5 ms·

To put this into perspective: $100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, so less than 1/10th of 1%. That's like earning a $100,000/yr salary, and then

To put this into perspective: $100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, so less than 1/10th of 1%. That's like earning a $100,000/yr salary, and then paying a $75.99 fine. It's basically less than your average speeding ticket.

angersock 11y ago
Reminds me of an old joke about Consolidated Edison: "A million bucks? They'll fine me well--a minute's income shot to hell."
dragonwriter 11y ago
> $100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue Which is completely irrelevant. To the extent a revenue comparison is relevant, the relevant revenue isn't AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, its the revenue over the period of the activities covered by the fine attributable either to the unlimited data plans, or to other data plans to which people switch from unlimited plans once the slowdown was in place.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  That is to suggest that past activities have no bearing on future earnings? If I cheat by committing a crime this year that saves me money, then continue earning more money each year from here out, all while squashing competitors, is the advantage I gained by cheating this year no longer relevant in 5 years?
- deadmik3 11y ago
  True, why does the time frame of one year matter? How long do they have to pay the fine?
- Alupis 11y ago
  It's more than just a fine -- it's a precedent that tells AT&T et al this practice will not be tolerated. 5 years from now if AT&T resorts to this practice, you can bet the FCC et al will have no problems levying a much more severe consequence.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sbov 11y ago
  It seems reasonable to make it based upon the value they charged vs the value they provided on a per customer/month basis. If you did a calculation I bet it would come out a lot higher than $100 million. They have 72 million wireless customers. But I don't have the numbers infront of me (e.g. number who enrolled to unlimited data, for how long, how often it happened, how long this was happening, etc) to do the calculations myself. Then multiply this difference in value provided by some number greater than 1.
- reamworks 11y ago
  B..b.but! The communists that the Y-Combinator Echo Chamber favors believes that Corporations are all _evil_ and no person and no company should be able to make money.
Domenic_S 11y ago
I hate AT&T as much as the next cat, but you know that isn't a fair comparison.
altcognito 11y ago
Probably more important to compare to profits over the year -- this is ~%1 of their 2014 reported profits of (again roughly) 10 billion. (Also, this is only one segment of the business, so that's a bit of a comparison issue)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 11y ago
How about putting in perspective of cost to fix versus cost to pay fine? Say 100 mm vs 260 mm to fix it?
aeturnum 11y ago
Sure, though for perspective you should also mention that it's 1.6% of their profit (6.244 B$ last year). If this fine had been levied last year, it would have made their wireless numbers 12% worse (5.2% decline v.s. 4.7%). Fines are not about killing the company, they are about penalizing certain decisions made by the company to affect change in policies.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  Who said anything about killing the company? If we break a contract, we pay for that mistake, unless we get away without anyone noticing (or have thousands of lawyers). We don't get to just lie to people and steal their money and then whine when somebody wants their money back (or fines are levied in response). There were far more than 50 million wireless subscribers on AT&T during this period, myself being one of them. The damages to me were far greater than $2 during the period after this change occurred, not to mention the $350 I paid to get out of my renewed contract after realizing how useless my data plan was, in order to get my work done when I was on the move. Even if there were only 10 million customers on the unlimited plan and each customer was impacted in a manner that could be monetarily valued at $50 over a period of many years, that would amount to $500MM in damages. The killing part comes next when this FCC decision holds up in a superior court, providing the common law grounds for a class-action lawsuit. That will be many hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's the real reason AT&T will appeal this.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > ...providing the common law grounds for a class-action lawsuit. This will be fun. Most (all?) ATT customers have undoubtedly agreed to an updated terms of service contract that contains the "In order to use our Services, you agree to waive your right to trial by jury and class action suit, and agree to use only binding arbitration to settle your disputes with us." language[0] that every company was adding to their contracts after AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. [0] AKA: A binding arbitration clause.
    - snowpanda 11y ago
myth_buster 11y ago
The penalty should be proportionate to the amount they got from the "unlimited plan" users since they started throttling. But consumers are unlikely to receive any money from the fine, which will go instead to the U.S. Treasury, said the agency official. Additionally, govt is getting money but what happens to the customers who actually paid for it?
- Frozenlock 11y ago
  That's the equivalent of some police officers catching a thief and keeping the money for themselves. "Aren't you glad we are here to protect you?"
  - myth_buster 11y ago
    Well thanks to Civil Forfeiture [0] you don't have to be a thief. (Good luck doing that to Corporates.) Customers/Citizens are at the receiving end from all sides. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
  - bbcbasic 11y ago
    I have no idea if that statement is serious or ironic.
    - myth_buster 11y ago
      I think they are being sarcastic...
- wolfhammer 11y ago
  Always seeing mega-corp gets fined millions and the people they wronged get nothing. Where do these fines go?

angersock 11y ago

Reminds me of an old joke about Consolidated Edison: "A million bucks? They'll fine me well--a minute's income shot to hell."

dragonwriter 11y ago

> $100MM is 0.0759878% of AT&T's 2014 gross revenue Which is completely irrelevant. To the extent a revenue comparison is relevant, the relevant revenue isn't AT&T's 2014 gross revenue, its the revenue over the period of the activities covered by the fine attributable either to the unlimited data plans, or to other data plans to which people switch from unlimited plans once the slowdown was in place.

mangeletti 11y ago
That is to suggest that past activities have no bearing on future earnings? If I cheat by committing a crime this year that saves me money, then continue earning more money each year from here out, all while squashing competitors, is the advantage I gained by cheating this year no longer relevant in 5 years?
deadmik3 11y ago
True, why does the time frame of one year matter? How long do they have to pay the fine?
Alupis 11y ago
It's more than just a fine -- it's a precedent that tells AT&T et al this practice will not be tolerated. 5 years from now if AT&T resorts to this practice, you can bet the FCC et al will have no problems levying a much more severe consequence.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sbov 11y ago
It seems reasonable to make it based upon the value they charged vs the value they provided on a per customer/month basis. If you did a calculation I bet it would come out a lot higher than $100 million. They have 72 million wireless customers. But I don't have the numbers infront of me (e.g. number who enrolled to unlimited data, for how long, how often it happened, how long this was happening, etc) to do the calculations myself. Then multiply this difference in value provided by some number greater than 1.
reamworks 11y ago
B..b.but! The communists that the Y-Combinator Echo Chamber favors believes that Corporations are all _evil_ and no person and no company should be able to make money.

Domenic_S 11y ago

I hate AT&T as much as the next cat, but you know that isn't a fair comparison.

altcognito 11y ago

Probably more important to compare to profits over the year -- this is ~%1 of their 2014 reported profits of (again roughly) 10 billion. (Also, this is only one segment of the business, so that's a bit of a comparison issue)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nashashmi 11y ago

How about putting in perspective of cost to fix versus cost to pay fine? Say 100 mm vs 260 mm to fix it?

aeturnum 11y ago

Sure, though for perspective you should also mention that it's 1.6% of their profit (6.244 B$ last year). If this fine had been levied last year, it would have made their wireless numbers 12% worse (5.2% decline v.s. 4.7%). Fines are not about killing the company, they are about penalizing certain decisions made by the company to affect change in policies.

mangeletti 11y ago
Who said anything about killing the company? If we break a contract, we pay for that mistake, unless we get away without anyone noticing (or have thousands of lawyers). We don't get to just lie to people and steal their money and then whine when somebody wants their money back (or fines are levied in response). There were far more than 50 million wireless subscribers on AT&T during this period, myself being one of them. The damages to me were far greater than $2 during the period after this change occurred, not to mention the $350 I paid to get out of my renewed contract after realizing how useless my data plan was, in order to get my work done when I was on the move. Even if there were only 10 million customers on the unlimited plan and each customer was impacted in a manner that could be monetarily valued at $50 over a period of many years, that would amount to $500MM in damages. The killing part comes next when this FCC decision holds up in a superior court, providing the common law grounds for a class-action lawsuit. That will be many hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's the real reason AT&T will appeal this.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...providing the common law grounds for a class-action lawsuit. This will be fun. Most (all?) ATT customers have undoubtedly agreed to an updated terms of service contract that contains the "In order to use our Services, you agree to waive your right to trial by jury and class action suit, and agree to use only binding arbitration to settle your disputes with us." language[0] that every company was adding to their contracts after AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. [0] AKA: A binding arbitration clause.
  - snowpanda 11y ago

myth_buster 11y ago

The penalty should be proportionate to the amount they got from the "unlimited plan" users since they started throttling. But consumers are unlikely to receive any money from the fine, which will go instead to the U.S. Treasury, said the agency official. Additionally, govt is getting money but what happens to the customers who actually paid for it?

Frozenlock 11y ago
That's the equivalent of some police officers catching a thief and keeping the money for themselves. "Aren't you glad we are here to protect you?"
- myth_buster 11y ago
  Well thanks to Civil Forfeiture [0] you don't have to be a thief. (Good luck doing that to Corporates.) Customers/Citizens are at the receiving end from all sides. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  I have no idea if that statement is serious or ironic.
  - myth_buster 11y ago
    I think they are being sarcastic...
wolfhammer 11y ago
Always seeing mega-corp gets fined millions and the people they wronged get nothing. Where do these fines go?