AT&t ABF NYC

FYI. AT&T is discontinuing their ABF service in New York.

What’s Happening with Existing ABF Customers in NY

AT&T Business Fiber customers in New York will be able to keep their current ABF service until March 1 at no charge, as they find other options for broadband service.

Customers must do one of the following before 3/1/25, when their ABF services will be disconnected:

  • Sign a 12-month contract for existing ABF services at current rates
  • Switch to AT&T Dedicated Internet (ADI) or AWB with standard pricing
  • Take no action, and their ABF services will be disconnected on 3/1/25

Existing customers are being contacted via email and direct mail to inform them of the changes and offer the option to either sign a 12-month contract or migrate to AWB or ADI.

AT&T’s nationwide wireless service will not change in New York. AIA-B and ABF are still offered in all other qualified locations and states. We value our customers and AT&T will continue to support policies that promote capital investment, innovation and a competitive market.

Government gets over involved in things they don’t understand, and businesses pull out.

Mike-

What specific government regulation or action are you asserting here that caused this action?

Yes, and that AT&T already said they were pulling their “fixed wireless” service out of New York State for that very reason.

Correct. Here is that announcement…

We are committed to providing reliable and affordable internet service to customers across the country. However, the New York Affordable Broadband Act imposes harmful rate regulations. These regulations make it uneconomical for AT&T to invest in and expand our broadband infrastructure in the state. The Act requires certain Internet Service Providers to offer $15/mo. internet service to qualifying NY residents.

As a result, effective 1/15/25, we will no longer offer AT&T Internet Air for Business (AIA-B), our fixed-wireless internet service, or new AT&T Business Fiber (ABF) to New York customers. Ordering and qualification systems now reflect this change.

What’s Happening with Existing AIA-B Customers in NY

Customers can keep their existing AIA-B service until 3/1/25 at no charge.

Customers must do one of the following before 3/1/25, when their AIA-B services will be disconnected:

  • Switch to AT&T Wireless Broadband (AWB) with special promotional pricing
  • Take no action, and their AIA-B services will be disconnected 3/1/25

Existing customers are being contacted via email, direct mail, and bill message to inform them of the changes and offer the option to migrate to AWB.

New York Affordable Broadband Act

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/new-york-starts-enforcing-15-broadband-law-that-isps-tried-to-kill/

Yup.

Claims that AT&T is ‘pulling out of NYS’ because of this is comically misinformed. Reviewing the facts:

  1. ISPs are required to offer low income consumers, defined as eligible for free/reduced priced lunch through the National School Lunch Program, or income of less than 185% of the federal poverty level. ( The school lunch limit is also currently 185% of the federal poverty level. ) Currently $27800 - $47800 for a family size of 1-3.
  2. The service must be at least 25Mb or equal to the speed that provider currently offers on any low-income services offered in NYS. [ Loophole ]
  3. If the service is less than 200Mb, the ISP can charge $15 all in. (Taxes, fees etc. )
  4. If the service is 200Mb or more, the ISP can charge $20 PLUS Equipment rental fees and taxes. [ Loophole ]

The $15 tier with no accomodation for equipment is, in my opinion, a raw deal for the ISPs. However a big loophole exists, that was intentional in the drafting of the bill; the 200Mb clause.

All an ISP has to do is move their baseline low-income service to 200Mb , and they can continue to charge equipment rental on top of the monthy service. And as we all know, equipment rental is a nice little profit line.

Now, some addition state context.

  1. NYS guidance has already come out that states ISP are only required to offer this anywhere they already offer services. Meaning ISPs are not required to new build outs just to provide low-income service.
  2. Almost all municipalities in NYS have already required ISPs to offer services with very simialr requirements in their franchise agreements for the better part of 20 years.
  3. The prime ISP objection to this bill was that the franchise agreements were individually negotiated, so they could always work favorable terms in. They didn’t want a blanket law for the state that they couldn’t renegotiate.
  4. The law states that ISPs must take ‘reasonable efforts’ to make the avalability of these services known to consumers. That’s already been in franchise agreements for decades, and given ‘reasonable efforts’ are ill defined, it’s effectively unenforcable.

So in summary, Mike, no, this isn’t ‘government getting involved in things they don’t understand’. This is mostly a statewide codification of things that have already been happening in the state of NY for 2 decades. It’s also not true that AT&T is pulling out of the state. They are simply pushing to move people around to service offerings that fall outside the scope the the law to avoid it’s requirements.

Yes, and that AT&T already said they were pulling their “fixed wireless” service out of New York State for that very reason.

I’m assuming he’s referring to the New York State low income Internet mandate that recently went into effect.

[

rory-christian-1.jpg

New York’s $15 Broadband Law Takes Effect Wednesday
broadbandbreakfast.com

](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/new-yorks-15-broadband-law-takes-effect-wednesday/)

Can anyone explain the correlation here? ABF primarily exists in commercial buildings. Fixed wireless would ride off of capacity and backhaul deployed for mobile service, which they are continuing to sell. Does the law cover commercial entities or just personal accounts?

It seems retaliatory and not well thought out. ABF comes in via separate infrastructure from ADI, so they’re abandoning equipment. And I don’t see a cost savings for removing business 5G plans. You still have 5G towers.

Dan

(end)

I dont normally defend ATT, but…

“The plans are specifically priced at $15 per month for 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and $20 per month for 200 Mbps. These prices must include recurring taxes, equipment rental fees, and other usage fees, with annual price increases capped at 2%.”

$15/month for 25Mbps, and that price includes all equipment fees and taxes? Thats a little ridiculous given inflation and general cost of living. If it were $25/month - then maybe ATT should make it work, but $15 is too low.

-John

I dont normally defend ATT, but…

“The plans are specifically priced at $15 per month for 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and $20 per month for 200 Mbps. These prices must include recurring taxes, equipment rental fees, and other usage fees, with annual price increases capped at 2%.”

$15/month for 25Mbps, and that price includes all equipment fees and taxes? Thats a little ridiculous given inflation and general cost of living. If it were $25/month - then maybe ATT should make it work, but $15 is too low.

So that’s close, but not 100%.

  • Any plan 25Mb - 199Mb must be $15 a month , inclusive of all fees, including equipment.
  • Any plan 200Mb+ must be $20 a month , but the provider MAY charge equipment rental + taxes and fees on top .

My understanding (from some ISP friends that lobbied on this) is that the 200Mb/$20 plan was a carrot to get ISPs to raise that minimum bandwidth floor , since most would very much want to keep charging equipment fees. I am in full agreement that $15 all in is a silly low number, doubly low if you can’t recoup equipment.

Given the income requirements, what percentage of households in the affected area are expected to qualify for these rates?

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, only a small percentage of people would be expected to use the 25Mbps plan. It sounds pretty typical: if you want access to all the money in this lucrative market, you have to cover the whole market, even at the very lowest end where you’ll lose money, but that’s worth it to access the rest of the market where you make money.

Of course, some people are just allergic to the concept of government. And it’s in most business’s best interests to ensure that as many people as possible are that way, so they’ll sometimes take measures like pretending they can’t afford to spend $X million to comply with the regulation even though they also miss out on $YYY million in profit.

And if they can avoid the regulation while staying in the market at the same time, even better.