AT&T Shows Cupertino Precisely What Broadband Competition (Or The Lack Thereof) Looks Like

from the fiber-to-the-press-release dept

As many of you may know, AT&T has been responding to Google Fiber with a gigabit broadband deployment of its own, primarily aimed at high-end housing developments where fiber is already in the ground. Dubbed AT&T U-Verse with “Gigapower,” the service first appeared in Google Fiber markets like Austin, though AT&T tried to claim this timing was entirely coincidental. As with similar offerings from companies like CenturyLink, it’s part of an industry push to at least give the impression that they’re keeping pace with Google Fiber and gigabit municipal broadband deployments, even if the announcements often tend to be more impressive than the actual deployments (something I affectionately call “fiber to the press release”).

Given this is AT&T, there are of course several caveats. One being that the company’s promise to deploy the service to “up to 100 cities” is a bit of a bluff aimed at making the telco appear cutting edge, since it’s actually consistently slashing its fixed-line investment budget. The actual deployment is much, much smaller (as in a few housing developments in a dozen markets or so), and AT&T’s ambiguous projection numbers tend to ebb and flow depending on what AT&T’s trying to get from the government. The other is that users need to pay $40 to $60 more if they want to opt out of AT&T’s “Internet Preferences” snoopvertising, which uses deep packet inspection to track online behavior down to the second.

In short, yes it’s competition — but it’s AT&T’s special brand of competition. Still, it highlights the fact that Google Fiber markets very quickly see a much-needed industry response on both speed and price. Case in point: in the markets where Google Fiber is present, AT&T’s gigabit offering costs significantly less, whether it’s a standalone gigabit line, or a bundle. For example, this is the pricing seen by an AT&T customer in Austin, where Google Fiber is present:

Last week, AT&T launched the service in select parts of Cupertino, California where there’s no Google Fiber pricing pressure. This is what local Cupertino users see when they try to sign up for service:

So yes, it’s pretty clear it doesn’t take much for pampered duopolists to respond to real price competition. The problem is despite the fact that Google Fiber is nearly five years old, its actual footprint remains fairly small, with only portions of Austin, Provo and Kansas City online so far. And that’s a company with billions to spend and a massive lobbying apparatus that can take aim at the sector’s regulatory capture. That’s why community broadband and public/private partnerships become such an integral part of trying to light a fire under the U.S. broadband industry, as are the attempts to dismantle ISP protectionist state laws aimed at keeping these speeds and real price competition far, far away from most U.S. broadband markets.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: at&t, google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T Shows Cupertino Precisely What Broadband Competition (Or The Lack Thereof) Looks Like”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s a pretty big stretch. Is that supposed to mean then that since no Asian people are in the ad Asian people can’t afford any of the packages? Or let’s try it from the sexism perspective since we are manufacturing discrimination here. A man in the household is needed to be able to afford the higher packages, right?

Interesting enough though: It looks like they used the same male model with each of the families that are otherwise completely different. Is that supposed to mean that AT&T openly condones polygamy?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yeah; that’s the bit I noticed. The guy seems to have quite the smirk on his face too. Somehow he can afford to have TWO families on AT&T.

What got me though is that I missed the “l” in their “play” offerings and thought they were advertising service where you pay once, twice or thrice for the same service. It made me wonder who would shell out for “Triple Pay” service — but maybe that’s just referring to the fact that he’s paying for service at three locations.

JBDragon says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Talking about really trying to look for racism. This is getting beyond silly. No Black person anywhere and you’d be saying it’s raciest also. If it was all Black people in all 3 pictures, somehow that would be racists. No matter what you do, it doesn’t matter.

That’s really a sad world you live in if that’s all you see. I didn’t see anything Racist about the pictures. The Cheapest was also ONLY Internet. Wouldn’t it be more Raciest with a TV Package because Blacks just sit around watching TV all day? Collecting that Government check?
Wouldn’t that be more Racists? Maybe if they threw in Dial-Up for $9.99 a month service and showed a Black Family. Maybe I’d give it to you. $70 is not exactly cheap. I’m the cheap white guy and pay $35 a month for AT&T U-Verse Internet only. Not the fastest speed, but fast enough to stream HD content from Netflix.

No matter what, got to turn it into some kind of race thing. I personally thing the Biggest Racists people out there are the ones bring it up all the time. Looking for it wherever they go, even though most of it is in their head.

So the times when it really happens, No one cares any more. It’s crying wolf, over and over and over again.

For the life of me I was trying to figure out what the hell was so racist about the picture. I wasn’t even thinking Oh, Black Woman in first picture, a White Family in another. I saw a Single woman in one, a family in the next. The COLOR of ones skin wasn’t even on my mind at the time. So thanks for being that person.

At work I’m 1 of 4 White people. I Work for really nice Chinese Owner along with a couple of his sons, along with a few other Chinese, Indian, many filipino’s, even a Black person who’s runs the QA department. They’re all nice friendly people. I’ve been to a few of their houses even being the only white person there. I don’t mind at all, learn and have fun. Most of them work really hard for not a lot of money. I don’t really give a crap what race any of them are. It’s a NON-FACTOR in my life. I’d rather just enjoy life and not keep trying to look for that Boogeyman.

It’s never going to be a 100% Raciest free world. Compared to many places, the U.S. is pretty tolerant.

Anonymous Coward says:

True cost of government snooping

When large companies sell access to private user information eventually even the appearance of customer service disappears. This is essentially a government backed duopoly that wrings every cent out of people that they can. Investments into infrastructure not only isn’t happening at the levels it should be, it hasn’t happened with the billions earmarked for it that they have already collected. We have paid for new lines and faster service dozens of times over and the only thing keeping these monstrosities alive is government backing.

Corey jacob says:

centurylink fiber

I was a Qwest customer when I got my DSL and there was up to 40mb available to our building, networked on old copper.

Centurylink bought them, when they upgraded to “fiber” the max was downgraded to 12mb to my building. Despite the fact the fiber cable they installed is right under the street outside my building.

They get away with it because there is NO land-line competition, that provides the same kind of service. Cable is not counted because of how they do it is so much different than DSL and is more prone to problems in peak hours and spying by neighbors.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
04:48 Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered (23)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
More arrow