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

T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#71

Post by maxerickson »

67726e wrote: post #68
gshulegaard wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans). Which is ultimately the problem here. They didn't spell this out or make explicit this practice. I agree with you, it makes sense, and I find it acceptable...but they definitely should have made it obvious and well documented.

Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over ab…

They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print.

I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#73

Post by Dylan16807 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #57
rifung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry since I know you're exhausted already but can you share why you think not all bits are created equally? I always thought it was bizarre how companies charge for tethering, especially after data caps were introduced. Aren't they all the same to the carrier?

> but can you share why you think not all bits are created equally? Streaming video is different than the tool who decides he's going to torrent tens of GBs over their cellular connection. You're streaming 780p or 1080p content to a device that can't display the additional resolution over 480p? You've just wasted that bandwidth on the local tower (which matters if you're in urban areas). (Spotify does this right in t…

> a device that can't display the additional resolution over 480p

What a weird scenario. The current trend is for phones to have more resolution than many desktops.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#74

Post by 67726e »

maxerickson wrote: post #71
67726e wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over ab…

They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

TFA said they got busted in 2015, so that's likely as a result of this. They never had any sort of disclaimer like this when I signed up around 2012.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#75

Post by CountSessine »

maxerickson wrote: post #71
67726e wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over ab…

They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

Marketing and sales is the root of all evil.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that 'unlimited' in the case of data/telecom services should be a controlled and regulated word, much like 'organic' and 'natural' are in food.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#76

Post by maxerickson »

67726e wrote: post #74
maxerickson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

TFA said they got busted in 2015, so that's likely as a result of this. They never had any sort of disclaimer like this when I signed up around 2012.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to cast doubt on your other comment, I just recalled reading that disclaimer and thought it was worth mentioning that they have the specific small print now.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#77

Post by MichaelBurge »

roymurdock wrote: post #58
praxulus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing the fine to total revenue and total profit is completely meaningless. What's relevant is how much they were saving in infrastructure costs by throttling those users. E.g. If they saved less than $24 million and had a >50% chance of getting caught, this works perfectly well as a deterrent no matter how large there overall profits were.

Cost is only one side of the equation. You also have to factor in the approximate value of the revenue generated by subscribers who were misled into believing that they had unlimited, unthrottled data, and who might have selected a competitor's service had the secret quota been honestly advertised.

Maybe, but the revenue has to have the price of its competitor subtracted, and the remainder weighted by the percentage of the service that they would use the 'unlimited' data for.

So if choice 1 is $70/month for 25GB and $10 for 10GB afterward, and choice 2 is $90/month for 'unlimited' with an expectation to use 45GB, then both choices are equivalent.

If the choice 2 then reduces the utility of the service by 50% past 25GB, then the customer has paid $20 for $10 of utility, and so the loss should be marked as $10.

And if you buy choice 2 because it says 'unlimited', but you only use 5GB, then you never actually lost anything due to their deceit.

I'd expect a similar calculation to hold up here: For each customer, sum up the number of throttled hours over the number of total hours to get the "throttling percentage". Also, assign each zip code a 'statistical competitor' by combining all competing services using some model. Then multiply the throttling percentage by the difference in price multiplied by the percentage of utility lost.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#78

Post by dboreham »

baby wrote: post #15
mc32 wrote: post #12

I feel the problem is that marketing terminology is ill-regulated, so companies can make "natural", "unlimited", "fresh", "home-made", "organic", "life-time", "guaranteed", "green", etc. mean whatever they want them to mean and allows enough cover that consumers assume it means one thing while to industry if means quite another or very narrow interpretation.

This is rooted in the American culture: Americans are already used to things like this. For example here if you go to a restaurant, you will usually pay 30% more than the price that is displayed (tips + taxes).

Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to passively accept it. Not allowing people to drink alcohol, and enslaving people also used to be part of American culture.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#79

Post by dboreham »

bdavisx wrote: post #56
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely false. If you look at how businesses generally work, they're trying to get a certain amount of revenue in order to balance their budget and make a profit. Then they decide how to get it. Data caps are fantastic . Because it means when they're raising their prices, they're charging the users who most use it, rather than just raising the price for everyone. If you're being asked to pay for overage on…

You could say that, or you could say that the cap is stopping me from actually using the bandwidth I pay for. I pay for 100Mb/sec down, how long would it take me to hit the cap if I used that continuously? So do I really have the 100Mb/sec down that I'm paying for? And as a side note, I've never hit the cap - I'm not sure it's turned on yet (Comcast customer), but it's coming. But I won't have one soon because I'll b…

You are not paying for CIR 100Mbit. That's the point. (Go find a real commercial ISP with an SLA and a way to call their NOC to quiz them about QoS and peering, and see how much that costs)

Source: I run a small ISP.

Re: T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

#80

Post by oh_sigh »

jlarocco wrote: post #53
huehehue wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[...] 4G/LTE bandwidth on Sprint's network." Sprint claims an average of 3-6 Mbps[1] [1] https://shop2.sprint.com/en/stores/popups/4G_coverage_popup....

I wouldn't trust that page. I checked my apartment and it's shown solidly inside a 4G LTE coverage area. In reality, I'm lucky to get 2 bars of 3G, and I avoid talking on the phone because it'll drop the call.

What's your connection like outside? There can be 4G coverage, but if you live in a faraday cage, it won't do you much good.
Post reply on HN