Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Cellphones AT&T The Internet United States News Your Rights Online

AT&T Threatens To Shut Off Service of Customer Who Won Throttling Case 327

suraj.sun writes in about the recent small claims case against AT&T's throttling of 'unlimited' plans. From the article: "AT&T has about 17 million smartphone customers on 'unlimited' plans, and has started slowing down service for users who hit certain traffic thresholds. Spaccarelli maintained at his February 24 small-claims hearing that AT&T broke its promise to provide 'unlimited' service, and the judge agreed. In a letter dated Friday, a law firm retained by AT&T Inc. is threatening to shut off Matthew Spaccarelli's phone service if he doesn't sit down to talk. Spaccarelli has posted online the documents he used to argue his case and encourages other AT&T customers copy his suit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T Threatens To Shut Off Service of Customer Who Won Throttling Case

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Duh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teknopurge ( 199509 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @12:38PM (#39354049) Homepage

    I have no love for AT&T and I'm glad the guy won, but if one of my customers sued me, I'd drop them in a heartbeat!

    If you're not falsely-advertising your services, then you have nothing to worry about.

    We run a hosting company and have been putting up with this for years. We provide underloaded servers that have packages with hard limits to prevent abuse and to ensure people get what they pay for. All these "unlimited" hosting plans have been scams from day-1 and we're glad someone is finally getting held to task for the dumbing down of the market.

  • Re:Duh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ClintJCL ( 264898 ) <clintjcl+slashdot@gma i l . com> on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @12:39PM (#39354063) Homepage Journal
    It's not actually always legal. For example, if you take government tax breaks for providing a publi service, you don't get to pick and choose which public, even if they are suing you.

    Dunno the specifics here, but cell phones are a great way for companies to get a 2nd chance at changing the laws that were already settled for landlines, and that's part of what we're seeing here.

    My landline company cannot legally deny me service, EVEN IF i'm suing them. But part of that is the psuedomonopoly of landlines, which doesn't apply to cell phones. But probably should. Especially if they take one penny from the government, even in the form of tax breaks.

  • by s73v3r ( 963317 ) <> on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @01:53PM (#39355171)

    No, because the judge correctly ruled that a "no tethering" rule was, in fact, a limit on the service they sold him, and therefore was not allowed if they gave him unlimited service.

  • Re:Duh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by queequeg1 ( 180099 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @02:02PM (#39355299)

    That again depends on the court. Here in Oregon (where I practice), a corporation that sends and attorney to small claims court without having received prior permission from the judge will get tossed from the courtroom and the attorney could potentially be sanctioned. And judges here rarely give such permission. When my employer gets sued in small claims, we generally send a non-attorney from our risk management department.

The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away.