Home » AT&T »Editorial & Site News »Internet Overcharging »Net Neutrality »Public Policy & Gov't »Wireless Broadband » Currently Reading:

AT&T Mobility Wants to Impose Internet Overcharging Schemes On Everyone; Blames “Net Neutrality”

Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T Mobility

Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T Mobility

AT&T Mobility has news for its customers: “You’ll be hearing something from us in the near future,” says AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega.  He was speaking about an end to “unlimited” usage of its wireless network.  Stop the Cap! reader Jeremy learned about it and sent word our way.

Of course, AT&T has always reserved the right to impose overlimit fees or terminate accounts that exceed 5 gigabytes per month, but most of the horror stories about enormous bills come from consumers using AT&T’s wireless broadband service on a computer.  For iPhone users, who are force-fed a mandatory $30 monthly “unlimited” data plan, their wireless usage has not been subjected to an AT&T crackdown for whatever they consider “excessive” that month.

But that is likely to change, and soon.  De la Vega warned listeners on a conference call held this week that AT&T’s considerations of ways to deal with extreme bandwidth users are “all in flux, but we will come up with ways that mitigate the [network] impact we’ve seen by a small number of customers who are driving inordinate usage.”

The company has been holding focus groups about Internet Overcharging schemes, trying to conjure up a public relations message that consumers will be duped into believing is fair.  They’ve tested everything from meal scenarios to toll roadways, comparing “heavy users” with 18 wheelers and ordinary light users with Mini Coopers, asking participants if they felt it was fair “for the truckers to pay more?”  One of our readers clandestinely participated in one of these, and managed to debunk their nonsense over a free lunch, with consumers incensed to discover the tolls they are charging are ludicrously profitable even at current rates.

When facts about Internet Overcharging are revealed, it’s not a question of who should pay more — it’s a demand to know why everyone isn’t paying less -and- why companies like AT&T aren’t investing a greater percentage of their fat profits in expanding their network.

As I’ve written on several previous occasions, it comes as no surprise to me that some companies in the broadband industry have been looking for an excuse to throw all of our “favorite” Internet Overcharging schemes on customers — usage allowances, overlimit fees and penalties, or just throttling your connection to dial-up speeds.  As I predicted, some will try an “either/or” scam on consumers, telling them they are “forced” to impose these kinds of profit grabs because the government is demanding Net Neutrality.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other of course, but it’s a convenient excuse to help rally consumers against Net Neutrality now, and impose higher pricing on consumers anyway.  It is crucial that consumers do not fall for this ploy.  There is no fairness in being overcharged for Internet access, such plans never truly provide “only paying for what you use” pricing, and no one should be willing to give up one for the other.  In Canada, they ended up with no Net Neutrality -and- Internet Overcharging schemes, precisely what would happen here.

As has always been the case, AT&T blames a “small percentage” of their users for consuming massive amounts of bandwidth.  Earlier this summer it was “three percent of Smartphone users use 40% of AT&T’s wireless network.”  The us vs. them mentality is designed to divide consumers into finger pointing camps blaming their neighbors for “the problem” instead of asking pointed questions of the carrier making the claim.  Some questions are:

  1. Exactly how much data do those “heavy Smartphone users” consume?
  2. What is AT&T’s cost per megabyte/gigabyte to deliver that data to consumers?
  3. Why does AT&T mandate iPhone customers purchase an “unlimited” data plan and then complain when customers utilize what they are paying for?
  4. Will AT&T significantly reduce pricing for mandatory data plan customers, or simply throw a usage allowance on existing accounts and expect consumers to pay the same?
  5. What percentage of AT&T’s profits are spent on their network and its expansion, and has that amount as a percentage increased or decreased in the last five years?
  6. If AT&T is suffering from smartphone congestion, why continue an exclusive deal for the iPhone, which AT&T claims contributes to a significant amount of that congestion?
  7. Why does AT&T marketing claim their wireless broadband plans are “unlimited” when, in fact, they are limited to 5 gigabytes of usage per month?

Jack Gold, an analyst at J. Gold Associates, told Computerworld carriers have a legitimate issue in considering an “overage charge,” for users who surpass a certain number of gigabytes of data per month.

“People will complain about an overage charge,” Gold said. “I guarantee complaints, but there’s no other way to deal with it short of building out more networks to give people the bandwidth they crave. There really are bandwidth hogs. You have 5% of the users taking up 90% of the bandwidth sometimes.”

Gold said he agrees with net neutrality rules that allow users to reach any Web site on the Internet, but argued that carriers can’t provide unlimited bandwidth to all users. Doing so “means everybody else is limited … The AT&Ts and Verizons have a legitimate point.”

Of course, Gold is in the business of representing business interests, not consumers.  Does Gold have direct evidence of his numbers, or does he simply repeat what he has heard carriers tell him?  Since consumers cannot easily find truly unlimited mobile broadband accounts in the American wireless industry today, de la Vega’s urgent statements about imposing limits on customers must target iPhone and other smartphone users specifically, because those are the only accounts AT&T hasn’t held hard to their 5GB usage cap.




Share

Other stories of interest:

  1. Slate Columnist Blames iPhone Users For AT&T’s Self-Inflicted Wireless Woes, Advocates Internet Overcharging Schemes
  2. The Wall Street Journal Quotes Stop the Cap! Founder & Addresses Internet Overcharging Schemes
  3. One Half Done, One to Go: Net Neutrality Doesn’t Ban Internet Overcharging
  4. AT&T Tells Employees to Parrot Company Talking Points In Anti-Net Neutrality Comments (But Use Your Personal E-Mail)
  5. Austin Broadband Advocacy Group Calls on FCC to Regulate Internet Overcharging Schemes

Currently there are 4 comments on this Article:

  1. jr says:

    Ralph’s total compensation was 6.15 million in 2008

  2. me says:

    This will really depend on how Apple jumps. I am sure this will be a major point come contract renegotiation time. If people dont think Apple isnt ready for other networks they are dreaming. Now I think Apple wants people to have ‘unlimited’. As getting at the iTunes store is what the iPhone is about for Apple. Anything that limits that will tick off Apple.

    Apple will be running into both net neutrality (if they cut an exclusive deal with ATT for ‘free’ BW) and the end user getting throttled on everything else. That is probably what will go down. Sad.

    The reality is AT&T’s network just wasnt ready for the iPhone. They are getting better but should be doing much more. You probably could even derive what the overall capacity is from the 5gig cap. Which is funny as they usually guard that sort of information on penalty of death.

    Also wait a second… Wasnt it the bit torrent guys a few weeks ago that were the ‘hogs’. Now on the iPhone it is a different group? The lies are starting to conflict…

  3. JG says:

    The iPhone as it exists now on the AT&T data network is extremely hobbled. The YouTube app is limited to using low quality and low resolution only when on 3G. If you need to download a file from iTunes that is over 10mb in size you are required to use wi-fi. The only exception to this I believe is music purchases. Even with a connection to an Exchange server, listening to streaming net radio and the like, I haven’t been able to push my data usage in a given month over 1Gb simply because I am not allowed to really utilize the most expensive internet connection that I pay for every month to its fullest potential. The “internet experience” on the iPhone on AT&T can best be described as second rate and not really worth what AT&T charges for it.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • thad: Either Genachowski is ignorant (which as the FCC chairman he is paid not to be) or he is working to the benefit of current, traditional, Teleco behemo...
  • Sean: A phone company says having customers with working phones is a harmful business model? WTH?...
  • txpatriot: Have any of those mayors asked whether Marriott has built luxury hotels in those depressed areas, or why Cadillac hasn't opened car dealerships in tho...
  • txpatriot: I love it -- this article has NOTHING to do with caps, broadband or anything else related to "Promoting Better Broadband, Fighting Data Caps, Usage-Ba...
  • Bill: It doesn't exactly sound like Verizon is the victim in this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-great-verizon-fios-ripoff_b_1...
  • txpatriot: Scott here's another example, this time by a start-up which by definition is somewhat smaller than google: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/techno...
  • txpatriot: Phillip, I get that you don't like the VZ co-marketing deal, but can we stick to the subject? The 400 word article you wrote was about CABLE companie...
  • txpatriot: Scott, it takes only one counterexample to disprove a general claim. And surely you're not suggesting that only a company as big as google could ...
  • Scott: I'm afraid I don't share your optimism when you're have to point out a company with a market cap of nearly 200 billion dollars paying a 3rd party to b...
  • Phillip Dampier: In the context of the co-marketing agreement between the cable industry and the nation's biggest wireless operator (Verizon Wireless), building out Wi...
  • txpatriot: Scott, I didn't respond to your comments on barriers to entry. I agree that incumbents have significant advantages as "first-movers". But incumb...
  • txpatriot: "The consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge on Monday criticized an announcement by a group of major cable companies that their customers would now ...

Your Account: