Home » AT&T »Broadband "Shortage" »Broadband Speed »Data Caps »Net Neutrality »Public Policy & Gov't »Wireless Broadband » Currently Reading:

AT&T to Federal Trade Commission: Our Speed Throttling is None of Your Business

Image courtesy: cobalt123AT&T has asked a federal judge in California to throw out a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission over wireless speed throttling, claiming the federal regulator has no authority over how AT&T manages its network.

The FTC filed a lawsuit in October 2014 alleging AT&T was throttling the speeds of its grandfathered “unlimited data” customers by as much as 90 percent and failed to sufficiently disclose the practice in violation of the FTC Act.

Although AT&T discloses its network management policies in broad terms deep within its website, the original complaint charges AT&T failed to directly notify customers identified as the ‘heavy unlimited users’ targeted for wireless speed reductions reportedly as low as 56kbps for up to 30 days or more.

AT&T’s lawyers claim the FTC has no jurisdiction to file the lawsuit because a portion of AT&T’s business — cellular voice service — is defined by the Communications Act as a regulated common carrier service by the Federal Communications Commission. The FTC had argued AT&T’s mobile data services are unregulated and do not fall under the FCC’s exclusive jurisdiction.

AT&T’s attorneys argue two apparently contradictory assertions about wireless regulation that both require the court, in AT&T’s view, to dismiss the FTC’s case:

  1. AT&T acknowledges that its mobile data services are not subject to Title II regulatory oversight by the FCC as a common carrier service. Therefore, federal agencies like the FTC have no jurisdiction to interfere in AT&T’s private business decisions on issues like data caps and speed throttling because it is an unregulated service;
  2. AT&T claims the FCC has asserted sweeping authority over wireless services under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore it should be up to the FCC alone (and not the FTC) to decide the fairness of AT&T’s network management practices. But AT&T doesn’t remind the court this is the same authority that large telecom companies sued into impotence by successfully arguing the FCC exceeded its mandate attempting to assert jurisdiction on data services to enforce concepts such as Net Neutrality and attempting to fine Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer network traffic.

ftcAT&T calls the FTC’s claims it can intervene in services not regulated by the FCC “irrelevant,” arguing once one of AT&T’s services is subject to the FCC’s common carrier regulation, all of its services become untouchable by the FTC.

“The FTC lacks jurisdiction to prosecute this action because AT&T is a common carrier subject to the Communications Act and therefore outside the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2),” argues AT&T. “Indeed, the FTC itself has recognized that, as drafted, the exemption altogether removes common carriers such as AT&T from its jurisdiction and has asked Congress to modify the statute. So far, Congress has refused.”

“But whether AT&T’s network management program is ‘unfair’ and whether its disclosures were ‘inadequate’ are issues for the FCC to decide, and in fact the FCC is in the process of so deciding, just as Congress intended,” AT&T said. “Congress drafted Section 5 to avoid subjecting common carriers like AT&T to precisely this sort of conflicting authority of separate federal agencies over the same conduct.”

Should the FCC find AT&T in violation of its transparency rules, AT&T will have a strong legal case to have that ruling tossed as well on the grounds the agency has no mandate from Congress to regulate mobile data services under Section 706/Title III of the Communications Act — the same case other telecom companies have successfully argued in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Ironically, AT&T’s apparent regulatory loophole will vanish should the FCC order that broadband services of all kinds be reclassified as Title II telecommunications services as part of the ongoing effort to implement strong Net Neutrality policies.

Currently there is 1 comment on this Article:

    1. ATT knows what they are doing is illegal
    2. As Far as I see it the FTC does have the right to sue them over this. Selling a Cell Phone plan is Considered trade. Selling a plan and then changing the terms without customer consent is considered bad trading practice (and Illegal). You need to ask and possibly negotiate it. If they don’t want to get rid of unlimited then they Can’t do anything. Lowering the speed is against the agreement of unlimited and therefore wrong on ATTs side.
    3. Hopefully it is ruled in the Favor of the Customers and FTC and ripples across the industry. Any unlimited Plan isn’t unlimited if it has any kind of limit. (Unlimited means without limit or Limitations). A speed decrease after said said data is a limit and therefore makes it a capped plan. Not unlimited. No arguing this as it clearly defined. The fact they argue about this is very disturbing.
    4. Hopefully a Ruling on this brings back truly unlimited data plans. If not when sprint gets its network in order (about 1-2Y) then ATT and Verizon will be in trouble. Nobody can match sprints Amount of Spectrum at all. They just need to use it. Once they do they will be #1 and can push Unlimited and force Verizon and ATT to compete.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Karolyn Hardaway: ClearView is now called LiveWave. Just read an ad and the wording was almost identical to ClearView. Glad I saw your article. Our telephone co-op is i...
  • Michelle Lee: Here's a link to the Privacy Policy which let's customers and NON-Customers opt out of calls, mail, email and in person solicitation: https://www.spec...
  • Melodie: Spectrum doubld billed and will not work with me....
  • Katie Sager: Cable one, now Sparklight, is by FAR the worst company we have ever had to deal with! We recently moved, and only had 2 options for internet providers...
  • Patricia Choban: Returned equipment and cancelled service july 3 because house being renovated and not livable for a year, still being billed for full month. Will not...
  • atlantia: This really does not go far enough as there will be some that will still be stuck with satellite internet. There is only one way to fix the lack of u...
  • Fred Hall: Good, well thought out comments - let's hope they take them under advisement and implement them....
  • Doug: Not only Netflix, but the other OTT providers like YouTubeTV and DirecTV Now... Personally, I don't want more channels. I want less. And I want to ...
  • Paul Houle: It was clear to me ten years ago that Frontier was on this path. The worst problem with it's strategy is that the best and easiest to serve customers...
  • Daniel selvaggio: I am using an antenna I got from Walmart and it gives me 65 channels working great.the only thing to remember is where you mount it find out where the...
  • Jim: So, this is infuriating, and I don't understand why this is not considered a monopoly condition by the justice system. Companies get leases on reside...
  • Josh: They need to lower prices, not raise them. They’re kind of outlandish now, and that’s before losing their biggest draws. After reading that less than...

Your Account: