AT&T Ditches Metered Billing Trials Without Telling Anyone
from the so-that-worked-out dept
Remember how all those ISPs and broadband providers have been so sure that metered billing and metered broadband is the solution? Yeah, well, perhaps not. Time Warner Cable got scared off by negative publicity, and as was rumored earlier this year, AT&T has ended its metered broadband trials that got so much attention two years ago. Of course, unlike the start of the trials, the end has received almost no attention at all -- perhaps because AT&T never told anyone. It's also a bit amusing that this is happening at the same time that AT&T is switching to metered billing for iPhone data plans...Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: metered broadband
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
How can we get the FCC and Congress to stop allowing the cell companies to abuse the market with "our network only" phones & devices like Sprint and AT&T are doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
So unless it is different where you are.... how is locking the phone "market abuse" if you can buy the same phone unlocked elsewhere?
That said your first point stands... bring on the competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
Now compound the arbitrary and unnecessary lock-down of devices on the publicly-funded network and maybe you'll understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
Actually the majority of the network is private held and built by corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
With billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. You left that part out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
If you want a "free" handset they have to recover the cost at some point... hence the lock to their network.
Or am i misunderstanding your point?
On a side note pretty much every network started out gov owned (here in Aus for eg.) and got privatised.... no difference... you pay the goc (in higher taxes) or you pay the corp (in higher call fees) I dont see that as relevant to the discussion about locking... they lock to recover the handset cost.
Now if you think they recover too much.. well I am certainly not going to argue on that :) If they ploughed the profits back into the NETWORK increasing coverage and performance I would have no issues... but why do the shareholders deserve double digit returns while the custormers get shafted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
I would love to be able to buy any phone at the "real" price and just use it, but sprint (my current carrier) only allows the devices/phones they sell.
AT&T has the lock on the iphone/ipad but such horrible service (in Chicago anyway) there's no possible way I'm going there.
Sprint CS sucks and Their $10 "because we can" plan for the new android phone makes them suck even worse, but the actual coverage in Chicago is excellent for voice and data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
Pay them more than the companies are paying them right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof of competition being GOOD for consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T is a racket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T is a racket
If you break up that company it will only grow again to become the same thing it is today, the problem is the underlying parameters that permitted this to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AT&T is a racket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AT&T is a racket
The regional local telecoms did nothing to encourage competition between them, but without that it would not have been possible to separate the long distance from local. That did allow competition for a time. The vertical separation of local exchanges and long distance force a choice between a number of long distance carriers even if you were forced to use a regional local carrier.
Unfortunately I think the vertical conglomeration of local, long distance, internet, TV and mobile service, while making it appear simpler to most people, is only making it harder for consumers to make effective choices about who they get service from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AT&T is a racket
telco regulation worked until 1996, when it was deregulated. the telecommunications landscape went from a large number of competitors in cutthroat price wars to a decade spent rebuilding the bell monopoly in the form of the AT&T and verizon duopoly.
the profits made were not re-invested in their networks, but instead spent buying up competitors.
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
i would imagine that before long the big telcos will be facing debt problems similar to the newspapers: plenty of income for operations, maintenance, and upgrades, but not enough to do all of that AND service the debts from acquisitions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AT&T is a racket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably AT&T saw what metered means, less consumption with less money involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This time around though, it could neatly be split into 3 or 4 different businesses which would eliminate the unfair advantage AT&T has in the marketplace. Wireless, POTS/TV/ISP, Backbone Provider Network. The level 1 network is the biggie, they control the worlds largest communications backbone which can be leveraged throughout all the rest of its different businesses. And btw, we the tax payers paid for it. Breaking it off from the rest of AT&T would go a long way toward forcing them to work by the same rules as everyone else.
By themselves, none of the three things I said are really a monopoly per say. But put it all together, and AT&T is a behemoth no one can touch because each of its businesses protects the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow - I like that one :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Economics
By your reasoning, it makes sense for AT&T not to improve their service, if it's scarce then it costs more right?
Not investing in infrastructure = Higher profits?
Again, real competition would fix that, someone else would have the network that CAN support all those data users and would take away enough of AT&T's customers that their network was no longer stressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps someone started investing the the future instead of continuing to divest cost centers to Alcatel...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore's Law
Perhaps someone started investing in the future instead of continuing to divest cost centers to Alcatel...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore's Law
Perhaps someone started investing in the future instead of continuing to divest cost centers to Alcatel...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moore's Law
Perhaps someone started investing in the future instead of continuing to divest cost centers to Alcatel...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Really Metered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]