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

[barkomatic]

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.

It doesn't specifically state what speed the data would be delivered at, but the term "unlimited" implies very strongly that there should be no speed restriction. The FTC agrees, and is thus suing AT&T.

It's like advertising an all you can eat buffet but only giving you a 4 inch plate and allowing only one trip to the buffet bar.

 

[z28black98]

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.

Maybe it's only in that area then. I was an ops mgr in the rental car industry in the Midwest and can assure you there was no restriction on where you went other than Mexico. Maybe it's diff out west or its a licensee location and not a corporately owned location. Licensees have their own set of rules, fleet, etc.

 

[SoAnyway]

You should get it through your thick skull that nothing can actually be "unlimited". It was a stupid thing for AT&T to sell but they should also be allowed to return the actual service back to the realm of the reasonable and not be beholden to a "gotcha" from a handful of customers until the end of time. Just pay for what you use. It is a simple concept. If you use more than other customers, pay more than other customers.

How long do you and others think you deserve your free ride on this plan? Serious question. Is it your believe that you have a legal right to unlimited data through AT&T's network for your iPhone or whatever future device you associate with that phone number? And that this device goes on forever? Even past your death (since contract rights can be past on as an inheritance)?

Wow.

Free ride? No one received the unlimited data plan for free. Those of us that have it, have been paying for it. And the majority of us have been paying more then the average data used for lower-cost plans. So in reality, AT&T has been making out on the deal.

And if you want to talk about a thick skull, what's not to understand about the word unlimited and what it means in the English language? Unlimited means without limits. If you can't understand that, then please go back to school and study the English language to better understand what it means.

AT&T is the one that offered us the ability to purchase an unlimited plan and we purchased it. These carriers should not be allowed to use "smoke & mirrors" to deceive people when entering into an agreement. Unlimited should be unlimited, simple as that.

Bryan

That's exactly it, there is no free ride here when we PAY for an unlimited plan that AT&T offered us.

People can argue semantics all they want but unlimited means WITHOUT LIMITS. When that definition is applied to a service that AT&T offers, it's not only to the content but everything that comes along with it, like the speed it travels at.

Throttling is nothing more than AT&T playing a game of bait and switch in order to get customers into a tiered plan. Why is that? So when a customer goes over that 2GB or 5GB cap, they'll be paying AT&T overage charges.

Personally, I went well over 10GB each month when it was just 3G service. I hit 5GB within a week these days. When I call AT&T about this, they try to sell me a tiered plan when they're more than capable of giving me what I am already paying for.

 

[SoAnyway]

Maybe those on here with bleeding hearts for ATT don't realize that it's not just that we are throttled after 5GB, it's that we once had no throttling at all, and then the restriction was forced upon us.

Also, if it's a very small fraction of people going over 5GB, then I'm sure a very large number of that small fraction is like me: I don't always go over 5GB, and when I do it's usually a total of 6 or 7 GB for the month. Yet the restrictions likely occurred for those using really large amounts of data like 50GB or more...yet we all have to suffer. 5GB is really a pretty puny amount of data when you think about it.

That's exactly it, throttling was forced upon us AFTER when the original plan did not have throttling.

This is what annoys me most about the AT&T defenders. If they want to argue about when original agreements were made between AT&T and their customers with unlimited plans, the unlimited plan had no throttling to begin with. Now what, vote with our wallet? Ok but it's a little hard to vote with one's wallet when a customer is bound to a 2 year contract and the only choice from AT&T and Verizon was Sprint, well at least until T-Mobile came into the picture last year.

I would gladly vote with my wallet if we had far more choices in this country and these telecoms would actually compete with one another.

 

[Z400Racer37]

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.

To say that my interpretation is unsophisticated, and then backing that up with "trust me" is, in itself, unsophisticated. You claim there was hostile language? There was none. There was only "these are our terms, accept or decline." If you CHOSE to accept, hen deal with it and stop whining. There's plenty of competition in the space, so that is not a valid position either. They sold it as "Unlimited" because it was. "Unlimited makes no reference to the speed at which that data is provided. The contract, which THE CUSTOMER SIGNED however, does. The CONTRACT explicitly states that AT&T has the right to throttle or cancel any account that it deems is damaging the performance of THEIR network.

You do not have a right to control AT&T unless you buy a controlling stake in the company's common stock, and unless you can come up with $90 billion, you will never have a moral means of controlling that company. Just because you think that you have a right to try and bypass that by using the government to point a gun at them and force them to do something that is detrimental to themselves, does not mean that you actually do have that right. It makes you immoral. it makes YOU unsophisticated. Trust me.

 

[McDaddio]

No, you are 100% wrong. Regardless of what AT&T hid in the fine print of their disclosures, they continually and purposely REPRESENTED through their agents that the plan included unlimited data and that it had such great value...

But when I asked what it was good for, every single one of them was at a loss as to how to explain the benefits of having data delivered at a rate that makes its use absolutely impractical.

You are wrong and you proved it by what you said in the last paragraph - the reps could not explain the benefits of a throttled plan. So they knew it was throttled and you had those discussions with them.

I had the unlimited plan from the beginning and had the exact opposite experience. Every rep tried to talk me into going family or whatever, and they did all warn me that if I did, I could not go back. But no one ever said don't change plans - many are commissioned so it was in their best interest to get you to move.

Besides, unless the reps told you that you wouldn't be throttled, and it was a systematic program to tell people through the reps that they don't have a throttled plan, it doesn't matter what they said. If a rep said it had great value, so what? Did you expect the rep to say it isn't valuable?

People got a contract with AT&T.
The terms are very clear.
People whine about it when then didn't get what they didn't pay for.

----------

People can argue semantics all they want but unlimited means WITHOUT LIMITS.

That is nonsense.

That would mean AT&T is liable if you couldn't get your data at the maximum 4G download speeds all the time, no matter what the level of network congestion, or network capability, Well, since you can't get that, by your silly definition, you have limits.

Unlimited means that you pay one price and there are no additional charges for additional data. They have been clear on that from day one.

 

[Killertruth32]

My personal quote back to you. You need to read why they are suing and not what you claim is on the contract when we signed. And lastly, That **** was not in the contract when I signed up. Gets your facts straight man! FTC is suing because of "OVER MISLEADING UNLIMITED DATA THROTTLING PRACTICES!" Its obvious if the FTC is suing, its because they've done there home work on what the contract states and whats contradicting to the facts.

There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else. - Sam Walton

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. You don't like what AT&T is doing to your data? Go somewhere else. They'll pay for it that way. This bureaucracy is totally unnecessary...

 

[Judas1]

This just isn't true. If it were you'd have a legitimate gripe.

I think you're forgetting about simple math here. Sure, it states that its unlimited data. But guess how that data accumulates? Its based off of download speed and the amount of time at that speed. Data=speed*t. Limiting speed is equivalent to limiting data. Plain and simple math.

 

[ktuck]

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.

When my wife wanted to get a new iPhone 6, we looked at every possible option and ended up with a shared data plan for our two lines. At first, it looked like the new phone would be quite expensive (I was convinced we had to pay the full $600+ for it, one way or another) but with some creativity on the part of the store's sales rep, our net cost was about $200 for the phone (without even trading in her old phone) and our monthly bill is about $70 lower.

In any case, I wish we had known about the T-Mobile seven day test drive as we were making these decisions.

 

[Judas1]

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?

I think it should only count if they are actually competing with one another and using the same technology. Its not an irrational argument to say that att is only competing with tmobile, which is much smaller, so att does have a near monopoly. Same with verizon. They have a near monopoly.

 

[SoAnyway]

That is nonsense.

That would mean AT&T is liable if you couldn't get your data at the maximum 4G download speeds all the time, no matter what the level of network congestion, or network capability, Well, since you can't get that, by your silly definition, you have limits.

Unlimited means that you pay one price and there are no additional charges for additional data. They have been clear on that from day one.

Actually, from day one, there was no throttling with unlimited data plans. It wasn't until after the iPhone 3G that AT&T realized that Apple gave them the gift of more customers through the iPhone that they decided to do away with unlimited and throttle everyone who didn't switch to a tiered plan.

Get your history right otherwise, you're the one who is being nonsensical.

 

[giantfan1224]

I think you're forgetting about simple math here. Sure, it states that its unlimited data. But guess how that data accumulates? Its based off of download speed and the amount of time at that speed. Data=speed*t. Limiting speed is equivalent to limiting data. Plain and simple math.

I understand the argument about those wanting unlimited data at unlimited, or unthrottled speed but the point is the AT&T contract does not guarantee unlimited data at the highest speeds. It just plain doesn't.

 

[Macboy Pro]

It's quite obvious you are pulling numbers out of thin air. EDGE was around 1mb, LTE is at its maximum 40mb. If someone could only use 5gigs on EDGE then by your logic they tops would be able to use 200gigs. Additionally att pulled this plan when 3G was the standard so to compare the situation to EDGE is beyond bias and ridiculous. 3G got like 3mb speeds so again that's 13X more data. So if people were using only 5gigs then then now people would be using 50gigs TOPS. Again this is going by your logic.

AT&T LTE give me 70mb all the time. Not sure about the rest of your numbers, but since you are flat wrong on that one, I will ignore the rest.

 

[ktuck]

I love how people don't read and then bitch.

Just because there isn't a line that says, "If you go over 2GB of data per month, we will throttle you up to 90%".

Lots of web hosting companies offer unlimited storage and bandwidth, however, they strictly say you can not use this as a file sharing site. Therefore, if you run a wordpress blog or such, you can freely take up all the little MB of data you want

I love how people make ridiculous rationalizations.

Fact: AT&T sold me an Unlimited Data Plan but prevented me from using more than 5GB of usable data.

Fact: In all the years of paying for an Unlimited Data Plan, I typically used about 1GB per month, never more than 2GB until two months ago.

Fact: AT&T actively promotes and sells 30GB data plans that cost about the same as what I was paying for an Unlimited Data Plan. For more money, I can even get a 100GB plan, with no mention of "overloading" their data network.

 

[Macboy Pro]

Actually, from day one, there was no throttling with unlimited data plans. It wasn't until after the iPhone 3G that AT&T realized that Apple gave them the gift of more customers through the iPhone that they decided to do away with unlimited and throttle everyone who didn't switch to a tiered plan.

Get your history right otherwise, you're the one who is being nonsensical.

They realized that data speeds would be what they are today and the demand for smartphones was going to be high. They did the RIGHT thing but ending it soon and letting folks keep it if they wanted. The problem is the entitlement mentality of folks is outrageous. Be glad you got it for as long as you did. Now that they bring the lawyers in on it, I suspect AT&T will drop it completely and people lose the good thing they had.

The lawsuit is a complete joke and has no merit. AT&T could have canceled anyone at anytime and AT&T has LONG BEEN NOTIFYING people of the throttling. Frivolous lawsuit, PERIOD!

 

[giantfan1224]

I think it should only count if they are actually competing with one another and using the same technology. Its not an irrational argument to say that att is only competing with tmobile, which is much smaller, so att does have a near monopoly. Same with verizon. They have a near monopoly.

That's a very strange statement. Of course AT&T is in competition with Verizon, and Sprint, along with T-Mobile. Is there really a difference to the end user in how the technology works, when it works? The only real difference might be with Verizon and Sprint not being able to surf the net while talking on the phone because of that limitation with CDMA. That will all change anyway once voice over LTE is completely rolled out. What other technological differences are there between the big two that could justify saying they're not in competition with each other?

 

[ktuck]

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

But AT&T didn't limit us to a reasonable range of service. They could have said something like, no more than an lifetime average of 30GB per month, but they didn't. They said the equivalent of "unlimited mileage up to 25 miles per day and then we'll switch you to a bicycle that you're free to ride as far as you can."

 

[Judas1]

I understand the argument about those wanting unlimited data at unlimited, or unthrottled speed but the point is the AT&T contract does not guarantee unlimited data at the highest speeds. It just plain doesn't.

Then they can't say that its unlimited. If there was a contract that said in the the title unlimited data, and in the fine print, only 5GB data. Sorry, the fine print is void.

 

[ktuck]

... 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...

But did you know that just a few days ago, you could have changed your plan online and then immediately called up and requested that they double your data allotment at no additional charge?

They have a vested interest in keeping people who will tolerate throttling on the Unlimited Plan. And the percentage of their customers who are tolerating throttling might be as high as 44%.

 

[Judas1]

That's a very strange statement. Of course AT&T is in competition with Verizon, and Sprint, along with T-Mobile. Is there really a difference to the end user in how the technology works, when it works? The only real difference might be with Verizon and Sprint not being able to surf the net while talking on the phone because of that limitation with CDMA. That will all change anyway once voice over LTE is completely rolled out. What other technological differences are there between the big two that could justify saying they're not in competition with each other?

You don't have a choice when your phone is a verizon phone that only works on cdma, or a att phone that only works on gsm. So your option are not 4 companies actually, just two per technology.
Even the new iphones and new ipads are non transferable. You need a separate verizon ipad or iphone.

 

[ktuck]

...
The notion that people were led to believe things is subjective and irrelevant...

That's a legal opinion that would usually be considered untrue.

 

[rkuo]

To say that my interpretation is unsophisticated, and then backing that up with "trust me" is, in itself, unsophisticated. You claim there was hostile language? There was none. There was only "these are our terms, accept or decline." If you CHOSE to accept, hen deal with it and stop whining. There's plenty of competition in the space, so that is not a valid position either. They sold it as "Unlimited" because it was. "Unlimited makes no reference to the speed at which that data is provided. The contract, which THE CUSTOMER SIGNED however, does. The CONTRACT explicitly states that AT&T has the right to throttle or cancel any account that it deems is damaging the performance of THEIR network.

You do not have a right to control AT&T unless you buy a controlling stake in the company's common stock, and unless you can come up with $90 billion, you will never have a moral means of controlling that company. Just because you think that you have a right to try and bypass that by using the government to point a gun at them and force them to do something that is detrimental to themselves, does not mean that you actually do have that right. It makes you immoral. it makes YOU unsophisticated. Trust me.

That's not how it works. You can't plaster "unlimited" all over your marketing and have fine print that effects the exact opposite for no legitimate reason whatsoever. If you are as big as AT&T you also can't just put whatever you want in a contract and have it accepted by the courts.

I'm not telling you how I think it should be, I'm explaining how it is. That there are nuances considered by the courts at these levels. And that contracts are rarely evaluated just on the basis of "well you signed it, so f off". I think you have an idealized notion of personal responsibility and non-governmental interference here that simply is not the philosophy by which these interactions are judged at the present time.

 

[goobot]

AT&T LTE give me 70mb all the time. Not sure about the rest of your numbers, but since you are flat wrong on that one, I will ignore the rest.

Please post a speed test because i don't believe you, regardless that number doesn't change the fact that you were pulling numbers out of no where in your last post.

 

[McDaddio]

Actually, from day one, there was no throttling with unlimited data plans. It wasn't until after the iPhone 3G that AT&T realized that Apple gave them the gift of more customers through the iPhone that they decided to do away with unlimited and throttle everyone who didn't switch to a tiered plan.

Get your history right otherwise, you're the one who is being nonsensical.

What you are saying is completely irrelevant and nonsensical.

They never provided a plan with unlimited bandwidth. They only provided a plan with unlimited data - that is, no overage charges, which is how they defined unlimited data from the beginning.

 

[ktuck]

You are wrong and you proved it by what you said in the last paragraph - the reps could not explain the benefits of a throttled plan. So they knew it was throttled and you had those discussions with them.

The time element is key here. For years and years, I paid to retain this Plan because of the assurances that it would be valuable at some point in the future.

I had no way of reasonably knowing it was a throttled plan (why don't they just call it the Throttled Plan instead of the Unlimited Plan?) until a couple of months ago when I received a text message warning me that I was reaching my data limit.

The conversations with the reps, me asking why anyone in their right mind would want the Unlimited Plan were (obviously) asked after I found out that "Unlimited" was a purposely deceptive misnomer. And, even then, several reps cautioned me about losing my Unlimited Plan forever if I switched to a less expensive plan. It was at that point that I brought up the unanswerable question, "Why should I care if I lose it?"

... Every rep tried to talk me into going family or whatever, and they did all warn me that if I did, I could not go back.

Exactly, the "warning" is purposely designed to communicate that the Unlimited Plan is valuable and shouldn't be given up without a fight. The truth is that the Unlimited Plan is neither scarce nor valuable and is actually a rotten deal for the consumer.

Besides, unless the reps told you that you wouldn't be throttled, and it was a systematic program to tell people through the reps that they don't have a throttled plan, it doesn't matter what they said.

Year after year (our two phones renew at different times) I talked to various reps and they all offered roughly the same advice. "Do not give up your Unlimited Plan because some day you will be very glad to have unlimited data." and "Even if you aren't using much data now, the best choice for you is to hold onto your Unlimited Plan, because there will come a time when you will be using a lot of data and you won't want to have to worry about having your data limited by the plan."

People got a contract with AT&T.
The terms are very clear.

I had an agreement with AT&T that included a written contract as well as verbal assurances and reliances. At a reasonable level of due diligence, the terms appeared crystal clear but, in fact, there was contradictory language used throughout the agreement.

I'm not trying to get away with something. I paid about between $20 and $70 more per month than I would have if I had known that I wasn't actually getting a grandfathered unlimited data plan. Just as an example, if it's $50/mo over 8 years, that's $4,000 in exchange for a false promise.