AT&T Increases Data Cap In Face Of $100 Million FCC Fine

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it is in their Terms of Service that the speeds will change after X amount of Data, I really don't see the issue.
If the consumer agrees to the ToS without reading, any issues are not the fault of the company, but instead the fault of the consumer.
 

I much prefer "XGB then slow as snails" since you never get bill shock that way and can continue using low-bandwidth applications until the billing month rolls over.
 
that's the issue, it really isn't in the TOS. there was no "once you hit xGB, then we throttle you" in there.

it was advertised as "unlimited high speed data" yet wasn't.

i pay for 4GB of lte per month, then unlimited "slow as snail" usage after that until the next cycle. i know what i am paying for and know what i am getting. at&t is not as clear there, hence the fcc butting in. i bet now they will be clearer about what they are offering and what customers actually get.

in the begining when the iphone first came out, unlimited was unlimited. they realized hey could not support it so they went to data caps. we all know it, and understand how the caps work. so to offer "unlimited high speed data" yet have a data cap is not only dishonest but contrary to everything we now know about how our mobile data works.
 


I don't disagree there just that it feels sketchy to say "Unlimited" when it really is oly unlimited to a point then they try to keep you from using it.
 

They aren't cutting you off outright and they are not charging you extra either. Yes, calling that unlimited might be somewhat of a stretch but it is not strictly untrue either.

They should simply change the name to "Unmetered" and call it done.
 
We also learned that if you are an ISP, you get to redefine words that have existed in our vernacular for your own marketing shell-game purposes... until you are fined $100 million dollars. Then you re-qualify the same word to mean just little bit more, than before.

Raise the fine, the point of the FCC's fine, clearly hasn't been received.
 


i wish life worked like this for us as it does for these businesses. imagine going to court for murder charges and saying "my fault, did not know stabbing him 58 times was murder. next time i'l only stab him 34 times at most" judge: "oh ok, have a nice day good citizen, i do hope you've learned your lesson on what is right and wrong!!"......
 

Ahem, I've had a data plan since 2000. Long before the iPhone was even a glimmer in Steve's eye. Contrary to what Apple would have you believe, smartphones and cellular data existed long before the iPhone.

When they first advertised data plans, speeds were around 10-30 kbps. 1.5 Mbps DSL was the norm, and cable modems offering 5-8 Mbps were starting to show up. So nobody serious about using the Internet would be satisfied with a cell phone data plan. Not to mention you had to unplug the phone from your computer in order to charge it (first combo data+charger cable I saw was in 2004). So the carriers figured it was safe to advertise them as unlimited. I pointed out at the store that that could become a problem when data speeds got faster, but the sales rep shrugged it off since it wasn't his problem.

When data speeds got fast enough that you could realistically use your phone as your only Internet connection, they first tried to throttle it. That was bad enough on a plan they were selling as "unlimited." But in addition to that, they didn't tell you what the cap was. You'd be using your phone's data, then suddenly with no warning - blammo, you were at dialup speeds. The cable companies tried this too. For years they'd cancel people's service for exceeding a secret monthly bandwidth limit. Kinda like police giving tickets for exceeding a secret speed limit. I'm not sure what they were thinking - trying to intimidate people into lowering their usage even if they weren't near the cap? The whole thing was just ripe for a FTC investigation.

Now common sense is finally prevailing. Up til now, marketing departments have resisted honest disclosure because they didn't want anything which could be perceived as a negative or a drawback. The companies are finally telling marketing to STFU so they can tell customers up-front what the monthly data cap is, and exactly what happens when you exceed it. AT&T's fine is for not disclosing this throttling to customers on grandfathered unlimited plans.

(As for throttling an "unlimited" account, there's enough wriggle room in the term "unlimited" because even if you saturated it 24/7, you were still limited by the connection's bandwidth. And the actual bandwidth is determined by how much data other customers use. In other words, "unlimited" does not equal "infinite" and is subject to organic bandwidth limits. In particular, AT&T was fined because rather than throttle only if the tower's bandwidth was saturated, they throttled the moment you passed a GB/mo limit even if the tower had plenty of bandwidth available.)
 


i wish life worked like this for us as it does for these businesses. imagine going to court for murder charges and saying "my fault, did not know stabbing him 58 times was murder. next time i'l only stab him 34 times at most" judge: "oh ok, have a nice day good citizen, i do hope you've learned your lesson on what is right and wrong!!"......
Click to expand...
This may be the worst analogy I've ever seen.
 


Yea.....that analogy was a bit much. I do agree with skit75 though, they clearly didn't get the point across. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to see AT&T say they "removed" the data caps on unlimited Internet, but actually just raised them again. It would buy them time to get away with not giving their customers unlimited service for a longer period of time.
 


Yea.....that analogy was a bit much. I do agree with skit75 though, they clearly didn't get the point across. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to see AT&T say they "removed" the data caps on unlimited Internet, but actually just raised them again. It would buy them time to get away with not giving their customers unlimited service for a longer period of time.
Click to expand...

how is it bad? corporations routinely try to get regulation stopped, i think the most recent one i know of is when they would dump coal waste into water, and the coal waste was radioactive, and they fought as hard as they could so they didn't have to test how radioactive it was, all so they can say "we didn't know it was that bad, we will do better in the future" and all you get is a slap on the wrist.

its very apt to the difference between we the citizens and corporations that have all the special privileges as humans but none of the disadvantages.
 
If it is in their Terms of Service that the speeds will change after X amount of Data, I really don't see the issue.
If the consumer agrees to the ToS without reading, any issues are not the fault of the company, but instead the fault of the consumer.
Click to expand...
The problem with this idea is the companies put little details inside of huge ToS documents. Making it implausible the average person would read it all.
It's happened before to Samsung I think in which they tried to claim something was in the terms of service and the judge held up the defendants side because they had an over 100 page ToS document which was written to be as confusing as possible. It was ruled unreasonable to expect a person to read over 100 pages of confusing terms to be considered valid.
 
Are we all not missing the REAL point here? The ONLY reason any of these data plans have limits is either to find a way to charge more money, or simply because the network cannot handle that much traffic. Ignoring the 1st one, because we all know that happens, the 2nd problem is just laughable. Why would companies as large as the major ISPs have any issues providing a network strong enough to handle the data requirements of it's customers? The only reason I can think of is that they simply didn't want to spend the $$$ on further building out the infrastructure to support it. That would cause a dip in profit margins, and we all know how they feel about that. As customers we should Demand that if you wish to advertise ANYTHING as unlimited, free, or unlocked, then you should be held to that standard without exception. Don't want to provide that service as those words are defined by Webster? Then you should be fined heavily. I hope the FCC keeps up this kind of oversight and brings at least a little accountability to these companies.
 

Where are you going to find enough spectrum to provide everyone with wireline-like speed without having to make individual cells so small that you would need cellular masts on nearly every other building? The build and maintenance costs would be unsustainable. Nobody can do it even if they wanted to, it is practically and economically unfeasible.

As for unlimited, nothing is ever unlimited, so if you take offense to "unlimited" being technically limited in some ways, you should be asking for an outright ban on use of the term. If network operators had to build networks capable of sustaining a strict interpretation of unlimited, most people would have trouble affording internet access. Internet is affordable in large part because the vast majority of people, even those on some form of unlimited with no penalties beyond some hidden cap, use only a fraction of their connection's potential.
 
AT&T is misleading. But using your phone as a hotspot for an entire home, streaming movies, media, and more by the entire family and using TBs of data in the process is also unrealistic if not abusive. Those that do/try that then pitch and moan about it need to get off their "cool gravy train" and reevaluate their expectations.
 


at least someone understands the difference in how people and corporations are treated. the analogy may make you a bit unsettled but it is far from inaccurate. it's ok to note that AT&T clearly are committing fraud, clearly won't pay the fine as intended, clearly will continue to commit same fraud in the future and clearly won't ever have to answer for what they are doing. that is ok. but to apply the same level of "justice" to a person committing a crime is somehow not ok.......

i say again, "imagine what it would be like if the law was applied the same way to us as it is to corporations!!"
 
Here is my problem with data caps: I do read the TOS and what they are always unclear about is exactly what speed you will drop to when your data cap is reached. Frankly I never go over my data cap, because I connect to my in home network when I am at home. But I measure my 4G LTE connection from time to time and it is often much lower than 4G LTE speed, It should "never" drop to dial up level speed. If you have a customer that is really abusing the system by using his phone to connect his whole house; then drop them as a customer. I am sure the TOS allows them to drop you for any reason or no reason at all at their discretion! But don't punish the rest of us because you want to keep that customers money coming in.
 
the engineers from phone/cable companies have admitted many times that data caps are nothing but a cash grab. they have explained numerous times that the network could easily handle multiple times more traffic than they face. about the only place the network is truly taxed is in very crowded cities like NYC. but they have even managed to get enough in place to handle the loads they ask for.

the reasons they give for data caps are total nonsense and will always be nonsense. cash grab and nothing more.
 
It's understandable that wireless bands face limitations within the spectrum that aren't comparable to hardline connections (dsl, cable etc). How full these spectrums are or aren't is another matter and I don't personally have a way to verify how much of the bands are already 'full'.

The issue is the disclosure and transparency of companies to their customers and the poor use of wording which (by happy accident) works in their favor. "Unlimited" service sounds fantastic, until you realize all the restrictions. I wouldn't expect a speed limit sign on a roadway to say 'unlimited' when it meant 45mph, have law enforcement restrict me to 45mph and then say well 'unlimited' means you can drive this road all you want - at 45mph. If there's a limit, clearly post it.

The usage of the term 'unlimited' among service providers, especially wireless, has become the modern day snake oil 'tonic' of the old days. Duping customers by means of false advertising is frowned upon and has been for centuries. People were furious when they were sold a 'tonic' that purportedly cured all ailments just to find out it was sugar water or some other substance. People in medieval times were put in the stocks for selling loaves of bread with rocks or other heavy inedible materials shoved inside since the loaves were sold by weight. Did the customer still get 'some' bread? Sure. Did they get what they were led to believe they were getting for their money? Not at all and this is no different.

Now instead of being placed in the stocks and humiliated, businesses are fined and humiliated through news stories so everyone can see their shady business practices. Times and methods have evolved but the same old story persists.
 
It's a common practice to mislead customers with false advertising; even so, from a purely legal perspective, it's the customer's fault for endorsing a legal document without having read it first. AT&T could easily make the argument, "well, of course we're using the word unlimited in the metaphorical sense because the amount of energy in the universe is finite; as the person entering into contract is at least 18-years-old (or emancipated), it's reasonable to assume that the individual has at least a very basic understanding of math and physics and is therefore well-aware that the term unlimited is not literal." That's a pretty low-ball and shoddy argument, but it'd be bought in court.

{*} Was the person coerced into making the contract against their will? No.
{*} Was the person in full possession of the faculties required to enter into the agreement? Yes, I would assume.
{*} Did the person read the entire document before signing it? No, most likely.

This reminds me of parents who scream at telephone companies because their child racked up a $20,000+ bill by texting. Is it the telephone company's fault? Absolutely not. The child cannot legally sign the contract in return for service, so it's the parent's fault for signing the document in the first place. So, what happens? The parents then attempt to assign the blame because the phone company should've automatically cut the service. The phone company's response? The parents had the opportunity to enroll in this kind of program for free but never elected to do so. Fault? Parents.


This also reminds me of advertisement stating the product is "sugar-free." Guess what? Turn the package over and read the darn nutritional content! Alcohol-sugar is treated differently from glucose, sucrose, and dextrose! It still says it has a carbohydrate content -- too bad!



Ultimately, it's unfair for the consumer. I hope I don't sound like I'm siding with AT&T here; however, someone has to play devil's advocate.
 

I'd say phone companies deserve some of the blame for it:
1- they make it difficult if not impossible to set limits - service is an all-or-nothing offer, agree to unlimited billing or go shop elsewhere
2- they charge 100-10000X more than what data/text actually cost to provide in some of their pay-per-use plans and overage fees (for example, $1/5MB on the smallest data plans is $200/GB, easily 1000X more than costs, and $0.25/text is over $7500/MB, millions of times more than costs)
3- that sort of bill would be considered unconscionable by most people: nearly nobody in their right mind would agree to be held liable for that sort of phone bill if they actually knew there was a real possibility it could happen to them
4- most major bill shock cases get settled out of court shortly after they hit the news and social networks because carriers know they will most likely lose if the cases are allowed to get through court, which would set very embarrassing precedents against them

As far as I am concerned, users should not be liable for any extra costs when they are not provided the ability to put a ceiling on how much they can be billed.
 
Well, I guess technically it is unlimited data, it's not like like they're disconnected you from data, just slowing it down to a speed that's barely usable lmao.
 

Wireless technology is moving towards directional wireless communications which can "focus in" on signals coming from a certain direction. MIMO is a good example. Using 2 or more antennas, it can use a different multipath route between source and destination as an extra transmission channel, even though it's at the same frequency spectrum.

The ultimate will be phased array antennas, which allow a receiver (and transmitter if you know where the intended recipient is) to electronically "point" the antenna in a certain direction. Once you move to point-to-point wireless communications, most of the spectrum limitations vanish.
the engineers from phone/cable companies have admitted many times that data caps are nothing but a cash grab. they have explained numerous times that the network could easily handle multiple times more traffic than they face. about the only place the network is truly taxed is in very crowded cities like NYC. but they have even managed to get enough in place to handle the loads they ask for.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for phone, but if you compare cable Internet prices with the price for an equivalent dedicated line, it's priced about right. e.g. An OC3 (155 Mbps fiber) costs about $20k-$45k/mo. Go with the lower price since we're talking wholesale. 155 Mbps * 1 month = 50.95 terabytes/mo. At a 300 GB/mo cap, that's 170 customers you can squeeze into that single OC3 line. $20,000/170 customers = $117.64 per month per customer.

Or put another way, you don't expect everyone to hit the 300 GB/mo cap. So you charge customers $80/mo and put 250 customers on that single OC3 with a 300 GB/mo cap. As long as average utilization stays below 204 GB/mo per customer, you're ok. (FWIW, I'm on a $60/mo 100 Mbps plan with a 700 GB/mo cap, so my cable company is actually charging me significantly less than this. If I were to actually use all 700 GB/mo, my consumption of an OC3's capacity would be priced at $275/mo)

So no, their lines can't handle multiple times more traffic. The price is about right. Where the cable companies are gouging you are in channel bundles and set top box rentals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom