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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
They didn’t even do the bare minimum
Oof. They just pocketed all of it? With no repercussions?
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.
They aren’t laying lines though. It’s the Internet Air program which provides it through 5g.
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.
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.
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.
And where’s does 5g come from
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.