AT&T Says No More Home Internet For New Yorkers Read More:

just_4_fun

New Yorkers will have one less choice in Internet providers due to a new rule. AT&T is protesting a new law designed to help low-income families by ceasing 5G home internet service in the State of New York. As of January 15, 2025, the company is pulling out of New York and will no longer offer 5G home internet service to residents, according to Android Authority.
https://nj1015.com/ixp/11/p/att-leaves-ny-home-internet/

(first post, hope it works LOL)

broknsymetry

just_4_fun Sounds like the old cliche, "Biting off your nose to spite your face." They aren't being asked to provide the service for free, just at a discount. They will be missing out on 19.87 million current customers and many future ones.

toolman1990

Quite frankly this seems to be a rash decision that could hurt AT&T in the future since it may not be wise to piss off both consumers and politicians. Not to mention the inspector general is already going after AT&T since they are accusing them of not being in compliance with the FirstNet contract, you have T Mobile and Verizon Wireless who is upset at AT&T since they are getting free mid band wireless spectrum for the FirstNet contract. Not to mention this incident could be used against AT&T if they want to merge with other companies since I am sure this incident will be mentioned as a reason it should be denied. So, AT&T may not want to create more enemies with everything going on.

TC1USCG

toolman1990

toolman1990 Quite frankly this seems to be a rash decision that could hurt AT&T in the future since it may not be wise to piss off both consumers and politicians.

If it's just the ones in NY, It's not going to hurt them at all. I'm not against offing a bottom end plan(s) for cheap, but for a state to force a company to do this. I mean, why don't they force the electrical companies, gas companies, etc to offer low prices for the same reason(s)?

Roamer

They’re doing this to protect the network. Internet Air was always intended to serve areas that weren’t on the radar for fiber and it relies heavily on excess cellular capacity. It was never intended to be anyone’s primary choice unless no other services were available. If they bring the price point down to meet NY’s requirements, suddenly it becomes a lot more attractive of an option to people, and the cellular network doesn’t have the capacity to handle that many users. As it is, Internet Air (similar to T-Mobile Home Internet and Verizon 5G Home) has a maximum number of users per cell site/site sector. The idealist in me wants to believe they truly are doing this to protect the network experience, as oversubscription to Internet Air can negatively impact cell phones, tablets, etc.

It will be interesting to see what T-Mobile and VZW do with their similar products.

toolman1990

Roamer My understanding is that AT&T only has to offer 25 MBPS and you have to qualify for that price discount meaning not everybody can choose that plan. If the speed is capped so low AT&T might be able to create additional slots just for that tier since it has a speed cap. So far it appears T Mobile and Verizon are keeping FWA in New York so we will see if they choose to follow AT&T's lead. In addition, Internet Air has no priority so all cellphone traffic including MVNO's and Prepaid have priority over internet air.

cypherstream

Awe AT&T got upset so they decided to pick up their ball and go home! Waaaaaa!

Roamer

toolman1990

They may be afraid of the $20/200Mbps tier that is also required. I haven’t looked too deeply into the income qualifications but it’s my understanding that the requirements aren’t very hard to meet - they may be afraid of high demand since the income requirements are in-between Lifeline and ACP. ACP was more restrictive in terms of income requirements but yet everyone seemed to “qualify.” It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this. To be honest, I was surprised to see them offering Internet Air in NY at all, as I was under the impression it was something meant to replace their copper services (DSL and U-verse) and NY never had AT&T as its ILEC, so NY never had any AT&T copper services.

toolman1990

Roamer AT&T implemented slots to avoid high demand tanking the wireless side of the network so I do not believe they are worried about network demand. I suspect they are not happy that their profit margins are going down for the customers who qualify for that program. In addition, AT&T could always limit internet air service in New York to people who subscribe to their postpaid wireless service. There is multiple ways AT&T could handle this, but they choose to go home since they did not get their way.

neel

Roamer NY did have AT&T copper services pre-1984.

Roamer

toolman1990

I mean, you’re probably right to an extent. However, I suspect there’s more to it than just greed - there may not be a way for them to implement more slots without sacrificing the experience for their existing user base, so they chose to pull the plug entirely. They could also be afraid of not being able to reliably meet the 200Mbps minimum - right now, Air is sold as “best effort” and you get what you get based on what the network can offer. I’ve seen Air deliver as low as 60Mbps and as high as 800Mbps depending on the time of day and traffic on the serving site.

I read an article where someone from AT&T mentioned capacity as the reason - I’ll try to find it.

I don’t think they could limit the service to postpaid wireless subscribers only while still being in compliance - if this is being treated anything like ACP, they can’t have those sorts of restrictions. ACP didn’t allow such restrictions.

DrStrange

Not surprised, given AT&Ts politics. Hopefully they can be publicly shamed into reconsidering their action.

ArgMeMatey

Just a reminder that AT&T is SBC with an assumed name. The old monopoly AT&T that included Western Electric, Bell Labs etc. does not exist any more, and anybody familiar with NJ real estate can show you the graveyards. AT&T Wireless is Cingular and a ton of companies they bought along the way. It was time to move on but there's no question much was lost in the process.

That said, wireless home internet is already overextended because people disregard science. Nobody is willing to put the money into fiber that needs to be put into fiber so that we could have universal fixed service and leave radio for what it is best at.

SpottedCat

ArgMeMatey

Wait wasn't SBC originally part of AT&T? I thought it was one of the "baby bells" that got broken off when AT&T was split up in the 80s.

Roamer

neel

That iteration of AT&T doesn’t exist anymore, and I didn’t think I needed to clarify that I meant copper broadband services on a forum about broadband, or that I was talking about the current iteration of AT&T (which, as another commenter mentioned, is really just SBC) when I said NY has never had AT&T as its ILEC.

timothyhohara

Roamer If we want to split hairs here…

The ILEC for a large portion of New York (but not all) is still legally The New York Telephone Company. The New York Telephone Company, legally, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications. Before that it was a wholly owned subsidiary or Bell Atlantic Communications, The NYNEX Corporation, and the AT&T Corporation (Legacy AT&T, not todays SBC Abomination)

toolman1990

TC1USCG If it's just the ones in NY, It's not going to hurt them at all. I'm not against offing a bottom end plan(s) for cheap, but for a state to force a company to do this. I mean, why don't they force the electrical companies, gas companies, etc to offer low prices for the same reason(s)?

I guess if AT&T is not planning on expanding any more, they might be okay but if they want to buy another company, I imagine this incident will come up as a reason to deny them getting bigger.

TC1USCG

toolman1990 Yeah, I doubt throwing a tantrum is going to win them any love. And if AT&T is being AT&T, they will grow but do it somewhere else. Only people who can really stop them from getting bigger is what, themsevles and the federal govt? Now if they expanded in other states, and stayed out of New York, what next?

toolman1990

TC1USCG

TC1USCG Now if they expanded in other states, and stayed out of New York, what next?

AT&T would be on their way to be broken up again under antitrust law like the AT&T Telephone company was. Quite frankly regulators do not like when companies thumb their nose at them thinking they are above the law. Keep in mind T Mobile and Verizon Wireless were not this stupid to thumb their nose at regulators.

TC1USCG

toolman1990 I'm surprised they have made this long w/o being split, again. Before it was Bell, now it's time to slice and dice AT&T.

InternetJeff

toolman1990

toolman1990 Quite frankly regulators do not like when companies thumb their nose at them thinking they are above the law. Keep in mind T Mobile and Verizon Wireless were not this stupid to thumb their nose at regulators

Wait... a private business choosing not to sell services is "above the law"?

I have no particular love for AT&T, but I don't see how they are "thumbing their nose" at regulators with this decision.

Jbob

SpottedCat Wait wasn't SBC originally part of AT&T? I thought it was one of the "baby bells" that got broken off when AT&T was split up in the 80s.

It was. One of the originals that got broken off by the antitrust breakup and became Southwestern Bell(SBC). In 2005 they purchased AT&T and then took the AT&T branding. Crazy stuff.

Somewhat-Reticent

SpottedCat Yes, SBC was one of the Bells.
The breakup enabled dumping unprofitable zones.