AT&T's Bait And Switch On iPhone Unlimited Service: We Screwed Up, So Now You Have To Pay More
from the well,-that's-convincing dept
There's lots of buzz going around concerning the news that an AT&T exec has admitted that to deal with the companies own inability to build out a strong cellular network (angering tons of iPhone users), that it's planning to put in place caps and charge more to high-end users. Of course, this is pure bait and switch. The company sold people on an unlimited data plan, failed to invest in its network, and pushed high bandwidth apps on people. And, of course, it's worth noting that while they now want to charge high bandwidth users more, they don't say anything about the low bandwidth users. No one gets a discount. AT&T is making a ton of money off of the iPhone. It could have -- and should have -- invested more of that into network upgrades. Now it's blaming its most loyal users -- the same ones who it recommended high bandwidth apps to -- and expecting that everyone will be happy with that? AT&T may discover that people start looking for other alternatives if they dump the unlimited data offering that they sold people.
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 and switch, iphone, unlimited
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Frakin' frakers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frakin' frakers!
If they do this to me (and I am definitely a heavy user, streaming Pandora all day) I won't pay it and I will switch carriers in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Frakin' frakers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Frakin' frakers!
I'm going to rip at least a few managers a new one if they do it of course, and I'm sure I'm not the *only* one. Not sure what the actual terms of my agreement was though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dare them
Droid is here ATT, I have no problems moving, so go'ahead do it, see what happens.
L
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They probably have a "the terms of service can be changed by us at anytime, for any reason" in the contract somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay they do have a we can change this anytime in the contract
We may change any terms, conditions, rates, fees, expenses, or charges regarding your service at any time. We will provide you with notice of such changes (other than changes to governmental fees, proportional charges for governmental mandates, roaming rates or administrative charges) either in your monthly bill or separately. You understand and agree that State and Federal Universal Service fees and other governmentally imposed fees, whether or not assessed directly upon you, may be increased based upon the government's or our calculations. IF WE INCREASE THE PRICE OF ANY OF THE SERVICES TO WHICH YOU SUBSCRIBE, BEYOND THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN YOUR RATE PLAN BROCHURE, OR IF WE MATERIALLY DECREASE THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH YOUR AIRTIME RATE APPLIES (OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY DECREASE FOR REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE), WE WILL DISCLOSE THE CHANGE AT LEAST ONE BILLING CYCLE IN ADVANCE (EITHER THROUGH A NOTICE WITH YOUR BILL, A TEXT MESSAGE TO YOUR DEVICE, OR OTHERWISE), AND YOU MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PAYING AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE OR RETURNING OR PAYING FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS, PROVIDED YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS DELIVERED TO US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE FIRST BILL REFLECTING THE CHANGE. If you lose your eligibility for a particular rate plan, we may change your rate plan to one for which you qualify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay they do have a we can change this anytime in the contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay they do have a we can change this anytime in the contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay they do have a we can change this anytime in the contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay they do have a we can change this anytime in the contract
On another note ....
I believe in coincidence I dont trust it .... I feel Verizon had inside information on this. The whole "Theres a Map for that" ad campaign seems to coincidental looking back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Announcement?
I hadn't seen anything definitive about the rates or terms, but you apparently have. I'd love to read the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Announcement?
There's little in the way of details (yet) but that cuts both ways. They're saying that "incentives" to not actually use the network in the manner that you've paid for will continue, but neither is there any indication that using less of it is going to be a boon for you.
tl;dr Lesser is better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Announcement?
In fact, there's nothing at all about whether this will only apply to new users or whether they're looking at applying it to existing users who signed up with the "unlimited" promise (and who therefore would be free to walk from the contract with their free iPhone, since this would clearly be a "material" change in terms).
Sadly, this seems to be a case of Mike speculating about what the news might be and then having a very strong editorial reaction. It's all good, but he framed his assertions as fact, and after doing a lot of digging, it seems pretty clear they're just his imaginings, based on a couple of sentences from an executive at a conference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Announcement?
Why doesn't AT&T confirm that they are not going to hold your grandparents hostage and demand your net worth in ransom? Just a simple press release is all it would take to quash these rumors... yet all we get is silence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T the worst?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I called it.
I am a PC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I called it.
Yes, you are clearly a PC. Full of logic errors and difficult to understand messages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I called it.
You must be an Apple, you cannot understand how Apple could ever make a mistake. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I called it.
While Apple makes retardedly frustrating decisions, this was not one that had much involvement by them, I'm certain. In fact, that would be a really poor move on their part as this decision is going to put a serious dent in iPhone sales growth and their app store. Which is probably why there are a lot of rumors flying that Apple and Verizon are going to team up.
How in the hell do these things devolve into Mac vs PC debates? This story briefly mentions the iPhone being the leading cause of data use on AT&T's network, but has everything to do with AT&T's ridiculous policy changes. Can we not get past that phase? They're practically the same thing anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I called it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now this new move looks to be even more customer unfriendly. Damn.
U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T will make you pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now if only they would bring the Droid to Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hummmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hummmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hummmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hummmm
hope your deleted for spam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanted an iPhone so bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no evidence at all that they are going to change the terms of pre-existing contracts. The (scant) evidence is to the contrary:
It's unlikely that they would be able to change this on people with existing contracts, so much so that they probably won't even try. It's likely that they would just stop offering it on new contracts. If they did want to modify existing contracts, they'd probably either exercise the option to terminate early without fees or buy out existing high-bandwidth users.
If you don't like the new contract terms, go get a different phone on a different carrier when your existing contract expires. That's how the market works: AT&T offers you a deal, and you either take it or leave it.
Hey, the pizza guy down the street used to sell me pizzas for $14.95 each and now he wants $18.95. Do I blog an article about how he bait-and-switched me for building up my loyalty and then raising his prices? The nerve of that guy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's likely that they would just stop offering it on new contracts."
"If they did want to modify existing contracts, they'd probably "
- Seems you do not have any facts, just supposition.
"the pizza guy down the street used to sell me pizzas for $14.95 each and now he wants $18.95."
- Did you sign a multiyear contract with the pizza guy where you both agreed upon a set rate for unlimited pizza ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, but Dr. Strange is still right. There are very few facts *at all* at this point. Few facts for or against ATT. In fact, Dr. Strange's comment is among the least filled with supposition on this thread.
We don't know if ATT is planning on applying caps to new customers only, or if they are planning on applying that to existing customers.
I would expect them to apply it to new customers, and possibly to customers if they renew their contracts or upgrade their phones.
So everyone should relax until some more facts come down the pipe. Mike wrote the post largely because he is against all bandwidth caps. Perhaps most of you are, too. But don't be pissed about "retroactively applied caps" unless there is some actual indication that this will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Longer-term, he said, a pricing scheme based on usage is likely, though it will be determined by industry competition and regulatory guidelines.
I agree that to alter the agreement in the middle of the 2-year contract is lunacy for regulatory reasons. I suppose it's more reasonable would be to let these unlimited contracts expire and then only allow renewals with contracts with limited data usage. It's kinda legal that way-- although we are talking about AT&T...If/when they do roll out the new limited contracts, it'd be interesting what their competition will say through their ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This isn't the SS. It's a cellular carrier. There are *ahem* subtle differences.
The butcher charges me more than the guy ahead of me in line because I bought 2lbs of ground beef, and the guy in front bought 1lb. Oh!! Look out! The butcher is "coming for me". The nerve of charging me more for using more. Look out gays, jews, and blacks...he'll come for you next...um...if you buy more beef. Scary stuff.
In other news: the electric company, gas station, Natural gas utility, subway operator, all "came after me" to pay more for using more. Crazy world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now who pays income tax in the US? All of us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bait & switch.
Some sleazy people will try to paint shades and talk about degrees off of something but really is just a bait and switch scheme. Legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Praise of Verizon...But Not Too Much, Please
Correct, but the impact is way exaggerated in the public consciousness, which really just indicates the massive success of Verizon marketing.
You see, in the simplest of terms, Verizon does have the "best" network. But when you get in to the details, it depends region by region, and even house by house. But far more important, for those willing to actually understand, rather than those just interested in parroting the VZW marketing campaign, is that THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEST AND WORST IS TRIVIAL. That's right, basically the carriers are all the same...but most people have bought the VZW marketing message, and interpreted the results to mean VZW is great, and all else sucks.
Don't take my word for it: I mean, I'm just some telecom industry analyst! Here's what J.D. Power said in their most recent survey that put VZW on top:
"The study finds that the differentiation in call quality performance among wireless carriers at the industry level is particularly small in 2009. While call quality performance among carriers still varies at the regional level, the gap between the highest- and lowest-ranked carriers for the overall industry has decreased from 8 PP100 [problems per 100 calls] in the 2008 Vol. 2 study to only 5 PP100 in the 2009 Vol. 1 study.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009041
The Consumer Reports data are similar. Although VZW sits squarely on the top of the quality heap, the reality is that the spread is relatively small. Out of a score of 100, the results are Verizon 75, T-Mobile 70, Sprint 67, AT&T 66 (http://bit.ly/7GveUJ). So Kudos to VZW are definitely in order.
But I can't believe how strongly the average person has over-interpreted the results, and locked on to the message of "Verizon has the best network, AT&T sucks!" People, it's just not that big a difference. In reality, they both could stand to improve.
Now, factor in the sudden, and incredible effects of the iPhone on AT&T's network since launch in 2007. AT&T won't admit to this, but of course AT&T was caught off guard. And of course they owe it to their customers to improve the network to deliver quality service. And a look at their 2008 Annual Report shows they, in fact, ARE responding, having spent $20B on network upgrades in that single year. To act like they are sitting idle and screwing people over is to ignore the facts. Maybe $20B isn't enough, maybe it's adequate, but it sure as heck isn't nothing.
ARE YOU BEING PLAYED?
Don't fall for the marketing. VZW has spent an estimated $300M/year on marketing the "best network" message in their ads. Can you remember how long they have marketed the "Best network" angle? Well, Paul Marcarelli, the actor who plays the VZW Test Guy, has been appearing on your TV since 2002! http://bit.ly/zi8gL
Do you really think that you are immune to that kind of repeated, relentless assault of a specific talking point? The VZW campaign has been remarkably successful because it deals with something that really matters (network quality), and it has the advantage of being true. And because money talks. Political campaigns are won and lost on the spending of a few million dollars at the right time to sway hearts and minds. What effect does $300M/year for 7+ years have? Are people being played to over-interpret the difference in network quality? My answer is a definite "yes".
So if cellular networks were a 100 Yard Dash, Verizon would be an legendary winner, taking race after race. However, consumers should be savvy enough to understand that it's a close call every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really BS
There is more than enough bandwidth. The problem isn't bandwidth hogs and I'm sick of the carriers trying to slip that point in all the time. If there were really a bandwidth shortage then, how do the wireline carriers justify their move into video.
How can they provide me with IPTV, if downloading a movie is such a strain on their networks.
Bottom line is ATT got caught with their pants down and they want the customers to pay for their mistake. I guess that sounds fair if you work for ATT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long is iPhone exclusive to AT&T?
The whole recent ad controversy showing how poor their nationwide 3G coverage is strengthens my decision.
So, I want an iPhone when I can get it with another provider who supports Chicago (and other places) better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long is iPhone exclusive to AT&T?
It's up in early 2010. Should be an interesting few months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How long is iPhone exclusive to AT&T?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not yet, but coming soon, according to my Droid, who I've named Dot Matrix....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little harsh on the Beaver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little harsh on the Beaver
Its not about adding more towers its about putting the new hardware on the old towers. Totally different issue. One is regulatory the other is just being cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A little harsh on the Beaver
New equipment increases capacity and bandwidth.
New towers increase coverage and reduce gaps.
Furthermore, the newest technologies often have smaller effective ranges (at same frequency and Tx power) as older technologies. Meaning that more towers are needed to get the expected higher throughputs.
Nothing about cellular networks is simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a matter of time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break. I don't own a "smart phone" for mutliple reasons, including the price of plans, and need. It's clear however that AT&T knew EXACTLY what they were getting into.The reason AT&T fought SO hard to get the deal with Apple is due to Apple's success. They saw what Apple was able to do with the ipod. That's why they wanted a partnership. Eveyone knew the iphone was going to be big, perhaps not the exact growth %, but big none the less. For AT&T to NOT adequately invest in the network is the height of shortsightedness, and IMHO, greed. So, it looks like according to the above posts, AT&T can change the terms, but people can then choose to leave the contract. If their plans go ahead as predicted, customers may well be leaving in droves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AT&T, and every other carrier in the world, has been trying to hit a home run with mobile data, or some differentiated service, ever since...ever.
Every time they have EVER thought they had a hit on their hands, they launched it...and were wrong. Every "exclusive" launch was basically a flop.
Exclusives on ringtones? Not a sudden hit, and quickly copied by all other carriers.
Exclusive on content, like Shakira music? Tried, and basically not enough to move any dials. http://listserv.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20060314/152841.shtml
Exclusives on handsets? Tried many, many times before the iPhone, but no other device was unique and desirable enough to move people from one carrier to another.
Awesome content that would drive up usage? Tried, and basically flatlined. Ringtones have been flat, mobile games have been flat.
Video that would be the savior of carriers and use some of their 3G capacity at a time when they had built 3G but no consumer gave a damn? Failed. Consumers weren't interested in mobile video.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20050927/1219240.shtml
The only other hit, the Blackberry, was not a sudden success, but instead grew steadily in popularity since 1999, with success limited to email.
What I'm getting at here is that in 8 years of trying to drive increased use of mobile data, the carriers had seen near-failures at every turn, and only slow, steady growth up until 2007. These were "teachable moments" for them.
So, when Apple and AT&T struck their deal, despite past disappointments, you think AT&T should have KNOWN that it would be a sudden and huge success, and invested $20 Billion or so on the expectation that it would create huge, dramatic, unprecedented data traffic growth?
That isn't reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did those operators promise you unlimited use of their services for a certain price? *ahem* NO.
As an aside, is stupidity becoming more and more contagious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if those wireless carriers (stupidly) offered unlimited services for many years, does it mean they MUST continue to offer them in the present, and for all the future forevermore?
*ahem* no.
Are the carriers' Terms of Service stipulated with contract lengths of "forever"? Negative on that.
Have you never seen a seller increase their price? Reduce their quantity? Did you not know that that is legal, often fair, and even occurs frequently in a free market?
So, yes. They sold unlimited. They are also allowed to stop selling unlimited. Duh.
Seriously! To be so stupid as you try to impugn others...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news: the electric company, gas station, Natural gas utility, subway operator, all "came after me" to pay more for using more. Crazy world.
Other than your defense of them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right for once. My defense of them IS simple. Simple economics as applied to the cellular services markets.
I criticize the telcos and cablecos as much as I defend them. This is the burden of being educated, neutral, and rational. I end up pissing off people on both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did this devolve to PC v mac?
To all of you trashing At&t you need to get your facts straight. Yup, AT&T have a lame 3g network, but you do have unlimited bandwidth. Verizon would never allow that w/o a * in fine print and 4Gb or slightly more limit per month. Just look at all Verizons net cards & netbooks. Even their droid pricing is alacarte. Verzon is notorious for locking down phone functionality. Verizon does have great coverage, but their customer svc, billing, and neutrality (getting the most from YOUR device) are pathetic. Verizon will get the iPhone in time, and they will have a wacky pricing scheme that claims unlimited data but really has an upper limit that will be set too low. Nether of theses telcos are stupid, they are greedy, but AT&T won't be stupid and blow the only good thing they have by pissing off their best customers and creating a Sprint/nextel style mass exodus, which is a lesson I believe they should all focus on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a scene where Luke's character tells people to throw cinder blocks over a the roof of a three-story building attached to fraternity pledges penises.
Blue, You're My Boy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone users are like cattle..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luke Wilson can be bought and told to say anything.
As you may recall, there was a scene where Luke Wilson's character tells people to throw cinder blocks over the roof of a three-story building... These cinder blocks were attached to ropes which subsequently were attached to fraternity pledges in odd places.
If Luke can be bought for a script that includes such violent imagery as penis decapitation, I wonder... If the money is right, I wonder what else he could be persuaded to say on TV or the radio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luke Wilson Whored Himself Out Deceiving People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything I Wanted to Say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone please file a class action law suit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thank for great article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]