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

91–100 of 169 posts

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

#91

Post by anigbrowl »

mamcx wrote: post #83

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.

Well, it gives the victims standing to sue, but even then the attorneys will take about 35% and you'll probably just get a $20 credit on your bill or somesuch.

And the FCC can use the money towards the universal service obligation by either subsidizing phone plans for the poor or encouraging the building of public access internet.

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

#92

Post by brotoss »

jdlyga wrote: post #50

AT&T is still doing this as of yesterday. I just got a text that I've used 75% of my "unlimited" plan

Yep, got this last week. Full text: ATT Free Msg: Your data has reached 75% of the 5GB network management threshold. If you exceed 5GB this month, you may experience reduced data speeds at times and in areas that are experiencing network congestion. Wi-Fi helps you avoid reduced speeds. For more info visit...

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

#93

Post by madaxe_again »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #82
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?

Of course. The fine is just a step in the process towards them being exonerated, a mere formality.

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

#94

Post by oldmanjay »

elihu wrote: post #47
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. :)

Lawyers? I think the problem here is with words being redefined by marketers.

Every single letter of AT&T marketing materials is obsessively filtered by a crack legal team. The lawyers are very much involved here.

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

#95

Post by tw04 »

mamcx wrote: post #83

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.

You might want to pick a different example. Intel paid AMD over a billion dollars as part of their settlement.

The money they paid to the EU as a fine was on TOP of the money they paid AMD, not in lieu of.

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

#96

Post by myth_buster »

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.

The penalty should be proportionate to the amount they got from the "unlimited plan" users since they started throttling.

  But consumers are unlikely to receive any money from the fine, 
  which will go instead to the U.S. Treasury, said the agency official.
Additionally, govt is getting money but what happens to the customers who actually paid for it?

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

#97

Post by Frozenlock »

myth_buster wrote: post #96
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.

The penalty should be proportionate to the amount they got from the "unlimited plan" users since they started throttling. But consumers are unlikely to receive any money from the fine, which will go instead to the U.S. Treasury, said the agency official. Additionally, govt is getting money but what happens to the customers who actually paid for it?

That's the equivalent of some police officers catching a thief and keeping the money for themselves.

"Aren't you glad we are here to protect you?"

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

#98

Post by ytdht »

Alupis wrote: post #85
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.

I think that it is relevant even if the maximum offered speed by AT&T doesn't reach the full bandwidth that fiber optic could provide (one example is ping might be a lot lower on fiber optic, or customers think that they have the latest technology, or that costs should be lower with fiber optic, etc..., but the main one is lies, why lie if it doesn't matter)

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

#99

Post by bhauer »

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"?

I read that as if to mean that it would be possible for the ISP to set a limit, say a 10 GB monthly cap, and once a lower threshold (say 5 GB) is reached, decrease bandwidth as usage continues to climb. As usage grows and bandwidth decreases, you could eventually reach a point where it is so slow (say at 1,000 bits per second) that it becomes more or less unusable for the consumer and therefore unfeasible to realistically exceed the 10 GB limit.

Sort of like halving the distance between you and a destination repeatedly ultimately leads you to a position infinitesimally separated from your destination, but never past it.

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

#100

Post by joesmo »

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…

No, because you're paying for unlimited 4G or HSDPA access, not unlimited access at any speed. AT&T is wrong, they know they're wrong, and they should pay the money. It clearly misleads consumers and that's the issue here.
Post reply on HN