AT&T Ups Throttling Threshold to 3GB
interesting...
Tomdg07 said:
not agreeing with throttles, but I do like this better than the top 5% crap... at least the policy is now more black and white and less gray than the previous method.
It's definitely a step towards the right direction, but they aren't there yet. This is the outcome of operators attempting to sell services the same way gym's oversell their memberships. And, they are sitting on good spectrum... so until they actually have little to no spectrum left and show true evidence of network issues then the "problem" is not on the consumer end, but on the carrier end.
edzero said:
so they should wait until they have nothing left and have their backs against the wall before they do something. Then the response would be "why didnt they do something earlier on when they knew this could be a problem later on".
The flaw in your argument is that they are already behaving as if they don't have the available resources. It's one thing to say they truly don't have the available resources and another to create the situation purposefully.
Do you honestly think that if they expanded and invested in their network and utilized their entire spectrum portfolio that they'd be in a similar situation? Even in the long run, the network is becoming more efficient.
It's hard for...
(continues)
I also have to say that just because at one point you signed up for something called unlimited data that doesnt mean that for the rest of your life you can abuse amount of data you use. Back in the day 2GB was considered excessive. Nowadays a lot of people use 2 GB if not more. But there are also people that are using 10+ GB. I think now your getting into the realm of excessive.
If I went to an all you can eat buffet, that doesnt mean that I can show up when they open, pay one price and eat all day long u...
(continues)
edzero said:
Im not a networking expert as well but I do know that at&t has put a tremendous amount of money into expanding its network. Im not saying what theyre doing is right, but its much better than the vague 5% policy they started with.
I also said that this is a step in the right direction. But, I stress again... AT&T should look only at itself to blame for the situation it is in first before chastizing customers.
There are actually provisions in the T&C which state limitations to the "Unlimited" data. But, those were more along the lines of you can't use this to host a server, you can't do anything illegal (such as DDOS), etc. Except, AT&T is punishing customers for using their phones in a stan...
(continues)
Simple.
(continues)
But to satisfy your limited imagination, I drive truck cross-country. I use Tango to chat with my wife and daughter at bedtime. I stream my dvr, so that when I'm home on weekends, I'm not wasting my precious, limited family time catching up on my favorite shows. I stream Netflix and my DVR, to alleviate the boredom of downtime in whatever ghetto hellhole I'm delivering to. Do the math: that's an average of a gig an hour. I bank, pay bills, and shop: ONLINE. I check phonescoop periodically, to see what new tactic AT&T is going to use to screw me, an 8 year customer, who stayed when I should've jumped to Verizon, because AT&T said they'd never take a...
(continues)
(continues)
keithfrombm said:
I signed up for something.
Yeah, but it was defined in the terms and conditions you accepted.
They promised it.
Then gather your evidence, hire a lawyer and proceed.
Be prepared to pay the lawyer to accept your retainer and chuckle as he/she deposits it and then shows you the door.
216dilbert said:
The fairest and smartest thing AT&T can do is throtle only when it needs to and throttle as little as possiable. So if the network can handle it let it, otherwise reduce speed only if it is needed.
Simple.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. When AT&T has done everything possible and they show evidence that they cannot handle the traffic... real evidence ... then, and only then, should they be given the ability to throttle. But, to throttle because they made the decision to not invest in their network propertly and/or enough is not justification enough.
mycool said:
I guess we'll agree to disagree. When AT&T has done everything possible and they show evidence that they cannot handle the traffic... real evidence ... then, and only then, should they be given the ability to throttle. But, to throttle because they made the decision to not invest in their network propertly and/or enough is not justification enough.
Who gave you the right to dictate to a private company how to run it's business and make demands of it.
ATT offers a service.
If you don't like the service offered, don't buy it.
It is very, very simple.
It's none of your business how much and when ATT invests in it's network.
Seriously.
Do you tell Ford or Chrysler how and when...
(continues)
dlmjr said:
Who gave you the right to dictate to a private company how to run it's business and make demands of it.
I have a voice and an opinion. I can state my voice an opinion. You say it like what I suggest must become law, when it is simply my opinion of what a real solution is.
dlmjr said:
ATT offers a service.
If you don't like the service offered, don't buy it.
It is very, very simple.
It's none of your business how much and when ATT invests in it's network.
Seriously.
Actually, it is partly my business because I own stock in AT&T, hence I get a voice. But, besides that... I also show my voice with my wallet, which is why I have Verizon Wireless service.
...
(continues)
The basic contract was non binding for both parties, and in essence says the carrier will allow the customer to send and receive voice calls over the network along with downloading and uploading a specified amount of data.
There is zero penalty for breaking that contract.
Those contracts are virtually the same throughout the industry.
Any penalties for termination are based upon the cost of the phone that the customer decided on at the time.
If the customer owns the equipment outright or, pays full retail price, there is no fee for cancellation of service and the contract is considered a month to month contract.
Other than that...
(continues)
Or throttle during certain hours, I'm sure after business hours on an average day, they can provide most of what people need. Or in others words, 5gb per month, between 8am and 7pm (or whatever) and then leave people open for the rest of the day.
I use AT&T, I have over the years found them to be getting faster and faster, not slower. I do know other areas can be different. I don't see a major problem down where I live.
mycool said:... then, and only then, should they be given the ability to throttle.
Given?
Really?
By whom?
This is a business.
You have zero say in how they run it unless you have enough stock to effect some sort of change that you want
dlmjr said:
Given?
Really?
By whom?
This is a business.
You have zero say in how they run it unless you have enough stock to effect some sort of change that you want
I have something worth more than stock... the ability to vote. 🙂
I've never seen anything related to cellular data use on any ballots.
You don't even have a say as to who the FCC commissioners are. They are appointed, not elected.
Man, this is just too much.
I have no idea why and when people thought they had some god given right to unlimited access to the internet with their cell phones and think that they have a say in how a company runs it's business.
It is childish, weird and so uninformed as to be laughable.
dlmjr said:
To vote for what?
I've never seen anything related to cellular data use on any ballots.
You don't even have a say as to who the FCC commissioners are. They are appointed, not elected.
Wow, seriously? Did I say anything about voting for a ballot proposal (that does not exist) or for FCC commisioners. Do you honestly think I don't know that the FCC positions are appointed positions? But guess what... I can vote for Congressmen, Senators, a President, etc. And they are the ones that can appoint people to the FCC that watches over bad practices. And, I can voice my concern to them if they attempt to appoint someone who I don't agree with.
dlmjr said:...
I have no idea why and
(continues)
mycool said:
Wow, seriously? Did I say anything about voting for a ballot proposal (that does not exist) or for FCC commisioners.
How would I know what you meant unless you are specific.
Do you honestly think I don't know that the FCC positions are appointed positions? But guess what... I can vote for Congressmen, Senators, a President, etc. And they are the ones that can appoint people to the FCC that watches over bad practices. And, I can voice my concern to them if they attempt to appoint someone who I don't agree with.
I have no idea what you level of knowledge is.
I will assume that you can and do vote for congressional positions, but you in fact do not vote fo...
(continues)
This forum is closed.