Comments on: AT&T Wireless has surprising new terms of service

AT&T silently changed its terms of service to prohibit people from streaming third-party content over its 3G wireless network.

[vvaynrokh]

Can ATT change term of use while I am on existing plan even though I signed up for unlimited data plan ?

and does that grants me early exit from my contract ?

[FellowConspirator]

If AT&T changes the terms, they have to notify you or they don't apply. Once notified, you have 30 days to notify them whether or not you accept the new terms. If you do accept the terms, AT&T has two options: permit you to continue under the original terms and keep the contract intact as is, or it can back out of the contract.

If you have an iPhone, you might have grounds to force them to continue your service under the current contract or refund you whatever you paid for the phone. As an exclusive provider of that phone and service for it, in canceling the contract they are not only canceling your service, but rendering the hardware you purchased effectively unusable (whereas, had they stuck to the contract it would work at least through the duration).

[sam99999999]

When change of this magnitude is unilaterally imposed by ATT, you have a strong case for ending your contract.

The problem is, where are you gonna go? Years of non-existent antitrust enforcement have left the country with very few wireless choices.

There are only really two viable options, and they are both imposing the same restrictions and similar pricing.

[bonesbautista]

Gotta reply here, too many people running with the incorrect idea.

DataConnect is for tethering and data cards ONLY - I use both, and I have an iPhone. The terms for unreasonable use has always been clear, and ATTWS has just never enforced it to a "T" - and nothing here in this blog or its earlier terms of service. I read my contract, and even when data was unlimited via tethering or via a data card, streaming/file sharing & serving/full time data use were prohibited. The updated TOS gets more specific because too many abusers are circumventing the more-general rules.

Cell phone plans are not affected, however, subscribers need to stick to the intended use of the devices.

Yes, it's your phone. It's their network. Get over it. From their own technical support staff, 5% of the users consume 90% of their data - it's the same message that both Sprint and Verizon have, and I tether with Verizon too. If you tether, you're restricted by the data cap - if you don't tether, you get unlimited data using the apps available to you through authorized channels. They're trying to load balance a network with 40 million users who move around every day and night without warning - think about it from their perspective. And, I don't work for or prefer a carrier.

[Dalkorian]

Why don't you answer your own question and read that TOS you signed yourself? I bet it's all spelled out in there, my guess is yes they can change the terms of your existing plan and sure, you can leave if you want to pay the early termination fee. But that's just an uneducated guess, pulled from where I am currently sitting. The contract you signed will tell you what's up.

[grissomb]

Is that "$0.00048" or "0.00048 cents" per Kb?

[KillersDad]

Think of it as 48¢ per MB, billed on a KB basis.

[tlassanske]

If that figure is in dollars, then it would cost you $480 to download a single 1 GB movie if you went over the 5GB limit. Even in cents, $4.80 per movie certainly repudiates the "Disk media is dead" argument, especially if that is a per-viewing ISP cost (plus your rental cost) and consider that it will be viewed at less-than-Blu-Ray compression quality.

[KillersDad]

Gee, I don't understand why AT&T would want to charge $480 to download a 1GB Movie wirelessly.

<read extreme SARCASM>

[Dalkorian]

Why do you ask? It's pretty clear to me after reading the article, did I miss something?

[foobartoo]

According to the TOS, using Last.fm or Pandora would be violations, since they stream audio. That might be enough to get me to drop ATT and go with another carrier.

[dbrohamTV]

they way Interpret it Slingbox would be definitely be affected by NOT streaming sites. because they are not being "redirected" by the "customer" from a "fixed location"

[stopher2475]

So if they've changed the terms of service are the 2 year contracts people entered into now null and void. There is precident for this When they changed the text message pricing many people were able to use it to get an early exit from their contracts.

[jaybarrow]

This makes no sense as the iPhone has a built-in YouTube app. The way I understand this article this will no longer be acceptable.

I use the MobileFiles app to access my iDisk from my iPhone. Would this be prohibited? C'mon...

[KillersDad]

Seems to me the iPhone is a horse of a different color - Part of AT&T's agreement with Apple to be exclusive provider was to allow UNLIMITED DATA for a fixed price per month. For me, with the original iPhone, DATACONNECT is $20 per month. For the iPhone 3G, DATACONNECT is $30 per month. Both are unlimited plans.

AT&T may be changing their TOS, but their agreement with Apple for iPhone exclusivity is UNLIMITED DATACONNECT for a monthly flat rate.

[commsoft]

Wait a second. The iPhone includes an app for YouTube on the home screen!

If what you are saying is correct, the basic iPhone apps as delivered by AT&T with every iPhone are no longer allowed to be used with AT&T service!

[Dalkorian]

So?

AT&T.
Your world.
Delivered.
To the NSA, RIAA, MPAA, and whoever else we feel like.
Shut up and take it like a slave.

[hschaff1]

If they really mean this, this is a bomb shell for many of us and I can't believe they just put this out there without thinking about the impact. I also can't believe that the Cnet guy is as unexcited about this change as he appears to be. One of the reasons for the iPhone is its ability to do all these things, and now they are going to say, sorry, you can't do them?

[JoshMiller79]

Just a bit of warning. I have heard that AT&T's "Unlimited" plans aren't necessarily actually unlimited. Which seems like really fishy business practice.

Also I love how wireless carriers are trying to cut off the issue that we have today with wired plans right as things become popular. Gotta kill/stifle all these new technologies before they ruin our current business models!

[tmather]

I think the author of the article misinterprets the TOS when it comes to receiving video from websites. The TOS says no "Web broadcasting". This means no broadcasting TO the web from your phone - the author thinks this means viewing videos FROM the web.

You-Tubers are safe. Sling-Boxers like my self are screwed.

[Renegade Knight]

They need to get back to basics. Deliver my data at the bandwidh rate promissed and stay out of my business.

[branimirkvartuc]

Joint the Facebook Group: AT&T CUSTOMERS against Dumbing Down the iPhone
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62063056044

[Revolutn]

Can I just say that I hate hate HATE it when CNET or any other org to be fair uses a screen shot of a product NOT AVAILABLE or a photoshop representation of a product not available in a non Preview type of article!

Seriously I saw the Sling logo on the iPhone and about wet myself thinking **** it's finally here! before noticing the Caption which reads more like a disclaimer in this case.

Arrrgh!

Ok rant off.

[DHSmd]

Gotta say, I have no problem with the revision, except for the part about YouTube, which I have trouble believing is really the intent of this change.

IMO, the "unlimited bandwidth" was never intended to serve as a license to turn their limited bandwidth wireless network into someone's own personal VPN for high-bandwidth use. Common sense dictates that it should never have been used that way to begin with.

Many consumers are just as greedy as the corporate suits they like to rail against, but few stop to consider that their actions can be just as harmful to the greater community as those who abuse their power from the corporate end.

:IMO, the "unlimited bandwidth" was never intended to serve as a license to turn their limited bandwidth wireless network into someone's own personal VPN for high-bandwidth use. Common sense dictates that it should never have been used that way to begin with."

Then they never should have advertised it as unlimited, if it was as you say in fact really limited.

You can't sell a car for $15,000 then come back a year later say " I am sorry, really didn't mean $15,000, but rather $20,000 and then demand payment. Why? Because it's just common sense and you should have known I didn't really mean $15,000..

[paulej]

What this really tells us is that 3G is largely worthless. They're selling a relatively low bit-rate wireless data product that should be used very lightly at a comparable price to a (virtually) unlimited fixed broadband plan. Is that really worth it? I think not.

But, I see they have no concern with loading their network with content they serve. This seems entirely unfair to competitors like Google.

AT&T is both a "pipe" and a content provider. The "pipe" has a certain cost, and it's reasonable to distribute that cost across all of us who share it. But, to impose restrictions or to charge insane fees for using this pipe does absolutely nothing to help progress the Internet and the various kinds of services that people aspire to bring to market. Communications facilities (the "pipe") are a vital public utility that probably needs more goverrnment oversight to ensure that is serves the public interest.

Now, what AT&T the "content provider" wants to offer the world is its business and good luck to them.

[vgraybeard]

Like microsoft, AT&T is not to be trusted. I finally left AT&T after going yet another round with them over an addition to my bill from a company with which I had never had any contact. If you do business with AT&T you must read your entire bill every month to find the additional charges and features never ordered by you. The assumption of integrety can be costly. Honesty and integrety are no longer common business principals.
ed

[fondy]

Even if there were some agreement between at&t and Apple to exempt the iPhone from a data cap, what's to stop at&t's hardware from experiencing a 'glitch' that results in degraded performance or limited data availability for iPhone users?

[devbowman]

fondy: Ill tell you what would stop at&t - Steve Jobs. In case its been happening too slowly for people to realize, SteveJ has a very slick way of conforming the universe to his design. I get the idea that, if this thing with at&t impedes the performance/expectations of the iPhone from his standpoint, there will be a serious conversation about their contract. And now shouldnt be the time to rock the boat with millions of first gen iPhoners (like myself) contracts' coming due in june/july.. Im sure Steve would find a very welcoming Verizon willing to open up their network and doors to millions of disgruntled ex-at&t customers.

[btl-jooz]

>"It's important to note, however, that the changes only apply to cellular data plans. It seems you can still stream as much as you want via a Wi-Fi connection, provided your phone has this feature. And if it doesn't, it's about time you got yourself a phone that does."<

Sounds like an edict being made to pay for new equipment even though new equipment may not be needed or wanted. Sounds like having to buy a new computer just because one falls for the Vista trap. Sounds like AT&T is taking lessons from Microsoft. EH?

Boy, can't wait until Verizon gets its new G4 infrastructure up and running!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!