AT&T is the first major ISP to confirm that it will be suspending all broadband usage caps as millions of Americans bunker down in a bid to slow the rate of COVID-19 expansion. Consumer groups and a coalition of Senators are now pressuring other ISPs to follow suit. From a report: Telecom experts told Motherboard this morning that broadband caps and overage fees don't serve any real technical purpose, and are little more than a glorified price hike on uncompetitive markets. We in turn reached out to ten of the nation's biggest ISPs, only one of which (Mediacom) was willing to go on the record. In the wake of that report, AT&T has confirmed to Motherboard that the company will be suspending all usage caps until further notice. "Many of our AT&T Internet customers already have unlimited home internet access, and we are waiving internet data overage for the remaining customers," a company spokesperson said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T is planning tens of billions of dollars worth of cost cuts, AT&T President and COO John Stankey told investors yesterday. Stankey also discussed the future of DirecTV satellite service, saying it won't be the primary TV option AT&T pitches to most customers going forward. For the company-wide cuts, AT&T management "has looked at effectively 10 broad initiatives that we believe can generate double digits of billions over a 3-year planning cycle," Stankey said at a Morgan Stanley conference, according to a transcript posted by AT&T. One of the first of those 10 initiatives will include job cuts, which Stankey called "headcount rationalization." Stankey noted that AT&T has already been cutting jobs but said the company plans "additional work" in that area.

Longer-term cost cutting would start paying off after about two years, Stankey said. That will include "IT rationalization and architecture rationalization, turning down applications, movement to the cloud, getting cost efficiencies in our very, very broad infrastructure, some of that facilitated by portfolio rationalization." AT&T is also looking at ways to reduce electricity costs and a "billing and credit collections rationalization," Stankey said. [...] As AT&T shifts toward online-only services like AT&T TV, it is de-emphasizing the satellite service despite spending $48.5 billion to buy DirecTV in 2015. Stankey said yesterday that the future of TV is in software, not satellites, and that DirecTV will primarily be relevant in places without fast broadband: AT&T purchased DirecTV because "we like the DirecTV customer base, thought it was attractive," Stankey said. But "shortly after that [acquisition], we made it clear that we would be developing a software platform that would ultimately not only take our satellite base and offer them a more updated product, but be the replacement for the U-verse [wireline TV service]," he said.

AT&T has launched its newest video service brand, called AT&T TV, and it could be the beginning of the end for AT&T's DirecTV offering. From a report: That's because AT&T TV is like DirectTV in many ways: It allows you to watch more than 100 live TV channels, but whereas DirecTV requires you to have a satellite dish, AT&T TV only requires that you have an internet connection. AT&T TV also goes further than DirectTV. Not only can you watch hundreds of live TV channels, the service, which is housed in a set-top box much like the Roku or Apple TV, allows you to also access third-party streaming services such as Netflix and Disney Plus. AT&T TV's remote also comes with Google Assistant built in, Chromecast support, and can even allow you to control smart home devices. But with the introduction of AT&T TV on a nationwide scale (the service has been in testing for months), AT&T's offerings get even more confusing. The Wall Street Journal has a rundown of all the video brands the company offers now, including U-verse, DirectTV, AT&T TV Now, AT&T WatchTV, the new AT&T TV, HBO Go, HBO Now, and the upcoming HBO Max streaming service.

The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday that it has proposed fining the nation's four largest wireless carriers $200 million for selling access to their customers' location information without taking reasonable measures to protect customers' real-time location information. From a report: The agency is proposing T-Mobile face a fine of more than $91 million. AT&T will be fined more than $57 million. It's fining Verizon more than $48 million. And Sprint's fine will be more than $12 million. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the proposed fines have put wireless carriers on notice that they need to do a better job protecting consumers' privacy. "This FCC will not tolerate phone companies putting Americans' privacy at risk," he said in a statement. Still, the amount of the fines is a drop in the bucket for the nation's carriers. For instance, Verizon reported fourth quarter revenue of $34.78 billion; AT&T reported revenue of $46.82 billion; and T-Mobile reported revenue of $11.88 billion.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T's mandatory-arbitration clause is unenforceable in a class-action case over AT&T's throttling of unlimited data, a panel of U.S. appeals court judges ruled this week. The nearly five-year-old case has gone through twists and turns, with AT&T's forced-arbitration clause initially being upheld in March 2016. If that decision had stood, the customers would have been forced to have any complaints heard individually in arbitration. But an April 2017 decision by the California Supreme Court in a different case effectively changed the state's arbitration law, causing a U.S. District Court judge to revive the class action in March 2018.

AT&T appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but a three-judge panel at that court rejected AT&T's appeal in a ruling issued Tuesday. Judges said they must follow the California Supreme Court decision -- known as the McGill rule -- which held that an agreement, like AT&T's, that waives public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and unenforceable." AT&T claimed that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the California law, but the appeals court had already ruled in Blair [another case involving the McGill rule] that this federal law doesn't preempt the McGill rule. The judges were also not persuaded by AT&T's argument that the court "abused its discretion in reconsidering its initial order compelling arbitration."

schwit1 quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T's decision to prevent Time Warner-owned shows from streaming on Netflix and other non-AT&T services reduced the company's quarterly revenue by $1.2 billion, a sacrifice that AT&T is making to give its planned HBO Max service more exclusive content. AT&T took the $1.2-billion hit despite previously telling Congress that it would not restrict distribution of Time Warner content, claiming that would be "irrational business behavior." AT&T's actual Q4 2019 revenue was $46.8 billion, but the company said it would have been $48 billion if not for "HBO Max investments in the form of foregone WarnerMedia content licensing revenues."

An AT&T spokesperson told Ars that the $1.2 billion in lost revenue was primarily caused by the decision "not to sell existing content -- mainly Friends, The Big Bang Theory, and Fresh Prince -- to third parties such as Netflix." As we've previously reported, AT&T took Time Warner shows off Netflix in order to give the exclusive streaming rights to AT&T's HBO Max, which is scheduled to debut in May 2020 for $14.99 a month. The amount of forgone revenue could grow in future quarters, as Friends just left Netflix on January 1. The Big Bang Theory and Fresh Prince were not on Netflix in the United States, so in those cases the forgone revenue is apparently from not entering into licensing deals instead of ending them. AT&T also pulled Pretty Little Liars off Netflix in mid-2019 in order to give HBO Max the exclusive streaming rights.

Clayton Christensen, the business scholar who coined the term "disruptive innovation," died of cancer treatment complications on Thursday at age 67. The Verge reports: You may not immediately recognize his name, but the tech industry -- and every resulting industry -- is built on the framework of technology disruption and innovation that Christensen devised. The crux of Christensen's theory is that big, successful companies that neglect potential customers at the lower end of their markets (mainframe computers, in his famous example) are ripe for disruption from smaller, more efficient, more nimble competitors that can do almost as good a job more cheaply (like personal computers). One need look no further than the biggest names in Silicon Valley to find evidence of successful disrupters, from Napster to Amazon to Uber to Airbnb and so on.

And scores of notable tech leaders have for years cited Christensen's 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma as a major influence. It's the only business book on the late Steve Jobs' must-read list; Netflix CEO Reed Hastings read it with his executive team when he was developing the idea for his company; and the late Andy Grove, CEO of Intel, said the book and Christensen's theory were responsible for that company's turnaround. [...] He later refined his thinking on disruption, introducing the concept of "jobs to be done," which stressed the need to focus on customers' needs, and acknowledged that disruption was a great way to start a company, but not a good way to grow a company. "It's not a manual for how to grow or how to predict what customers want. [Jobs to be done] is the second side of the same coin: How can I be sure that competitors won't kill me and how can I be sure customers will want to buy the product? So it's actually a very important compliment to disruption."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Hackers are now getting telecom employees to run software that lets the hackers directly reach into the internal systems of U.S. telecom companies to take over customer cell phone numbers, Motherboard has learned. Multiple sources in and familiar with the SIM swapping community as well as screenshots shared with Motherboard suggest at least AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint have been impacted. The technique uses Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) software. RDP lets a user control a computer over the internet rather than being physically in front of it. It's commonly used for legitimate purposes such as customer support. But scammers also make heavy use of RDP. In an age-old scam, a fraudster will phone an ordinary consumer and tell them their computer is infected with malware. To fix the issue, the victim needs to enable RDP and let the fake customer support representative into their machine. From here, the scammer could do all sorts of things, such as logging into online bank accounts and stealing funds.

This use of RDP is essentially what SIM swappers are now doing. But instead of targeting consumers, they're tricking telecom employees to install or activate RDP software, and then remotely reaching into the company's systems to SIM swap individuals. The process starts with convincing an employee in a telecom company's customer support center to run or install RDP software. The active SIM swapper said they provide an employee with something akin to an employee ID, "and they believe it." Hackers may also convince employees to provide credentials to a RDP service if they already use it. Once RDP is enabled, "They RDP into the store or call center [computer] [...] and mess around on the employees' computers including using tools," said Nicholas Ceraolo, an independent security researcher who first flagged the issue to Motherboard. Motherboard then verified Ceraolo's findings with the active SIM swapper.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T doesn't want its home Internet speeds to be measured by the Federal Communications Commission anymore, and it already convinced the FCC to exclude its worst speed-test results from an annual government report. "AT&T this year told the commission it will no longer cooperate with the FCC's SamKnows speed test," The Wall Street Journal wrote in an investigative report titled "Your Internet provider likely juiced its official speed scores." AT&T already convinced the FCC to exclude certain DSL test results from last year's Measuring Broadband America report. The reports are based on the SamKnows testing equipment installed in thousands of homes across the U.S.

"AT&T was dismayed at its report card from a government test measuring Internet speeds" and thus "pushed the Federal Communications Commission to omit unflattering data on its DSL Internet service from the report," the Journal wrote. "In the end, the DSL data was left out of the report released late last year, to the chagrin of some agency officials," the Journal wrote. "AT&T's remaining speed tiers notched high marks." "AT&T developed a best-in-class tool to measure its consumer broadband services," the company said in a statement provided to Ars. "This tool measures performance on all AT&T IP broadband technologies and is more accurate, versatile, and transparent. For these and other reasons, our tool provides better and more useful information to our customers."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: After more than two years since it's been used the last time, the Chinese government deployed an infamous DDoS tool named the "Great Cannon" to launch attacks against LIHKG, an online forum where Hong Kong residents are organizing anti-Beijing protests. [...] DDoS attacks with the Great Cannon have been rare, mainly because they tend to generate a lot of bad press for the Chinese government. But in a report published today, AT&T Cybersecurity says the tool has been deployed once again. This time, the Great Cannon's victim was LIHKG.com, an online platform where the organizers of the Hong Kong 2019 protests have been sharing information about the locations of daily demonstrations. The site is also a place where Hong Kong residents congregate to recant stories of Chinese police abuse and upload video evidence.

AT&T Cybersecurity says the first Great Cannon DDoS attacks targeted LIHKG on August 31, while the last one being recorded on November 27. AT&T Cybersecurity researcher Chris Doman said the August attacks used JavaScript code that was very similar to the one spotted in the 2017 attacks on Mingjingnews.com. According to LIHKG, the site received more than 1.5 billion requests per hour during the August attack, compared to the site's previous traffic record that was only a meager 6.5 million requests per hour.

A new FCC study confirms what most people already knew: when it comes to wireless coverage maps, your mobile carrier is often lying to you. From a report: If you head to any major wireless carrier website, you'll be inundated with claims of coast to coast, uniform availability of wireless broadband. But, as countless studies have shown, these claims usually have only a tenuous relation to reality, something you've likely noticed if you've ever driving across the country or stopped by mobile carrier forums. But just how bad is the disconnect? A new FCC study released this week suggests that wireless carriers may be lying about mobile coverage 40 percent of the time or more. The full study, part of the FCC's efforts to beef up wireless subsidies ahead of fifth-generation (5G) deployments, states that FCC engineers measured real-world network performance across 12 states. Staffers conducted a total of 24,649 tests while driving more than 10,000 miles.

"Only 62.3% of staff drive tests achieved at least the minimum download speed predicted by the coverage maps -- with U.S. Cellular achieving that speed in only 45.0% of such tests, T-Mobile in 63.2% of tests, and Verizon in 64.3% of tests," the FCC said. And while carriers have historically claimed they offer faster 4G LTE service to the vast majority of the country, the FCC found that wasn't actually true either. "Staff was unable to obtain any 4G LTE signal for 38% of drive tests on U.S. Cellular's network, 21.3% of drive tests on T-Mobile's network, and 16.2% of drive tests on Verizon's network, despite each provider reporting coverage in the relevant area," the agency said. But of course, the FCC also has no plans to punish the carriers.

A standard used by phone carriers around the world can leave users open to all sorts of attacks, like text message and call interception, spoofed phone numbers, and leaking their coarse location, new research reveals. From a report: The Rich Communication Services (RCS) standard is essentially the replacement for SMS. The news shows how even as carriers move onto more modern protocols for communication, phone network security continues to be an exposed area with multiple avenues for attack in some implementations of RCS. "I'm surprised that large companies, like Vodafone, introduce a technology that exposes literally hundreds of millions of people, without asking them, without telling them," Karsten Nohl from cybersecurity firm Security Research Labs (SRLabs) told Motherboard in a phone call.

SRLabs researchers Luca Melette and Sina Yazdanmehr will present their RCS findings at the upcoming Black Hat Europe conference in December, and discussed some of their work at security conference DeepSec on Friday. RCS is a relatively new standard for carrier messaging and includes more features than SMS, such as photos, group chats, and file transfers. Back in 2015, Google announced it would be adopting RCS to move users away from SMS, and that it had acquired a company called Jibe Mobile to help with the transition. RCS essentially runs as an app on your phone that logs into a service with a username and password, Nohl explained.

In early 2018, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into whether AT&T, Verizon and the GSM Association (GSMA) worked together to limit eSIM technology. Today, The New York Times reports that the DOJ is closing the investigation and has found no evidence of wrongdoing. From a report: The DOJ was initially concerned that AT&T and Verizon attempted to lock devices on their networks even if the device had an eSIM. But the parties have agreed to change how they determine standards for eSIM, which will allow consumers to use eSIM to switch carriers, rather than having to insert a new SIM card. And as a result, the DOJ is dropping the investigation.

Normally, major 5G network expansion news has been exciting enough for carriers to announce first thing in the morning, but AT&T just continued its already confusing 5G story by revealing a big change in the dead of night: It's launching a low-band 5G network across five cities in "the coming weeks," with promises to cover at least 15 cities by February 2020. From a report: This will be the carrier's first 5G launch targeted at regular customers. The good news: Some form of AT&T 5G service will soon be available in Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Providence, Rochester, and San Diego, followed by Birmingham, Boston, Bridgeport, Buffalo, Las Vegas, Louisville, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco, and San Jose early next year. Initial service maps actually cover wide swaths of each city, in some cases extending into suburbs, and the carrier suggests the low-band 5G will work at roughly two-mile distances from towers, including "on the go," residential," "suburban," and "rural" usage.

AT&T is adding $10 to the monthly bills of customers with certain grandfathered mobile-data plans and not letting them switch back to their older packages. AT&T is pitching the change as a "bonus" because it's also adding 15GB to the customers' monthly data allotments. Ars Technica reports: "Enjoy more data," AT&T says in a support document. "Starting with your October 2019 bill, you'll get an additional 15GB of data on your Mobile Share plan. This bonus data comes with a $10 price increase." Paying an extra $10 for another 15GB isn't a bad deal as far as U.S. wireless prices go, but that's only true if you actually need the extra data. The plans getting the data-and-price increases already had between 20GB and 60GB of data per month at prices that ranged from $100 to $225. Now those plans have 35GB to 75GB and cost $110 to $235. (The data allotments can be shared among multiple people on the same family plan.)

These Mobile Share Value plans were introduced in December 2013 and are apparently no longer offered to new customers. This is at least the second time this year that AT&T has added $10 and extra data to customer bills; a previous increase took effect between March and May and mostly affected a different set of Mobile Share Value plans, according to another AT&T support document. AT&T confirmed that there's no way to opt out of the new $10 increase, The Verge reported yesterday.

Something strange is happening with text messages in the US right now. Overnight, a multitude of people received text messages that appear to have originally been sent on or around Valentine's Day 2019. From a report: These people never received the text messages in the first place; the people who sent the messages had no idea that they had never been received, and they did nothing to attempt to resend them overnight. Delayed messages were sent from and received by both iPhones and Android phones, and the messages seem to have been sent and received across all major carriers in the US. Many of the complaints involve T-Mobile or Sprint, although AT&T and Verizon have been mentioned as well. People using regional US carriers, carriers in Canada, and even Google Voice also seem to have experienced delays. At fault seems to be a system that multiple cell carriers use for messaging. A Sprint spokesperson said a "maintenance update" last night caused the error.

After dragging out the case for five years, AT&T has finally agreed to pay $60 million back to customers for throttling mobile data plans advertised as "unlimited." Ars Technica reports: The FTC, which sued AT&T in 2014, announced the settlement today. The deal ends a long saga in which AT&T unsuccessfully tried to cripple the FTC's regulatory authority over telecoms. A court loss last year basically forced AT&T to settle the case. "AT&T promised unlimited data -- without qualification -- and failed to deliver on that promise," FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith said in the announcement. "While it seems obvious, it bears repeating that Internet providers must tell people about any restrictions on the speed or amount of data promised."

Under the settlement, AT&T did not admit or deny any of the allegations made by the FTC. AT&T's current and former customers who were affected by the throttling won't have to do anything to get their refunds, according to the FTC. The commission said: "The $60 million paid by AT&T as part of the settlement will be deposited into a fund that the company will use to provide partial refunds to both current and former customers who had originally signed up for unlimited plans prior to 2011 but were throttled by AT&T. Affected consumers will not be required to submit a claim for the refunds. Current AT&T customers will automatically receive a credit to their bills while former customers will receive checks for the refund amount they are owed." "AT&T must pay the $60 million within seven days after the settlement is approved by the US District Court for the Northern District of California," adds Ars. "AT&T would have to identify each eligible consumer within 30 days and give bill credits and refund checks to existing and former customers within 90 days. If there is any leftover money, it must be paid to the FTC, which would try to provide further relief to customers."

According to Reuters, AT&T is exploring an ad-supported tier for HBO Max that would launch in 2021. "That's one year after HBO Max is expected to launch as an ad-free subscription service," reports The Verge. "Reuters suggests that HBO Max is likely to cost more than HBO's current standalone streaming service, HBO Now ($15 a month), which is on par with earlier reports. However, FierceVideo recently reported that analysts believe HBO Max could cost as low as $8 a month through an ad-supported offering." From the report: The ad-supported option will allow AT&T to offer HBO Max at a lower cost than that of the traditional cable channel and HBO Now. HBO Max will offer more content than HBO Now, and is targeted at cord-cutters. The company will also offer HBO Max for free to the approximately 10 million AT&T customers who are also HBO subscribers. HBO reportedly had approximately 140 million subscribers globally as of 2018, with 35 million subscribers in the United States alone. The Verge has reached out to HBO for additional comment.

This doesn't mean those 10 million subscribers, or other customers that use HBO via cable packages and HBO Now, will start seeing ads. An HBO spokesperson previously told Bloomberg that "We will never carry ads on HBO." But HBO Max is still HBO to an extent. This is the issue with AT&T and WarnerMedia's decision to lean on the HBO brand name for its general service; people still see it as HBO. Jon Klein, former president of CNN and media expert, previously told The Verge that by adding HBO into the name, people are expecting a traditional HBO experience. Adding Max implies it's that experience, but more, Klein said. Advertisements haven't been part of the HBO experience -- at least until now.

A California man is suing AT&T after he says one of its employees allowed a hacker to access his cell phone number that resulted in his data being compromised and more than $1.8 million in cryptocurrency stolen from his accounts. ABC News reports: Seth Shapiro says that an AT&T employee allowed a hacker to swap his phone number from his phone to a separate device, which resulted in "the compromise of highly sensitive personal and financial information and the theft of more than $1.8 million," according to court documents. The process of so-called "SIM swapping" allows hackers a way to gain access to all the information tied to a phone number potentially giving them access to every email, photo, app and more on the phone.

The complaint filed on Oct. 17 claims that while third parties had control over his AT&T wireless number, "they used that control to access and reset the passwords for Mr. Shapiro's accounts on cryptocurrency exchange platforms, including KuCoin, Bittrex, Wax, Coinbase, Huobi, Crytopia, LiveCoin, HitBTC, Coss.io, Liqui, and Bitfinex." The digital currency "was accessed by the hackers utilizing their control over Mr. Shapiro's AT&T wireless number," the court documents added. The lawsuit alleges that hackers were able to access "accounts on various cryptocurrency exchange platforms, including the accounts he controlled on behalf of his business venture. The hackers then transferred Mr. Shapiro's currency from Mr. Shapiro's accounts into accounts that they controlled." "In all, they stole more than $1.8 million from Mr. Shapiro in the two consecutive SIM swap attacks on May 16, 2018," the complaint added. AT&T told ABC News in a statement that they dispute the Shapiro's allegations and shared information on how customers can help keep themselves safe from SIM swaps.

"We dispute these allegations and look forward to presenting our case in court," the statement said. "Customers can learn how to help protect themselves from this scam by going here -- https://about.att.com/sites/cyberaware/ni/blog/sim_swap."

The rise of streaming services could give cable companies an excuse to raise rates under a Federal Communications Commission order handed down on October 25th. From a report: The order, which comes in response to a petition by Charter, finds that AT&T's TV Now streaming service qualifies as reasonable competition for conventional cable, opening the door to a massive deregulation in monopoly cable markets. Under the Cable Act of 1992, local regulators are permitted to regulate cable prices in markets with only one provider. The provision is meant to prevent cable companies from leveraging that monopoly power to set unfairly high rates. When a new cable company comes to town, providers can file a petition to have those regulations removed. Charter's case centered on a small group of territories in Massachusetts and Hawaii, but Charter's new competition wasn't coming from a competing cable TV service. Instead, Charter argued that AT&T's streaming service, combined with the company's existing broadband offering, made up a close enough substitute for cable TV that Charter no longer counted as a local monopoly. Despite opposition from both Massachusetts and Hawaii state governments, the FCC ultimately agreed, leaving Charter free to raise its cable rates.