Home » AT&T »Consumer News »Data Caps »Editorial & Site News »Public Policy & Gov't » Currently Reading:

Breaking News: AT&T Ending Unlimited Broadband Service for DSL/U-verse Customers May 2nd

Phillip Dampier March 13, 2011 AT&T, Consumer News, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Public Policy & Gov't 51 Comments

Broadband Reports has obtained a leaked memo stating AT&T plans on eliminating its flat rate broadband plans for DSL and U-verse customers effective May 2nd.

On that date, AT&T will limit its DSL customers to 150GB per month and its U-verse customers to 250GB per month in what will be the largest Internet Overcharging operation in the nation.  Customers who violate the usage limits will face a three-strikes-you’re-overcharged penalty system.  After three violations of the usage limit, customers will pay an additional $10 for each block of 50GB they consume.  Although that represents just $0.20 per gigabyte, less than some others have imposed, it is not pro-rated.  Whether a customer uses one or fifty “extra” gigabytes, they will face the same $10 fee on their bill.

Customers will begin receiving notification of the change in the company’s terms of service March 18.

AT&T claims only 2 percent of their DSL customers will be exposed to the Internet Overcharging scheme.

“Using a notification structure similar to our new wireless data plans, we’ll proactively notify customers when they exceed 65%, 90% and 100% of the monthly usage allowance,” AT&T’s Seth Bloom told Broadband Reports. The company also says they’ll provide users with a number of different usage tools, including a usage monitor that tracks historical usage over time, and a number of different usage tools aimed at identifying and managing high bandwidth consumption services.

“Using a notification structure similar to our new wireless data plans, we’ll proactively notify customers when they exceed 65%, 90% and 100% of the monthly usage allowance,” AT&T tells us. The company also says they’ll provide users with a number of different usage tools, including a usage monitor that tracks historical usage over time, and a number of different usage tools aimed at identifying and managing high bandwidth consumption services.

However, AT&T’s accuracy in measuring broadband usage is open for debate.  The company is facing a class action lawsuit over its wireless usage billing.  According to the suit, AT&T consistently inflates usage measured on customer bills.  No third party verification or oversight of usage meters is mandated — customers simply have to trust AT&T.

AT&T ran trials in Beaumont, Tex., and Reno, Nev., from 2008 with a range of usage limits.  Customer reaction to the trials was hostile, and the test ended in early 2010.  In December, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told providers the agency was not opposed to usage limits and consumption billing schemes, leading some to predict the green light was given to companies willing to test whether customers will tolerate Internet Overcharging.

AT&T claimed this weekend its new pricing was going to benefit customers.  So long as customers keep paying their bills, AT&T will not “reduce the speeds, terminate service or limit available data like some others in the industry,” Bloom said.

But the usage limits come at the same time Americans are increasing their consumption of online video and other high bandwidth services.  Usage limits which may appear to be reasonable at first glance become punishing when they do not change over time and customers increasingly risk exceeding them.  Once established, several companies have repeatedly lowered them to further monetize broadband service usage.  AT&T has delivered some of the lowest usage limits in the wireless industry, so it has faced customer criticism in the past.

Customers tied to existing term contracts may likely avoid the usage caps temporarily.  Others will not stick around long enough to find out.

“I will be canceling my U-verse service on Monday and go back to Time Warner Cable,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Jeffrey.  “I will never do business with a provider that imposes overlimit fees on usage that literally costs them next to nothing to provide.  It’s like charging extra for every deep breath.”

Some of our other readers are headed back to Comcast, which has a 250GB usage cap, or exploring DSL provided over AT&T lines by third party companies, which likely will not impose usage limits, at least for now.

“Charging 20 cents per gigabyte isn’t too bad, but you just know AT&T will lower the caps or jack those rates up,” our reader Ian writes. “It is very important to send AT&T a message right now we are prepared to quit doing business with them over this issue, or else we will be nickle and dimed to death by them tomorrow.”

Our reader Jared asks whether new legislation has been introduced to curb unjustified Internet Overcharging.  In 2009, then Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill to ban Internet Overcharging unless companies could prove it was justified.  At the moment, there is no new legislation, but when providers attempt to overreach and impose pricing the vast majority of broadband customers oppose, that could change.

At the moment, Stop the Cap! recommends AT&T customers begin to explore alternative providers and prepare to terminate their service with AT&T unless they scrap their Internet Overcharging scheme.  AT&T earns billions in profits from their broadband division and spends millions on lobbying.  With this amount of largesse, AT&T does not need this pricing scheme to remain profitable.

Currently there are 51 comments on this Article:

  1. john k says:

    call AT&T and let them what you think of there caps we have to let them feel heat from there customers that how twc was stopped in 2009

    • brcreek says:

      @john k

      Honestly, calling AT&T will accomplish nothing but wasting time. The only way anyone is going to have a chance in fighting this is if they call their local members of Congress (and it’s still an incredibly slim chance) and demand that they impose laws for True Net Neutrality.

      • patriotaxe says:

        Al Franken (Dem/MN) remains our one, reliable champion of Net Neutrality. I’d suggest contacting his office first; chances are he’s already working on this.

  2. StoptheCap says:

    How about this for an idea for new legislation – If cable companies introduce a “CAP” then they must refund unused data on a pro-rata basis to the other 98% of customers.

    Cap’s should be made illegal wired and wireless

    • aaron says:


    • I also agree. We lost Eric Massa to the “tickle party” (:roll eyes:) but perhaps a congressperson in an AT&T district can revive the issue. The legislation helps draw media and public attention on the issue.

      Unfortunately, New York is not served by AT&T on the wired side, so I can’t be as effective here. We will need AT&T customers to engage and we’ll have some campaign ideas up shortly to begin the pushback.

  3. JoeIllinois says:

    After years of denial by internet providers(that also sell pay TV service), isn’t this a recognition by AT&T that people ARE cutting the cord to watch TV online? (Sorry for stating the obvious here.)

    Shouldn’t we expect other providers to fall in line with usage caps, since they’ll claim that they’re only following AT&T’s lead?

  4. Greg says:

    I’m not going to defend AT&T here, but it sounds better than Comcast. Last time I checked, Comcast may ban you from service if you exceed the 250GB per month cap. At least with AT&T, you’ve got the option to get more data if you’re willing to pay for it.

    • Comcast will quietly let you buy a second residential broadband account if you want to blow well past their cap, which is not strictly enforced (only a small percentage of the top users get warning letters).

      They aren’t justified doing it either.

  5. siouxmoux says:

    Well ATT is about to lose another customer. If sonic net was available in west san jose. I would drop ATT UV Internet for sonic.net.

  6. Austin says:

    If this was for the consumers, 98% of people would have lower bills

    If this was because of AT&T’s network being overloaded, then we would have heard AT&T tell us so a long time ago.

    If this was for greed of investors… then well Its happening now… This…

  7. David says:

    Net Neutrality…Please…Netflix, Applie, Hulu, Amazon, Google are all getting a free ride on the infrastructure of AT&T. And their position is to not charge them but charge the end-user. So, that’s what is going to happen. You asked for Net Neutrality…You got it. The network is NOT free. AT&T wanted to increase fees to the content providers; but were refused by your FCC…So, if you don’t like it…right your congress person and ask for a Fair Net Neutrality legislation that isn’t 100% to the benefit of Google, etc.

    • Ron Dafoe says:

      Your 100% wrong. All of those companies that you listed are also paying for their internet connections They don’t get “free” internet. it costs them and the money that they pay to whoever goes to the companies that they have agreements with.

      See, they have you so confused, you don’t even know how it works, or what exactly net nuetrality is. net nuetrality has nothing to do with Internet Overcharging. it has to do with the fair distribution of information of the internet. I suggest you read about net nuetrality, consumer internet, business internet, and hosting services to inform yourself about what is really happening.

    • I keep seeing this claim of a “free ride” and it makes no sense to me. Every content producer, including this website, pays for an Internet account to update their site, a hosting provider to host the traffic, -and- we pay for the traffic a site generates,

      It’s not as if Google, et al., are throwing content up for free and letting ISPs pay all of the costs. Amazon’s own content delivery platform can really add up. One website that hosts scanner radio feeds pays Amazon more than $15k a MONTH to host a few hundred low bandwidth audio streams. Imagine what Netflix and others are paying.

      What AT&T and others want is to be paid twice. Once by the subscriber who specifically signs up for service and pays $45-60+ a month to access sites like Netflix and then again by the content producer forced to pay some traffic transport fee to that ISP. But in fact they are already paying that fee to the web hosting company, and part of that revenue filters back to companies like AT&T anyway. Remember, most of these companies also sell hosting services themselves.

      That’s like making a long distance phone call where the caller and the person called both are forced to pay the same long distance phone charges.

      We don’t have real Net Neutrality, and providers have toyed with these schemes even before that concept appeared at the FCC. This site has been around since 2008, more than two years before Net Neutrality was before the Commission.

      This is simple profiteering, and it’s not being done by Google or Netflix.

    • Tim says:

      To echo Ron Dafoe, you are absolutely 100% incorrect. No one is getting a “free” ride here. Everyone pays for their bandwidth: consumers and content providers. This is especially true with the Comcast+Level 3/Netflix dispute. Comcast is wanting to double-dip by charging Level 3 more because it claims it gets more traffic. However that traffic, is traffic being requested by Comcast subscribers, which already pay Comcast for their connection.

      We all know what caps are for. They are not for grandma who checks her email once a week or to punish supposed data hogs, whatever that is. It is to sack competition. People are cutting-the-cord because Cable TV is getting too expensive and people are tired of paying for channels that they never watch, which in my opinion is a big waste of money to subsidize channels you never watch. For the 1st time, Cable Co’s do not hold all the cards. The Internet is allowing other services to compete with Cable TV. Netflix offers unlimited streaming of movies and TV shows for around $8-9/month when Time Warner is charging $5 for one rental over their VOD service. Which do you think is the better value?

  8. Larry says:

    For the past several months, I was toying with the idea of switching from Roadrunner on TWC to U-verse. Not anymore.

    • Arsta; says:


      I don’t think this cap is nearly as bad as what TW tried to do here, and yeah we owe Massa even in NC, but he was stupid to do what he did and get forced out.

      He didn’t do us any favors there.

      I still oppose this on principle. What needs to be done in NC is make sure Purdue knows about it for a potential veto and tounge-lashing on the cable bill- she needs something to get her re-elected right now (she isn’t very popular).

      • Yes, every North Carolina resident should be on the phone with members of the Finance Committee to oppose H.129, a community broadband killer bill. Large parts of North Carolina are stuck with Time Warner and AT&T. Community broadband providers do not impose usage limits on their customers. They provide the perfect escape valve from the greedy providers that want more.

  9. Duffin says:

    To those more conservative people (not on this site, just in general), how exactly are people supposed to “vote with their wallet” with stuff like this? Huh? In the article, a reader says they’ll go to Time Warner, but Time Warner has plans to do the exact same thing. When all ISPs are in cahoots to kill streaming video, how is the so-called free market supposed to work? You just want people to stop using internet? I think in this day-and-age, that’s nearly impossible. You can’t even apply for many jobs in person anymore. It’s all done online.

    • We stopped Time Warner in 2009 with a campaign of customer pushback and legislative threats which made the effort untenable. AT&T customers are going to have to do the same thing. Remember, AT&T folded its test in 2010 because customers simply refused to stick with a usage limited service. The main reason this is now back is thanks to the FCC Chairman’s capitulation on Net Neutrality and his willingness to tolerate these pricing schemes. But if enough consumers create a backlash, this will get shelved, too.

      I agree with everything you said about the broken marketplace. We are living with a duopoly that has its interests tended to by too many members in our legislature. But everytime they overreach, when enough consumers fight back, the issue achieves critical mass and providers are forced to drop it.

      I also think some of the major corporate players in the content delivery business have left their heads in the sand too long and need to start spending money to support efforts like ours, which will eventually save their own business models from being destroyed by provider greed.

      • Duffin says:

        Philip, I was definitely amazed by how Spot the Cap was able to push Time Warner back, but the thing that worries me is the focus of Americans. As a whole, Americans are lazy and uninformed. So, yeah, we were able to organize the first time, but how many times are Americans going to want to rally before they just give up and deal with the unfair treatment? We’ve seen it many times before in our history much more than the times people banded together to stop an injustice. We’re seeing that even after being beaten down, corporations will just do they exact same thing a year or two later in the hopes that people just stopped caring.

        We only need to look at the recent TSA outrage from the holiday season. I seriously thought the full-body scanners were going to end up being removed from airports due to the huge up-swelling against them. The TSA turned some of the machines off for the holidays, but then the media stopped talking about it and now it’s back to business as usual because Americans couldn’t be bothered to opt for the pat-down in lieu of going in the scanner.

        So, while a victory is good, I’m losing faith in people’s ability to fight for what’s right over time. Look at what they did in Egypt. They actually overthrew a leader. I couldn’t even imagine Americans doing such a thing if we were in the same position.

        • Canadians are usually considered far more passive than we are and look what has happened up there. Taking away unlimited Internet access can start a firestorm. AT&T has kept the gouging to the S&M level, unlike Time Warner’s broadband homicide.

          In context with other countries that are reducing the cost and increasing the speed of unlimited broadband, AT&T’s latest move just calls out the problem to a greater extent — one we will be pointing out.

          We also will not be fighting this all by ourselves.

      • Arsta; says:

        Would threatening and if need be cancelling phone service for this reason have any value?

        I don’t have cable with AT&T, but have cell service through them (Real cheap plan, AT&T didn’t offer good broadband here, but “it’s coming” like it has been the past 3 years)

    • Tim says:

      You are right. I am with AT&T Uverse and I am not happy about this but the only other game in town is Time Warner who tried and keeps saying that they are not done with caps at all. I think brcreek is on the right track. Personally I think the thing we really need to demand that all ISP’s sell a “dumb” pipe and open their lines to competition. It would bring us back to the dial-up days when anyone could start up their own ISP on the baby bell lines.

  10. Duffin says:

    Yeah, I know you guys will keep fighting and have allies. I’ve just been completely discouraged in the governmental process due to all the ridiculous stuff that has been going on in congress the past few years.

    Oh well, we’ll keep up the good fight until the end, I suppose!

    • I agree with you. But I have fought Big Telecom on issues all the way back to the big satellite dish wars in the mid 1980s. We helped drive an industry-wide change in 1992 with a cable reregulation bill which put an end to the buying and selling of cable systems as an investment (with enormous rate increases to finance the deals). Of course, companies bought their way to deregulation again in 1996 and the rate hikes resumed, but as time has passed, other technologies have been invading their turf.

      What is likely to happen here is we’ll engage in several skirmishes and win some, lose others. But the more these companies overreach, the greater the chance of a perfect storm. That is what happened in 2009 with Time Warner. They picked exactly the wrong cities to try this out. AT&T is lucky enough to exist mostly in states that are far more reflexively friendly to their agenda, which is why they get these deregulation bills passed. But if enough consumers are fired up, that will attract political attention and ignite discussions about whether it is worth imposing limits to stop what they claim are just 2 percent of their customers.

      After all, if it is such a minor problem, why punish everyone? (We know the answer, of course).

      More importantly, if content delivery businesses want to stay in business, they had better start spending some of that money now and stop pretending usage caps won’t hurt them. They will, whether or not consumers exceed them or not. Caps make people think twice about everything they do online, and Netflix and Amazon and Hulu are increasingly about getting people to pay to subscribe. Would you if you faced a usage cap?

      Do not be discouraged by temporary losses or battles that don’t get won today. It’s a long fight — one that ultimately should mean fiber to the home service to most Americans on which a variety of providers can compete for your business. No single gatekeepers, no duopolies, lower prices, unlimited use. That is the fight we’re ultimately in to win. And it will take time.

  11. J says:

    Here we go again! It’s like 2009 all over again.

    NetFlix, Vudu, Internet based TV, other live Internet events, PSN, XBox Live, the fact that most software publishers want to move to a completely online distribution is going to eat into this seemingly completely arbritrary 250 CAP pretty quickly … the idea of any sort of cap is completely short sighted.

    Getting fired up again!

  12. Steve says:

    What can we do if there is no other provider in our area for broadband internet? No cable company services my area, and my only other alternative is sattelite internet (which sucks).

    Isn’t this some kind of monopoly or unfair business practice when people are forced to accept a change like this and have no other alternative?

  13. What about those of us who still have cable tv from our ISP (TWC)? If they are targeting online tv users, why do I have to suffer a cap if I am paying for tv service from them. if they are going to rape us with caps, at least have -> have tv service = no cap…
    Pretty ridiculous… we do not need or want a cap on our service regardless of what we use… Where is my refund when I stay under the limit?

    • J says:

      Oscar – you almost had me thinking that might be a good idea, the problem being that it reeks of a sort of “tying”, when in fact everyone should get the same, uncapped service, especially when one’s Internet use is disproportionate to TV viewing.

      Requiring that someone buy one service in order to “qualify” for another seems like tying to me.

    • Scott says:

      Once they implement caps, it doesn’t stop. My cable company originally had the plans you’re exactly describing. The unbundled internet plans were all expensive and capped pushing you towards their “triple play” bundled packages without caps.

      So customers thought fine, just pay the extra $70+ on top of your $60 internet and get uncapped internet.. It didn’t stop there, after a year or so of pushing people into the uncapped triple play package they did away with the unlimited internet for the bundled plan and forced CAPS on all plans with a $5 per gig charge.

      This isn’t about just protecting their video business, it’s about stopping investment in infrastructure and charging more for less. These companies have bought themselves into a position most businesses would die for with no regulation and virtual monopolies.

      Don’t think you can just throw another fellow customer under the bus to save your own skin, the Cable Co’s will eventually get around to picking your pocket too.

      There is no compromise on caps, the only good answer is NO to caps.

      • J says:

        Could not agree more Scott!

        Upvote x 1000 … ^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

        You have articulated why the ONLY sensible argument is for NO caps.

        I would just add that – cablecos (especially TWC) tried to hoodwink people with bogus logic that bandwidth is somehow a “consumed” resource akin to water or natural gas, when nothing could be further from the truth. As soon as bandwidth is “freed” it is immediately available again and is NOT analagous to other types of “consumption”.

        I smell a new “explanation” brewing from the cablecos…

        [Y’know, in a highly speculative world in which I MIGHT agree with “capping”, it at the very least should be structured like EMusic. I.e., that you can purchase “booster packs” – but they are REASONABLY priced compared to the month rate of $ / music downloaded.

        TWC’s foisting of their artificially low caps back in (09?), and even with Sprint I’ve noticed, the rate charged after you go past the cap is ridiculously disproportionate.]

      • Yes, this is the nonsense that happened in Alaska. They started with exemptions for bundled customers and then took them away.

        In Canada, the limbo dance of broadband has been playing for a few years now. Start with “generous” caps and then lower them everytime a competitive threat turns up.

        Stop the Cap! does not even get into debates over “what is an appropriate cap” or cap mitigation promotions because that is just playing their game. They win once they get you to believe “some cap” is warranted. Then it is just a silly numbers game, and you end up losing.

        Folks, AT&T is a peering provider on the Internet backbone. That means they don’t have ANY worries when it comes to backbone traffic once the infrastructure is in place. If AT&T was furiously spending money to cover increasing traffic and could show that in their financial reports (the ones they cannot lie and obfuscate about under threat of SEC crackdowns), they could have some point. But of course they don’t because they aren’t.

        AT&T’s version of gouging is on the scale of S&M. It’s not as bad as Time Warner’s broadband homicide in 2009, but it still will hurt, and increasingly so.

        What is remarkable about all of this is that the rest of the world is moving forward in broadband while our nice little duopoly of phone and cable companies is moving us backwards. Heads need to roll, starting with Julius “Cowardly Lion” Genachowski who cannot make up his mind about ANYTHING, leaving us with useless Net Neutrality and an a-okay on Internet Overcharging. He needs to go.

  14. RAFAL says:

    You’re righ about them lowering the caps eventually… Canadians got lowered to 25 gigs for $40 or so.. and $2.50 to $10 each extra gig after that. and we are fighting back. At least you got some competition to jump to… our big three teamed up and all charge the same…. PUSHING the Government to step in is the only chance. Good LUCK on your Fight

  15. J says:

    In having a look at some of the logos on the front page, I think I will tell everyone I know to subscribe to netflix, purchase a Roku box, and subscribe to Hulu Plus.

    oh, and buy as much as you can from Amazon. Lol.


  16. Austin says:

    Has AT& Explained why TV IP data does not count in the cap? Data is Data on the AT&T Uverse network. Its a Pure IP environment, all data should be treated equal.

    • The claim is broadband is on a different network. But as we’ve said before, that doesn’t wash entirely. Some video programming is distributed regionally and of course AT&T maintains a long distance phone network that delivers digital data (phone calls) from coast to coast on an unlimited basis.

      My way of handling that is to emphasize the fact the one part of their broadband network usable to avoid buying other AT&T services is the one subject to caps.

      Not by accident.

      • Austin says:

        So even if TV is delivered somehow slightly different down the same piece of fiber to the VRAD, and they win that argument… this avoids the point…

        TV from AT&T’s VRAD to my house is all VDSL2 Data, and nothing more.

        Most Cable Co’s are capping because of “Last Mile” Congestion. Which is a type of congestion that is physically impossible for AT&T to have.

        So then logic points to This being a back-haul congestion issue. And if only 2% of people are using more than they would like, I cant imagine AT&T having back-haul issues.

  17. Scott says:

    If it hasn’t been stated already I wanted to make it very clear too that AT&T is essentially capping their competition. It’s clear this move is to block internet video provider competition along with increasing revenue. What hasn’t gotten much of a story is their U-verse TV side of the business that runs over the very same lines.

    The 250GB cap on their high-speed U-verse service EXEMPTS AT&T’s video over IP TV service’s bandwidth that travels over the same protocols and pipe as the IP based videos from YouTube, Facebook (soon), HULU, Netflix, Amazon.com, VUDU, and many other providers.

    AT&T knows they’d never get away with directly limiting their competition with caps to their customers, such as telling Netflix they’d only allow 50GB per month to each subscriber unless they’re paid more on top of the transit that’s already been paid, but penalize the broadband customer with a limit and penalties and it’s no longer considered an abuse of their monopoly position and captive customer base if they claim ‘congestion’.

    • Austin says:

      Exactly, better said than I could have.

    • Steve says:

      If that is the case, then they need to get off their lazy asses and upgrade some infrastructure! I’m getting penalized 100gb a month difference on my cap because AT&T can’t even offer thier crappy Uverse service in my area! Nice discrimination there…

  18. Andrew says:

    I’m an AT&T U-verse customer with Charter as my only other option, though from what I can tell, they cap their service as well.

    It would be great if there was some sort of petition where we could tell AT&T directly how we feel and how much money they will lose in revenue when we, their customers, jump ship over this issue. I spent over $5000 with AT&T last year in U-verse and wireless service alone — I’m sure the numbers will add up pretty quickly.

    • James Karvey says:

      I’m willing to print and send letters to ATT. I asked a customer rep for the address for their Ombudsman but got the run around about shift changes and that their supervisor was available.

      Just give me some addresses and I will start sending letters. Feedback. Feedback all along the spectrum from AT&T to our corrupt and useless representatives in government.

    • James Karvey says:

      I’m with you. Just give me some addresses and I will start sending letters. Feedback. Feedback all along the spectrum from AT&T to our corrupt and useless representatives in government.

      I’m willing to print and send letters to ATT. I asked a customer rep for the address for their Ombudsman but got the run around about shift changes and that their supervisor was available.
      Try, try, again.

  19. Andrew says:

    I’ve got a petition started on Change.org. It may not do any good, but we cannot like AT&T pull the rug out from under us without a fight!


  20. Matt says:

    in my area there two ISP cable and AT&T, cable co here has a 25gb cap on their system
    this is bad on my part i play a lot of games online. I was told to forget trying to fight it i am flighting a battle that cant win. ATT thinks they can do any thing what they wont to the customer.
    you have no rights to say anything becouse there new Terms Of Service. they can just cut you off
    i have no one eles in my area. it seems like no one eles can come here.

  21. Satori vonFaust says:

    Here’s my story – Been an AT&T internet customer (due to limited choices in my area) for several years first with wireless DSL (the laptop ‘fob’) then went to “naked” DSL after they changed my “unlimited” plan without notice leaving me with a HUGE bill. They guaranteed that the data usage on my “naked” DSL was “unlimited” and would always be that way. Well, as things turn out that was a lie. I just received a new router (01/12) and inside the box was a slip telling me that I now had a 150gb cap. When I called about this they said “It has been this way for a while. It was even in the papers.”. Well, as I do not receive the paper I must have missed it. When I pointed out that was like selling a new car then after a year telling the buyer they could only drive 15 miles a week while still paying the same price the agent went on to try selling me an “upgrade”.

    Umm…why would I want an “upgrade” when I was sold the service I wanted – UNLIMITED? Why would I pay more and still get less? Why are they allowed to “bait & switch”? Why isn’t there a class-action lawsuit (which I normally abhor)? The agent told me “situations change”. Well, shouldn’t I be able to not pay what they want should me “situation change”? At the very least I should have had my charges reduced as I am no-longer getting what they sold me.

    The thing WE, CONSUMERS, need to do is force companies to take us seriously. If even 33% of a company’s customers quit using their services for one month the losses would be catastrophic. At least the Japanese understand “free market” with their internet; companies work hard to IMPROVE their systems and give more to be better than their competition. We need to make the companies do this for us. We are sold and promised certain services then have them retract them claiming it is due to “internet traffic” and their “lines can’t handle the data”. Well, after all the government hand-outs and rate-hikes I believe we should have better service than anywhere on the planet. We must hit them in the one place it matters – the wallet. If there is a movement to cut ties with ALL big company ISPs who “bait & switch” please sign me up. I will drop AT&T for a month in order to get what I was promised. Will you?

    • Pymm West says:

      Sounds just like ATT. They do anything they want or don’t want to do. If you don’t like it where you going to go. Why in the world did the feds allow ATT to get in with satellite service. Your story is so common around the country. My son-in-law and daughter just got rid of their ATT service since they have access to other internet options. Lucky ones. And for very similar reasons.

  22. Me says:

    These are onerous (google it if you don’t know what it means) conditions laid down by AT and T on purpose to artificially deflate prices. In reality your price will go up probably unless you are a really light internet user. That’s just my opinion. Don’t we already have enough to worry about in life, let alone that we need to worry about going over the limit?

Search This Site:


Recent Comments:

  • FredH: ...and we'll be able to reach our 1TB monthly cap in a few minutes....
  • L. Nova: If you want to stop public corruption you have to follow the money and go after the the greedy corporations that are bribing government officials. It...
  • markvs: I know and they aren't even trying to hide the corruption either - it's so blatantly obvious....
  • LG: Truly disgusting. Every time something like this happens, it further erodes trust and belief in our government. At this point, I think 3/4 of this c...
  • George: 802.11ax with 8x8:8 MIMO streams are hitting the market, and Comcast is stuck in the past with 2 stream MIMO on 802.11ac, playing ping-pong with high ...
  • K Richner: These apparently are just Plume Pods with custom Firmware I own 12 Plume Pods! That are not locked to a isp this is a rip off since they cost about th...
  • Paul Houle: There is hope for fixed wireless, at least for me, since I have no hope for Frontier. I have investigated some wireless offerings from MVNOs and si...
  • Ian Littman: Counterpoint: mmWave based 5G is going to be a bear to deploy, to the point that 5G NR from T-Mo et al will likely have nationwide coverage before mmW...
  • Butch Kara: We still have Centurylink DSL (or should I say, we have it when it works) supposedly 1.5Mbps, but usually 0.6 or slower (right now around 0.2). and ha...
  • Lee: Seems I need to amend my post about the closed fiber optic loop system. Frontier Communications is not installing it. It is an expansion of the Elkhar...
  • James: In the beginning I was hopeful of Frontier a good review but I just zcan't do it.. we switched from comcrooks recently oct. '17, the phone reps screwe...
  • Lee: Change the name from Spectrum to Speculum....

Your Account: