Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

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

#111

Post by ambrice »

maxerickson wrote: post #100
ambrice wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which word do you use? "The Data Plan Limited By Maximum Speeds, Current Network Capacity, and Amount of Time in a Given Month" doesn't fit on the pamphlet. Do we really need to go full lawyer on everything? I think people understand that "Unlimited Data" doesn't mean infinite speed.

Given the disclaimer I posted, you could advertise "25 GB of high speed"... And if such a small number hurts them in the feels, they could make their network better so that they could say a bigger number.

But more like 25 GB of equal QoS prioritization with other customers which may or may not be high speed, followed by reduced QoS prioritization in relation to other customers which still may be high speed but less likely.

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

#112

Post by diydsp »

davesque wrote: post #50
chillingeffect wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I hate TMobile for throttling me so many times over the last few years, BUT: That's more than a slap on the wrist. It's 10% of their profit. How would you like to be fined 10% of your leftover money after your bills are paid? That's a decent chunk of skin. I actually believe it's a pretty fair punishment. I believe comparing it to revenue is irrelevant because it's an extremely capital-intensive process. If it ta…

I see your point. I wonder, though, which fundamental the fine should be compared to. I'm not sure if profit is really the right one. Of course I'm no expert.

The fine should be compared to the damages experienced by the victims.

The comparison to fundamentals is really a red herring.

PP probably only brought it up in response to the poster before them.

It may not be easy to compute the damages, but I agree with the point above: the fine is NOT a slap on the wrist. It represents a sizeable chunk of the company's profit.

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

#113

Post by Dylan16807 »

dboreham wrote: post #79
bdavisx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say that, or you could say that the cap is stopping me from actually using the bandwidth I pay for. I pay for 100Mb/sec down, how long would it take me to hit the cap if I used that continuously? So do I really have the 100Mb/sec down that I'm paying for? And as a side note, I've never hit the cap - I'm not sure it's turned on yet (Comcast customer), but it's coming. But I won't have one soon because I'll b…

You are not paying for CIR 100Mbit. That's the point. (Go find a real commercial ISP with an SLA and a way to call their NOC to quiz them about QoS and peering, and see how much that costs) Source: I run a small ISP.

The main cost there is the SLA, not the 100Mbit. Nobody is saying that the cheap consumer price should have an aggressive SLA.

And 100mbit of CIR per person isn't the right metric either. We're in a consumer context here, where bandwidth can be massively oversubscribed without capping or running out. That doesn't mean they're not actually selling that much bandwidth.

You can tell me if I'm way off-base on any of the following: Comcast claims that only 8% of their users average more than 1mbps, even in areas without caps. If we assume most of those 8% are using 5mbps and the rest use an entire 100mbps, we might get an average data use of 3mbps per customer. In terms of transit costs, that's nothing. Less than a dollar per mbps in bulk. Almost all the cost is in supplying the pipe that's capable of bursting to 100mbps. So there is no real need to have these caps. Just sell unlimited data.

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

#114

Post by extrapickles »

jasonjayr wrote: post #59

I ..... thought T-Mobile's policy was generally well known? Especially in the face of a few years ago, At&t hitting up folks for astronomical bills when iPhones were new, and folks were blasting past their data limits? I've had data with them since they were VoiceStream, and knew what each data plan offered. Anyone who asked, I told them that T-Mobile's policy was WAY more consumer friendly than the other carriers, e…

The FCC is currently creating[0] a nutrition-style label for internet providers that should be going into effect later this year.

0: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadba...

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

#115

Post by kevincox »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #104
maxerickson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> > 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?

That sounds about right. I would expect to get my promised speeds the vast majority of the time.

Now if only we could get hard SLAs I would be really happy. (Max speed 99.9% of the month measured in seconds?)

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

#116

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

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".

How exactly is lying to the consumer about what you are selling them consumer-friendly?

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

#117

Post by wmf »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #116
wmf wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How exactly is lying to the consumer about what you are selling them consumer-friendly?

I mean slowing traffic instead of cutting them off or charging huge overage fees is consumer-friendly.

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

#118

Post by imtringued »

bravura wrote: post #81
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.

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

It's nebulous in the sense that it doesn't tell you how high your hidden "fast data" cap is.

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

#119

Post by aashishlowanshi »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #116
wmf wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How exactly is lying to the consumer about what you are selling them consumer-friendly?

Exactly.

Offer unlimited. Or don’t. I don’t see why they use that word and then not honor it.

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

#120

Post by yitchelle »

gingerlime wrote: post #72

I'm still confused why the largest data plan in Germany is 5gb (with some options to top-up). And all data plans are bandwidth throttled after you use your quota. There's no unlimited options at all.

Same here. I'm on Vodafone in Germany. When I reach my data quota, sure enough, my speed drops to snail crawl. Unlimited in data quantity and in speed in a myth. Of course, I am talking about mobile data.
Post reply on HN