AT&T's Caps Are a Giant Con and an Attack on Cord Cutters

[Poke]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATTs-Caps-Are-a-Giant-Con-and-an-Attack-on-Cord-Cutters-136616

Earlier this week we noted that AT&T would be imposing usage caps on the company's U-Verse broadband customers. But the company also announced it would be following Comcast's lead and "allowing" users to pay $30 more a month if they wanted to avoid usage caps entirely. In short, both companies have now effectively made unlimited data a luxury option, while simultaneously charging their customers more money -- for the exact same service. This glorified price hike is, of course, a clear example of the lack of real broadband competition facing both companies.

Unlike Comcast, AT&T has added a new wrinkle to the mix: it will allow users to graciously avoid the $30 fee -- if they just subscriber to DirecTV or U-Verse TV service.


To be clear: neither AT&T or Comcast's usage caps are necessary due to company financials or network congestion. Flat-rate broadband has proven to be incredibly profitable for both companies (check any earnings report). It's more than profitable enough to pay for the small number of extremely heavy users usually cited by both companies as why caps are necessary (these users could easily be pushed to business-class tiers if extreme usage were really the issue).

No, AT&T's plan is to use arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps to wage war on Internet video and cord cutting.

Caps are a multi-win for ISPs like AT&T and Comcast. They allow the ISP to cash in on Internet video by making streaming more expensive. They allow the ISP to make cord cutting less viable by, again, making streaming more expensive. In some cases, they can be used to give the ISP's own content an unfair market advantage. And now by making unlimited data only available if a user subscribes to TV, AT&T's using caps to force users to subscriber to traditional TV -- if they want their broadband connection to work like it used to.

That fixed-line usage caps are an anti-competitive assault unrelated to congestion isn't theory, hyperbole or opinion, it's fact.

 

[maestro7]

While it might burst some bubbles, do realize that every corporation that is in the media business is in it for the money, specifically profiting from it.

Of course, they are smart people and realize that if they only offered Internet access as a stand-alone product, they would severely (but not completely) eat into their other businesses, and if that were to occur, advertisers would begin having second thoughts as with whom they'd spend their money.

Yes. Data caps are neither a congestion nor an engineering issue; it's a business issue, pure and simple. And, frankly, if you're using their infrastructure to enjoy your service, they have every right to manage that content stream however they see fit. They also know that since everyone's doing it, you can't simply walk away (unless you're willing to forego service), and since the barriers to entry are so high, it would be extremely cost-prohibitive for you to go start your own company.

I enjoy my DirecTV service and will continue to do so until I can find a cheaper way to get my programming (which might occur sooner than later, and with the alleged DirecTV Now, et al. coming down the pike, DirecTV knows they can't forever raise prices on packages), and the same with my AT&T wireless. That doesn't mean I won't gripe (and have) about how AT&T won't allow you to use their unlimited data without also giving up my personal hotspot functionality on your iPhone (which is great for occasional kid usage).

 

[Jimbo]

While it might burst some bubbles, do realize that every corporation that is in the media business is in it for the money, specifically profiting from it.

Of course, they are smart people and realize that if they only offered Internet access as a stand-alone product, they would severely (but not completely) eat into their other businesses, and if that were to occur, advertisers would begin having second thoughts as with whom they'd spend their money.

Yes. Data caps are neither a congestion nor an engineering issue; it's a business issue, pure and simple. And, frankly, if you're using their infrastructure to enjoy your service, they have every right to manage that content stream however they see fit. They also know that since everyone's doing it, you can't simply walk away (unless you're willing to forego service), and since the barriers to entry are so high, it would be extremely cost-prohibitive for you to go start your own company.

I enjoy my DirecTV service and will continue to do so until I can find a cheaper way to get my programming (which might occur sooner than later, and with the alleged DirecTV Now, et al. coming down the pike, DirecTV knows they can't forever raise prices on packages), and the same with my AT&T wireless. That doesn't mean I won't gripe (and have) about how AT&T won't allow you to use their unlimited data without also giving up my personal hotspot functionality on your iPhone (which is great for occasional kid usage).

The way to get around your hot spot issue is to get a Att ipad/tablet with their service built in, you can use it anywhere you would your tethered set up, however it would cost I think it was like $40 p/m.
At least this is how it was explained to me, several months ago.

 

[maestro7]

The way to get around your hot spot issue is to get a Att ipad/tablet with their service built in, you can use it anywhere you would your tethered set up, however it would cost I think it was like $40 p/m.
At least this is how it was explained to me, several months ago.

Correct, except that before unlimited, if one paid $10/month, one could share data.

Then again, some of us figured out that simply enabling hot spot allowed any wifi device to similarly use data without paying extra.

I'm all for capitalism, but I'm against greed -- which is what this is.