AT&T Now Charging You an Extra $2/Month For Not Using Enough Long Distance

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Now-Charging-You-For-Not-Using-Enough-Long-Distance-115869

by nextparadigms • 15 years ago

143 57 15 years ago

18802• 15 years ago

"(...) traditional landline users (all six of you left)"

Is having a landline so old-fashioned in the US? It's not the first time that I see this kind of comment, but it's shocking to me, since for most ISPs in many countries you must have a landline if you want some kind of Internet service, whether it's xDSL or cable.

iamjustlooking• 15 years ago

I have cable internet (Time Warner), I don't have a landline.

benmccann• 15 years ago

It's pretty rare for people in their twenties, but more common amongst older generations.

Usually you're forced to get a landline if you want DSL. I've never seen a cable company force a landline on you. You can also get around the landline restriction from the phone company if you get a fiber connection though that's not offered in all areas.

sausagefeet• 15 years ago

I have Comcast and they basically force you to get a "land line" through them (although I guess it's closer to VOIP?) for a cheaper package. Mine isn't plugged into a phone though, I don't even know what the phone number is.

mbreese2• 15 years ago

The only reason why I have a landline (I'm 33) is because I have kids. In an emergency, the last thing you need to worry about is whether or not you can get a cell signal at home.

That being said, we just moved and my wife just reminded me that neither of us actually know what the new number is - we've lived here for almost a month. So, we still rely on our cell phones.

jedberg• 15 years ago

I dropped my landline for the first time in my life 3 months ago. Apparently you need one to order xDSL, but not to keep xDSL (since my DSL still works).

I haven't actually placed a call on my landline in about 5 years, so I figured there's no reason to keep it.

patrickyeon• 15 years ago

I'm Canadian, I get DSL through a dry loop (phone line, with no actual phone service). I was under the impression dry loops were available everywhere, maybe not though.

As to the popularity, I know very few people young enough to have had a cell phone in high school who now have a landline. I know very few people outside of that group who don't.

blahedo• 15 years ago

The people outside that group that don't are often in the category of moving outside their current city after they got cell phones. When you're going to have to change the landline number anyway, and notify all your friends of the new number, and they already all know your cell phone....

Most of the over-25s I know (myself included) that don't have a landline ended up dropping it during a move.

jonknee• 15 years ago

We have what's called naked DSL or dry-loop (it's de-coupled from phone service). At least in my market, the phone company's system still uses phone numbers for everything so there is a phone number for the account but it doesn't function and you can't plug a phone into it. The FCC has mandated it as a concession during large mergers, so it's available pretty much everywhere in the country.

According to the CDC, as of June 2010 about 25% of US households have no wireline phone but have at least one mobile phone.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr039.pdf

This comes up every election year because of the prevalence of phone based opinion polling. Younger people are more likely to not have a land line and thus not be polled, etc etc.

18802• 15 years ago

Actually, I just did some Googling and apparently there are a couple of ISPs in my country that do naked DSL.

It costs more than twice than a landline and a 20Mbps connection.

eli• 15 years ago

As an aside, the cell phone/landline polling bias has been measured and is not especially large.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1761/cell-phones-and-election-po...

RobertHubert• 15 years ago

I had a land-line when I first moved into my own place only because DSL was the only option for my building... But I signed up with lifeline for $5/month and never really used the phone for anything other than to collect telemarketers voice-mail...

mcantor• 15 years ago

I have a DSL-only plan with AT&T. It works fine, but every time I call for support, they ask me for "the phone number on my account", and I have to re-explain ten times that I have only DSL, and not phone or TV service. Often I am told that it is impossible.

callahad• 15 years ago

Are you sure they're not asking for the phone number of the party responsible for the account as a means of locating your account?

hammock2• 15 years ago

Whether you buy phone from them or not, you still have a phone number associated with your account (cell phone etc), just a way to look up your record.

JadeNB2• 15 years ago

At least for my naked AT&T DSL, there's a 'fake' phone number (0-xxx-xxx-xxxx) associated with the account. Usually, the automated prompt won't recognise that number, but human representatives are fine with it.

Timothee• 15 years ago

We had a landline at first, mostly for emergency. That cost us about $13-15 a month with fees and taxes. And all we got from it was unwanted sales calls and debt collectors who were looking for someone who had that number before.

For people who don't have children (and even then…) and have a cell phone, I don't really see a good reason to still have a landline at this point.

I know that in France, for example, having a landline doesn't really cost you anything more than having the Internet, so most people have one. But $13 a month for nothing helps cutting that cord.

jaredsohn• 15 years ago

>and have a cell phone, I don't really see a good reason to still have a landline at this point.

I haven't had a landline since 2004 but I'm considering getting one again. The reason is that neither my AT&T iPhone nor Skype via my AT&T DSL works all that great from my apartment. But I'm also looking at replacing my DSL modem/router in case that is why the DSL doesn't work. (That's what AT&T thinks is going on.)

coin• 15 years ago

I fail to see how having children requires a landline. Does 911 work different for cell phones? DO children require 911 more than adults?

RuadhanMc• 15 years ago

I haven't had a landline since 2007. Mobile phone, Internet and Skype more than meets all of my requirements.

veyron2• 15 years ago

During the earthquake, cell phone service was out but landline worked like a charm :) And that's why we have one

WettowelReactor2• 15 years ago

during the earthquake for us our land lines (25 pair cable) crossed a mains somewhere underground and cause our copper to burst into flames.

daimyoyo• 15 years ago

Someone from a 3-letter government agency needs to put a stop to this. If the only way you can avoid this fee is to use more long distance than you normally would, that seems beyond bad business. It's very likely criminal. As an aside, I'm 30 and I've lived on my own for more than 10 years. I've never had a landline and have no plans to get one.

hammock2• 15 years ago

What do you think is criminal about it?

masklinn2• 15 years ago

Isn't that some sort of forced sale/racket? "call long distance or else" does not sound like good business.

joeybaker• 15 years ago

Monopoly pricing power. That's what's illegal about it

SwellJoe2• 15 years ago

Historically, it would have been. Local phone service was strictly regulated for most of its existence. That's not the case so much these days, partly because so many alternatives exist. But, I'm confident there are still some rural areas where a land line from AT&T is the only reliable means of communication.

To be fair to T, those rural lines are the most expensive they maintain, and they no longer have as many sheep in major metropolitan areas to subsidize the rural phone users (who get those lines for the same price as the densely packed city folk who are super cheap to provide service to). So, I can imagine a valid argument for this additional fee.

But, given the level of evil of AT&T, and their historic abuse of monopoly powers (independent ISPs were destroyed by T a decade ago, for instance), and their apparent ability to get away with it right under the noses of regulators...well, I suspect this is not at all a response to any real cost change at T. I reckon it's just T being the same old T. Abuse of their monopoly, as far as the law allows (and then a little bit extra), is built right into their character.

WettowelReactor2• 15 years ago

Given ATT's role in warrantless wiretapping fiasco they pretty much are a 3 letter government agency.

typicalrunt• 15 years ago

Up here in Canada, TELUS did the exact same tactic with its landline customers. I called them to complain but they explained that the fee was to maintain their infrastructure, even though I wasn't using it (I never use long-distance).

I asked them to put a block on my landline so that no long-distance calls could be made. That somehow placated them enough to remove the maintenance fee from my account. Within 6 months, I moved to another provider. I don't like being charged for not using services so I vote with my wallet.

Is there any chance AT&T will allow customers to do the same as I did?

JadeNB2• 15 years ago

> … Within 6 months, I moved to another provider …. > > Is there any chance AT&T will allow customers to do the same as I did?

The first quoted sentence illustrated why the answer to the second is often 'no'. In my market, and I think many others, there is no alternative to AT&T for DSL (I don't know about landline service; I don't have it), so they don't feel any need to keep us happy.

Karunamon• 15 years ago

Telcos generally have monopolies when it comes to landline so.... no.

Coincidentally, this is why the government should step in.

dredmorbius• 15 years ago

It's the governments, generally, who grant them the monopoly in the first place.

Though if you look at the history of anti-trust and telcos in the US, it was the anti-competitive practices of AT&T (as early as 1917), which resulted in anti-trust actions being taken against them. At the time it was setting inter-connect fees to other carriers sufficiently high that the competitors were forced out of the market.

Now, why does this suddenly remind me of various "carriage fees" proposed by contemporary broadband providers....

jrockway• 15 years ago

Whoa, what? There's still something called "long distance"?

rickdale• 15 years ago

AT&T is the most scandalous business in the world. Recently due to the shitty economy my family shut down our family owned and operated business and the only company still giving us a hard time about canceling a contract is AT&T.

They said we agreed to extend the contract over the phone. We asked if we called them or they called us. They said they called us. When we asked who the spoke to, they said they didnt have name, but the person claimed to be the owner. I asked the rep if my dog answered and barked would they extend the contract and the rep said, "If it was interpreted to be a yes then he was authorized to extend."

veyron2• 15 years ago

Aren't they required to record the confirmation if it is over the phone? And if so, they should be able to replay it to you.

For example, if you try to do a balance transfer over the phone, they explicitly read you they will start recording and then read you the terms and ask if you accept. If you do accept, they can pull it up later.

jpwagner• 15 years ago

Ha! This is just poor marketing. If they simply hiked up the price two bucks and said "your first $2 of 'long-distance' is free" there'd be no hubbub.

bugsy• 15 years ago

AT&T is a really bad company and has been for a really long time. (Another example company with a similar record is Allstate Insurance.) At this point in time it is so well known and obvious, that anyone still using them is basically a masochist that likes to be abused. I don't feel anyone else should get involved in this situation at this point since it's obviously consensual and people certainly have many other carriers to choose from. People in every state in the US have access to a large number of telephone service companies. There is not just one. No one is being forced to use AT&T. It is a free choice to do so. If they were still a monopoly as Ma Bell then certainly I could get behind proposals for government intervention and regulation but it simply isn't needed here. Vote with your feet, or accept the dysfunctional relationship you have chosen to be in.

dbingham• 15 years ago

The choice isn't there. I have AT&T for a cable connection. My other option is Comcast, which is just as bad. And Comcast only recently moved into the neighborhood. I know many people who's only choice, literally, is AT&T for any kind of connection. There's simply no one else around.

In terms of cell service, it's pretty much AT&T or Verizon. The other players are tiny by comparison.

fuzionmonkey• 15 years ago

I'm tired of telco monopolies.

It should either be a proper utility run by the government or a free market company that doesn't get government granted monopoly to certain areas.

A government run telco would pretty much serve the same purpose as the postal service. The big brother aspect isn't appealing, but it I think internet and phone is similar to power, roads, and water. Critical infrastructure shouldn't be controlled by a handful of monopolies.

AT&T Now Charging You an Extra $2/Month For Not Using Enough Long Distance

Related Stories