AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data • Hacker News Board

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#51

Post by tomjen3 » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

istvan__ wrote: post #4

We should stop lawyers from re-defining words like unlimited. We should make sure that if somebody says unlimited in advertisment or product description it really means unlimited. I know, I am an idealist. :)

My home ISP gives me a certain number of megabit up and another down. My contract essentially says 60up/20down unlimited, which means that I can download as much as I want, subject to the limitation not to download more than 60 megabit a second.

We could use that as a template for 3g sales as well - granted we may have to specify the speed as 3g or 4g rather than a certain number of megabits - but ISPs hate that they are selling a commodity (which they shouldn't. Butter, toothpaste and oil are commodities but Procter and Gamble, Unilever and Saudi Arabia are all rich).

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#52

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

leesalminen wrote: post #22

japhyr wrote: post #3

The fine, which AT&T says it will fight, is the largest ever levied by the agency. Does anyone know how likely this fine is to stick? It sounds like a significant fine to me, but I wonder if these kind of fines are often appealed down.

It may seem significant to us mortals, however the fine is less than 1% of their revenue in 2014.

[deleted]

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#53

Post by ohw » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

zkhalique wrote: post #26

istvan__ wrote: post #4

We should stop lawyers from re-defining words like unlimited. We should make sure that if somebody says unlimited in advertisment or product description it really means unlimited. I know, I am an idealist. :)

If the throttling slows it down but not to the extent of asymptotically approaching a limit within the month, then I think the word "unlimited" really applies. The limit might be, say, 5x less than what you would get with normal tower reception. But it's still "unlimited" in the same sense as being limited by cellphone throughput. So I guess the lawyers can argue that truly being "unlimited" is clearly impossible any…

How do you define "asymptotically approaching ... within the month"?

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#54

Post by derefr » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

georgerobinson wrote: post #41

derefr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would an ISP still be able to call their service "unlimited", by this definition, if some of their distribution nodes (cable optical nodes, wireless cell towers, whatever) are oversubscribed+saturated to the point of degraded service for the customers on that node? If they could, then would they still be able to call the service "unlimited" if they enforced moment-by-moment QoS at the distribution node (so your neigh…

I would think so. Let's use "unlimited" in the context of public transport. You have paid for a Travelcard on the London Underground Zones 1 to 6, including peak hours. If there is congestion on the line, or it's a busy rush hour morning is your Travelcard no longer "unlimited"? I mean you're not paying an SLA in which you're guaranteed a seat and that trains will be delayed no longer then X minutes. I'm not defendin…

I would almost say that an oversubscribed+QoSed line is the modern definition of "residential service", while guaranteed bandwidth (equivalent in effect, but not necessarily in implementation, to the "dedicated circuits" of DSL terminology) is the modern definition of "business service."

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#55

Post by mangeletti » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

To put this into perspective:

$100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, so less than 1/10th of 1%.

That's like earning a $100,000/yr salary, and then paying a $75.99 fine. It's basically less than your average speeding ticket.

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#56

Post by revelation » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #29

revscat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting question. "Unlimited: Wherein the amount of bandwidth, measured by megabits/s up/down, will not be artificially affected. While system outages or other technical limitations can at times affect throughput, at no point will AT&T or its subsidiaries place constraints upon throughput based upon the amount of data transferred over the course of one or more billing periods."

Would an ISP still be able to call their service "unlimited", by this definition, if some of their distribution nodes (cable optical nodes, wireless cell towers, whatever) are oversubscribed+saturated to the point of degraded service for the customers on that node? If they could, then would they still be able to call the service "unlimited" if they enforced moment-by-moment QoS at the distribution node (so your neigh…

So many people here obsessed with making some kind of technical disambiguation. I don't think the lawyers care for that at all.

Both intentionally throttling and not remotely providing the necessary infrastructure necessary to support use will get you into hot waters.

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#57

Post by biot » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #6

istvan__ wrote: post #4

We should stop lawyers from re-defining words like unlimited. We should make sure that if somebody says unlimited in advertisment or product description it really means unlimited. I know, I am an idealist. :)

So what does unlimited mean then in your definition? Even before they throttle, you will be limited by the throughput of the cell tower.

Throughput, latency, and so on are natural limitations of consuming bandwidth (internet and RF) which is shared across subscribers. What the FCC took exception to (and rightly so) is that AT&T imposed artificial limitations on subscribers based on their consumption. You can't say that your service has no limits but then go on and impose limits.

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#58

Post by calbear81 » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

What's the likelihood this will lead to some type of compensation for unlimited data users that were throttled?

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#59

Post by revelation » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

We need to stop calling this practice "slowing down" or "throttling". If you are slowed down, you'll be limited to 56kbit or less, by artifically induced packet loss. At this point, most websites and other internet services will just completely stop working as the massive packet loss suffocates any payload.

It's like advertising unlimited miles on a rental car, then slowing it down to 5mph after 200 miles. Sure, the car still moves, but you can't practically use it for anything.

Re: AT&T fined $100M after slowing down its ‘unlimited’ data

#60

Post by derefr » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #56

derefr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would an ISP still be able to call their service "unlimited", by this definition, if some of their distribution nodes (cable optical nodes, wireless cell towers, whatever) are oversubscribed+saturated to the point of degraded service for the customers on that node? If they could, then would they still be able to call the service "unlimited" if they enforced moment-by-moment QoS at the distribution node (so your neigh…

So many people here obsessed with making some kind of technical disambiguation. I don't think the lawyers care for that at all. Both intentionally throttling and not remotely providing the necessary infrastructure necessary to support use will get you into hot waters.

My question was more:

If an ISP usually has enough pipe for everyone on each of their distribution nodes (that is, has no oversubscription—or, more practically, only oversubscription for aggregations of customers with statistically-predictable usage such that the node should reasonably never be saturated, with some extra engineering tolerance for the rare occasions usage goes above statistical norms)—

but the ISP sometimes falls short when the introduction of a new service like VoIP or Netflix or Steam into the market, or lots of new denser construction in an area, makes demand outstrip their supply,

then should they get in trouble for enforcing QoSing (through whatever means) on their distribution nodes, temporarily, while they work on upgrading those nodes?

Because, if so, then ISPs should probably never use the word "unlimited" at all because they would still get in trouble for reasons (almost) completely out of their control.

(I say "almost" because they could just refuse to sell service in oversubscribed areas. But customers would like that even less, if the ISP has a local monopoly. Alternately, ISPs could change to "dynamic billing" where everyone in an oversubscribed area gets billed for non-unlimited service for as long as they're oversubscribed, and then goes back to being billed for unlimited service once the oversubscription is over. This would be cool, but seems like one of those nearly-impossible-with-the-hardware-we've-got sort of things, especially for wireless ISPs where you don't stay on the same distribution node so you're constantly moving between oversubscribed and undersubscribed nodes.)