Is AT&T Doing Bait & Switch On Broadband Caps?

from the not-surprising,-but-not-good dept

Tue, Apr 21st 2009 5:15am — Mike Masnick

You would think with the PR nightmare surrounding capped broadband that forced Time Warner Cable to at least temporarily back off limiting broadband, that other broadband providers would be a lot more careful. However, Gigaom reports that some AT&T U-verse customers are discovering the broadband that AT&T is selling them is capped with low limits, but they're not being told about these limits until after they're locked in. It would seem like this is the sort of thing that the FTC has been known to frown upon -- not to mention it's also the type of thing that gets people pretty upset in a hurry. It really is amazing how hamfisted the broadband providers seem to be when it comes to marketing their broadband plans.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bait & switch, broadband caps
Companies: at&t

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The Cenobyte, 21 Apr 2009 @ 5:47am

FCC needs to just force them to list the terms
All that needs to happen to fix this is have the FCC and/or the FTC to force broadband providers to give a listing of extactly what they are selling you in a simple to read english format. I am sure they mostly already do that, but in 200pages of crap. All I need is a half page of what exactly the service is. Also contracts with home service contracts should be blocked from change without the customers consent at the time of change until the end of contract. IE clauses in contracts that allow pricing and service changes on the part of the provider that do not null the contract should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2009 @ 8:18am
  
  Re: FCC needs to just force them to list the terms
  should be illegal...
  
  Unless required by law such as tax changes on the state or federal level.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael B, 21 Apr 2009 @ 8:34am
  
  Re: FCC needs to just force them to list the terms
  The FTC and FCC are pretty toothless and gutless. The thing that will change AT&T's behavior is massive exoduses from its services... and those people who have bundles should drop all of the services.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 21 Apr 2009 @ 2:32pm
    
    Re: Re: FCC needs to just force them to list the terms
    mass exoduses = redundantly repetitative
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechwarrior, 21 Apr 2009 @ 5:59am

Wouldnt this be a breach of contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicholas Overstreet (profile), 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  Mechwarrior:
  In nearly every single type of service "contract" you enter, there is a clause in it that allows the provider to change the terms of the contract when ever they want and for any reason they want.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lulz, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...and without having to notify you that they changed it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Henry, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:32am

Wouldnt this be a breach of contract?

Only if you can convince an arbitrator that is bought and paid for by AT&T that this is a unilateral and material change. ISP contracts all have mandatory arbitration clauses and prevailing over your ISP is almost impossible (and very expensive).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joey Maloney, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:39am

It says it at the bottom of the box, after "monosodium glutamate"
Well, I hardly think that is good enough. I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large, red label, "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:55am
  
  Re: It says it at the bottom of the box, after "monosodium glutamate"
  Crunchy Frog!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael B, 21 Apr 2009 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: It says it at the bottom of the box, after "monosodium glutamate"
  More like albatross on a stick!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike42 (profile), 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:40am

Not a cap
The term, "cap" is a misnomer. I had Verizon, and it's a "ration at your monthly rate." A "cap" would imply that something happens when you hit the limit, which it doesn't. If you use more than 5 gig a month, you just pay more. Much more. As in $1 for every 4 meg.

Oh, yeah, to check your usage you have a utility you can run (which fails 1 out of 5 times) or you can disconnect and check the log (which doesn't necessarily mesh with their records) It's a very fast connection, which means that you can use up your entire 5 gig in a 36 hour period if you leave your browser on a streaming news site, or if your kid decides to leave the browser on MySpace with a streaming video in the background.

We really need some consumer advocates. My discussions with the Verizon help desk has led me to believe they nail people like this all the time.

I canceled my service after this fiasco. Screwing your customers is not a sustainable business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aguywhoneedstenbucks, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:50am
  
  Re: Not a cap
  It certainly is a sustainable business model if all the companies in a particular industry are doing it. They just all have to do it at the same time and destroy any newcomers to the space by either buying them or charging insane amounts of money to leave their service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2009 @ 8:38am
  
  Re: Not a cap
  "Cap" is quite accurate. Something DOES happen when you hit the limit... you get charged more. Regardless of the semantics, caps or limits or rations are ludicrous in light of the always-dropping cost of providing the service, in conjunction with the experts' view that the ISPs insistence that we are running out of bandwidth is nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The infamous Joe, 21 Apr 2009 @ 9:34am
  
  Re: Not a cap
  Oh, yeah, to check your usage you have a utility you can run (which fails 1 out of 5 times)
  
  Which I'm willing to bet only runs on Windows, and *maybe* Mac. Sorry Linux, none for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glurbie, 21 Apr 2009 @ 7:13am

When competing isn't your only option...
If telcos have a tendency to throttle competing VoIP traffic, and cable companies have a tendency to throttle competing video and p2p traffic, then maybe it makes sense that a comprehensive service like U-Verse would tend to throttle the internet as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 21 Apr 2009 @ 7:19am

bandwidth yadda yadda
want to know how much bandwidth capacity they really have? Ask if they could handle every viewer watching HDTV at the same time, multiple rooms in a house even. Guess what? They already do handle this (and have for 5+ years).

Yes, lets let them throttle for excuses of performance. sheesh. They just want to oversell it by a factor of 10 higher than they already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frosty840, 21 Apr 2009 @ 7:42am

What has happened with this situation in the UK is that all the IRPs (Internet Restriction Providers) suddenly introduced a bunch of capped plans with very low prices, so that nobody complained ("it's cheap, it's crap, and I'm not interested, so I don't care") and then started slowly raising the prices on the uncapped services (which all have cap-like, crippling "fair use" restrictions on them anyway) until we got to the current, dreadful situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alex, 21 Apr 2009 @ 7:50am

Would you expect anything less from a company that will give up your ass to the Feds without even blinking an eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2009 @ 7:54am

Why you all down on AT&T? They're just doing what their Lizard Overlords are telling them to do. I for one welcome our new overlords.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griffon, 21 Apr 2009 @ 9:13am

My buddy in Reno is spitting mad about this. He signed up for uverse and never had the caps disclosed to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2009 @ 9:14am

AT&T = Evil

This is not news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that other Guy, 21 Apr 2009 @ 9:33am

Lesser Evil
While I am not a big fan of AT&T when I was forced to choose between Comcast and AT&T the choice was easy.
Comcast has screwed too many people I know for me to ever consider paying them for crappy service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Brinker, 21 Apr 2009 @ 9:33am

"mandatory arbitration clauses" have been shown in several courts to be unconscionable. This is because the courts accecpt the thory that a business is generaly in a much better bargining situation then the customer.

The Cell Phone companys already got hit with this:
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/11565671-1.html

(note: I am a Washinton resident, your state might be differnt)

The court felt that since arbitration paid for by the company had a 97% + rate of being in favor of the company that it was not fair to the consumer. As such the customer cant sign away their rights to lawsuit (including class action lawsuits) no matter what the contract says.

Anyway, if you sign me up for a 2 year net access, then change my terms im just going to cancle under the grounds that you changed my contract and I had a right to accecpt the new contract (or not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 21 Apr 2009 @ 1:33pm

This is a GREAT business model!

I'm going to start my own house painting service, and I'll make people sign a contract before I begin. Buried in all the fine print will be a clause saying that I can change the terms of the contract at any time. Then, I'll paint one small area, claim that their house is taking too much paint and quit. When they complain that I didn't deliver the service that they paid for, I'll just point them to the contract and tell them that I changed the terms.

That way, I can charge big bucks and hardly have to do any work or use much paint. I'll be rich!

If they try to sue me, I can point out the anti-sue clause that they agreed to and use AT&T as an example of other businesses that work this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FakeName1986273, 22 Apr 2009 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: Rekrul
  I'll tell you this much... I just signed up for U-Verse, and I like some things better than Time Warner, but other things I don't like as much. If they change my rates at ANY POINT or cap my broadband either by throttling it down or charging me after a certain limit is reached, I'll be leaving them, and I will not be paying them a dime. I've got two friends that are lawyers (one in intellectual property) and my dad is a senator. Bring it bitches. If you want to tussle, lets tussle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2009 @ 3:05pm

Yep, get 'em hooked, then jack up the price. Then run an ad campaign villainizing 'pirates and other illegal bandwidth hogs' as the reason your service already sucks; Just keep trying out different lies 'till you find one that'll keep your 'customers' from burning down your corporate headquarters, and go for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 21 Apr 2009 @ 6:13pm

What contract?
AT&T will never breach a contract with the consumer because he will never see the contract or understand it without a K street lawyer on retainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn, 5 Dec 2016 @ 12:56pm

At&T
Hook em and book em every 3 months at a higher rate spend hours on the phone trying to get it right, and if that's not enough when you pay on-line they post it 2 weeks after funds have left your bank and sneak in 9 late fees each month. There needs to be a class action brought against these thiefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]