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

101–110 of 169 posts

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

#101

Post by JoshGlazebrook »

I kind of saw this coming after the whole Verizon fiasco when they tried to throttle their LTE network and the FCC and media made it a frenzy and they backed down. But then again, Verizon's main wireless spectrum they use for their base layer of their LTE network has the open access rules attached to them that pretty much forbids the throttling of any devices using the spectrum and forcing them to allow any device on their network that is capable of using it.

I'm glad I still have my Verizon unlimited data plan. I renewed my contract (unlimited line is out of contract in August 2016), by using the transfer upgrade loophole last year. But they are the only carrier that does not throttle their LTE network at all, and also allow you to officially pay for unlimited tethering, something no other carrier has ever offered. On top of that the open access rules attached to the C block of the 700mhz spectrum they use lets me pop my sim card into a dedicated lte router, tablet, hotspot, etc. Even devices that Verizon stores refuse to activate for you like a T-Mobile bought iPhone, or any device that is not sold as "for verizon". It's unlocked and works on the network you can pop your sim card into it and it will just work.

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

#102

Post by yellowapple »

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…

> 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?

That definition specifies "artificial" limits, which would - I'd think - exclude technological limitations like oversubscription/saturation.

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

#103

Post by [deleted] »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #101

I kind of saw this coming after the whole Verizon fiasco when they tried to throttle their LTE network and the FCC and media made it a frenzy and they backed down. But then again, Verizon's main wireless spectrum they use for their base layer of their LTE network has the open access rules attached to them that pretty much forbids the throttling of any devices using the spectrum and forcing them to allow any device on…

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by myth_buster »

Frozenlock wrote: post #97
myth_buster wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Well thanks to Civil Forfeiture [0] you don't have to be a thief. (Good luck doing that to Corporates.)

Customers/Citizens are at the receiving end from all sides.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

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

#105

Post by maxerickson »

yellowapple wrote: post #102
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…

> 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? That definition specifies "artificial" limits, which would - I'd think - exclude technological limitations like oversubscription/saturation.

Oversubscription is intentional (and in many scenarios can enable lower prices).

I doubt rules about advertising are going to change the market, the problem is that tens of millions of people are happy to pay for connectivity without really sweating the details of it.

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

#106

Post by redblacktree »

KJasper wrote: post #44
ProAm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one wants to lose 100M, no one.

If you can make 200M and have a risk of paying 100M in the worst case you still make 100M more than you would without doing it. So it's basically calculated risk for these companies.

Sure, but you would still prefer to never pay the 100M.

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

#107

Post by MichaelGG »

beambot wrote: post #12

[Sorta OT...] Ugh, now we just need goad Comcast into improving their peering. It's pretty sad when the TV viewing experience is better via torrents than Netflix. Comcast is doing some serious throttling.... For me, the Netflix stream is all pixelated, yet we can pull the entire hour-long HD content via torrent in ~5 minutes. Something is amiss.

Maybe it's Netflix that needs better peering? I'm not on Comcast (trying from Central America) and Netflix regularly sucks (but is better than YouTube) whereas torrenting works fine.

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

#108

Post by JoshGlazebrook »

[deleted] wrote: post #103
JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #101

I kind of saw this coming after the whole Verizon fiasco when they tried to throttle their LTE network and the FCC and media made it a frenzy and they backed down. But then again, Verizon's main wireless spectrum they use for their base layer of their LTE network has the open access rules attached to them that pretty much forbids the throttling of any devices using the spectrum and forcing them to allow any device on…

[deleted]

After 21GB they de-prioritize you. Even on the unlimited 4G LTE plan. That doesn't happen on Verizon, people push multiple terabytes a month on those plans and have no throttling or deprioritization of any kind.

It's in the fine print:

http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html

> *Unlimited 4G LTE customers who use more than 21 GB of data in a bill cycle will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to other customers for that bill cycle at locations and times when competing network demands occur, resulting in relatively slower speeds. See t-mobile.com/OpenInternet for details.

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

#110

Post by brianpan »

tomp wrote: post #65
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. :)

Depends what they're advertising as "unlimited". If it's unlimited broadband/internet, then it should actually be unlimited . On the other hand, if it's just unlimited data , then that says nothing about the speed. However, truth be told, my operator (3 in the UK) is pretty explicit that after 5GB or so (each month) the speed is reduced, and there is no unlimited (free) data when you're abroad.

I don't see the difference. If you're limiting the bandwidth I can't access the data. I think it's reasonable to expect "unlimited" to mean without artificial restrictions or limitations to accessing the thing they are providing.
Post reply on HN