Reach out and rob everyone
August 1, 2011 1:46 PM Subscribe
AT&T Wireless throttling of unlimited data users: another get T-Mobile merger approval. If you blackmail someone, you most likely end up in jail. If you are AT&T, you may get T-Mobile and a monopoly: In an unprecedented move, AT&T said that it will be throttling the bandwidth of some of the remaining unlimited data plan users and indicated that only the approval of the T-Mobile merger might change its opinion and solve its bandwidth problems.
"So, how do you do that? You ride the usual PR wave, blame your users for bandwidth shortages and complain how they make other users suffer, shed some tears and announce that you will slap the top 5% of offenders with throttled bandwidth. To be sure that the message is heard you add to your press release: “Nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges.” Note the remark “near term challenges”"
"The deeper meaning of AT&Ts PR move is, of course, how the U.S. government will react and, ultimately, if those governor votes can be bought by AT&T. How much lobbying money will it take to get the required majority for the T-Mobile merger? How much more will it take to sway the opinion? What spectrum threats will it take? How much can you bend the truth and will blackmailing work?"
"So, how do you do that? You ride the usual PR wave, blame your users for bandwidth shortages and complain how they make other users suffer, shed some tears and announce that you will slap the top 5% of offenders with throttled bandwidth. To be sure that the message is heard you add to your press release: “Nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges.” Note the remark “near term challenges”"
"The deeper meaning of AT&Ts PR move is, of course, how the U.S. government will react and, ultimately, if those governor votes can be bought by AT&T. How much lobbying money will it take to get the required majority for the T-Mobile merger? How much more will it take to sway the opinion? What spectrum threats will it take? How much can you bend the truth and will blackmailing work?"
This post was deleted for the following reason: less editorializing via selective quoting and more facts and neat things you found on the web. Thank you. -- jessamyn
As part of my job, I deal with SBC (aka the new (not to be confused with your father's) AT&T) multiple times on a daily basis. It really is breathtaking what a terrible, terrible company they are. One can actually see their customer service spiral into the abyss. It's a shame what happened to the Bell System.
Pity the government doesn't work for the people anymore, or something would be done.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:51 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Pity the government doesn't work for the people anymore, or something would be done.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:51 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best of the web?
posted by punkfloyd at 1:51 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by punkfloyd at 1:51 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Hey did anyone see the new AT&T logo? That's a nice hat.
posted by mullingitover at 1:52 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by mullingitover at 1:52 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Hey AT&T! I'm one of your legacy unlimited data users. What's up.
Quick note: I don't have a lot of presence on the web or whatever, but I'm one voice, I'm a person. And rest assured that if you do this, I will cancel my service with you, tell everybody else that I ever speak to that I'm doing so and why, and I'll never give you another dime.
Then I will take my business to whomever else I calculate will do you the most damage by giving them my paltry monthly contract, even it's Verizon, who has the worst coverage imaginable in my area. Yes, I will make my actual cell phone coverage worse out of spite, and every time I get angry about it I will think of you and I will tell the next stranger I see how AT&T is the worst company there ever was.
Listen to me: I will do this thing. It will not matter to you when I do so, but neither will I be alone.
posted by penduluum at 1:52 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
Quick note: I don't have a lot of presence on the web or whatever, but I'm one voice, I'm a person. And rest assured that if you do this, I will cancel my service with you, tell everybody else that I ever speak to that I'm doing so and why, and I'll never give you another dime.
Then I will take my business to whomever else I calculate will do you the most damage by giving them my paltry monthly contract, even it's Verizon, who has the worst coverage imaginable in my area. Yes, I will make my actual cell phone coverage worse out of spite, and every time I get angry about it I will think of you and I will tell the next stranger I see how AT&T is the worst company there ever was.
Listen to me: I will do this thing. It will not matter to you when I do so, but neither will I be alone.
posted by penduluum at 1:52 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
I don't get it. Why should the Federal Government be scared of AT&T limiting data plans?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2011
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2011
AT&T Wireless throttling of unlimited data users: another get T-Mobile merger approval.
I've read that sentence a large number of times now, and I still don't understand it.
posted by rusty at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
I've read that sentence a large number of times now, and I still don't understand it.
posted by rusty at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
AT&T Wireless throttling of unlimited data users: another get T-Mobile merger approval.
I've read that sentence a large number of times now, and I still don't understand it.
Aargh... my screwup. It's missing: "another [way to] get T-Mobile merger approval."
Apologies.
posted by VikingSword at 1:55 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I've read that sentence a large number of times now, and I still don't understand it.
Aargh... my screwup. It's missing: "another [way to] get T-Mobile merger approval."
Apologies.
posted by VikingSword at 1:55 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Blackmail is if you have knowledge that someone doesn't want getting out.
This is the threat of a bully who wants their way. A multi-national corporation with considerable monetary and political clout, but a bully none-the-less.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:56 PM on August 1, 2011
This is the threat of a bully who wants their way. A multi-national corporation with considerable monetary and political clout, but a bully none-the-less.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:56 PM on August 1, 2011
Reach out and rob everyone
Look, the whole situation's pretty shady, but this post is pretty damn axe-grindy.
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Look, the whole situation's pretty shady, but this post is pretty damn axe-grindy.
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
So AT&T is "Netflixing" their customers now. (fleecing long time customers is nothing new from AT&T...or any large corporation nowadays it seems...I'm not sure if it's sad that after hearing this, I *still* consider AT&T the lesser of two evils when compared to Verizon)
posted by samsara at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011
posted by samsara at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011
Outraged editorial is outraged.
If we interpret this in the right way, then AT&T is telling us that available bandwidth is not really the problem.
I'm really not sure how this conclusion was drawn.
We know their network has severe capacity issues. One logical way to compensate for its deficiencies is to prevent a small minority of users from hogging all the bandwidth. Which is both what they are saying and doing. That would seem to indicate that available bandwidth is most certainly the problem. And by taking over T-Mobile's network, wouldn't that also increase capacity/bandwidth overall?
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011
If we interpret this in the right way, then AT&T is telling us that available bandwidth is not really the problem.
I'm really not sure how this conclusion was drawn.
We know their network has severe capacity issues. One logical way to compensate for its deficiencies is to prevent a small minority of users from hogging all the bandwidth. Which is both what they are saying and doing. That would seem to indicate that available bandwidth is most certainly the problem. And by taking over T-Mobile's network, wouldn't that also increase capacity/bandwidth overall?
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011
Another thing that bugs me about this is that AT&T has probably done extreme damage to T-Mobile's customer base by making the offer in the first place. Our AT&T contract just ended, we're looking at other carriers, T-Mobile seems to be decent, the subscribers we've talked to say they don't have about 1 in 3 calls not go through or have horrendously bad experiences with billing, so we were all ready to sign with T-Mobile, when we realized: Wait, if this thing goes through we're right back where we started.
So AT&T is in a position where they can destroy their competition simply by making credible acquisition threats.
posted by straw at 1:58 PM on August 1, 2011
So AT&T is in a position where they can destroy their competition simply by making credible acquisition threats.
posted by straw at 1:58 PM on August 1, 2011
only the approval of the T-Mobile merger might change its opinion and solve its bandwidth problems.
Is there any chance that this is true, and they will not, instead, impose caps on T-Mobile users as well?
posted by weston at 1:58 PM on August 1, 2011
Is there any chance that this is true, and they will not, instead, impose caps on T-Mobile users as well?
posted by weston at 1:58 PM on August 1, 2011
If we interpret this in the right way, then AT&T is telling us that available bandwidth is not really the problem.
I'm really not sure how this conclusion was drawn.
Because at&t is also telling these users that for some extra $, they can go right ahead - i.e. the bandwidth is not constrained, because it's there for a price, if it were constrained, it wouldn't be there in the first place.
posted by VikingSword at 1:59 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm really not sure how this conclusion was drawn.
Because at&t is also telling these users that for some extra $, they can go right ahead - i.e. the bandwidth is not constrained, because it's there for a price, if it were constrained, it wouldn't be there in the first place.
posted by VikingSword at 1:59 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Come on, people, cut them some slack. They're a multinational corporation. They're just watching out for the best interest of their shareholders.
posted by griphus at 2:00 PM on August 1, 2011
posted by griphus at 2:00 PM on August 1, 2011
VikingSword: " Because at&t is also telling these users that for some extra $, they can go right ahead - i.e. the bandwidth is not constrained, because it's there for a price, if it were constrained, it wouldn't be there in the first place."
No, the higher cost acts as an additional throttle. Because AT&T is assuming most users won't pay for it. Even heavy users. Just as Verizon made the same assumption. That users will change their behaviour rather than spend more money, keep an eye on their usage and not drink endlessly from the proverbial garden hose. They'll think about and use WiFi, rather than just leave their cells, tablets and netbooks on "Cell Service" all the time.
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on August 1, 2011
No, the higher cost acts as an additional throttle. Because AT&T is assuming most users won't pay for it. Even heavy users. Just as Verizon made the same assumption. That users will change their behaviour rather than spend more money, keep an eye on their usage and not drink endlessly from the proverbial garden hose. They'll think about and use WiFi, rather than just leave their cells, tablets and netbooks on "Cell Service" all the time.
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on August 1, 2011
No one throttles your bandwidth like Gaston?
posted by elizardbits at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2011
posted by elizardbits at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2011
The reason we can know the bandwidth caps are bullshit is that they have no accounting for peak internet usage times. If this were really about bandwidth, only data used during peak times would go toward a customer's allotment. This is about soaking the customer, plain and simple, same as it ever was.
posted by mullingitover at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by mullingitover at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
“Nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges.”
Dear AT&T,
Sort out your own damn bandwidth issues, and leave my phone company the fuck alone. You can't manage yourself, why they hell should I expect you'll do any better with T-Mobile?
Signed,
10 Years with a Company I Don't Want to Be Forced to Leave...
posted by quin at 2:07 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Dear AT&T,
Sort out your own damn bandwidth issues, and leave my phone company the fuck alone. You can't manage yourself, why they hell should I expect you'll do any better with T-Mobile?
Signed,
10 Years with a Company I Don't Want to Be Forced to Leave...
posted by quin at 2:07 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
« Older Save Our Snark! | Canadian Juneteenth, aka "you don't really need a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Legomancer at 1:50 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]