Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Removes HBO From an Unlimited Data Plan After Buying Time Warner (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the change-of-plans dept.

AT&T revamped its two unlimited mobile plans this week, and in the process it raised the price for the entry-level plan by $5 a month while removing the free HBO perk. The entry-level unlimited plan now starts at $70 instead of $65. ArsTechnica adds: Existing customers can keep their old plan and the free HBO, but new customers or those who switch plans will have to buy the more expensive unlimited plan to get HBO at no added cost. AT&T did add some video options to both plans, however. Both unlimited plans get AT&T's new "WatchTV" streaming service that comes with more than 30 channels, and buyers of the more expensive unlimited plan can choose to get HBO or another premium add-on. While "HBO is no longer included on the lower-priced plan," "customers who remain on their existing plan won't see any change and will keep the HBO benefit for as long as they remain on their current plan," AT&T told Ars. Further reading: AT&T Is Screwing Customers By Almost Tripling a Bogus Fee.

49 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So basically all the things people were worried about came true? Reduce competition for one of the most evil an unethical corporations out there and they raise prices and remove perks. Who could have seen this coming?

    1. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Train0987 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Just as soon as you can explain what the heck this has to do with net neutrality.

    2. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Funny

      We should break AT&T up into smaller regional AT&Ts.

      That plan rings a Bell with me for some reason.

    3. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by khandom08 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love this line:

      but new customers or those who switch plans will have to buy the more expensive unlimited plan to get HBO at no added cost

    4. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      So basically... AT&ATs? Sounds like a great way to increase their Empire.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Bryansix · · Score: 2

      It doesn't. It has to do with the Mergers.

    6. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aww, so adorable. You were primed and ready to defend Trump, weren't you. Poor sweet pea.

    7. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by mi · · Score: 1

      Yes, how dare a merchant change his offerings and prices!

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by The+Fat+Bastard · · Score: 1

      It would be easier to buy all the Bells back and split them up again. Oh, wait.

    9. Re: So, can we say "I told you so" now? by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the reference due to Ill Communication.

    10. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations will always act as anti-competitive as they can legally get away with, because it improves profits.
      Corporations will make the net as anti-competitive as a lack of net neutrality allows them to do, regardless of any "pledges" or "promises" they make now.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    11. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by gnick · · Score: 3, Funny

      Buy one for twice the price, and I'll throw in a second for FREE!

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    12. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Can we ring these Bells with some babies?

    13. Re: So, can we say "I told you so" now? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the reference due to Ill Communication.

      Title 3 (III)? Yes, I think you're right
      We just had a story about it yesterday.

    14. Re: So, can we say "I told you so" now? by jm007 · · Score: 1

      good one! but too vague, nobody get it

    15. Re: So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah we should just order Texas to execute them. Tell them AT&T is mentally challenged and they'll do it faster.

    16. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      AT&T has also been slowly increasing its invented "administrative fee". It is now 2.6x about what it used to be. Classy company.

    17. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Well then don't use AT&T for cellular. There's no shortage of competition in the cell space, just switch carriers.

    18. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      HBO's parent is Time Warner. Now that AT&T owns Time Warner they can call the shots on the access to the service. So you have the following options.

      (1) AT&T non-unlimited whatever standard service (~$45/mo). You not only pay AT&T, since they own Time Warner, for the HBO sub ($9.95/mo), but you're also paying them for being your ISP. Additionally, watching HBO (even though they have the servers literally on their fiber now, but that's beside the point) will cost you GB in bandwidth. Which then leads you to ask...

      (2) Why not just pay the $70/mo (used to be $65/mo) to get HBO sub plus you don't use your data plan GB when watching.

      (3) You're not an AT&T customer, so screw you, you can pay the $9.95/mo for HBO and you deal. However, if your ISP doesn't pay AT&T a priority fee, you only get 720p and if you're on T-Mobile, they're going to send it to you in something that is less that 720p, because T-Mobile blows. That's okay though because Verizon does pay and that's pretty much your only other alternative.

      And here's the deal-o. That option #2 will look the best and that's the entire point. AT&T wants you to go option #2, it is what I call a loose garden, as opposed to a walled garden. The loose garden is supposed to optimized for a single set of combinations. Yes, you can technically get it other ways, but the absolute best bang for buck is only within the loose garden provided by AT&T. I do want to point out, we are talking mobile here, if we're talking landline ISP, ISPs haven't started hammering there too hard (except maybe Netflix + Comcast combo). Again the entire point is to create an "optimal" point that favors the ISP that's got the goods you want.

      Now they're doing this with services that they own and on things that seemingly "make sense" (their words) to do this with. But there's nothing stopping them from taking HBO and turning it into a blank line and filling in the blank when they need to drum up more money. Think, "optimal YouTube", "optimal Twitter", "optimal [[insert something on the Internet]]". It isn't to create a roadblock, it's to create a better presentation of an Internet service. The whole "loose garden".

      Now, how you feel about that, that's an entirely, vastly, giant, tee-totally massively, different thing altogether. Some would look at this an say, "Yeah, that's what ISPs are suppose to do, make their product look better. You don't go into a McDonald's and demand they make their hamburger look like Burger King's" And yes, if you view things like YouTube, Facebook, etc as products that need shine best for your clients and suck balls for everyone else, then cool. That's what capitalism is there for. However, there's the other team that views things like YouTube, Facebook, etc not as products but as public platforms that should be equally accessible to everyone. So they see them more like, uh, hospitals and civic plazas and what not (not sure if that's a good analogy but I hope that conveys the point). The entire thing is that making a service shine for only a handful of ISPs is wrong.

      I don't think there is a more correct answer, really. Each one has pros and cons to it. The point being is that net neutrality prevents loose gardens (-ish). ISPs are pretty darn clever and they were making headway into getting around NN anyway, so I want to add that (-ish) to the end of that. However, sans NN, they can just go head first into building those "preferred networks". Again, that only really matters on how you view the Internet in the first place. So if you don't see it as this place where things "could" be equally shared, then there's not really a part of NN that you'd miss.

    19. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by thechemic · · Score: 1

      LOL! I wonder how many people 'whooshed' on this.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    20. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I haven't used them since they bought up Cingular. However, obviously they don't think they will lose very many customers with this change so maybe competition isn't as robust as you think.

    21. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HBO's parent is Time Warner. Now that AT&T owns Time Warner they can call the shots on the access to the service. So you have the following options.

      (1) AT&T non-unlimited whatever standard service (~$45/mo). You not only pay AT&T, since they own Time Warner, for the HBO sub ($9.95/mo), but you're also paying them for being your ISP. Additionally, watching HBO (even though they have the servers literally on their fiber now, but that's beside the point) will cost you GB in bandwidth. Which then leads you to ask...

      (2) Why not just pay the $70/mo (used to be $65/mo) to get HBO sub plus you don't use your data plan GB when watching.

      (3) You're not an AT&T customer, so screw you, you can pay the $9.95/mo for HBO and you deal. However, if your ISP doesn't pay AT&T a priority fee, you only get 720p and if you're on T-Mobile, they're going to send it to you in something that is less that 720p, because T-Mobile blows. That's okay though because Verizon does pay and that's pretty much your only other alternative.

      (4) Let HBO die on the vine. AT&T sits confused as their TW purchase starts losing value because they artificially reduced demand by increasing cost past the balance point.

    22. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by microbox · · Score: 1

      All those people who thought net neutrality was some new regulation that Obama invented. Rubes.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    23. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Xenx · · Score: 2

      I think there is some confusion there. AT&T has been offering free HBO before all this. The $65 plan USED to offer HBO. They're raising the cost to $70 and removing HBO. They did the opposite of what you're talking about here

    24. Re:So, can we say "I told you so" now? by piojo · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the deal wasn't simply underpriced? Hell, this could be the whole reason AT&T bought Time Warner! Imagine they saw Time Warner was leaving a ton of money on the table with this deal, and was consequently the whole company was undervalued. AT&T buys the company, fixes the problem, and they've increased the value of their new investment. (Of course, the whole story must be more complicated than that.)

      So how should we feel? I don't like it. A big grocery chain bought a mom and pop shop near my home, then immediately reduced their inventory of the products I liked. I did not thank that grocery chain for that. But shouldn't anyone, even a megacorporation, be able to buy an asset then make it more valuable? It's a similar story with gentrification.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    25. Re: So, can we say "I told you so" now? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Yup. The ink's not even dry on the kangaroo court ruling, and already it's bad for consumers.

      I wonder how much AT&T had to pay in lawful-bribes to make that court sell out the citizens it pretends to protect?

  2. AT&T math by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    ... new customers ... will have to buy the more expensive unlimited plan to get HBO at no added cost.

    i.e. it's free if you pay more!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  3. Why AT&T by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I always wonder why people use AT&T as their mobile operator in the first place. It is consistently more expensive, and doesn't have the best coverage either. There must be something I am missing.

    1. Re:Why AT&T by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I always wonder why people use AT&T as their mobile operator in the first place. It is consistently more expensive, and doesn't have the best coverage either. There must be something I am missing.

      I agree it's expensive, I disagree about coverage.
      I consistently get a better signal with AT&T than with T-Mobile or Sprint - whether I'm in the city or in a rural area. I'm typically opposed to mega-corporations getting bigger, but so far with AT&T I haven't had any BOHICA situations.

    2. Re:Why AT&T by RickyShade · · Score: 1

      I always wonder why people use AT&T as their mobile operator in the first place. It is consistently more expensive, and doesn't have the best coverage either. There must be something I am missing.

      Coverage varies by your geographical location. Yeeears ago when I first started with cell phones and was under my parents' AT&T plan, I would notice that I had signal in places my friends didn't (and we all used the same Nokia phone so it wasn't the antenna), so I stuck to AT&T. These days I use Cricket, and I read a review of a guy saying that he had better signal and signal in more places with AT&T/Cricket than with T-Mobile/MetroPCS, so I'm sticking with Cricket. I may switch to the AT&T prepaid plan, $40/mo for 8GB data, currently paying $35/mo for 5GB data (throttled to 8MBit). In my area, another carrier simply wouldn't make sense. What *I* wonder is why more people don't use prepaid. I mean people can finance their phones independently, so why even bother with the pricier contract deals anymore.

    3. Re:Why AT&T by RickyShade · · Score: 1

      Edit: A review of a guy IN MY CITY.

    4. Re:Why AT&T by sconeu · · Score: 1

      YMMV. I dropped AT&T because I couldn't get signal at my house. [Disclaimer, I live inside the Los Angeles City Limits]

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Why AT&T by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      They should rename themselves AT&T&T: American Twitter & Telephone & Telegraph.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Why AT&T by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Definitely true. But even Verizon has better (or same) coverage and is cheaper.

  4. Re:What are the *actual* costs!?!? by greenwow · · Score: 1

    Plus, worse they still do price increases even if you have a contract. They've increased by monthly bill by $5 twice. I could break my contract because of that, but since I got a subsidized phone it would cost me hundreds of dollars to do that so I'm stuck.

  5. Watch that fine print - by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have the old "grandfathered" unlimited plan and was looking to switch to the new one as, I was told (from various articles/reviews on the internet) that it's better with unlimited calling and text too.

    Not quite...
    The cheaper plan throttles earlier. To get the numbers from my old plan I'd have to get the more expensive plan for $5 more a month than I'm currently playing. Not a bad trade-off but there's ONE more gotcha
    The NEW unlimited plans will NOT allow the use of any corporate discounts. These are given out to companies that work closely with the phone company or provide a lot of customers. I get 12% off my grandfathered unlimited calling plan with it. But NOT the new one. So that $5 more becomes ~$15 more!
    Pass.

  6. I applaud you sir by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I have the old "grandfathered" unlimited plan

    I have to say, I admire the people who have managed to resist various temptations and keep the ember of earlier unlimited plans alive...

    I myself have hopped around carriers like a cricket in a prairie fire.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I applaud you sir by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Ehh - what can I say, I'm a luddite!

      Frankly it was that unlimited plan that kept me on AT&T. I only call distant family about twice a month and, even then, I'm texting them daily - so the "phone" portion of my plan has less and less worth to me. (I use iMessage in about 90% of my texting so I'm even on a "limited" texting plan of 200 messages at $5/month. Even if I go over - at .10/text I can do another 150 messages before I can justify the "unlimited" text package for $20/month!
      I looked into dropping down to a non-unlimited data plan too but I average about 5gb month which, with cost overages comes in at around $55/month so even the increased $45/month unlimited old data plan is still the "best" plan!
      Although adding tablets/watches to the grandfathered plan is tricky - though I've heard this has since been fixed.

  7. Re:What are the *actual* costs!?!? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Plus, worse they still do price increases even if you have a contract. They've increased by monthly bill by $5 twice. I could break my contract because of that, but since I got a subsidized phone it would cost me hundreds of dollars to do that so I'm stuck.

    Just curious...how much did you "save" with the subsidized phone"? And how long will it take to pay off at $10 per month (the amount you're "stuck" with paying because of price increases)?

    Note that if it's a helluva long time, then you still got the better of the deal, what with the really cheap phone. If not, maybe you'll be smarter than to go for the "free phone" (or vastly reduced price, anyways) next time....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  8. No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow. Ignoring the so-called HBO perk (I "cut the cord" precisely to stop paying for bundled media), this is a heavily limited plan. From the details of the $45/month "unlimited" level:

    Data Restrictions: For all data usage, AT&T may temporarily slow data speeds during times of network congestion. Plan is not eligible for Stream Saver. For content we can identify as video, wireless streaming speed will be slowed to a max of 1.5Mbps, Standard Definition quality (about 480p). Video speed is capped at this amount, regardless of network device is on (for example 4G LTE). Ability to stream, video resolution, and other data usage (including speed) are not guaranteed, may vary, and be aected by a variety of other factors. Other restrictions apply. Tethering/mobile hotspot use prohibited (except Connected Cars).

    So, basically, at any point in time they may lower speeds when some undefined level of "network congestion" has been met. What do you reckon the chances are that that won't be an almost always condition? But video from any known provider will be limited to 1.5Mbps and 480p at ALL times. And tethering is completely disabled.

    Given that video and tethering are likely the two biggest reasons to get unlimited data on a phone, this seems like a pretty useless "unlimited" service. If you don't ever watch video or tether, you'll very likely stay within a 2GB or so limit on a cheaper plan with no problem, especially if you use WiFi for data where available.

    1. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Troll

      I use 480p on a 17" desktop monitor and it's almost good enough. Are you telling me anything over 480p on a freakin' 5" phone display makes any difference?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      heh - muh iPhone Retina 'splay!

    3. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It does. 1080p looks fantastic on a decent phone.

    4. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by satcat · · Score: 3, Informative

      What.. It absolutely does!

      Not as much for say a TV show or movie, but anything with fine text (say a video game steam or lecture of some sort) can be unwatchable at 480p. Faces and expressions in panel discussions can be difficult to see.

    5. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      The human eye can fully resolve a 6" 1080p display at about 9.5" assuming you don't have uncorrected presbyopia or farsightedness. This is about where most people I see watching video naturally place the phone and is equivalent to a 55" 1080p TV at the proper viewing distance of about 7 ft. Few hold it at arm's length while watching video. The display will also occupy a reasonable viewing angle at that point though you should pull it in to about 8" for a 30 degree field of view equivalent-to-theatre experience.

    6. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And tethering is completely disabled.

      This is still so foreign to me. I've never found a provider outside america that actually tells me where my final packets are allowed to end up. Trying this shit in Australia would likely get the company majorly slapped down by the ombudsman.

      (note I haven't been in Australia for a long time. Can any Aussies confirm if the telecom companies down there are still somewhat good? NBN / Telstra excepted of course).

    7. Re:No video over 480p is "unlimited"? by Lurks · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of blocking tethering in Australia, certainly none of my providers ever had (about half a dozen different ones). I don't even know how they'd do it... I mean it's a standard feature in Android at least.

  9. "I told you so": Net neutrality in action by code_monkey_steve · · Score: 1

    So basically all the things people were worried about came true? Reduce competition for one of the most evil an unethical corporations out there and they raise prices and remove perks. Who could have seen this coming?

    By providing HBO at no additional cost, AT&T was favoring one premium channel over all the others, a clear violation of Network Neutrality principles. How is, say, STARZ supposed to complete with "free"? By replacing it with 30 channels no one wants, they've leveled the playing field.

    Why aren't all Net Neutrality proponents cheering this development? You're winning!

  10. Re:I knew this was coming, and so wrong... by sjames · · Score: 1

    In turn we all get to laugh at you now since this is about the merger being permitted, not what has apparently become your favorite hobby horse.