Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LiberalArkie

(17,785 posts)
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 02:20 PM Jan 16

AT&T kills home Internet service in NY over law requiring $15 or $20 plans

JAN 16, 2025 11:34 AM

AT&T has stopped offering its 5G home Internet service in New York instead of complying with a new state law that requires ISPs to offer $15 or $20 plans to people with low incomes.

The decision was reported yesterday by CNET and confirmed by AT&T in a statement provided to Ars today. "While we are committed to providing reliable and affordable Internet service to customers across the country, New York's broadband law imposes harmful rate regulations that make it uneconomical for AT&T to invest in and expand our broadband infrastructure in the state," AT&T said. "As a result, effective January 15, 2025, we will no longer be able to offer AT&T Internet Air, our fixed-wireless Internet service, to New York customers."

New York started enforcing its Affordable Broadband Act yesterday after a legal battle of nearly four years. Broadband lobby groups convinced a federal judge to block the law in 2021, but a US appeals court reversed the ruling in April 2024, and the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case last month.

The law requires ISPs with over 20,000 customers in New York to offer $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. The plans only have to be offered to households that meet income eligibility requirements, such as qualifying for the National School Lunch Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Medicaid.

Snip

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/att-complies-with-law-requiring-cheap-internet-by-ending-a-service-in-ny/

58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AT&T kills home Internet service in NY over law requiring $15 or $20 plans (Original Post) LiberalArkie Jan 16 OP
Cheap, greedy bastards. That can't be that many people! -nt CrispyQ Jan 16 #1
To be fair, it's probably a considerable number pinkstarburst Jan 16 #9
Wow. I had no idea it was that many. CrispyQ Jan 16 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author WarGamer Jan 16 #2
Will universal basic income stop this loophole that corps use? Has anyone ever calculated in2herbs Jan 16 #3
What loophole are you referring to? MichMan Jan 16 #11
There will likely be no reprecussions to AT&Ts decision, hence a corporate loophole. Just as commentary, in2herbs Jan 16 #14
Why would there be repercussions to a company making a business decision ? MichMan Jan 16 #18
If corps are not "forced" (at times) to provide a product against their wishes because it goes against in2herbs Jan 16 #19
Yes n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jan 16 #27
Well ... yea Lurker Deluxe Jan 16 #29
To be fair SickOfTheOnePct Jan 16 #37
To be fair... Lurker Deluxe Jan 16 #39
My AT&T internet cost me $80.00 per month Emile Jan 16 #4
I pay $85 per month for fiber optic. totodeinhere Jan 16 #55
The closest fiber optic line is two and half miles Emile Jan 16 #56
Yes, I had 6 Mbps DSL when I lived in a rural area. n/t totodeinhere Jan 17 #57
State imposed price caps that are legitimately at or under the cost of rendering the service don't kelly1mm Jan 16 #5
Wild AT&T offers 10g of prepaid unlimited data for $25 a month LiberalArkie Jan 16 #6
For home internet? MichMan Jan 16 #7
I use the hot spot all the time and the prepay ATT is also used for the portable hot spots use for all sorts LiberalArkie Jan 16 #25
That would only last me days! in the stacks Jan 16 #41
For low income folks affected by this, I highly recommend PCs for People jmbar2 Jan 16 #8
That still is too much. in the stacks Jan 16 #47
greedy rat bastards! mike_c Jan 16 #10
How much does it cost AT&T to provide this service? Lets assume it is more than $15 per month. Why would kelly1mm Jan 16 #12
I'm referring to AT&T mike_c Jan 16 #17
How you do you know the service is still lucrative at these mandated price points? nt kelly1mm Jan 16 #44
Plus ATT has spent billions upgrading infrastructure. totodeinhere Jan 17 #58
Greedy? Mountainguy Jan 16 #13
AT&T gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2024 was $73.123B, a 1.61% increase year-over-year. Celerity Jan 16 #22
Ok SickOfTheOnePct Jan 16 #28
What is their cost basis? Are they actually incurring a loss at the legally-mandated prices? Celerity Jan 16 #30
No idea SickOfTheOnePct Jan 16 #33
disagree Celerity Jan 16 #34
Fair enough SickOfTheOnePct Jan 16 #35
Gross ... Lurker Deluxe Jan 16 #31
see post 20 Celerity Jan 16 #32
I agree SickOfTheOnePct Jan 16 #36
Tax code is what it is Lurker Deluxe Jan 16 #43
Do you agree with governments mandating developers set aside a certain percentage of new residential builds for low cost Celerity Jan 16 #46
Well ... that would depend Lurker Deluxe Jan 16 #48
40K usd as a mandated price is not reality in most (if any) areas of the US Celerity Jan 16 #49
Agreed Lurker Deluxe Jan 16 #50
Did they break tax laws? MichMan Jan 16 #51
Gross profit is not net profit EX500rider Jan 16 #40
did I say it was? Celerity Jan 16 #53
So they would rather make $0 NameAlreadyTaken Jan 16 #15
The US govt should provide high speed internet for everyone in America at a low cost. Yavin4 Jan 16 #16
The Affordable connectivity program was a godsend from the Biden administration tishaLA Jan 16 #42
Poor AT&T also pays no income tax. maxrandb Jan 16 #20
Weak... Blue_Tires Jan 16 #21
AT&T: HOW DARE THEY REQUIRE US TO MAKE INTERNET AFFORDABLE TO EVERYONE! sakabatou Jan 16 #23
Low income internet users should consider themselves fortunate... hunter Jan 16 #26
So glad I didn't sign up with them claudette Jan 16 #38
Maybe the issue is means testing. Mosby Jan 16 #45
When a business is required to lose money on a service, they stop providing it. Bonx Jan 16 #52
Wonder if any other internet providers will follow ? MichMan Jan 16 #54

pinkstarburst

(1,677 posts)
9. To be fair, it's probably a considerable number
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 02:50 PM
Jan 16

The article states they must give this $15 internet service to all families with kids who qualify for free and reduced price lunch.

So in NYC, according to a google search, that is 72% of children. That's a LOT of households.

In the rest of New York state, 41% of children qualify for FRPL. That's also a LOT of households.

I think this is legislation that has good intentions, but is not well thought out. If the state government wants to bring better internet access to families, perhaps they need to fund it, or work with internet providers to offer subsidies to bring the cost down to what they're proposing. Just expecting internet providers to eat the cost for what would amount to 50% of their customers is IMHO not reasonable.

CrispyQ

(39,367 posts)
24. Wow. I had no idea it was that many.
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 04:13 PM
Jan 16

What a sad commentary about the "greatest country on Earth."

OTOH, also from google, AT&T gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2024 was $18.583B.

Response to LiberalArkie (Original post)

in2herbs

(3,625 posts)
3. Will universal basic income stop this loophole that corps use? Has anyone ever calculated
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 02:29 PM
Jan 16

how much tax money would be saved by not having to fund for some of our current "welfare" programs because people will have a UBI that disqualifies them for "welfare" and some of these costs they can now afford on their own?

MichMan

(14,685 posts)
11. What loophole are you referring to?
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:01 PM
Jan 16

Depending on the amount of UBI, it could very well put recipients above the income level needed to qualify for a lot of programs like SNAP, Section 8 housing, Medicaid and many other programs for low income people.

in2herbs

(3,625 posts)
14. There will likely be no reprecussions to AT&Ts decision, hence a corporate loophole. Just as commentary,
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:13 PM
Jan 16

what if a UBI provided people with a $30,000/year income. Why couldn't the money funding SNAP, Sec. 8, etc., be transferred to provide the money for the UBI instead? Think of all the govt red tape, etc., that would no longer be required for funding these existing programs because there would be no qualifying or monitoring of UBI?

A form of UBI already exists in some cities and the data shows the recipients spend it responsibly, not on drugs, etc.

MichMan

(14,685 posts)
18. Why would there be repercussions to a company making a business decision ?
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:32 PM
Jan 16

How can they be forced to provide a product against their wishes?

in2herbs

(3,625 posts)
19. If corps are not "forced" (at times) to provide a product against their wishes because it goes against
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:38 PM
Jan 16

their bottom line, are you saying that these products should only be available to those who can afford it?

Lurker Deluxe

(1,056 posts)
29. Well ... yea
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:12 PM
Jan 16

Should Apple be forced to provide a $250 I-Phone?

Bentley forced to make a $30,000 car?

The Dallas Cowboys forced to have $100 season tickets?

5 star restaurants forced to offer $4 meals?

NYC forced to offer downtown office space and/or high end condos at $5 sq/ft?

I could go on forever …

If they have a monopoly of services, sure … but they do not.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,671 posts)
37. To be fair
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:31 PM
Jan 16

Season tickets for the Cowboys probably are around $100 right now 😂😂

I kid, I kid.

Emile

(33,756 posts)
56. The closest fiber optic line is two and half miles
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 10:08 PM
Jan 16

away. That's the problem when you live out in the countryside.

kelly1mm

(5,672 posts)
5. State imposed price caps that are legitimately at or under the cost of rendering the service don't
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 02:32 PM
Jan 16

make any sense. I think what NYS was thinking is AT&T would either 'eat' the loss or raise prices for non discounted plans to make up for the state imposed subsidy to those who qualify. With AT&T being a 'johnny come lately' to the cellular broadband market they made a business decision.

Just as a data point my cellular broadband carrier is T-Mobile and it is $50 per month.

LiberalArkie

(17,785 posts)
25. I use the hot spot all the time and the prepay ATT is also used for the portable hot spots use for all sorts
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 04:51 PM
Jan 16

things

jmbar2

(6,744 posts)
8. For low income folks affected by this, I highly recommend PCs for People
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 02:50 PM
Jan 16

It's a nonprofit in Minneapolis that offers low cost internet and computers to low income people.

Internet is based off of a hotspot - initial cost around $60. Then it's $15/mo unlimited. I have used them for years and they are very good.

https://www.pcsforpeople.org/internet/internet/

 

in the stacks

(14 posts)
47. That still is too much.
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:52 PM
Jan 16

Xfinity offers $10 a month unlimited wifi with decent speeds and there is no hardware to buy. The only catch is there has to be a hotspot nearby. I have never had an issue with it in my residence but when I am out and about there dead zones where it might not be available for a block or so. I use it to supplement my prepaid T-Mobile, which is $50 unlimited high-speed data plus unlimited 3G hotspot. The hotspot seemed to be slowing down (or I got spoiled by higher speeds) and so I bought Xfinity as a supplement.

kelly1mm

(5,672 posts)
12. How much does it cost AT&T to provide this service? Lets assume it is more than $15 per month. Why would
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:09 PM
Jan 16

they be 'greedy rat bastards' to refuse to provide service at a loss?

Or are you referring to the NYS lawmakers as the 'greedy rat bastards'.

mike_c

(36,517 posts)
17. I'm referring to AT&T
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:18 PM
Jan 16

They're apparently willing to walk away from lucrative services that the majority of their customers pay for rather than extend some low cost basic services, which are increasingly important for full participation in American social life, to the less fortunate.

totodeinhere

(13,588 posts)
58. Plus ATT has spent billions upgrading infrastructure.
Fri Jan 17, 2025, 07:09 PM
Jan 17

They have to recoup that if they are going to stay in business.

Mountainguy

(1,650 posts)
13. Greedy?
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:10 PM
Jan 16

They had to opt to stop providing any services in the biggest market in the country because the lowered rates were going to crush them.

You can't expect to offer than many underpriced plans and maintain bandwidth for your other users without massive costs.

It's a dumb law that was apparently put together either by people who had no idea what they were doing or were operating off the idea that because they are NY they can do whatever they want and companies will have to bend the knee.

If NY wants to provide cheap internet to the poor, then why don't they subsidize it instead of mandating that companies operate at a loss to provide it?

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,671 posts)
28. Ok
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:11 PM
Jan 16

So they should provide internet at a loss?

Making a profit is not illegal and is infact the point of a business.

Celerity

(48,980 posts)
30. What is their cost basis? Are they actually incurring a loss at the legally-mandated prices?
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:14 PM
Jan 16

Also, per post 20, some years they not only pay no income tax on billions of profits, but actually get monies back.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219909297#post20

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,671 posts)
33. No idea
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:21 PM
Jan 16

Maybe they aren’t incurring a loss. But they do have a right to a profit, no? And they have the right to decide what profit they want (up to the point people won’t pay that much, of course), no?

Someone ran the numbers and decided that it wasn’t financially worth it, either because they would lose money, would minimize profits, or would have to raise prices for other customers to point they would lost a portion of those customers.

Dumb law, IMO.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,671 posts)
35. Fair enough
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:28 PM
Jan 16

We’re all entitled to our opinions.

Seems that the other internet providers in New York are willing to pick up AT & T’s slack, so shouldn’t be a problem.

Lurker Deluxe

(1,056 posts)
31. Gross ...
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:18 PM
Jan 16

EBITA??

30% - no
20% - no
10% - no

Apple?

30% - yea

Why does Apple not have to provide a $200 I-Phone?

If we are just talking about revenue?

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,671 posts)
36. I agree
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:29 PM
Jan 16

that it’s wrong that they paid no income tax and in fact got money back. I don’t agree that means they should have to provide cheap internet to a subset of customers.

Two separate issues, IMO.

Lurker Deluxe

(1,056 posts)
43. Tax code is what it is
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:41 PM
Jan 16

If they can report a loss, they get what they get.

I have no idea why they reported a loss, maybe a billion in infrastructure costs? No idea.

Has nothing to do with forcing a company to provide any service at a government set price. Government wants to set the price, provide the service.

Celerity

(48,980 posts)
46. Do you agree with governments mandating developers set aside a certain percentage of new residential builds for low cost
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:51 PM
Jan 16
housing?

you said

Has nothing to do with forcing a company to provide any service at a government set price. Government wants to set the price, provide the service.

Lurker Deluxe

(1,056 posts)
48. Well ... that would depend
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 06:05 PM
Jan 16

I am not sure of the code/law/whatever you cite.

Urban area expanding in certain directions sure.

Multi-billion dollar development in Aspen or Montana … absolutely not.

Government can, and should, manage property rights, usually at the state/county level.

Bet those beaches burnt to the ground in Cali will not have any of those parameters set upon them.

Depends on the location and setting. I do notice the example you cite puts forth no number … just, “low” something. Why not put that number down, developers must build and sell a certain percentage of their new homes for $40k?

They would say … no.

Lurker Deluxe

(1,056 posts)
50. Agreed
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 06:11 PM
Jan 16

Yet ….

You assume the rate set by NY is, reasonable.

So, ok, new developments must build and sell a certain percent of houses at $75k.

Pick a number, issue is the same.

MichMan

(14,685 posts)
51. Did they break tax laws?
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 06:22 PM
Jan 16

If not, they are merely using the tax code that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the president

NameAlreadyTaken

(2,012 posts)
15. So they would rather make $0
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:13 PM
Jan 16

than make some amount of profit? Making $0 is not a good business plan. These customers should count their blessings anyway, as AT&T is a horrible company.

 

Yavin4

(37,182 posts)
16. The US govt should provide high speed internet for everyone in America at a low cost.
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:17 PM
Jan 16

During covid, we saw how poor students weren't able to keep up with online learning. Giving everyone access to high speed internet removes a huge barrier to many low income Americans.

tishaLA

(14,588 posts)
42. The Affordable connectivity program was a godsend from the Biden administration
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:40 PM
Jan 16

And then they couldn't convince repubs to renew funding for it even though it allowed their constituents to have free or very low cost internet access.

The creep Ted Cruz even wanted to renew it...but only for rural areas! The most cynical, repulsive move I've seen in a while.

maxrandb

(16,441 posts)
20. Poor AT&T also pays no income tax.
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 03:45 PM
Jan 16
"AT&T reported that it will pay no federal income taxes in 2021, despite $29.6 billion in earnings. The company reported a tax refund—or an income tax benefit—of $1.2 billion."

They also just got a nice little 9 figure taxpayer subsidy from the state of TN.

Expect to see much more of this. Blue states will be punished for not surrendering to the oligarchy.

hunter

(39,438 posts)
26. Low income internet users should consider themselves fortunate...
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:08 PM
Jan 16

... that they won't ever have to deal with AT&T.

( Providing they have other internet options, of course. )



claudette

(5,261 posts)
38. So glad I didn't sign up with them
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:36 PM
Jan 16

when I saw the ad. Instead I waited until Verizon offered 5G internet at my address in NY. Starts at $25 a month for first cell phone account member and $35 or $45 for others on the account depending on what they choose. You don’t have to have a Verizon cell phone account to get 5G.

Mosby

(18,320 posts)
45. Maybe the issue is means testing.
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 05:50 PM
Jan 16

This law created a whole new layer of administrative overhead, not to mention legal issues dealing with people who are denied.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»AT&T kills home Internet ...