T-Mobile Fined $48 Million By FCC For Mischaracterizing 'Unlimited' Plan and Throttling Users' Data (bloomberg.com) 151
T-Mobile will have to pay $48 million in fines after reaching a settlement with the FCC over the way it promoted its unlimited data plans. T-Mobile's unlimited data plans don't charge you for going over a certain data limit, but the carrier can slow down connection speeds after you reach a certain threshold. From a Bloomberg report: The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday announced the settlement, including a $7.5 million fine and $35.5 million worth of discounted gear or data for customers of third-largest U.S. wireless carrier T-Mobile and its MetroPCS unit. An investigation found that company policy allows T-Mobile to decrease data speeds when customers on plans sold as unlimited exceed a monthly data threshold, the FCC said in a news release. The agency heard from hundreds of "unhappy" customers who complained of slow speeds and said they weren't receiving what they were sold, according to the news release.
AT&T (Score:2, Informative)
AT&T does this, too. Are they gonna get slapped down for this, too?
Re: AT&T (Score:3, Informative)
The new "unlimited" plans clearly state that your connection will be throttled at a certain point. That should give them cover going forward.
This ruling is on plans where the customer was not told they would be throttled.
At least that is my understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.
If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot if you can't fix unlimited to a specific item. It's like an all you can eat buffet; they advertise all you can eat WITHIN TWO HOURS (or some places, an hour; My place did two) or you advertise that you can eat all you ca which is heaped upon these massive plates.
If you think otherwise, you've been brainwashed and need to get back in touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot if you can't [incoherent rambling that doesn't address or suggest comprehension of what actually I said]
WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
An all-you-can-eat buffet. Are you really so dense you can't see the parallel between that and "unlimited"?
Re: (Score:2)
Go take some college courses and learn critical thinking if you can't draw a parallel between "all you can eat" and "unlimited" you technological crackhead.
Actually, correction; go back to middle school to re-learn basic reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is that words mean things. And when the carriers throw out words like "unlimited", when what they're selling is not in fact unlimited; they are being duplicitous. And they absolutely deserve to be slapped down for that. And whether a technical person should know that they are lying does not change the fact that they are lying. Remember, not everyone is a technical person. If they'd just spell out EXACTLY what they are selling at EXACTLY the price they're charging upfront, with no "gotchas" buried in the fine print, there'd be no issue.
Honestly? They're dumb data pipes, like any other. There's no good reason they should be treated like anything else. And I wish they'd stop trying to imagine themselves otherwise and just sell me bandwidth like any other provider: Give me guaranteed and burstable Mbps rates; and sod off as to whether I use it for voice, data, video, music, tethering, VPN, running a web or email server, or just downloading Linux ISOs to /dev/null 24/7 because I can.
Re: (Score:2)
"what they're selling is not in fact unlimited"
I think the term "unlimited" should never be used. The laws of physics always limits a person to a finite amount of bandwidth. Also, customers are always throttled to some degree. No system allows a customer to download 500 exabytes a day. That sounds like there is a limit.
Re: (Score:2)
"No system allows a customer to download 500 exabytes a day."
You've obviously never managed a bank of Camfrog video chat cloud servers. One good fully-loaded Asian server can knock out 300 exabytes within 24 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
"One good fully-loaded Asian server"
But could a 'merican server pull those numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that words mean things. And when the carriers throw out words like "unlimited", when what they're selling is not in fact unlimited; they are being duplicitous. .
Oh, just shut up, you whiny liberal bitches. We paid for our monopoly, fair and square. How we choose to exploit it is our business. Besides, "free market". Right?
Regards,
Your Friends at Big Telco
Re: (Score:2)
Yes words mean things. Unlimited means something. It means something that no ISP ever could possibly deliver.
Every ISP is going to reach network capacity at certain times and be required to make a decision about who gets throttled. T-Mobile decides to give a priority to people who have not already transmitted a lot of data. Another ISP may decide to throttle everyone on the network at any given time equally. Or maybe they will just always pre-throttle everyone to the point where they can basically guar
Re: (Score:3)
As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.
Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan auto
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it though, the throttling has nothing to do with congestion - you go over your "4G limit", you get throttled to "3G Speeds", even at 2am on a Tuesday ight when the network is basically idle.
It is not triggered by congestion, but the purpose of it is congestion mitigation. Throttling people to 3G speeds when the network is not congested is dumb. But this practice is pretty much standard for all ISPs. If you have a 5 Mbps cable internet plan, it's not like they let you go at 100Mbps when there is no congestion.
Still, I think they have offered by far the most honest "unlimited" plan - it seems like everyone has an "unlimited" plan available, none of which are actually unlimited, and personally I'd much prefer to hit my limit and be throttled than cut off, hit with a bunch of unexpected fees, or have my plan automatically terminated, all of which other providers are doing.
I agree. But I think the term "unlimited" is misleading, because all plans from every ISP are limited in some way. So seeing "unlimited data" in an advertisement, doesn't tell you any
Re: (Score:3)
T-Mobile is very clear that they mean there is not an amount of data beyond which a user will incur additional fees or penalties. Such an amount would be a limit. Their advertising is completely true for that meaning of unlimited. They are quite up front with this; it is not buried in the small print that over a certain amount the user's speed may be throttled. This is fine is definitely a case of some crybaby nitpicking definitions. I've had every one of the major carriers and T-Mobile is the only one that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.
If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.
The ATT advertisements I've seen don't use "unlimited" or any other term that implies "no limit". What they do advertise is "no data overage fees".
Re: (Score:2)
It did say unlimited on AT&T. Infact up until last month when I finally switched off of unlimited, it was on every bill of mine as "Unlimited Data Plan". I switched because "Unlimited" meant I got 2GB of fast data then, everything after that was painfully slow (2G/Edge), and the 5GB plan was cheaper, and it did essentially the same thing. 5GB of LTE/4G, then I get throttled back to 2G/Edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that should not cover them, as they are advertising a limit after the fact. The issue here is where they say "unlimited" which by any technically-competent person would imply you can use as much bandwidth as you can receive at any time with zero time restrictions or other restrictions.
If you advertise throttling at any point and time, you are lying about your unlimited service. Unlimited means NO LIMITS. Period. Oxford has yet to change that definition, and fuck 'legal' definitions as they are often not based upon factual information.
Agree, but disagree on a point... "Unlimited" is the volume of data that you can use in a month (in those companies' eyes). The public understand it as that, as well. "Unlimited without throttling" is another definition that involves speed+amount are both unlimited (I can't imagine what that plan would cost). Having said that..
In the future, I'm sure companies other than T-Mobile will offer Unlimited without throttling, but have random slowdowns that they can limit by node (so your friend sitting by you
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the terms of the contract and how it was marketed. There is now precedent, so feel free to go after them if this has happened to you
Slapped down? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At $48 million they're not being slapped down. that's not even a slap on the wrist. It's more like shaking your head from across the room, then following up with a quick wink and tiny nod.
Comments along this line always make me wonder: is the set of people who believe that these companies leave no stone unturned in their evil quest to wring every possible cent from each customer, the same set of people who believe that these companies don't care about paying a $48 million fine?
Something's missing (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel like there's something more to this story.
T-Mobile's "unlimited" plans are what I use, and they've always been pretty straightforward about what that means... They don't hit you with a hard-stop limit, but after a particular chunk of full-speed data, they cut you back to "3G speed". All of their marketing material that's I've paid attention to has stated that plainly (to an engineer), in print that wasn't particularly small.
I can't say I've ever found the advertisements to be particularly misleading (or the policy to be particularly limiting), but I'm not as touchy as some consumers are, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, same here. We have a 3GB/line plan, but they've always been clear that you can use more than that but at a slower speed. I've only ever seen marketing to this effect. Were they offering something somewhere without including that disclaimer? That'd be surprising to hear, as they're generally quite up-front about the conditions. As for those saying "unlimited means unlimited, and any limit of any kind means they're lying", well, no, they've specifically said the amount of data is unlimited, not the
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally I commented before RTFA. T-Mobile was doing exactly this, see CheeseTroll's comment [slashdot.org] below.
Re: (Score:2)
That tethering limit was explained to me as a permanent throttle, not just when the network gets busy. Maybe they've changed it. Honestly, I'd switch to them in a hot minute if they didn't screw with tethering, even knowing about the 26 gig threshold for throttling. I wish wireless carriers would get over their tethering prejudice. It's childish.
Re: (Score:2)
I just looked. It now says, "Tethering at Max 3G speeds." That's a step up from the 2G they stated the last time I looked.
Re: (Score:2)
That tethering limit was explained to me as a permanent throttle, not just when the network gets busy. Maybe they've changed it. Honestly, I'd switch to them in a hot minute if they didn't screw with tethering, even knowing about the 26 gig threshold for throttling. I wish wireless carriers would get over their tethering prejudice. It's childish.
I'm on tmobile and I've never seen my tethering throttled. I live out in the sticks and can still get around 10mbps. I'm on the 3G/month plan though not unlimited. When I go over the 3G, my speed still stays fast as it just switches to my data stash. If I used a heavy amount every month and emptied my data stash then presumably I would be throttle at that point but my tethering speed is the same as my phone speed.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Ting, which considers all of your data to be data. Tethering or not tethering is up to you. If you hit 26 GB, though, it may not be ideal for you. Rate chart [ting.com]
Tmobile does too for most of their plans. The only plan they separate it on is their unlimited plan. Their unlimited plan has a cap on the amount of tethering data but the rest of their plans the plan cap can be used for any combination of tethering up to 100% tethering data without a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a backup phone with Ting, and am this close to switching over. I just have to disentangle our multiple lines from our T-Mobile family plan in a coordinated fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't call something unlimited if they limit your speed after a specific amount of data has been transferred. They should call it a "26 gig plan with no overage charges".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But your analogy fails. Going from an LTE average of 12 Mbps to 250 kbps max. By your analogy it be like going from typical 5 minutes wait per plate to 4 hours minimum for the last plate. You would validly be ticked off if your server disappeared into the kitchen for 4 hours would you not?
I am all for the FCC clamping down on the deceitful language and double speak. Don't call something "unlimited", then throttle it to near uselessness.
The cellular carrier make very high profits, yet rather than invest
Re: (Score:2)
All-you-can-eat shrimp is still all-you-can-eat shrimp, even if the fifth plate is served slower than the first four. In T-mobile customers' case, it's still unlimited data, even if some of the data comes through slower than it did before you hit 4 gigs.
No. Not really. It's kindof like how someone discovered that netflix by mail used to put people at the back of the line that requested a lot of dvds per month. If this is publicized, fine, but otherwise it's deceitful. To use your example of all you can eat shrimp, if after the first plate you had to wait 20 minutes for each additional plate then really the max you can eat in an hour lunch period is around 3.
settle down grandpa! (Score:2)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, do these sound like the actions of a man who has had all he can eat?
It's sad, we have a whole generation who've never known that the Simpsons used to be funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. They always said they would throttle it after some amount. They have lots of different plans though, maybe they forgot to put that language on some of them. Or maybe this is just government indulging whiny trolls looking for freebies. It could be either one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a very good chance that I'm remembering it incorrectly as 3G, when really it's supposed to be 2G. It's been a very long time since it affected me enough to care.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been a T-mobile customer for several years, and I thought it was pretty obvious that they'd throttle the data when you reached your plan's threshold. Did they, at some point, market the plans as "unlimited data at 4G speeds"? Or are certain customers being deliberately obtuse?
Beats the heck out of getting cut off completely, or worse - getting charged a zillion bucks for data overages.
Re:I thought this was obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Like a good Slashdotter, I originally posted without reading the article, but then went back and read the details.
Sounds like this applies to their "unlimited" plan which was not clear that they'd *eventually* throttle that plan, too.
FTA: "T-Mobile failed to adequately inform its unlimited data plan customers that, under a “Top 3 Percent Policy,” their data would be slowed at times if they used more than 17 gigabytes in a given month, the FCC said. It said the company had agreed to update its disclosures to better explain who may be affected."
Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
"Top 3 percent"? wouldn't that necessarily move the threshold downward over time?
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up! You're giving away the plan!!!
Re: (Score:2)
No. Why would it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the top 3 percent of data volume, then throttling reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus the top 3 percent of data volume becomes lower.
If you're in the top 3 percent of users, then throttling moves reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus others would fall into the usage range of the top 3 percent of users, and the spot group of top-3%-users would become volatile. This would bring more users's use downward, increasing this effect until they cluster toge
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if if was the top 3% of users, it wouldn't continually move lower, it would reach an equilibrium. It it was the top 3% of volume, it would also reach an equilibrium.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were the top 3% of users, it would reach an equilibrium well-below the top 3% of typical user demand.
If it were the top 3% of volume, it would reach an equilibrium at the maximum volume possible at the throttled speed, as that is eventually the amount of use below which you cannot reduce by throttling, and any use above that would eventually push you into the top 3% as the top users are drawn downward.
They're throttling customers in the top 3% of data usage, rather than data users. Supposedly the
Re: (Score:2)
That 3% was all over the lace when I went into their store to activate phones a couple of weeks ago.
I want today that I also initialed it but it may just be that I read things before signing.
And it's not even automatic throttling at that point, but rather lower priority on the available bandwidth: if there's enough bandwidth you still get LTE.
Im also looked at MetroPCs, which was quite clear that their data was lower priority on the network than Tmobile accounts.
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
OK, thanks for RTFA because I didn't, but let's now get at how this deserves a fine of $48 million? Especially if we're talking about the "top 3 percent," which could easily be interpreted as people who are abusing the service?
Re: (Score:3)
Must be a different plan than mine.
Mine is "Unlimited Data", but very clearly states that it will be throttled after 5 GB. It's not hidden or in fine print.
Re: (Score:2)
And that clear warning might be because the FTC came calling. This is one of the reasons we need the FTC because without them companies start doing shit like hiding these types of conditions or costs until after the customer is signed up. The FTC isn't saying T-Mobile can't do what they did, what they are saying is you can't advertise one thing and provide another, it's called bait and switch and it's been illegal for longer than anyone alive in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
And that clear warning might be because the FTC came calling.
Doubt it. It's been this way since 2012.
They didn't conceal this (Score:2)
Looks suspicious to me (Score:2)
Being paranoid, I'd venture that AT&T and/or Verizon pulled some weight to have them nag T-Mobile. Now that LTE is prolific/mature on all four networks, their real advantage over T-Mobile and Sprint is dying away.
They make it pretty clear (Score:2)
Haven't we covered this before? (Score:3)
On a personal anecdote, I very recently ditched my business plan for AT&T after a T-Mobile business rep tried to sell off my unused lines for a full year cash up front. Same rep then managed to deactivate my primary phone. I filed a complaint and he still works there.
Yeah, ouch. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's barely a slap on the wrist for Big Magenta. More of a gentle tickle, really.
Using free data sources like Yahoo Finance [yahoo.com], you can easily see that TMUS collected $33.9 billion in revenue over the last four quarters. $1.1 billion trickled down to become bottom-line profit. This $48 million fine is a rounding error compared to the company's sales and just 4.4% of its trailing profits.
Put another way, the company has 67 million total subscribers. If T-Mobile paid back the entire fine directly to its customers, it'd be a grand total of 72 cents each. Please sir, may I have another?
It's unlimited! (Score:2)
Unless you hit this limit.
"Unlimited" != unlimited (Score:3)
Let's get some truth in advertising please? Anything less than full bandwidth 24x7 should not be called "unlimited".
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get some truth in advertising please? Anything less than full bandwidth 24x7 should not be called "unlimited".
Don't be silly. 24x7 at full bandwidth is still limited, unless "full bandwidth" is infinite. And if network bandwidth were infinite, then they'd be guilty of selling you a phone that limited your usage because it couldn't exploit that infinite bandwidth. You shouldn't be satisfied until you can download the entire Internet instantaneously, endlessly; then you can turn your attention to bitching about the quality of the content.
Were they not completely transparent? (Score:2)
It seems to me that T-Mobile US, unlike its competitors, was actually completely transparent about their plans and policies. Am I missing something? They specifically offered different data amounts labeled as "high speed data", with the unlimited data always being at a lower speed. I don't see the problem here, or why they should be fined. Now, if they had a secret cap that they didn't tell their customers about up-front, or only in the fine print, like other carriers, that would be serious. This just
Re: (Score:2)
The end result is that lighter users get off of congested towers faster and free up bandwidth for heavier users, rendering everyone's connections faster.
The $48mil fine is the result of idiots not knowing the difference between throttling and de
48 million? (Score:2)
Re: A speed limit (Score:3, Informative)
It's constantly available and there are no limits on when you can use it. In one very clear use of the word unlimited, the plan is unlimited.
I thought they were very clear about the throttling. This is ignorant people being upset because they aren't smart enough to understand their plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A speed limit (Score:4, Interesting)
A speed limit is infact a limit, so the FCC is correct - the plan is not unlimited.
So you're demanding unlimited speed? Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
A speed limit is infact a limit, so the FCC is correct - the plan is not unlimited.
So you're demanding unlimited speed? Good luck with that.
No just the maximum speed allowed by the technology. Is it really that hard to understand or are you being purposefully ignorant?
Re: (Score:2)
Deprioritizing the heavier users increases speeds for everyone by allowing the lighter users to finish their downloads faster and get off the network, freeing up bandwidth for the heavier users.
Re: (Score:2)
I am suing the city because they posted a 45 MPH speed limit on main street and I hit traffic and I couldn't do 45 MPH. Oh, and an ambulance went by they were able to get through traffic faster than me. How dare the city limit my usage of the street!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on whether you take "unlimited" to mean that it has no limits, or whether you take it to mean only that no limits have been imposed by the provider. In a notion of a "limited" plan, the provider decides what those limits are, and either directly limits usage to within those limits, or else charges the subscriber a larger fee for exceeding them. Note, in this case, it is not physical infrastructure that is imposing any limit, but rather, it is a particular policy that is being used by the service provider. "Unlimited" therefore, should reasonably mean only that no such policies are utilized by the provider, and that the provider is not taking any action to actually "limit" the subscirber's usage beyond what provider's infrastructure could have otherwise provided for an arbitrary user.
The difference depends on whether you take the words "limited" or "unlimited" to be adjectives describing a plan, or transitive verbs that operate on a plan.
This is "precedent" in the future. Now the definition will be clearly defined or fine print enlarged/bolded. Actually, they probably won't do any of that, but hey. Precedent! I expect all of us will get mailings (non T-Mobile customers) about the specifics of our data plans just to cover ass.
Re: (Score:2)
And the end result is less network congestion and better speeds for everyone on the network. Yes, that includes the heavy users who get deprioritized, as it allows the lighter users to finish their downloads and get off the network faster.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that it's not necessarily an essential thing for the ISP to do for the good of the largest number of people, but the choice to throttle high capacity users beyond what their network could have otherwise handled at the time based only on the amount of prior usage by those subscribers is still a choice of the provider to *limit* the activity for those people to certain levels. In that sense, throttling cannot be considered unlimited because the provider is actively choosing to limit its
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely no different than an electric company raising rates at certain times of day to discourage people from using too much electricity.
Actually, it's entirely different. If an electric company reduced the availability of power to heavy users when local load was high, well, that'd be no different. In fact, that's precisely what many electric companies are beginning to do with things like HVAC cutoff devices and it's a damned si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only limit to T-mobile's unlimited 4g (not the tiered plans for which they do state limits) is their network capacity. They prioritize based on usage, but that's not a limit, it's prioritization and, in fact, it improves network performance, even for the deprioritized users, by reducing competition for a scarce resource when there's not enough to go around, allowing lighter users to finish their downloads faster and get off the network sooner.
There is no sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From your previous posts, it seems as though you think there's a speed limit or throttle placed on users exceeding 26GB when this is, in fact, not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize
Funny, I routinely hit 50+GB and have never run into an imposed limit. The limit is that of the network itself, a physical one, minus everyone else's traffic. Implementing some form of contention control ensures that I'm consistently able to access what many people refuse to accept as a scarce resource.
It's not like wireline or fiber, where you just run more cables and everything is good; wireless bandwidth is, really and truly, a scarce resource. Network management is not limiting usage, it's enabling it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll repeat: contention control actually effectively increases the limit of overall available bandwidth (e.g. you get faster speeds no
Re: (Score:2)
If they are deprioritizing your traffic only after you exceed some threshold then that threshold is certainly and quite literally a *LIMIT* on that level of service, and they are relegating you to a different level of service after that point. While physical limits to usage will always exist, those limits apply to everybody equally, regardless of what level of service they have paid for, and are not artificially imposed upon you by a policy that the company has chosen to follow, even if that policy only
Re: (Score:2)
A limit, in the context of a service, is something that reduces your ability to utilize the service. This increases your ability to do so, regardless of which side of the queue you are on, ergo not a limit.
Re: (Score:2)
What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for. That they wouldn't be able to continue to get such service during periods of heavy congestion anyways is irrelevant because all users are affected equally at those times, and that is not a limit imposed directly by the provider but by the underlying physical architecture and the real-time d
Re: (Score:2)
What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for.
I'm not missing that at all, actually. As I've stated previously, deprioritization increases the overall available bandwidth by eliminating retransmits caused be contention; that is, it stops people from having to talk over each other and repeat themselves, so everyone can talk, hear, and be heard. Without it, when there is congestion, throughout quickly approaches zero, for everyone; with it, everyone gets their data.
It's a logical fact that some (and I mean explicitly some, not all) users must be deprio
Re: (Score:2)
A throttle always slows your connection. Deprioritization queues some packets behind others, but results in faster speeds for all users.
This is not a duck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about an extra 2 or 3 zeros instead. How much does T-Mobile make per year in profits?
For the full-year 2016, T-Mobile expects Adjusted EBITDA to be in the range of $9.7 to $10.2 billion, up from the previous guidance of $9.1 to $9.7 billion.
https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/... [t-mobile.com]
So 48 mill is right around 5% of their yearly income. If they were just doing this in the U.S. you can exclude their international income, and the number starts to sound more reasonable. Take away any profit they could've made with their illegal maneuver, and an extra slice on top for being jackasses. Then the question is just how big to make the slice so that the message gets through (
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, maybe my numbers are bad. Cf. https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In 2014 (most recent year I found numbers for) before income taxes they made ~$413 million in profit (revenue, obviously, was much much higher). After tax it was ~$247 million. So the total fines work out to be on the order of 12-20% of their yearly profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Your cheery response is noted, but they could be rejected.
I like your style!
Unfortunately, there are always decision makers to be "bought out".
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of makes no sense. You'd have to be living in a cave to not know that they throttle your service after a certain amount. I'd much prefer that than being cut off or forced to pay extra like Comcast is/will be doing for "unlimited service". *That is as long as the throttle was sufficient to use the Internet*. Some ISPs (not all) think a couple mbps is still good enough for an entire family. Fining Comcast for 2.3 million while they were actually stealing money from customers for services they did not ask for.. what the hell? This will just go towards eliminating unlimited tiers.
You have a good point, but I can only see abuse-picking by limiting of resources, like they would do what dialup providers did in the old days (circa 1995). If there was too much use and people were complaining about busy signals (in this case read: "my wireless data xfer is so slow"), you would knock the longest time online users off to allow slots for others.
In this case, it could be a system of: sure, allow unlimited for everyone... But, after a week or less, people would complain about how slow their