The I love my unlimited grandpa thread!

[Cutwolf]

Exactly. People bash AT&T left and right only because they abuse the service and can longer do so. (COUGH UNLIMITED Smartphone plans)

If the company didn't have any rules and consequences the network would drastically suffer, resulting in poorer service for someone like me who doesn't abuse it.

They're nasty for making the contract the way it is in the first place.

Also, someone should slap you hard in the mouth for saying people are abusing unlimited data plans. Either slap you in the mouth or provide you a dictionary to look up the word unlimited. Why would someone have signed up for unlimited data unless they planned to use significantly more data than the tiered plans offered? It's not abuse just because att changed the rules and narrative mid game.

 

[aneftp]

This AT&T bashing is getting really old. They are nasty because they are trying to enforce the terms of the contract that you agreed to when you signed up with them?

Sigh...

No. AT&T is nasty In their handling of throttling. I am not a heavy user. Maybe 500-750mb a month.

Many people are sill in middle of contracts when AT&T starting "thinking about throttling " back in q3 2011. And AT&T started enforcing throttling in q1 2012.

It's just the way all this has been handled by AT&T. Too vague in the limits of unlimited data. Once they knew they had very bad pr with throttling some people at 2GB while people paying same for 3GB were I throttled they knew they had a disaster on their hands.

Whoever made that decision (throttling at 2gb while others were unthrottled depending on location or tiered data (3g )for same $30 made zero sense.

 

[MattMJB0188]

They're nasty for making the contract the way it is in the first place.

Also, someone should slap you hard in the mouth for saying people are abusing unlimited data plans. Either slap you in the mouth or provide you a dictionary to look up the word unlimited. Why would someone have signed up for unlimited data unless they planned to use significantly more data than the tiered plans offered? It's not abuse just because att changed the rules and narrative mid game.

Sorry, not gonna change how I feel about it. I have no problem with the data hogs being throttled. I don't necessarily think 3GB is abusing it but before someone could easily use 50GB and that is ABUSING IT. I don't care if they have an "unlimited" plan, they are degrading the service for others. I proudly stand by the throttling and will continue to do so.

And you should be slapped hard in the HEAD for thinking people CANNOT abuse unlimited data plans. Hmmmmm, perhaps this is why carriers went towards tiered plans???

 

[Cutwolf]

Sorry, not gonna change how I feel about it. I have no problem with the data hogs being throttled. I don't necessarily think 3GB is abusing it but before someone could easily use 50GB and that is ABUSING IT. I don't care if they have an "unlimited" plan, they are degrading the service for others. I proudly stand by the throttling and will continue to do so.

And you should be slapped hard in the HEAD for thinking people CANNOT abuse unlimited data plans. Hmmmmm, perhaps this is why carriers went towards tiered plans???

Bro, they went to tiered data plans because they can make more money that way. Get with it homeboy.

 

[Thedeathbear]

They are just doing it to piss off their unlimited data iPhone users. In a few months, they will be throttled.

 

[MattMJB0188]

Bro, they went to tiered data plans because they can make more money that way. Get with it homeboy.

Let me put on my hip hop music and my pimpin saggy pants on first before I respond. I don't disagree with you that they wanted to make more money on data plans but a big factor in the decision was the high data users. How is someone using 100GB (which SOME people were using) fair to the guy who only uses 1GB? It's NOT and I am so glad there is now a cut off point. Of course, they still receive unlimited data, just at a slower rate.

Anyway, I'm not gonna turn this into a throttling debate, as god knows we've seen far too many of those threads over the last couple of months. But maybe you should do your homework on it before posting inaccurate information.

 

[Cutwolf]

Let me put on my hip hop music and my pimpin saggy pants on first before I respond. I don't disagree with you that they wanted to make more money on data plans but a big factor in the decision was the high data users. How is someone using 100GB (which SOME people were using) fair to the guy who only uses 1GB? It's NOT and I am so glad there is now a cut off point. Of course, they still receive unlimited data, just at a slower rate.

Anyway, I'm not gonna turn this into a throttling debate, as god knows we've seen far too many of those threads over the last couple of months. But maybe you should do your homework on it before posting inaccurate information.

How does someone using 100 GB affect you when they pay for unlimited data? It might be a problem if half the network was using 100 GB but that's not the case. The people who are using 100 GB are such a minority that it had no effect on a 1 GB user. They went to tiered data because Verizon and AT&T essentially have a monopoly on the smartphone/tablet market and knew they could charge what they want and get away with it.

You're talking a lot of empty statements and speculation and buying into the talking points that the wireless carriers have created but I doubt you have any hard evidence that the people using a significant amount of data really harmed your experience.

 

[ZBoater]

They're nasty for making the contract the way it is in the first place.

Also, someone should slap you hard in the mouth for saying people are abusing unlimited data plans. Either slap you in the mouth or provide you a dictionary to look up the word unlimited. Why would someone have signed up for unlimited data unless they planned to use significantly more data than the tiered plans offered? It's not abuse just because att changed the rules and narrative mid game.

I agree, their use of the word unlimited is misguided. However the terms of service are very clear and people using hundreds of gigabytes are probably doing things that AT&T never expected them to do. There is unlimited and then there is abuse. Streaming movies all day long versus browsing the web and checking email is not the same thing. Expecting to do unlimited streaming over a cellular network is just plain unrealistic, AT&T marketing notwithstanding.

 

[Cutwolf]

I agree, their use of the word unlimited is misguided. However the terms of service are very clear and people using hundreds of gigabytes are probably doing things that AT&T never expected them to do. There is unlimited and then there is abuse. Streaming movies all day long versus browsing the web and checking email is not the same thing. Expecting to do unlimited streaming over a cellular network is just plain unrealistic, AT&T marketing notwithstanding.

Unlimited is unlimited. At the time the people bought unlimited they paid a premium for the unlimited. The expected to use more than the tiered plans that AT&T offered and they did so. It's not abuse to use a lot of data on an unlimited plan. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe AT&T screwed up and realize they could make more money other ways, but that doesn't change the fact that when you sign up for an unlimited amount of data it's your right – at least it should be - to use up to an unlimited amount of data, which is, as we know from the definition of unlimited, impossible. Now, the contracts are written in a way to preclude that possibility, but that doesn't change that AT&T is pretty ****** for writing the contract how it is.

 

[MattMJB0188]

How does someone using 100 GB affect you when they pay for unlimited data? It might be a problem if half the network was using 100 GB but that's not the case. The people who are using 100 GB are such a minority that it had no effect on a 1 GB user. They went to tiered data because Verizon and AT&T essentially have a monopoly on the smartphone/tablet market and knew they could charge what they want and get away with it.

You're talking a lot of empty statements and speculation and buying into the talking points that the wireless carriers have created but I doubt you have any hard evidence that the people using a significant amount of data really harmed your experience.

I don't care what they pay for, its degrading to others. How can it NOT be? There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, which I'm sure you know. I have the unlimited plan and I have never used over 5GB. Someone streaming large video content is going to have an effect on someone else's service. Though it won't be a huge effect, but it will still be there.

Perhaps your speaking out of envy as you don't have an unlimited plan with AT&T or any carrier. I don't know and I don't care, but I know the throttling IS necessary. Yes, it sucks as its at 3GB and that's hardly abusing it but they have to put a cap on it somewhere.

Go ahead and argue with me all you want. I don't think there is something I haven't heard when it comes to this argument.

 

[ZBoater]

Unlimited is unlimited. ..., but that doesn't change that AT&T is pretty ****** for writing the contract how it is.

Unlimited is whatever the contract says it is, not what I wished it to be. Acceptable uses are whatever the contract says they are, not what I want them to be. Nobody put a gun to my head to accept the AT&T contract. And, contrary to a lot of people, I actually read the contract before I accepted it.

 

[Cutwolf]

I don't care what they pay for, its degrading to others. How can it NOT be? There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, which I'm sure you know. I have the unlimited plan and I have never used over 5GB. Someone streaming large video content is going to have an effect on someone else's service. Though it won't be a huge effect, but it will still be there.

Perhaps your speaking out of envy as you don't have an unlimited plan with AT&T or any carrier. I don't know and I don't care, but I know the throttling IS necessary. Yes, it sucks as its at 3GB and that's hardly abusing it but they have to put a cap on it somewhere.

Go ahead and argue with me all you want. I don't think there is something I haven't heard when it comes to this argument.

I'm rocking unlimited on both my iPhone and my iPad. Regardless whether you want to hear anymore arguments or not, you're wrong. And there's nothing you can say that I haven't heard that'll change my opinion on that.

 

[MattMJB0188]

Unlimited is whatever the contract says it is, not what I wished it to be. Acceptable uses are whatever the contract says they are, not what I want them to be. Nobody put a gun to my head to accept the AT&T contract. And, contrary to a lot of people, I actually read the contract before I accepted it.

Thank You!!!!

 

[Cutwolf]

Unlimited is whatever the contract says it is, not what I wished it to be. Acceptable uses are whatever the contract says they are, not what I want them to be. Nobody put a gun to my head to accept the AT&T contract. And, contrary to a lot of people, I actually read the contract before I accepted it.

This isn't entirely true. The company can't go and advertise one thing and then write in the contract that what they advertised isn't true. That contract wouldn't be enforced.

Think about it this way: if someone were to advertise a desk made of real mahogany but then wrote in the contract you signed when you bought the desk that the desk is not actually real mahogany, that contract would/should obviously not be enforced. It is the same concept here.

This is part of the reason AT&T is losing its throttling cases in small claims court.

 

[MattMJB0188]

This isn't entirely true. The company can't go and advertise one thing and then write in the contract that what they advertised isn't true. That contract wouldn't be enforced.

Think about it this way: if someone were to advertise a desk made of real mahogany but then wrote in the contract you signed when you bought the desk that the desk is not actually real mahogany, that contract would/should obviously not be enforced. It is the same concept here.

This is part of the reason AT&T is losing its throttling cases in small claims court.

Loosing case(S) in small claims court? They lost one for $850. That guy was an idiot because he tethered on his unlimited plan which violated his contract. AT&T still provided him "unlimited data" but at a slower rate.

Your arguing as if they took away everyone's connection. If so, then yes, you'd be 100% right. Speeds were never promised from day 1 and throttling was in the contract since the original iPhone. It was never intended to be a main ISP.

 

[ZBoater]

This isn't entirely true. The company can't go and advertise one thing and then write in the contract that what they advertised isn't true. That contract wouldn't be enforced.

Think about it this way: if someone were to advertise a desk made of real mahogany but then wrote in the contract you signed when you bought the desk that the desk is not actually real mahogany, that contract would/should obviously not be enforced. It is the same concept here.

This is part of the reason AT&T is losing its throttling cases in small claims court.

Have you read the contract? Do you realize that a lot of the things we do are actually against the terms of service?

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/wireless-terms.jsp

"While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others;...

This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. "

 

[Cutwolf]

Loosing case(S) in small claims court? They lost one for $850. That guy was an idiot because he tethered on his unlimited plan which violated his contract. AT&T still provided him "unlimited data" but at a slower rate.

Your arguing as if they took away everyone's connection. If so, then yes, you'd be 100% right. Speeds were never promised from day 1 and throttling was in the contract since the original iPhone. It was never intended to be a main ISP.

He was an idiot, but he won? When the law isn't on your side, argue the facts, when the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side though? You should probably tuck your tail, although I guess changing the debate and your position is a decent strategy.

----------

Have you read the contract? Do you realize that a lot of the things we do are actually against the terms of service?

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/wireless-terms.jsp

"While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others;...

This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. "

That's what I'm saying though. A common misconception is that everything in a signed contract is legally enforceable. This is not true, especially if a company publicly holds its service out in a way that is more favorable to the consumer than the contract provides. It's a bait and switch.

 

[MattMJB0188]

He was an idiot, but he won? When the law isn't on your side, argue the facts, when the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side though? You should probably tuck your tail, although I guess changing the debate and your position is a decent strategy.

----------



That's what I'm saying though. A common misconception is that everything in a signed contract is legally enforceable. This is not true, especially if a company publicly holds its service out in a way that is more favorable to the consumer than the contract provides. It's a bait and switch.

No, your just convincing yourself that I'm wrong. You just don't want to hear the argument because you've made up your mind. Take the other guys advice and read the contract a couple of times so it can sink into your head. Then have yourself a beer and call it a day!

 

[ZBoater]

That's what I'm saying though. A common misconception is that everything in a signed contract is legally enforceable. This is not true, especially if a company publicly holds its service out in a way that is more favorable to the consumer than the contract provides. It's a bait and switch.

No. What happens is people sign onto the contract without reading it. Then they start streaming Netflix, they start tethering without paying and then they're surprised when AT&T clamps down on them. One small claims court win means nothing. Stop using the service for things that are not approved, and you can get your unlimited data.

Now, if you downloaded 100GB of email and AT&T throttled you, that would be a different story...

 

[Cutwolf]

No. What happens is people sign onto the contract without reading it. Then they start streaming Netflix, they start tethering without paying and then they're surprised when AT&T clamps down on them. One small claims court win means nothing. Stop using the service for things that are not approved, and you can get your unlimited data.

Now, if you downloaded 100GB of email and AT&T throttled you, that would be a different story...

I'm not explaining based on the one case, I'm explaining basic contract and consumer protection laws.

 

[ZBoater]

I'm not explaining based on the one case, I'm explaining basic contract and consumer protection laws.

Ok, so read the contract and tell me which part is unclear.

 

[Cutwolf]

Ok, so read the contract and tell me which part is unclear.

You're missing the point. Probably my fault.

What's in the contract isn't always and automatically enforceable, even if you signed it 10,000 times in front of a notary and it's the most clear contract in the history of the world. In most normal cases, such a contract will end up enforceable.

But let's use an example:

You rent a car. The rental company says publicly and in its ads and signs that you can continue to rent the car forever as long as you make timely payments.

You sign a contract. In that contract, the rental company has included a line in the contract that says "rental company reserves the right to take the car from you for any reason whatsoever at any time."

You sign the contract 500 times in front of a notary while standing on a bible.

5 months later, the rental company comes to take the car, even though you've never even been close to late on a payment.

The rental company would almost certainly be liable for damages even though the contract terms purportedly gave them the right to do what they did.

Contract provisions aren't automatically and always enforceable, even if they speak clearly to a given situation.

 

[Dex4788]

I've got unlimited Verizon LTE in my Verizon iPad. with my sim from my Verizon Galaxy nexus. Cost me $24 a month with discount. I don't even use the Verizon phone as a phone.

I have my AT&T iPhone 4 S as my main phone.

Verizpn doesn't audit if u switch LTE sims from phone to tablet like AT&T does.

Can you clarify your Verizon method? Do you simply take the microSIM from the phone and place into the iPad? No other steps required?

I was originally thinking of getting the WiFi only version, but if I can easily swap SIMs, I may just get the 4G version because I have an unlimited data plan attached to my cell.

 

[ZBoater]

You're missing the point. Probably my fault. (snip)

Ok, so what you are saying is because AT&T marketed unlimited data, any provision in their contract designed to prevent you from bringing down their network through unauthorized uses is unenforceable?

Wow. No wonder they killed those plans...

 

[Cutwolf]

Ok, so what you are saying is because AT&T marketed unlimited data, any provision in their contract designed to prevent you from bringing down their network through unauthorized uses is unenforceable?

Wow. No wonder they killed those plans...

I am saying that because AT&T marketed unlimited data, any attempts to put a limit on that will be carefully scrutinized by courts. In at least one case, AT&T lost, despite contract provisions to the contrary.