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

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

#81

Post by Alupis » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

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.

It's more than just a fine -- it's a precedent that tells AT&T et al this practice will not be tolerated.

5 years from now if AT&T resorts to this practice, you can bet the FCC et al will have no problems levying a much more severe consequence.

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

#82

Post by pdabbadabba » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

madaxe_again wrote: post #19

It'll be a cold day in hell before this sticks. They'll use every slippery tactic in the book to justify it and to fight it, they'll bribe^Wlobby the appropriate parties to legally define "unlimited" as "limited", and even if they are stuck with it, they'll just not pay. I mean, what, are they going to arrest executives? Give me a break. There's no recourse either way.

> They'll use every slippery tactic in the book to justify it and to fight it, they'll bribe^Wlobby the appropriate parties to legally define "unlimited" as "limited"

You don't think they tried this before they were fined?

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

#83

Post by mamcx » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

This is so sad.

The fine is pay to somebody else than the victim.

Is like when Intel get fine for screw AMD, and the money go to some EU institution: Why not pay it to the victim?

That is what this is stupid, and a no-justice.

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

#84

Post by rasz_pl » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:34 PM UTC

There are countries where you cant simply LIE in a commercial/promotional material. I remember the case of Apple being fined and their ad campaign pulled when they tried to claim selling “the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer” (PowerPC times).

On the other hand in my country its ok for actors to lie about being doctors in commercials :/ ("Im a doctor and X is best for you")

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

#85

Post by Alupis » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

ytdht wrote: post #75

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).

> 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).

And that doesn't even matter since no U-Verse internet speed even comes close to what a true fiber connection could carry (1Gbps+). In my area, the fastest U-Verse internet offered is 18Mbps down, so fiber or not, it's irrelevant.

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

#86

Post by hellbanner » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

ohw wrote: post #53

zkhalique wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

A formula, perhaps

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

#87

Post by ianstallings » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

Can we classify this as a revenue generating legal briefing on the net neutrality issue? Or is that wishful thinking?

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

#88

Post by gubby » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:36 PM UTC

CRASCH wrote: post #28

I think this falls under a reasonable interpretation of the unlimited. a reasonable person would understand that there are bandwidth limits both technological and environmental. A reasonable person would expect that the level of service they signed up for would continue or get better over time. I see two issues. One is that after a certain amount of data is used they limit bandwidth. If you limit something it is hard…

I disagree. That the word 'unlimited' exists in the language does not mean there must be a place and justification for it found in marketing material.

The only reasonable interpretation of a word is its meaning; since there are no shortage of words to describe non-unlimited data plans, the mobile networks should use those instead.

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

#89

Post by briandear » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:37 PM UTC

rail2rail wrote: post #17

> But consumers are unlikely to receive any money from the fine, which will go instead to the U.S. Treasury, said the agency official. Well why the hell not?? If we were the wronged party, should we not benefit from the settlement directly?

It shouldn't go into the general treasury, that's for sure. It should be earmarked for relevant infrastructure projects and not just pissed away.

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

#90

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jun 17, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

gubby wrote: post #88

CRASCH wrote: post #28

I think this falls under a reasonable interpretation of the unlimited. a reasonable person would understand that there are bandwidth limits both technological and environmental. A reasonable person would expect that the level of service they signed up for would continue or get better over time. I see two issues. One is that after a certain amount of data is used they limit bandwidth. If you limit something it is hard…

I disagree. That the word 'unlimited' exists in the language does not mean there must be a place and justification for it found in marketing material. The only reasonable interpretation of a word is its meaning; since there are no shortage of words to describe non-unlimited data plans, the mobile networks should use those instead.

And yet PAM non-stick spray is marketed as 'fat free' when its 100% fat. And so on. Marketing has its own Brave New World rules.