Sounds like a good deal on my next AT&T service
(Which I will NEVER have again.)
How about I offer 0.016 per cent (the rate this behemoth is proposing for their fine) on my data plan? I would think they might have a chuckle or none at this.
AT&T has taken its four-year campaign to avoid liability for throttling its "unlimited" data plans to new heights by proposing that a $100m fine imposed last month be reduced to just $16,000. In a filing leaked to Congress obsessive The Hill, the US telco giant argued that the fine levied by the Federal Communications …
"AT&T also claims that it did let its customers know about the constraints it was imposing by posting a disclosure online and texting customers – once – about the fact they would have slower speeds past a certain monthly data usage."
I've had an unlimited data plan through AT&T since the last year they were offering it (2010 I think). I never received a text message from them about throttling speeds after a certain usage. Granted my usage is well below anything that would set off alarms (generally less than 1 GB because I'm on WiFi so much), but unless they (erroneously) only notified actually abusers, I never received their alleged "head up" message.
>> It seems so reasonable that I suggest the fine is repeatedly applied on a weekly basis until they cease and desist crippling the service for the 'unlimited' customers.
So you want your cell network all clogged up with people BitTorrenting and streaming Netflix because it's "unlimited" while you're trying to download driving directions or, I dunno, having a phone conversation?
I don't know why I'm being downvoted.
I know half a dozen people who abuse their "unlimited" data plans or have in the past. People who would stream Netflix and Hulu for hours on end. People who couldn't be bothered to enter their password for their home wifi network because they had unlimited data on their phone, so what do they care. People who spent all night running BitTorrent clients on their phones to download movies.
OTA bandwith is not an infinite resource. We can't just lay more fiber optic cable and get more bandwidth. We all have to share the airwaves/frequency spectrum.
I can't believe there are people on El Reg who are eager to defend peoples' "right" to abuse and misuse wide area radio networks like this.
Bring on the speed throttling, I say. As a person who has been affected by it several times, I might add.
"I know half a dozen people who abuse their "unlimited" data plans or have in the past. People who would stream Netflix and Hulu for hours on end."
I'm sorry but you can't "abuse" unlimited because it is, as they say: unlimited.
Now if they can't actually deliver on that, why did they offer it? Did they lie to millions of customers who know nothing about spectrum usage and contention ratios, etc, to obtain their custom? If so they deserve the fine and it has to be big enough to make them, and others, think again.
It is just a shame that other toothless regulators have not been forcing honest advertisement of what you can expect to get from an ISP for your money.
>>It is just a shame that other toothless regulators have not been forcing honest advertisement of what you can expect to get from an ISP for your money.
How is it not honest, though?
It is still unlimited even if they throttle your bandwidth. You can still connect to the network whenever you want and download data from it at a still-useful speed whenever you want without paying extra. Unlimited.
When they advertise unlimited data, they don't advertise "unlimited data at the fastest possible speed our network supports."
Just because you expect something that was never promised doesn't mean they're being dishonest. It just means you made assumptions that weren't accurate.
Because throttling someone, by definition, is imposing an arbitrary limit, which by federal law should amount to false advertising. And by my book, the only useful speed is full speed. Anything less compromises its capabilities, especially if the demand is bandwidth-intensive like YouTube. Again, an arbitrary limit and false advertising.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you $DEITY."
"Half the truth, twice the lie."
PS. I'm of a mind that ALL advertisement claims MUST be factual or, if not possible, conservative, with none of these "up to" bandwidth claims.
>> Because throttling someone, by definition, is imposing an arbitrary limit, which by federal law should amount to false advertising.
Again, access to the data network is unlimited. The advertising is not false.
You got confused and thought the data network speed was supposed to be unlimited. That's your fault.
>> Anything less compromises its capabilities, especially if the demand is bandwidth-intensive like YouTube.
I'll give you a second to reflect on your life, if YouTube is your example of compromised capabilities.
>> PS. I'm of a mind that ALL advertisement claims MUST be factual or, if not possible, conservative, with none of these "up to" bandwidth claims.
Well, in that case every carrier should be advertising data speeds of zero. Because there are huge parts of the country with no cell coverage. Do try to think before you write.
"Again, access to the data network is unlimited. The advertising is not false."
It is TOO false. If contention can get so bad that I get dropped off, then I've LOST access to the data network. That's a problem for the provider and a hint they need to plunk down for more infrastructure. And I'm not confused. Unlimited access is actually standard for all data plans, which is why they charge overage or downgrade your connection instead of cut you off. The unlimited then MUST apply to the data cap as there is no other differentiator. Furthermore, without a qualifier in the plain English advertising they post, the Unlimited should be unlimited in all aspects not limited by physics.
"I'll give you a second to reflect on your life, if YouTube is your example of compromised capabilities."
Substitute YouTube for On-Demand Video from your favorite app. Handy for the road warrior, you know? I've given it my second, and I stand by my statement. It's not like I live my life on the stuff, but it's still quite a handy place to look for video clips and the like. Since I'm still alive, I must conclude that I actually DO have a life.
"Well, in that case every carrier should be advertising data speeds of zero. Because there are huge parts of the country with no cell coverage. Do try to think before you write."
Actually, I FULLY EXPECT AND WELCOME this. If there were a law that demanded this of any an all advertisements (define them as pleading a case before the public, subjecting them to Sixth Amendment restrictions on truth), I'd be pushing for it night and day. Again, don't advertise something you can't deliver. If they're forced to advertise zero bandwidth, that tells me they shouldn't be advertising, full stop.
>> Again, don't advertise something you can't deliver. If they're forced to advertise zero bandwidth, that tells me they shouldn't be advertising, full stop.
This proves you aren't worth talking to. You want cell network providers to put towers in the middle of nowhere, where nobody lives for 100 miles, before they can advertise to people that they have a data network? You're spewing nonsense.
"So you want your cell network all clogged up with people BitTorrenting and streaming Netflix because it's "unlimited" while you're trying to download driving directions or, I dunno, having a phone conversation?"
As the saying goes, "Give an inch, take a mile." Don't offer something you're not fully prepared to provide. If you can't truly offer unlimited and allow BitTorrents and the like, don't offer unlimited. By my book, any service that has to artificially limit bandwidth (as opposed to natural limits like contention and aerial bandwidth) is not unlimited and therefore false advertising in violation of federal laws.
It added that it should be fined a maximum of $16,000, or just 0.016 per cent of the original penalty. That's the equivalent of getting a $150 speeding ticket and offering to pay less than a cent, or turning up to a BMW dealer, asking for a top-of-the-line M6, and trying to negotiate the price down to $20.
AT&T only still exists because they were the only US carrier initially willing to whore themselves to Apple (because AT&T were already on the ropes) and damn if it didn't work. Rather be lucky than good is not only the company model but their business plan as well including here.
The definition of unlimited isn't in dispute. It's just that the word can be applied to several dimensions of the service. In the case of cell network data access clearly relates to when you can connect to it and download data from it. And in that case, it seems like AT&T is indeed providing unlimited data.
If we're going to be pedantic, then why not apply the word "unlimited" to the initial access speeds... why can't I download several megabytes per second from AT&T? Clearly something about their cell towers and network setup is "limiting" my download speed. Is anybody upset about that?
There are always conditions attached. Unless there's either infinite speed available, or infinite time to download in, your connection is not literally unlimited. What it really means is 'practically unlimited', and it's not clear to me that the service in question doesn't provide that to almost everyone.
"There are always conditions attached"
Which are not explained, or often are changed after you have signed up. THAT is the problem.
If I have paid for a 8Mbit/sec connection why can't I use it all the time? Why should it slow down?
Now you and I both know the realities of networking hardware and the fundamental limits of information theory so we realise the situation is complex and usually over-subscribed so throttling is inevitable at times. But the majority of customers were lied to in order to get their custom, and they know SFA about how it works. That is the whole point of this action.
>> If I have paid for a 8Mbit/sec connection why can't I use it all the time? Why should it slow down?
When has a cell provider advertised unlimited data at a particular speed (e.g. 8 Mb/s)? Never.
Even without throttling, they all have different coverage in different areas. They can't guarantee a particular speed.
If you thought you were paying for a particular speed then you (1) clearly didn't understand what was being advertised to you, and (2) have no understanding of how cell networks work.
But all the *G and LTE talk is thrown with the expectation of good speed. And people can look up the limits of HSPA, HSPA+, and LTE technologies online and figure out reasonable expectations. If the network can't keep up these reasonable expectations, then they're guilty of "Half the truth, twice the lie," which IMO is even worse than false-advertising a blatant lie.
Even "practically unlimited" has a clear deliniation. The ONLY limits that are allowed here should be physical: dictated by the limits of the towers and backhaul, not by any arbitrary system set up by the provider. And even then, serious and continuous contention should be a signal to add infrastructure in a timely manner.
Ian is correct. There's an obvious difference in that those with generous or supposedly 'unlimited' expensive mobile data plans are more likely to have a iPhone. People with other OS choices such as Android are more likely to be saddled with a much smaller data allowance per month, if not pay as you go.
Stinginess is drawn to Android, that's a confirmed fact.
It is a bit like an "all you can eat" buffet where you get a watch glass to hold the food and a pin to eat it with.
Did they promise unlimited bandwidth or just unlimited data? Although to throttle the speed is of course to apply a limit anyway. Not that logic applies at this level of corporate negotiation.
>> turning up to a BMW dealer, asking for a top-of-the-line M6, and trying to negotiate the price down to $20.
No. AT&T's argument is that the $100M fine is arbitrary. In which case, why not replace it with any other arbitrary number, like $16k?
The price of a car is not arbitrary at all.
"... from an economist who claims to have found evidence that unlimited data subscribers "were either not surprised by being throttled or not materially affected by throttling (or both).""
"Economic evidence" is the silliest assault on Occam's Razor in 800 years. Considering what we now know about untreated PTSD, I'm not surprised they were not surprised. And considering what we've known about venereal disease for quite a long time, I am not surprised the economist is a lawyer too ... a picked pocket causes said pocket grave social embarrassment and may subject the pocket to ridicule by other pockets on Social Networking sites. A material, if not particularly important effect in pocket culture.
>> "Economic evidence" is the silliest assault ...
etc. etc.
I have "unlimited" data from T-Mobile. Or at least they advertised it as unlimited until the regulators stepped in (I assume). I pay for the smallest amount of high-speed data and have been affected by throttling on several billing cycles.
And no, I was not surprised at being throttled, because I didn't pay for any more high-speed data than I received. And I was not materially affected by the throttling because I still got data, it was just slower.
So the statement that you find so offensive is completely believable to me, since it describes my mentality exactly and I'm certainly not suffering from PTSD or the embarrassment of having my pocket picked. My cell phone data was slower for a few days, who the eff cares? If you think that's a traumatic or embarrassing event then you have lived the world's most blessed life.