I've been with ATT since the first iPhone. The "unlimited" service I contracted for was summarily throttled a couple of years ago. They seem to feel that the fact that they "informed" me they were breaking our contract gets them off the hook. Sleaze balls.
I'm sure they posted a "public" hearing about the change on some obscure webpage that required that you attend a town hall meeting between 3:00am-5:00am on a particular day in some small town in East Texas that no one has ever heard of with a population of less than 1000.
But, but... Throttling doesn't mean it's not Unlimited! For example, if they throttle you to 1 byte per day, the data would still NEVER ACTUALLY STOP - it would just be slower than hell! See? 1 byte per day would still be "unlimited" since it doesn't actually stop! (At least, the way AT&T and all of their apologists portray it - they still call it "unlimited" because they can't count very high).
Where they actually made their critical mistake was early on, when the accounts with 5GB data caps were actually FAR LESS limited than the "Unlimited" accounts. Even the FCC is bright enough to realize that "Unlimited" accounts should be less limited than the "Limited" accounts.
When I took out that plan in July 2007, AT&T said "unlimited" meant unlimited! Now, damned evil corporation says, "I have altered the deal! Pray I do not alter it further!"
This is an example of how regulations can be a good thing.
Maybe 1 in 10,000 regulations actually help anyone other than the government. At some point in the past, regulations existed to protect the citizen. For decades, however, the focus has shifted to passing regulations to take away from citizens as the government moves toward "sharing the wealth" among every citizen. There is a term for that form of government... somehow, it slips my mind.
After enough regulation, everyone will be equally wealthy. Of course, that also means everyone will be equally poor.
After all, why should people who went to school for an extra decade to get their Doctorate and other advanced degrees be entitled to make more than a high-school dropout? Why should a physician that has to make split-second decisions that means the difference between life and death earn any more than the "undocumented" worker who pulls feathers out of chickens at Tyson?
No you couldn't have. It's part of your contract with AT&T. It forces you to agree to mediation. AT&T pays for the mediator. Who do you think is going to win?.
Wrong. Yes I could have. The contract does say mediation, but there is a provision that allows you to take AT&T to small claims court. Customers have already been successful in small claims court against AT&T for throttling.
OK, OK.... maybe Wheeler is NOT a Dingo after all ... But, seriously, this is great news.
The next step would be to ask the internet monopolies to pay back the billions in subsidies they got for their so-called 'Title 2' networks or 'open-up' the last mile for other internet providers like real Title 2 should. Ending the high-speed internet monopolies is the only way to get a truly open and competitive marketplace.
You do realize the "fine" (whatever it amounts to after AT&T appeals this, of course) will be folded into price increases for customers eventually? Companies don't absorb these costs, they pass them on to their customers.
in principle I agree. Not sure they'd be able to pass on a one time judgement that easily. Either way, I just think it's funny, because ATT sucks.
But, but... Throttling doesn't mean it's not Unlimited! For example, if they throttle you to 1 byte per day, the data would still NEVER ACTUALLY STOP - it would just be slower than hell! See? 1 byte per day would still be "unlimited" since it doesn't actually stop! (At least, the way AT&T and all of their apologists portray it - they still call it "unlimited" because they can't count very high).
Where they actually made their critical mistake was early on, when the accounts with 5GB data caps were actually FAR LESS limited than the "Unlimited" accounts. Even the FCC is bright enough to realize that "Unlimited" accounts should be less limited than the "Limited" accounts.
When I took out that plan in July 2007, AT&T said "unlimited" meant unlimited! Now, damned evil corporation says, "I have altered the deal! Pray I do not alter it further!"
Burn em all!
That's what bothers me too. I don't see why they even need to grandfather us at this point. Just stop offering the plans when people upgrade. But making "unlimited" in effect limited is why they got nailed.
Maybe 1 in 10,000 regulations actually help anyone other than the government. At some point in the past, regulations existed to protect the citizen. For decades, however, the focus has shifted to passing regulations to take away from citizens as the government moves toward "sharing the wealth" among every citizen. There is a term for that form of government... somehow, it slips my mind.
After enough regulation, everyone will be equally wealthy. Of course, that also means everyone will be equally poor.
After all, why should people who went to school for an extra decade to get their Doctorate and other advanced degrees be entitled to make more than a high-school dropout? Why should a physician that has to make split-second decisions that means the difference between life and death earn any more than the "undocumented" worker who pulls feathers out of chickens at Tyson?
/rant
Holy Strawman Batman!! Where in the world does a 'chicken plucker' makes as much as a PhD? How many high-school dropouts that make more than a Medical Doctor? And, what does the government have to do with their wages?
If you don't like 'regulations' you are welcome to work 14 hour days in an unventilated asbestos factory for pennies. You are also free to breathe the exhaust from coal-burning plants and drink water contaminated with fracking chemicals.
Stop your whining and let the forum return to the topic of the article.
The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday announced its intent to levy a $100 million fine against AT&T after finding that the wireless carrier mislead customers about its throttling of data plans that were advertised as being unlimited.
I don’t agree with this. Unlimited data does not mean unlimited bandwidth, nor were they promised a set speed without throttling.
I also don’t agree with caps or throttling. It’s just a matter of the definition of words. If corporations can’t pretend that words don’t mean what they actually mean, then neither can courts. That’s just mental illness.
Throttling after a set amount of data has been used, a threshold that is crossed, a limit on the amount of full-speed data... is less than unlimited.
That's really what's under discussion here, is, can ATT prevaricate on the definition of unlimited, and if they can limit full-speed data with a throttle, then why can't they also limit usage habits in other ways (no FaceTime over their data, for example?)
I agree that those aren't the same, but they are both limitations on a service that was sold as unlimited. Adding terms to it like throttling changes the terms of the plan. The unlimited data plans were sold at the time as unlimited for any use and any amount of data. Throttling wasn't in the terms at the time. When I bought my unlimited ATT data plans, it was in 2007, and we kept them through the release of iPhone 5, when ATT was declaring that unlimited plans wouldn't get LTE or FaceTime calling. ATT's excuse at the time was that unlimited only applied to the 2G and 3G level of service that we'd been getting thus far.
Holy Strawman Batman!! Where in the world does a 'chicken plucker' makes as much as a PhD? How many high-school dropouts that make more than a Medical Doctor? And, what does the government have to do with their wages?
If you don't like 'regulations' you are welcome to work 14 hour days in an unventilated asbestos factory for pennies. You are also free to breathe the exhaust from coal-burning plants and drink water contaminated with fracking chemicals.
Stop your whining and let the forum return to the topic of the article.
He's not really using a strawman, just more of an exaggeration. I think you're missing the overall point, though I agree he's off topic. As for your rant, are you honestly suggesting that without government regulations, your description of work conditions would occur? In today's market? I'm not arguing against all regulation, mind you. I'm just asking.
I don’t agree with this. Unlimited data does not mean unlimited bandwidth, nor were they promised a set speed without throttling.
I suppose that's true, though I think the larger point is that the threat of extreme data throttling essentially makes "unlimited" meaningless. If I can't reasonably use my "unlimited" plan beyond 5Gb a month, it's not unlimited in reality.
Quote:
I also don’t agree with caps or throttling. It’s just a matter of the definition of words. If corporations can’t pretend that words don’t mean what they actually mean, then neither can courts. That’s just mental illness.
You do realize the "fine" (whatever it amounts to after AT&T appeals this, of course) will be folded into price increases for customers eventually? Companies don't absorb these costs, they pass them on to their customers.
Right, I mean, why should AT&T have to pay for their illegal actions and bad behavior. It's the customers fault for choosing the unlimited data contract and then thinking they could use more then 3 or 5 gigs of data. So, logically, customers that didn't even cause the problem should be stuck paying the fine.
Right, I mean, why should AT&T have to pay for their illegal actions and bad behavior. It's the customers fault for choosing the unlimited data contract and then thinking they could use more then 3 or 5 gigs of data. So, logically, customers that didn't even cause the problem should be stuck paying the fine.
You don't seem to get his point (which was made in response to me, by the way). He's saying not just that AT&T will pass on the cost, but ALL companies of every kind pass on costs. That's the nature of business.
You don't seem to get his point (which was made in response to me, by the way). He's saying not just that AT&T will pass on the cost, but ALL companies of every kind pass on costs. That's the nature of business.
So is it in the best interest of the consumer to not fine businesses? I'm not, per se, being sarcastic this time. I mean, if fines just ultimately punish the consumer, instead of the business. What is the point of them.
Comments
I'm sure they posted a "public" hearing about the change on some obscure webpage that required that you attend a town hall meeting between 3:00am-5:00am on a particular day in some small town in East Texas that no one has ever heard of with a population of less than 1000.
Why only $100 M? Should've been $1B. It's like to go to Buffet and you can only eat little bit of foods at a time.
But, but... Throttling doesn't mean it's not Unlimited! For example, if they throttle you to 1 byte per day, the data would still NEVER ACTUALLY STOP - it would just be slower than hell! See? 1 byte per day would still be "unlimited" since it doesn't actually stop! (At least, the way AT&T and all of their apologists portray it - they still call it "unlimited" because they can't count very high).
Where they actually made their critical mistake was early on, when the accounts with 5GB data caps were actually FAR LESS limited than the "Unlimited" accounts. Even the FCC is bright enough to realize that "Unlimited" accounts should be less limited than the "Limited" accounts.
When I took out that plan in July 2007, AT&T said "unlimited" meant unlimited! Now, damned evil corporation says, "I have altered the deal! Pray I do not alter it further!"
Burn em all!
This is an example of how regulations can be a good thing.
Maybe 1 in 10,000 regulations actually help anyone other than the government. At some point in the past, regulations existed to protect the citizen. For decades, however, the focus has shifted to passing regulations to take away from citizens as the government moves toward "sharing the wealth" among every citizen. There is a term for that form of government... somehow, it slips my mind.
After enough regulation, everyone will be equally wealthy. Of course, that also means everyone will be equally poor.
After all, why should people who went to school for an extra decade to get their Doctorate and other advanced degrees be entitled to make more than a high-school dropout? Why should a physician that has to make split-second decisions that means the difference between life and death earn any more than the "undocumented" worker who pulls feathers out of chickens at Tyson?
/rant
No you couldn't have. It's part of your contract with AT&T. It forces you to agree to mediation. AT&T pays for the mediator. Who do you think is going to win?.
Wrong. Yes I could have. The contract does say mediation, but there is a provision that allows you to take AT&T to small claims court. Customers have already been successful in small claims court against AT&T for throttling.
The next step would be to ask the internet monopolies to pay back the billions in subsidies they got for their so-called 'Title 2' networks or 'open-up' the last mile for other internet providers like real Title 2 should. Ending the high-speed internet monopolies is the only way to get a truly open and competitive marketplace.
in principle I agree. Not sure they'd be able to pass on a one time judgement that easily. Either way, I just think it's funny, because ATT sucks.
That's what bothers me too. I don't see why they even need to grandfather us at this point. Just stop offering the plans when people upgrade. But making "unlimited" in effect limited is why they got nailed.
Maybe 1 in 10,000 regulations actually help anyone other than the government. At some point in the past, regulations existed to protect the citizen. For decades, however, the focus has shifted to passing regulations to take away from citizens as the government moves toward "sharing the wealth" among every citizen. There is a term for that form of government... somehow, it slips my mind.
After enough regulation, everyone will be equally wealthy. Of course, that also means everyone will be equally poor.
After all, why should people who went to school for an extra decade to get their Doctorate and other advanced degrees be entitled to make more than a high-school dropout? Why should a physician that has to make split-second decisions that means the difference between life and death earn any more than the "undocumented" worker who pulls feathers out of chickens at Tyson?
/rant
Holy Strawman Batman!! Where in the world does a 'chicken plucker' makes as much as a PhD? How many high-school dropouts that make more than a Medical Doctor? And, what does the government have to do with their wages?
If you don't like 'regulations' you are welcome to work 14 hour days in an unventilated asbestos factory for pennies. You are also free to breathe the exhaust from coal-burning plants and drink water contaminated with fracking chemicals.
Stop your whining and let the forum return to the topic of the article.
I don’t agree with this. Unlimited data does not mean unlimited bandwidth, nor were they promised a set speed without throttling.
I also don’t agree with caps or throttling. It’s just a matter of the definition of words. If corporations can’t pretend that words don’t mean what they actually mean, then neither can courts. That’s just mental illness.
Throttling after a set amount of data has been used, a threshold that is crossed, a limit on the amount of full-speed data... is less than unlimited.
That's really what's under discussion here, is, can ATT prevaricate on the definition of unlimited, and if they can limit full-speed data with a throttle, then why can't they also limit usage habits in other ways (no FaceTime over their data, for example?)
I agree that those aren't the same, but they are both limitations on a service that was sold as unlimited. Adding terms to it like throttling changes the terms of the plan. The unlimited data plans were sold at the time as unlimited for any use and any amount of data. Throttling wasn't in the terms at the time. When I bought my unlimited ATT data plans, it was in 2007, and we kept them through the release of iPhone 5, when ATT was declaring that unlimited plans wouldn't get LTE or FaceTime calling. ATT's excuse at the time was that unlimited only applied to the 2G and 3G level of service that we'd been getting thus far.
Holy Strawman Batman!! Where in the world does a 'chicken plucker' makes as much as a PhD? How many high-school dropouts that make more than a Medical Doctor? And, what does the government have to do with their wages?
If you don't like 'regulations' you are welcome to work 14 hour days in an unventilated asbestos factory for pennies. You are also free to breathe the exhaust from coal-burning plants and drink water contaminated with fracking chemicals.
Stop your whining and let the forum return to the topic of the article.
He's not really using a strawman, just more of an exaggeration. I think you're missing the overall point, though I agree he's off topic. As for your rant, are you honestly suggesting that without government regulations, your description of work conditions would occur? In today's market? I'm not arguing against all regulation, mind you. I'm just asking.
I don’t agree with this. Unlimited data does not mean unlimited bandwidth, nor were they promised a set speed without throttling.
I suppose that's true, though I think the larger point is that the threat of extreme data throttling essentially makes "unlimited" meaningless. If I can't reasonably use my "unlimited" plan beyond 5Gb a month, it's not unlimited in reality.
Well, courts haven't for a long time, actually.
Right, I mean, why should AT&T have to pay for their illegal actions and bad behavior. It's the customers fault for choosing the unlimited data contract and then thinking they could use more then 3 or 5 gigs of data. So, logically, customers that didn't even cause the problem should be stuck paying the fine.
Right, I mean, why should AT&T have to pay for their illegal actions and bad behavior. It's the customers fault for choosing the unlimited data contract and then thinking they could use more then 3 or 5 gigs of data. So, logically, customers that didn't even cause the problem should be stuck paying the fine.
You don't seem to get his point (which was made in response to me, by the way). He's saying not just that AT&T will pass on the cost, but ALL companies of every kind pass on costs. That's the nature of business.
So is it in the best interest of the consumer to not fine businesses? I'm not, per se, being sarcastic this time. I mean, if fines just ultimately punish the consumer, instead of the business. What is the point of them.