AT&T Ups Throttling Threshold to 3GB

Fredd you are off on this one.
If you offer unlimited and restrict the amount you can use it is not unlimited. If you reduce the speed of the user the user is limited in how much date they can use. Thus limited. Does AT&T throttle users of the limited plans or just charge more? It would be like 24 hour fitness changing to a pay by the hour price plan and limiting usage of the members that pay monthly to make room in the gym for hourly paying members.

but, its also like spending all day eating at an all you can eat buffet and just paying one time. Im sure theres an unwritten rule about how long you can sit there eating.

No it is not.
You are using a service that is not a physical commodity. Whether or not you use it it will not be there at the end of the day. I am not saying that it is right to congest the network but it is not right to limit usage just because it is there. If the network can handle the traffic it should not slow you down because you can not charge you more for more usage. Limiting should be to make the network usable and available to all not force people to pay more.
If I eat all day at a buffet I am using product that costs money, if I use data I am using a service that is billed by the month not for one meal.

and let alone that is the thing about all you can eat, its all you can eat as long as your eating they can say anything
i have stayed at a buffet for 3.5 hours eating, ate 18 plates of crab legs but thats the deal they made when they sold the service when i went to the buffet for the all i can eat they didnt say you can eat all you want for a certain time or just certain foods
i used more product then the cost of the services does that make me wrong, no i used the deal they provided all i can eat for a fixed rate

the same goes for at&t why cant they provide the services they promised at the rates they promised for the peeps on the grandfathered unlimited plans

Arjuun said:
the same goes for at&t why cant they provide the services they promised at the rates they promised for the peeps on the grandfathered unlimited plans

Yeah why can't they provide unlimited usage of data (regardless of speed, per the contract all these customers signed) for $30 a month...Oh wait.

oh look at that how cute, sprint does it for $15 a month with just a regular data pack or on the family plans and wait how much does a family plan break down for 4 lines with smart phones around 50$ and thats for the voice anymoble anytime text and unlimited web

"and regardless of speed per contract" how good of them as a company to use the phrase they put in the contract that more so was put in due to signal problems to limit there customers

Arjuun said:
oh look at that how cute, sprint does it for $15 a month with just a regular data pack or on the family plans and wait how much does a family plan break down for 4 lines with smart phones around 50$ and thats for the voice anymoble anytime text and unlimited web

"and regardless of speed per contract" how good of them as a company to use the phrase they put in the contract that more so was put in due to signal problems to limit there customers

$50? really? http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/plan/pla n_wall.jsp?tabId=pt_shared_tab&flow=AAL&planF amilyType=null

I am not off.
The statement I was commenting on said "AT&T needs to man up and either stop the throttle game or let the estimated 14,000,000 subscribers with a grandfathered unlimited data plans out of their contracts."
There is no breach of contract here under contract provisions. See www.att.com/wirelessterms, section 6.2, What are the intended purposes of the Wireless Data Service?

Something people tend to forget. TMO does the same the same thing from talking with a couple of people who have their services. Yes, they offer unlimited data but, you may not get the same speed of you use too much data.

The issues for ATT and other carriers, isn't just utilizing the spectrum they have but, how to use it more efficiently. Margins still need to be put in place, to ensure serious congestion issues in the networks and keep those in check that would abuse the unlimited data privilege. Yes, it is a privilege because ATT did not have to grandfather customers with unlimited data over to a new contract. That was done as a gesture of gratitude for being a customer. Now, this is from my experience was only if you asked to be grandf...
(continues)

The problem is who says they are truly congested? The same people who made poor decisions to lead to this faulty network and who use scare tactics like the exaflood that have been debunked.

Real evidence is necessary, not just the word of the carriers. Outside of that, it is safer to assume that there is no real issue with network congestion and that this is just a load of B.S.

If you don't like what ATT does, you have the choice of not being an ATT customer.

It's really, really simple.

ATT hasn't allowed new 'unlimited' data service for quite some time.
Anyone who has it has been with ATT probably more than 2 years.

At any time they are all free to leave ATT and find greener pastures, a provider that fits their needs.

It is ATT's network, not the customers network. ATT built it and maintaines it.

Customers pay to use the network.
They are free to find another network when they become dissatisfied with ATT and it's practices.

And there is no 'unlimited' speed which people are ticked over.
Unlimited customers can still download data 24/7/365. There is no guarantee of speed in any ATT contrac...
(continues)

That's a given. At this point, I'm merely talking about ways that could benefit carriers and ultimately customers. Finding more efficient ways of using spectrum could potentially lead to an increased data cap of 5 to 10gigs. You will get no argument from me on your point, I agree totally. But, it would be good business for ATT to find a middle ground here. I think 5gigs is more than enough for most people, who use the data heavily. If you need more than that on a phone, then you probably should find a computer to use or a WiFi connection.

Also, I think people have been spoiled and feel like carriers owe them. Unlimited was offered during a time when cell phones were much less data intensive and people did little more than check emails. No...
(continues)

"And there is no 'unlimited' speed which people are ticked over."
AT&T sells it's services as the fastest. No guarantee of unlimited or the fastest service is true. BUT when service is limited to slow speeds data usage is limited thus unlimited is limited to a fixed max amount by AT&T and not just not as fast as the network offers can achieve. It is not about speed it is about making the service to slow to be useful to the user.

You could be right. Considering Sprint still offers unlimited data. However, the big question is, can they maintain this or is it something that they will eventually have to give into? If they can, then that needs to be examined and used as a model for other carriers. But, I'm inclines to believe that Sprint is eating a lot of the cost to maintain that, with the hope of gaining more customer base.

I have used sprints data lately, not talking about wimax, but their regular evdo-a, ok its unlimited but its like 1/3rd to 1/4th or worse then what I have averaged with AT&T. This being said, and said it earlier, 3gb is wrong, fine if thats what you signed for in a new contract, you know it when you agreed to the terms. Also using AT&T or any other carrier for that matter as their home internet service and think that dragging down 25gb a month or more, that is wrong too.

Calling people corporate hacks, or what have you because they disagree isn't right. But lets be honest too. If AT&T wants to allow data to be provided by some scheme by the app providers means they do have the capacity to provide their older and loyal customers wit...
(continues)

mycool said:
The problem is who says they are truly congested? The same people who made poor decisions to lead to this faulty network and who use scare tactics like the exaflood that have been debunked.

Real evidence is necessary, not just the word of the carriers. Outside of that, it is safer to assume that there is no real issue with network congestion and that this is just a load of B.S.

Have you ever used a 3g device in Manhattan with millions of people and then in Detroit where there is significantly less people? You will see a pretty decent speed difference.

Vmac,

Difference is TMO was upfront on their throttling, this is an attack on existing customers, loyal ones at that. I do understand their need to handle traffic, but 3gb is wrong. If they throttled at like 10 or 15gb, I'd be ok with it.

If, and a big if, throttling was the right solution (which, I clearly feel it isn't), then it can't be simply done with an arbitrary number.

Someone who uses 3 GB/month during peak hours is congesting the network more than someone who uses 5 GB/month during non-peak hours. So, there really isn't any way to blanket cover this issue without negatively affecting customers.

As someone who owns stock in AT&T I want them to be successful and make a good, honest profit and I feel that long term profits can only come from providing a good network and good service, which leads to attracting more customers, and keep those customers. This is something I believe is short sited and will only leave a bad taste in peoples mouth.

I honestly don't think 5gb during peak over congests their network. If so, how can they propose developers pay for data use? Won't they be upping the stakes on data use?

Versed said:
I honestly don't think 5gb during peak over congests their network. If so, how can they propose developers pay for data use? Won't they be upping the stakes on data use?

I'm not claiming it does. I actually said 5 Gb/month during offpeak, and that was just an arbitrary number chosen to support my argument that the amount of data is not as important as the time the data is used. The point was that this "solution" is not really a solution because it will negatively impact customers that are not a "burden" on the network.