I'm glad to see AT&T doing the right thing here. I know people are upset about any kinds of limits on an 'unlimited' plan, but clearly the 2 GB cap was ridiculous. I'm glad to see they bumped it up to 3. This should make most people happy, as when the 2 GB cap went into effect, a ton of people posted on here that they use about 2 gigs a month & got hit. 3 gigs should alleviate most of those problems. I'd like to see it higher (at least higher than the current cap limits) or else slow down data 'hogs' but only when the cell they are in is congested & they are actually hurting other users, but at least they have become more reasonable with the cap.
I really don't think the Small Claims court action scared them at all. They didn't even send a member of their legal team to the hearing, just a sales person. It's not surprising that they lost, but if they started to send lawyers to these things, they would win them all.
As far as the Simultaneous talk & surf, I think it's not that big of a deal. I have Sprint, which doesn't offer the talk/surf at the same time, but it is really almost never a problem. It probably happens to me once every couple of months. For those that NEED the capability, AT&T is the only option, but while it's nice to have, it's far from a deal breaker for most users.
Folks should still sue in small claims court. Now AT&T is unabashedly admitting that the unlimited plan you signed up for in their contract has been broken by AT&T. 3GB is not unlimited. They shouldn't be able to blatantly cap "unlimited" and get away with it.
You cannot talk and surf the web at the same time with Verizon, and that ability is very important to iPhone users.
Maybe you weren't aware of that?
For example, if your wife calls you on your 25th Wedding Anniversary, and you had forgotten, you can make a dinner reservation online while you chat with her. Then you don't get in trouble.
With Verizon, you end up in the doghouse for the night, instead of enjoying sa delicious meal with your beloved.
Its not worth it. Stick with ATT.
All the LTE phones allow talking and surfing, and once a LTE iPhone get released on VZW that argument won't hold water.
You cannot talk and surf the web at the same time with Verizon, and that ability is very important to iPhone users.
Maybe you weren't aware of that?
For example, if your wife calls you on your 25th Wedding Anniversary, and you had forgotten, you can make a dinner reservation online while you chat with her. Then you don't get in trouble.
With Verizon, you end up in the doghouse for the night, instead of enjoying sa delicious meal with your beloved.
Its not worth it. Stick with ATT.
Verizon's 4G LTE network allows you to talk and surf at the same time.
I really don't think the Small Claims court action scared them at all. They didn't even send a member of their legal team to the hearing, just a sales person. It's not surprising that they lost, but if they started to send lawyers to these things, they would win them all.
There is a common misconception about Small Claims courts. Lawyers/attorneys are NOT allowed to represent anyone in Small Claims courts. Only the plaintiff and defendant are allowed to speak and represent themselves. That's why AT&T sent an employee salesperson to represent its interests in the Small Claims court.
So I would say that the Small Claims court action did scare them to some extent.
AT&T sets threshold for 'unlimited' data plan throttling
How can that sentence make any sense... don't words have meaning?
Sure. And ATT defines "unlimited data" as the amount of data, independent of the speed. Grandfathering wasn't something they had to do and it could be dropped completely at any time. In fact I won't be shocked if come the next iPhone that is exactly what happens.
Personally I support the carriers being able to throttle. So long as they are upfront about it and consistent. ATT has now achieved both. Or at least has put it on the books. If they don't follow their own rules they get what they deserve in terms of small claims, negative PR, lost accounts etc
Sure. And ATT defines "unlimited data" as the amount of data, independent of the speed. Grandfathering wasn't something they had to do and it could be dropped completely at any time. In fact I won't be shocked if come the next iPhone that is exactly what happens.
Personally I support the carriers being able to throttle. So long as they are upfront about it and consistent. ATT has now achieved both. Or at least has put it on the books. If they don't follow their own rules they get what they deserve in terms of small claims, negative PR, lost accounts etc
grandfathering is something companies do to encourage the consumer to stick with the plan and company they were already using , if they didnt then the consumer would be looking at all companies equally when there contract is up.
what att is saying is that they dont value their long term customers
So why haven't I heard even a whisper about it since the Verizon iPhone 4 launch? And why do people still buy Verizon and Sprint iPhones, then?
I don't expect an answer. I don't WANT an answer. I'm exposing nonsense, is all.
I agree with your stance to ZZZ. However, I am in this group at Verizon. I don't like the fact that you can't do both simultaneously, but don't complain because it's a function of CDMA not Verizon's policy.
I would complain if it was Verizon policy doing it to iPhone users. We don't because Verizon can't do anything about it yet. LTE (4G) should, I hope, change this. There is advantages to having this functionality.
Just about every time you agree to anything with a corporation or bank these days, you also agree to settle all disputes with arbitration. It is a situation that works against the consumer in almost every case...
Maybe it time for a new term "Class-Action Arbitration." Actually I think it's far time for consumer unionization. Collective bargaining against these monopolies is what is needed to balance the playing field. Competition isn't working when Telcos collude.
Well, it seems to me that Zither doesn't believe it either, he is just trying to stir the pot.
However, I will answer your question as best as I can. Many (most?) of the Verizon iPhone buyers were already Verizon customers so they were never accustomed to having voice and data at the same time. They have no cause for complaint. OTOH, people who did switch to Verizon did so with the full knowledge of that limitation--it's not like it was a secret. They would have known that they were making the choice to give up simultaneous voice and data in return for better coverage in their area or a better rate plan or whatever. If THEY were to complain they would rightly be called idiots.
For me, I don't use voice and data simultaneously all that often, but when I do I find it extremely useful--usually I have GPS and maps going while talking on speakerphone. I have even helped family members with dumbphones find their way by using my maps while talking to them... It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but I would certainly miss it!
Finally, we will never know how many people decided to stay with AT&T because of this functionality. Who knows, maybe that is exactly the reason the long rumored mass exodus never occurred when Verizon got the iPhone.
If you find this line of reasoning to be nonsense, that is fine with me. It will be a moot point soon anyway with LTE, I guess...
Trust me voice and simultaneous data are a deal breaker for me. I can't live without that functionality. I use it all day everyday. Not to mention; when you're tethering a laptop/tablet with AT&T and get a phone call it's no problem. With Verizon or sprint. Your data cuts out and gives priority to the phone call. Not good when your in the middle of doing something important online on your tethered device. (my company pays for tethering for me)
There is a common misconception about Small Claims courts. Lawyers/attorneys are NOT allowed to represent anyone in Small Claims courts. Only the plaintiff and defendant are allowed to speak and represent themselves. That's why AT&T sent an employee salesperson to represent its interests in the Small Claims court.
So I would say that the Small Claims court action did scare them to some extent.
AT&T certainly has lawyers that are employees of the company. AT&T could just send one of them. It's not like the customer filed suit against the sales manager.
Wow that whole situation really sucks. I live in Germany and I can use my phone as a hot spot. I assumed everybodies phone could do it until my son came to visit for Christmas and his couldnt. Now I see why.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to stop talking until you can provide proof of your ABJECT NONSENSE.
There is no LTE iPhone. You cannot possibly know this. Therefore you are writing a hoax by stating "Not on an iPhone" as a response to the ability to use voice and data services simultaneously with LTE.
Trust me voice and simultaneous data are a deal breaker for me. I can't live without that functionality. I use it all day everyday. Not to mention; when you're tethering a laptop/tablet with AT&T and get a phone call it's no problem. With Verizon or sprint. Your data cuts out and gives priority to the phone call. Not good when your in the middle of doing something important online on your tethered device. (my company pays for tethering for me)
Same for me, though I don't have tethering. I need that functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgreen01
Wow that whole situation really sucks. I live in Germany and I can use my phone as a hot spot. I assumed everybodies phone could do it until my son came to visit for Christmas and his couldnt. Now I see why.
You can, but it costs extra per month, which is CRAP. I paid for the data, now let me use it.
So if you use the LTE plan like those super-fast douchebags in AT&Ts obnoxious TV commercial, you exhaust your allotted limit in a day, more or less?
Also, does AT&T pay TV "reporters" to brainwash us into the "OMG the networks are so clogged that we have to throttle" BS? If it's so jammed, why can I get 3.5Mbps download without any problems anywhere in Dallas? Especially if I pay extra for more GB/month?
Comments
I really don't think the Small Claims court action scared them at all. They didn't even send a member of their legal team to the hearing, just a sales person. It's not surprising that they lost, but if they started to send lawyers to these things, they would win them all.
As far as the Simultaneous talk & surf, I think it's not that big of a deal. I have Sprint, which doesn't offer the talk/surf at the same time, but it is really almost never a problem. It probably happens to me once every couple of months. For those that NEED the capability, AT&T is the only option, but while it's nice to have, it's far from a deal breaker for most users.
deletefd
You cannot talk and surf the web at the same time with Verizon, and that ability is very important to iPhone users.
Maybe you weren't aware of that?
For example, if your wife calls you on your 25th Wedding Anniversary, and you had forgotten, you can make a dinner reservation online while you chat with her. Then you don't get in trouble.
With Verizon, you end up in the doghouse for the night, instead of enjoying sa delicious meal with your beloved.
Its not worth it. Stick with ATT.
All the LTE phones allow talking and surfing, and once a LTE iPhone get released on VZW that argument won't hold water.
So why haven't I heard even a whisper about it since the Verizon iPhone 4 launch? And why do people still buy Verizon and Sprint iPhones, then?
I don't expect an answer. I don't WANT an answer. I'm exposing nonsense, is all.
They're too busy talking on the phone to post their complaints on AI.
You cannot talk and surf the web at the same time with Verizon, and that ability is very important to iPhone users.
Maybe you weren't aware of that?
For example, if your wife calls you on your 25th Wedding Anniversary, and you had forgotten, you can make a dinner reservation online while you chat with her. Then you don't get in trouble.
With Verizon, you end up in the doghouse for the night, instead of enjoying sa delicious meal with your beloved.
Its not worth it. Stick with ATT.
Verizon's 4G LTE network allows you to talk and surf at the same time.
Verizon's 4G LTE network allows you to talk and surf at the same time.
Not on an iPhone.
I really don't think the Small Claims court action scared them at all. They didn't even send a member of their legal team to the hearing, just a sales person. It's not surprising that they lost, but if they started to send lawyers to these things, they would win them all.
There is a common misconception about Small Claims courts. Lawyers/attorneys are NOT allowed to represent anyone in Small Claims courts. Only the plaintiff and defendant are allowed to speak and represent themselves. That's why AT&T sent an employee salesperson to represent its interests in the Small Claims court.
So I would say that the Small Claims court action did scare them to some extent.
AT&T sets threshold for 'unlimited' data plan throttling
How can that sentence make any sense... don't words have meaning?
Sure. And ATT defines "unlimited data" as the amount of data, independent of the speed. Grandfathering wasn't something they had to do and it could be dropped completely at any time. In fact I won't be shocked if come the next iPhone that is exactly what happens.
Personally I support the carriers being able to throttle. So long as they are upfront about it and consistent. ATT has now achieved both. Or at least has put it on the books. If they don't follow their own rules they get what they deserve in terms of small claims, negative PR, lost accounts etc
Sure. And ATT defines "unlimited data" as the amount of data, independent of the speed. Grandfathering wasn't something they had to do and it could be dropped completely at any time. In fact I won't be shocked if come the next iPhone that is exactly what happens.
Personally I support the carriers being able to throttle. So long as they are upfront about it and consistent. ATT has now achieved both. Or at least has put it on the books. If they don't follow their own rules they get what they deserve in terms of small claims, negative PR, lost accounts etc
grandfathering is something companies do to encourage the consumer to stick with the plan and company they were already using , if they didnt then the consumer would be looking at all companies equally when there contract is up.
what att is saying is that they dont value their long term customers
So why haven't I heard even a whisper about it since the Verizon iPhone 4 launch? And why do people still buy Verizon and Sprint iPhones, then?
I don't expect an answer. I don't WANT an answer. I'm exposing nonsense, is all.
I agree with your stance to ZZZ. However, I am in this group at Verizon. I don't like the fact that you can't do both simultaneously, but don't complain because it's a function of CDMA not Verizon's policy.
I would complain if it was Verizon policy doing it to iPhone users. We don't because Verizon can't do anything about it yet. LTE (4G) should, I hope, change this. There is advantages to having this functionality.
Just about every time you agree to anything with a corporation or bank these days, you also agree to settle all disputes with arbitration. It is a situation that works against the consumer in almost every case...
Maybe it time for a new term "Class-Action Arbitration." Actually I think it's far time for consumer unionization. Collective bargaining against these monopolies is what is needed to balance the playing field. Competition isn't working when Telcos collude.
Well, it seems to me that Zither doesn't believe it either, he is just trying to stir the pot.
However, I will answer your question as best as I can. Many (most?) of the Verizon iPhone buyers were already Verizon customers so they were never accustomed to having voice and data at the same time. They have no cause for complaint. OTOH, people who did switch to Verizon did so with the full knowledge of that limitation--it's not like it was a secret. They would have known that they were making the choice to give up simultaneous voice and data in return for better coverage in their area or a better rate plan or whatever. If THEY were to complain they would rightly be called idiots.
For me, I don't use voice and data simultaneously all that often, but when I do I find it extremely useful--usually I have GPS and maps going while talking on speakerphone. I have even helped family members with dumbphones find their way by using my maps while talking to them... It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but I would certainly miss it!
Finally, we will never know how many people decided to stay with AT&T because of this functionality. Who knows, maybe that is exactly the reason the long rumored mass exodus never occurred when Verizon got the iPhone.
If you find this line of reasoning to be nonsense, that is fine with me. It will be a moot point soon anyway with LTE, I guess...
Trust me voice and simultaneous data are a deal breaker for me. I can't live without that functionality. I use it all day everyday. Not to mention; when you're tethering a laptop/tablet with AT&T and get a phone call it's no problem. With Verizon or sprint. Your data cuts out and gives priority to the phone call. Not good when your in the middle of doing something important online on your tethered device. (my company pays for tethering for me)
There is a common misconception about Small Claims courts. Lawyers/attorneys are NOT allowed to represent anyone in Small Claims courts. Only the plaintiff and defendant are allowed to speak and represent themselves. That's why AT&T sent an employee salesperson to represent its interests in the Small Claims court.
So I would say that the Small Claims court action did scare them to some extent.
AT&T certainly has lawyers that are employees of the company. AT&T could just send one of them. It's not like the customer filed suit against the sales manager.
Not on an iPhone.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to stop talking until you can provide proof of your ABJECT NONSENSE.
There is no LTE iPhone. You cannot possibly know this. Therefore you are writing a hoax by stating "Not on an iPhone" as a response to the ability to use voice and data services simultaneously with LTE.
Breach of contract
Trust me voice and simultaneous data are a deal breaker for me. I can't live without that functionality. I use it all day everyday. Not to mention; when you're tethering a laptop/tablet with AT&T and get a phone call it's no problem. With Verizon or sprint. Your data cuts out and gives priority to the phone call. Not good when your in the middle of doing something important online on your tethered device. (my company pays for tethering for me)
Same for me, though I don't have tethering. I need that functionality.
Wow that whole situation really sucks. I live in Germany and I can use my phone as a hot spot. I assumed everybodies phone could do it until my son came to visit for Christmas and his couldnt. Now I see why.
You can, but it costs extra per month, which is CRAP. I paid for the data, now let me use it.
So if you use the LTE plan like those super-fast douchebags in AT&Ts obnoxious TV commercial, you exhaust your allotted limit in a day, more or less?
Also, does AT&T pay TV "reporters" to brainwash us into the "OMG the networks are so clogged that we have to throttle" BS? If it's so jammed, why can I get 3.5Mbps download without any problems anywhere in Dallas? Especially if I pay extra for more GB/month?
When the new model iPad arrives, I am switching to Verizon.
I made a mistake in holding onto my unlimited plan, when I have never used more than 2GB.
The unlimited plan was a bait and switch from the start.
Offer an unlimited plan, then take it away unless grandfathered.
You can't go month-to-month, because if you ever drop a month, you lose unlimited.
Even tho you aren't using it, who knows what the future holds?
Then, add throttling to all those loyal customers that paid the extra cost of unlimited all this time.
On another topic:
It would be nice if Verizon would subsidize the iPad.
I have never turned off my iPad connection to AT&T in the nearly two years I've owned it (see above).
I would be happy to contract for 2 years to get a price reduction.