Congestion or not, they aren't required by law to provide you with unlimited data at a certain speed period. The only consumers I believe have been wronged are those who were currently in a contract when the throttling had started. Going into the contract, that wasn't spelled out, even if at&t's verbiage protects them in situations like this. When you resign your contract, you are effectively agreeing to new terms and conditions, even if that means throttling of your unlimited data.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FTC Sues AT&T Over 'Misleading' Unlimited Data Throttling Practices [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Congestion or not, they aren't required by law to provide you with unlimited data at a certain speed period. The only consumers I believe have been wronged are those who were currently in a contract when the throttling had started. Going into the contract, that wasn't spelled out, even if at&t's verbiage protects them in situations like this. When you resign your contract, you are effectively agreeing to new terms and conditions, even if that means throttling of your unlimited data.
Nobody is making that claim.
The law -does- require that AT&T acts in good faith. The FTC lawsuit is confirmation that some legal experts agree that AT&T did not act in good faith in regards to its selling of the Unlimited Data Plan.
I agree with you and I explained why in the rest of that post. What I disagree with is that you believe you one of those affected customers when in fact you are not. Their throttling policy has been in place for 4 years. You get throttled a few weeks ago and are all of a sudden a victim of this unfair policy when in fact you have agreed to the updated terms by continuing use and extending contracts with them.
Why do you get to buy more data than me for cheaper? And how long do you think you should have this right?
I get that AT&T is offering a confusing plan. But seriously I think you are an unrealistic consumer. The FTC seems to agree with you. And AT&T will just have to bite the bullet and cancel your unlimited plan and move you to a tiered plan. Yes, you will be let out of your contract and you should be allowed to take your phone elsewhere. But if you think AT&T needs to be contractually obligated to perpetually offer one set of its customers tons of data at a much cheaper price than its other set of customers, I don't know what to say.
Why do people in other countries get more data and far better service than either of us for cheaper? And why not have that right for everyone here in our own country?
Why are you so anti-consumer?
It's as if I belonged to an airline's elite flyers' club that had absolutely no benefit other than a first-class upgrade. And, I continued to renew my membership because I knew that someday that airline would offer first-class seating on my flights.
At first, I didn't give it a second thought, because I was paying the same as everyone else for my tickets. But after a year or two, I noticed that I was paying more than other airlines were charging for the same flights. And, even later, I noticed that I was even paying more than other customers on my airline.
I had to renew my membership every year and at that time, every year, I was told by various people in various positions that my membership was a coveted holding and that I'd be crazy to give it up - just think of those first class seats you'll be enjoying someday. As the price differential became greater and greater, I increased my inquiries and was repeatedly told that my membership was a great benefit and that I'd be nuts to let it expire. We're not taking any new members!
Then, after almost a decade of membership I have the opportunity to finally take a flight that has a first-class section. As I settled into my private berth and sip the champagne, the jets engines come to life and a flight attendant asks me to move back into the coach section. To my bewildered look, she says, "Sorry, but you can't sit up here while we're actually flying." I ask about the other customers in first-class and she says, "Oh, well they pay the same price as you do, but they don't have the benefits of being in the elite flyer's club."
In answer to your first question: because AT&T offered it to us when we signed our contract. Pure and simple. I've been saying this over and over again because that is what transpired.
In answer to your second question: for the length of the contract that AT&T and the customer mutually agreed upon.
Bryan
----------
I've been hearing this over and over and it is FALSE. Please show me where this is written in our contracts...
Bryan
Actually that's not true. My brother just transferred his iPhone 5 from Verizon to AT&T last month. And besides, that's not even the point. They compete with each other because they both have the iPhone, just like they have the same Samsung phones, HTC, LG, etc. They all compete for the same customers that want to do the same thing. I can't believe I'm even arguing this...
LOL, and you DO get unlimited data. You DONT get UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH You are not entitled to or guaranteed to the fastest speed all the time.
What you ARE entitled to is to actually read your contract (with any carrier). They can cancel you ANYTIME FOR ANY REASON. PERIOD!
1. I said the benchmark for a moral judgement in this case is hardly the result of a U.S. court proceeding.
2. It's not a gotcha, and you keep saying it was in fine print as if it were. It wasn't. Not that it matters, since most people don't read the contract anyways. But that's hardly AT&T's fault.
3. I'm not wrong, which is why I've made nothing but valid points regarding moral contract law, and why you keep saying things that aren't true in that context.
4. Any judgement that comes out against AT&T for doing what they explicitly stated they had the right to do in their contract is nothing more than populism. That is not rule of law, that is rule by popularity.
5. Good contracts are "Take it or leave it" by their very nature. There's very little, if any ambiguity contained in them for the very purpose of avoiding lawsuits like this one. That's what contracts are for. not so the government can say most people want x so let's do x regardless of what was sitpulated in the document they signed. Get it through YOUR head.
Yes I had unlimited data plan. And I was not limited to the amount of data used. However, I was well aware in my contract that if I consumed more resources that the network was able to handle, my speed would be reduce to offer other subscribers a chance at the shared data speed.
I also read that if I abused the network privileges, I would be send warning notices.
My only complaint is that subscribers on the same tower (I presume) who paid for a 10GB plan were not throttled while an unlimited data user was throttled. That is what the FCC should focus and only focus on.
Just got my warning text today, normal usage. no streaming, no music, just email, safari and dropbox for work. However, I am on the new 6, and crappy iOS8, so no doubt something is amiss to be sure.
nice.
nice.
I feel like most consumers don't even know what plans they have. For example, I told my coworkers about the double data promotions from Verizon and AT&T and they couldn't even tell me if they are on a share plan. Because of this, I feel like most consumers who have an unlimited data plan just stick with it and never changed it because they don't need to or don't care.
If that is the case, is it possible that a number as high as 50% represent the number of AT&T users still on the unlimited plans? If that is the case, it is no wonder why AT&T is forced to grandfather these plans. Because of all the headache involved (calling, mailing, emailing) in moving 50 million customers to a new plan.
If that is the case, is it possible that a number as high as 50% represent the number of AT&T users still on the unlimited plans? If that is the case, it is no wonder why AT&T is forced to grandfather these plans. Because of all the headache involved (calling, mailing, emailing) in moving 50 million customers to a new plan.
I don't buy that. Verizon got folks off unlimited by not offering subsides for new phones. AT&T could have done the same but didn't. If I recall correctly they may have even touted that their grandfathered customers would face no such move, to try to keep folks with AT&T.
For those getting so angry and yelling that when you buy unlimited you should expect unlimited data, but you should not expect unlimited bandwidth, what about this hypothetical?
What if AT&T decided to start throttling 10GB family share customers to a crawl once they reach 5GB? Would you say that is perfectly fine? How is that really different than throttling an unlimited customer when they reach 5GB? Both are using the same amount of resources and transfer the same amount of data.
If you were throttled down to an almost unusable speed half way through your 10GB plan, wouldn't that seem like false advertising regardless of whether they disclaim that they have the right to throttle buried somewhere in their Terms and Conditions? Sure, they may be protected because they detail the throttling on their website, or can prove that you clicked through an acceptance of the T&Cs when you were activating your phone, but does it really seem right?
Maybe both situations seem perfectly fine to some but to me it doesn't seem right. Yes, in 2007 maybe no one anticipated the speeds and amount of data phones would consume in the future so when they said unlimited they meant unlimited, and maybe they decided to change their terms and conditions to include throttling after they realized this. But should they really be allowed to lure those not so tech saavy in to their service by advertising "unlimited" when the average consumer may not realize the difference between unlimited data and unlimited bandwidth? Seems to me that once they realized they could no longer leave the spigot open on the pipe and they needed to start turning down the speed they should have retired the unlimited product because it no longer represents what the average consumer thinks it does.
Also, I understand the need to manage congestion, but how about using something like a fairshare system in times of congestion? Why choose a static threhold of usage then throttle during all periods of time regardless of congestion?
Just some food for thought and of course I respect any opinions to the contrary.
Z
What if AT&T decided to start throttling 10GB family share customers to a crawl once they reach 5GB? Would you say that is perfectly fine? How is that really different than throttling an unlimited customer when they reach 5GB? Both are using the same amount of resources and transfer the same amount of data.
If you were throttled down to an almost unusable speed half way through your 10GB plan, wouldn't that seem like false advertising regardless of whether they disclaim that they have the right to throttle buried somewhere in their Terms and Conditions? Sure, they may be protected because they detail the throttling on their website, or can prove that you clicked through an acceptance of the T&Cs when you were activating your phone, but does it really seem right?
Maybe both situations seem perfectly fine to some but to me it doesn't seem right. Yes, in 2007 maybe no one anticipated the speeds and amount of data phones would consume in the future so when they said unlimited they meant unlimited, and maybe they decided to change their terms and conditions to include throttling after they realized this. But should they really be allowed to lure those not so tech saavy in to their service by advertising "unlimited" when the average consumer may not realize the difference between unlimited data and unlimited bandwidth? Seems to me that once they realized they could no longer leave the spigot open on the pipe and they needed to start turning down the speed they should have retired the unlimited product because it no longer represents what the average consumer thinks it does.
Also, I understand the need to manage congestion, but how about using something like a fairshare system in times of congestion? Why choose a static threhold of usage then throttle during all periods of time regardless of congestion?
Just some food for thought and of course I respect any opinions to the contrary.
Z
I canceled my wifi at the house to go with another wifi provider, and the earliest appointment wasn't for another week. So my wife and I have been using our 6/6+ On LTE network at home for a week now and I got a text saying go past data my 6+ May slow down, and it did. Notice it taking longer to load my apps etc. I will have wifi back at our home tomorrow though. But I wouldn't have notice this if was not for the lapse in wifi at our home. Thinking about the 30gb plan though and its $160 vs the $200 I paying for the unlimited data plan now. T-mobile have some great deals but not sure how well it will work for my area live about 45min to an hour from Orlando FL.
It's been shown to you many times.
Section 6.2 of your agreement.
Very last paragraph of the section.
Ok, again, please show me where it says that I will be throttled when I exceed 3 GB (on 3G) or 5 GB (on LTE). It only says that I can't use it in a prohibited manner.
What is a prohibited manner? Using my data on a regular basis? (I'm not talking about folks that use really enormous amounts measured in the 10s of GBs.)
It is not defined in the terms of the contract, nor is it even loosely defined. Simply put, there is nothing in the contract that even gives the customer an idea of the confines they want you to stay within. We shouldn't even be having this discussion since they call it an "Unlimited Data Plan", but that is a different part of this discussion.
Bryan
P.S. I could understand it if by prohibited activities they were referring to things like tethering, acting like a mini-server, etc...but the contract does not mention anything about how much data you can use before having your speeds reduced up to 98%.
The right moral answer is easy. The government supposed to protect individual rights. In this case they were supposed to do that by upholding the contract that both parties agreed to. Period. But I guess as long as the FTC agrees with you, then it must be moral.
Benchmark for morality = FTC. Good point.
AT&T didn't lie to anyone. They said unlimited. They said nothing about the speed at which the unlimited data was provided. I've mentioned this point repeatedly. If you refuse to acknowledge, or accept it, that is a reflection of your intelligence or your integrity, it is not indicative of a lack of validity in my argument, no matter how many times you ignore it and repeat yourself.
You keep addressing the scenario as a "fantasy world," as if that is somehow an indictment of my ideas themselves. I have also stated repeatedly that the benchmark for a moral system of adjudication is hardly the United States, or the rest of the world. I don't care much for how their systems work. I care about how it should work. I care about what is morally right. That was the whole reason for bringing this up in the first place. You can make benign points as many times as you want, but they're still useless. There was no ambiguity in the contract. Just because you ASSUMED that you would get the unlimited data at the fastest rate possible, does not mean that was ever the case. The only person who is responsible for your delusions is yourself.
By all means, please do.
True
As long as they weren't promised high data rates within either their verbal, or in this case, written contract, then yeah.
What if they did?
Sure. But why would they do that again? It seems like you have this.... really naïve notion that the way in which companies go around getting rich is to piss off all the people who pay them. What would happen if they decided to do that? Everybody who is on the AT&T network would go to Verizon. Or at least try to. What would happen to AT&T's revenue in that scenario? They would get annihilated. So if your notions that big companies go around trying to piss off other customers make huge amounts of money, I would ask you how exactly they go about doing that by crushing the revenues? But hey, if they to go and destroy themselves, they have a right to do that. It is THEIR network. NOT yours. You don't like it? Go somewhere else. Or start your own cell network company. Then do you want with that. Do not try to use your social utility as a grounds for pointing guns at private companies to force them to do things that they don't want to do, just because you don't like the terms of the contract that YOU signed. Grow up.
Again, not in the contract that I signed with them. This is something they've decided to do after the fact. But hey, I do understand that cell phone companies can make plenty of changes and their contracts are written that way to give them the legal authority to do so. However, the way they are applying it is not morally or legally sound.
AT&T is severely throttling one subset of customers to the point their phones are for all intents and purposes unusable on the network and they do so in the name of "protecting network resources for all". However, if you want to "pay a little more money", then you are free to use 600-1000% more data with no bandwidth restrictions at all. I can't believe that a few folks here are defending this practice and can't see the issue with this and how/why it is completely wrong.
Bryan
I'm going to have to skip all the other incorrect thinking here and cut straight to the point, which is that you do actually think AT&T can basically screw all of its current customers legally due to the contract language saying something about bandwidth. That opinion is completely out of touch with both common sense and contract law, so there isn't any point in trying to convince you otherwise. Good luck with that.
This is vague at best.
1. Where are you coming up with 44%? Please link your source.
2. What plan would I change to and why would I request a double data allotment?