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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 169 posts

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

#71

Post by mangeletti »

dragonwriter wrote: post #67
mangeletti wrote: post #55

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.

> $100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue Which is completely irrelevant. To the extent a revenue comparison is relevant, the relevant revenue isn't AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, its the revenue over the period of the activities covered by the fine attributable either to the unlimited data plans, or to other data plans to which people switch from unlimited plans once the slowdown was in place.

That is to suggest that past activities have no bearing on future earnings?

If I cheat by committing a crime this year that saves me money, then continue earning more money each year from here out, all while squashing competitors, is the advantage I gained by cheating this year no longer relevant in 5 years?

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

#74

Post by nashashmi »

mangeletti wrote: post #55

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.

How about putting in perspective of cost to fix versus cost to pay fine? Say 100 mm vs 260 mm to fix it?

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

#75

Post by ytdht »

I think AT&T should be fined (or be the target of class action lawsuit) for constantly lying to customers/future customers... the most common example being lying about u-verse being fiber-optic going to their customer's homes (while it only goes to a central box in the neighborhood).

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

#76

Post by VLM »

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.

My daily driver has an unlimited top speed. Rather optimistically according to my xbox and Forza it can top our around 100-110. (Edited to add, Forza seems to imply I can get my car up to 115 or so, then stability control loses it, but theres no hard coded limit).

In the army I drove a pos HMMWV and it has a limiter topping it out at 55 mph from memory. Although if you remove the governor supposedly it rockets along at 75+. My pos would have leaked out all the oil or something before it ever got to 75, but in theory a reliable one can go that fast. The civilian model replaces the 100 HP indestructible engine with a 600 HP consumer engine so those move quite fast.

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

#78

Post by aeturnum »

mangeletti wrote: post #55

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.

Sure, though for perspective you should also mention that it's 1.6% of their profit (6.244 B$ last year). If this fine had been levied last year, it would have made their wireless numbers 12% worse (5.2% decline v.s. 4.7%).

Fines are not about killing the company, they are about penalizing certain decisions made by the company to affect change in policies.

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

#79

Post by istvan__ »

ams6110 wrote: post #62
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. :)

Well redefining words is pretty common these days, and quite popular too if it's for the politically correct reasons.

Absolutely, I still don't like it. :)

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

#80

Post by deadmik3 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #67
mangeletti wrote: post #55

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.

> $100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue Which is completely irrelevant. To the extent a revenue comparison is relevant, the relevant revenue isn't AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, its the revenue over the period of the activities covered by the fine attributable either to the unlimited data plans, or to other data plans to which people switch from unlimited plans once the slowdown was in place.

True, why does the time frame of one year matter? How long do they have to pay the fine?
Post reply on HN