Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AT&T The Courts The Internet

AT&T Kills Home Internet Service In New York Over Law Requiring $15 Plans (arstechnica.com) 124

Posted by BeauHD from the opt-out dept.
Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin reports: AT&T has stopped offering its 5G home Internet service in New York instead of complying with a new state law that requires ISPs to offer $15 or $20 plans to people with low incomes. New York started enforcing its Affordable Broadband Act yesterday after a legal battle of nearly four years. [...] The law requires ISPs with over 20,000 customers in New York to offer $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. The plans only have to be offered to households that meet income eligibility requirements, such as qualifying for the National School Lunch Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Medicaid. [...]

Ending home Internet service in New York is relatively simple for AT&T because it is outside the 21-state wireline territory in which the telco offers fiber and DSL home Internet service. "AT&T Internet Air is currently available only in select areas and where AT&T Fiber is not available. New York is outside of our wireline service footprint, so we do not have other home Internet options available in the state," the company said. AT&T will continue offering its 4G and 5G mobile service in New York, as the state law only affects home Internet service. People with smartphones or other mobile devices connected to the AT&T wireless network should thus see no change.

Existing New York-based users of AT&T Internet Air can only keep it for 45 days and won't be charged during that time, AT&T said. "During this transition, customers will be able to keep their existing AT&T Internet Air service for up to 45 days, at no charge, as they find other options for broadband. We will work closely with our customers throughout this transition," AT&T said. Residential users will be sent "a recovery kit with instructions on how to return their AIA equipment, while business customers can keep any device they purchased at no charge," AT&T said.

AT&T Kills Home Internet Service In New York Over Law Requiring $15 Plans More | Reply

AT&T Kills Home Internet Service In New York Over Law Requiring $15 Plans

Comments Filter:

  • Oh no! Not that! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ihavesaxwithcollies ( 10441708 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @08:21PM (#65094949)
    Almost like they should declare it a basic necessity and let the govt provide the service.

    Did you know that AT&T controls 21 state-based, public telecommunications utility networks — but never mentions this fact? (Not NY)

    The state of new york has ended AT&T's long con....

    America has had multiple waves of hype about the delivery of a fiber optic future. And it is important to remember this (or to learn this now) because a) there is a plan to shut down the remaining wired infrastructure and hand it over to the wireless subsidiaries as private property while b) letting whole areas of these state utilities deteriorate, especially rural areas. These actions also let c) the companies plead poverty so they can get government grants to deploy slow wireless at high prices instead.

    Simply put, with only 3.9 million fiber to the home services in 21 states, AT&T never brought any high-speed broadband competition, so the cable companies have been able to deliver services as they see fit. From poor customer service or continuously raising rates and adding new taxes, fees and surcharges, the cable companies can print money when they need more, which is the punchline of this discussion. Instead of bringing serious competition for high speed broadband, AT&T has decided– (I repeat and paraphrase) We will use software to allow customers to view AT&T programming on other networks. And we’ll keep the price of wireless inflated because, well, we own the wires that were part of the state utility and we don’t even have to upgrade the state utilities.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Rockoon ( 1252108 )
      In systems with an unheathy monopoly, you find that competition eventually comes from a different direction.

      Such as space.

      Its not quite there yet, but its coming.

      When I was a young lad, K-Mart was going to take over everything.
      In my early adulthood, Walmart was going to take over everything.

      Today, Amazon is going to take over everything, coming from this new online direction.

      The AT&T of today is just some Intellectual Property, a brand, thats been passed around more than once now.

      • Re:Oh no! Not that! (Score:4, Informative)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @10:34PM (#65095145)

        In systems with an unheathy monopoly, you find that competition eventually comes from a different direction.

        Such as space.

        Its not quite there yet, but its coming.

        Probably not in New York, it seems.

        https://documents.dps.ny.gov/p... [ny.gov]

        Dear Secretary Phillips:

        Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) respectfully request an exemption in the above-
        captioned matter as a provider serving fewer than 20,000 households within New York State.
        SpaceX submits the following attestation in response to the Commission Order issued on January 9, 2025.

        As of the date of this filing, SpaceX provides broadband to [***Begin Confidential***]
        [***End Confidential***] residential customers in New York. This figure is consistent with
        the data most recently filed with the Federal Communications Commission, accounting for
        user growth since such filing.

        I doubt it makes any sense to provide the service at effectively below cost, so it only makes sense to cap the number of signups in the state to something below that threshold.

        • Re:Oh no! Not that! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2025 @11:32PM (#65095195)

          It is interesting the dems did exactly the same thing in California with insurance then companies refused to insure for fire because they couldn't raise prices and now people have lost everything with no insurance to cover for fires.

          Those silly dems will never learn anything.

          • Re:Oh no! Not that! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @06:09AM (#65095679)
            And Republicans have done the same thing in Florida with hurricane insurance. Why not reject bad policy outright rather than decide that bad policy from populists in one party is good but bad policy from populists in another party is problematic? That doesn't really gain anything.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mspohr ( 589790 )

            Sorry to burst your MAGA talking points but...
            California established state run fire insurance for people who were abandoned or priced out of the market by for-profit insurance companies.
            If your greedy insurance company cancelled your insurance (like State Farm did a few months before the LA fires), you could sign up with the state fire insurance plan.
            I did this a few years ago and have fire insurance.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Targon ( 17348 )

        This situation is being misunderstood by many people. Land based services(primarily coax cable and fiber these days though some DSL still exists) has an excess amount of bandwidth capacity at the head end where the different lines come in to connect to the rest of the network. As a result, it is possible to offer low cost Internet without it costing a fortune to the providers. Cellular on the other hand, has clear limits on how much data any given tower can handle, higher demand requires adding more t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by unrtst ( 777550 )

          This means that AT&T really isn't in the position to offer cheap cellular for home Internet usage ...

          "cheap cellular for home Internet usage" is NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about special rates ONLY for those that qualify.

          That means that what is in balance is the profitability of full cost accounts versus the (potential) losses from the small subset of users that qualify for these reduced rates.

          Currently, they have zero customers on such plans because they don't have such plans. They've made the decision to cancel all existing full cost subscribers before taking on a single reduced cost cust

      • The AT&T of today is still the Ma Bell monopoly. Just to clarify for you.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Barsteward ( 969998 )
      Why do republicans and businesses like this want to continually shit on poor people and deny them things like health care etc? They claim to be good and devout Christians but behave so unchristian.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by markdavis ( 642305 )

        >"Why do republicans and businesses like this want to continually shit on poor people and deny them things [...]? They claim to be good and devout Christians but behave so unchristian."

        1) OMG, how *dare* companies want to not *lose* money. It is almost like their purpose is to *make* money so they can exist and provide services.

        2) It isn't "Christian" to force other people to pay for your stuff. Charity is something that is voluntary. There is nothing voluntary about government forcing redistribution.

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          2) It isn't "Christian" to force other people to pay for your stuff. Charity is something that is voluntary.

          You might want to look up tithing. There are three different versions referenced in the Bible, but one is for the welfare of the poor and isn't voluntary. So apparently, involuntary taxation to support the less well off is biblically sanctioned.

          • Re:Oh no! Not that! (Score:5, Informative)

            by mpercy ( 1085347 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @06:04AM (#65095673)

            If you don't tithe, no one from the Church will seize you house and garnish your wages or put you in prison. It may be expected from church members to remain in good standing, but it's voluntary.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by markdavis ( 642305 )

            >"You might want to look up tithing."

            I think perhaps YOU should.

            1) Tithing is in support of the church and THEIR missions
            2) Tithing is not forced
            3) Participation in a church is not forced
            4) Few churches require or expect tithes
            5) Tithing is not government related at all
            6) Tithing is old testament and never at all mentioned by Jesus

            >"So apparently, involuntary taxation to support the less well off is biblically sanctioned."

            Nope. Please cite any place the bible where it sanctions that a government shou

            • Please cite any place the bible where it sanctions that a government should take money or goods by force from some people to give to other people.

              Jesus said to them, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him. Mark 12:17

        • "It isn't "Christian" to force other people to pay for your stuff. Charity is something that is voluntary."

          Yes, and if you don't do it, you are voluntarily not following Christ.

      • Why do republicans and businesses like this

        Members of AT&T donated about 4.5x more to Kamala than Trump [opensecrets.org].

      • Why do republicans and businesses like this want to continually shit on poor people and deny them things like health care etc?

        You ... do realize that the party trying to order people around here, using goons with guns, is the state of NY, right?

        They claim to be good and devout Christians but behave so unchristian.

        If that's what you think, then show them, by example. Repent of your sins (envy might be a good one to start with) and turn to Jesus for forgiveness.

        Oh, and be sure to give away your stuff below cost. Or at least don't make a profit - decline anything above a bare subsistence wage from your employer, for example. Since profit, or anything above bare cost, is evil.

        Show us how it's done, be

    • Almost like they should declare it a basic necessity and let the govt provide the service.

      Did you know that AT&T controls 21 state-based, public telecommunications utility networks — but never mentions this fact? (Not NY)

      It's odd because "home internet services" to me refers to homes serviced by wireline but AT&T doesn't offer that in New York. This is about wireless 5G internet service. I think the government is overstepping here.

  • I agree with AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)

    by expresspotato ( 5687556 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @08:55PM (#65095019)
    On this one I have to agree with AT&T. I'm not sure why the state of new york thinks they can dictate a free market economy to that extent to be honest. There wasn't really any price gouging going on, customers have a lot of options. $15 is punitive towards the company. Like what are they going to do with $15? The 5G modem itself costs about $120 from China, for a cheap one. Nokia or other high branded ones are going to cost more. Customer service, infrastructure, the actual data peering. Like what is the government doing to them?

    • Two words: regulated utility.

    • As someone who enjoys a 5g internet per $12 a month in the eu i am sad to inform you that you have been manipulated by the us. mobile internet oligopol

  • Someone should keep an eye out... (Score:3)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @09:07PM (#65095035) Journal
    Stopping sale of the static cell modem flavor of 'fixed' broadband, in a market where you are still selling cellular service to cellular subscribers, is basically the lowest commitment show of displeasure you could reasonably imagine.

    It makes me curious if they are actually serious; or if they'll quietly show back up within 6 months if they end up not getting what they want. A wireline doing a take-this-market-and-shove-it would show at least some level of actual willingness to sacrifice.

    • Re:Someone should keep an eye out... (Score:4, Informative)

      by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @10:25PM (#65095139)

      Stopping sale of the static cell modem flavor of 'fixed' broadband, in a market where you are still selling cellular service to cellular subscribers, is basically the lowest commitment show of displeasure you could reasonably imagine.

      No, it's really not. New York is effectively mandating that they provide internet service at below cost. The customers that wireless service would work for are mostly going to be lower-income rural to begin with. It doesn't use the same antennas or radios as cell phones do either, and it never will because fixed wireless doesn't have to compensate for doppler and can also count on a stronger signal. They'd probably never be able to sign up enough wireless customers at profitable pricing to offset that, namely because with wireless service, spectrum is a lot more geographically limited.

      Starlink already stated they're exempt because they have fewer than 20k customers in New York, and I suspect that they'll stop signing up new customers once that number is hit. They'd also run into the same problem of having an upper limit of how many they'd be able to serve at once in a given spot beam, thus making it never a viable option to sign up enough subscribers to stop it from being nothing more than a money sink.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the state ends up in a state of chronic under-supply of internet service. Price ceilings have a tendency to do that, see Venezuela with its chronic under-supply of basically everything because their official currency exchange rate is very much disconnected from its actual value. Or long lines at the pump during the 70s.

      • You can't say you know what AT&T's costs are to state that the tariff is below their costs. They simply want to make more money, the shareholder reward theorem.

        They could've bought a satellite TV company to deliver the promises that DSL was in capable of. Oh-- right, they did and it didn't work and it burned their money.

        Let the void be filled by someone that wants the biz, knows how to monetize it (not looking at you, Verizon, you make stupid moves, too).

        Remember: AT&T is Southwestern Bell with lips

        • You can't say you know what AT&T's costs are to state that the tariff is below their costs. They simply want to make more money, the shareholder reward theorem.

          Given that AT&T isn't a nonprofit charity, I think that "make a profit" should be acknowledged as a goal of the company.
          Personally, I really dislike price caps. I even oppose "price gouging" laws.

          The kinds of laws I support are more for transparency and not allowing a company's contract with one party restrict it in contracting with another. For example, hospitals need to be able to give at least a basic price for services, and Apple shouldn't be able to mandate that a company selling products on thei

          • Without price caps how does government subsidies prevent me from just raising my price and getting more of that sweet sweet tax payer money?

            The real trick here would be what you said at the end, more support for community ISPs. Something ATT and Verizon have worked hard to legislate out of many locallities.

            • Simple, when the government is paying, like any consumer it can dictate the price it is willing to pay, as well as terms and conditions it requires. What it can't do is mandate that the companies take that offer.

              So the government can go "We'll pay $20 a month towards the bill of any qualifying customer, and you're only allowed to charge them the normal price - $20", and the company will probably take that offer because it will still net them more paying customers.
              Or it can go "We'll pay up to $40 for servi

  • AT&T, the intel of ISP's (Score:3)

    by methano ( 519830 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @09:25PM (#65095067)
    Around 2004, AT&T came in and replaced Time Warner (Now Spectrum) and offered greater speed and service. They immediately embarked on a slow and sure decline. Got Google Fiber now. Ain't never going back to Spectrum or AT&T. With Google, I don't spend a lot of my emotional energy hating my ISP. I've got other places to use it over the next 4 years.

  • All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote? ...

  • The simplest way to do this things is to get the FCC to pay for it through the Universal Service Fund. If not, form your own state level equivalent. Most companies can be trusted to place following the law and human safety above profit, but little else. AT&T or the former Southwestern Bell is no exception,

    • If farmers in tiny-ass, rural Texas can figure out how to offer unlimited 5 Gbps internet for $250/month as a co-op with no traffic discrimination, I think NYS/NYC can figure it out too.
    • Not the proper role of government. The proper government response is to stay out.

      • Re: The simplest way to do this thing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by LazLong ( 757 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @11:42PM (#65095213)

        Not if the market isn't filling the role. There have been multiple examples of municipal broadband being built because state regulation of ISPs resulted in duopolies between AT&T and a cable company that resulted in expensive outdated shit service. It's such a problem that these stopped duopolies buy Republican legislators to enact laws forbidding municipal broadband. Like the stupid cunt Marsha Blackburn.

        • If the free market won't do it I say we do it ourselves. And the way people do it themselves without the free market is with government. That's literally the purpose of government. It's to do the stuff the free market refuses to.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by rcb1974 ( 654474 )
          The approach in the case you mentioned is for the DOJ to break up the duopoly/monopoly so that free market competition can work its magic. The incorrect approach is to essentially socialize the market by having the government provide the service or subsidize the service or fix prices.

        • >"It's such a problem that these stopped duopolies buy Republican legislators to enact laws forbidding municipal broadband."

          Right, I am sure that is the cause in NEW YORK, that it is overrun with Republican legislators. Do you even hear yourself? People are so hyper-partisan they can't even make sensible arguments anymore.

          >"Not if the market isn't filling the role."

          How exact can "the market" fill a role when things are regulated to death. NY trying to force companies to lose money is not a free mar

  • If this lowers prices to 20/mo but forces a 200mbps speed cap (or provides a cheap 25mbps option for next-to-nothing) it would still be worth it if it give networks an incentive to actually deliver at least 1gig modern internet speeds to those willing to pay for it.

    I pay 50usd for "5g" fixed wireless broadband in a major US metro area (not AT&T or NY, obviously). Speed peaked once at 340mbps but connection was super unreliable. After support 'switched me to a different tower' stability is at least be

  • Four years ago, Gov Hochul was heard... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @10:13PM (#65095123) Homepage Journal

    Four years ago, Gov Hochul was heard saying: "What are they gonna do, leave NY?"

    Yes, actually, they will.

    Lets see the Gov spin this perfectly logical business decision as anything other than what it is...

    • Lets see the Gov spin this perfectly logical business decision as anything other than what it is...

      She needn't bother; top-modded Slashdotters are doing that right now, lol

    • Re:Four years ago, Gov Hochul was heard... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @08:28AM (#65095947)

      Four years ago, Gov Hochul was heard saying: "What are they gonna do, leave NY?"

      Yes, actually, they will.

      Lets see the Gov spin this perfectly logical business decision as anything other than what it is...

      Meanwhile the Telcos are still asking for government money. Maybe AT&T should give NY some of that back?

      What NYC should do it take the infrastructure and then provide their own service. If AT&T want to leave, let them.

      It's also amazing that so many other countries seem to be able to manage low cost internet access, some even consider it a basic right... but over here we don't let companies get away with shit like this. A cheap fibre plan in the UK is under £20 ADSL can be had for £10 as can high speed mobile connections with a 10GB or more limit.

  • I'm sure they made tons of profits from that work previously, and were 'market leaders' or some such.

    They could continue to make tons of profits if they wanted. It has nothing to do with this law forcing them to run at a loss because they're inept.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      To be clear, companies should be required to offer some products below cost because a politician decided on requiring the product at an arbitrary price-point?

      And the losses on the product in question are to be made up by over-charging other customers?

      As a reminder, all the prices of products offered by companies like AT&T are regulated by the government, will the government helpfully identify the customers that will be forced to over-pay for their products to pay for the other customer's below-cost prod

      • Why would a $15/month low-speed internet connection be below cost? I believe NetZero offers a $17.95/month service and makes a profit.

        Here in Florida, it's required that poor people subsidize the electricity of rich people via "net metering" schemes for solar installations. The power company loses money on every home solar customer and has to make it up by charging poor people extra. Are you morally outraged about that?

  • Ma Bell has her panties in a twist again. Watch out! That'll teach those entitled, impoverished customers to feel bad for being left behind in the digital divide by greedy, monopolist corporations using strong-arm, anti-consumer tactics.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      The program is tied to people that already qualify for a free smartphone - what is the difference between a 5G smartphone and a 5G home router? Is one truly "impoverished" for "only" having unlimited access to the high-speed internet at work, school, library, the neighborhood McDOnald's, coffe shop, etc?

  • Price fixing never works (Score:3)

    by rcb1974 ( 654474 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @10:39PM (#65095153) Homepage
    Price fixing by government always leads to shortages and black markets as producers pull out. The invisible hand is best for price discovery. NY state government officials are inept. The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is government and crony capitalist.
    • case in point, Current Insurance market in california right now and that large # of people that had their houses burned down have no insurance cause price fixing made profitability almost impossible so they left california market.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rcb1974 ( 654474 )
        exactly

      • Re:Price fixing never works (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kenh ( 9056 ) on Friday January 17, 2025 @02:26AM (#65095381) Homepage Journal

        So, if all those homeowners had no insurance, whose fault is it?

        They voted to put a cap on insurance premiums.

        They were told/warned their insurer was leaving the market.

        They chose not to buy a policy from the state "insurer of last resort".

        Which part of this is the fault of the insurance companies again?

        PS - "Homeowners" who have mortgages are *required* to have insurance, how did they keep their mortgage if they lost insurance? Is everyone in these areas so rich they own their houses outright?

      • >"case in point, Current Insurance market in california right now and that large # of people that had their houses burned down have no insurance cause price fixing made profitability almost impossible so they left california market"

        Exactly. And the next step is to have money taken/confiscated from responsible other areas and siphon it to the "victims" of California laws/regulations.

        So California can interfere with the free market and cap prices to below what they should be. Then California can mismanag

      • See also Florida and hurricane insurance. It's a national trend. Pointing out just California seems to imply that California is different somehow than other insurance markets which it's not.

    • So you'd be in favour of cancelling all fossil fuel subsidies and letting the "invisible hand of the market" determine gas prices?

    • The invisible hand is best for price discovery.

      Oh that's a good one. https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]

      The U.S. Federal Trade Commission will probe why grocery prices remain high even as costs for retailers fall, Chair Lina Khan said on Thursday

      Why should one company be cheaper than the rest? What are you going to do, NOT buy groceries?

  • That's American corporations people (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @11:18PM (#65095187)

    They're so triggered by the mere thought of having to help those in need that they'll stop providing service to everybody else so they don't have to.

    Kinda disgusting...

    • The problem is it really only costs them around 10 bucks a month to provide internet service meaning $15 to $20 is still profitable for them. If they take on those customers they're going to have to admit that in a more obvious fashion (you can dig it out of their SEC filings but it's not easy especially these days after they got caught years ago)

      It's extremely important that you don't realize how cheap it is to provide internet access or you're going to get really really angry that you're paying somewh
    • or if the goverment wants to provide such a service they rent/lay there own lines or 5g to provide it. oh they relised that was to expensive.

  • Seems fine (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday January 16, 2025 @11:44PM (#65095215) Homepage Journal

    If AT&T owns or leases space on utility poles there, then take that away from them. There's no room for service providers that don't want to provide the service. They're free to compete elsewhere.

    • Only internet service AT&T provided in the state was wireless. Not DSL or cable, 5G cellphone.

      Given that the cheapest plan I can get for a cell phone is $15/month, and that is with restricted data caps...
      Note, while I use my phone a lot, it is for low bandwidth stuff, not streaming music or video.

    • or every other isp joins them. if the democrats wanna provide cheap internet rool out there own provider and not try and dump the cost on everyone else using nonsense numbers. oh yea they tried that before with city wide wifi and it died to cost.
      • Given your repeated posts, you seem to really enjoy when things don't work and people suffer. What's the matter with you? Are you some sort of Republican?
        • no you just missed the point. goverment tired this failed and now are just trying to offload it on others,

    • If AT&T owns or leases space on utility poles there, then take that away from them. There's no room for service providers that don't want to provide the service. They're free to compete elsewhere.

      So you want NY to circle the drain faster, is what you are saying.

      • Don't put words in my mouth.
        It's simple. I'm happy when people take control of their own government.

        A cost analysis for providing service is something that every business already does. Are you saying that government employees or the legislature is incapable of doing the same thing? Do you have data that $15 is not feasible for providing the necessary service?

  • ... er, and vote buying ... until someone orders you to provide goods and services below cost.

  • The problem with laws with certain dollar amounts is that inflation makes them unsustainable. The value of $15 pre-covid vs post-covid is substantial. Not a single person saw this coming in 2019. A 3yr period when everything doubles in price making the value of a dollar practically half what it was before. If this hyperinflation happens again a single fucking cup of Starbucks coffee is gonna damn cost $15. Meanwhile they demand someone operate at a loss?? Let the government try to run it. Theyre so fucking

    • I think that 90/10 split you're suggesting is generous; the likelihood is more like 1%, and you can't tell me that the Deathstar can't absorb those costs given how much they're taking in from their other customers.

      Agreed that COVID-generated inflation has been a serious PITA, but given the other carriers like VZN & T-Mo appear willing to support the program (which is basically a cellular hotspot parked in your home), this appears more like performative outrage than financial hardship.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        if its that low why doesn't the government just subsidize the plan like in the past? what do you think will happen if the carriers pull out of the market? The government will try to do it themselves which means they will inevitably charge the tax payer to subsidize the expense of operating. Do you realize how much of a PITA it is bringing these customers on in the first place? If you spend even 20min a month dealing with them you've already spent the profit margin if one even existed. Im not talking about j

        • >> if its that low why doesn't the government just subsidize the plan like in the past?

          They *ARE* subsidizing it as part of the infrastructure legislation; AT&T is saying they don't want to play regardless. They'd rather have people piggybacking at the local fast-food or coffee shop to get 'Net access than allow for a cheap, usage-capped option *they're already getting gummint bucks for*.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )

            Its one thing to say I have to sell at a loss an entirely another to say they will contribute $30 toward the cost of broadband like the previous federal plan did before it ran put of funds. It might not always fall below $15 but a $30 discount could make a bill $20/mo. Or give them a $30 discount on a faster plan. We only have one customer getting FCC-498 funding through the schools and library program. TBH getting paid by the feds is a little easier than the slow paying customers. We just have to file a fo

  • In my "developing" locale, I get LTE for the equivalent of about 13 USD. I get 120 GB per month, which easily gets me through all my work-from-home (or coffee shop) needs (what with video meetings, software updates, and countless `npm install`s), as well as my private needs (which include more short videos than what is healthy for me). Apart from the city where I live, it also works quite well in more rural areas (obviously the coverage map has some small areas that are not covered).

    I think AT&T may be

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Close