FTC Sues AT&T Over 'Misleading' Unlimited Data Throttling Practices [Updated]

[lwood]

A lot of people also missed this line in their contracts as well:

You agree that, by entering into this Agreement, you and AT&T are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action.

So all of you screaming CLASS ACTION!!11!! can give up on that pipe dream.

The FTC may fine AT&T, it will be a relative slap on the wrist. No way you will see any compensation for it as an end user unless you go to small claims court, but I stand by my statement that this will be the death of the unlimited plans and you can either walk or pick a new plan at renewal.

 

[VeryVito]

It ways right in the contract that they can throttle, or get rid of you if they don't like how YOU are using THEIR network. Those were the terms that were agreed upon.

Yes, but in EVERY trace of marketing for the plan, the term "unlimited" was used repeatedly, and the mark ( er, "potential customer" ) was led to believe there were NO limits. In this case, at least, the contract is not the problem, but the promises made BEFORE the contract was signed are extremely relevant: This is the very definition of "bait and switch," and such practices have LONG been established as illegal under federal trade laws.

AT&T cannot defend their actions in this case. I'm sure they'll find another way to make things worse for customers, but for now, at least, current laws are finally being applied here.

 

[GrecoISU]

AT&T cannot defend their actions in this case. I'm sure they'll find another way to make things worse for customers, but for now, at least, current laws are finally being applied here.

I agree. But I begin to wonder... We have these agencies to look out for the people and govern how things work. Why does it take 4-5 years before they say something about an issue? They've been made aware of it. It's all well and good that they are now bringing it to light but why not two or even three years ago? If they are always that far behind, how can we expect consumers to be looked out for?

 

[itr81]

AT&T should just drop the unlimited plan and move everyone into new share plans.

Besides everyone throttles. I had a friend that would go on and on about his unlimited t-mobile but he only can get maybe 3G speeds if he's lucky and his cell svc was spotty. What's the point of a cheap svc if you have uto have a land line to compensate for spotty svc and a unlimited svc that only gives you 3G every now and then.

Maybe I'm not up to date but I remember all carriers going to throttling after 2-3gb of usage. It was mainly to keep the 5% of heavy data users from ruining the experience of the avg user.

I have a 10 gb share plan with AT&T and I have never had a throttling issue. Only maybe a signal issue. In fact at my house I went from 1 bar to 3 bars at my house last year. My data speeds have also went from 4-5 meg to 10-12 meg in my house. So I'm pretty sure AT&T is not downgrading their svc, but upgrading it.

 

[or8ital]

I think most people would be fine with being throttle to 3G speeds. They are throttling to 2g speeds though.

 

[iMas70]

As others have said, unlimited should be unlimited. That's what I signed up for and there was nothing that said that I'd be throttled after using "x" amount of data. When I rent a car with unlimited mileage, it's unlimited mileage. I can drive as far as I want every day that I have that car and they won't charge me for mileage. The same should apply to the data plan that they advertised as unlimited. The rental car company doesn't reduce the car's speed down to 10 MPH after I drive 100 miles.

I've been throttled a few times. My speed dropped down to .50. I received a message once before that happened. After that, my speed was cut down to almost nothing. Unlimited needs to be unlimited! If not, it's false adverting!

 

[or8ital]

I also have a hard time believing this is only impacting 3% of user. Especially it you consider anyone who has ever been impacted by this while on the plan.

 

[GrecoISU]

As others have said, unlimited should be unlimited. That's what I signed up for and there was nothing that said that I'd be throttled after using "x" amount of data. When I rent a car with unlimited mileage, it's unlimited mileage. I can drive as far as I want every day that I have that car and they won't charge me for mileage. The same should apply to the data plan that they advertised as unlimited. The rental car company doesn't reduce the car's speed down to 10 MPH after I drive 100 miles.

I've been throttled a few times. My speed dropped down to .50. I received a message once before that happened. After that, my speed was cut down to almost nothing. Unlimited needs to be unlimited! If not, it's false adverting!

Actually the best analogy I've heard. Well done. "You can drive as far as you want but the car is only going to go 10 MPHS".

 

[giantfan1224]

You asked me what I based my numbers on. What do you base your estimate on?

I base it on what I already said. 44% just seems high. I don't have numbers to refute it and I'm not saying you and your poll are wrong, I'm just skeptical. My opinion, nothing more.

 

[burnside]

In fact at my house I went from 1 bar to 3 bars at my house last year. My data speeds have also went from 4-5 meg to 10-12 meg in my house. So I'm pretty sure AT&T is not downgrading their svc, but upgrading it.

Or a cell tower was put in nearby.

 

[Pipper99]

So, I guess if I switch to a mobile share plan and get 30gb of data each month, I can burn through 30gb of data at full speed? Won't I be ruining everyone else's experience after 5gb if I'm not throttled to < .2 mbs?

 

[bradl]

I signed up for an unlimited 3g grandfathered two year contract in late 2011.

The sales rep told me it was unlimited 3g when I signed the contract. He lied.

To all of you saying the contract says it can be throttled, remember that every ad said "Unlimited 3g." Not just unlimited data (albiet at unusably slow speed.)

Two months later any data over 2gb was throttled to Edge not 3g. They lied. I should be compensated for two years of any data charges over what my unlimited rate would have been.

That would equal thousands of dollars. Not the $15 class action check they'll likely be sending out.

Then enlighten all of us. Please post your contract, the terms of it, and where it explicitly states that 'unlimited' includes the speed of the data.

When you have that, all of us here will be on the same page. Until then, there is ambiguity in what 'unlimited' means. Legally, that is an out that ATT has.

As others have said, unlimited should be unlimited. That's what I signed up for and there was nothing that said that I'd be throttled after using "x" amount of data. When I rent a car with unlimited mileage, it's unlimited mileage. I can drive as far as I want every day that I have that car and they won't charge me for mileage. The same should apply to the data plan that they advertised as unlimited. The rental car company doesn't reduce the car's speed down to 10 MPH after I drive 100 miles.

I've been throttled a few times. My speed dropped down to .50. I received a message once before that happened. After that, my speed was cut down to almost nothing. Unlimited needs to be unlimited! If not, it's false adverting!

You've never read the contract you signed when you rent a car. For example, one that I have for car rental, even though it does state unlimited mileage, explicitly states WHERE I CAN DRIVE. For the Las Vegas Area, I can not drive further than the 4-state area surrounding Las Vegas: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah. If I take the car to New Mexico, I've violated the contract. If I drive to Oregon, I've violated the contract.

So no, while they don't reduce your car's speed, they reduce the range of the area you can drive the car.

Same analogy applies to the unlimited data plan. While you can go anywhere with your data, once you've exceeded a given range (3G or 5G), you are subject to whatever terms they deem necessary.

BL.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

Okay. You've convinced me a bit. AT&T just needs to end these plans or make it clearer that there are limits.

I completely agree with you. AT&T should stop offering the Unlimited plan every time an existing user signs up for a new contract. And if they still want to offer it, they should write up the terms in the contract. It's a very simple fix that they haven't chosen to do.

Bryan

 

[evolution2147]

The only way it appears cheaper is if you take the cost of the phone out of the equation.

I pay $130 for two unlimited plans with subsidized phones.

Yes the no more "free" subsidizing is the only bad part about the mobile share plans. But honestly for $130 you must have a pretty small plan. We had just about the cheapest everything on ours. 3 phones and two of them were my parents that use no data.

$55 - 550 minutes with rollover (grandfathered)
$30 - unlimited texting
$30 - phone 1 unlimited data
$10 - phone 2 access fee
$15 - phone 2 200mb data
$10 - phone 3 access fee
$15 - phone 3 200mb my data

$165 a month for the cheapest plan. Now it's $140 for unlimited everything and we all share 10gb.

 

[z28black98]

Then enlighten all of us. Please post your contract, the terms of it, and where it explicitly states that 'unlimited' includes the speed of the data.

When you have that, all of us here will be on the same page. Until then, there is ambiguity in what 'unlimited' means. Legally, that is an out that ATT has.



You've never read the contract you signed when you rent a car. For example, one that I have for car rental, even though it does state unlimited mileage, explicitly states WHERE I CAN DRIVE. For the Las Vegas Area, I can not drive further than the 4-state area surrounding Las Vegas: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah. If I take the car to New Mexico, I've violated the contract. If I drive to Oregon, I've violated the contract.

So no, while they don't reduce your car's speed, they reduce the range of the area you can drive the car.

Same analogy applies to the unlimited data plan. While you can go anywhere with your data, once you've exceeded a given range (3G or 5G), you are subject to whatever terms they deem necessary.

BL.

This might be true with smaller rental car companies and I believe Enterprise used to be the same way. But not with the major corp players like Avis and hertz. The terms of the contract said you could drive anywhere in the continental United states, just not Mexico for insurance reasons. The rental car analogy is actually a really good one

 

[sundragon]

Unfortunately, you are wrong here.

As said plenty of times in this thread, your data usage is unlimited. The speed of the data - how fast you get the data on your phone - is something completely different.

If you notice on your bill, if you have been throttled after consuming 5GB of data, and you consumed 12GB of data for the month, your monthly bill did not go up. If someone on a family share plan went over their cap on their data plan, they get charged for the data that exceeded their plan. You do not.

You are trying to equate two different things and aren't getting the difference between the two.

Disclaimer: I'm also on the grandfathered plan, and have been (and currently am) throttled; I'm at 3.2GB on my iPhone 4S, where I'm getting throttled at 3GB.

BL.

Something to consider:
Throttling is unethical as AT&T uses to extort us to move to higher cost plan. Their non-unlimited plans don't get throttled, ever.

FWIW, I called AT&T to switch away from my unlimited to a 6GB plan based on my use and their rep said it's not going to save me money...

 

[Bryan Bowler]

FWIW, I called AT&T to switch away from my unlimited to a 6GB plan based on my use and their rep said it's not going to save me money...

They might be right, but I never listen to the Reps as they are often wrong. Best bet is to figure out all of the pricing options yourself and go from there. Sure, it can be a little difficult because it's sometimes hard to get straight answers on their websites/brochures, but in the end, it's worth it to do the homework yourself and see how it applies to your personal situation/needs.

Bryan

 

[spiderpumpkin]

Nice and throttled right now. I can't wait for this to be removed or at least raise the throttle threshold and/or increase the throttle speed.

 

[rkuo]

You are ignorant if you believe they qualify as a near monopoly. You're also wrong if you believe AT&T is larger than Verizon in wireless. This says they have just over 116 million subscribers (Verizon with 123.5 million). In fact, if you add up the main four in the U.S. (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile) AT&T only has about 30% of the business out of the 4. That's not including all the regionals and smaller players. Now please, again, tell me how that qualifies as a near monopoly?

What is your definition of a near monopoly? I define it as when a company becomes large enough with enough network effects to extract profits from its customers without having to openly compete. I do not define it as being a set threshold of market share like 30% instead of 70%.

Also, see:

http://www.investopedia.com/financi...-of-companies-that-are-almost-a-monopoly.aspx

"Some companies actually achieve this level of dominance, eventually creating near-monopoly conditions that allow them to earn outsized profits and keep their customers eating out of their hands."

First example on the page? AT&T and Verizon. Didn't have to look very hard for that.

If you want to define a near monopoly as something "close" to a super majority of customers, then, sure, you aren't going to agree with me and you can keep trying to beat me up online because 30% isn't close enough to 70% for your taste.

Or, you can open your eyes, stop missing the point, and take a look at how AT&T keeps trying to screw its customers with inscrutable plans, strange billing practices, and hostile plan enforcement. Conditions that would not exist without some form of market dominance as everyone would run for the door in an instant.

 

[Pipper99]

Something to consider:
Throttling is unethical as AT&T uses to extort us to move to higher cost plan. Their non-unlimited plans don't get throttled, ever....

I agree. AT&T has legally covered their bases, but they wanted potential customers to think that there wouldn't be restrictions on either the amount or speed of the data. AT&T pointing to the contract details and saying "we told you about this" is not the same as being up front in the marketing of their product. At best, they meant to mislead customers. I'm sure that they've covered themselves in the mobile share terms of service, too, if they one day decide to start draconian throttling to get customers off of those plans onto more expensive plans.

I try to stay on wifi as much as possible, but streaming radio always puts me over 5gb with about a week left in the month. Oh well, I'll probably move to a mobile share plan with the knowledge that even then, AT&T can hose me if they want to. It's fun.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Yes, but in EVERY trace of marketing for the plan, the term "unlimited" was used repeatedly, and the mark ( er, "potential customer" ) was led to believe there were NO limits. In this case, at least, the contract is not the problem, but the promises made BEFORE the contract was signed are extremely relevant: This is the very definition of "bait and switch," and such practices have LONG been established as illegal under federal trade laws.

AT&T cannot defend their actions in this case. I'm sure they'll find another way to make things worse for customers, but for now, at least, current laws are finally being applied here.

I agree. But I begin to wonder... We have these agencies to look out for the people and govern how things work. Why does it take 4-5 years before they say something about an issue? They've been made aware of it. It's all well and good that they are now bringing it to light but why not two or even three years ago? If they are always that far behind, how can we expect consumers to be looked out for?

"Yes, but..."

No but, just yes.

The notion that people were led to believe things is subjective and irrelevant. What matters is not the promises that were made, but the contents of the contract that was signed. Again, AT&T promised unlimited data, not unlimited data at the fastest network speeds we have. There is no legitimate case of fraud here.

This is nothing more than an example of not reading the contract, and getting pissed at the terms when they throttle you for clogging up their network, which they stated they would do right in the thing you signed that you didn't read.

There was no violation of the contract by AT&T, therefore the law is not being upheld. Cases are being brought against companies that people don't widely like because its popular. That's disgusting.

If you don't like AT&T terms of service, they're not pointing a gun at your head to sign. Go somewhere else. There's plenty from which to choose. Apparently people don't seem to have a problem with pointing guns at AT&T violating their right to control their own PRIVATE property, and enforce their own contracts through an objective system of courts.

But why would we want that? We're all so much better off when we steal their stuff, and ignore their contracts...



"If they are always that far behind, how can we expect consumers to be looked out for?"

Take responsibility for yourself and look out for yourself.

 

[wookiee2cu]

I highly doubt AT&T is the only one doing this. I work with a gal who says she goes through 30gb a month, I asked her if she meant 3gb and she said no, 30gb. Apparently she's constantly streaming music, videos, netflix for her kids and so on. I know it's unlimited and what not but its usage like this that has ruined the party for others.

 

[bradl]

This might be true with smaller rental car companies and I believe Enterprise used to be the same way. But not with the major corp players like Avis and hertz. The terms of the contract said you could drive anywhere in the continental United states, just not Mexico for insurance reasons. The rental car analogy is actually a really good one

Avis, Hertz, and Budget are all that way; I've rented from each of them at least once in the past 5 months.

Picture below is from the inside of the top page of the rental agreement from my last rental with Budget, from August 2014.

So clearly you can see that while you have unlimited mileage, they can restrict where you can go with that unlimited mileage.

Applying that to ATT: They can give you unlimited data, but at some point they can restrict the speed of that unlimited data.

BL.

 

[Trius]

"We have been completely transparent with customers since the very beginning"

This is utter horse ****. I have lost hours of my life trying to get service reps to even ADMIT that they're limiting my usage.

Burn in court AT&T... burn..

 

[rkuo]

"Yes, but..."

No but, just yes.

The notion that people were led to believe things is subjective and irrelevant. What matters is not the promises that were made, but the contents of the contract that was signed. Again, AT&T promised unlimited data, not unlimited data at the fastest network speeds we have. There is no legitimate case of fraud here.

This is nothing more than an example of not reading the contract, and getting pissed at the terms when they throttle you for clogging up their network, which they stated they would do right in the thing you signed that you didn't read.

There was no violation of the contract by AT&T, therefore the law is not being upheld. Cases are being brought against companies that people don't widely like because its popular. That's disgusting.

If you don't like AT&T terms of service, they're not pointing a gun at your head to sign. Go somewhere else. There's plenty from which to choose. Apparently people don't seem to have a problem with pointing guns at AT&T violating their right to control their own PRIVATE property, and enforce their own contracts through an objective system of courts.

But why would we want that? We're all so much better off when we steal their stuff, and ignore their contracts...



"If they are always that far behind, how can we expect consumers to be looked out for?"

Take responsibility for yourself and look out for yourself.

Again, this is an unsophisticated interpretation of the situation. Trust me, the legal system does not work the way you think it does in this case. Courts do not like user hostile language in contracts, especially when those contracts are being written up by dominant / oligopolist market players. Also, selling something to people as "unlimited" and then saying "gotcha, we can slow you down for no reason at all, you forgot to make sure of that, sucker!" isn't going to fly either.