Lawsuit accuses AT&T of overcharging iPhone, iPad customer data use

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 89
    axualaxual Posts: 244member
    Bottom line is that ATT really does not know what data usage is. I predict they will lose this one, but more important is how they intend to fix it.
  • Reply 62 of 89
    AT&T is one of the last companies I would defend, but I have to take AT&T's side here. Making a request to a web server consumes data, whether it responds successfully or not.



    That said, it is difficult for users to think in terms of data consumption, since you have no idea how much data you will consume by doing certain things. And AT&T's data plans aren't very accommodating either. At the very least, it should offer an option to reply to an SMS to purchase additional block of data (for 200 MB plan, $15 for additional 200 MB; for 2 GB plan, $10 for additional 1 GB). And ideally, it should price the plans more reasonably ($15 for additional 200 MB is excessive).
  • Reply 63 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by enjourni View Post


    You are talking about two different things. A person doesn't pull up their phone and say "gee, I think I'll request DHCP renewal." So WHO is actually consuming data in this case? The user, or the phone itself? If the phone is made to request more data then normal in idle state, is that the fault of the user, or the phone?



    So what should the user be responsible in paying for? If my deliberate attempt is to make my phone not communicate any data (which is what the testers tried to do), and my phone does anyway, how is that my fault? Why should I pay for activity I didn't intentionally request?



    To play both sides here, I see the carriers argument. They want to charge for data used, regardless of who or what requested it. However, the only real FAIR way to charge people for data is to clarify what types of traffic are user-initiated vs which are phone-initiated. Then either charge a flat fee for the phone-initiated traffic, or not charge for it at all.



    I don't see that a user should be penalized for having to pay more on their bill for requests and traffic that they didn't intentionally initiate.



    [An additional thought]



    What I really would like is an app that provides push alerts once a certain amount of data consumption has been reached. Then you can at least (try) to control how much data you are "spending"



    Sounds to me like you should not be using a smartphone or you should sue Apple.
  • Reply 64 of 89
    shadashshadash Posts: 470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Look up 'ad hominem attack'. Since you're unable to intelligently discuss the issue, you just attack the person.



    And, no I don't work for AT&T or any telecom. I don't work in anything even remotely related. It's just that I'm smart enough to see through stupid law suits.



    I had no reason to intelligently discuss the issue, since: 1. I have never seen you discuss anything intelligently on this forum; and 2. I actually agree that there isn't a huge conspiracy here in which AT&T is robbing customers. If you had said just that, it would have been fine. But your comment (which I assume was serious) that the plaintiffs should be sued for "libel" by AT&T has no basis in reality and was, with all due respect, quite dumb.
  • Reply 65 of 89
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    Hey why is my 50GB hard drive not 50GiB? and why is my 17" screen only 16.8 inches?



    Not sure how this will play out - but an argument over how data is recorded or reported is one thing - have them explain how they can sell 2GB of data for $25 to one customer but 400MB of data to another for $30, regardless of overhead or how you measure it.



    I still can't figure out why they would sell me a $60 a month unlimited laptop plan (and I sometimes did use over 5GB in one month) but no such deal at all on the phone? or why the extra tethering fee does not include additional data.



    Keep in mind that at some level it is not about what is best for the customer but what is the most profitable for the company - on the other hand - what is most profitable is to have a suer base that is not pissed off at unfair pricing or billing.
  • Reply 66 of 89
    blursdblursd Posts: 123member
    Thank goodness for all these Northern Californians who give lawyers on both sides plenty to keep them busy ...



    About 75% of the stupidest lawsuits I read about that individuals file always seem to come out the San Francisco area.
  • Reply 67 of 89
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    so how do you know iOS doesn't send out data for some other purpose?



    We don't know, but we might be about to find out.



    People love to sue because they were not informed. It's one thing to bill people for data they use, but another if they cannot control use.



    If iOS does a little data downloading to manage itself, then people need to know.
  • Reply 68 of 89
    bwikbwik Posts: 562member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    so how do you know iOS doesn't send out data for some other purpose?



    Right, hopefully the consultants are recent ex-Apple mobile engineers. Otherwise, how would they even remotely know what they are talking about? I would trust ATT over the consulting firm in terms of expertise.



    Or, just ask the NSA for the contents of the data transmissions. They probably have the transcript
  • Reply 69 of 89
    c-rayc-ray Posts: 40member
    One of the consumers of data, where it is not obviously user initiated, may be Safari.



    Safari maintains a hidden database of fraudulent sites. This database is periodically refreshed (presumably in small chunks) from the maintainer (which is Google). The database in total is about 250MB. When any copy of Safari is first started, it will begin building this database. The user can prevent this data usage by disabling 'Warn when visiting a fraudulent website' in preferences.
  • Reply 70 of 89
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post


    We don't know, but we might be about to find out.



    People love to sue because they were not informed. It's one thing to bill people for data they use, but another if they cannot control use.



    If iOS does a little data downloading to manage itself, then people need to know.



    What bothers me most about this is that ATT customer service reps should be able to explain that the extra data is the result of system overhead. But, ATT does not want to divulge this since it means that the customer is not truly in control of his data usage.
  • Reply 71 of 89
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    AT&T or Apple would NEVER overcharge people for their products!















    aaaaaaaand </sarcasm>
  • Reply 72 of 89
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    so how do you know iOS doesn't send out data for some other purpose?



    The point is it shouldn't be doing that. Why would it? Think of it this way: They did everything they could to keep the device acting as a phone ONLY. Do you think regular phones do this? If you are paying for data, it's an issue, and idle data usage such as this should be reported to the user PRIOR to purchasing the device.



    It's typical corporatist bullshit, and both Apple and AT&T are to blame.
  • Reply 73 of 89
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    AT&T or Apple would NEVER overcharge people for their products!















    aaaaaaaand </sarcasm>



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    The point is it shouldn't be doing that. Why would it? Think of it this way: They did everything they could to keep the device acting as a phone ONLY. Do you think regular phones do this? If you are paying for data, it's an issue, and idle data usage such as this should be reported to the user PRIOR to purchasing the device.



    It's typical corporatist bullshit, and both Apple and AT&T are to blame.



    And you wonder why I consider you a troll.
  • Reply 74 of 89
    rhyderhyde Posts: 294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post


    I just checked my bill. I have several downloads at 12:34AM on different days from 10MB to as much a 79MB. I have never used my phone at 12:34AM on those dates. I'm in bed!



    79MB on an iPhone is a TON of data. At a measley 2MBps, which is a pretty fast 3G download rate in my area, that is 316 seconds or 5.2 minutes of constant downloading.



    Something is amiss with AT&Ts billing methods. Either the data is a lumped summary of accumulated use, it isn't real, or a combination of both. Some real sleuths could figure this out.



    It's the iPhone spambot. Haven't you heard? :-)
  • Reply 75 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jdavy View Post


    but then when she hit 5GB of data usage AT&T cut her speed to edge.



    BS. AT&T does not do that for anyone else, I doubt they do it for your wife.
  • Reply 76 of 89
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    The point is it shouldn't be doing that. Why would it? Think of it this way: They did everything they could to keep the device acting as a phone ONLY. Do you think regular phones do this? If you are paying for data, it's an issue, and idle data usage such as this should be reported to the user PRIOR to purchasing the device.



    It's typical corporatist bullshit, and both Apple and AT&T are to blame.



    If iOS is asking for data or sending it, or an app that may have a little adware or malware built in, then this is not AT&T's fault. The lawyers making this claim have the burden of proof to show what data was transfered at what time and what was on the bill when there was no corresponding transfer. It would not be too hard to use a 3g sniffer to capture the data trafic actually going over the air, and compare that to the AT&T bill. I would not be willing to bet AT&T has no mistakes, but I would bet the 2k the guy reported was legitimate traffic generated by his iPhone despite his settings.
  • Reply 77 of 89
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post


    Likewise. A much as a hate frivolous lawsuits (the guy's only out $15), apparently this is what its going to take to get some straight answers from AT&T.



    Multiply that $15 into millions of people that may be getting overcharged. Look at how much VZW had to pay when they got caught charging people for unintentional data use.
  • Reply 78 of 89
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I really don't get why people are defending Apple or AT&T. I have a gut feeling something fishy is going on here. Someone needs to analyze the packets but I've seen many posts with people that very carefully monitored their usage and these phantom charges didn't add up. They weren't delayed, they were bogus.



    I highly suspects something is amiss here. Hopefully the lawyers hire a technically competent expert witness. I hate bogus lawsuits. But I don't think this one is bogus. This deserves to be investigated. The time for explanations is over. People have repeatedly asked Apple and AT&T about these odd charges and the silence has been deafening as far as I have seen. If they are genuinely on the customers' side they would have an explanation. Has anyone seen a good official explanation of these seemingly erroneous charges?
  • Reply 79 of 89
    If AT&T's equipment is under-deployed/overloaded, resulting in dropped and retransmitted packets, I get charged for more data usage? Nice business model.
  • Reply 80 of 89
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    How does that explain the customer shutting all data off and not using the phone for ten days, but still being billed for data?



    This lawsuit will be settled and AT&T will change it's practices.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Once again, attorneys who have no clue how technology works stirring up trouble....





    If you download a 50 kb web site, there's no reason to think that you'll be billed for exactly 50 kb. There is overhead in the transaction - some packets that are not properly received, for example. Or validation information to ensure that the information was properly sent.



    I hope AT&T sues these people for making false accusations and libel.



Sign In or Register to comment.