Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Caps Netflix Streaming Costs At $68K/Yr
theodp writes "What would you say if you went to join a gym and were told that it could cost you anywhere from $360 a year to $68,000 a year for the exact same usage? Don't be ridiculous, right? Well, that's really not so different from what the potential costs of streaming video on an AT&T smartphone are. According to AT&T's Data Usage Calculator, 1,440 minutes worth of streaming video consumes 2.81GB, which — if you manage to keep Netflix fired up all day and night — would result in a $360 annual bill under the grandfathered $30-monthly-unlimited-data plan, or $68,376 under the new $20-monthly-300MB plan. Still, that didn't stop a spokesman from characterizing the new AT&T data plans as 'a great value' for customers."
Yes, because it's entirely reasonable that someone would sign up for the lowest possible data plan, and then use as much bandwidth as possible for every second of every day. Obviously, that plan is designed for people who intend to use streaming very little, if at all, and it is a very good value for those people. No, not as good a value as the old $30 unlimited, but that was obviously not sustainable as phone bandwidth usage increased massively. Remember when the $30 unlimited plan was created, Netflix for the phone didn't exist, and most phones struggled to stream very low res video.
It's large.
My gym charges about $650 per year or $20 for a day. Some have a $10 for an hour fee.
Are the $20/day people supposed to be outraged at paying $7300 for something I'm paying $650 for, or should they be happy they saved money for something they didn't really want.
The $10/hour guy would pay $87,600 if they used it all day every day; but why would someone doing that be paying by the hour?
Rod Taylor
It's still way overpriced. It should be $1 for 1GB. We just need competition and the market will correct itself.
Well, I think that your plan is overpriced. It should be $0.01 for 1GB.
See how pointless it is when you make up numbers just to make yourself happy?
The max cost need to be in there, and having to pay $70000 just because you forgot to turn off your phone is not a good thing. This is important because people do not see this problem, and tend to laugh at "losers" affected by it. Pressure should be on the Telcos to have fair pricing, not on the customers.
So no it's not alarmist, it's trying to expose telcos for what they are, and hopefully change them.
If you "forget" about your phone the battery will die after about 45 minutes of this kind of usage, so, not to worry! And for what it's worth this has been going on ever since the invention of long distance; you have always been able to dig a real deep hole for yourself. Say you call your aunt in Armenia and you both forget to put the phone totally back on the hook; one month later you will have an $86,000 phone bill. Think that's changed any? You can opt to purchase more affordable plans, which is no different than in this scenario, but if you choose to be completely dumb about it yes you can find yourself owing a LOT of money. That's the price of being a grownup.
Maybe a better question is "how much does AT&T pay for that bandwidth for which they charge $20/250MB?
The issue might not be who gets the discount so much as "why is AT&T price-gouging for something for which there is so little choice?"
When you've only got a couple of choices, and AT&T actively works to keep the number choices limited, they have a privileged position. When a company is granted such privilege, they should be held to some responsibility, one of which is not to price-gouge.
"Price-gouging" is defined as "a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities much higher than is considered reasonable or fair". Who wants to argue that $20/250MB is "reasonable"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wrong. These are regulated monopolies; we trust them with our very limited spectrum with the understanding that they will provide services that are in our best interest. This includes in terms of price.
The gradual lessening of service per dollar is a genuine concern.
But corporate lobbyists also spent fortunes to get the government to subsidize their infrastructure. They are free to do what they want with what they bought and paid for. If you want your representatives to actually represent your interests then you should spend the same millions that the corporate lobbyists do. That is how our democracy works.
Not a God-given right, a CONTRACT-given right. I'm not paying by the bit for computer internet access, why should I pay it for internet access on my phone? And BTW, I have AT&T for home internet, the phone is Boost Mobile, unlimited everything for half the price of AT&T's cheapest phone data plan, even if you don't hit AT&T's caps.
And I could watch TV 24/7 (well, ok, 16/7, stations didn't run late at night back before the stone age) for FREE fifty years ago. I'm still watching for free. Cable? Why? A hundred channels of crap I don't want to watch, most of which are on the internet hosted by their networks (I have kubuntu TV, my computer uses the TV as a monitor).
Why do you expect me to pay for what was once free, and especially for what's free right now? No wonder everybody's broke, they're throwing their money away on bottled water, TV, radio, exercize, data, music... shit that they can get for free. What a bunch of maroons, as Bugsy would say! Pay five dollars for a goddamned cup of coffee when I can buy a two pound can of Maxwell House or Folgers for ten, and have a whole pot of coffee every day for a month? How fucking stupid would I have to be??? Kids, if you have money to waste, give your charity to the poor, not the rich bastards that own Starbucks and Comcast.
Free Martian Whores!
Moreover, these Internets make heavy use of public resources. In the case of wireless, it is a public spectrum they are leasing. In the case of wired, they make use of the public right of way. The public has every right to see that its resources are used in a manner that maximize the public benefit, and corporations that cannot meet that challenge should not be allowed to use said resources.
Wait wait wait. So you're saying that AT&T should be granted a near monopoly in the markets it controls (via government-subsidized bootstrapping), and then not be beholden to the tax payers? I'm sorry but I don't think I can take you seriously.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
No, that's not a good question, unless everyone is asking it. Text messaging rides on the backs of empty space in the network ping, costing nothing to the provider. But rates have gone up from 10 cents to now 40 cents.
People will pay whatever they value the service to be.
I have fought this for as long as I could - I didn't buy a cell phone, I didn't have cable or satellite TV, I didn't pay money for anything I thought was overpriced. But everyone around me did. $500/mo apartment with $140 tv + internet package, and complaining about not having money.
I told people where they were spending ridiculous piles of cash, they didn't care, they wanted the service. I tried to educate them, honestly I did.
And your argument that choice is limited doesn't really hold up - Sprint has been offering "truly unlimited" plans. This is basic capitalism. No one cares what it costs to make something, only what they are willing to pay for it. And very few people like me are truly outraged anough to actually not purchase something, they grumble and fork over the cash.