Hmm. I'm confused as to what point you think you're making. You quote the applicable section and even dive down into it and eliminate the parts which don't apply here. That leaves you with the parts that *do* apply.
Exactly, and context and interpretation will help clarify what those clauses mean; context and interpretation will help set the limitations that apply to those clauses. And as I'm sure you know, in a court of law, the judge will typically side with the interpretations given by the parties who did not draft the contract but are bound by it, especially if the people who draft the contract typically have far more influence in setting the terms and conditions of the contract, as AT&T clearly does. So, as long as the interpretations given by the users can be shown to be reasonable and fair, it'll be privileged in the courts.
Does highlighting the applicable sections in bold so they can be read as a contiguous unit help?
No, it just identifies the sections we already agreed to discuss. Your fancy bolding and italicizing doesn't add anything to the discussion.
The contract says, if they believe your usage of their network adversely impacts the service levels of said network, or hinders access to said network, they can limit throughput or the amount of data transferred.
Agreed, but within reason and subject to certain restrictions.
They'd be within their rights (as agreed to when you signed the contract) to cut you off after reaching the threshold they've determined starts to cause problems for the network. Instead, they're taking the lesser option and slowing you down.
No, that is not what people agreed to when signing the contract. The response has to be proportional and moderate. If AT&T can prevent denying you service through other means, like throttling, it has an obligation to take the lesser action to minimally impact your service. They can only deny you service if it is necessary for preserving the network's smooth functioning. That is what the contract says when suitably interpreted. In a court, they would have to demonstrate that denying you service was the only reasonable measure to take. The same applies to throttling. If they can maintain the integrity of the network by setting up throttling during peak hours, that is preferred to hard caps and month long throttles. Again, AT&T has to make a reasonable attempt to minimally impact your service. That is what is implied in the contract terms.
Also, note that I italicized the word 'believes' in the contract quote. They don't need to prove it (in a court of law, or otherwise) to act on it. They simply need to believe that it is the case. Yes, that's a low bar, but (again), you agreed to it when you signed the contract.
Again you are wrong. This is a legal contract and all terms within the contract has legal meaning. "Believes" doesn't mean they can just conjecture up any opinion, based on discrimination, superstition, etc. It has to be moderate and based on demonstrable facts. When I sign a contract, I am acting in good faith and expect that AT&T will only proportion it's beliefs based on evidence, not bias, greed, etc.
AT&T doesn't have some nefarious plot to screw its customers over. They're doing what they can to provide reliable (and *available*) service to all of their customers, given the physical, and political (as in NIMBY) constraints on their network. ALL of the carriers take these same sorts of actions to preserve their respective networks. Verizon does the exact same thing. Sprint deals with it by providing uniformly slow access to it's significantly smaller subscriber base.
I agree there is nothing nefarious. I think there is just blatant incompetence and greed. They are trying to push the limits. Verizon, and every ISP in Canada and most of the rest of the world, only throttles in proportion to network congestion. What I mean by this is that they turn off throttling when congestion is relieved. It isn't unreasonable to expect the same of AT&T, and as I have just shown you again, that's what the contract, when fairly interpreted, says.
