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.
The worst possible interpretation of this policy is, "AT&T is now charging $2/mo extra for land line service". I don't like that, but it doesn't sound criminal.
No, that's the best interpretation of the policy, but it's not what they're doing: apparently they're only charging $2/month if you don't call enough for AT&T's taste.
Let's think about it this way. AT&T is now charging $2 a month to have landline service. They will waive the fee for customers who use more than $2 a month in long distance charges.
It's not a customer friendly policy, as it just serves to squeeze $2 from customers who aren't using more services. But it's not criminal to add a service fee(as much as I hate it as well).
What difference does that make? How is that not strictly better than charging $2/mo no matter what? And thus if raising rates by $2/mo isn't "criminal", how could this be?
The thing about this is that it's somewhat dishonest. They have an advertised price, but then there's an additional fee if you don't buy additional services. It's like going into a store and buying a box of pasta for $2, and then getting charged $3 because you didn't buy some sauce along with it. Sure there was fine print beside the price saying that's the price when bought with sauce, and otherwise a $1 non-sauce-usage fee applies, but the reality is that they're counting on people to not read their bills too carefully.
You could look at it as they're charging everybody $2 a month, but offering a $2 a month credit to their best and most active customers. Looked at like that it doesn't sound to bad at all.
A Forced interaction generally requires one be deprived of not interacting. E.g., when a mugger says "your money or your life" you are being deprived of saying "no thanks" and walking away (getting shot counts as an interaction).
Yeah, but the US government has sort of established landline service as a quasi-right. They have gone to great lengths over the years to ensure service gets delivered to extremely small communities in extremely remote places. If you cancel your landline service with AT&T, I hope there is another provider that you can transition towards.
You can cancel your service, sure. But if you need a landline, then you're forced to go to another provider who does the same exact pricing trick. So there really is no choice at all.
For a local land line, "another provider" might not exist. In many cases, T has a monopoly on the last mile. This is why local phone service has historically been so strictly regulated. I'm surprised this is at all legal, given that history...but I suppose rules change, and T has a lot of politicians in their pocket.
The good news is that it will probably hurt T more than help in the long run. A lot of people who have held on to land lines may begin to think about whether the cost is worth it when the price goes up by 10%, or so. There are an awful lot of superior alternatives to land lines these days, except in the most rural of areas. Even my parents now use their cell phones more than their land line...they might even turn off the land line with this change, since they use their cell phones for long distance calls.
If "another provider" is not marginally more beneficial, why would you switch? Or put another way, how would "another provider" compete for market share if it is not marginally more beneficial? Granted, the competitive process is, sadly, subject to all manner of governmental interference.
I mention this for a reason. Thoreau said, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." Before we start hacking, we need to be clear on which are the branches and which are the roots.
The corporations are the roots, and the govt represents the branches. Seeing it the other way around is delusional.
If "another provider" is not marginally more beneficial, why would you switch? Or put another way, how would "another provider" compete for market share if it is not marginally more beneficial? Granted, the competitive process is, sadly, subject to all manner of governmental interference.
Because you get tempted by alluring advertising, or by false promises. Ultimately there is no good reason to switch if they're all the same -- but that's the way quasi-monopolies like it. They aren't interested in competition. They're interested in sucking more money out of their existing customers -- much easier!
Don't mistake Adam Smith's concept of hundreds of competitive small businesses with two or three corporations dominating an entire industry. The rules of capitalism -- real capitalism -- no longer apply. It's corporatism. Their way or the highway.
