[NewsPoster]

AT&T is protesting the $100 million fine it was levied by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for improperly informing unlimited wireless customers of throttling after 5GB of data is consumed in a month. Claiming that the penalty is "an unseemly effort to coerce settlement," AT&T is demanding that the FCC retract the document, and cancel the associated fee, holding AT&T liable for misleading customers.

Resulting from complaints received by the agency since 2011, the carrier is being penalized for throttling the amount of data for customer accounts that have plans marketed with "unlimited data" once they reach a certain threshold for the month. The plans have not been available for years at this point, and are mostly held by early iPhone adopters. The FCC is also demanding that the company make better information available to consumers about data speeds, notify customers that it violated the transparency rule, and allow consumers to cancel the unlimited plan without any associated fees.

The company railed against the ruling by the FCC, saying in filing made earlier this month that "the Commission's findings that consumers and competition were harmed are devoid of factual support and wholly implausible. Its 'moderate' forfeiture penalty of $100 million is plucked out of thin air, and the injunctive sanctions it proposes are beyond the Commission's authority."

Additionally, in the filing, AT&T calls the use of the term "unlimited" in describing the wireless plan a "pricing" tool, and "not an impossible promise of service unencumbered by any limits whatsoever." It also claims that the FCC is not penalizing other wireless providers with similar restrictions.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says that preventing customers from getting the "unlimited" data they were entitled to broke FCC rules on corporate transparency. "Consumers deserve to get what they pay for. Broadband providers must be upfront and transparent about the services they provide. The FCC will not stand idly by while consumers are deceived by misleading marketing materials and insufficient disclosure."

[alansky]

"in the filing, AT&T calls the use of the term "unlimited" in describing the wireless plan a "pricing" tool, and "not an impossible promise of service unencumbered by any limits whatsoever."

A "pricing tool"?! What does THAT mean? Basically, AT&T is demonstrating that advertisers lie every time they open their mouths.

[SierraDragon]

$100 million is not enough, they should break them up (again).

[Flying Meat]

Truth in advertising.
What part of the word "unlimited" are you having trouble with, AT&T?

Tell ya what. We'll through out that $100 million fine for ya. How's that? Better?
Here ya go. A nice shiny new $250 million fine for being idiots. Care to try for $500 million?

[mgpalma]

Well the Feds break the law practically daily, setting a good example, clearly. Can we fine elected officials for the massive lies they tell, as well? Funny how people get all wound up about private companies yet government apparently is allowed full reign on deceit.

oh, and of course when they get their $100 million that will benefit the 'people,' right?

[DiabloConQueso]

Ah, yes, the old, "Two wrongs make a right" argument. Works all the time, every time. Because you're doing something wrong, that gives me carte blanche to do wrong things as well.

Where did you get the idea that the $100 million fine was supposed to be doled out to the people? It's a fine, not a class action lawsuit -- in other words, it's a punishment against AT&T to deter future behavior, not a windfall benefit for the people. Your one and only benefit is knowing that AT&T has less money (however small) now, and if you expected anything more (like a new car or free cellular airtime or rent paid for a few months), then you're operating under a misunderstanding and set your expectations way too high.

[revco]

I took his comment as meaning "what will the gov do with the money?" Maybe they'll put it towards bailing out another financial institution. You know, something useful like that.

[Steve Wilkinson]

AT&T has to pretend this is a big deal so it looks like the FCC is doing their job and 'we the people' get to liking the FCC 'over-seeing' the Internet.

[Steve Wilkinson]

re: "I took his comment as meaning "what will the gov do with the money?"

Nah, it'll probably be put towards monitoring equipment they'll be installing at AT&T as they watch for 'unlawful content.'

BTW, in context, $100M is chump change.

I experience throttling at times of high demand (e.g., everyone is hogging Netflix), but I ought not to experience throttling just because I'm on an "unlimited" connection and happen to use it a lot.

How many people are switching to AT&T these days?