Comment by alanfalcon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alanfalcon | Hacker News Reader

I was really disappointed when I got a warning in January when I was only at around 2GB for the month on my AT&T iPhone "unlimited" plan. On the one hand, I like unlimited because in theory it means I never have to think about my data usage, but the warning and apparent immediately subsequent throttling I experienced for the rest of the month (~7 days) was painful enough for me to consider switching my $30 unlimited to $30 3GB (and freeing me up to change providers when the next upgrade cycle rolls around–previously I wasn't willing to give up my grandfathered unlimited plan, but I never expected "unlimited" to mean less data for the same money [and the throttling is so severe that there would have been no way for me to reasonably reach 3GB data usage]).

I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything, but I had goodwill towards AT&T even when the rest of the country was bashing them (coverage has been reasonably good in areas I lived while on AT&T) and that's gone now.

I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything

Are you surprised that AT&T thinks they can treat their customers like this when almost none of them will do anything about it?

I think switching providers counts as doing something.

In all fairness even the guy who did something got $850 for his months of work. Not exactly bloodying up anyone's nose with that kind of a settlement.

I'm not sure about that. If AT&T sends a lawyer to every one of these things, it will quickly become very expensive. If they don't, they risk it becoming very easy to get awarded this money. Plus with precedent set, it will be considerably easier for someone else to do this.

If the settlement dollar values hold up and this becomes easy enough, it could become far more costly to AT&T than any class action suit would have been.

>If AT&T sends a lawyer to every one of these things

Large companies have lawyers on permanent retainer - they're getting paid regardless if they're at a case or not.

They don't have so many lawyers on payroll they can respond to a large increase in small claims court appearances though. They'll have to hire more, or send someone less qualified, or send nobody - all cases in which the consumer has "won".

The opportunity cost of spending the lawyer's time on small claims vs something else is not to be underestimated.

This is the same fallacy that some people use about planes: "Traveling by plane doesn't result in more fossil fuels burnt because the plane would have flown anyway".

The way these things work is that every once in a while companies evaluate whether there were enough lawyers, and based on this they hire or lay off lawyers.

It was small claims court, AT&T can't actually send a lawyer there.

A lawyer could potentially do all the prep work (and bill for it) but they can't argue in front of the judge.

So who represents AT&T at the hearing?

Anyone the company designates as long as they're not a lawyer?

I think AT&T should be able to send a lawyer in such a case as long as he is wearing a clown suit including the red rubber nose.

> A lawyer ... can't argue in front of the judge.

AT&T could simply make the lawyer a corporate officer with just enough authority to handle small-claims court.

It is my understanding that this is only true in certain states; that in some states corporate lawyers can absolutely argue the proceedings.

Perhaps, but if one includes the risk of the lawsuit failing combined with the time to assemble the case, it's a loss for a lot of people. Since you're selecting out people based on income or how much they value their time, you're also selecting out most of the people who would go through with this in the first place.

I'm asserting that there won't be that many people willing and able to bring these cases to AT&T, particularly when the payout is so low, and that, in the end, makes the whole deal peanuts for AT&T.

I worked with a guy that complained to me one day about taking his car to a full-service hand car wash. They did a crappy job. I asked if complained and he said it was no use, he just wasn't going to go there again...this pisses me off to no END! Fine, don't go back, but you know who gets screwed over? The next guy in line!! Go back for him, if not yourself.

It's the same reason we prosecute criminals. The dollar costs of prosecuting a petty thief is several orders of magnitude more than the stolen chocolate bar. But it has to be done.

The idea tha AT&T will learn because people are "voting with their dollar" is a joke.

This.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com