Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Lowers Data Access To Just $500/GB

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the cheap-at-twice-the-price dept.

GMGruman writes "No doubt in a move to demonstrate how having fewer carriers (once it buys T-Mobile) will be good for US cellular customers, AT&T has announced lower data pricing for customers not on contract: On a per-gigabyte basis, GoPhone users will only pay $500 rather than the previous $5,000. Such a deal. The pricing is indeed lower, but even the best option for such users is five times more than regular customers pay. And given that pay-as-you-go pricing is what the poor and people living paycheck to paycheck use, the result is those who can afford the least still pay by far the most."

36 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. for pete's sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there isn't an industry in as sore need of regulation

    most of all, i am quite tired of paying the same mandated data plan price for rural 2g

    1. Re:for pete's sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just don't understand why anyone would use ATT's shitty service when there is one that is so very much better that is readily available.

      Because in many areas, there isn't.

    2. Re:for pete's sake by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Owning a smart phone with a data plan isn't a human right. Don't want to pay that much for the data plan? Don't. Live without it. Billions do it every day.

      If, on the other hand, you choose, of your own volition, to pay the exorbitant fee for the data plan, you only serve to prove that the pricing was reasonable and correct.

    3. Re:for pete's sake by schnell · · Score: 3, Informative

      The rates you're getting sound very good - much better than typical US prepaid rates. However, the pricing from the submission is a typical Slashdot sensationalist headline (and hackjob Infoworld article) and is not really comparable. The actual pricing from TFA is:

      • $25 for 500MB
      • $15 for 100MB
      • $5 for 10MB

      So it's only $500/GB if you buy it in 10 MB increments ... kind of like how you'll pay about $150 for a bottle of bourbon if you buy it as shots vs. $25 buying the whole bottle at the liquor store.* But pointing that out evidently doesn't generate outrage and pageviews. Again, not nearly as good as 1 Euro per GB, but also not "$500 per GB."

      I know it's a lot to expect Slashdot to actually read things before posting, but I foolishly continue to hold out hope.

      * Happy hour and dive bars excluded. Add 50% if you are in New York City and 100% if you are in a trendy bar in New York City. Just give up if you are in Tokyo.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:for pete's sake by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Owning a smart phone with a data plan isn't a human right. Don't want to pay that much for the data plan? Don't. Live without it. Billions do it every day.

      Controlling a piece of a the public airways isn't a corporate right. Don't want to charge reasonable rates for data plans? Don't. Live without that government granted monopoly on public property. All the other corporations do it every day.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:for pete's sake by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look at what's happened here in Australia with Telstra. Cities have great service (ADSL2+, Cable, FiOS), anything outside the major centres, well, good luck. You might be able to get dialup. I stress might, as the pair gains systems out there can play havoc with dialup, and Telstra (the guys who own the cables) refuse to upgrade anything outside a CBD of a capital city.

      Having worked for Telstra in the plant assignment/activations area (cable records & line programming) I've seen 100 pair cables with maybe 10 pairs usable on it. Telstra refused to replace them as it's not economically viable for them.

      This is why I'm all for the National Broadband Network that's being developed over here. Government monopoly on wholesale to ensure equal service delivery across all communities.

    6. Re:for pete's sake by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Well he didn't mention the Illuminati or Reptilians...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:for pete's sake by cypherwise · · Score: 2

      Do you worry the Australian government will use that leverage to control the Internet more than they already do? I remember there being stories about them blocking a lot of websites and wanting to censor various things. Perhaps, having good access with good crypto with Tor or other routing mechanisms will outweigh any pestering they try to do. Who would run/administer the actual network?

    8. Re:for pete's sake by afidel · · Score: 2

      How the F is $25/500MB a good deal when I get unlimited text, data, and 300 minutes of voice from Virgin for that amount? That's the kind of seriously bad pricing that kept me from ever even considering a smartphone for my wife (previously a T-Mobile prepaid customer). The amazing thing about the Virgin pricing is that additional minutes are only $.10/minute so even if she does go over one month it's not like I'm getting raped unlike some of AT&T's plans where overage minutes are $.50/month.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:for pete's sake by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2

      That'd never work... :) these government sanctioned and sponsored monopolies (cable/phone) can't be bothered with competition. They'd rather have their cake and eat it too.

      But what you say is true. Power lines and phone lines (and cable lines) were all laid with huge subsidies and eminent domain actions by the government. In effect, WE own most of the infrastructure (as taxpayers), and as such, should not be allowing a corporation that got a handout to build the infrastructure in the first place free reign to shove the telephone pole up our asses.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  2. And downloading "data" to smartphone... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is, of course, a necessity of life (in addition to cable television).

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:And downloading "data" to smartphone... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With proper regulation it could be a more efficient use of money than having a landline and internet. The problem is that there's no competition at all in the American telecommunication industry, and I'm really curious as to what exactly they're referring to when they claim it's competitive.

    2. Re:And downloading "data" to smartphone... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Because even the shitty Tracphones are starting to have "smart" features now? Or that by the time you figure in all the fees the cell is usually the cheapest way to go to get a phone? Or that the cable and teleco without competition have taken assraping to new heights so that is often the ONLY way short of getting in line at a library that a poor person can have email?

      Take your pick, I know in my area the price for VoIP with Internet with the cable company is $103 with a 2 year contract with a shittastic 36Gb cap, the DSL option is $108 with a top speed of 756k and a 26Gb cap (not that you'd ever hit it on their shitpile o garbage) again with a 2 year contract, or they can get a smartphone from Fred's for $50 and buy minutes in $20 increments when they have it.

      Now which do YOU think the average poor person is more likely to have? $100+ or $50 or less (as they often have sales, I have seen the semi smartphones going for as low as $20 on sale) with no monthly fees or penalties if they have a bad month and can't afford to pay? I have to agree with another poster we need regs NOW for both the teleco and cableco industry, as the reason they can get away with this leeching is the simple fact they know they have a monopoly. WTF? Where is the Anti trust?

      I swear we need another Teddy "Trust Buster" Roosevelt right now, and it is one of the issues that could finally get us a third party pres (along with "Be Switzerland" as we are tired of spending billions propping up the third world) because this monopoly bullshit needs to DIAF.

      Speeds in my area haven't changed in ages, even though I'm practically across the street from one of the largest private colleges in the state, my mom has been waiting 32 YEARS now for the cable company to run the whole BLOCK AND A HALF yet neither the teleco nor the cableco will service her, hell is it any wonder the poor are switching to smartphones? In the rural areas or even two blocks out of town its the only damned non dialup Internet you can get!!!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:And downloading "data" to smartphone... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      God knows if the poor actually had access to such things they might not stay poor. (shudder)

    4. Re:And downloading "data" to smartphone... by narcc · · Score: 2

      Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?

      From what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    5. Re:And downloading "data" to smartphone... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart...bite me you corporate ass kisser. If you knew anything you'd know you ALREADY PAID to the tune of 200 billion and all you got for your money was a "LOL Goatse LOL!" pic from the ISPs who used the money to give themselves bonuses and trips to Vegas.

      So instead of sucking down the corporate bullshit maybe you better ask yourself why even shitty countries like Romania are currently royally kicking our ass on speed, service AND pricing, while our ISPs can't think of anything better to do with the massive profits they are generating than to institute caps and find ways to get BOTH the websites AND you to pay while they give themselves another bonus, hmmm? Like everything else in our corporatist society the shit is falling down around our ears while the CEOs take their mistresses to the Bahamas and the poor can't even have email. WAKE UP!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. How silly by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "And given that pay-as-you-go pricing is what the poor and people living paycheck to paycheck use, the result is those who can afford the least still pay by far the most." What a silly comment. First, I doubt that people who are poor and use pay as you go generally have smartphones, and if they do, they are far less likely to be data users. Second, we are not at the point where smartphones with data are a can't-exist-without-it commodity. If you are this poor, should you be wasting money on any data plan? Certainly data prices from mobile providers are shockingly high, but this is a silly "think of the children" style fallacious appeal to emotion.

    1. Re:How silly by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "And given that pay-as-you-go pricing is what the poor and people living paycheck to paycheck use...

      And people with bad credit.

      --
      Loading...
    2. Re:How silly by grcumb · · Score: 2

      Most people with pre-paid phones need voice and text messaging...not data plans.

      Oh, so it's okay to rip off the ones who actually do need data, then? Or maybe poor peoples' bandwidth actually does cost orders of magnitude more than that of others?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    3. Re:How silly by kaiser423 · · Score: 2

      A large number of poor people access the internet solely through smartphones. It is much, much cheaper to add data to a phone, than it is to get even the most basic of service.

      Dropping your landline and use the smartphone for internet is typically the cheapest deal out there, rather than having a line+dialup or line+cable/dsl internet.

      Some websites that cater to the poor have numbers of ~50% of the users accessing the data through a smartphone.

  4. T-mobile web day pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    T-mobile web day pass is $1.50/23hr, unlimited access.

  5. canada overage costs by ustolemyname · · Score: 5, Informative

    Canada:
    TELUS: $50/gb
    Rogers: $30/gb

    1. Re:canada overage costs by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3

      Rogers has a pay-as-you-go data plan where you pay $45/month for 500 MB plus 5 cents per KILObyte for overage, or **$50,000.00** per gigabyte. This has to be a world record!

  6. So what? by Redbaran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let them charge as much as they want! All the better for companies like MetroPCS and the pay-as-you-go shops. Walmart has a $45 30day unlimited everything plan: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Straight-Talk-Unlimited-Text-Talk-and-Web-Access-30-Day-Service-Card-Email-Delivery/15443344 This isn't discrimination against "the poor and oppressed" like the summary implies, it's more like a stupid tax for someone who can't find a better deal.

    1. Re:so what? by hawaiian717 · · Score: 2

      That's because you're actually buying the phone outright, rather than subsidizing the purchase cost with a more expensive long term contract. Virgin Mobile's LG Optimus V at $199 is the same as the starting point for the iPhone 4. VM's offerings are more mid-tier phones and not the high end models that get all the publicity, but they'd likely be good enough for most people.

      Let's compare the cost over a two year period, since that's the typical contract, with the Sprint version of the phone, the Optimus S, on the cheapest available plans:

      Virgin: $199.99 + $25/month = $799.99
      Sprint: $49.99 + $69.99/month = $1729.75

      You could even get Virgin's most expensive plan, $60/month for unlimited talk, text, and data, and still spend less ($1639.99) over two years.

      --
      End of Line.
  7. That's one way of putting it... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "those who can afford the least still pay by far the most."

    could perhaps more accurately be written:

    "those who typically use the least get charged the most per unit."

    or shortened to:

    "you save money if you buy in bulk."

    Of course, I'm not defending the outrageous rates—just the melodramatic language.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:That's one way of putting it... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      Rent-A-Center caters to poor people, allowing them access to fancy furniture and TV's and such that they otherwise would not purchase because of cost... And yes you can rent to own, but if you do it that way you spend 2x or more than the retail price. A credit card would be cheaper...

      When my wife was pregnant, she couldn't sleep comfortably in bed and wanted a recliner to rest in. Since we only wanted it for a couple of months, I called Rent-A-Center to see about renting one until she had the baby. It was going to cost something like $300 and we'd have to give it back afterwards. I checked the local classified ads and bought two recliners from a couple who were redecorating their house and wanted different colors, for a total of $50. Furniture rental is a sucker's game. I honestly can't imagine a single situation in which I'd ever want to use it. Even if I were on a short-term contract in another city and needed to furnish an apartment, I'd buy used stuff and re-sell it or donate it to charity when I was done with it.

      But the poor with bad credit can't get credit cards.

      If the "poor" can afford to pay $50 a month toward a credit card bill for a new TV, they can afford to save $50 a month until they have enough to buy the new TV outright - and save a buttload of interest while they're at it. You are not required to use credit cards to buy things, even large, expensive things.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  8. Re:Oh no! by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the point is that those people are getting soaked. If you want a smart phone you better not want to go prepaid. Of course there are other carriers that do not abuse their customers at that rate. The problem is that one of them is being bought by AT&T... Hey FCC and FTC did you see this?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  9. AT&T Seeking to Destroy the Internet by paulsnx2 · · Score: 2

    The Internet is supposed to be only for looking at web pages, no access to actual video or audio content. Want to play a multi-user game? Ha! Not if significant network traffic is required!

    250 GB limits on their AT&T U-verse connection (does not apply to your cable subscription). Some have reported upwards of 4000% errors on their data meter (when AT&T's numbers are compared to those collected by DD-WRT routers).

    2 GB limits on their data plans for smart phones.

    Obviously they already prevent any pre-paid access to the Internet.

    I never did hear if they ever disabled the fiber optic splitter they installed so all their traffic went directly to the NSA.

    Seriously, these guys are the biggest threats to the Internet yet.

  10. A little misleading by Boycott+BMG · · Score: 2
    From the press release http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=19623&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=31797&mapcode=consumer%7Cmobile-devices

    NEW: $25 FOR 500MB $5 for 10MB (previously $4.99 for 1MB) $15 for 100MB (previously $19.99)

    It is only $500/GB if someone were to sip 10MB at a time. Although the price for the best deal ($50/GB) is still way higher than those on contract.

  11. Not to worry.... by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 2

    T-Mobile is way cheaper... oh wait...

  12. Re:"Needs" by vell0cet · · Score: 2

    This argument is looking at it the completely wrong way. Whether you need it or not, should you have to pay $500/Gb? Poor or not?

  13. Re:Willingness to pay by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes and no. Yes in that willingness to pay is the proximate criterion on which prices are set. No in that one of the major determinants of somebody's willingness to pay is what other providers of similar or identical commodities are charging. In reasonably competitive markets, price competition between approximately equivalent providers of a given good or service means that, in the end, willingness to pay is approximately equal to the lowest price, which is based on the cost structure of the outfit providing that price.

    In hilariously non-competitive markets, of course, willingness to pay and cost are more or less completely decoupled. The same is true for 'ahead of their time' products(where everbody's cost is much higher than anybody's willingness to pay, so the product stays in the lab). In a competitive market for a mature product, though, willingness to pay and cost are fairly closely related.

  14. Fundamental by BabyDuckHat · · Score: 2

    "...those who can afford the least still pay by far the most."

    That's true almost everywhere in Capitalism.

    1. Re:Fundamental by shadowrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. I'm glad i can afford to buy a year's supply of toilet paper at Sam's Club. If i had to buy each pack of 4 rolls individually, i'm certain the price per gigawipe would increase tenfold!

  15. hey, its capitalism by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 2

    Hey that's capitalism for you.

    You don't like what you're being charged go elsewhere because to regulate what companies can charge is Marxism.

    Or so I've been told by the libertarians, tea baggers, and republicans.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.