AT&T plans to kill pay phones – we want lower-cost pre-paid wireless plans!
By Will Park on Monday, December 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 PM PST In AT&T, Announcements, Services
To the disappointment of lower-income residents in AT&T (NYSE: T)’s 13-state pay-phone coverage area – including Texas and California – AT&T has announced that they will be shutting down their pay-phone service by the end of 2008. The pay-phone side of the business has been a money-loser for AT&T and it looks like they’ve had just about enough of this whole giving-the-less-fortunate-a-communications-outlet operation.
But, what about all those lower-income customers that rely on pay-phones to keep in touch with friends and family? Well, there’s always the pre-paid wireless option from AT&T. And, on that note, we’d love to see AT&T introduce more price-friendly pre-paid (and even post-paid) wireless plans with free or low-cost mobile phones. Everyone deserves to have access to a telephone, and even if the move makes business sense, AT&T should see that they have a civic responsibility to the American population.
How’s about it, AT&T? Cheaper pre-paid wireless rates without daily service charges would be just the thing to make up for all those dead pay-phones. You know, unless you want everyone to keep referring to you as the bid, bad corporation that screwed lower-income Americans out of telephone access.
[Via: Reuters]
I exceedingly defend the right for AT&T to drop their pay phones. A company has should have no obligation to continue providing any service unless it has voluntary agreed to it in the form of contract.
I would normally agree with you 110%, but this is a different situation. AT&T has a moral obligation to America. They are by no means a struggling or small (or medium, or large) company – they’re ginormous (to use a technical term), the largest telecom provider in the US.
By no means do they have a legal or business obligation to anyone, but I think they are morally obligated to provide the lower-end of the US’s socioeconomic ladder with a cheap way to keep in touch. If that means a lower-cost prepaid service with no daily service charges, then so be it.
I base my beliefs on principles and I have difficulty in having a principle that changes around the size of the respective company. However, I do like the fact that you say they have no legal or business obligation to anyone–my moral belief (to sum quickly) is only against the use of force and fraud. Benovholence not required (yeah, I admit I am rather extreme in my views by comparison)
I only referenced AT&T’s size to illustrate the company’s unique position to provide wide coverage of infrastructure like PayPhones while also being in the position to hold down competitors from proliferating and possibly offering better service in AT&T’s given markets.
They’ve had the privilege of providing this service with virtually no competition in their markets, and now they want to yank the plug and leave a massive hole in the telecom market (as far as the payphone market is concerned).
Had there been more competition on AT&T’s turf, their exit wouldn’t be as damaging. But then again, I believe in companies doing the right thing (being benevolent) – but that’s me
Perhaps the increased use of cell phones after ridding the streets of functional pay phones will decrease the cost of service for all of us?
As usual, the big corporations are sticking it to the
small guy. I understand about business and how the pay phones may not generate the income that AT&T might prefer. But don’t try to scam the populace by saying that the loss the company endures by supplying the public phones is reason enough to yank them nation wide. Whatever happened to social consciousness? Money is spent daily by AT&T customers. Shouldn’t they have some say in decisions that may effect them and their fellow citizens? Everyone doesn’t own a cell phone. What happens to these guys in an emergency?