Class Action Lawsuit Targets Walmart's "Straight Talk" Unlimited Data Plan For Throttling Users

This is slightly embarrassing, not something I would normally discuss in public. I used to hide my cell phone when I was among friends. I didn't want anyone to see it.

See, I used to use the cell phone service "straight talk". At the time I worked at Walmart and couldn't afford ATT or T-Mobil service. Like many under employed trans people I couldn't afford Internet at home so the "Unlimited" plan seemed just what I needed.

Except my phone wouldn't open up links a few days after I re-up'd. (bought another $45 service card). Being ignorant I always assumed it was just a lousy phone/service but as it turns out the "Unlimited" plan wasn't unlimited at all. In fact it was another Walmart screw job.

Source ABC News :

A class action suit filed last week in U.S. District Court for Northern California claims that consumers who buy Straight Talk cell phone plans aren't getting straight talk: The plans, advertised as providing "unlimited" data use, in fact have limitations, the suit claims.

The complaint against Walmart Stores and TracFone Wireless, which jointly created Straight Talk in 2009, says that the advertising claim is false, and that customers are routinely subject to having their flows of data "throttled" (slowed) or to having their access to data terminated without notice.

Throttling takes place, according to the complaint, when subscribers near or exceed "internally established, but undisclosed" data usage limits, or when the strain imposed on wireless networks by peak data usage requires easing.

The complaint says customers who objected to being "throttled" were blamed by TracFone service reps for having misused the data service, without being told how they had allegedly misused it.

As an example, the suit cites Northern California wireless customer Edward Tooley, who switched to Straight Talk's unlimited plan from a competitor's plan that expressly limited him to 2.5GB of high speed data, above which ceiling his data would be throttled.

Well, now I use Metro PCS (which is still slightly embarrassing siting amongst my S4 phone friends) but at least they let you know you have a throttle down point, but since I have WiFi at my house it really doesn't affect me.

But I'd really like to get in on this class action suit.

Some activists condemn and Some ignore the fact that the NSW Marriage Equality bill explicitly excludes Trans and intersex people

NSW Australia: Just days after a legislative inquiry indicated individual states had the right to legislate marriage equality New South Wales  introduced a bill to do just that, for cisgender couples.

The main problem it seems is the law will inevitably face a constitutional challenge. Some believe that's just a transphobic excuse.

ABC reports that The committee's chairman, Nationals MP Niall Blair, says none of the constitutional law experts the inquiry heard from could give a solid guarantee that state-based laws would hold up in court.

"The drafting and some of the items in that legislation would ultimately have the final bearing on whether that would survive a constitutional challenge, should it actually be determined that it is in conflict with the marriage act," he said.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald "The bill makes it clear it is about the marriage of same-sex couples only. Trans-sex marriages are not allowed, and churches are explicitly exempted."

A pre-operative trans person cannot marry a person whose sex is the same as theirs (which, legally, is usually the old sex on the pre-operative trans persons birth certificate), despite being of opposite gender although getting a passport corrected to indicate female, male or "X" is no problem.

The latest statement by  NSW Marriage Equality doesn't mention trans exclusion but the Community Action Against Homophobia (CAAH) issued a statement Friday that condemns the marginalisation of trans* and intersex people in the proposed marriage 'equality bill' for NSW:

CAAH Co-Convenor Cat Rose "The Liberal Party have never gone near marriage equality with a barge pole in the past. The only reason such a homophobic party has shifted has been because of the mass campaign that we've prosecuted. 

Rose continued, "But the exemption trans* and intersex people's rights shows they haven't shifted nearly far enough. Our campaign has been for full equality for everyone, we don't settle for concessions and we won't stand for this transphobia and the invisibilising of Intersex people."

"Using the spectre of constitutional challenge is a smoke screen for bigotry, we've seen in other states that the power is there to pass more inclusive bills if they wanted to test it. Either way our fight will have to continue for genuine marriage equality to be recognised by the federal government." said Rose

Norrie, a resident of NSW recently had hir application to have hir gender listed as not specified by the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages upheld by the NSW Supreme Court. Under the laws Norrie and anyone else who adopts 'not specified' gender neutral documentation will not be allowed to get married