T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans • Hacker News Board

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#101

Post by profeta » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

derekp7 wrote: post #47

Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage penalty. Especially with a family plan when the non-bill-payers on the plan don't understand overage fees. So the way I understood it (at least under the plan that I signed up for before "binge-on" was added), T-Mobile would charge $20 (on top of the regular…

think a little harder.

If you actually happen to NEED unlimited data, and someone offers you unlimited data at some speed, and when you go to use it it is not that speed. And now your system does not work as designed.

Are you a happy consumer then? and since everyone get fooled by the false marketing, the actual providers of unlimited data at a certain speed is now out of business, because they had to charge for the real deal.

This is not about having sane limits. It's about false advertising with the only goal of killing competition and stealing business.

And btw, all carriers do that. It's a shame FCC is a tool for AT&T and Verizon nowadays on their plan to split the country into two monopolies. I will bet you money that they will never get a fine like that. ever.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#102

Post by rayiner » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

profeta wrote: post #101

derekp7 wrote: post #47

Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage penalty. Especially with a family plan when the non-bill-payers on the plan don't understand overage fees. So the way I understood it (at least under the plan that I signed up for before "binge-on" was added), T-Mobile would charge $20 (on top of the regular…

think a little harder. If you actually happen to NEED unlimited data, and someone offers you unlimited data at some speed, and when you go to use it it is not that speed. And now your system does not work as designed. Are you a happy consumer then? and since everyone get fooled by the false marketing, the actual providers of unlimited data at a certain speed is now out of business, because they had to charge for the…

You mean like the $100 million the FCC fined AT&T for the exact same thing? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mobile-fined-48m-...

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#103

Post by rayiner » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

CountSessine wrote: post #75

maxerickson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear. Marketing and sales is the root of all evil. I'll go out on a limb here and say that 'unlimited' in the case of data/telecom services should be a controlled and regulated word, much like 'organic' and 'natural' are in food.

"Organic" and "natural" are not regulated in the U.S.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#104

Post by LeifCarrotson » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #83

bravura wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it already is regulated. You can't falsely advertise. The only reason that "natural" and "organic" are regulated terms is because they are nebulous. But "unlimited data" is not nebulous, it's clear cut. IANAL

There's obvious limits. 1 month multiplied by the maximum speed of the technology, the actual capacity of the network, the fact that they throttle heavy users, etc.

> 1 month multiplied by the maximum speed of the technology

Sure, that's obvious.

> the actual capacity of the network

Shouldn't that be enough to handle at least the actual usage given that not everyone uses it at full capacity all the time? Probably there's some capacity at which they're mostly capable except the rare event that brings in an extremely large num of users. Probably not obvious?

> the fact that they throttle heavy users

This is definitely not obvious.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#105

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:49 PM UTC

drbawb wrote: post #61

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely false. If you look at how businesses generally work, they're trying to get a certain amount of revenue in order to balance their budget and make a profit. Then they decide how to get it. Data caps are fantastic . Because it means when they're raising their prices, they're charging the users who most use it, rather than just raising the price for everyone. If you're being asked to pay for overage on…

No. Data caps (and bandwidth limits to some extent) are fundamentally broken. My water company doesn't shut off my water because I took too many long showers this month. My gas company doesn't shut the valve because I had a few extra loads of laundry to run through the dryer. My electric company doesn't kill the lights because I was working on my car and used the 220V in the garage a lot this month. Instead they inst…

Carriers with caps generally don't shut off your service, they simply charge you more. So your example of the water company shutting of your water is facetious.

I definitely would prefer a more even metering method, and I think it should be granular down to the megabyte. But data caps are a move in that direction, a very positive move from where we were in the unlimited-but-not-net-neutral past.

Generally speaking, you are not getting charged for "much more" than the normal cost of service, if you have picked a good level for your data plan. Should be just over your usual usage, you might occasionally get an overage once or twice, but it should round out to be cheaper than having picked a higher tier every month.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#106

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

rifung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry since I know you're exhausted already but can you share why you think not all bits are created equally? I always thought it was bizarre how companies charge for tethering, especially after data caps were introduced. Aren't they all the same to the carrier?

> but can you share why you think not all bits are created equally? Streaming video is different than the tool who decides he's going to torrent tens of GBs over their cellular connection. You're streaming 780p or 1080p content to a device that can't display the additional resolution over 480p? You've just wasted that bandwidth on the local tower (which matters if you're in urban areas). (Spotify does this right in t…

- Most phones are 1080p or better in this day and age. They can absolutely display HD resolution. And, of course, many tablets have even better screens, including tablets with LTE connectivity.

- Cell carriers should want you to tether on a non-unlimited plan. The more you tether, the more you pay them for data usage! The idea that tethering should cost extra on tiered data is silly, because it's the ability to run up a bigger bill anyways. (As a note, I know Verizon does not charge extra for tethering, I didn't think any tiered data providers still did.)

- Fundamentally, if people are using more LTE on tiered data, they are paying carriers more, so carriers have more money to spend on increasing capacity on our LTE networks. Carriers should want users to spend as much net neutral data is humanly possible.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#107

Post by CoryG89 » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #63

derekp7 wrote: post #47

Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage penalty. Especially with a family plan when the non-bill-payers on the plan don't understand overage fees. So the way I understood it (at least under the plan that I signed up for before "binge-on" was added), T-Mobile would charge $20 (on top of the regular…

Yep, T-Mobile's actual practices are consumer-friendly; this is just a debate on the marketing language of "flat rate" vs. "unlimited".

The fact that they screwed up the marketing is why it is not consumer-friendly.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#108

Post by harryh » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 9:58 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #102

profeta wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

think a little harder. If you actually happen to NEED unlimited data, and someone offers you unlimited data at some speed, and when you go to use it it is not that speed. And now your system does not work as designed. Are you a happy consumer then? and since everyone get fooled by the false marketing, the actual providers of unlimited data at a certain speed is now out of business, because they had to charge for the…

You mean like the $100 million the FCC fined AT&T for the exact same thing? http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/mobile-fined-48m-...

You gotta make them agree to an actual bet before lowering the hammer like that!

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#109

Post by JamilD » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

CountSessine wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear. Marketing and sales is the root of all evil. I'll go out on a limb here and say that 'unlimited' in the case of data/telecom services should be a controlled and regulated word, much like 'organic' and 'natural' are in food.

"Organic" and "natural" are not regulated in the U.S.

Organic is [0], natural isn't.

[0] https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#110

Post by makomk » Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

rifung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry since I know you're exhausted already but can you share why you think not all bits are created equally? I always thought it was bizarre how companies charge for tethering, especially after data caps were introduced. Aren't they all the same to the carrier?

> but can you share why you think not all bits are created equally? Streaming video is different than the tool who decides he's going to torrent tens of GBs over their cellular connection. You're streaming 780p or 1080p content to a device that can't display the additional resolution over 480p? You've just wasted that bandwidth on the local tower (which matters if you're in urban areas). (Spotify does this right in t…

As far as I can tell, YouTube at least seems to cap video quality at the screen size (which is annoying as on some content the extra bitrate provided by higher resolutions is really needed - and remember, T-Mobile actually caps bitrate). Also, all but the really bottom of the barrel phones are at least 720p now.