On: FTC Says AT&T Has Misled Millions of Consumers with ‘Unlimited’ Data Promises

[philmcc]

$10 or... $850.

One person sued them in small claims court and won. (http://www.mactech.com/2012/02/27/how-fight-att-data-throttl...)

He outlines the steps on his website. (http://www.taporc.com/)

[tshaddox → philmcc]

Still, $850 is only a little over a year of my Internet bill.

[wavefunction → tshaddox]

That's a fair amount of money to be giving away for free to lawyers or AT&T.

[higherpurpose → tshaddox]

Only because your Internet is so expensive. I pay $13 for 200 Mbps down.

[hsod → higherpurpose]

Are you just bragging or do you have a point?

[tshaddox → higherpurpose]

Yes, the amount of Internet I can buy with a given amount of money depends on the price of Internet in my area.

[evandena → philmcc]

I thought you were forced to go to arbitration?

[negativeview → evandena]

Arbitration clauses may not be legal everywhere.

Another shitty() reality is that companies love putting clauses in contracts that won't hold up in court because MANY people just assume that it must be legal and the rest of the contract is still binding, just not the illegal parts.

() This is really done to protect mom and pop business. If they accidentally put in a clause that's not legal, it'd really suck if the entire contract were nullified. But big companies with bajillion dollar lawyers use this loophole to essentially intimidate their customers.