promises. Fraud on their part is fraud by the company.

You constantly go to extremes in your arguements, virgin bandwidth is dramically different than continue to sell services in overloaded areas. If their arn't any overloaded areas than their is no data throughput issues and therefor no abuse.

 

[BiggAW]

They don't know they make assumptions, however educated, the point again is if you sell it you have to be able to support it and not assume they will only use 200MB/mo. or whatever. If they can't they are dishonest. They assumed they could support unlimited plans.

What don't you get about the concept of oversubscription? If everyone turned on their faucet at the same time, the water pressure would go to hell. If everyone got on the highway at the same time, it would be a parking lot, if everyone got on VOD at the same time, it would run out of QAM channels. Almost nothing is guaranteed, deal with it. The best data available is historical data, and things don't change overnight, so stop making up unrealistic scenarios to try and support your absurd claims.

They assumed they could support unlimited, based on the information available to them at that time. When you have 1% of your user base with data plans, and they are averaging <50MB/mo on your brand new, shiny Class 16 EDGE network, and you're working to move spectrum over from AMPS and TDMA, that assumption is pretty logical. When they realized it wasn't a good idea, they switched to a new path, and when people revolted to the caps, they provided a more transparent and fair solution.

The marketing group is not a separate company, their promises are the companies promises. Fraud on their part is fraud by the company.

Sure. There are clearly some management issues in terms of not keeping marketing in sync with engineering.

You constantly go to extremes in your arguements, virgin bandwidth is dramically different than continue to sell services in overloaded areas. If their arn't any overloaded areas than their is no data throughput issues and therefor no abuse.

You can't guarantee bandwidth unless it's virgin bandwidth. Yes, that's probably thousands of times more demanding, but that's the way it is. Abuse could create overloading. The other thing is, the way these networks operate, they are heavily loaded, they are supposed to be, they just shouldn't be so bad that you can barely use them (i.e. Midtown on AT&T).

 

[jjhrick]

What don't you get about the concept of oversubscription? If everyone turned on their faucet at the same time, the water pressure would go to hell. If everyone got on the highway at the same time, it would be a parking lot, if everyone got on VOD at the same time, it would run out of QAM channels. Almost nothing is guaranteed, deal with it. The best data available is historical data, and things don't change overnight, so stop making up unrealistic scenarios to try and support your absurd claims.

They assumed they could support unlimited, based on the information available to them at that time. When you have 1% of your user base with data plans, and they are averaging <50MB/mo on your brand new, shiny Class 16 EDGE network, and you're working to move spectrum over from AMPS and TDMA, that assumption is pretty logical. When they realized it wasn't a good idea, they switched to a new path, and when people revolted to the caps, they provided a more transparent and fair solution.



Sure. There are clearly some management issues in terms of not keeping marketing in sync with engineering.



You can't guarantee bandwidth unless it's virgin bandwidth. Yes, that's probably thousands of times more demanding, but that's the way it is. Abuse could create overloading. The other thing is, the way these networks operate, they are heavily loaded, they are supposed to be, they just shouldn't be so bad that you can barely use them (i.e. Midtown on AT&T).

What don't you get? According to you they are currently oversubscribed and they are actively seeking more customers offer greater data plans. That is fraud plain and simple.

Sure yah just a management issue, lying to current customers, future customers and everyone else for that matter.

Never ever claimed guaranteed bandwidth, throttling is a way of fixing the bandwidth but at a level far below the available bandwidth in most areas.

So according to you when a company knowingly lies in its advertising and promotions, it is acceptable? What penality should the courts or goverment imposed for these practices?

When a company has data capacity issues and continues to sell plans that would increase the impact of those issues, you are ok with this?

Your water analogy fails in that the water companies are generally public utilities and their use is regulated by the goverment and both the companies and the users have limited rights. MA Bell and subsequent Wireless companies have opted out of being considered a public utility in this regard.

So ATT knowingly commits fraud and it's ok, unlimited users believe that unlimited means what the dictionary defines it at, subject to the limitations of the network capacity and they are at fault? What a backward sense of morality and logic you have. According to you the customer should know ahead of time ATT is lying, not expect to get what they pay for and accept the blame if they ignore all that bs. Wow I am glad I don't live in your reality.

 

[BiggAW]

What don't you get? According to you they are currently oversubscribed and they are actively seeking more customers offer greater data plans. That is fraud plain and simple.

Sure yah just a management issue, lying to current customers, future customers and everyone else for that matter.

Never ever claimed guaranteed bandwidth, throttling is a way of fixing the bandwidth but at a level far below the available bandwidth in most areas.

So according to you when a company knowingly lies in its advertising and promotions, it is acceptable? What penality should the courts or goverment imposed for these practices?

When a company has data capacity issues and continues to sell plans that would increase the impact of those issues, you are ok with this?

Your water analogy fails in that the water companies are generally public utilities and their use is regulated by the goverment and both the companies and the users have limited rights. MA Bell and subsequent Wireless companies have opted out of being considered a public utility in this regard.

So ATT knowingly commits fraud and it's ok, unlimited users believe that unlimited means what the dictionary defines it at, subject to the limitations of the network capacity and they are at fault? What a backward sense of morality and logic you have. According to you the customer should know ahead of time ATT is lying, not expect to get what they pay for and accept the blame if they ignore all that bs. Wow I am glad I don't live in your reality.

You clearly don't get it. Almost every system that consumers buy access to is oversubscribed. If they weren't most modern luxuries we have now would not be possible. The power grid isn't designed for every device with a plug on it to run at full blast at the same time, the water system isn't designed for every faucet, hose, and shower to run full blast at the same time, and AT&T's network is not designed for every user to download data full blast at the same time. Name to me a consumer system that is capacity based and isn't oversubscribed. Heck, even the sewer system would cease to operate if every single person in a city took a ***** at exactly the same time.

NO. I said the marketing department shouldn't be allowed to market video streaming. The problem is, that's really hard to regulate, as what they are actually streaming plays a role in it, for both bandwidth and length of the streaming session.

The customer signed an agreement when they got their phone service that said AT&T can modify their service if AT&T believes their use is detrimental to the network. They don't have to know or assume anything. It's right there in the contract. What about this don't you understand? That's the fundamental argument of this thread, and there is no wiggle room. The contract is crystal clear.

 

[jjhrick]

You clearly don't get it. Almost every system that consumers buy access to is oversubscribed. If they weren't most modern luxuries we have now would not be possible. The power grid isn't designed for every device with a plug on it to run at full blast at the same time, the water system isn't designed for every faucet, hose, and shower to run full blast at the same time, and AT&T's network is not designed for every user to download data full blast at the same time. Name to me a consumer system that is capacity based and isn't oversubscribed. Heck, even the sewer system would cease to operate if every single person in a city took a ***** at exactly the same time.

NO. I said the marketing department shouldn't be allowed to market video streaming. The problem is, that's really hard to regulate, as what they are actually streaming plays a role in it, for both bandwidth and length of the streaming session.

The customer signed an agreement when they got their phone service that said AT&T can modify their service if AT&T believes their use is detrimental to the network. They don't have to know or assume anything. It's right there in the contract. What about this don't you understand? That's the fundamental argument of this thread, and there is no wiggle room. The contract is crystal clear.

Tell me if the power grid is laboring and the call for users to conserve is insufficent what do the power companies do. I make it easy they reduce power levels (brownouts). This affects all users in an area, does not single out one class of users but everyone.

Again Marketing is not a separate company they report to the COO and the CEO and are allowed by them to lie, fib or otherwise twist the truth. Perhaps the FTC should ban them from airing any commercials for several years as punishment.

The clause you are quoting may be challenged in court, if so it may not stand up. As ATT states within the contract itself (if any clause is found to be invalid the rest of the contract remains in force). Definite attempt at wiggle room by ATT.

You say they are oversubscribed and if unlimited users and others try to use what they are paying for they will crash ATT's network. So far that has not happened. So if a user is paying for data as specified in your exalted contract they are entitled (your word) to it or ATT is in violation of it's own contract. You do not get to determine what clauses can be ignored and what clauses have to be enforced. What don't you get. Contracts apply to both sides not just one even though the contract is extremely one-sided since it was written by ATT not negociated between both signees.

BTW ALL use is detrimental to the network what a loophole. One voice call, one text message, one pandora song, one 30 second video, or whatever uses resources and is detrimental to the network. Granularity is what is in question and you have not proved abuse and neither has ATT.

 

[BiggAW]

Tell me if the power grid is laboring and the call for users to conserve is insufficent what do the power companies do. I make it easy they reduce power levels (brownouts). This affects all users in an area, does not single out one class of users but everyone.

Again Marketing is not a separate company they report to the COO and the CEO and are allowed by them to lie, fib or otherwise twist the truth. Perhaps the FTC should ban them from airing any commercials for several years as punishment.

The clause you are quoting may be challenged in court, if so it may not stand up. As ATT states within the contract itself (if any clause is found to be invalid the rest of the contract remains in force). Definite attempt at wiggle room by ATT.

You say they are oversubscribed and if unlimited users and others try to use what they are paying for they will crash ATT's network. So far that has not happened. So if a user is paying for data as specified in your exalted contract they are entitled (your word) to it or ATT is in violation of it's own contract. You do not get to determine what clauses can be ignored and what clauses have to be enforced. What don't you get. Contracts apply to both sides not just one even though the contract is extremely one-sided since it was written by ATT not negociated between both signees.

BTW ALL use is detrimental to the network what a loophole. One voice call, one text message, one pandora song, one 30 second video, or whatever uses resources and is detrimental to the network. Granularity is what is in question and you have not proved abuse and neither has ATT.

Actually, it singles out residential areas, since they aren't as critical in load management. They are getting better with voluntary load management systems that will scale back heating and cooling. That, combined with additional grid capacity, means that New England, for example, did extremely well last summer in some scorching heat, with the only major outage being a town utility that blew something up, nothing went wrong at the grid level. NE-ISO actually had something like 3,000MW of generation capacity ready to run that they didn't need, and set an all-time record for that system.

There is nothing to be proven invalid by the court. The user signed it, it's set now. If they didn't like it, they should have challenged it before signing it.

And get this through your puny little head: Unlimited users are not paying for abusive and extreme levels of usage, nor are they paying for guaranteed speed. They are paying for a service that doesn't have overages. That's it.

AT&T IS providing them with UNLIMITED service, as they are not charging them more after they hit the 3GB cap, and they can continue to suck tons of data, just not at full speed.

 

[jjhrick]

Actually, it singles out residential areas, since they aren't as critical in load management. They are getting better with voluntary load management systems that will scale back heating and cooling. That, combined with additional grid capacity, means that New England, for example, did extremely well last summer in some scorching heat, with the only major outage being a town utility that blew something up, nothing went wrong at the grid level. NE-ISO actually had something like 3,000MW of generation capacity ready to run that they didn't need, and set an all-time record for that system.

There is nothing to be proven invalid by the court. The user signed it, it's set now. If they didn't like it, they should have challenged it before signing it.

And get this through your puny little head: Unlimited users are not paying for abusive and extreme levels of usage, nor are they paying for guaranteed speed. They are paying for a service that doesn't have overages. That's it.

AT&T IS providing them with UNLIMITED service, as they are not charging them more after they hit the 3GB cap, and they can continue to suck tons of data, just not at full speed.

Tell that to California. Brownouts and blackouts and that is after business cut back on mandatory conservation.

So ALL clauses should be equally enforced?

What about ATT's fraud?

In case your two puny heads are not better than one. In one breath you talk about limiting unlimited plans. Gotta love it, maybe not tons of data maybe just several pounds. The fact is that ATT writes a contract with many clauses that are not enforcable in several states and knows that many others would not stand up to examination. If ATT keeps abusing its customers we may find out how many are bad. I noticed you haven't complained about $20 and mention aggregate usage for awhile maybe you should go over it again so us non-Data CZARS have another laugh. Maybe you can detail how you throttle yourself out of fear of ATT calling you an abuser. Maybe you can explain how ATT Marketing Group is a separate company and the rest of the company does not have to honor what they advertise. Maybe ATT should offer a 100GB plan for a $100 and hope everyone who purchases it will only use 400MB. Maybe ATT should force everyone to purchase the $100 for 100GB and only let them use 400MB, yeah that's more like it. That's the ticket.

 

[AidenShaw]

What about ATT's fraud?

I took the simple solution - I'm a former AT&T customer.

Bye-bye death star.

 

[BiggAW]

Tell that to California. Brownouts and blackouts and that is after business cut back on mandatory conservation.

So ALL clauses should be equally enforced?

What about ATT's fraud?

In case your two puny heads are not better than one. In one breath you talk about limiting unlimited plans. Gotta love it, maybe not tons of data maybe just several pounds. The fact is that ATT writes a contract with many clauses that are not enforcable in several states and knows that many others would not stand up to examination. If ATT keeps abusing its customers we may find out how many are bad. I noticed you haven't complained about $20 and mention aggregate usage for awhile maybe you should go over it again so us non-Data CZARS have another laugh. Maybe you can detail how you throttle yourself out of fear of ATT calling you an abuser. Maybe you can explain how ATT Marketing Group is a separate company and the rest of the company does not have to honor what they advertise. Maybe ATT should offer a 100GB plan for a $100 and hope everyone who purchases it will only use 400MB. Maybe ATT should force everyone to purchase the $100 for 100GB and only let them use 400MB, yeah that's more like it. That's the ticket.

I'm glad simpletons like you don't run AT&T's network. It would either be so bogged down that no one could get on most of the time, or it would be so over-built that AT&T would go bankrupt.

 

[jjhrick]

I'm glad simpletons like you don't run AT&T's network. It would either be so bogged down that no one could get on most of the time, or it would be so over-built that AT&T would go bankrupt.

I think it is time for me to bow out this discussion, I don't even think we can agree to disagree. Enjoy.

 

[BiggAW]

I think it is time for me to bow out this discussion, I don't even think we can agree to disagree. Enjoy.

I can't agree to anything with someone who doesn't understand my points. If you want to debate something, bring it on. But if you don't bother to understand what I'm saying, then forget it.

 

[renoguy83]

Can we be heard?

I have a proposal to all so called 'unlimited data users'. This is my intent until the end of my contract or termination thereof, on the last day or so of my billing cycle (or everyday after getting throttled) I will stream music all day and night long. Even while I am sleeping (with the volume down, of course). After my billing cycle resets I will return to minding my data usage to try and avoid getting throttled until my billing cycle draws near again and then chew up as much data as possible. Perhaps if everyone that is unlimited chooses to partake in this practice AT&T will change their tune. Dial *3282# on your phone to find out when your billing cycle begins and ram it down their greedy gullets at the end of your cycle every month. I don't see any reason why AT&T cant spend many of the billions of dollars we pay to them to meet the bandwidth needs of its customers. Rise up people, make a statement, millions of us can make them feel the sting of their unhappily loyal consumers. Its time some of these greedy corporations make a cut into some of their fat salaries or bonuses or whatever. Stop cutting into our services that we pay you for. *nudges with elbow-pass it on...

 

[BiggAW]

Go unplugged and download Skype or an equivalent VOiP service. I mean come on, calling from Dallas to New York, London, Paris, Berlin for under a dime a minute. It's a no brainer. I phone from my iPad with Skype and it doesn't even have a phone. Lose the phone and AT&T dude.

Skype doesn't replace a cell phone.

I have a proposal to all so called 'unlimited data users'. This is my intent until the end of my contract or termination thereof, on the last day or so of my billing cycle (or everyday after getting throttled) I will stream music all day and night long. Even while I am sleeping (with the volume down, of course). After my billing cycle resets I will return to minding my data usage to try and avoid getting throttled until my billing cycle draws near again and then chew up as much data as possible. Perhaps if everyone that is unlimited chooses to partake in this practice AT&T will change their tune. Dial *3282# on your phone to find out when your billing cycle begins and ram it down their greedy gullets at the end of your cycle every month. I don't see any reason why AT&T cant spend many of the billions of dollars we pay to them to meet the bandwidth needs of its customers. Rise up people, make a statement, millions of us can make them feel the sting of their unhappily loyal consumers. Its time some of these greedy corporations make a cut into some of their fat salaries or bonuses or whatever. Stop cutting into our services that we pay you for. *nudges with elbow-pass it on...

This is why we have problems. If no one abused it in the first place, we wouldn't have all this. What's even worse is people like this who feel entitled to abuse.

 

[neversink]

Unlimited is unlimited

UNLIMITED IS UNLIMITED

ATT told me, when I purchased my contract, that there were no limits to my usage. They didn't mention throttling to me. ATT practices fraud!!! Tell me how in other countries, it costs next to nothing to get data, and yet ATT says their bandwidth is so precious they have to resort to fraud and dubious tactics here in the US. Come on. They offered unlimited. They should hold up their end of the bargain!!!!!! I was told by their reps I would get unlimited, no strings attached. Suddenly they decide what's abusive and what's not.

Basically.... ATT is screwing all us unlimited users. And you guys defending ATT haven't got a clue. A 5 GB plan isn't abuse but an unlimited plan suddenly becomes abusive at 3 GB.... Give me a break.... Only a paid shill would defend this practice.

I guess you think deluding customers is a good business practice.

 

[beqWyatt]

I found the highest level employees at at&t

I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT AT&T SAID ON THE PHONE TODAY... so I spent two and a half hours calling around to find the highest level employee I could get by phone. It got me to the "office of the president" (where you cannot speak to anyone with the title "president" btw), where I spoke with a team member named Jeff Rudd. I, naturally, asked for his boss and the highest person up the ladder I could find was named AMANDA WILEY (210) 821-4105.

That was for the Eastern US office of the president. I then got a hold of the western and central "offices of the president?" Chanel Cummings is the western lady who's highest... anyway, they all told me the same thing "buy a $50 a month data plan or you can send a piece of mail to the following address and that's all we can do for you".

I suggest you all call and ask for AMANDA WILEY (210) 821-4105 and voice your concerns to her during your outrage. We discussed how this practice is highly unethical for a number of reasons; as many others have commented many of the AT&T reps who sold the original unlimited data plans used the ploy "you'll get unlimited data and it will never change; even when we stop selling unlimited plans."

Why are the only doing this to American users? Ummmm.... probably because its the land where this type of scandal happens all the time and people just look the other way. This is AT&T saying "we are too big to care about the individual customer anymore". These practices may in fact be illegal; but what channels does the individual have to pursue the company through if they cannot form a class action suit due to the original contract? Does anyone know what the cost of arbitration would be?

I just don't like watching somebody pick my pocket, especially when they are looking me in the eye while they do it.

 

[BiggAW]

UNLIMITED IS UNLIMITED

ATT told me, when I purchased my contract, that there were no limits to my usage. They didn't mention throttling to me. ATT practices fraud!!! Tell me how in other countries, it costs next to nothing to get data, and yet ATT says their bandwidth is so precious they have to resort to fraud and dubious tactics here in the US. Come on. They offered unlimited. They should hold up their end of the bargain!!!!!! I was told by their reps I would get unlimited, no strings attached. Suddenly they decide what's abusive and what's not.

Basically.... ATT is screwing all us unlimited users. And you guys defending ATT haven't got a clue. A 5 GB plan isn't abuse but an unlimited plan suddenly becomes abusive at 3 GB.... Give me a break.... Only a paid shill would defend this practice.

I guess you think deluding customers is a good business practice.

There still are no limits. You are welcome to continue using after you get throttled. What about this don't you understand? It's not fraud, it's the contract you signed. If you don't like it, pay the ETF and leave.

Again, obviously no comprehension of aggregate usage here. The normal, non-abusive customers will never see the throttling, and many of them switched to the $25/2GB plan when it came out to save money anyways.

I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT AT&T SAID ON THE PHONE TODAY... so I spent two and a half hours calling around to find the highest level employee I could get by phone. It got me to the "office of the president" (where you cannot speak to anyone with the title "president" btw), where I spoke with a team member named Jeff Rudd. I, naturally, asked for his boss and the highest person up the ladder I could find was named AMANDA WILEY (210) 821-4105.

That was for the Eastern US office of the president. I then got a hold of the western and central "offices of the president?" Chanel Cummings is the western lady who's highest... anyway, they all told me the same thing "buy a $50 a month data plan or you can send a piece of mail to the following address and that's all we can do for you".

I suggest you all call and ask for AMANDA WILEY (210) 821-4105 and voice your concerns to her during your outrage. We discussed how this practice is highly unethical for a number of reasons; as many others have commented many of the AT&T reps who sold the original unlimited data plans used the ploy "you'll get unlimited data and it will never change; even when we stop selling unlimited plans."

Why are the only doing this to American users? Ummmm.... probably because its the land where this type of scandal happens all the time and people just look the other way. This is AT&T saying "we are too big to care about the individual customer anymore". These practices may in fact be illegal; but what channels does the individual have to pursue the company through if they cannot form a class action suit due to the original contract? Does anyone know what the cost of arbitration would be?

I just don't like watching somebody pick my pocket, especially when they are looking me in the eye while they do it.

They probably hear entitled whiners all day. "I'm entitled to damage your network, and use absurd amounts of data forever, and I don't understand anything about how spectrum works and how there's a limited amount of it, but I still feel entitled, WAH WAH WAH.". Get a grip.

They can't possibly be picking your pocket when you still have unlimited data, and will never see an overage charge, and are still paying the same $30 you were a few years ago. Logic fail.

If you don't like AT&T because they manage their network, go get Verizon. Oh wait, the most you'll get there is 4GB.

 

[The5%]

Wow

At&t really got you to drink the cool-aid!?!?! I understand your points, data management, over saturation...blah blah blah...I understand, however there is something called Justifiable Reliance. Are you familiar with that term? I will explain it to you. It is when a party makes a claim, that misleads another party into a decision that costs them money.

Let me break it down for you. At&t led me to believe that I would have UNLIMITED Data on the WORLDS FASTEST NETWORK (their words NOT MINE). Those claims led me to spend money on a contract, that I would have to pay money to get out of because they broke the terms. This is against the law and is punishable by law... There are already steps being taken to hold At&t responsible for this fraud.

Section 6.2 (which you seem to be familiar with) states they may reduce speed if they feel usage may damage their network (in lemans terms). However At&t has not, and will not be able to prove that this usage has damaged the speeds of their network....it hasn't happened.

5% of their users are not hurting their network, this is solely a stunt to make more money by limiting people. At&t either has to assume everybody is going to use the data they paid for, or stop claiming they are the best, but they cannot mislead people, which is really the issue at hand, and the reason they are being sued.

On a side note I just read your post about Data how you manage your data usage...According to At&t's own data calculator watching 15 minutes a day of HD video would put me over the 2 gig mark...they consider this excessive!!!! That doesn't include any other form of usage!

 

[BiggAW]

At&t really got you to drink the cool-aid!?!?! I understand your points, data management, over saturation...blah blah blah...I understand, however there is something called Justifiable Reliance. Are you familiar with that term? I will explain it to you. It is when a party makes a claim, that misleads another party into a decision that costs them money.

Let me break it down for you. At&t led me to believe that I would have UNLIMITED Data on the WORLDS FASTEST NETWORK (their words NOT MINE). Those claims led me to spend money on a contract, that I would have to pay money to get out of because they broke the terms. This is against the law and is punishable by law... There are already steps being taken to hold At&t responsible for this fraud.

Section 6.2 (which you seem to be familiar with) states they may reduce speed if they feel usage may damage their network (in lemans terms). However At&t has not, and will not be able to prove that this usage has damaged the speeds of their network....it hasn't happened.

5% of their users are not hurting their network, this is solely a stunt to make more money by limiting people. At&t either has to assume everybody is going to use the data they paid for, or stop claiming they are the best, but they cannot mislead people, which is really the issue at hand, and the reason they are being sued.

On a side note I just read your post about Data how you manage your data usage...According to At&t's own data calculator watching 15 minutes a day of HD video would put me over the 2 gig mark...they consider this excessive!!!! That doesn't include any other form of usage!

That's fine, but throttling a user doesn't cost them money. That's the whole point of unlimited. Unlimited does NOT guarantee speed, but does guarantee no overages. They are staying true to that.

They don't have to prove anything. First of all, the contract states if they "believe" it is damaging their network. Secondly, go to Midtown Manhattan. There are capacity issues.

5% of their users using 25% of the data can and do hurt the network.

As I have already explained, no business assumes full usage of packaged things like that. Same for an amusement park, or a car lease, or a buffet or anything else. Those businesses all depend on averages and not having too many abusive users.

Right. That would be excessive. They are showing you how detrimental video is over a cellular connection. Anything more than a few short, non-HD YouTube clips is probably abusive use. And yes, if you use the right compression settings, YouTube can be streamed at under 200kbps (I've done it over EDGE).