Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Caps Are A Giant Con And An Attack On Cord-Cutters (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Following a report from DSLReports that ATT would be imposing usage caps on the company's U-Verse broadband customers, ATT has announced it would now be following Comcast's lead by "allowing" users to pay $30 more a month if they wanted to avoid usage caps entirely. However, ATT has taken it to a new level by "allowing" users to graciously avoid the $30 fee -- if they subscribe to DirecTV or U-Verse TV service. These data caps allow ISPs like ATT and Comcast to cash in on internet video and make cord-cutting less viable by making streaming more expensive. And now, ATT is using caps to force users to subscribe to traditional TV if they want their broadband connection to work like it used to.

3 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Caps have been in place... by wiggles · · Score: 5, Informative

    They charged me an extra ~$100 one month and ~$50 another. Just charged my card and left me wondering wtf happened until I called them.

    Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.

    You asked for this problem when you signed up.

  2. May 23 is the date by mattyj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just logged into my ATT account and this is what it says:

    Starting May 23, we are increasing the U–verse Internet data allowance for many customers. After a grace period, and as our agreement provides, there's a $10 charge for each 50GB of data you use over the allowance. Want unlimited data? You can:

              Bundle your U-verse Internet service with DIRECTV or U-verse TV. This gives you an
                unlimited Internet data allowance ($30 value) for no additional charge.

              Purchase an unlimited allowance for your Internet service for $30. This option doesn’t
                require a TV bundle.

  3. Re:FUCK ATT. by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Informative

    This works for politics, too.

    Not really, not in the US at least, where only about 180 families hold over 50% of the entire nation's wealth.