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."

9 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 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.
    2. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

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

  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.