SmartPhones Data Plan Mandate Class Action Lawsuit? (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint)

[fansntt]

As I understand it socialism refers, strictly speaking, to economic systems under which the state takes ownership of productive enterprises; or more loosely, to economic systems in which the state mandates that some portion of the control and executive leadership of corporate entities be allocated to employees of those entities, not merely reserved to those having equity positions.

Regulation of business practices is *not* socialism.

Think about it: there are innumerable ways in which business practices are regulated in modern western democratic polities -- child labor laws, minimum wage laws, mandated benefits, workplace safety laws, environmental laws, product safety laws, truth-in-advertising, truth-in-lending, anti-usury, non-discrimination, overtime, maximum hours worked, etc., etc., etc. Are these all examples of socialism?

Then, consider the wireless industry, which by its very nature could not exist without government control and licensing of wireless spectrum. By your lights, doesn't that mean that the entire industry is based on a socialist foundation?

What is your definition of socialism? I see people throwing this term about for every sort of business regulation they don't like with little understanding of what the word really means, as far as I can see.

Now I wonder why these carriers can get away with almost anything, and it is due to the lack of consumer's education. Plus this is a civil lawsuit, no one is asking the FCC or FTC to intervene..... Maybe I should not be thinking about spending money in lawsuit but instead to donate it to high schools and hopefully we can have a better educated generation of consumers.

[fansntt]

You know. I am going to Sue Ford right now because on my 2011 Fully loaded SEL V6 Fusion I just got, I HAD to get the Navigation system in order to get the bigger radio display. Those BAS*%^$S made me buy the navigation that I willingly bought and knew about when I bought it just to get the better screen. How Dare They? Even though I could have bought a Fusion with a lesser radio screen and not paid the extra money or even bought a Nissan Altima or other brand I am going to sue Ford because that is clearly deception.

Do you need to pay $15 a month until you sell you car for using that screen?......... Your analogy should be that ford charge you $20 monthly to have that GPS screen whether you use it or not.... the only way to cancel that charge is to sale you car and buy another one... but wait... all other cars available also have the same monthly charge except the 1982 WV Beetle.

[fansntt]

I'm going to answer without bothering to read the rest of the responses.

Just find a money grubbing lawyer who will take on anything in the names of making big bucks. There are lawyers who specialize in class action suits. Check with your local or state bar associatation.

Good luck. Call me in a few years to let me know how it goes. Normally, each individual gets only a nominal sum in class action suits and they literally take years.

Thanks!.. that is what I needed. I am not suing for money but for more choice in cell phones.

[fansntt]

From a consumer viewpoint, mandatory "smartphone" data plans are pure greed by the cell phone companies. Cell phone companies are easily put a "data block" on smartphones and let people use wifi only.

But from a business viewpoint, charging for data is a cash cow for most cell phone companies. They know for the most part, they generate lots of $$$ for the $30 data they charge. Cell phone companies spin it and say they give you "unlimited" data. But it's backfired on companies like ATT when iphone users over load the system; they they have new iphone users go on a limited data plan. Yeah, I also know Verizon has a "cap" of around 5GB on their "unlimited" data and Tmobile has a cap of 10GB on their "unlimited" data plan.

So what's a "fair" policy for both consumer and businesses?

I like Tmobile USA's subsidized/unsubsidized policy/plans. However, I doubt most Americans would like Tmobile's policy judging by their lack of consumer growth the last few quarters.

For those unfamiliar with Tmob USA policy. Say you buy a subsidized Samsung Galaxy S (Vibrant) for $199. Tmobile will give you that subsidized $199 price but requires you to have a mandatory $30 data plan for the life of that contract (24 months). You cannot remove that data plan regardless if you are using that phone or not. So that's fair, tmobile recoups their subsidy much quicker through the use of mandatory data plan.

On the other hand, you can choose to pay $500 unsubsidized for the same Samsung Galaxy S phone. They give you a break on their voice/data each month (it's about a $10-15 savings a month) going no contract. You can choose to add/delete the data plan for $25 each month but it's not mandatory.

So I think Tmobile's option is the best of both worlds.

However, most Americans want their cake and eat it too like others have said. My friends still think $199 if "expensive" for an iphone. They are used to cheap/free phones. They also frown upon paying $15/25 "mandatory" data if they are using their iphone. So if these folks think $199 for an iphone is expensive and not want data. How many phones would Apple sell if consumers were slapped with a $600 for an unsubsidized iphone?

So it's a tricky scenario cell phone carriers are in. Businesses are out to make money. Consumers have a choice in cell phone providers.

Actually I like that T-Mobile policy however the lack of growth may be also due to regulations in place that do not allow them to place cell phone towers in some zones which limit their reach for customers. I even ordered a T-mobile SIM card to try it in my location but there is no signal.

That is why we have to have choice. The market will decide the price of the phones. If a lot of people expect to pay $50 for an iPhone then probably apple will make an inferior phone for those people while still offering the high end phones.

[fansntt]

I'm looking at this strictly from a legal perspective. Everyone is aware that the US wireless phone industry is an oligopoly. For example, all four major carriers, in some form, or another, imposes data plans on smartphone users.

Under anti-trust laws, monopoly is illegal in the US, hence the divestiture of AT&T in the early to mid-80s occured. But we know that monopoly is different from oligopoly.

Now this is the challenge to the class action lawyer, and to anyone who's willing to take this case to court: If it can be proven that forcing smartphone users to buy data is a form of formal collusion, then there is a basis for the suit. However, if there is none, then its a waste of everyone's energy and resources. Although courts has always upheld in the past that formal collusion is illegal, while informal collusion is permitted, there's a lot of gray area in this matter.

Personally, I would like to see the court hear this case, just to resolve the matter once and for all.

Great answer... it has a lot of content. Thanks.

[fansntt]

Its pretty hard to convince a Judge what ATT, Verizon, or Sprint doing is illegal when you can't even convince half the people here on this forum.

hahaha it is sad but true.

[fansntt]

IMO!!! Aren't there more important things going on in life to worry about?

Yes... But I can multi task.

[XFF]

As I understand it socialism refers, strictly speaking, to economic systems under which the state takes ownership of productive enterprises; or more loosely, to economic systems in which the state mandates that some portion of the control and executive leadership of corporate entities be allocated to employees of those entities, not merely reserved to those having equity positions.

Regulation of business practices is *not* socialism.

Think about it: there are innumerable ways in which business practices are regulated in modern western democratic polities -- child labor laws, minimum wage laws, mandated benefits, workplace safety laws, environmental laws, product safety laws, truth-in-advertising, truth-in-lending, anti-usury, non-discrimination, overtime, maximum hours worked, etc., etc., etc. Are these all examples of socialism?

Then, consider the wireless industry, which by its very nature could not exist without government control and licensing of wireless spectrum. By your lights, doesn't that mean that the entire industry is based on a socialist foundation?

What is your definition of socialism? I see people throwing this term about for every sort of business regulation they don't like with little understanding of what the word really means, as far as I can see.

Couldn't agree more. Some people just love to throw around the term "socialism" without really grasping what it means. But that's for a different forum.

[XFF]

Carriers are not simply charging for data with no benefits to the consumer, they charge for data and require it and as a result, pda prices have come down, data prices have come down, and data speeds and coverage has improved. By requiring everyone with a pda to pay for data regardless of whether or not they use it helps spread the total cost of ownership for everyone, the consumer and the carrier.

Now isn't that the very hallmark of socialism, to spread the risk/benefit of any given action across all members of society? Funny how you preach what you just derided.

Lastly, capitalism only works when the consumers exercises their rights, which is to buy or not to buy. If consumers stop paying for such things then the market will auto correct itself.

That's under the assumption that the consumer has a choice. The point here is that most carriers follow the same shameful practices, hence leaving users little to no choice. Forgoing a utility altogether is hardly an acceptable choice in modern society.

[andrios]

my issue with mandated data plans is the fact at&t and others don't really put too much effort into growing the capacity of their network to handle more data demands. For att to come out and simply state too many iphone users are taking a toll on the network shows they and most likely majority of carriers try to scrape by enough to make a splash.

maybe its me, but i just have a feeling data is going the way voice plans went from the 80s to now. ill give it time for the networks to grow and we'll see 10 years from now.

[ivwshane]

Now isn't that the very hallmark of socialism, to spread the risk/benefit of any given action across all members of society? Funny how you preach what you just derided.



That's under the assumption that the consumer has a choice. The point here is that most carriers follow the same shameful practices, hence leaving users little to no choice. Forgoing a utility altogether is hardly an acceptable choice in modern society.

Uh no. When a business does it to grow it's business it's called smart decision making, when governments does it it's called socialism.

Thanks for trying.

Consumers have plenty of choices (pre paid, pda only devices, local carriers) it's just that you don't like any of them and yet people refuse to vote with their wallet. So either you are an extreme minority or you are ok with the current price structure.

[lusec]

I agree with you that AT&T needs to make money, but not by spreading the cost to everyone. Their are not a government entity such as public schools.

If they want to make money from data then they have to put out features and products that attract customers to voluntarily sign up for their services.

By mandating services for people that has no choice, such as people in small towns it is not a good business practice.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts tho.

Be grateful that they are building a network and offering service in such small towns. They can always take their business elsewhere if your town disagrees with their policy.

Ufff.. Straight to the point. However, the reason why I am asking for class action lawsuit is because I have no hope with the FCC. They are part of these scheme. I was told that the reason why we do not have T-Mobile here is because the FCC does not allow T-Mobile to install towers around here...

So the Federal government is in collusion with the top 3 cell phone provider, to do what exactly?

You are right about the legality. HOWEVER, I AM NOT USING THAT NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FEATURE THAT THEY WANT TO CHARGE ME. I have data block in my phone and I am not using their network. I am using for phone calls and that is what I am paying for.

"The fact is that you have agreed to certain contractual terms & conditions and usage policies" When I signed up, I never agreed to their data plan policy, they just shove down my throat. I can't go to another GSM network because thanks to their lobbies, they do not allow T-mobile to install a tower here.

That is why believe I have basis for a lawsuit because these three carriers are fixing prices by all agreeing to implement arbitrary prices for services not requested.

You signed, but never agree to their policy? LOL.

[fansntt]

Be grateful that they are building a network and offering service in such small towns. They can always take their business elsewhere if your town disagrees with their policy.

So the Federal government is in collusion with the top 3 cell phone provider, to do what exactly?


You signed, but never agree to their policy? LOL.

- Not grateful. If wasn't because of them we would have T-mobile.

AT&T implemented the data plan mandate on September 6, 2009. I signed my agreement way before that and I never signed the new agreement. They implied that agree if I did not cancel my service.

[veriztd]

- Not grateful. If wasn't because of them we would have T-mobile.

AT&T implemented the data plan mandate on September 6, 2009. I signed my agreement way before that and I never signed the new agreement. They implied that agree if I did not cancel my service.

Don't forget that the data requirement for select phones isn't part of the contract, it is in the Terms & Conditions of Service that all users (in contract or not) are required to comply with. Don't confuse the two separate items.

[efparri]

- Not grateful. If wasn't because of them we would have T-mobile.

AT&T implemented the data plan mandate on September 6, 2009. I signed my agreement way before that and I never signed the new agreement. They implied that agree if I did not cancel my service.

You were given an opt-out option at that time if you were using a covered device. If you obtained the device after that date, you are bound by the new terms and conditions.