A class action lawsuit accusing AT&T of methodically over-measuring wireless customers’ usage and subjecting them to overlimit fees has been re-assigned to arbitration because AT&T wrote terms into contracts denying customers the right to pursue grievances any other way.

Plaintiff Patrick Hendricks claimed AT&T was systematically overstating customer usage by 7-14 percent with a rigged usage meter.  Hendricks claims some customers were overbilled by as much as 300 percent for phantom data usage that he claims never took place.  The measuring errors found in a two-month study cited by Hendricks were in AT&T’s favor, potentially exposing customers to surprise overlimit fees or, more recently, speed throttles.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer shut down the court case, heard in a San Francisco federal courtroom.  Breyer ruled that since AT&T’s contracts bar lawsuits by customers, Hendricks must pursue his case in the venue required by AT&T — arbitration.

“[AT&T’s contract] requires the use of arbitration on an individual basis to resolve disputes, rather than jury trials or class actions, and also limits the remedies available … in the event of a suit,” Breyer ruled.

Ironically, Breyer is the same judge that dissented from an earlier case — AT&T v. Concepcion, that ultimately set the stage allowing AT&T to force consumers to pursue arbitration and practically speaking, remove their right to pursue class action relief.

“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?,” Breyer wrote. “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30’.”

Brandi M. Bennett, a California attorney who specializes in intellectual property law, considers arbitration clauses to be a major threat to class action cases:

“Class actions make it possible to find recourse for individuals with damages that make traditional litigation impractical. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion appears to leave the average consumer at risk of being defrauded by corporations for $10, $20, $50 without any practical remedy. If one million customers are damaged for $20 each, a corporation can improperly realize a $20 million gain. Class actions serve to prevent that.”

Arbitration can offer a poor substitute, because most arbitration firms are beholden to their corporate clients for repeat business.  An arbitrator perceived to be exceptionally pro-consumer stands little chance of being retained when corporate defendants pay the arbitration firm for its services.  Some arbitration policies require consumers and the company to split the costs of arbitration, but those costs often easily exceed the value of the original claim, discouraging customers from pursuing a refund settlement.

Companies understand that reality, which is why clauses requiring arbitration to settle disputes are increasingly common in service contracts.

Hendricks’ original suit sought restitution for the entire class of consumers and damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and fraudulent business practices, unfair competition, and violations of the federal Communications Act.  Most arbitration clauses require consumers to file individual complaints, which few may ultimately do considering arbitration proceedings may occur in another city and often requires the complainant to appear in person to provide testimony.

One of the principal components of Internet Overcharging is the so-called “usage meter,” a measurement tool designed to help customers keep track of their usage so they don’t exceed arbitrary usage allowances and face overlimit penalties or speed throttles.

But with no government agency or independent watchdog monitoring the accuracy of the meter, providers can claim any amount of usage they wish, and stick customers with the bill.

Telecom New Zealand is the latest ISP forced to admit its usage meter was wildly inaccurate, with nearly 100,000 accounts impacted by faulty meter measurements between November 2010 and June 2011.  At least 47,000 faced punitive measures including substantial overlimit fees or throttled speeds for exceeding usage limits, even though they actually didn’t.  Now Telecom has admitted the meter was wrong, it violated the Fair Trading Act in the process, and is refunding $2.7NZ million dollars in overcharges. It was either that or face substantial fines from the Commerce Commission.

Telecom called the error that forced some customers into more expensive plans to avoid additional overlimit fees “an incorrect perception about […] data usage.”

“We’re pleased to have reached a settlement with Telecom and that they have made prompt refunds directly back to the customers who have lost out,” said Stuart Wallace, Commerce Commission Competition Manager. “Telecom brought this issue to our attention as soon as they were made aware by their customers and have co-operated fully with the Commission. Due to Telecom’s immediate admission of a breach of the Fair Trading Act, followed by appropriate compensation to customers, the settlement is the best possible outcome for those customers and avoids potentially lengthy and costly court hearings paid for by taxpayers.”

It’s the second usage measurement failure announced by the company this month.  In a separate move, Telecom agreed to pay $31.6 million to five of its competitors overcharged for wholesale broadband service.

When technically-savvy customers realize they are being billed for non-existent usage and the media takes an interest, providers eventually disclose their mistaken measurement tools.

“Customers are expected to keep these ISP’s honest,” says Stuart Littlejohn, a Stop the Cap! reader in Wellington. “ISP’s never suggest their meters are anything except accurate until they are caught with their fingers on the scale, and always in their favor.”

Littlejohn has already received a refund from Telecom for illegitimate overcharges he incurred earlier this year.

“It was an absolute nightmare,” he shares. “We thought someone hacked our wireless network or someone in the home was lying about their usage, all theories encouraged by Telecom employees who pointed the finger at everyone but themselves.”

Littlejohn says after Telecom granted one credit as a “goodwill gesture,” subsequent overcharges that went unexplained were his problem, not theirs.

“After the first credit, everything else is your fault,” he says.

Littlejohn caught the company red-handed when storm damage disrupted his service for nearly a week, and Telecom’s usage meter recorded 22GB of usage on his down-and-out service anyway.

“They ultimately couldn’t argue with themselves, but they tried at first,” he says. “Then I told them to call the department responsible for repairing my service and they quickly learned the line they said used 22GB was out of service at the time the usage was supposed to occur.”

“Without that, they would have probably insisted I still owed them for that ‘usage.'”

Littlejohn wasn’t alone.  Other overbilled customers appealed their case to the New Zealand Herald last June, and two weeks later, Telecom admitted their usage measurement tool was faulty.  But by then, customers were already paying for the erroneous charges:

The Herald has received detailed internet usage logs from two Telecom customers – one in Dunedin and the other in New Plymouth – which show over-counting broadband downloads, in one period by as much as 139 per cent. Both have raised the matter repeatedly with Telecom, but have yet to get an explanation.

“We showed Telecom five days of data as early as February 14,” says director Mark Peisker of Dunedin’s CueClub. “There was massive variance between our data and that reported by the Telecom usage meter. I said to them: ‘Your counting has very little to do with what comes down my line to me’.”

CueClub’s data taken from its two internet routers shows an average of 62 per cent over-counting during a three month period – the worst month being May when Telecom counted an extra 118.24 gigabytes (GB) of usage amounting to $203.97 in overcharging.

“They’re crooks, plain and simple, and only when they were caught did they admit their mistakes, and the only ‘penalty’ they are paying is refunding their ill-gotten gains,” Littlejohn says. “Where is the substantial fine to send a message stealing from your customers is wrong?  A strong fine would tell Telecom they made a costly mistake not worth repeating.”

After nearly a half-million Canadians expressed outrage about Bell’s Internet Overcharging practices, the company is responding.  This week, Bell sent a letter to their wholesale customers announcing it plans to end the practice of speed throttling peer-to-peer file traffic (at least for them):

Effective November 2011, new links implemented by Bell to augment our DSL network may not be subject to Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMP).  ITMPs were introduced in March, 2008 to address congestion on the network due to the increased use of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications during peak periods. While congestion still exists, the impact of Peer-to-Peer file sharing applications on congestion has reduced. Furthermore, as we continue to groom and build out our network, customers may be migrated to network facilities where Technical Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs) will not be applied.

Peer-to-peer traffic, once all the rage for swapping music, movies, and software (legally or otherwise), has been declining as a percentage of Internet traffic and legal online entertainment services (Netflix, et al.) have become available.  Copyright crackdowns and usage caps manage to further restrict customers from leaving P2P software running continuously as it can rapidly eat into usage allowances.

With increased capacity of Bell’s networks and decreased interest in file swapping software among customers, the practice of throttling such traffic (along with the unintended collateral damage to online gaming), means such network management practices have outlived their usefulness.

Providers these days are far more likely to blame online video for congested networks.  But once providers attach a speed throttle to an application, it can be difficult to remove.  Even as Bell announced it would no longer throttle their wholesale clients, retail customers will still suffer with reduced speeds during “peak usage times” — 4:30pm-2am local time.

Michael Geist, who covers Canadian broadband issues, wonders if Bell’s throttles are actually in violation of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s traffic management guidelines:

While Bell says its congestion has been reduced, its retail throttling practices have remained unchanged, throttling P2P applications from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am.  Given the decline in congestion, a CRTC complaint might ask whether the current throttling policy “results in discrimination or preference as little as reasonably possible” and ask for explanation why its data cap policies “would not reasonably address the need and effectively achieve the same purpose as the ITMP.”  In fact, the same can now be said for many other ISPs who deploy broad based throttling practices (Rogers, Cogeco), which may not be reasonable under the CRTC policy.

A Verizon Wireless 4G/LTE customer that managed to consume nearly 56GB of data over a two-week period has found he has temporarily lost his 4G privileges during peak usage times on Verizon’s network.

Droid Life reports Verizon’s speed throttle apparently also works on the company’s much-faster 4G network, because the customer found his 4G speeds reduced to dial-up during peak usage periods.  The throttle reduces speeds so much, even browsing web pages becomes a painful experience.  Remarkably, the customer tells Droid Life he still has regular speed access to Verizon’s more congested 3G network, which he now uses when his 4G speeds are reduced.

Verizon Wireless specifically exempts 4G customers from wholesale enforcement of their speed throttle, but the company’s standard Acceptable Use Policy still gives Verizon broad latitude to deal with customers who create an “adverse impact” on their network:

Network disruptions and unfriendly activity: Using the Services for any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either Verizon Wireless Services or other parties’ Internet-based resources. This specifically but without limitation includes excessive consumption of network or system resources whether intentional or unintentional. This also includes “denial of service” (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user. Interference with or disruption of other network users, network services or network equipment is prohibited.

Such policies are commonplace at every Internet Service Provider, but they are typically enforced only in instances where a neighborhood or region is experiencing especially heavy traffic loads.  That seems to be the case with Droid Life‘s reader, because other customers report they have managed to rack up nearly 120GB in 4G usage over 10 days with no speed reductions.  Verizon reportedly told the throttled customer his speeds were reduced because his ‘excessive downloading’ was an “abuse of the network.”

To run up tens of gigabytes of usage over two weeks usually means the customer is using a tethering application or mobile hotspot app, services for which Verizon charges extra.  We don’t know if this customer is paying for those services or using one of the third-party apps Verizon frowns on.

The selective enforcement of speed throttles may be the result of an overeager Verizon employee subjectively cracking down.  It might also result from the subscriber using services on an especially congested cell site.  We cannot be certain, and Verizon isn’t commenting on the record.  The company officially claims it is standing by the terms of its original plans to throttle the top 5% of 3G users.

With the ongoing crackdowns on what providers deem to be “excessive usage,” it is safe to assume those attempting to use any wireless broadband plan as a home or office broadband replacement is risking the wrath of their providers who consider anything beyond 2-4GB of usage per month on an “unlimited data plan” to be “too much.”