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

131–140 of 169 posts

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

#131

Post by darkstar999 »

pki wrote: post #30
darkstar999 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They tell you up front, so I don't think it's an issue. Technically it IS unlimited.

The problem is that it's quite literally not fit for use. It's some completely fucked software rate limiting or something that produces insane packet loss, pages don't load at all, IRC barely works, ssh breaks up and dies. I don't mind being shaped to 5KB/s, but at least give me something resembling a consistent 5KB/s, not 12KB/s for two seconds and then 300 bytes/s (actual measurement) for the next half hour at 50%…

Interesting, I haven't had that much trouble after getting throttled by t-mobile. I can definitely feel it, but it doesn't completely break like that.

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

#132

Post by nathanlied »

maxerickson wrote: post #105
yellowapple wrote: post #102

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? 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.

Rules about advertising could just end up like it did in Portugal. ISPs were advertising unlimited data (on fiber/cable), but the small print stated that there was a limit, which was dependent on congestion/etc.

Essentially, in any given month, you could get throttled/yelled at for going over an arbitrary data cap, which could (and did) vary every month. Given, it was usually above 1 TB, but it was still there.

ISPs got a book thrown at them by the FCC equivalent, saying that if they advertise their product as unlimited, it must be truly unlimited. Literally the next day that decision came out, all ISPs changed their adverts from unlimited to "at will" data caps, which essentially conveys the same marketing message, but isn't a regulated term.

Welcome to the new world, same as the old world, except where we've replaced a word.

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

#133

Post by DougWebb »

tomp wrote: post #129
Cerium wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlimited should mean limited only by the physics of the device. The limit should be determined by the bandwidth and the number of seconds in a month.

Yes, but the question is, unlimited what . You don't go to an "unlimited food" restaurant expecting unlimited drinks as well.

You shouldn't expect unlimited food either. "All you can eat" doesn't mean "Please move in and live here for the rest of your life."

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

#134

Post by tsotha »

jgoewert wrote: post #46
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.

Don't worry, there will be an "additional charge" tagged onto your bill for the rest of your life so that they can recoup this. I wish I had my bills from when they added a surchage because they were pocketing the sales taxes in OH or Iowa or something like that and thus had to add a surcharge for 4 years on bills to pay for it. All I remember is that I was irked to pay a surcharge to pay for sales taxes in another s…

That's something both mobile and landline phone providers do. They add a separate line on the bill and word it so you think its a tax when it's just a charge they made up from whole cloth.

Hotels do the same thing.

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

#135

Post by reamworks »

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.

B..b.but! The communists that the Y-Combinator Echo Chamber favors believes that Corporations are all _evil_ and no person and no company should be able to make money.

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

#136

Post by simoncion »

mangeletti wrote: post #128
aeturnum wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who said anything about killing the company? If we break a contract, we pay for that mistake, unless we get away without anyone noticing (or have thousands of lawyers). We don't get to just lie to people and steal their money and then whine when somebody wants their money back (or fines are levied in response). There were far more than 50 million wireless subscribers on AT&T during this period, myself being one of th…

> ...providing the common law grounds for a class-action lawsuit.

This will be fun.

Most (all?) ATT customers have undoubtedly agreed to an updated terms of service contract that contains the "In order to use our Services, you agree to waive your right to trial by jury and class action suit, and agree to use only binding arbitration to settle your disputes with us." language[0] that every company was adding to their contracts after AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

[0] AKA: A binding arbitration clause.

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

#137

Post by mamcx »

tw04 wrote: post #95
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.

Ah, I don't know that detail.. good to know

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

#138

Post by snowpanda »

simoncion wrote: post #136
mangeletti wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about killing the company? If we break a contract, we pay for that mistake, unless we get away without anyone noticing (or have thousands of lawyers). We don't get to just lie to people and steal their money and then whine when somebody wants their money back (or fines are levied in response). There were far more than 50 million wireless subscribers on AT&T during this period, myself being one of th…

> ...providing the common law grounds for a class-action lawsuit. This will be fun. Most (all?) ATT customers have undoubtedly agreed to an updated terms of service contract that contains the "In order to use our Services, you agree to waive your right to trial by jury and class action suit, and agree to use only binding arbitration to settle your disputes with us." language[0] that every company was adding to their…

Out of curiosity, is that enforceable in every state? I'm asking because I read about "GRAFTON PARTNERS LP v. SUPERIOR COURT LLP"[1] in California, that appears to make pre-dispute trial waivers unenforceable.

[1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1258748.html

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

#139

Post by grecy »

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. :)

In Australia there are extremely strict "false advertising" laws just like you propose.

A few years back Holden (GM) had an "Employee prices for all" sale - so supposedly regular people were getting the same deal that employees were getting.

It came out a while later that wasn't true, and so Holden (GM) were forced to give customers a refund of the difference to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you advertise it, and it's not true, you'll be forced to make it true.

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

#140

Post by bbcbasic »

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?"

I have no idea if that statement is serious or ironic.
Post reply on HN