AT&T To Cap Monthly Broadband Usage: Big Implications for Streaming Video Users

[pixelthis]

I doubt it will have any impact on home broadband caps, since T-Mobile does not serve the home market. But, it will further entrench the trend towards broadband caps on mobile service.

The articles I've seen today seem to indicate that AT&T's proposed merger with T-Mobile will result in better mobile coverage and quicker deployment of 4G services, but also higher costs and less competition.

LESS, but not non-exsistent.
More and more bandwidth means the price goes down, simple as that.
If ATT does not offer a fair price, someone else will.
Execs at ATT need to go back to business school and stop believing in monopoly,
start believing free markets .
Because, like god, you don't believe in them, they will sure believe in you.

[bobsticks]

LESS, but not non-exsistent.
More and more bandwidth means the price goes down, simple as that.
If ATT does not offer a fair price, someone else will.
Execs at ATT need to go back to business school and stop believing in monopoly,
start believing free markets .
Because, like god, you don't believe in them, they will sure believe in you.

Umm...no, unfortunately, it's not that simple once a society moves beyond the vacuum of a fixed population and bartering marketplace...

...perhaps ponder that the next time you pump gas.

[pixelthis]

Umm...no, unfortunately, it's not that simple once a society moves beyond the vacuum of a fixed population and bartering marketplace...

...perhaps ponder that the next time you pump gas.

Its always that simple, and I AM REMINDED of that every time I PUMP GAS.
That is why I am a libertarian. Free markets and freedom always exist, because they are a product of human psychology. EVEN in Russia at the height of the cold war .
AND ATT is going to be reminded of the free market principles that made this country
the greatest on earth. Sooner or later.

[atomicAdam]

Free markets and freedom always exist, because they are a product of human psychology.

How do you create a Free Market for clean air?

[bobsticks]

Its always that simple, and I AM REMINDED of that every time I PUMP GAS...

Only because you refuse to arm yourself with facts.

[pixelthis]

Only because you refuse to arm yourself with facts.

FACTS or socialist nonsense?
AFTER reading everything from Ayn RAND , Harry Brown, Milton FRIEDMAN,
and several hundred others, I think I KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
Economics is based on human psychology. That doesn't change under
circumstances.
PEOPLE will always act in their own interest, even when they think they aren't.
ALWAYS.

[bobsticks]

FACTS or socialist nonsense?
AFTER reading everything from Ayn RAND , Harry Brown, Milton FRIEDMAN,
and several hundred others, I think I KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
Economics is based on human psychology. That doesn't change under
circumstances.
PEOPLE will always act in their own interest, even when they think they aren't.
ALWAYS.

I'm not going to take this thread even further off-topic but I think if you examine my writings you'll realize that I'm just about the farthest thing from a socialist one could encounter. And, I'm referring to the specifics of this situation not economic theory.

Perhaps and OT thread...

[Woochifer]

LESS, but not non-exsistent.
More and more bandwidth means the price goes down, simple as that.
If ATT does not offer a fair price, someone else will.
Execs at ATT need to go back to business school and stop believing in monopoly,
start believing free markets .
Because, like god, you don't believe in them, they will sure believe in you.

Problem is that AT&T's the only national player left offering home DSL service. Between AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox Communications, they control 92% of the U.S. broadband market. And in many areas, particularly rural areas, you have one broadband provider and that's it. Anyone can opt for satellite broadband, but that's not real competition because it costs over $100/month and it's slower than DSL. Leased T1 lines are another option, but that's enterprise class service that also costs a lot more.

Verizon's FiOS service had some promise because it was a home fiber-to-fiber service, with blazing speed. But, it cost more than cable and DSL broadband service, and Verizon has already said that they will not expand FiOS service beyond the markets that they already serve.

On the mobile side, the AT&T/T-Mobile merger means that there are only three national mobile service providers left, and the Verizon/Sprint merger rumors are flying fast and furious. Yes, there are other regional mobile providers, but those do not have national coverage and might offer a more limited selection of phones.

With fewer players in the broadband (home and mobile) markets, it raises the probability that usage caps will get implemented across the board. Smaller players might step into the fold and offer up unlimited plans, but they lack national coverage, which leaves a lot of people without competitive options.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am really puzzled by all of this. In 1984 AT&T was broken up by the Dept of Justice. Now some 27 years later we are back to a monopoly. Does this make any darn sense to anyone?

I have T-Mobile, and I like their service quite a bit. Every since I got a cell phone, my goal was to stay away from companies like AT&T and Verizon. Now AT&T is buying T-Mobile, and no matter what, I am stuck with being with one of these big guys, and I don't like it. I seriously hope this sale does not go through period. No deals, no divestitures, no nothing but not acceptable. Our choices keep getting limited by these big buyouts, and the consumer just keeps getting screwed by them.

[Woochifer]

I am really puzzled by all of this. In 1984 AT&T was broken up by the Dept of Justice. Now some 27 years later we are back to a monopoly. Does this make any darn sense to anyone?

The issue there was about AT&T using their monopoly to lock out competitors that wanted to offer long distance service and different equipment options. Recall that during Ma Bell's heyday, you had no choice of long distance providers and you could only use phones leased from AT&T.

The anti-trust action was launched by the feds back in 1974, and AT&T fought it for years.
It was only when AT&T wanted to expand into new lucrative markets like PCs and cellular service that they agreed to breakup terms.

Even though it seems like the old Bell system is coming back together, the overall communications market is much more varied today. Yes, AT&T has their tentacles in most of those markets, but they don't have nearly the same market power that they did under the Bell System. Still, the proposed merger has a lot of implications on the mobile market that bear some resemblance to the Bell System monopoly.

I have T-Mobile, and I like their service quite a bit. Every since I got a cell phone, my goal was to stay away from companies like AT&T and Verizon. Now AT&T is buying T-Mobile, and no matter what, I am stuck with being with one of these big guys, and I don't like it. I seriously hope this sale does not go through period. No deals, no divestitures, no nothing but not acceptable. Our choices keep getting limited by these big buyouts, and the consumer just keeps getting screwed by them.

A lot of things are in play with this merger. But, the article linked below has some excellent insights on the balkanized mess that makes up the US cellular system.

http://www.asymco.com/2011/03/23/the...up-for-a-rout/

In theory, regulators are to make a determination on whether the deal will reduce customer choice. But the question is really choice of what? The focus is presumably on the choice of service plans. That’s understandable, however coupled to that choice is the choice of devices and even more importantly, the choice of platforms.

The trouble is that US consumers have never had much choice and the US wireless marketplace has been a minefield of incompatibilities and obstacles to market forces.

In a nutshell, all of the national mobile providers have created market barriers by building parallel networks that deviate just enough from one another to prevent easy transition from one provider to another. It's expensive, it's redundant, it keeps lower priced options from taking hold in the market, and it ensures that each provider will have major gaps in their network coverage.

AT&T and T-Mobile both use the GSM standard, so their networks can merge. But, even so, there are still incompatibilities.

Basically, AT&T bought T-Mobile for their 4G LTE network (AT&T is way behind in rolling out their 4G network, because they're still fixing gaps in their 3G network). 4G will supposedly get all of the providers on the same standard. In theory, this can create more competition in the long run, because the market is no longer split between autonomous GSM (AT&T and T-Mobile) and CDMA (Verizon and Sprint) fiefdoms. Under this scenario, the network potentially gets eliminated as a competitive factor, so the providers need to compete on other terms, i.e., pricing, plans, customer service, etc.

But, in the short-term, AT&T gobbling up T-Mobile will definitely reduce the number of plans to choose from, and probably further push mobile broadband usage caps and raise prices. Personally, I've never had issues with AT&T, then again I'm at the bottom of the mobile food chain (I have prepaid mobile service) and I do know people who've had problems with AT&T.

[atomicAdam]

AT&T and T-Mobile both use the GSM standard, so their networks can merge. But, even so, there are still incompatibilities.

I'm several months into a new 2 year contract with T-Mobile. I cried a little bit when I heard ATT was going to buy them.

But it is funny, right now, if you stream The Daily Show, you'll get that commercial with that hot chick, a shirtless iphone, and the ATT goofy executive, and it is funny, since it is out dated at this point. But it still makes me cry.