11 ms·

T-Mobile will pay a $48M fine for throttling ‘unlimited data’ plans

SteveNuts 10y ago
It's bullshit that they can offer consumers an option to buy accessories at a discount (which they probably still make a profit on) as a reparation for this. I want direct monetary compensation.
- koolba 10y ago
  > It's bullshit that they can offer consumers an option to buy accessories at a discount (which they probably still make a profit on) as a reparation for this. If this were a class action, would the lawyers accept getting paid a truckload of iPhone 7 cases?
  - notyourwork 10y ago
    No they would negotiate all parties included in the class action suit get iPhone cases and T-mobile is responsible for paying all legal fees for attorney representation.
kyledrake 10y ago
I see the word "unlimited" on a lot of hosting providers. Give me access to the dd command and we'll see how long that theory lasts. I honestly find it, always and everywhere, to be deceptive marketing. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.
- chc 10y ago
  Yes, but there is such a thing as not placing a limit on the usage of a resource. I don't see it as deceptive if that's actually what they're doing. Sometimes "unlimited" is just a marketing term, other times it seems like a genuine statement of intent from the provider. Obviously I could be a dick and try to prove them wrong, but why?
  - kyledrake 10y ago
    Because you can't capacity plan when your provider says "unlimited" and then there is actually a limit, except because they don't tell you what it is, you don't know what it is until you hit it. I understand that the word unlimited makes people feel good, but it shouldn't. Nothing is unlimited, ever. Just because they're not telling you what it is doesn't mean it isn't there. Unmetered bandwidth that is capped at a gigabit or is physically incapable of going faster is not unlimited either. It's been throttled to only allow you to download a certain amount each month. It is also not unlimited, unless you consider a throttle to not be a limit. Most cable modems, by the way, can go 3-5 times faster without the artificial throttles put on them by the providers. So even before Comcast started doing their stupid 1TB cap, they were already throttling your internet connection way below the possible speeds of the device.
    - chx 10y ago
      That artificial throttle is not so artificial; they are charging you a lower amount because you are using less resources. The "last mile" is almost always bandwidth constrained, if you use less, then you pay less.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  There is absolutely such a thing as unlimited total bytes transferred.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  Contextually here, unlimited means "we aren't placing a limit on it by policy" not "there is no theoretical limit".
- drbawb 10y ago
  From what I've seen "unlimited" hosting providers will simply limit you in another dimension, which I think is just fine. For e.g I frequently see bandwidth sold in two tiers: you can have "unlimited" transfer at 100Mbit/s, or metered transfer at 1Gbit/s. This approach let's the host plan capacity while giving users the illusion of unlimited bandwidth. Meanwhile customers that genuinely need the extra throughput can still get it at a premium. --- This is essentially what T-Mobile is doing, they're just not being transparent about it. You can have "unlimited" bandwidth at ~3.5Mbit/s (a 480p video stream), or you can pay a premium to saturate your link. They're just choosing to apply the throughput restriction to a specific class of traffic (HD streaming) because (A) it's a large fraction of their total traffic and (B) it's fairly easy to market to customers. Of course there is no such thing as truly unlimited, but it can certainly be "unlimited" in one dimension. The issue here is that's not how T-Mobile is marketing it, they're marketing their network as "the fastest LTE network"[1] while also saying you have unlimited monthly bandwidth. The latter may be true, but it comes at the expense of throttling the throughput (for some fraction of subscribers); and once you throttle a subscriber you can no longer say you're providing them with access to "the fastest LTE network in America." [1]: https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/lte-advanced.htm https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/lte-advanced.ht...
- Zachery 10y ago
  Most unlimited plans are outlined in the AUP/TOS. Further so long as you are not impacting other customers in the shared hosting, it is not generally an issue. That said, I do prefer to know my limits
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    On the contrary, the TOS limitations are often an issue. They often regulate what you can use the data or hosting for. For instance, unlimited hosting plans often prohibit running download sites or being used as backup storage for yourself, to avoid you from using a lot of space or a lot of bandwidth. They also usually prohibit you from running cron jobs or game servers or chat bots which can be higher on other server resources. "Unlimited" hosting plans are effectively geared for basic personal or small business websites only. And if you go over some soft limits they're almost certainly monitoring, they'll find an excuse in the TOS to disable your account.
bdavisx 10y ago
It's great that the FCC does this for cell carriers, but they still are letting the data caps apply on home connections, which is going to do nothing except increase profits and decrease innovation.
- jochakovsky 10y ago
  There's nothing illegal about data caps as long as they are made clear. T-Mobile got in trouble here because they marked the plan as 'unlimited'. From the article: "'Consumers should not have to guess whether so-called ‘unlimited’ data plans contain key restrictions, like speed constraints, data caps, and other material limitations,' said FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc in a statement."
- drbawb 10y ago
  In my opinion, data caps on wireline service are getting pretty sleazy too. For e.g: AT&T U-Verse will let you remove the cap[1] using a $30 add-on. However they'll also remove the cap "for no extra charge" if you subscribe to one of their bundles. (Which works out to about the same price, for the 2-year promotional period anyways, after which you'll be renegotiating your bill with retentions.) I suspect they're doing this so that if you really need the bandwidth: you'll find the basic TV subscription to be a much better use of the $30. That way they get to tell their shareholders they've stopped hemorrhaging pay-TV subscribers. I flat-out refused the sales guy as soon as I saw the 600GB cap in the fine-print of the contract. He tried to tell me most people don't get anywhere near that figure. Now I don't doubt that statistic, but I have my own statistics. I pulled up my router's bandwidth report[2] and showed him that my network would bump up against that cap nearly every month. [1]: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/u-verse-high-speed-internet/KM1010099 https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/u-verse-high-spe... [2]: http://fatalsyntax.com/imshare/bw-report.png http://fatalsyntax.com/imshare/bw-report.png
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  This is completely false. If you look at how businesses generally work, they're trying to get a certain amount of revenue in order to balance their budget and make a profit. Then they decide how to get it. Data caps are fantastic. Because it means when they're raising their prices, they're charging the users who most use it, rather than just raising the price for everyone. If you're being asked to pay for overage on a wired line plan, it means you're a 1%er in the Internet world. You're a burden on the system with how much you use, and you're upset you're being asked to pay a little more than everyone else. Basically, people opposed to data caps are like Wall Street execs complaining their taxes are higher than everyone else's.
drbawb 10y ago
I'm a little saddened to see the direction T-Mobile is headed with their plans. When I switched to Project Fi last year my T-Mobile unlimited plan was $70/mo. That included actual HD video, and LTE tethering. Now the equivalent plan (T-Mobile One+) is $90/mo, and that just gets you "unlimited HD day passes" which you have to remember to toggle every day if you want video that isn't 480p. What's even scarier to me is that they're not alone. Sprint has opted for a nearly identical pricing structure w/ "Unlimited Freedom" and "Unlimited Freedom Premium." As an aside: the idea of "premium" freedom makes me giggle, I'd love to have a beer with the marketing exec that came up with that mouthful.
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  As an aside: the idea of "premium" freedom makes me giggle, I'd love to have a beer with the marketing exec that came up with that mouthful. Unlimited Freedom Premium would be a good name for a beer itself ;)
- runeb 10y ago
  How can T-Mobile dictate what quality video you get?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    By not opting out of "BingeOn", they don't count 480p content or below towards your data cap. If you opt out, it counts against your data usage. It encourages users to only use as much data that's necessary to view a streaming video at the maximum quality most mobile devices support (Source IP block is used to determine content zero rating). I'm a realistic T-Mobile user for ~16 years, have no problem with their network management practices, and will happily hand over my $140/month for 4 lines until the end of time. Its not their fault its a prisoner's dilemma where all carriers are offering "unlimited" data usage, but they all must perform different types of network management due to wireless spectrum being a limited resource.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Actually, almost everyone got rid of unlimited, and had fair, net neutral data tiers. And then T-Mobile's deceptive marketing led everyone to follow suit. I understand that as a 16 year user, you're inclined to defend them, but this whole current trend was T-Mobile's idea. T-Mobile started zero rating certain types of apps, throttling people's video traffic, etc. "Uncarrier" is a whole new field of net neutrality violates T-Mobile pioneered.
DigitalJack 10y ago
When the government sues for stuff like that, where does the money go? I mean, it's a punishment to have to pay, sure, but why does the government get the money? Shouldn't the people being screwed be the ones getting that?
- amadeusw 10y ago
  > T-Mobile will pay for those benefits through a $35.5 million consumer benefit program, with an additional $7.5 million paid directly to the US Treasury and $5 million in services and equipment provided to American schools.
  - DigitalJack 10y ago
    Thanks. Glad to read that, but even 7.5 mil to the government seems like a conflict of interest.
    - SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
      Not much different from traffic citations, I guess.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mc32 10y ago
I feel the problem is that marketing terminology is ill-regulated, so companies can make "natural", "unlimited", "fresh", "home-made", "organic", "life-time", "guaranteed", "green", etc. mean whatever they want them to mean and allows enough cover that consumers assume it means one thing while to industry if means quite another or very narrow interpretation.
- baby 10y ago
  This is rooted in the American culture: Americans are already used to things like this. For example here if you go to a restaurant, you will usually pay 30% more than the price that is displayed (tips + taxes).
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    But that's an example of the opposite. Americans (and really, everyone in modern societies) might be used to assumed, hidden costs. If we buy a thing for $10, we expect that to be a baseline, as we may pay tax or gratuity on top of that. If I go to the store and buy something for $9.99, my mental calculation is that it may actually cost $10.70 or so with tax. If I go to a restaurant and buy a $20 steak, my expectation is that will probably cost $25. But if I go to a restaurant and order a steak and they serve me a soy burger, that will not be acceptable. An "unlimited" plan not, in fact, being unlimited is different than what you've described.
    - baby 10y ago
      The point was that Americans are going through a false advertising fatigue. The tendency is to accept not getting what was advertised.
  - dboreham 10y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to passively accept it. Not allowing people to drink alcohol, and enslaving people also used to be part of American culture.
davesque 10y ago
$48 million seems like a slap on the wrist. T-Mobile made $32 billion in revenue in 2015 and just posted $479 million in profit. I wish I could feel like these fines actually acted as a deterrent.
- praxulus 10y ago
  Comparing the fine to total revenue and total profit is completely meaningless. What's relevant is how much they were saving in infrastructure costs by throttling those users. E.g. If they saved less than $24 million and had a >50% chance of getting caught, this works perfectly well as a deterrent no matter how large there overall profits were.
  - davesque 10y ago
    Very good point. I just hope that the penalties considerably outweigh the risks.
  - roymurdock 10y ago
    Cost is only one side of the equation. You also have to factor in the approximate value of the revenue generated by subscribers who were misled into believing that they had unlimited, unthrottled data, and who might have selected a competitor's service had the secret quota been honestly advertised.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      Maybe, but the revenue has to have the price of its competitor subtracted, and the remainder weighted by the percentage of the service that they would use the 'unlimited' data for. So if choice 1 is $70/month for 25GB and $10 for 10GB afterward, and choice 2 is $90/month for 'unlimited' with an expectation to use 45GB, then both choices are equivalent. If the choice 2 then reduces the utility of the service by 50% past 25GB, then the customer has paid $20 for $10 of utility, and so the loss should be marked as $10. And if you buy choice 2 because it says 'unlimited', but you only use 5GB, then you never actually lost anything due to their deceit. I'd expect a similar calculation to hold up here: For each customer, sum up the number of throttled hours over the number of total hours to get the "throttling percentage". Also, assign each zip code a 'statistical competitor' by combining all competing services using some model. Then multiply the throttling percentage by the difference in price multiplied by the percentage of utility lost.
syphilis2 10y ago
What is the status on T-Mobile offering unlimited data usage from select sources (Binge On program)? I can stream as much (well, I guess up to 17Gb) data as I want so long as it's from their list of approved sources which allow throttling at 480 resolution. It feels absurd that this is how they operate, rather than just allowing unlimited data at say 3G speeds (rather than the throttled data rate which is at most 2G but in practice is unusable). http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/28/net.neutrality.chart.jpg http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/28/net.neutralit...
- zeta0134 10y ago
  I'm really surprised this hasn't caused more of a Net Neutrality uproar, since it's essentially the worst case scenario. If you don't pay T-Mobile to be one of their approved partners, your service is punished by costing customers more money for the same amount of data.
  - dawnerd 10y ago
    I asked them how I can get media on my server part of their program and they laughed at me. They claim anyone can join too. And yes, I did go right to the fcc and complain.
  - tzs 10y ago
    > If you don't pay T-Mobile to be one of their approved partners [...] Partners don't pay to be included in Binge On. Requirements to be included in Binge On: https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-March-2016.pdf https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...
JoshTriplett 10y ago
For anyone finding this ruling confusing as I initially did: this isn't about T-Mobile unlimited plans that slow down from LTE to EDGE speeds after a certain amount of data; that was well-advertised, and not apparently at issue. This is about a different, entirely unadvertised process by T-Mobile on unlimited plans of de-prioritizing traffic entirely after a certain point (~17GB), making it appear as though the network is simply more congested for the user after they've used a large amount of data.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
derekp7 10y ago
Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage penalty. Especially with a family plan when the non-bill-payers on the plan don't understand overage fees. So the way I understood it (at least under the plan that I signed up for before "binge-on" was added), T-Mobile would charge $20 (on top of the regular voice/text plan) for 'unlimited' data. Then, after something like 25GB, they would prioritize data from users that were under that limit if there was congestion. So to me that is entirely reasonable in light of the fact that radio waves have physical limits on how many people can consume high bandwidth at the same time. Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans).
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  > Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans). Which is ultimately the problem here. They didn't spell this out or make explicit this practice. I agree with you, it makes sense, and I find it acceptable...but they definitely should have made it obvious and well documented.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over about four years ago and have been wholeheartedly recommending it as a good carrier, but things like this severely diminish T-Mobile's luster in my mind.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.
jasonjayr 10y ago
I ..... thought T-Mobile's policy was generally well known? Especially in the face of a few years ago, At&t hitting up folks for astronomical bills when iPhones were new, and folks were blasting past their data limits? I've had data with them since they were VoiceStream, and knew what each data plan offered. Anyone who asked, I told them that T-Mobile's policy was WAY more consumer friendly than the other carriers, especially for someone who absolutely needs a data connection (and doesn't wander outside their relatively weak coverage) What if the FCC mandated some kind of 'nutrition label' for ISP plans, that specified the technical points of their service offering? Spell out limits, min/max latency, best-effort/guaranteed, fair/shaped and what happens when limits are exceeded? Wouldn't be clearly in their realm of power to regulate how the these plans are marketed, rather than let the ISP's confuses folks with ambiguous language?
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  It is now, because of this suit. The throttling itself is not the issue- as other people are pointing out, it's arguably preferable to overage charges or bandwidth caps- it's the fact that T-Mobile wasn't making this clear to customers.
  - soundoflight 10y ago
    It's also arguably preferable to cutting off a finger!
- extrapickles 10y ago
  The FCC is currently creating[0] a nutrition-style label for internet providers that should be going into effect later this year. 0: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadband-services https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadba...
gingerlime 10y ago
I'm still confused why the largest data plan in Germany is 5gb (with some options to top-up). And all data plans are bandwidth throttled after you use your quota. There's no unlimited options at all.
- yitchelle 10y ago
  Same here. I'm on Vodafone in Germany. When I reach my data quota, sure enough, my speed drops to snail crawl. Unlimited in data quantity and in speed in a myth. Of course, I am talking about mobile data.
- germanier 10y ago
  This not true (anymore). Telekom offers its unlimited "MagentaMobil XL Premium" for around 200€ a month. Plans for more than 5GB have been available for quite some time and if one were calling the business hotline all networks could offer even larger non-public plans.
  - gingerlime 10y ago
    200€ a month?! well, it's a start.
erikb 10y ago
Instead of paying fines they should refund their customers for things like that.
StillBored 10y ago
Which was known to people a couple years ago. Also for at least the last couple years their plans have actually said something to the effect "unlimited data, only the first X GBs at full LTE/4G data speeds". So if you didn't know this then you were probably living under a rock. Of course, given that my wife is the one who has to deal with the kids watching neflix on her phone, when you hit the limit, the result is frequently the same as just getting cut off if you have to wait 30 seconds to load google.com or much worse for sites with a lot of content.

It's bullshit that they can offer consumers an option to buy accessories at a discount (which they probably still make a profit on) as a reparation for this. I want direct monetary compensation.

koolba 10y ago
> It's bullshit that they can offer consumers an option to buy accessories at a discount (which they probably still make a profit on) as a reparation for this. If this were a class action, would the lawyers accept getting paid a truckload of iPhone 7 cases?
- notyourwork 10y ago
  No they would negotiate all parties included in the class action suit get iPhone cases and T-mobile is responsible for paying all legal fees for attorney representation.

kyledrake 10y ago

I see the word "unlimited" on a lot of hosting providers. Give me access to the dd command and we'll see how long that theory lasts. I honestly find it, always and everywhere, to be deceptive marketing. There is no such thing as unlimited resources.

chc 10y ago
Yes, but there is such a thing as not placing a limit on the usage of a resource. I don't see it as deceptive if that's actually what they're doing. Sometimes "unlimited" is just a marketing term, other times it seems like a genuine statement of intent from the provider. Obviously I could be a dick and try to prove them wrong, but why?
- kyledrake 10y ago
  Because you can't capacity plan when your provider says "unlimited" and then there is actually a limit, except because they don't tell you what it is, you don't know what it is until you hit it. I understand that the word unlimited makes people feel good, but it shouldn't. Nothing is unlimited, ever. Just because they're not telling you what it is doesn't mean it isn't there. Unmetered bandwidth that is capped at a gigabit or is physically incapable of going faster is not unlimited either. It's been throttled to only allow you to download a certain amount each month. It is also not unlimited, unless you consider a throttle to not be a limit. Most cable modems, by the way, can go 3-5 times faster without the artificial throttles put on them by the providers. So even before Comcast started doing their stupid 1TB cap, they were already throttling your internet connection way below the possible speeds of the device.
  - chx 10y ago
    That artificial throttle is not so artificial; they are charging you a lower amount because you are using less resources. The "last mile" is almost always bandwidth constrained, if you use less, then you pay less.
Dylan16807 10y ago
There is absolutely such a thing as unlimited total bytes transferred.
WillPostForFood 10y ago
Contextually here, unlimited means "we aren't placing a limit on it by policy" not "there is no theoretical limit".
drbawb 10y ago
From what I've seen "unlimited" hosting providers will simply limit you in another dimension, which I think is just fine. For e.g I frequently see bandwidth sold in two tiers: you can have "unlimited" transfer at 100Mbit/s, or metered transfer at 1Gbit/s. This approach let's the host plan capacity while giving users the illusion of unlimited bandwidth. Meanwhile customers that genuinely need the extra throughput can still get it at a premium. --- This is essentially what T-Mobile is doing, they're just not being transparent about it. You can have "unlimited" bandwidth at ~3.5Mbit/s (a 480p video stream), or you can pay a premium to saturate your link. They're just choosing to apply the throughput restriction to a specific class of traffic (HD streaming) because (A) it's a large fraction of their total traffic and (B) it's fairly easy to market to customers. Of course there is no such thing as truly unlimited, but it can certainly be "unlimited" in one dimension. The issue here is that's not how T-Mobile is marketing it, they're marketing their network as "the fastest LTE network"[1] while also saying you have unlimited monthly bandwidth. The latter may be true, but it comes at the expense of throttling the throughput (for some fraction of subscribers); and once you throttle a subscriber you can no longer say you're providing them with access to "the fastest LTE network in America." [1]: https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/lte-advanced.htm https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news-and-blogs/lte-advanced.ht...
Zachery 10y ago
Most unlimited plans are outlined in the AUP/TOS. Further so long as you are not impacting other customers in the shared hosting, it is not generally an issue. That said, I do prefer to know my limits
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  On the contrary, the TOS limitations are often an issue. They often regulate what you can use the data or hosting for. For instance, unlimited hosting plans often prohibit running download sites or being used as backup storage for yourself, to avoid you from using a lot of space or a lot of bandwidth. They also usually prohibit you from running cron jobs or game servers or chat bots which can be higher on other server resources. "Unlimited" hosting plans are effectively geared for basic personal or small business websites only. And if you go over some soft limits they're almost certainly monitoring, they'll find an excuse in the TOS to disable your account.

bdavisx 10y ago

It's great that the FCC does this for cell carriers, but they still are letting the data caps apply on home connections, which is going to do nothing except increase profits and decrease innovation.

jochakovsky 10y ago
There's nothing illegal about data caps as long as they are made clear. T-Mobile got in trouble here because they marked the plan as 'unlimited'. From the article: "'Consumers should not have to guess whether so-called ‘unlimited’ data plans contain key restrictions, like speed constraints, data caps, and other material limitations,' said FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc in a statement."
drbawb 10y ago
In my opinion, data caps on wireline service are getting pretty sleazy too. For e.g: AT&T U-Verse will let you remove the cap[1] using a $30 add-on. However they'll also remove the cap "for no extra charge" if you subscribe to one of their bundles. (Which works out to about the same price, for the 2-year promotional period anyways, after which you'll be renegotiating your bill with retentions.) I suspect they're doing this so that if you really need the bandwidth: you'll find the basic TV subscription to be a much better use of the $30. That way they get to tell their shareholders they've stopped hemorrhaging pay-TV subscribers. I flat-out refused the sales guy as soon as I saw the 600GB cap in the fine-print of the contract. He tried to tell me most people don't get anywhere near that figure. Now I don't doubt that statistic, but I have my own statistics. I pulled up my router's bandwidth report[2] and showed him that my network would bump up against that cap nearly every month. [1]: https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/u-verse-high-speed-internet/KM1010099 https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/u-verse-high-spe... [2]: http://fatalsyntax.com/imshare/bw-report.png http://fatalsyntax.com/imshare/bw-report.png
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
This is completely false. If you look at how businesses generally work, they're trying to get a certain amount of revenue in order to balance their budget and make a profit. Then they decide how to get it. Data caps are fantastic. Because it means when they're raising their prices, they're charging the users who most use it, rather than just raising the price for everyone. If you're being asked to pay for overage on a wired line plan, it means you're a 1%er in the Internet world. You're a burden on the system with how much you use, and you're upset you're being asked to pay a little more than everyone else. Basically, people opposed to data caps are like Wall Street execs complaining their taxes are higher than everyone else's.

drbawb 10y ago

I'm a little saddened to see the direction T-Mobile is headed with their plans. When I switched to Project Fi last year my T-Mobile unlimited plan was $70/mo. That included actual HD video, and LTE tethering. Now the equivalent plan (T-Mobile One+) is $90/mo, and that just gets you "unlimited HD day passes" which you have to remember to toggle every day if you want video that isn't 480p. What's even scarier to me is that they're not alone. Sprint has opted for a nearly identical pricing structure w/ "Unlimited Freedom" and "Unlimited Freedom Premium." As an aside: the idea of "premium" freedom makes me giggle, I'd love to have a beer with the marketing exec that came up with that mouthful.

DigitalJack 10y ago
As an aside: the idea of "premium" freedom makes me giggle, I'd love to have a beer with the marketing exec that came up with that mouthful. Unlimited Freedom Premium would be a good name for a beer itself ;)
runeb 10y ago
How can T-Mobile dictate what quality video you get?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  By not opting out of "BingeOn", they don't count 480p content or below towards your data cap. If you opt out, it counts against your data usage. It encourages users to only use as much data that's necessary to view a streaming video at the maximum quality most mobile devices support (Source IP block is used to determine content zero rating). I'm a realistic T-Mobile user for ~16 years, have no problem with their network management practices, and will happily hand over my $140/month for 4 lines until the end of time. Its not their fault its a prisoner's dilemma where all carriers are offering "unlimited" data usage, but they all must perform different types of network management due to wireless spectrum being a limited resource.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Actually, almost everyone got rid of unlimited, and had fair, net neutral data tiers. And then T-Mobile's deceptive marketing led everyone to follow suit. I understand that as a 16 year user, you're inclined to defend them, but this whole current trend was T-Mobile's idea. T-Mobile started zero rating certain types of apps, throttling people's video traffic, etc. "Uncarrier" is a whole new field of net neutrality violates T-Mobile pioneered.

DigitalJack 10y ago

When the government sues for stuff like that, where does the money go? I mean, it's a punishment to have to pay, sure, but why does the government get the money? Shouldn't the people being screwed be the ones getting that?

amadeusw 10y ago
> T-Mobile will pay for those benefits through a $35.5 million consumer benefit program, with an additional $7.5 million paid directly to the US Treasury and $5 million in services and equipment provided to American schools.
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  Thanks. Glad to read that, but even 7.5 mil to the government seems like a conflict of interest.
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 10y ago
    Not much different from traffic citations, I guess.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mc32 10y ago

I feel the problem is that marketing terminology is ill-regulated, so companies can make "natural", "unlimited", "fresh", "home-made", "organic", "life-time", "guaranteed", "green", etc. mean whatever they want them to mean and allows enough cover that consumers assume it means one thing while to industry if means quite another or very narrow interpretation.

baby 10y ago
This is rooted in the American culture: Americans are already used to things like this. For example here if you go to a restaurant, you will usually pay 30% more than the price that is displayed (tips + taxes).
- nkozyra 10y ago
  But that's an example of the opposite. Americans (and really, everyone in modern societies) might be used to assumed, hidden costs. If we buy a thing for $10, we expect that to be a baseline, as we may pay tax or gratuity on top of that. If I go to the store and buy something for $9.99, my mental calculation is that it may actually cost $10.70 or so with tax. If I go to a restaurant and buy a $20 steak, my expectation is that will probably cost $25. But if I go to a restaurant and order a steak and they serve me a soy burger, that will not be acceptable. An "unlimited" plan not, in fact, being unlimited is different than what you've described.
  - baby 10y ago
    The point was that Americans are going through a false advertising fatigue. The tendency is to accept not getting what was advertised.
- dboreham 10y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to passively accept it. Not allowing people to drink alcohol, and enslaving people also used to be part of American culture.

davesque 10y ago

$48 million seems like a slap on the wrist. T-Mobile made $32 billion in revenue in 2015 and just posted $479 million in profit. I wish I could feel like these fines actually acted as a deterrent.

praxulus 10y ago
Comparing the fine to total revenue and total profit is completely meaningless. What's relevant is how much they were saving in infrastructure costs by throttling those users. E.g. If they saved less than $24 million and had a >50% chance of getting caught, this works perfectly well as a deterrent no matter how large there overall profits were.
- davesque 10y ago
  Very good point. I just hope that the penalties considerably outweigh the risks.
- roymurdock 10y ago
  Cost is only one side of the equation. You also have to factor in the approximate value of the revenue generated by subscribers who were misled into believing that they had unlimited, unthrottled data, and who might have selected a competitor's service had the secret quota been honestly advertised.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    Maybe, but the revenue has to have the price of its competitor subtracted, and the remainder weighted by the percentage of the service that they would use the 'unlimited' data for. So if choice 1 is $70/month for 25GB and $10 for 10GB afterward, and choice 2 is $90/month for 'unlimited' with an expectation to use 45GB, then both choices are equivalent. If the choice 2 then reduces the utility of the service by 50% past 25GB, then the customer has paid $20 for $10 of utility, and so the loss should be marked as $10. And if you buy choice 2 because it says 'unlimited', but you only use 5GB, then you never actually lost anything due to their deceit. I'd expect a similar calculation to hold up here: For each customer, sum up the number of throttled hours over the number of total hours to get the "throttling percentage". Also, assign each zip code a 'statistical competitor' by combining all competing services using some model. Then multiply the throttling percentage by the difference in price multiplied by the percentage of utility lost.

syphilis2 10y ago

What is the status on T-Mobile offering unlimited data usage from select sources (Binge On program)? I can stream as much (well, I guess up to 17Gb) data as I want so long as it's from their list of approved sources which allow throttling at 480 resolution. It feels absurd that this is how they operate, rather than just allowing unlimited data at say 3G speeds (rather than the throttled data rate which is at most 2G but in practice is unusable). http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/28/net.neutrality.chart.jpg http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/28/net.neutralit...

zeta0134 10y ago
I'm really surprised this hasn't caused more of a Net Neutrality uproar, since it's essentially the worst case scenario. If you don't pay T-Mobile to be one of their approved partners, your service is punished by costing customers more money for the same amount of data.
- dawnerd 10y ago
  I asked them how I can get media on my server part of their program and they laughed at me. They claim anyone can join too. And yes, I did go right to the fcc and complain.
- tzs 10y ago
  > If you don't pay T-Mobile to be one of their approved partners [...] Partners don't pay to be included in Binge On. Requirements to be included in Binge On: https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-March-2016.pdf https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...

JoshTriplett 10y ago

For anyone finding this ruling confusing as I initially did: this isn't about T-Mobile unlimited plans that slow down from LTE to EDGE speeds after a certain amount of data; that was well-advertised, and not apparently at issue. This is about a different, entirely unadvertised process by T-Mobile on unlimited plans of de-prioritizing traffic entirely after a certain point (~17GB), making it appear as though the network is simply more congested for the user after they've used a large amount of data.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

derekp7 10y ago

Here's the thing, I would much rather have reasonable throttling with unlimited data, then either $10.00 per GB, or worse yet, multiple times that as an overage penalty. Especially with a family plan when the non-bill-payers on the plan don't understand overage fees. So the way I understood it (at least under the plan that I signed up for before "binge-on" was added), T-Mobile would charge $20 (on top of the regular voice/text plan) for 'unlimited' data. Then, after something like 25GB, they would prioritize data from users that were under that limit if there was congestion. So to me that is entirely reasonable in light of the fact that radio waves have physical limits on how many people can consume high bandwidth at the same time. Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans).

gshulegaard 10y ago
> Of course, it would be nice if they spelled out all of this in their advertising and product literature (and if this was still the case with their current plans). Which is ultimately the problem here. They didn't spell this out or make explicit this practice. I agree with you, it makes sense, and I find it acceptable...but they definitely should have made it obvious and well documented.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Exactly. As an unlimited customer who has used, at times, upwards of 60GB / month this was never made clear and their representatives have absolutely lied about. When I signed up I was skeptical as any so I spent a good bit of time grilling them, and this was never mentioned anywhere. I've never heard of it in any advertisement nor seen any disclaimer. I've received no warning about their activity. I switched over about four years ago and have been wholeheartedly recommending it as a good carrier, but things like this severely diminish T-Mobile's luster in my mind.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    They now have On all plans, during congestion the top 3% of data users (>26GB/mo.) may notice reduced speeds until next bill cycle. Video typically streams on smartphone/tablet at DVD quality (480p). Tethering at Max 3G speeds. in the small print. I wish they would just not say "Unlimited" if there is going to be a disclaimer, but the current situation is at least fairly clear.

jasonjayr 10y ago

I ..... thought T-Mobile's policy was generally well known? Especially in the face of a few years ago, At&t hitting up folks for astronomical bills when iPhones were new, and folks were blasting past their data limits? I've had data with them since they were VoiceStream, and knew what each data plan offered. Anyone who asked, I told them that T-Mobile's policy was WAY more consumer friendly than the other carriers, especially for someone who absolutely needs a data connection (and doesn't wander outside their relatively weak coverage) What if the FCC mandated some kind of 'nutrition label' for ISP plans, that specified the technical points of their service offering? Spell out limits, min/max latency, best-effort/guaranteed, fair/shaped and what happens when limits are exceeded? Wouldn't be clearly in their realm of power to regulate how the these plans are marketed, rather than let the ISP's confuses folks with ambiguous language?

Analemma_ 10y ago
It is now, because of this suit. The throttling itself is not the issue- as other people are pointing out, it's arguably preferable to overage charges or bandwidth caps- it's the fact that T-Mobile wasn't making this clear to customers.
- soundoflight 10y ago
  It's also arguably preferable to cutting off a finger!
extrapickles 10y ago
The FCC is currently creating[0] a nutrition-style label for internet providers that should be going into effect later this year. 0: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadband-services https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/consumer-labels-broadba...

gingerlime 10y ago

I'm still confused why the largest data plan in Germany is 5gb (with some options to top-up). And all data plans are bandwidth throttled after you use your quota. There's no unlimited options at all.

yitchelle 10y ago
Same here. I'm on Vodafone in Germany. When I reach my data quota, sure enough, my speed drops to snail crawl. Unlimited in data quantity and in speed in a myth. Of course, I am talking about mobile data.
germanier 10y ago
This not true (anymore). Telekom offers its unlimited "MagentaMobil XL Premium" for around 200€ a month. Plans for more than 5GB have been available for quite some time and if one were calling the business hotline all networks could offer even larger non-public plans.
- gingerlime 10y ago
  200€ a month?! well, it's a start.

erikb 10y ago

Instead of paying fines they should refund their customers for things like that.

StillBored 10y ago

Which was known to people a couple years ago. Also for at least the last couple years their plans have actually said something to the effect "unlimited data, only the first X GBs at full LTE/4G data speeds". So if you didn't know this then you were probably living under a rock. Of course, given that my wife is the one who has to deal with the kids watching neflix on her phone, when you hit the limit, the result is frequently the same as just getting cut off if you have to wait 30 seconds to load google.com or much worse for sites with a lot of content.