moonpuppy (banned)

join:2000-08-21

Glen Burnie, MD 1 recommendation moonpuppy (banned) Member O.k. stuff like this has to stop Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.



The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 2 recommendations FFH5 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by moonpuppy: Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.



The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan to Anon

Premium Member to Anon

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop No it doesn't. People getting pissed about AT&T (like I did) but staying with them anyway (like I did) are the ones who propagate these practices. I can cry until I'm blue in the face, but so long as I keep cutting checks I have no one to ultimately blame but myself.



If EVERYONE who complained would cancel for change in terms of service (thereby avoiding the ETF) they wouldn't pull this crap.



Simply put, AT&T will do this stuff so long as subs tolerate it.



Chaplain

So It Goes

Premium Member

join:2002-10-11

USA ·Verizon FiOS

3 recommendations Chaplain Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.



Steve B

Premium Member

join:2004-08-02

Auburn, WA Steve B Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by Chaplain: But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly it! Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Its easy for the corporate kiss asses to make such judgements because they don't feel affected the way regular consumers do.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by Steve B: Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either.



And before you say that some people NEED them for business, well in that instance your employer really ought to be paying for your service. If they are then you don't really have any grounds to complain about the carrier. My best friend is on AT&T and loathes them but given the alternative of paying for his own service vs. his employer picking up the tab he's happy to be with AT&T. Sure it is; nobody NEEDS a smartphone. People WANT them. When did we forget the difference between NEEDS vs. WANTS? Hell, plenty of people manage to scrape by with no cell phone at all while managing to live meaningful and productive lives without being reachable 24/7.And before you say that some people NEED them for business, well in that instance your employer really ought to be paying for your service. If they are then you don't really have any grounds to complain about the carrier. My best friend is on AT&T and loathes them but given the alternative of paying for his own service vs. his employer picking up the tab he's happy to be with AT&T.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop 1) I AM my employer. Thanks for generalizing everyone.



2) You're right no one NEEDS an iPhone.. smart phone, etc. In fact, no one NEEDS anything other than food, shelter, and safe health conditions to survive.



Now.. would you like to talk about what SOCIETY becomes dependent on? ... when you're an industry that re-shapes the world, you take on a certain obligation.... just ask Mark Zuckerberg.



Little Marky built a web service that is FREE to people, yet the government places certain rules on the way he operates it. Mark isn't simply free to do EVERYTHING he'd like to do, either.



WHO picks up the tab here is irrelevant.



In THIS discussion, AT&T and they way they are being dishonest about an agreement they made with the consumer IS at hand. They ALWAYS forget that contracts are two-way.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Exactly. AT&T did this to themselves by continuing to grandfather people in with upgrades. They could have simply said with the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 or 4S, any point along the way that they aren't grandfathering them in. That leaves those who had edge phones and the vast majority would have upgraded by now.



But AT&T didn't want to lose the revenue when some of those subs flee to another carrier like Verizon. They want the money and subs but not provide the service that gets them the money and the subs. Surprise surprise. Every business would like to run that way but AT&T is one of the few that can actually get that done.

posimosh

join:2011-02-04

Roseville, CA posimosh to fiberguy2

Member to fiberguy2

Yall are blaming the wrong people.... And if you don't like government, move to somalia... The purpose of government in an advanced society is to provide for its people the things that they cannot provide themselves (you know, like roads, telecommunications infrastructure, and... like... the internet). Instead of throwing your hands up cause, ya know, "they're all the same" and "I'm too lazy/stupid/self-interested/racist/successful to pay attention to politics/government" why don't you do something to change the fact that money has so thoroughly captured 1.5 of the political parties in this country?



AVD

Respice, Adspice, Prospice

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Onion, NJ AVD Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by posimosh: money has so thoroughly captured 1.5 of the political parties in this country?

you mean 4.5

compton

join:2002-02-08

Brooklyn, NY compton to Steve B

Member to Steve B

said by Steve B: said by Chaplain: But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.



ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly it! Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Its easy for the corporate kiss asses to make such judgements because they don't feel affected the way regular consumers do.



Why getting rid of "it" isn't an alternative? Assuming the "it" you are referring to are smart phones the four major carriers all carry the same smart phones. There is very little reason to stick with a carrier that you are unhappy with. Why getting rid of "it" isn't an alternative? Assuming the "it" you are referring to are smart phones the four major carriers all carry the same smart phones. There is very little reason to stick with a carrier that you are unhappy with.



TheHelpful1

Premium Member

join:2002-01-11

Upper Marlboro, MD TheHelpful1 to Chaplain

Premium Member to Chaplain

+1. Add to that the fact that unless you jump ship from ATT to Tmobile, you'll have to dump your cell phone hardware and get butt-humped long term when you sign a new 2-year agreement or get butt-humped short term and buy one unsubsidized.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Likewise, as we're held to ETFs to jump ship in most cases.. we sometimes DO get to leave the service. However, if WE violate the terms of the contract by leaving early, or just "leaving early" we have to pay the prorated or full ETF depending on where we are. However, what about when THEY violate it... by me leaving for a material change in the contract (which I don't think they SHOULD be able to change anyway.. a deal is a deal).. .I think they should also have to pay me back for the portion I paid for the hardware up front as well. Fair is fair! (It's not part of the agreement, I know.. but still, fair is fair).. just an example of a one way agreement.



So what exactly is there to motivate the PROVIDER to honor their agreement if there is no penalty outside of losing a customer? I am motivated to STAY in the agreement by notice of penalty for doing so.



bobjohnson

Premium Member

join:2007-02-03

Spartanburg, SC bobjohnson Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop My cell service is $100 a month and i have 18 months left... that's $1800, and if they do me wrong I will gladly pay $300 and go with someone that deserves that extra $1500. The kind of thinking that you mention above is what helps in allowing them to do what they want.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Your argument works, on Sprint. I've used it a few times in my negotiations with them, only my numbers were $368 per month x 18 months. (Ironically I was at the 18 month point myself when I had that conversation) Only Sprint "got it" and worked with me.. when I brought this point up to AT&T, it was like looking at a deer in headlights.



But, I fail to see how what I said about encourages them. Not only do they lose the remaining of the contract, they also would have to pay back/buy back the hardware that was fronted FOR violating. So, add $200 to your $1800 in lost future revenue... it doesn't help them. What it DOES do is help them shed a customer for about 2 years, at minimum.



bobjohnson

Premium Member

join:2007-02-03

Spartanburg, SC 1 edit bobjohnson Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop I paid att's etf back when it was att wireless and switched to sprint actually. All that i'm saying is that alot of people think that they need to stay with these companies because of the etf, if a million of the throttled iphone (or any other screwed over customers) cancelled, that would be a big loss of revenue after the 3 months that the etf pays and would change some things. It's alot of money up front but most of the time you can sell the phone to cover it.



Edit: And my comment was not about what you said specifically but about the "motivation" to stay in the contract being the etf.. Some people will take gettin screwed for 2 yrs because of the money up front.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop



Also, too, it cracks me up how there is this mental block with people regarding the ETF when it comes to extremely dissatisfied service they are getting. How I see it, much like you, is while they're getting the ETF, they're not getting any more revenue from me. People will stay with a provider to avoid a $200 fee, but continue to pay upwards $80 a month for service they can't stand, or sometimes can't use, as they'll say. I also don't see the ETF as a penalty. I know that the phone costs more "retail" than what I paid. I know they are subsidizing the phone over the life of my contract. By staying in the contract I know I'm paying a portion back each month to cover the cost of the phone that I didn't make up front. I don't see the ETF as a pentaly, I simply see it as what I owe them for the remainder of the hardware. If the phone is a good one, (such as the iPhones, higher end Androids, etc) then I can sell the hardware on the web and get most of my money back. Anything that I didn't make, as people call "a loss" is what I paid in to use the hardware for the time that I had it.



But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want. And I agree with you.Also, too, it cracks me up how there is this mental block with people regarding the ETF when it comes to extremely dissatisfied service they are getting. How I see it, much like you, is while they're getting the ETF, they're not getting any more revenue from me. People will stay with a provider to avoid a $200 fee, but continue to pay upwards $80 a month for service they can't stand, or sometimes can't use, as they'll say. I also don't see the ETF as a penalty. I know that the phone costs more "retail" than what I paid. I know they are subsidizing the phone over the life of my contract. By staying in the contract I know I'm paying a portion back each month to cover the cost of the phone that I didn't make up front. I don't see the ETF as a pentaly, I simply see it as what I owe them for the remainder of the hardware. If the phone is a good one, (such as the iPhones, higher end Androids, etc) then I can sell the hardware on the web and get most of my money back. Anything that I didn't make, as people call "a loss" is what I paid in to use the hardware for the time that I had it.But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want.

CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC CXM_Splicer Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop >But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want.



+1



I paid $180 to Verizon to terminate a contract with about 8 months of service left that I just wasn't using. It is simply a no-brainer of which one is cheaper. I agree, I think people get locked into a mindset of 'paying for nothing' vs. 'getting a service for my money' and they lose sight of the bigger picture.



Kind of reminds me of a stupid joke my friend used to crack up about:



Hey mister, wanna buy an elephant?



No way! I don't need an elephant, besides where would I keep it?



I will give you two for the price of one...



OK, I'll take em!!!



AuraReturn

Premium Member

join:2003-08-18

USA AuraReturn to Chaplain

Premium Member to Chaplain

said by Chaplain: But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

Agreed. What's the point in switching to Verizon, Spring, or TMobile when they all offer basically the same damn service? Sure, some are $10 more expensive or $10 cheaper but they are essentially the same service when you factor in the price.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Well in my case CLEAR unlimited really means unlimited (month before last was 96GB, last month about 50GB). I believe Sprint who uses the same WiMax network does the same thing, unlimited is limited, no throttling, no caps, no overages. For now. When they both either run out of cash or finish building LTE who knows what the plans would be.

en103

join:2011-05-02 en103 to skeechan

Member to skeechan

Well... if he left, he'd have to pay AT&T ETF. So either way, he could do ok.



1. AT&T cancels service (leave without paying ETF)

2. AT&T goes to court and makes a media spectacle - it may cost him, but I'm sure that a Gloria Allred or other public defender would assist in smearing AT&T.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop I would think the change in service would be a breach and allow the sub to leave without paying an ETF.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 to skeechan

Premium Member to skeechan

You are correct! They did change their terms of service. I called them on this as well... so far, 5 people have "denied" that this is a material change of the terms... in fact they go on to further say that I am no affected by this "change" (remember, there was no change) because I've not hit the cap yet.. (Remember, there was no "cap" before) ... however, this change, they go on to say, does affect all users on the "unlimited" plan. I then asked "what is the speed I will be throttled to (because I advised them I was going to turn on XM streaming and leave my phone on until I hit this cap) and they could not tell me.. this of course was after I asked them what 3G speeds are (she quoted me EDGE numbers) because I also reminded her that I was on an "UNLIMITED 3G INTERNET SERVICE" so throttling my service to that of less than 3G speeds is in fact NOT unlimited "3G data"...



They spun and spun and spun the whole time. It's great that phone calls can be recorded to many of their call centers,.. all of them in fact state that the calls in being recorded at the beginning of the call so the "disclosure" of recording has been made.



...nice huh? (and to note, some of their call centers ARE in fact in 1-party states where recording is legal with out notice to the other part so long as you are the party doing the recording)



But still, I do believe that threatening to terminate service because you won't "negotiate" in a court settlement is in fact a breach or a violate of some law somewhere and while not criminal would in fact come with heavy penalties, fines, awards.. and nasty nasty press.



If this guy is smart, he'll let them terminate his service. It's not like VZ or Sprint doesn't carry iPhones... when this blows up bigger than AT&T really wants it to, he'll wind up with his service back, as it was before this started... and a hell of a lot richer.

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24

Sandy, UT 1 recommendation rahvin112 Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Tethering violates ATT Terms of Service. This is very explicit in the contract. The gentleman in question has publicly stated several times that he used all this data tethering to multiple devices. IMO ATT has him, he's admitted to violating the TOS and they can terminate for cause at this point, the likely only thing that will prevent it would be meeting whatever terms ATT wants to impose for the violation.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Yes.. you are right, he did.. but I could care less about what this guy did - he has nothing to do with what I stated above. AT&T has yet again screwed over the American public.



However, in the guy's case, as it's stated here, they would love to terminate him for not talking to them. They already re-instated his service a while back, put him on unlimited again. AT&T already accepted what he did and moved on.. they can't go back and revisit something they've already CLEARLY resolved.



However, if we were having this discussion PRIOR to his suing for throttling him and he was still tethering his device, then I'd say to that guy.. "flip off dude".. he knew what he was doing then.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow to skeechan

Premium Member to skeechan

If you are on unlimited service and you leave AT&T wins because they have one less unlimited customer. It hurts them more if you can leave without paying ETF and less if you do pay. But over time they win when the last unlimited customer is gone. The FTC should hold them to their word the UNLIMITED is not limited unlimited. The y may have won the customer over by using the word unlimited and now they want to say not really.

All companies need to be held to their main points not the whispered certain restrictions apply that make what is shouted in the ad is not what you really get. It is bait and switch.



Here is Matt Spaccarelli on YT trying to collect his $850. I love the CS rep she sounded very honest. They should have written him a check on the spot.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Sure, one less unlimited user doesn't matter to AT&T (the bad PR is far worse), but if everyone like me, the who knows how many people are still grandfathered in leave, it matters. People fleeing en masse would make even more headlines and then you would have other carriers offering sweetheart deals to pick those subs up, just as you saw credit unions chomping at the bit for POed BofA customers when they were planning that debit card fee.



DaveDude

No Fear

join:1999-09-01

New Jersey 1 recommendation DaveDude to FFH5

Member to FFH5

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by FFH5: said by moonpuppy: Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.



The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.



Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime. It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS.

moonpuppy (banned)

join:2000-08-21

Glen Burnie, MD moonpuppy (banned) Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by DaveDude: said by FFH5: Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.



It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS. BINGO! It is retaliatory and strong arm.

CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC CXM_Splicer Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Agreed. If there is no legal basis (violating a TOS agreement for instance) you cannot just terminate a person's service because of 'x'... it is called discrimination.



I am not sure if threatening someone with discrimination is illegal but it is certainly unprofessional. AT&T should just pay the guy his money and walk away.

chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01

San Jose, CA 360.8 10.3

·Comcast XFINITY

chgo_man99 to FFH5

Member to FFH5

I support that. Moreover imagine I am unfairly suing you for molesting mr in court which I loose . Then imagine u can't sue me back for frivolous litigation.



Or maybe something more in line with AT&T, I stop providing tutoring to your kids because u sued me for dog bite when u taunted him. Fair and square and I don't see anything wrong with that!



pjcamp

@comcastbusiness.net pjcamp to FFH5

Anon to FFH5

The difference is that negotiations are over. The court has already issued a decision and the case is therefore settled unless the guy voluntarily wants to reopen it. AT&T can appeal the decision but until an appeal is granted, the decision stands. This sort of thing does happen all the time in legal proceedings PRE-TRIAL. This is post trial. I agree. This action crosses the line into extortion.



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

They can probably cancel his service, either at the end of his contract or because he admittedly violated the TOS by tethering, but "meet with us or we'll cancel your service" might well fall under the crime and tort of extortion.



What's more serious for them is the PR hit. They obviously did not want him going to the AP with their threat.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

I think their liability would be limited to any consequential damages stemming from the disconnect, such as if the cell phone number were used by a salesperson and the disconnection precluded porting to a different carrier (the lost revenue of sales).



As we all know, just because some escape clause may be buried in a contract doesn't mean it would be enforceable.



And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service.

etaadmin

join:2002-01-17

united state etaadmin Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by skeechan: And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service.

Which is more than 97% of their subscribers.



Rambo76098

join:2003-02-21

Columbus, OH Rambo76098 to FFH5

Member to FFH5

Threatening to breach a contract IS NOT just doing business. Just because they're mad that he won in small claims court (which he has the right to take them to BY LAW), does not give them any legal reason to not meet their obligations under the contract. In fact, if they did terminate, he would have grounds to sue for breach of contract and seek recoupment of damages.



AVD

Respice, Adspice, Prospice

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Onion, NJ AVD Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop sometimes a threat, even a threat to do a legal action, is unethical or even illegal.

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT BiggA to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

Exactly. They should have disconnected his service for just going to small claims court. He was trying to sue them, against what he signed in a contract with AT&T, and thus, he doesn't deserve AT&T service.



FutureMon

Dude Whats mine say?



join:2000-10-05

Marina, CA FutureMon to FFH5

to FFH5

It would be interestingly funny if it is his only phone service; so they'd effectively be cutting him off from emergency 911/lifeline services by cancelling his service.



- FM



ridebud

Challenge Accepted

join:2003-12-06

usa ridebud to FFH5

Member to FFH5

Criminal coercion



(1) A person is guilty of criminal coercion when with intent to compel another person to engage in or refrain from conduct, he unlawfully threatens to:

(a) Commit any crime; or

(b) Accuse anyone of a crime; or

(c) Expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair another's credit or business repute; or

(d) Take or withhold action as an official or cause an official to take or withhold action.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop said by ridebud: Criminal coercion



(1) A person is guilty of criminal coercion when with intent to compel another person to engage in or refrain from conduct, he unlawfully threatens to:

(a) Commit any crime; or

(b) Accuse anyone of a crime; or

(c) Expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair another's credit or business repute; or

(d) Take or withhold action as an official or cause an official to take or withhold action.

Okay. But AT&T is doing none of those things.

tcope

Premium Member

join:2003-05-07

Sandy, UT 1 recommendation tcope to moonpuppy

Premium Member to moonpuppy

"Spaccarelli has admitted that he has used his iPhone to provide Internet access for other devices, a practice known as tethering, which violates AT&T's contract terms. AT&T says that means it has the right to turn off his service."



He admitted in court that he violated AT&T's TOS and really, this is why he went over the cap. AT&T certainly has every right to cancel his contract and give him the boot. I have no love for AT&T but it's "odd" how the article commenting on the "threat" does not explain anything about the issue. That is, the author is obviously trying to make what he/she wrote more interesting by not reporting all of the facts.

OwlSaver

OwlSaver

Premium Member

join:2005-01-30

Berwyn, PA OwlSaver to moonpuppy

Premium Member to moonpuppy

said by moonpuppy: Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.



The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United is based on corporations being people, AT&T should be held in contempt of court and forced to go to jail.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop See that is the beauty of this God awful ruling (one of the worst in our nation) - they get all the benefits of being "people" when it is convenient for them, but then don't have to deal with any of the responsibility or accountability for being a "person".



The corporation's acting board members and executives should all be held responsible and serve whatever punishment is handed down on the corporation. They are the "person" after all.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop Even better the Corporation should be sent to jail just like a person. There is a big reason companies always get the Phrase we are not admitting any quilt. The reason is they would be barred from many contracts if they are found to have committed certain levels of Felonies.

In the case of a company like AT&T with many government contracts they could be barred from any more contracts just like a felon would have a hard time getting government contracts.



AT&T may find the ice they are standing on with all their lawyers may collapse from under them.



I hope small claims court eats their luch for many of the reasons Fiberguy has pointed out. Mostly because they were talking out of both side of their mouth. Unlimited is Unlimited or it is not.

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31

Apache Junction, AZ ArizonaSteve to moonpuppy

Member to moonpuppy

Does their contract say they have the right to disconnect disgruntled customers? If not then it seems like he now has a second reason to sue AT&T.



Nunya 521

@verizon.net Nunya 521 to moonpuppy

Anon to moonpuppy

I agree fully, and a guilty verdict should automatically result in a death sentence that must be carried out within 24 hours.



(Me for President)



Tomek

Premium Member

join:2002-01-30

Valley Stream, NY Tomek Premium Member Good Precedent That's what I am hoping for



jjoshua

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Scotch Plains, NJ jjoshua Premium Member Re: Good Precedent Yeah. AT&T is going to have to stop saying that their service is unlimited.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Good Precedent said by jjoshua: AT&T is going to have to stop saying that their service is unlimited. It's expending effort and resources to do just that.



SirLurksALot

@mycingular.net SirLurksALot Anon Not Surpising Typical AT&T bully tactics. Their customer 'service' policy seems (in my personal experience) to focus on bluster, BS, and intellectual bullying to get 'problem' customers (those that have a clue and try to insist they get what they pay for) to accept dysfunctional service. They are currently under investigation by at least one states' attorney general for '...a clear and consistent pattern of deliberately deceptive and misleading advertising and customer service practices that approach fraudulent misrepresentation....'.

Good for him for not giving up!

SirLurksALot SirLurksALot Anon Re: Not Surpising Interesting that my ISP shows as Cingular not AT&T....probably a leased bandwidth thing, tho there is no Cingular wireless available in my area. Another example of their bizarre approach to wireless?

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: Not Surpising It is a legal thing. They don't want to pay to have all the paperwork changed to at&t. The old names are still legal. AT&T is just a holding company.



IPPlanMan

Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20

Washington, DC IPPlanMan Member Good on him... This story isn't going away...



AT&T didn't learn a damn thing from the T-Mobile debacle.



The same clueless corporate idiots that orchestrated that are the same ones trying to put a lid on Matt Spaccarelli. That's not going to work.



Hey AT&T, this story is bigger than you know.

"Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel."

- Mark Twain

Kommie2 (banned)

join:2003-05-13

united state Kommie2 (banned) Member Corporate America at its finest A fine example of Corporate America and "Free" Trade.



Kilroy

MVM

join:2002-11-21

Saint Paul, MN Kilroy MVM Just like chocolate pie This is the gift that keeps on giving. AT&T should have paid up immediately and this wouldn't have been the news story that it has become. It seems they would rather it have a life of its own as they keep stoking the fire.



There is no upside for AT&T to continue this. The longer it goes on the more people hear about how AT&T "unlimited" is limited. How you can go to small claims court and win a judgement against AT&T. How if you win a judgement AT&T will try and buy you off, obviously for more money than the judgement. How AT&T only has bad judgement and doesn't know when to sit down and shut up.



Welcome to the new world where everyone has a printing press and can spread their news to the world in an instant.



anon123

@teksavvy.com anon123 Anon AT&T deserves this Let's face it - there's a ton more users that didn't violate their TOS but were still throttled by AT&T. And that's what they're really afraid of. If a guy who violated the TOS can still win, it's got class action written all over it for those that didn't violate the TOS.



As much as I respect and like AT&T they deserve a good a**f*cking over this. False advertising like this simply shouldn't be tolerated.





Rob

Premium Member

join:2001-08-25

Miami, FL Rob Premium Member Where's the letter?



Nevermind - found it here:



»blog.publikdemand.com/wp ··· elli.pdf



I found this part to be interesting:



"Your data usage demonstrates that you have tethered your wireless device in violation of the plain terms of your Wireless Customer Agreement, which makes clear that a data plan may not be used to tether unless it is "specifically designated for tethering usage."



So if he had a "specifically designated" plan for tethering, data usage wouldn't be an issue? I can't find the letter and I'd like to read it. Anyone have a link?Nevermind - found it here:I found this part to be interesting:"Your data usage demonstrates that you have tethered your wireless device in violation of the plain terms of your Wireless Customer Agreement, which makes clear that a data plan may not be used to tether unless it is "specifically designated for tethering usage."So if he had a "specifically designated" plan for tethering, data usage wouldn't be an issue?



morbo

Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22

00000 morbo Member Re: Where's the letter? Now now. Don't start asking the interesting questions that will get the people thinking.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 to Rob

Member to Rob

Of course not.



Paying X for data usage is not enough for tethering, but pay X+Y for that same data usage is all of a sudden enough.



So really what you must be paying for is the use of the application that allows tethering. Hmmmmm........



nunya

LXI 483

MVM

join:2000-12-23

O Fallon, MO nunya MVM Great job on the PR AT&T! Wow! I know some PR folks and Lawyers who should be looking for a job this morning. What a bunch of morons. AT&T, a multi-billion dollar corporation, should have paid the $850 and let this all quietly go away. Even better, give the guy more cash to shut up.



AT&T, as an entity, has the right to say "I don't want to do business with you any more". Firing off this letter was stupid. BUT, there has been a ruling that AT&T clearly said they were going to appeal. That means this is an ongoing case. That means that AT&T could be held in contempt of court. Granted, it's a small claims court which will probably limit the repercussions.



This will shine a bright spotlight on AT&T's (and other cell providers) illegal tethering policy, which is a clear violation of the Sherman Act. A section 1 violation would be fairly easy to prove. Section 2 is questionable.



Cheese

Premium Member

join:2003-10-26

Naples, FL Cheese Premium Member Wow.... "A law firm retained by AT&T Inc. also threatened in a letter dated Friday to shut off Matthew Spaccarelli's phone service if he doesn't sit down to talk....In its letter, AT&T asked Spaccarelli to be quiet about the settlement talks, including the fact that it offered to start them, another common stipulation"



Wow, what a horrible POS AT&T is being, you lost and threaten to shut down the users service if he doesn't "sit down to talk"? Wow, just WOW....



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member Re: Wow.... Too funny. It's not a stipulation unless it is agreed to as part of a settlement. Until this, Matt can sing like a bird and should unless AT&T wants to write his a big check to STFU.



The PR department must be wanting to chop the heads off the idiots in their legal department by now. Every time people start to forget about how horrible AT&T is, some dark suited douche on another floor steps in it again with a poorly contrived get rich quick scheme.

axiomatic

join:2006-08-23

Tomball, TX axiomatic Member Sigh.... Lets not forget that AT&T is breaking long standing inter-networking specifications to profit off of tethering. This stuff was designed to interconnect.... they had to break it to profit from it.



If that's not intentional greed I don't know what is.

djnrg787

join:2009-06-10

Saint Louis, MO djnrg787 Member Why this ad is my question... I also have been throttled i use 4 -5 gb every single month, and have been since the very first iphone 3g do i tether no i have a hotspot for that so they can shove it.

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29

Arcadia, FL firedrakes Member Re: Why this ad is my question... about dam time

Methadras

join:2004-05-26

Spring Valley, CA Methadras Member Sue them again. He should just sue them again for intimidation, coercion, and/or extortion.



linicx

Caveat Emptor

Premium Member

join:2002-12-03

United State linicx Premium Member AT&T: At it again FCC and US Justice Department slept while Humpty Dumpty (Ma Bell) quietly picked up the pieces and sat on the wall again. My Ball aka Southwestern Bell, Cingular, and half dozen other phony baloney names, is currently dba AT&T. And it is currently doing all the things that caused it to be in violation of the Sherman Act to begin with. Maybe the next time it gets caught with its fingers in the money pit it will be broken up and sold off so it is impossible to reassemble itself.



I cut the cord with cable, AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile, and Sprint. When my VZ contract ends, I will be out of the game. I will either move to Walmart or Trac Phone as my needs are limited. It is not worth paying $1200 per annum for a limited use phone.



treich

join:2006-12-12 treich Member Re: AT&T: At it again You know if you use trac phone or any phone from wal mart are still going to be on ATT/T-Mobile/Sprint/VZ network all trac phone or straight talk is a MVNO they are not true wireless carrier.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member The real cure... The real cure for all this crap is to make it illegal for companies to alter the terms of a contract any time they feel like it. They should be held to whatever the contract said at the time the customer agreed to it.



linicx

Caveat Emptor

Premium Member

join:2002-12-03

United State linicx Premium Member AT&T: At it again FCC and US Justice Department slept while Humpty Dumpty (Ma Bell) quietly picked up the pieces and sat on the wall again. My Ball aka Southwestern Bell, Cingular, and half dozen other phony baloney names, is currently dba AT&T. And it is currently doing all the things that caused it to be in violation of the Sherman Act to begin with. Maybe the next time it gets caught with its fingers in the money pit it will be broken up and sold off so it is impossible to reassemble itself.



I cut the cord with cable, AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile, and Sprint. When my VZ contract ends, I will be out of the game. I will either move to Walmart or Trac Phone as my needs are limited. It is not worth paying $1200 per annum for a limited use phone.

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT BiggA Premium Member This guy is an idiot He goes to court to sue AT&T for doing what is in a contract that he signed when getting his service, and now he's mad that they are threatening to shut off his service? Insane.



IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA IowaCowboy Premium Member Whistleblower He could now sue for retaliation under the state's whistleblower laws.