AT&T Clarifies Data Limitations On "Unlimited" Data Plans 247
MojoKid writes "Several months ago, AT&T notified customers that it would begin throttling network speeds for users who exceeded a certain threshold, with the definitive throttle point defined as an imprecise "the top 5% of mobile data users." The company has issued a statement clarifying this policy after irate customers with unlimited data plans demanded to know what the cap was and how the company determined who should and shouldn't be throttled. The magic number is 3GB, which conveniently happens to be the maximum amount of tiered bandwidth AT&T will sell you. So why would AT&T want unlimited users to move to tiered pricing when its maximum tier is also set at 3GB? Simple — the amount of money the company makes on customers who exceed that 3GB limit. The fine print reads: 'If 3GB is exceeded, an additional 1 GB is automatically provided at a rate of $10 for each additional 1 GB.' Anyone using above 3GB on an unlimited plan is a customer who isn't paying enough for the privilege (from AT&T's perspective)."
The mobile phone networks (Score:1, Insightful)
So why offer an unlimited plan in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
So then don't call it unlimited? it's not that hard -_-
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the plan that's the problem it is the entire concept, which is based on a logical impossibility.
So how much longer are ISPs going to be allowed to use this lie when promoting their products? It's not even misleading, it's a plain falsehood. Very little in life is "unlimited". We live in a world of limited resources. No company can sell you "unlimited" anything.
Or are we witnessing a lexical change to the language where "unlimited" merely means a vague "lots"?
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Bait and switch.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
No, capping the monthly data volume is not fine. The total amount of data is not a cost to the provider. The cost of the network is determined by the maximum concurrent data transfers, i.e. peak load. You can construct the network for the minimum speed that users will tolerate at peak times, but no less. That is your cost driver. If you cap the total amount of data per month, the first to go is the bulk downloading, which is not timing sensitive and much more evenly distributed than typical "must have on the mobile" usage. In other words, caps are mostly ineffective at reducing a network operators costs.
So why are caps used anyway? It's price-gouging. Caps are not meant to reduce costs, they're meant to increase earnings per customer. If you accept caps, you have already accepted the price gouging. How they call the service is irrelevant. Suppose they stop advertising "unlimited" plans and start advertising "one price, no matter how much you use".
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
So then don't call it unlimited? it's not that hard -_-
The bandwidth is not capped though, it's THROTTLED. So you still get "unlimited" bandwidth.
People need to remember that companies are going to sell you with the most non-obvious definitions available to them. How often do you hear "it's a steal at less than 14 thousand dollars!" Meanwhile it costs $13,999... sure it's true, but that doesn't make it misleading.
Cynics however are in the know, and we're constantly looking for how they could be using these words to their best benefit.
Other people just don't seem to get it, and no less always act surprised every time they get burned by assuming good faith in advertising.
Re:Ah, history repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
They're a phone company.
Time and again we've seen evidence that a telco's business model is "sign up as many customers as you can, gouge them for as much money as you can and provide the bare minimum service necessary to be able to claim that the customer was getting exactly what they paid for in the event you get into trouble. We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."
I'm gonna be a minority here, PLEASE READ TO END (Score:2, Insightful)
Please read until the end of the post, because I'm going to be in the minority here. Some posters say that AT&T shouldn't use the term "unlimited" if it means 3 GB. Another poster says they declare that you have reached 3 GB when approximately 1 GB has gone over the wire -- which cannot possibly be accounted for by network bandwidth. I'm about to express a minority view here, but I will tell you why I'm doing it so please read to the end.
The minority view is: AT&T has a fiduciary and legal obligation to promise whatever will convince the most customers. If it's unlimited, it's "unlimited" if it's "ten times faster than fiber" they should promise that. Further, AT&T has a fiduciary and legal obligation to reduce its costs as far as the market will bear: in other words, if it were possible to keep its customers to THEIR promise (their contracts) while closing down ALL of their network towers, then AT&T should do that. AT&T has an obligation to the shareholders to promise as much and deliver as little as it can get away with.
Now let me explain why I'm expressing this minority viewpoint: out of sarcasm and irony. Go fuck yourselves AT&T, one day every one of the three hundred million Americans you attempted to fuck over will fuck you right back and you will have to deliver a coupon to each and every one of us, and every one of your leadership will be replaced. On that day I will look at that coupon and laugh at you, you sorry fucks.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. You're trying to rationalize away the definition of unlimited with a poor analogy. An all you can eat buffet is not advertised as "unlimited". Usually plainly just "all you can eat". It becomes obvious after a certain point you cannot eat anymore. That is your limit. They are not offering "all you can eat for the next week/month/year/lifetime", but for your current meal. So if you're sitting there after having pounded down several plates of food, they're perfectly within their rights to ask you to leave since they satisfied their end of the bargain.
AT&T once upon a time did offer completely unlimited bandwidth. It was of course at a time when there was very little to consume while mobile so if anything, it was little more than a marketing strategy. The problem came when there was a boom in mobile internet activity, where people had a reason to consume copious amounts of bandwidth. They realized they could get far more money by removing the unlimited plans and moving to tiered plans. Their "unlimited" plan outlived its usefulness and they've been trying to remove and cripple it as much as possible to get everyone grandfathered out of it.
It is, however, and always will be shady to still claim something is unlimited if it is inherently not. No amount of rationalization of "expected" or "obvious" limitations will ever change that. If you're offering a finite resource, do not claim it's unlimited with an asterisk explaining the limitations. Offer the service with a proper name. We should not be tolerating this sort of false advertising.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
The bandwidth is not capped though, it's THROTTLED. So you still get "unlimited" bandwidth.
To be a bit pedantic, throttled is the exact opposite of unlimited bandwidth. What they are talking about of course is unlimited data.
Punishing Customers for Their Purchases (Score:5, Insightful)
They knowingly and willingly over sold their infrastructure (bait) and now that customers are trying to use the service they signed up for, their service is being throttled (switch). Period.
The real truth here is that they offered services which they knew they could not provide and rather than do the correct thing and increase their infrastructure capacity, they opted to increase shareholder profits and to purchase the other smaller companies who were coerced into selling selling off their business for lack of ability to compete with the unlimited plans. Now that they have a large percentage of the market share, their strategy is to punish the customer that they probably wouldn't even have if it was not for the unlimited plans. Basically they gambled that customers would not utilize the service and lost. However, unlike when we get our pockets emptied at a casino, they're somehow able to pawn their losses on the customers.
I couldn't imagine a more clear example of a ponzi scheme than this.
Re:I'm gonna be a minority here, PLEASE READ TO EN (Score:1, Insightful)
Alternatively, if AT&T can convince the network abusers to leave and go to another network, they will be able to avoid spending billions on network improvements just to cater to the 1% of customers who use 90% of the network capacity. They have a legal and fiduciary duty to do that, and as the beneficiary of AT&T's profits (i.e. shareholder to whom they pay the majority of their profits), I am all for that.
So, go fuck yourself, and have a nice day.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
So then don't call it unlimited? it's not that hard -_-
The bandwidth is not capped though, it's THROTTLED.
I agree that this is the definition AT&T wants to use, but it's not advertised as "uncapped," it's advertised as "unlimited." Throttling is limiting. I'm sure there are many synonymous ways you could define "bandwidth throttling" which doesn't include the word "limit," but by reducing the available bandwith, you are limiting. Something which is limited cannot be called unlimited.
When AT&T first started throttling, it was supposed to be the top 5% of users, who apparently consumed something like 90% of the overall data. Now this seems to have come to serve another purpose.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:3, Insightful)
No, when they advertise unlimited bandwidth, what they mean is that they don't put any limits on it. If they put limits on it then it's not unlimited. The overly pedantic definition you're using is of no value to anybody ever.
If they're placing any throttling or limitations on it, then it's not unlimited.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
[clipped]
It is, however, and always will be shady to still claim something is unlimited if it is inherently not. No amount of rationalization of "expected" or "obvious" limitations will ever change that. If you're offering a finite resource, do not claim it's unlimited with an asterisk explaining the limitations. Offer the service with a proper name. We should not be tolerating this sort of false advertising.
I have to disagree on this, to a point. Namely, I'm willing to let my current subscription to be called unlimited, with asterisk explaining limitations. No, don't yell at me yet, let me explain.
My current plan let's me download unlimited amount of data each month, no throttling, no caps. This truly is unlimited, but with an asterisk. See later.
My plan also doesn't cap my bandwith, at all, ever, but allow unlimited downloading each month, for the whole month. That, also, is truly unlimited, but with the aforementioned asterisk.
Okay, see here. The asterisk: Please note that these are limited with the current technology. The network available here is limited by the hardware and infrastructure to about 15-20Mbps, theoretical. It usually sits anywhere between four and twelve. So the amount of data, while unlimited in the meaning that no company limits your downloads, is still limited to a finite amount by limits in the hardware of the network and the device you are using. You cannot download 34579823475 TB of data each month, since the devices you own and the network provided are physically incapable of such speed that would be required for that amount of data.
If the company who sells the product/service to me does not intentionally limit the use in any way, I'm fine for them to call it "unlimited", even if it comes with an asterisk explaining the limitations of the underlying system.
Bandwidth != Usage (Score:5, Insightful)
The magic number is 3GB, which conveniently happens to be the maximum amount of tiered bandwidth AT&T will sell you.
BANDWIDTH is the RATE at which bits are transferred.
USAGE is the AMOUNT of data that has been transferred.
After 3GB of USAGE, AT&T will limit your BANDWIDTH.
I'd expect this kind of confusion on CNN, but Slashdot?
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the way I read it. You want to sell me unlimited data, it'd better be unlimited. As in, no limits at all. Not "no limits on the amount". I'm talking "no limits on the amount, no limits on how you use it, no limits on how fast you can use it."
Otherwise, you'd better stop calling it unlimited.
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted. So, that means either (a) AT&T is lying and hence committing fraud* or (b) they're using a more limited definition of the word "unlimited".
That's a bad analogy. The "restaurant" closes at the end of the month for everyone. If it closed early for you, it'd be a limited plan.
So long as it's the standard convention that you only get one plate at a time, then it can still be called unlimited. However, if after eating n plates of food, they take away your plate and give you a tiny cup saucer, they're clearly limiting your ability to eat.
Hardly. If the standard bandwidth for the first 1/4th of the month allows you to download 3GB, but after that point you're throttled to 1/10th the standard speed, you can only d/l an additional ~0.9GB. No amount of waiting will grant you d/ling 4GB in a month. And it's not like the discussion is merely about granting a "fairer", higher priority to other users who have used less bandwidth because that would at least hypothetically grant you the possibility of d/ling even up to ~12GB/month if there's few enough other users sharing the bandwidth. Throttling, after all, is a different beast than simply QoS or other prioritizing.
*Well, I guess that falls into the area of "a company can lie as much as it want, be as deceptive as it wants, etc, so long as the lie is so grand or the deception so vast that no reasonable person would believe it". That's obviously stupid because there's a clear intent and that's the critical aspect of why they'd even bother to advertise the plan as "unlimited". If you can't physically have unlimited bandwidth, then a reasonable understanding that unlimited in the stated context means the dictionary definition of unlimited mean unrestrained. Well, throttling is clearly a restraint. I can only imagine that as others have stated, the unlimited plan came first and the heavy bandwidth came later, which lead to those in charge thinking more of how in some vague, twisted way a plan may be interpreted as "unlimited" while still in a common and obvious way not be.
Re:I just don't believe advertisements at all. (Score:4, Insightful)
The other fun thing to do is to answer the phone and then when they start talking just start doing something like giggling, laughing, screaming or breathing heavy and see how long they will stay on the line.
That's always been the tradition in my home, ever since I was a wee child playing on the kitchen floor listening to my mother play her games with the poor sap that had the misfortune to have our number in his list of people to cold call, trying to sell something that no reasonable person would buy over the phone anyway...
We have a tradition for junk mail, too. Anything that has a postage-paid return envelope, we stuff full of whatever extraneous non-identifying paperwork (usually other junk mail circulars and flyers) we have laying around...the more the better...and mail it on back to them at their greatly increased (due to excessive weight) expense. I really wish just once I could be there when the person on the receiving end opens our credit card application and finds a bunch of those shopper stopper coupons, fast-food napkins; hell, my mother even sent one back with ketchup and relish packets inside.
You want to get taken off a mailing list quickly, start sending them back a bunch of random crap at their expense. We rarely get junk mail from the same place more than a few times anymore...
Re:So why offer an unlimited plan in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, and it's illegal. Why are they not being prosecuted for consumer fraud? Of course, when Sony removed OtherOS that fraud was even worse. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that in the US, corporations are above the law?
Re:Why even offer grandfathering? (Score:5, Insightful)
They grandfathered -- or more accurately they honored -- the existing contracts because if they didn't the customer would have the option of walking away from AT&T without having to pay an early termination fee. Given that a lot of these people are iPhone users with heavily subsidized phones, that could be really painful for AT&T.
Re:Why even offer grandfathering? (Score:4, Insightful)
So this brings up the question, why offer grandfathering anyways
Likely due to the fact that it's a contract. If they changed policy, they would require the customer to agree to the new contractual terms. Many would leave, also likely causing a PR incident.
The big benefit of the unlimited plan is that you pay $X a month, regardless of usage, and you're guaranteed bandwidth and never have to pay more or worry about disconnection. Another pricing victory for Apple, who really innovated with the original iPhone ($20/mo for unlimited), which AT&T was forced to swallow, but profited heavily from.
AT&T embodies the worst of big-business-thinking. Not only do they provide poor service and quality (in my 6+ years as a subscriber on and off), they nickel and dime you and make it seem like they're doing you a favor when they don't. They are truly exhibit the view that you don't have a choice (when in reality, you often do). They are penny-wise and pound-foolish, sacrificing customer loyalty and brand image to make a few extra million here and there, while ignoring large opportunities unless forced upon them.