AT&T fights back against California’s net neutrality law

[Jet_ski]

Summary

AT&T will no longer exempt viewership of its HBO Max streaming service from data caps after a federal court upheld California’s net neutrality law, the company said in a statement Wednesday.

 

[The source article is convoluted so here’s what actually happened]
 

A federal court ruled that AT&T is breaking California state’s net neutrality law by not counting HBO Max towards monthly data caps. Because this means AT&T is effectively charging people differently based on their data usage which completely undermines the idea of net neutrality.

 

In order to comply with the court order, instead of excluding all streaming data from data caps, AT&T decided to do the complete opposite. Now even streaming HBO Max will count towards data caps.

 

Quotes

Quote

The company informed customers that it would no longer offer “Data Free TV” on its video apps beginning March 25, according to a copy of the customer notice obtained by CNBC.

 

My thoughts

Unbelievable. The judge says you have to treat all network traffic equally, so instead of giving Netflix and others the same treatment, AT&T decides to take something away from their customers.

 

AT&T plans are very expensive. Their “unlimited” plan will set you back ~$100 per month. And if you decide to get their cheaper plans, data costs $10 per gig!

 

The fact that they could let people stream HBO Max without counting that toward the data cap is them admitting how unjustified their pricing is. At the same time they are going around blaming the net neutrality law as something that’s “hurting consumers” where in fact it’s them.

 

Sources

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/att-will-count-hbo-max-toward-data-caps-blames-net-neutrality-law.html

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Jet_ski said:

In order to comply with the court order, instead of excluding all streaming data from data caps,
[...]

Unbelievable. The judge says you have to treat all network traffic equally, so instead of giving Netflix and others the same treatment, AT&T decides to take something away from their customers.

Wait, did anyone actually ever expect them to remove data caps for all streaming services? Video streaming services make up a gigantic portion of internet traffic. If they were going to do that they may as well just remove the data caps completely.

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Wait, did anyone actually ever expect them to remove data caps for all streaming services? Video streaming services make up a gigantic portion of internet traffic. If they were going to do that they may as well just remove the data caps completely.

Totally agree. Granted it would be great if they did in fact remove data caps as they don't seem super necessary to me. Idk why people should have to pay more for their internet if they are using it. Why have fast internet if you can't even use it properly without going over the cap fairly fast. Grsnted I find that for myself streaming is hardly an issue for my data cap but downloading games is much more concerning as I can easily go over with a couple of big games. Generally speaking if I don't download games in a month I won't go over the cap even when watching streaming services heavily. When I downloading more than a couple of games then I tend to go over fairly quickly especially if they are the 100+ gb in size. 

[Jet_ski]

9 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Wait...

 

Is this for mobile data or home internet?

 

Is exclusion of all streaming services from data caps the norm in the US? And for which type of line?

Mobile data.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

Wait, did anyone actually ever expect them to remove data caps for all streaming services? Video streaming services make up a gigantic portion of internet traffic. If they were going to do that they may as well just remove the data caps completely.

Sometimes is better to take a light shafting and maintain the status quo than it is to cause a fuss and risk the shafting turning into a forceful fucking.

 

No business is ever going to do something that costs them more when there's an alternative that moves the extra cost onto the customer instead.

[Jet_ski]

38 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Sometimes is better to take a light shafting and maintain the status quo than it is to cause a fuss and risk the shafting turning into a forceful fucking.

 

No business is ever going to do something that costs them more when there's an alternative that moves the extra cost onto the customer instead.

But that’s not really the point here. AT&T structured their offering to unfairly incentivize people to subscribe to [HBO Max], a subsidiary of their parent company, instead of other services. But they are trying to frame it as if they were doing people a favor. They weren’t, it was a self serving thing to boost their own business by breaking net neutrality.

[StDragon]

The whole ISP model is based on oversubscription. For example, if everyone were to stream (practically, they won't) at 100mbp/s for hours on end, the entire Internet would be as slow as molasses in December. It's analogous to a highway on peak rush-hour where everyone feels entitled to the right to drive 65+MPH the entire stretch of the journey. No, it's mathematically impossible due to that whole time/place dimensional aspect of the universe.

 

AT&T is wrong in breaking California's law of net neutrality. What they should be doing is raising their rates to shed customers to both reduce load and profit enough to re-invest back into expanding the network. 

[Tieox]

Why the US tolerates data caps is beyond me.  

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Jet_ski said:

But that’s not really the point here. AT&T structured their offering to unfairly incentivize people to subscribe to [HBO Max], a subsidiary of their parent company, instead of other services. But they are trying to frame it as if they were doing people a favor. They weren’t, it was a self serving thing to boost their own business by breaking net neutrality.

To be clear, I 100% agree with you but to expect them to unblock everything when they can do to opposite for nothing and save money in the long run is naive.

 

Playing devils advocate though, you cannot deny that AT&T subscribers who also had HBO were getting a freebie, kind of a thank you for being loyal reward. They were technically doing some people a favour even if it was self serving.

[Master Disaster]

28 minutes ago, Tieox said:

Why the US tolerates data caps is beyond me.  

The lack of any reasonable alternative is probably pretty high on that list.

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, Jet_ski said:

AT&T plans are very expensive. Their “unlimited” plan will set you back ~$100 per month. And if you decide to get their cheaper plans, data costs $10 per gig!

I wish my internet was only $100 per month. Paying $160 per month now for 40Mbps down, 10Mbps up "fiber-fed 4G" in my rural area. Funnily enough, it's also on an AT&T network, lol.

[StDragon]

6 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I wish my internet was only $100 per month. Paying $160 per month now for 40Mbps down, 10Mbps up "fiber-fed 4G" in my rural area. Funnily enough, it's also on an AT&T network, lol.

Could be worse - could be HughesNet.

 

Elon is doing everyone (with the exception of his competition of course) a favor here with Starlink  

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, StDragon said:

Could be worse - could be HughesNet.

 

Elon is doing everyone (with the exception of his competition of course) a favor here with Starlink  

Yeah, HughesNet is in my area but the reviews were terrifying. We also got the offer for StarLink after I signed up, but luckily we managed to reach out to the FCC to complain about Spectrum falsely advertising internet in our rural area and now they have to come out and get started on construction. Hopefully I'll be back on stable internet in the near future.

[WkdPaul]

44 minutes ago, Tieox said:

Why the US tolerates data caps is beyond me.  

Last I checked, mobile data cap is rather common almost everywhere.

[StDragon]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Yeah, HughesNet is in my area but the reviews were terrifying.

Those reviews most likely aren't wrong. I can't give too much information, but I have a client that has no option but HughesNet. The speeds are that of ISDN or T1 if you're lucky. Average latency 400 to 500ms. Speed of light baby!! Guessing those sats are nearly as LEO to that of Starlink. That, or they're just so far apart in relaying the signal back and fourth.

[BigDamn]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Sometimes is better to take a light shafting and maintain the status quo than it is to cause a fuss and risk the shafting turning into a forceful fucking.

I'm going to frame this quote and hang it on my wall

[paddy-stone]

See this is where I actually like the UK. ATM you can get unlimited data plans for 4g/5g for around £20-30 or so depending on who you go with, which is another reason I am considering swapping out my FTTC. To be clear FTTC is also unlimited, but the speed is only marginally faster at around 58-64mbps vs the 4g (currently) of 40-60mbps.

 

I hope that in a few years space-x will drop the prices of it's equipment and plan, as that would be a viable alternative for many more people then, with better speeds too. Maybe that will be the kick up the arse that some ISPs need to be more customer focused. After all you can't make as much profit if you keep losing customers, unless you hold a monopoly.

[Donut417]

On 3/18/2021 at 8:24 AM, Tieox said:

Why the US tolerates data caps is beyond me.  

We dont. But the FCC screwed the pooch when they killed Title 2. Now each state has to make its own rules. Because the Federal Government cant do the job. Thats one of the issues with the administration changing every 4 to 8 years. That means those policies change every 4 to 8 years. 

 

ISP's fought title 2 because they didnt want to be regulated. Now they will be regulated by 50 individual state governments. Sucks to be them. 

[Zodiark1593]

On 3/18/2021 at 6:08 AM, MageTank said:

Yeah, HughesNet is in my area but the reviews were terrifying. We also got the offer for StarLink after I signed up, but luckily we managed to reach out to the FCC to complain about Spectrum falsely advertising internet in our rural area and now they have to come out and get started on construction. Hopefully I'll be back on stable internet in the near future.

Satellite Internet is considered in places where it’s literally between that or dial up. Mobile internet is drastically superior if you can get that instead, even with caps. 
 

If the pandemic didn’t alert government (from local all the way to federal) to the need to get infrastructure built without excluding rural or poor areas, I fear the status quo will persist indefinitely. 

[StDragon]

22 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

If the pandemic didn’t alert government (from local all the way to federal) to the need to get infrastructure built without excluding rural or poor areas, I fear the status quo will persist indefinitely. 

That's public policy discussion, not a technical limitation. Not all rural folk are poor. In fact, I know many wealthy that choose to live out there for more land and a better quality of life. But, that also means they have to pump their own water from a well (it's all automated) and have a septic tank maintained on schedule. Meaning, no MUD (Municipal Utility District) to supply city water and sewer. Lack of internet infrastructure out in the rural areas is no different.

 

Anyways, I think with Starlink, that will make rural living more popular for those that work from home. More land, bigger house, and cheaper.

[Donut417]

43 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

If the pandemic didn’t alert government (from local all the way to federal) to the need to get infrastructure built without excluding rural or poor areas, I fear the status quo will persist indefinitely. 

Thats what the Universal Service Fund is for. Thats the reason why many Rural areas have POTS available. The problem is Rural internet service is not profitable. DSL have distance limitations, which is why many rural areas only have 3 to 6 Mbps DSL. Coax service while not as restrictive, is not really designed for rural areas. As they need a decent level of population density to make it profitable. They want to load up a node with more than 4 people. While Coax internet can travel distance, thats only due to the Hybrid Fiber Coax nature of the network and the fact that AMPs can force the signal out further. But AMP's cost money and need to be powered. The Optical nodes also cost money and need to be powered. Thats why LTE, WISP, Satellite or slow ass DSL are the only options in those areas. 

[Wash]

38 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Thats what the Universal Service Fund is for. Thats the reason why many Rural areas have POTS available. The problem is Rural internet service is not profitable. DSL have distance limitations, which is why many rural areas only have 3 to 6 Mbps DSL. Coax service while not as restrictive, is not really designed for rural areas. As they need a decent level of population density to make it profitable. They want to load up a node with more than 4 people. While Coax internet can travel distance, thats only due to the Hybrid Fiber Coax nature of the network and the fact that AMPs can force the signal out further. But AMP's cost money and need to be powered. The Optical nodes also cost money and need to be powered. Thats why LTE, WISP, Satellite or slow ass DSL are the only options in those areas. 

 

I think I'll just count myself lucky that I live in a small-ish town of around 10-20K (Two separate towns attached at the hip, thus the wide figure), and we happen to have a provider (Centurylink They recently renamed themselves to Lumen last year- makes little sense) that gives out 1Gbit Upload/Download thanks to the beauty of Fiber Optic.

 

Before, we had just Comcast, and it sucked. When it worked. (Only about 200Mbits Down/30-50Mbits upload speed. Now try that in an active family of five at the time)

[Wash]

On 3/18/2021 at 2:05 AM, Jet_ski said:

AT&T plans are very expensive. Their “unlimited” plan will set you back ~$100 per month. And if you decide to get their cheaper plans, data costs $10 per gig!

 

 

Also formerly had AT&T in the realm of about a decade ago. We had a plan that only allowed 3GB of data monthly, which sounds a bit reasonable at first. But apparently something happened and it ended up showing one of my sisters going over, and they slapped a big overuse charge on us. This was during a trip to Southern California, so they also bottle-necked speeds tremendously. We ditched the service once they announced this "pay by the gigabyte" plan.

 

While service sucked where we live even now with a different carrier, it was certainly worse back then- the only good one in the area seemed to be Verizon, but they in turn seemed to be even more expensive an option, so we didn't go that route.

[Donut417]

30 minutes ago, Wash said:

Before, we had just Comcast, and it sucked. When it worked. (Only about 200Mbits Down/30-50Mbits upload speed. Now try that in an active family of five at the time)

My sister kinda does that. Though they have the 600 Mbps package which I think has 20 Mbps upload. The only plans with higher upload is the gigabit plan and thats 40 ish Mbps. They do just fine at least right now. My family has 3 adults living in the house, 200/10 service with Comcast, we do just fine. We are cord cutters. Even with the data cap we have no issues thus far. Though Comcast is the only good option. The second good option would be T Mobile's 4G home internet but I dont want to deal with CGNAT. Starlink costs too much, we pay $86 for Comcast and Starlink would cost more for lower speeds. 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

On 3/18/2021 at 1:24 PM, Tieox said:

Why the US tolerates data caps is beyond me.  

Well, for mobile data this basically the case everywhere. 

What is beyond me how it is not illegal, they usually call their plans "flat rate" also,  which is just straight up false advertising. 

 

On 3/18/2021 at 10:30 AM, Jet_ski said:

Mobile data.

  That wasn't clear for me at all reading the OP...