this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
308 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60532 readers
5465 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

AT&T pulls 5G home Internet from New York to protest state affordability law.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Allonzee 13 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

This is a good example of the "If you regulate/tax business, they'll just leave and you'll be sorry!" Ayn Rand fallacy.

All this means is that their business model was to gouge consumers, and being barred from gouging cheap internet for their poorest customers revealed that they were (and still are everywhere else) bad faith, dishonest, antisocial actors that have no interest in providing products and services for a reasonable margin.

Just as with any business that would exit a market, or billionaire that would leave the country to prevent taxation back into the commons that facilitated their wealth accumulation to begin with (a preliterate workforce, roads and utilities they disproportionately degrade with heavy use, etc) you demonstrate that you work against your own customers and your own people, so by all means, gtfo.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

The US Government needs to stop dicking around with this neoliberal bullshit and just offer mobile and home Internet AS A UTILITY.

Use the existing USPS infrastructure and cut out all the bullshit ISPs and parasitical orgs that have been bloating themselves on taxpayers for decades, with zero improvements to users.

Bring back basic banking at USPS too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 51 minutes ago

Well I doubt that is going happen anytime soon. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247393656/net-neutrality-explained-fcc

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-net-neutrality-reinstatement-3966433/

FCC lacks authority to make that happen.

"The recent ruling by the 6thCircuit Court of Appeals is one of the first major challenges to a federal agency action after the Chevron Doctrine—which gave deference to federal agency decision-making and findings—was overturned in the landmark Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision by the Supreme Court in June 2024."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

By USPS you mean post office? If so, I'm gonna need you to explain the "USPS infrastructure can be reworked to offer internet service" part. Not arguing, genuinely curious.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You used to be able to do some banking at your local post office. You still can at some offices but it has largely been done away with. I believe they were referring to this and not USPS as an ISP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I actually meant both. To use USPS for basic banking, AND have them offer internet from the same locations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 minutes ago (1 children)

I see that now. My brain read your first USPS as ISP I guess. In which case... yes please do explain what infrastructure they have that could be used to deliver internet to the masses.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 minute ago* (last edited 35 seconds ago)

They have physical locations and extant real estate across the entire US.

So, rather than continuing to give billions to private ISPs that do literally nothing with that money, and who double-down to curtail services whenever mildly inconvenient, my suggestion is that we (ie US Government) does not provide a single additional dollar in funding or subsidies, and instead invests that money in building itself a USG internet UTILITY. If necessary, clawback the billions that have gone to Comcast, ATT, Verizon et al, or just seize their networks and charge their executives with RICO and fraud. They essentially operate as a cartel anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 34 minutes ago

But how? What infrastructure? Do they have their own fiber network or something?

[–] Snapz 1 points 1 hour ago

That's not what they said, but now that you mention it, both concern the regular transfer of information. USPS should be a utility broadband provider.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

popcorn

Don't mind me, just reading comments on my €10, 1gbps mobile connection in the train home from work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I’m enjoying this from my £28 a month 100Gb 5G contract that includes the cost of my iPhone.

(and which is about to drop to £10 a month because I’ve paid off the phone)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Nice! I ain't going to be seen with a normie-phone tho

[–] dance_ninja 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

"AT&T's shitty business model can't provide quality service in NY, so they gave up."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 35 minutes ago

They decided to try fuck over the state govt and make them pay more with your tax dollars. Having failed, they are throwing a hissy fit and leaving, hopefully pissing off a bunch of people in the process.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 9 points 6 hours ago

I'm sure there will be a federal giveaway of money for internet providers to expand their networks to rural users to solve this problem....and they totally won't just keep the money, give ti to executives as bonuses, and refuse to do the work or anyhting.

[–] subtext 34 points 15 hours ago

… business customers can keep any device they purchased at no charge," AT&T said.

Gee how magnanimous (emphasis mine)

[–] [email protected] 31 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

I don’t know if this AT&T service covered all of NY but for sake of my point I’m going to assume it covers most to all of NY. Obviously, not everyone would subscribe to AT&T either. I’m generalizing a bit to make a point.

There are approx 8.5 mil households in NY and 1.7 mil qualified for the previous affordable broadband law (couldn’t find an exact number for this current law).

If they charge $60 for the service that’s a potential total of $512,000,000 for NY.

If 1.7 mil get broadband for $15 that’s $25,500,000.

So AT&T is willing to give up a potential $487,000,00 from all other NY customers just to spite low income families.

Note: this is income before any AT&T expenses, just to be clear and fair.

Edit I was clear or the article wasn’t clear.

  1. ATT is pulling 5G service from existing customers. They were given a 45 day window to find a new provider. I’m not talking about new construction.

  2. they are not obligated to provide fiber at $15. Only broadband. I know there are still expenses with that, but there is much more broadband already available than fiber.

[–] General_Effort 1 points 4 hours ago

Note: this is income before any AT&T expenses, just to be clear and fair.

Yes, exactly. By your numbers, their revenue would go down by almost 10% while their operating expenses remain the same. Is it plausible that they could have just lowered prices by 10% and still operated profitably all this time?

[–] shalafi 8 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Old cable guy here. The cost is in laying the lines. That cost is astronomical. AT&T did the math, said, "Fuck it. Not worth it."

Call 'em evil, but they're not stupid.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

ISPs were already given a shitload of money to build out infrastructure, but they did the bare minimum and pocketed the rest instead.

They need to be forced to build out a proper modern infrastructure at this point, imaginary money line be damned.

[–] mycelium_underground 2 points 3 hours ago

They didn't even do the bare minimum

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

AT&T came through and wired my neighborhood for fiber, all except for the 14 houses on my side of our street. I have AT&T copper in my yard but they don't offer sign up's anymore. They "completed" my neighborhood in 2022 and moved to the next.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

They aren’t laying lines though. It’s the Internet Air program which provides it through 5g.

[–] asmoranomar 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I've also been involved in something similar. It costs a lot to expand infrastructure. Part of my job would be to plan and explain the costs associated with that. Wireless still needs a wired connection, and wireless still has connection limitations. You can't just add more users and expect things to work. And you can't just plop another receiver without it interfering with the others. It needs to be properly planned and something as simple as a building's signal reflectivity can mess an entire project up. More towers, more equipment, more redundancy, more personnel, more cables, more power, and forking all the money to do all this within the time limit or face fines is a huge task. And that's assuming it could even work on a technical level, sometimes you just can't do things (don't want to interfere with FAA requirements and such) and people don't understand.

I hate ATT too, but from a purely financial and planning point of view, I've been there. You can't just snap some fingers and make things happen just like that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I’m sorry. I wasn’t clear. I meant AT&T is pulling out and removing service from people who already have it. They aren’t just pulling out of new projects, they are pulling out of existing service areas.

I thought it was clear in the article but I guess I shouldn’t have assumed. That’s on me.

[–] asmoranomar 1 points 4 hours ago

I don't live in NY but as I understand it, they had to offer this service to every qualified individual. They most likely didn't have the option to only support certain or just existing customers.

Think of it this way: Had ATT the option to exclude, they would have and abuse it as much as possible. They can't, so either they follow the law or take their business elsewhere. Leaving paves the path for another company or cooperative who does want to follow the new laws, rather than having ATT undermine at every opportunity. It hurts in the short term, but in the long term it helps. NY isn't the first place to chase big telcomm out.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And where’s does 5g come from

[–] chiliedogg 3 points 6 hours ago

Usually fiber lines that have either been there for decades or the the federal government has been effectively paying them to install for decades decades and they just fucking didn't do it yet.

Lots of those "government surcharges" that aren't quoted in their estimates and show up as a surprise bill were authorized by the government, but go directly to the carriers and are supposed to be used to cover the cost of infrastructure upgrades and extension.

[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sounds like it's time for a municipal broadband solution. If AT&T doesn't want the business, fine. Let's not force them to take our money.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 17 hours ago

Chattanooga, Tennessee did something like that, but when they tried to expand outside of the city they were shut down

[–] roofuskit 12 points 20 hours ago

They pulled their wireless home Internet service which mostly targets rural areas where companies like AT&T never laid fiber and have started abandoning their copper networks. It's a lot harder for smaller rural communities to do municipal broadband because the costs are much higher per household. Not impossible, but more of an uphill battle. In some GOP states it's even outlawed. In NY hopefully people can get grants for them.

[–] [email protected] 111 points 1 day ago

I remember when the US government paid AT&T to get fiber to the curb of American homes.

Then AT&T didn't. And then the US sued AT&T to get the money back and into the hands of US Americans. Wireless internet is an end-around having to fulfill those promises of a wide bandwidth future. And here is the evidence for that.

[–] crank0271 41 points 1 day ago

These predatory companies make such a huff, like an abusive partner storming out while shouting "you don't know what you're missing!"

We do know, and we'll be fine. 👋

load more comments
view more: next ›