iPhone user successfully sues AT&T over 3G throttling - Page 2

If the limited plans are sold by GB, then I'm assuming that means the unlimited plans means unlimited GBs..

But that doesn't mean you have unlimited SPEED...

Unless the plans guarantee a certain speed for the entire month, then AT&T has every right to limit the speed they give you..

Sucks, but that's the way it is..

It's really a scam. Heavy users make no difference in the anyone else's data or speed. How much they download has nothing to do with the bandwidth issues at a particular place or time. It's all about AT&T and Verizon and others trying to make you mad at the unlimited people when it's really about the companies wanting them to switch to tiered plans.

I hate to take their side, but it has been almost 2 years since they stopped offering this plan. The people who still have it (myself included) could have just as easily been forced to switch plans when they renewed contract (pretty likely to have happened at least once by now, and I've renewed twice), or switched carriers if they so choose.

The fact that the plan still exists in any form is sort of surprising to me, and personally if they ever do throttle my account I'll switch to the 3 gig plan immediately. I'm perfectly satisfied with AT&T service and for me, I don't see any added value in switching my service. I'll stay put for now.

Honesty, in today's world there is a lot to be outraged about. However, this is just not on the list, personally.

If the are shady about how they offer the unlimited data or pull some of this throttling crap to the point that your data is unusual then I agree. However, in general people need to understand that being unlimited in one aspect doesn't mean unlimited in every aspect as noted by my comical example.

PS: Does anyone remember seeing MNOs advertise Unlimited/Unlimited which referred to calling plans that were unlimited for peak and off peak times?

Amounts would be my guess.

That said, I have no issue with throttling speeds in theory and I believe that carriers should be allowed to do so. HOWEVER, I do not believe it is fair to any degree to even consider throttling until one has gone over a fair amount of data. And in my mind the 3GB limit for which later subscribers also pay $30 a month would be a fair amount. NOT 1GB and such that they are using. This top 5% of users in an area is just bunk when it falls under that level.

Frankly I wish they would just kill the unlimited plans altogether if they are going to act like this. Let those that were grandfathered in continue until they next renew their contracts or two years from the last one whichever comes first and be done with it.

I'm surprised they haven't. I figured they would have forced users in the Summer of 2010 who wanted a new iPhone to move to tiered plans when they switched contracts. It would have been the time to do it, too. Now they have to weigh in potential lose from users going to Verizon or Sprint out of spite.

As far as I know, AT&T's unlimited is the most expensive iPhone plan in the US. I have it and pay $125/month for it, and that doesn't include tethering or voice navigation. I haven't been throttled because I am mostly using wifi these days. However, I plan to sue too should I get throttled!! I have been paying that for roughly 56 months now, and doing the math just now made me realize how much I have wasted. 56 x 125 = $7,000

It's obvious this guy is not getting it- and I'm glad you were brave enough to school him-
I have been trying out something on my end and I listen fall asleep to pandora radio with my iPhone 4 - supposedly 100% UNLIMITED DATA -(cough-cough) and I still have 19 days left and I have (according to AT&THIEF) used 1.4GB OF UPLOAD AND DOWNLOADED 10GB so far-
Still yet to receive the throttle message

I'd recommend everyone watch the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" if you're an American. It will open your eyes to how corporations with our government have stripped us of our 12th amendment rights. Caps on awards... Arbitration clauses. $850 won't make AT&T do anything.

Oh- we can all join together and sue for what is right before a jury of our peers? Oh- we can't. We have to go to an arbitration company picked by AT&T- that wont be biased. Then, the max award will be potentially $100k- nothing to them.


It all boils down to- we aren't going to get anything different- and we, the people, lose our rights in the process. But Andy- you chose to use AT&T- if you don't like their arbitration policy- use a company that doesn't. Verizon, tmobile, and sprint all have similar ones. In the end- we're screwed and are dictated what we can and can't do by major corporations- and the court system now protects and favors them because we allowed it through our moronic political system.

Yay tort reform.

phone carriers have you sign a two yr contract , of course you cant keep returning to golden corral after paying for one visit. but with a contract you should be getting the service that was agreed to when the contract was signed which is why the judge sided with the consumer

The beginning of a huge movement. Those of us affected are really pissed, and are not going to back down from what's right.

It's people like you that allow tyranny to take over.

You believe they have "every right" to throttle unlimited data plans, at a usage level LOWER than even the comparably priced limited plan?

You're wrong.

I have to LMAO at the children who think contracts and endless pages of fine print and verbiage, mean anything. All that matters is if the judge finds that fine print valid, or finds it abusive, presumptuous and inappropriate.

On the other hand, who wants unlimited speeds when you can only use it for several minutes a month?

For a phone, I would rather have a plan that offers unlimited usage, but capped to something like 1mbit. Fast enought for email, browsing, and some low quality streams. For comparison, I'm grandfathered into an unlimited plan and average around 4mbit in speed.

Also, such plans seem to make more sense to me, especially when the telecoms are claiming bandwidth issues for moving to tiered plans. If that's the case, why wouldn't they cap bandwidth instead of usage?

If you are paying for the service they shouldn't be throttling anyone's service. That's not what the people signed up for. If someone is paying for each GB of data used then AT&T should just collect the money. They just need to change their policy. It's these kinds of things that AT&T does that makes people not want to do business with them even when they have the best network.

[QUOTE=Slurpy;2055721] Yes, I'm aware streaming video consumes a large amount of data. My question was why an average person would need to constantly be watching netflix on a data connection on a phone or streaming shit outside of wifi. Most people actually have jobs during the day, socializing, classes, etc that prevents them from having their noses attached to a screen."

Well for me I stream Sirius at work most of the day (12 hour shifts), WiFi is NOT available there. Of course other things like browsing, video calls, etc all add up too. I'm sure there are many other people who use the phone the same way I do.

Also, if I am at home where there is free wifi, why the hell would I be using the phone to watch movies or browse the web? That's what my desktop/laptop is for!

Seems pretty obvious to me why people may use so much data, and since ATT sold us an unlimited data plan then I will use it whenever I feel like it.

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually land in a post-pay-per-GB wireless data world. None of the carriers can provide unlimited bandwidth so why would consumers ever expect to get it? Really, it isn't fair for 5 or 10% of users to be allowed to use 90% of the available data bandwidth while paying the same price. The flip side to this whole "problem" with "unlimited" data plans is folks who use a more reasonable/limited amount of data yet are forced to pay the same rate as these so called data hogs.

This is why I have abandoned contracts completely and currently use prepaid service on an AT&T MVNO. Used iPhone market+reduced monthly rate+conscientious use of data = a true win for me. To the rest of you guys who expect ultra premium service for the same price everyone else pays: good luck

Because all the wired ISPs can do it so there's really no excuse for the telecoms raping us on speed, price, and usage.


So either have "rollover data" or set up plans where you can choose to pay by usage if you don't use a lot.

Seems to me that AT&T unlimited data plan is actually that. Unlimited data but not unlimited speed. The top 5% of bandwidth users still get unlimited data but at reduced speeds. I may havr a minority opinion bit it seems fair to me. Why should the many suffer for the needs of a few?

Technically they limit two of three parameters. Unlimited data comes with limited speed and limited duration.

My questions:

• Are the majority suffering from the few?
• Are the majority suffering when people hit 1.5GB in a month?
• Should you throttle those that have capped data usage plans?
• Is it fair just to pick the top x% regardless of how much data or effect on the network that actually relates to?

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it is fair to throttle at anything less than 3GB a month since the unlimited people and tiered both pay $30 a month. $30 should at least guarantee anyone that amount of data at full speed. Years ago when all carriers had unlimited, when pressed they often cited 5GB as fair use for the month. They have obviously figured out that they can make a nice profit at selling 3GB of data for $30 a month and that amount should be guaranteed for the older unlimited plans as well.

The fairest way would be to charge users a flat $10 per GB. But they don't want to do that because it makes too much sense and they want to lock you in to a data plan of at least $25 or more. Many people might not exceed 1GB a month which would result in lower monthly bills and in turn lower revenue. It is the same reason you don't see shared family data packages and only shared voice minutes. It makes too much sense and earns them less money. You also don't hear AT&T proposing any rollover data use like they offer for voice minutes. That would be a nice gesture to offer customers that might only use an average of 800MB or less a month but pay $30/3GB monthly for high use times like vacations where they might use 4 or 5GB and not be charged extra. The reason I cite vacations is because I just got back from a trip to Miami beach and used over 6GB in just over a week. That is easy to do when you stream music the whole drive down, and on the beach, and use GPS, along with Netflix, Showtime mobile, email, and just surf the web. Luckily I have unlimited with Sprint and don't have to worry about being throttled now.

Sounds great for me I'm olanning to pass my unlimited plan on ipad 1 to iPad 3 (LTE). In the 2 years I have been using ipad I have used up close to 2 terra bites, I use my 3G so I download the big 200m-1.5g apps on 3G and also use mywi for hotspaot to my laptop occasionally. But the main culprit is Netflix, everyone in my house uses theipad as a second tv to watch Netflix...

Hopefully this will end throttling!!!

That's 2.7 gigs PER DAY.


No, this will just make it worse. All carriers will simply remove their unlimited plans entirely, put further caps on already capped plans, and start charging more depending on the time of day you access their data.

CEO Randall L. Stephenson? That you?

Judge says otherwise. Pay up, AT&Thieves.

Exactly who is 'suffering?'

Not counting where they have spotty coverage, I only have issues with AT&T data when I am in an area of really concentrated people. Such as in a very large city center or at a concert or sports event.

AT&T just needs to beef up their network in heavily populated areas. 90% of where I go, I have excellent data speeds.

The 5% thing has been proven a myth by the fact that in one city, you get throttled at 5GB, while in another, 2GB.

Pay up, AT&T. I will be filing next week.

Matt Spaccarelli called Leo Laporte on The Tech Guy live today. Interesting conversation.
http://live.twit.tv/
I suggest watching it when it repeats later or watch/listen to the 2/25/12 podcast.

And then...


Seemed pretty clear to me too. Or maybe it was already edited?

In the 60s, if a company advertised a service and didn't produce it, they'd be fined by the government in charge of monitoring consumer affairs. If the company sold you a contract and advertised it as unlimited usage and claimed to have the fastest speed than money can buy, any judge would hold them to that contract. It was false advertisement.

Today, the Telcos advertise they have the fastest and most reliable network, and some contracts that are still unlimited. IMO that means normal speed AND unlimited data. If they sold tiered speed and tiered data plans that's a different story, but they sold me an unlimited data plan at the normal network speed they offer. I believe that anything less is reneging on the contract. And the Telcos should be penalized just as if I reneged the Telcos penalize me.

So what is different? Proper regulation and enforcement. If the federal government won't fixed this then the States should step in. Neither governments will do it unless we the people make them. So our predicament is our our fault for allowing it to happen. We had control before through regulation in the 60s and later that muscle broke up Ma Bell's tactics, but we got lazy. Stop whining and start acting, by showing the Telcos with your wallet and the government with your vote, that we the people aren't going to take it anymore.

Let me guess , so he gets $850 as reward but still end up with a throttled account. Am I right? (didnt read)

That sounds about right.

Though the money is to pay for the remainder of his indentured servitude to AT&T, after which it's implied that he won't ever be returning.

You people that believe this FAIL at economics 101. A basic principal in economics is "...a good or service will sell for whatever the market will bear, regardless of the cost to produce...". That means, if a good or service can sell for $50 a month, if it costs AT&T $45 to produce that service, or $25 to produce it, it will still cost you, the consumer, $50 a month - because that is the price you're willing to pay for that service.

Data hogs may increase the cost to provide the service, but it doesn't increase your price for that service. If data hogs were eliminated completely, AT&T would not drop the price of your service $0.01 a month. They will, however, try to use that excuse when they attempt to bump up the price of their service. In the end, though, they may or may not lose subscribers for it, and that will readjust their pricing to what the public is willing to pay. Some products even sell for less than they cost to produce, because the public isn't willing to pay any more. The Bugatti Veyron actually loses money for ever one sold - reportedly $2.5 million. Volkswagen, who owns Bugatti, builds them to make a statement, and nothing more.

Regardless of the dollar amount of the award, this establishes a legal precedent against AT&T. Do you think that there will be more lawsuits to follow? Do you think that AT&T is worried? Do you think that the attorneys for AT&T will be working late evenings in the weeks to come?

Data hogs ruin it for everybody else. They slow down our connections.

Not necessarily true. According to a study by Validas, throttling mobile users doesn't improve network bandwidth, nor does it improve network stress. It's just price gouging on the part of the carriers.

http://www.geekosystem.com/wireless-data-throttling/

The post clearly says $85 for EACH of the 10 remaining months. 10 months @ $85 per is $850.00

That's EXACTLY what he said. I don't see why you had to 'correct' him.

Agreed. If it's unlimited it's unlimited. If it's throttled then throttle to 256kbps. If it's unthrottled then cap at 5GB, 15GB or whatever. Horses for courses, let the consumer choose what's best for them.

All mobile telcos should just stand up to the plate and give us the straight talk, no BS.

I think the telcos are afraid if people realised how much they have been paying for the paltry amount of data they use for voice and SMS (25c a message? Really?) ... They would be a rebellion.

Instead of fear, telcos should embrace that fast, reliable, beyond 3G mobile data is what consumers want, and they should figure out how to deliver this. They have the talent, I don't think any of us lose sleep over AT&T, Verizon and their ilk.

In any case like I mentioned I just got 15mbps DSL, and it's the only way to fly. Can't imagine having anything else. I've dropped my data pack for my 3G from 12GB (was tethering) to the stock standard 1.5GB per month on my plan. The next time I get back into huge consumption of data, I'll probably only do it for LTE at at least 15mbps, nothing less.

The only thing that will come of this is AT&T will simply give everyone on the unlimited plan a few months notice that they are discontinuing the unlimited plans, and you will be moved to the 3GB plan whether you want it or not.

Not a lawyer, but my brother is. Unfortunately, you're wrong. TOS are used all the time to stop you from accessing the courts. It's becoming a huge issue. It's used a lot with credit card companies and such. They state that you're giving up your right to sue and that you must go through an arbitration process or what not. As with all things legal, it will only be this way until someone successfully sues (as a separate action) to prevent companies from doing this.

As for the topic at hand: You're going to see more of this. Eventually AT&T is going to be forced to change its capping policies. It's clearly a violation of contract for folks with unlimited plans.

From 9to5Mac today:

AT&T is now getting ahold of their throttling plans by laying out the numbers which will get users put into the reduced data scenario. Instead of the sliding scale top 5% of users which often was people under 2GB, they now have a hard maximum of 3GB for HSPA users like those with iPhones and 5GB for their new LTE offerings. Users will receive a warning the first time but wont get a notice thereafter.