AT&T to pay out $850. for throttling unlimited data user:

Wasn't there some new rule out stating you couldn't sue the carrier anymore, you had to go through mediations or something like that?

 

Binding arbitration is part of VZW service agreements - I don't remember if it was part of ATT's agreement though.

 

How does binding arbitration work then if you have a gripe like this?

 

Also...

Unlimited defined (someone at ATT should read this):

un·lim·it·ed
[uhn-lim-i-tid]

adjective

1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.

2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.

3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

I think if they don't want people using unlimited, they need to get the people off unlimited period...or more stuff like this is going to happen....

 

I agree IR 100%. Something is going to break.

 

I am surprised they haven't eliminated them already. It's not a grounds for allowing people out without penalty, since the data plan is just an add-on. I wonder if the introduction of the $30 3gb plan was in part to give them an existing data plan at the same price point as the old unlimited plans.

If AT&T eliminated unlimited and moved everyone to a tiered plan, the only option for people wanting unlimited data (and a decent device) is Sprint. And once those AT&T customers get a taste of how pitifully slow Sprint data is compared to AT&T, they'll be back to AT&T or over to Verizon.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk

 

While it is an add-on it's a mandatory one and has been for smartphones for quite a while now. AT&T would be on shaky ground if they tried to just take it away for people still under contract.

 

The same as for any other situation that is resolved by mandatory binding arbitation. Basically:

Both sides present their case to the arbiter.
The arbiter decides the resolution to the case.
Both sides MUST agree with this resolution (hence BINDING)

 

Of course not, at the time these users went under contract there wasn't even the $30/3GB plan offered However, as it was a required part of the package it would be grounds for waiving the ETF should they change the plan on them. Out of contract users are a different story.

 

Wasn't at&t requiring an UNLIMITED data plan or an UNLIMITED messaging plan for signing up for most smartphones? Or was it just A data plan and A messaging plan required?

 

I believe there was a time when the only available smartphone data plan was unlimited. You know, so people don't keep calling AT&T because their smartphone use so much data they have a huge monthly bill? And of course later they introduced limited data plans, presumably because their reps got bored not receiving any calls from smartphone users with high data bills. Or maybe they just forgot their previous lie -- who knows.

There were never any devices that required both plans. The only devices that ever required one OR the other were "quick messaging devices" and that stopped after a few months.

 

I've no idea, I've never seen an Orange T&C. My last contract was with Blue.

 

AT&T is expected to appeal the judgement in the small claims case. The judge did follow the rules of the small claims court. The only thing that a small claims court can do is to decide upon monetary damages to the plaintiff. The plaintif failed to show that the actions or inactions of the defendant caused him financial harm. He did not pay more for data because of the throttling. The judge on his own motion awards damages for unrealized losses. A small claims court can only rule upon past losses proven by the plaintiff. In a full blown court one can sue for future losses such as loss of future income, loss of companionship or loss of bodily functions.

 

In the message above I meant to write "The judge did not follow the rules of the small claims court."
The following immunizes AT&T against consequential damages:

One would have to go through arbitration to complain about the terms of the contract. Small claims courts have no authority to rule on the validity of contracts. Subscribers are barred by the Federal Arbitration Act from bringing cases in other courts.

 

This is a small quibble, but having worked in the cell industry it IS important: you have NO "contract" with your cell carrier. You do agree to abide by their terms of service, but that is via a service agreement, NOT a contract.

 

A contract is an agreement.

 

Try explaining that to a lawyer or a court. You will find complete disagreement.

 

This is from Wikipedia:

Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All agreements are not contracts but all contracts are agreements.

 

AT&T paid the plaintiff $935, which included the judgement plus the court costs. They decided that it was not worthwhile to pursue a case which set no precedents. Since they paid, they can throttle him at will. He has already been compensated. A small claims court cannot prohibit future action. It can only compensate those who suffered a financial loss because of the action or inaction of the defendant.