AT&T Kills Home Internet Service In New York Over Law Requiring $15 Plans (arstechnica.com) 119
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.
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.
Oh no! Not that! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re: Oh no! Not that! (Score:2)
Exactly this. Bad policy is bad policy, no matter who implements it. Defending or being apologetic of a bad thing just because your guy implemented it just means you're a useful idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
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:Oh no! Not that! (Score:5, Insightful)
>"And the stupid fks that keep voting for Republicans, who repeatedly scam them while funneling public money to rich people, never learn either. "
You need to wake up and smell the coffee if you think Democrats are less scammy.
>"But at least Democrats try - or appear to try - to stand up for everyman."
At least you understand the "appear to" part, so you aren't completely naive.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
... when we all know it should rather read "politicians are just as bad as the other politicians." Let's face it, politics sees not color: not red, not blue. Except maybe green, and the specific hue called Dollar Bill Green. They seem to have an extra cone that is very sensitive to that specific frequency. All other colors are just flags of convenience.
Re: Oh no! Not that! (Score:2)
Both parties are happy to sell out our future to corporations, but only the Republicans want to sell out our present to churches. Pretending there is no difference reveals your own prejudice.
Re:Oh no! Not that! (Score:4, Insightful)
And the stupid fks that keep voting for Republicans, who repeatedly scam them while funneling public money to rich people, never learn either. But at least Democrats try - or appear to try - to stand up for everyman.
It does not look like your "everyman" includes "stupid fks that keep voting for Republicans".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To give the Republicans some credit, they have been so successful in the decades-long decimation of the public education system in the US that they can now count on the majority of their supporters having absolutely no knowledge or critical-thinking skills and to actively cheer as the Republicans rape and pillage them.
"Yay oligarchy! Orange man will save us by giving our money to himself and his friends! The Dems eat babies I read it on Xhitter from a guy with a swastika for his profile pic! We're all poore
Re: Oh no! Not that! (Score:2)
Just have to look at their news headlines.
Your reply here would be something like âoeWildstoo OBLITERATES delusional critic of common senseâ
Subtag will be there like [NO NONSENSE]
Itâ(TM)s like everything is about a big fight. If not obliterates maybe you âoeslammedâ them.
Re: (Score:2)
My buddy is a firefighter in L.A. and here is what he has to say about the whole thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Glad to see your buddy is also a lesbian
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The AT&T of today is still the Ma Bell monopoly. Just to clarify for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
>"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)
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)
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:1)
The govt also stops others from doing the same to you. Will the church do that? NO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>"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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Oh no! Not that! (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Jesus said to them, âoeRender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.â And they marveled at him. Mark 12:17"
Yep. Brief translation: "keep in your lane" or perhaps "Your duties to the State do not replace your duties to God." There are many interpretations- none I am aware of would support the claim that Jesus sanctioned government redistribution (nor that it would fulfill the concept of "charity").
More info: https://www.gotquestions.org/r... [gotquestions.org]
Re: (Score:1)
What strikes me about the charitable giving in the New Testament to specifically support the poor, is that these were to be complete voluntary contributions (although strongly encouraged, and such encouragement devoid of references back to the Old Testament tithing l
Re: Oh no! Not that! (Score:2)
"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.
Not really Republicans there (Score:3, Informative)
Why do republicans and businesses like this
Members of AT&T donated about 4.5x more to Kamala than Trump [opensecrets.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
After the split up of Bell, and subsequent mergers etc, the current Baby Bells operators [wikipedia.org] are (somewhat simplified):
Re: (Score:2)
What a subject line. How old are you buddy? Everybody on Slashdot is in their 40s and 50s surely. Time to grow up.
I agree with AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: regulated utility.
Re: I agree with AT&T (Score:2)
Yes! If $15 price is so good, NY state should build their own ISP and get customers. If need be, fine someone for littering the streets with old data cables.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: I agree with AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)
What is so special to New York legislators
In a democracy, they are the ones that represent the people to make laws, rules and regulations. You do realize you can't just create a decree tomorrow in your state?
that some politician (outside of the telecom industry, without any hard-earned telecom-industry experience or expertise) pulled out of thin air
Uh-oh. In the deep red states, how many politicians that voted to ban all abortions have any medical training at all?
Re: (Score:1)
Did Ayn Rand get a large chunk of government funding to build broadband services?
AT&T should be required to refund any corporate welfare that AT&T received for broadband in New York state.
In a democracy, they are the ones that represent the people to make laws, rules and regulations. You do realize you can't just create a decree tomorrow in your state?
Then New York legislators have the power to start some grand and glorious replacement of AT&T out of thin air via this all-powerful text in New York code-of-law, if the New York legislators have some brilliant insight how to install, maintain, and bill subscribers below cost. AT&T has in effect said that New York state government broke the Rousseau Social Contract, so AT&T simply c
Re: (Score:2)
Simple as.
Oh no. It's retarded!
Re: I agree with AT&T (Score:3)
"AT&T should be required to refund any corporate welfare that AT&T received for broadband in New York state."
AT&T has received not just billions but tens of billions of dollars to build out Internet access for all across the nation, which they spent on stock buybacks and executive bonuses instead. This problem is much larger than NY.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Elective abortion (as opposed to spontaneous abortion = miscarriage) is murder, whereas selling broadband below cost is not murder. Simple as.
Nice strawman. Reading comprehension is tough for you people. And no it isn't. Simple as.
Re: (Score:2)
In a democracy, they are the ones that represent the people
LOL, roflmao. It is to laugh.
I guess it depends on how you define "people". They barely even represent the small business owner... and even then, only with local laws. Once you get above the city level, not even small businesses matter any more.
No, Democracy in America is all about the old boys club. If you are in it, then you are considered, if not, you are a resource to be exploited mercilessly.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they can free up some space for new, smaller ISPs in that area.
Someone should keep an eye out... (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
AT&T, the intel of ISP's (Score:3)
The answer from the Roman senate comes to mind (Score:1)
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 thing (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The simplest way to do this thing (Score:3)
$250/month ? What relevance does that have for people living on poverty level income that were supposed to be able to access the $15/month rate ?
Re: (Score:2)
$250 a month is insane! I live in rural Indiana and get 5gb/5gb fiber with no caps for $89.
Re: The simplest way to do this thing (Score:2)
Re: The simplest way to do this thing (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>"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
Honestly 200mbps or under should be 20usd or less (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Small m means milli (one thousandth)
Mega is capital M
Four years ago, Gov Hochul was heard... (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
They're not ineffective in the market or anything. (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Ill Communication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Price fixing never works (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
>"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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So you'd be in favour of cancelling all fossil fuel subsidies and letting the "invisible hand of the market" determine gas prices?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
That's not the problem here (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Seems fine (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
It's all fun and games ... (Score:1)
The problem with fixed amounts (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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)
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
Why stop at $15? (Score:1)
Paltry 15 USD (Score:2)
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