Lawsuit claims AT&T inflates customers' data use.

[adjangs]

I don't pretend to be an expert, nor do I have personal knowledge of the case, but isn't it possible the consulting firm could have proved something beyond a doubt? Isn't it a little soon to be underestimating the investigation? For example, if a phone was placed inside a box that would prevent any communication of the phone with a tower, or if a phone was allowed only to communicate with a network extender device hooked up to a line through which the data-use could be monitored and logged..

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this lawsuit was based on no solid evidence.

 

[kodiak799]

For example, if a phone was placed inside a box that would prevent any communication of the phone with a tower

Problem is it's a study paid for by the plaintiff, and AT&T would have it's own paid study unable to replicate the results. There's just no way to prove that phone was in that box, unchanged, the entire time.

I agree that this is just a nuisance case that AT&T will probably pay far less than we realize to simply go away. Only the lawyers will make a few bucks off of this.

 

[UrbanBounca]

@czerdrill - you're wasting your time trying to explain things to UrbanBounca. They are obviously of the mind that "big business can do no

" and should be constantly ridiculed for the mistakes of their customers... further they obviously don't have a decent understanding of 1) our legal system or 2) business...

As for the lawsuits ridiculous claims such as a "50KB website was logged as a 53.5KB website" and others... really... these people have no idea what is actually being transmitted. They probably also don't understand the difference between a 'file size' and the actual physical size a file is (for all those people, look at your computer, they are NOT always the same). Likewise when you view a website (from your phone or your computer) there is data transmitted both ways that can (and generally does) makes the total data required to access that site/file larger than the reported size of said site/file. Think about it, the data starts with the request to locate said site from the registries then the location information is sent back while the packets are rerouted so on and so on. You simply can NOT (under normal circumstances) connect to any site w/o additional data being sent and received (all of which is associated with that site for billing/tracing purposes). As for 'all service being turned of' unless said phone is generally rooted or otherwise hacked generally it is impossible to turn off all service... again stupid customer(s) not understanding their devices and that is NOT AT&Ts fault.​

So, you're argument is that the firm hired, a firm hired for a specific purpose of counting data, has no idea how data is stored or transmitted? Is that your honest argument?

For the record, disabling data should be just that, completely disabling data. It doesn't matter whether it's disabled from the handset or at a service level, it should be disabled. You keep blaming the customer, when the fact of the matter is that it may not be the customer. It doesn't matter whether it's a big business, they can make mistakes like any other business.

During a 10-day stretch, the same consulting firm found that AT&T billed a new iPhone's account for approximately 2.2MB of data transfers, even though the smartphone had had all push notification and location services disabled, no e-mail account configured, and no active apps.

Once again, this is a firm that apparently specializes in data use. Are you saying they don't know how to properly disable data on a phone?

Is this another money lawsuit? Sure, it may be. But, when you're counting your data every month, and still getting charged overages, you have the right to question and get a detailed description for each transaction.​

 

[czerdrill]

Is this another money lawsuit? Sure, it may be. But, when you're counting your data every month, and still getting charged overages, you have the right to question and get a detailed description for each transaction.

well yeah, and all you have to do is ask AT&T. they'll explain your usage and provide detailed usage if you need it. i've had problems on my vzw bills before and a simple phone call explains or fixes any issue or discrepancy with my bill. you don't have to sue them...haha...this is a stupid case that has no merit. i honestly think it's just some dude who's upset because he went over and got charged and is trying to deflect responsibility. and in america clearly the only sensible answer would be "SUE SUE SUE!!!"...