http://news.yahoo.com/judge-awards-iphone-user-850-throttling-case-195042925.html Judge awards iPhone user $850 in throttling case SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) When AT&T started slowing down the data service for his iPhone, Matt Spaccarelli, an unemployed truck driver and student, took the country's largest telecommunications company to small claims court. And won. His award: $850. Pro-tem Judge Russell Nadel found in favor of Spaccarelli in Ventura Superior Court in Simi Valley on Friday, saying it wasn't fair for the company to purposely slow down his iPhone, when it had sold him an "unlimited data" plan. Spaccarelli could have many imitators. AT&T has some 17 million customers with "unlimited data" plans who can be subject to throttling. That's nearly half of its smartphone users. AT&T forbids them from consolidating their claims into a class action or taking them to a jury trial. That leaves small claims actions and arbitration. Late last year, AT&T started slowing down data service for the top 5 percent of its smartphone subscribers with "unlimited" plans. It had warned that it would start doing so, but many subscribers have been surprised by how little data use it takes for throttling to kick in often less than AT&T provides to those on limited or "tiered" plans. Spaccarelli said his phone is being throttled after he's used 1.5 gigabytes to 2 gigabytes of data within a new billing cycle. Meanwhile, AT&T provides 3 gigabytes of data to subscribers on a tiered plan that costs the same $30 per month. When slowed down, the phone can still be used for calls and text messaging, but Web browsing is painfully slow, and video streaming doesn't work at all. AT&T spokesman Marty Richter said the company is evaluating whether to appeal. "At the end of the day, our contract governs our relationship with our customers," he said. AT&T area sales manager Peter Hartlove, who represented the company before Nadel, declined to comment on the ruling. He argued in court that his employer has the right to modify or cancel customers' contracts if their data usage adversely affects the network. Companies with as many potentially aggrieved customers as AT&T usually brace themselves for a class-action lawsuit. But last year, the Supreme Court upheld a clause in the Dallas-based company's subscriber contract that prohibits customers from taking their complaints to class actions or jury trials. Arbitration and small-claims court cases are cheaper and faster than jury trials, but they force plaintiffs to appear in person and prepare their own statements. In a class-action suit, the work can be handled by one law firm on behalf of millions of people. That means thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people who feel abused by AT&T's policy could seek to challenge the company, one by one, in arbitration or small claims court. The customer contract specifies that those who win an award from the company in arbitration will get at least $10,000. Spaccarelli picked the same amount for his claim, though AT&T's stipulation about a minimum award doesn't apply in small claims. Nadel looked instead at the remaining 10 months in Spaccarelli's two-year contract with AT&T and estimated that he might pay $85 a month on average for using additional data. AT&T charges $10 for every extra gigabyte over 3 gigabytes. Nadel said it's not fair for AT&T to make a promise to Spaccarelli when he buys the phone while burying terms in his contract that give the company the right to cut down data speeds. Spaccarelli, 39, researched his case for a few months, and then spent three days putting together a binder of documents to bring to court. "I need the money, but for me, this case is not about money at all," Spaccarelli. "You don't tell somebody 'you have unlimited' and then cut them off." Spaccarelli didn't quite uphold his side of the customer contract, and that's one reason his data usage was high. He used the iPhone to provide a link to the Internet for his iPad tablet, a setup known as "tethering." AT&T doesn't allow tethering unless customers pay extra for it, which Spaccarelli didn't do. It detected his tethering last year, and switched him from the "unlimited" plan to a limited one. He complained, and got his "unlimited" plan reinstated. Even with the tethering, Spaccarelli's data usage wasn't excessive, he said about 5 gigabytes per month. AT&T's Hartlove told Nadel about the tethering, and Spaccarelli admitted to it. Earlier this month, a Southern California woman won a small-claims action against Honda over the gas mileage she got out of her Civic hybrid car. She was awarded $9,867. Meanwhile, a pending class action against Honda over the same issue would net Civic owners a few hundred dollars each. The plaintiff, Heather Peters, is an ex-lawyer who had opted out of the settlement. AT&T's throttling of "unlimited" data comes as it tries to deal with limited capacity on its wireless network. When the iPhone was new, AT&T had ample capacity on its network, and wanted to lure customers with the peace of mind offered by unlimited plans. Now, a majority of AT&T subscribers on contract-based plans have smartphones, and the proportion is growing every month. That's putting a big load on AT&T's network. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA also throttle users, but their policies are gentler. Verizon only throttles if the specific cell tower a "heavy user" subscriber's phone is communicating with is congested at that moment. T-Mobile's throttling levels are higher for the same price, and the levels are spelled out ahead of time. AT&T subscribers have no way of knowing if they'll be throttled before a warning message drops in. If they keep using their phones, throttling kicks in a few days later. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s start getting whats been coming. The practices of many cell phone providers (especially AT&T) are perfect modern example of customer abuse. They either need to change the name of the service, or actually read the definition of unlimited. I hope the monopoly scrounging, customer abusing jerks get their legal department swamped for the next 50 years.
I really hope the courts break them up again. The only telecom that comes close to AT&T's level of d-baggery is Comcast.
Yeah, I use Verizon which is known for some of the best CS and "morality" in the business, but I still find myself getting frustrated over ridiculous bill from them sometimes. I am seriously thinking about dropping Comcast. The crap I have had to put of with from them over the last year has been staggering. I can't figure out why republicans think business tactics that do everything but stealing the kitchen sink and physically beating the customer, all just to make a bigger buck, is acceptable...
Seems to me that the judge is some sort of communist. The plan was for unlimited downloads, not uncapped speed.
Well, one issue that has arisen that applies to all telecoms is that state governments have been getting lobbied to block the creation of public ISPs in small cities. About 30 states already have laws in place that make it nearly impossible for small cities (or large cities for that matter) to create their own public ISPs. NC was one of the most recent to do this -- and it happened with the support of both parties.
This is true, but at the same time, throttling essentially makes an unlimited plan useless. It doesn't matter what your download cap is if your speed becomes too slow to feasibly download much of anything.
We had a similar case here in Australia about 10 or so years ago against Australia's biggest telco. They introduced plans and then slightly changed them to throttle the speed. The court though ruled that since the contract didn't promise uncapped speeds that the contract was still legal but ruled that if contracts are legally modified after signing the customer is allowed to break the contract without penalty.
Do NOT get me started. I dealt with Comcast once. I had a cable modem that I had from an old ISP I used to have about a year before I was forced to use Comcast. When I was trying to reduce my bill I returned Comcast's cable modem and hooked up my own. They kept charging me for their cable modem. I mailed and emailed them their own receipts showing I returned their equipment. They refused to refund me and stop the charges. Finally I threatened a lawsuit and only then did they back down and stop charging me. Free market capitalism is great. Set up a monopoly and just charge random people bogus fees for nonexistent equipment. Anyone that says "government is the problem" obviously lives in a cave and has never dealt this these jerks. Type "Comcast equipment return" into google and see what you find.
Well, I'm glad they at least gave the consumer a way out. As far as I understand it, your telecom market is even more oligopolistic than most of ours here.
Well I could rent you a car with unlimited mileage on the internet and when you show up you find a lock on the gas tank and a quarter of a tank worth of gas. You think I'm going to beat the case in court?
Yeah, they're bastards alright. The thing I hate about them is that they were the first provider here to put download caps in place. There really is no legitimate reason for any telecom to have that kind of limit in place. It doesn't cost them more to have you download more data. Limiting bandwidth is more understandable, although throttling is pretty dickish.
The caps bother me but they are now buried in the contract and they have implemented an online tool for you to check your usage. Unfortunately there have been accusations that those tools are not accurate. The real problem I had is we had a contract. I lived up to every letter of that contract and Comcast unilaterally decided they were going to bum up my monthly bill by 15+%! They were not doing anything extra for me. They just decided to charge me for equipment that I had already returned. I am so glad there is a government that runs a court system. My philosophy is to sue early and sue often. Screw leaving it to the "free market." These people are crooks.
A friend of mine is an artist who does a lot of work for high end clients. A few years back he did some fire screens for the guy who co started Comcast (who btw is old as hell (born in 1920) but is still somehow on the board of directors and who's son is current CEO). Anyways, while on the guys estate he found out the man has a doghouse for one dog that is over 2000 square feet and is two stories tall... Some people have to much money lol.
