The main reason why they don't allow you to tether your phone is not because they just want you to pay twice, although I'm sure that has some play into it as well, but most people won't pay for it anyway, but because they don't want people to actually use the data amount they were given.
Right now part of their business model is that most people do not use the whole 2 or 3 GB of data that they are given. Allowing them to tether, even though it would bring them more money if the user goes over the limit, means a lot of people will start using all the data they received.
That's a tactic many businesses use. Oversubscribe services and profit from the limited use of the product. Punish the few who actually try to make full use of the service.
See any cheap, shared hosting service. They'll promise unlimited so long as you don't try to take them up on that offer.
Since you speak of bandwidth by monthly use instead of transfer rate per second, i take it that you understand as much of the subject as phone operators.
If you sell by anything other than slicing your pipe width, you're selling more than you have. Period.
I was really disappointed when I got a warning in January when I was only at around 2GB for the month on my AT&T iPhone "unlimited" plan. On the one hand, I like unlimited because in theory it means I never have to think about my data usage, but the warning and apparent immediately subsequent throttling I experienced for the rest of the month (~7 days) was painful enough for me to consider switching my $30 unlimited to $30 3GB (and freeing me up to change providers when the next upgrade cycle rolls around–previously I wasn't willing to give up my grandfathered unlimited plan, but I never expected "unlimited" to mean less data for the same money [and the throttling is so severe that there would have been no way for me to reasonably reach 3GB data usage]).
I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything, but I had goodwill towards AT&T even when the rest of the country was bashing them (coverage has been reasonably good in areas I lived while on AT&T) and that's gone now.
I worked with a guy that complained to me one day about taking his car to a full-service hand car wash. They did a crappy job. I asked if complained and he said it was no use, he just wasn't going to go there again...this pisses me off to no END! Fine, don't go back, but you know who gets screwed over? The next guy in line!! Go back for him, if not yourself.
It's the same reason we prosecute criminals. The dollar costs of prosecuting a petty thief is several orders of magnitude more than the stolen chocolate bar. But it has to be done.
The idea tha AT&T will learn because people are "voting with their dollar" is a joke.
A bit of background on why (IMO) it's good to see these small claims cases succeed for non-trivial amounts:
AT&T is essentially class action proof post-AT&T v. Concepcion. AT&T had always put mandatory arbitration and class action waiver provisions in its contracts but states (most notably CA) usually ignored them and allowed class actions to proceed. In Concepcion, the Supreme Court said that the Federal Arbitration Act (an act that basically says promoting arbitration is so desirable any contract that calls for arbitration must be honored) preempts state law that would ignore those provisions.
In other words, the formula for becoming class action proof is now 1) insert mandatory arbitration provision; 2) insert class action waiver; 3) dare consumers to sue you one at a time.
Virtually the only way I see to overcome Concepcion right now is mass, coordinated (but individual), small claims suits or arbitrations. If AT&T had to face several million suits where it was actually relatively easy to win $850, they'd be begging for the old class action system.
To what extent is a third party allowed to assist a claimant in small claims court? If someone were to start a business that made it as easy as possible for people to take AT&T to court...
I would love for this ruling to stand but ultimately AT&T can't let it or there will be a flood of people hitting them in small claims court. They will appeal.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
Right now part of their business model is that most people do not use the whole 2 or 3 GB of data that they are given. Allowing them to tether, even though it would bring them more money if the user goes over the limit, means a lot of people will start using all the data they received.
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
See any cheap, shared hosting service. They'll promise unlimited so long as you don't try to take them up on that offer.
[+] [-] vacri|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcb|14 years ago|reply
If you sell by anything other than slicing your pipe width, you're selling more than you have. Period.
[+] [-] Sander_Marechal|14 years ago|reply
How is that even legal in the US? Is customer protection really that bad that companies can take away these rights?
[+] [-] yuhong|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanfalcon|14 years ago|reply
I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything, but I had goodwill towards AT&T even when the rest of the country was bashing them (coverage has been reasonably good in areas I lived while on AT&T) and that's gone now.
[+] [-] bgentry|14 years ago|reply
Are you surprised that AT&T thinks they can treat their customers like this when almost none of them will do anything about it?
[+] [-] BigCanOfTuna|14 years ago|reply
It's the same reason we prosecute criminals. The dollar costs of prosecuting a petty thief is several orders of magnitude more than the stolen chocolate bar. But it has to be done.
The idea tha AT&T will learn because people are "voting with their dollar" is a joke.
[+] [-] schraeds|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bragen|14 years ago|reply
AT&T is essentially class action proof post-AT&T v. Concepcion. AT&T had always put mandatory arbitration and class action waiver provisions in its contracts but states (most notably CA) usually ignored them and allowed class actions to proceed. In Concepcion, the Supreme Court said that the Federal Arbitration Act (an act that basically says promoting arbitration is so desirable any contract that calls for arbitration must be honored) preempts state law that would ignore those provisions.
In other words, the formula for becoming class action proof is now 1) insert mandatory arbitration provision; 2) insert class action waiver; 3) dare consumers to sue you one at a time.
Virtually the only way I see to overcome Concepcion right now is mass, coordinated (but individual), small claims suits or arbitrations. If AT&T had to face several million suits where it was actually relatively easy to win $850, they'd be begging for the old class action system.
[+] [-] extension|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganesh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonster|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yabai|14 years ago|reply