AT&T Caps Netflix Streaming Costs At $68K/Yr

theodp writes "What would you say if you went to join a gym and were told that it could cost you anywhere from $360 a year to $68,000 a year for the exact same usage? Don't be ridiculous, right? Well, that's really not so different from what the potential costs of streaming video on an AT&T smartphone are. According to AT&T's Data Usage Calculator, 1,440 minutes worth of streaming video consumes 2.81GB, which — if you manage to keep Netflix fired up all day and night — would result in a $360 annual bill under the grandfathered $30-monthly-unlimited-data plan, or $68,376 under the new $20-monthly-300MB plan. Still, that didn't stop a spokesman from characterizing the new AT&T data plans as 'a great value' for customers."

not so fast there alarmast headline writers.

[Anonymous Coward]

per article, the changes are:
$15 for 200MB => $20 for 300MB
$25 for 2GB => $30 for 3GB

Nice alarmist title.

AT&T has a 3GB plan now

[alen]

3GB data for $30 a month

article is FUD

Re:Sounds like my utility company

[jeffmeden]

I would get a hold of your local public utilities commission if this is really happening; that's certainly not the way that estimated usage billing should work and you are right that it's bullshit that they basically charge you for 2 months of usage up front and then ride out the cash. Sounds like they either have a super shitty estimation process or they are deliberately trying to pad their books to keep the cash flowing.

Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers.

[what2123]

Ha, yeah right. I know exactly what you are thinking and I do agree. However the problem is that when a new competitor is able to get into the market, they are bought out by the larger businesses. Alltel was the first to really start offering decent services and a reasonable way before the 4-goons ever did/have. When they sold-out to Verizon the services were grandfathered in but after that the rates and services ceased to exist even for those grandfathered in.

Re:So when did...

[gorzek]

But radio spectrum is a public good, licensed by the government, and those using it can be thus regulated.

Re:So when did...

[wumingzi]

Will I argue that it's reasonable? Errrm. Maybe. Before I start, two things:

Disclaimer 1: I work in the backbone at T. My opinions are my own. Randall Stephenson gets paid more in a day than I'll make in my entire career to voice Ma Bell's opinions.

Disclaimer 2: It's fairly hard to calculate what bandwidth costs. The capital expenditure of the large telcos to build their networks runs into tens of billions of dollars. The operational expenditure to keep it running once the costs are sunk is considerably less. We have people who think about this stuff. They don't talk to me.

From the telco point of view, there are 3 segments to your Internet connection.

There's the backhaul between the data centers and the Internet. I think most Slashdotters are fairly familiar with the economics there. That bandwidth is cheap as dirt.

There is the cost of running a dedicated leased line to every fool tower in the US. Not as cheap as dark fiber, but still reasonably cheap.

Then there is spectrum over the air. That's a very limited commodity. There is a lot of chatter as to whether T (or other telcos) are making the best use of the spectrum they have, but the fact is, we have a certain quantity of it. Once it's gone, there is no more. Neither T, nor VZ nor Sprint nor you or your mom can write a check to make more spectrum appear. It's the long-term opinion of T's upper management that users will exhaust the spectrum capacity we have.

Another issue was that under unlimited data plans, a very small (i.e. 2% or less) of the customer base were using an inordinate (i.e. 50-60%) of the total bandwidth. Capping customers makes them mad and post angry messages on Slashdot. Thus, let marker forces take over. :-)