FCC Questioning All Carriers On Unlimited Throttling Policies

According to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the United States Federal Communications Commission is now questioning all wireless carriers on their network management policies, asking how carriers choose when to throttle customers, including those with unlimited data plans.

In a report from Reuters, Wheeler said that the FCC had written to all major U.S. carriers about its concerns on throttling practices following its inquisition into Verizon’s upcoming plan to throttle unlimited data customers during peak usage times.

“My concern in this instance – and it’s not just with Verizon, by the way, we’ve written to all the carriers – is that it is moving from a technology and engineering issue to the business issues … such as choosing between different subscribers based on your economic relationship with them.”

Last week, after Verizon announced plans to slow down the data speeds of unlimited customers using heavy amounts of data, the FCC questioned the carrier about its policies, with Wheeler stating that he was “deeply troubled” by the decision.

Verizon responded, suggesting its throttling plans were both fair and legal, and likely to impact only a small subset of customers. Verizon also noted that several other carriers, like Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have unlimited data restrictions in place. According to Wheeler, pointing towards the policies of other carriers was not a sufficient response. “‘All the kids do it’ was never something that worked for me when I was growing up,” he said.

AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile have long had policies in place that allow the carriers to opt to restrict the data usage of customers with grandfathered unlimited plans in an effort to encourage users to switch to pay-by-usage tiered data plans.

While the FCC did not share the letters sent to AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, an FCC spokesperson said the letters were similar in nature to the original letter sent to Verizon. That letter asked the carrier to answer specific questions on its rationale for treating customers differently on plan type, the need for such throttling on efficient LTE networks, and the legality of throttling.

Verizon was the first to receive the letter because of the announcement of a new policy, according to the FCC spokesperson. Verizon will begin throttling its high-usage off-contract LTE customers accessing congested network cells beginning on October 1.

.CPlase_panel display:none;

Judge Rejects $324M Settlement Proposal in Apple, Google Class-Action Anti-Poaching Lawsuit

Judge Lucy Koh today rejected the settlement deal that Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe had reached with tech workers over a lawsuit involving anti-poaching agreements, reports CNBC.

According to court documents, Koh believes the total settlement “falls below the range of reasonableness,” compared to the $20 million settlement that Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit reached with tech employees in 2013. Proportionally, based on that settlement, Apple and the other tech companies should have to pay out at least $380 million.

The Court finds the total settlement amount falls below the range of reasonableness. The Court is concerned that Class members recover less on a proportional basis from the instant settlement with the Remaining Defendants than from the Settled Defendants a year ago, despite the fact that the case has progressed consistently in the Class’s favor since then. Counsel’s sole explanation for this reduced figure is that there are weaknesses in Plaintiff’s case such that the Class faces a substantial risk of non-recovery. However, that risk existed and was even greater when Plaintiffs settled with the Settled Defendants a year ago, when class certification had been denied. […]

Using the Settled Defendants’ settlements as a yardstick, the appropriate benchmark settlement for the Remaining Defendants would be at least $380 million, more than $50 million greater than what the instant settlement provides.

Tech workers initially levied the class action anti-poaching lawsuit against the companies in 2011, accusing them of creating no-hire agreements and conspiring not to poach employees from one another in an effort to keep salaries lower.

No-solicitation agreements revealed during the lawsuit dated back to 2005, involving Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar, among others. The agreements prevented company recruiters from contacting employees placed on specific no-contact lists.

The United States Department of Justice stepped in back in 2010, ordering the companies to stop entering anti-poaching agreements, but the class-action civil lawsuit brought against the companies by 64,000 employees will remain open until a suitable settlement can be reached. The suit originally asked for $3 billion in damages, a significantly higher number than the 324 million agreed upon in April.

.CPlase_panel display:none;