Is AT&T Building the Ultimate Walled Garden?

How is this different? by DCTech · 2012-01-11 12:27 · Score: 0, Troll

How is this different

How is this different from when Google uses open source? There's a great article about the supposed openness by Google here

Some good points from it:

Where Google is losing you can count on them pushing the open label in order to build momentum & destroy the asymmetrical information advantages of existing market leaders. But where Google leads non-transparency is the norm.

- At the same time Google is trying to push social sites to offer transparent data, they decided to block some Google search referral data (unless you are paying for the clicks, then you get that data).

- When planning some of the features behind Google+ one of their employees wrote a book about the social circles concept with Google's blessings. Then, after he wrote the book, Google revoked permission to publish it!

- Android is open but internal Google emails revealed that carriers were getting wise to Google using compatibility as a club.

- The Panda update was needed to rid the web of garbage content. And yet Google is pre-paying Demand Media to post videos on YouTube. Since the Panda update downstream Google traffic to YouTube has more than doubled & YouTube is serving over a trillion streams per year!

- In spite of not having permission to do so, Google has been scanning books for nearly a decade now. Yet whenever Google goes to court they try to get the court documents sealed so that their statements couldn't be used against them.

If you only had to manage competing against other market competitors & staying inside Google's editorial guidelines then investment isn't that difficult, but if you have to stay within Google's guidelines in the short term yet try to build a business that is sustainable even after Google enters & destroys the market it is far more difficult.

A Self-serving Bias You Can Count On
When Google enters a market it might buy out a competitor, buy out a supplier, bundle, use predatory pricing, grant themselves superior search placement, adjust the relevancy algorithms and/or editorial guidelines, violate IP, scrape 3rd party content, work with sketchy advertisers & publishers to undermine competing business models, or any combination of the above.

They are rarely transparent with their interests when they enter a market. Almost everything is labeled as "a beta" and "just a test." They promise to "act appropriately" & you may not be aware of the steamroller until you are under it.

Google can bundle themselves into markets, but when others do the same it is a big no no:

A Google spokesman said "applications that are installed without clear disclosure, that are hard to remove and that modify users' experiences in unexpected ways are bad for users and the Web as a whole."

Google's founding research highlighted how bad ad-driven search engines were & then Google's core revenue engine of paid search was built on their violation of Overture's patent. They keep

Re:How is this different? by leoplan2 · 2012-01-11 12:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I suggest you read the whole article. It tells you about the very dark side of Google.
As if all other companies were honest, and they don't have a very dark side. Troll harder
Re:How is this different? by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-11 12:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Go away, troll. Nobody is going to read a post that long full of one-sided astroturf, so all you're succeeding in doing is inhibiting people from having a discussion about the actual subject of the article.
Re:How is this different? by Fluffeh · 2012-01-11 13:02 · Score: 0

Hmmmm, very high userID, massive first post with many links and presenting a rather one sided argument, fresh smell of grass clippings in the air.
I think I smell some astroturfing coming from a shill.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 18:33 · Score: 0

Y'know, it wasn't the story that got me horny, it was the poster who posted this story as a sick joke that got me horny. C'mere bitch; ever had some black cock before? I'll fuck you across the internet and I know you'll like it.
Re:How is this different? by Maow · 2012-01-11 18:39 · Score: 1

Looks like InsightIn140Bytes is back after the holiday break.
Got a new Slashdot ID for xmas?
Maybe this post made InsightIn140Bytes go away?
Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 00:52 · Score: 1

No trolls are trolling trolls now? Cause both of you are trolling hard.
Protip 1: How exactly does other companies being evil make Google's actions OK, or how does it make it wrong to mention those actions?
Protip 2: In case you didn't know it: Somebody, out of the blue, defending somebody else, even though nobody felt attacked, nothing felt wrong and nobody objected to it... that is a perfect indicator of the defender (in this case, that would be you) being A) a fanboy of that somebody else (here: Google), and B) being very insecure about himself and so feeling an irrational need to defend everything, even when the attacks were only imaginary. (Not at all usual for geeks, but still a sad sad failure.)
I guess you were too caught up in your own irrational emotions, but: You only made yourself look bad with that comment. So bad in fact, that if you were my horse, I'd have to shoot you now.
Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 01:13 · Score: 0

I've been keeping track. ;)
http://slashdot.org/~TechLA
http://slashdot.org/~CmdrPony
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser
http://slashdot.org/~InterestingFella
http://slashdot.org/~InsightIn140Bytes
http://slashdot.org/~DCTech
Though, I think I'm missing a few of the accounts.
Re:How is this different? by mcgrew · 2012-01-12 03:17 · Score: 1

The shills are out in force today, and what's more they have mod points, so if your karma's not excellent, be careful.
Slashdot, PLEASE bring back the old style metamoderation! It did far better at keeping mod points out of the hands of shills, trolls, and idiots.
What I'd like to know without actually clicking that IT World link (I hate that web site) is how is AT&T building a walled garden using open source, and how is that the "ultimate" walled garden? Does that mean that after AT&T's garden there will be no more walled gardens? Does it affect their smartphone service only, or does it include their home internet delivery?
TFS is short on info, and in the past I've found IT World to be pretty info-free as well, so I'll thank anyone who can give me a detal or two, especially since AT&T is my ISP.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How is this different? by erick99 · 2012-01-12 06:49 · Score: 1

I've lost touch with how many people belong to SlashDot. I am not sure when I joined but my user number seemed astronomically high at the time. But, I agree with the points you make: A little too loud and a little too shrill. Okay, back to my branch (I am, in reality, a sloth and this has been really tiring.)

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:How is this different? by Fluffeh · 2012-01-12 10:12 · Score: 1

Hey McGrew, My Karma has been excellent for a good many years now, not sure if there is some secret little flag or if it is constantly being topped up. On that note though, I don't care about my Karma if I am right - just don't take away my 15 mod points!
I do really wonder though the value in these shills, especially on sites like /. I mean, people here generally have very defined opinions and are rather quick to point out that it is walking like a duck and quacking like a duck if they think it is. I find it difficult to imagine how they might go to their manager and show what it is that they have accomplished through the week. Surely "Hey, I made all these good points in an online forum..." doesn't cut it?

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:How is this different? by Fluffeh · 2012-01-12 16:34 · Score: 1

Well, my ID is almost double yours, but I (and likely a lot more folks) wouldn't consider myself a newcomer here :)

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:How is this different? by mcgrew · 2012-01-13 09:10 · Score: 1

My karma is, too, so there's no reason to worry about it. As to the shills, big bureaucracies like a huge corporation always have at least a few arrogant dummies in management who thing they're intelligent. "50 posts today? Attaboy!!"

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-14 18:10 · Score: 0

I suggest you read the whole article. It tells you about the very dark side of Google.
As if all other companies were honest, and they don't have a very dark side. Troll harder
This isn't insightful, because this lazy minded poster has failed to go the next logical step and realize he and the anti-Google poster are on the same side. Dunno why people are siding up with specific companies.

Shai Hulud wills it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 12:34 · Score: 5, Funny

The data must flow. He who controls the stack, controls the universe.

Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by khallow · 2012-01-11 12:49 · Score: 1

But who will be in that universe and who out?
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-11 12:49 · Score: 4, Funny

The data must flow. He who controls the stack, controls the universe.
"You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere. "

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 13:02 · Score: 0

To control your own universe, use CloudI! http://cloudi.org
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by postbigbang · 2012-01-11 13:15 · Score: 2

For the record, AT&T doesn't control OpenStack, and Rackspace doesn't either--- although interestingly, it's situated *right in the middle of old Southwest Bell* territory.Hmmmmmmmmmm.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 13:33 · Score: 0

Interesting link. Still a bit confused though. It sounds good and open source is always welcome. What does it do? A new protocol to replace http?
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 15:11 · Score: 0

No, that would be silly. CloudI is a type of cloud that you can run both privately and publicly, so you don't need to depend on a large cloud (i.e., virtualization) service provider. Instead you have less overhead within a language agnostic, fault-tolerant application server, providing scalability across the services you declare (i.e., SOA).
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by gl4ss · 2012-01-11 16:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

that's why they're doing increasing limiting of "open" internet from their networks - that's where data caps come in. that's how they'll get to control the flow, get to control what data you as a consumer can get.
the next step is to provide with big fanfare, and of course some small monthly fee, unlimited access to their own cloud services. in that step they'll provide you netflix streaming from their network and they will also make netflix(or similar content provider) pay them as well - the kick is they will still keep saying they're net neutral and that they aren't throttling services based on bribes since on your extremely limited internet plan they don't, that will work as normal but it'll have enough quota to only read dilbert strips - they'll just have premium services that won't be metered and to get to that party you as a content provider will need to provide only content they'll figure is good for their image and . who doesn't love double billing and limited options? users won't, but the network operator just loves this and gives them something to do all year to negotiate on behalf of the users which network services they'll have the honor of using. gives a nice power trip too and which ceo doesn't like that. gives them a justification to do stupidly shitty customized firmwares too, lot's of companies lobbying for that crap.
this information doesn't come from any leaked memos or private conversations - it's just logical, it's how some 3g network providers started their networks but users wouldn't go for that shit and competition in most markets took care of that such plans didn't fly. fuck 'em - switch operators if you can to one that doesn't try to become the content provider middle-negotiator. but this is what all data caps are about - putting you into a position where the isp's(mobile or landline) competing media provider solutions are starting to look like a good choice.
the best solution for consumers would be to ban such practices outright, make the network operator compete with what should be their product, with what they were licensed to do: to provide a bridge to the internet. competition can't work if for in order to compete as media provider you'll have to stick shares to at&t's of the world.
(I think in USA verizon has pretty much publicized such plans though, iirc they ran a system bit like this already though? not from USA so not exactly sure, but you could look into uk threes walled garden shtifest approach from few years back for inspiration too, or any cable company which would rather have you stream payperview from them than from the open internet seas, and fyi in finland one operator did tv over mobile, so that they didn't meter it. nobody used it of course and as all operators were forced to go with all you can eat 3g plans pretty fast anyhow, but before that the operators still had wet dreams about being able to influence which webservices their users use - it was supposed to be a big, big biiiig part of their business to be able to pocket money for that like fucking mobsters)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-11 19:01 · Score: 2

Why is this not at +5, Insightful? This is exactly where the future lies. The incumbent telcos are realizing that they have one thing that no one has (full control over the hardlines) and another thing that means that no one needs to go anywhere else: walled garden apps.
This is the future, folks. Give it ten years, and only the hardest of the hardcore geeks will even know how to get to the Internet. The rest of the US will be happy forever sitting on ATT's or Comcast's network, never leaving it, and never knowing how much the offerings suck they're consuming.
I'm wondering if Apple or Google will buy one of the smaller telcos to combat this. If they don't - they'll be toast.
Kinda funny that AOL's business model is making a comeback, killing off the very thing that killed off AOL.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by icebraining · 2012-01-11 22:13 · Score: 1

To control your universe, you need to have your own pipes. This is why AT&T will achieve what Google and Apple never could.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 01:26 · Score: 0

Kinda funny that AOL's business model is making a comeback, killing off the very thing that killed off AOL.
This is exactly what they are trying to do. Have to love regression.
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by kirbini · 2012-01-12 05:49 · Score: 0

IN: Battle Cat, Teela, Man-at-Arms and He-man.
Out: Skeletor, Panthor, Mer-man, Evil-Lyn, TrapJaw
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 07:33 · Score: 0

That is the point. For an intranet, you control the network, so with private cloud computing you can provide freedom from the external manipulation of companies like AT&T
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by mcgrew · 2012-01-12 08:13 · Score: 1

This is the future, folks. Give it ten years, and only the hardest of the hardcore geeks will even know how to get to the Internet.
What was old is new again! I certainly hope you're wrong, you're talking about going back to Compuserve. Even BBSes were better than Compuserve, which is why I dropped Compuserve before finally getting direct internet access. I was on Compuserve back in 1983. Sucky sucky sucky!
But then, the failed quadrophonics from the 1970s came back as "surround sound", but that's a tad different; technological advances made it succeed the second time around.
I hope you're wrong, I fear you may be right.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by icebraining · 2012-01-12 13:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, as long as you only have one office and no employees working from home or the field. That leaves a lot of companies out.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Shai Hulud wills it! by gl4ss · 2012-01-13 04:06 · Score: 1

for further proof http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/drip-casting-mobile-downloads_n_1203094.html , it's begun.

Such options could make consumers more inclined to watch video on phones or tablets since the biggest U.S. operators, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc , charge for data usage on a metered basis.
"The idea would be that you don't get charged for certain data because the carrier would handle it differently," Zafar said.
The ability of the carrier to charge different prices for differing types of traffic could have other applications, too, according to the executive.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 12:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

When I first began using an iPhone ( I had bought the phone used and it was NOT subsidized
by AT&T ), AT&T added fees to my monthly bill for data service.

I called them and told them I had no intention of using data service, which was quite true.
The "friendly" AT&T rep told me that if I had an iPhone "I had no choice" but to pay for data
service whether IU used it or not, because the iPhone "would use data whether it was switched
off or not" which is of course utter bullshit.

Well, my contract with AT&T has ended, and I am going to kiss AT&T goodbye very soon. You see,
I DO have a choice and it will be a cold day in hell before I ever pay to use AT&T "services" again.
( which by the way suck horribly in many areas of the US, of course that is common knowledge in the tech world ).

I cannot think of a company I have ever detested as much as I detest AT&T. And AT&T provided me with all the reasons why.

Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 13:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why are you proud about your phone not being subsidized. You paid the same whether it was or not. AT&T does not discount for providing your own phone.
And you brought a phone that actually requires a data plan (how do you think visual voicemail works?). Now you have the audacity to blame AT&T for your blatant stupidity. Now I am not saying They do no wrong, believe me they, when they suck they fucking suck, but your rant says far more about you than it does AT&T.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 14:05 · Score: 2

You can use an iPhone in any country outside of North America without a data plan. The data plan is added because "fuck you we're the phone company".
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by PopeRatzo · 2012-01-11 14:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

You see,
I DO have a choice
When you get to your new provider, you will see that sometimes having "a choice" is really no choice at all. When there's only a couple of players, and they're all trying to buy one another, they realize they've got you over a barrel.
You can try to find the provider that is least objectionable, but you will find that there is no such thing as a telecommunications provider in the United States that is not horrible. You might come to believe one is a little bit less horrible than the other, but when you come down to it, they're all shit. And they can be shit because they got big enough to be able to write the government regulations themselves.
If you want to see corporate behavior start to change, you have to support a constitutional amendment stating that money does not equal speech and corporations are not people. One would think that those two statements are so obvious that no such amendment is necessary, but there's so much money in so few hands right now that they're able to repeatedly fuck the corpse of the Constitution, over and over, until it will say anything they want it to say.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Rich0 · 2012-01-11 15:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Neither iPhones nor Android phones require a data plan to operate as far as I'm aware. Mobile providers will certainly tell you that they do, but it simply isn't true. I gave my old G1 to my stepson and disabled its ability to send data thoroughly (disable APNs, disable mobile data, etc). It worked just fine - it would sync on WiFi and otherwise work like a feature phone on the cell network.
Things like visual voicemail will probably work just fine without a data plan - you just need to be connected to WiFi.
Considering that the iPhone and the iPod are fairly similar in features and OS I'd be surprised if the iPhone also would work just fine without a data plan.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 15:51 · Score: 0

"When you get to your new provider, you will see that sometimes having "a choice" is really no choice at all"
I readily admit you are 100% correct. The US is fucked, because of the incestuous relationship
between government and corporations. This is not new nor is it likely to change anytime soon,
because the vast majority of Americans are gutless sheep, who walk willingly to the slaughter.
However, I'll be making the change not to improve my telecomm circumstances but only so I can tell AT&T in no uncertain terms
that they can take their policies and shove them up their collective asses. None of this is going to change the world
of course, but every time I get my phone bill I'm going to feel better, and that's enough to make this action worthwhile
for me. I'd rather use Edge on my feet than use 3G on my knees, verstanden ?
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by guttentag · 2012-01-11 16:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

I cannot think of a company I have ever detested as much as I detest AT&T.
If you find that this keeps you up at night, might I suggest opening an account with Comcast (when their cable modem died they said they had to send a tech out to fix it, it would take three weeks, and I would continue to be billed for the service they could not provide... Then they actually told me I was bluffing when I asked to be connected with someone who could close my account) or Wells Fargo (they charged me $2 for asking what their branch hours were, and their answer was "we don't know")? Then you can have warm and fuzzy intellectual debates about which one is worst. Enjoy!
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by NotQuiteReal · 2012-01-11 16:57 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Wells Fargo (they charged me $2 for asking what their branch hours were, and their answer was "we don't know")?

Bullshit.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-01-11 18:14 · Score: 1

I bet it's true. An old account I had was $3 per call to customer service, and that was ten years ago. Call them for ANYTHING, it's automatically added.
The one time I did call customer service, for THEIR error, I complained about the fee and they said they'd remove the charge as a "one-time courtesy."

--
This space available.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 18:26 · Score: 0

You can save money if you use a non-AT&T iPhone. As long as the IMEI is not in AT&T's database, they won't charge you the ridiculous iphone tax. You can tell if it's in their database or not by logging into your online account. It will show if the IMEI is identified, or not.
If your IMEI is not identified, and you tell the phone support folks that you have some old piece of junk phone, they'll offer you unlimited data for $15 per month. That sure beats $20 for having a iphone plus more money for data on top of that. And you can opt to not get either fee, of course. Who said AT&T didn't have unlimited data? You have to be only slightly smarter than the person at the other end of the line.
Anyways the real problem is that carriers are now making deals with their smartphone manufacturers to pay fees back to them. That's what the $20 iPhone tax started, now every smartphone manufacturer wants to get a monthly kick back for each subscriber. Even though AT&T and Apple started this problem, they also make it easy to avoid, by the very nature of the open standard network.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 18:46 · Score: 0

Sorry, but cell phone companies don't suck because the lack government regulation or because the government is doing something wrong.
They are highly regulated in several aspects. Even if they take part in writing the regulations (which made sense in the distant past, when the only experts actually worked at the phone company), it doesn't give them the advantage that you think it does.
The problem is that these companies SUCK, plain and simple. They are driven by greed and aggregate totals covering huge swaths of the population. If you regulate them to death, it won't make them better.
The phone system relied on government regulation to keep its monopoly, the long distance carriers after 1984 were the first major competitor to Ma Bell. The long haul fiber networks and the cell phone carriers were the second and untied the monopolies well before the internet helped to decimate the remaining pieces.
Government regulation was much less tight on the cellular carriers for a long time. They suck either way. Neither the government, the constitution, Ron Paul or Ralph Nader can fix that.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by subreality · 2012-01-11 18:58 · Score: 2

My other half has an old iPhone on TMobile, no data plan. It works just fine. There's no visual voice mail but it knows the number to call to retrieve it the old way.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by icebraining · 2012-01-11 22:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Regulation is not all equal. Instead of laws to make them behave (which they won't), you need to laws to increase competition and help phone manufacturers unlock themselves from the carriers.
Is it even possible for a new competitor to enter the market at this moment?

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by oPless · 2012-01-11 22:31 · Score: 1

I think in the UK only O2 has 'visual voicemail'
Don't want it, don't need it.
Why the hell can't I edit/override my own APN data on the iPhone?
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by PopeRatzo · 2012-01-12 00:48 · Score: 2

The US is fucked, because of the incestuous relationship
between government and corporations
There is no inherent incestuous relationship between government and corporations. That relationship is between corporations and politicians. Break that relationship and you stop the incest.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 00:51 · Score: 0

People do stupid shit just to get an iphone. news at 11.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 03:27 · Score: 0

Well, At least you're arrogant enough to be blind to your own stupidity. Take that as some sort of comfort.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by EvilBudMan · 2012-01-12 06:21 · Score: 1

You don't have a choice with AT&T or Verizon for that matter and then there is tethering. If we don't use their data we should have to pay for it and if we do we shouldn't have to pay for it twice. People say I don't want the government telling me what to do but they obviously need to tell every major provider what to do for billing you for stuff you don't use.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by EvilBudMan · 2012-01-12 06:28 · Score: 1

Comcast is probably the worst company ever but it's because the government lets them buy everything. A content provider ought to be separate from a data provider or there is one large conflict of interest but I guess it's OK to help out less than 1% of the population at the expense of the other 99.5% of US citizens.
So there you go the worst is the US government. They steal more than the rest put together.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by TemporalBeing · 2012-01-12 10:28 · Score: 1

Neither iPhones nor Android phones require a data plan to operate as far as I'm aware. Mobile providers will certainly tell you that they do, but it simply isn't true. I gave my old G1 to my stepson and disabled its ability to send data thoroughly (disable APNs, disable mobile data, etc). It worked just fine - it would sync on WiFi and otherwise work like a feature phone on the cell network.
AT&T's contract with Apple for getting the iPhone first was that they had to require a data plan with it, and a very specific data plan at that. It's not public about whether any other phone manufacturer did that too, but not likely. More likely than not, AT&T just used it as a way to move all smart phones to requiring data plans, which they do - anything with a keyboard or touch screen requires a data plan of some kind; if just a keyboard then a very cheap text-only plan; but any touch screen requires a full-on data plan.

That's not to say you can't skirt it. I have no data services enabled period on my plan for any of my phones. Yet I have an Nexus One myself (everyone else has a feature phone at the moment); but no data plan for even the Nexus One. AT&T knows about the Nexus One; but again, they don't see any data traffic (I removed the settings, and disabled it so it only uses Wifi for data).

What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by Rich0 · 2012-01-13 00:49 · Score: 1

What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.
The OP didn't buy their iPhone from ATT, however. Near-monopoly communications providers shouldn't be allowed to enter into exclusive agreements in the first place, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to extend that agreement to equipment they never sold/etc.
Re:Screw AT&T, I could care less what they do by TemporalBeing · 2012-01-13 02:11 · Score: 1

What I did with my N1 is probably harder to do with an iPhone; but the OP shouldn't have been too surprised. Next time they should buy an Android phone that way instead.
The OP didn't buy their iPhone from ATT, however. Near-monopoly communications providers shouldn't be allowed to enter into exclusive agreements in the first place, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to extend that agreement to equipment they never sold/etc.
Supposedly they will charge data plans on ANY phone that meets their requirements for requiring one whether or not they sold the phone. I probably am not getting charged for it as I don't ever do any data over their network period, but if you leave the network enabled then they probably get some data and make the detection that you need it and thereby charge you. So I don't know how they make the determination; but I wouldn't be surprised if their contract with Apple was such that they just detect that the iPhone is there and to keep from sanctions they just go ahead and start charging what is required per the contract.

I do agree that they should not be allowed to do that; but until someone takes them to court over it and wins without settling, they'll probably continue to do so.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)

Apple and Google could roll out their own networks by Nova+Express · 2012-01-11 12:42 · Score: 1

They just see no reason to spend the $20 billion or so it would take to do it. That's far from chump change, but both doable for those companies. But why build it yourself if you can get common carriers to carry it cheaper than you can build it? And who knows how much dark fiber is already laid out there?

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

S2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 12:45 · Score: 0

Amazon have lost an S somewhere?

I'm confused by viperidaenz · 2012-01-11 12:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is this "the ultimate walled garden"? There are no walls. Are they going to stop customers using the iPhone App Store and the Android Market Place and force them all to use/purchase their new "apps"? That'll go down well.

Re:I'm confused by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-11 12:55 · Score: 5, Funny

How is this "the ultimate walled garden"? There are no walls. Are they going to stop customers using the iPhone App Store and the Android Market Place and force them all to use/purchase their new "apps"? That'll go down well.
According to TFA,

it would be like CompuServe, if CompuServe owned the phone company.

So, I'm envisioning this as a text based BBS running at 1200 baud over copper POTS. I really didn't realize that AT&T had a strong retro streak, but the longer I think about it, the more it makes sense.
Using analog modems at 1200 baud was the last time that AT&T managed to keep up with the data flow. It went downhill from there....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:I'm confused by Charliemopps · 2012-01-11 15:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

They already do this on all the non-smart phones. They all have "apps" and "Games" but you can only buy them from the carrier. This, in fact, is exactly the sort of thing they want to do. You can only get video from them. You can only get apps from them. It's all for your own security of course. Those nasty viruses and hackers oh my!
Re:I'm confused by gl4ss · 2012-01-11 16:08 · Score: 1

How is this "the ultimate walled garden"? There are no walls. Are they going to stop customers using the iPhone App Store and the Android Market Place and force them all to use/purchase their new "apps"? That'll go down well.
the wall is your extremely limited data allowance. figure it out.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:I'm confused by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-12 01:02 · Score: 1

Using analog modems at 1200 baud was the last time that AT&T managed to keep up with the data flow. It went downhill from there....
Yes, but that was not the same company as the one that is called AT&T today. that was a company that was actually competent at what they did (although it was no better at customer service than the current company of the same name...maybe even worse, if you can imagine that).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 02:29 · Score: 0

And usernames like "433234"
Re:I'm confused by tlhIngan · 2012-01-12 04:09 · Score: 1

They already do this on all the non-smart phones. They all have "apps" and "Games" but you can only buy them from the carrier. This, in fact, is exactly the sort of thing they want to do. You can only get video from them. You can only get apps from them. It's all for your own security of course. Those nasty viruses and hackers oh my!
All carriers do that. In fact, "featurephones" have always been walled gardens of pain. If you're a developer, you have to make individual contracts with every carrier if you want to publish a mobile game. And every phone has its own quirks, so even though a carrier may offer say, 20 different phones right now, you really only can support 4 or 5, and none of last month's series of phones.
Ditto media. Hell, some carriers charged to have you download your photos from your cameraphone (before everyone standardized on USB - proprietary cables were everywhere and cost a ton of money just to copy your photos off).
With the proliferation of smartphones though, even walled gardens like Apple's are much easier to break into for the average joe than for featurephones.
Re:I'm confused by EvilBudMan · 2012-01-12 06:29 · Score: 1

AT&T will just not allow you to sideload off of Amazon unless Amazon gives them a kickback.
Re:I'm confused by EvilBudMan · 2012-01-12 06:37 · Score: 1

I even found one that would let you play music unless it was in mono if you copied it over yourself. Facebook, and email was there, but everything else you had to buy from them. Anymore there are more wifi hotspots than AT&T's 3G towers. So you have a choice but only from one garden to the next. At least Verizon allows sideloading on all of the Android devices that I have seen.
Re:I'm confused by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-12 06:49 · Score: 1

And usernames like "433234"
I think it was more like 71427,5516 - which, IIRC, was my Compuserve number way back when.
Man, if that's actually correct my memory might not be as bad off as I thought. Of course, remembering perfectly useless numbers from decades ago doesn't typically get one very far in day to day affairs. In fact, even pretty advanced Alzheimer's patients can often remember old phone numbers and social security numbers.
Now I'm all depressed again.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Apple and Google could roll out their own netwo by olsmeister · 2012-01-11 12:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, never say never...

missing an important part by khallow · 2012-01-11 12:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

What I don't see here is inhabitants. There are plenty of examples of vendor lock-in, but these require a valuable service or perhaps "killer app" that lures customers in and keeps them there. AT&T doesn't have that. If I can't use their services to communicate with the world outside (the "walled garden" thing), then what's the lock-in that will keep me using this service? At least Apple and Google have something that could in theory keep people locked in to their respective services.

Re:missing an important part by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 13:33 · Score: 0

With this sort of thing it is a lock into an interface that you use to scale your application across servers. This is more akin to competing against Amazon, Akamai and Verizon in this space.
Re:missing an important part by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 13:38 · Score: 0

Cloud services is what I am guessing they are talking about. AT&T could provide far better bandwidth to their own systems.
Re:missing an important part by berashith · 2012-01-11 15:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

AT&T doesnt have the killer app, but they have the app store killer. The android market place and apple app store give access to customers to developers for the platform. ATT can circumvent those by supplying their own store with access to all of their customers ( which is a huge base). Platform wont matter, and apps written will have APIs into many ATT services... you need identity, music services , TV (u-verse) , all linked in through their own playground with their own tools. By pushing to hmtl5, the restrictions on what gets approved to the iphone is circumvented.
Most of this article is speculation and wrong, but there is an interesting play by ATT to become more than just a line operator and carrier. The biggest miss in the article is the assumption that wireline services are important to this effort. ATT knows that sending a signal through copper , and renting that access to everyone is not where the big profits are at. They want the 30% cut of everyone else's ideas, and to facilitate the next twitter or facebook from within their control, so they wont just be a simple supplier to the ones making huge profits.
Re:missing an important part by CAIMLAS · 2012-01-11 16:22 · Score: 1

Exactly. All the carriers tried this during the infancy of cellular phones. It didn't work out well for the companies which were behind the curve and tried to continue restricting their users long-term.
Hell, even Verizon has basically abandoned their efforts at uniform restriction. It doesn't work out well for them: they try to sell it as a bonus, but in the end it's a restriction when advancement occurs elsewhere.
Also, I still haven't figured out what this has to do with OpenStack. OpenStack is good sense. I'm implementing it locally because, again, it's good sense. I fail to see what this has to do with walled gardens or how it's different than, say, a shitton of physical hardware in that regard.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:missing an important part by Etcetera · 2012-01-11 17:22 · Score: 1

Hell, even Verizon has basically abandoned their efforts at uniform restriction. It doesn't work out well for them: they try to sell it as a bonus, but in the end it's a restriction when advancement occurs elsewhere.
I'm not sure who their supplier is, but the Verizon Navigator driving directions are far and away superior to Google Maps here in San Diego (and a lot of CA, it seemed this summer). More than worth the $10/month fee for me. YMMV.

--
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Re:missing an important part by khallow · 2012-01-11 19:01 · Score: 1

ATT can circumvent those by supplying their own store with access to all of their customers ( which is a huge base)
Why are their customers going to buy apps? That's not why they're customers.
Re:missing an important part by berashith · 2012-01-11 23:36 · Score: 1

It is an option that ATT can offer. If I tried to open Joe's app store, no one would bother with it... what could i offer that would give reason for people to choose to shop there, or developers to work with me for marketing? Well, ATT has the reason for devs to go there, to the tune of millions of eyeballs, and there are plenty of those they can re-direct without them realizing what is happening. Many customers will just see an options portal to control their account.

Backup will be easy... by Electrawn · 2012-01-11 13:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

... Just ask the friendly NSA guy in the datacenter for a copy of your data.

Seriously, would anyone trust their (cloud) data to T after the NSA thing?

In doubt... by migla · 2012-01-11 13:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

To be on the safe side we should all probably always use AGPL and/or GPLv3 for everything. We can always go less restrictive, but motherfuckers will want to pervert the idea of sharing and openness, so just go full RMS from the start and loosen the restraints as you go along, if appropriate.

That's just 2 cents that happened to drop into my drunken brain at this period in history, and they seem like they're making sense.

--
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.

Re:In doubt... by Teckla · 2012-01-12 08:40 · Score: 1

Ah, good old Slashdot. Pro GPL comments always go +5, Insightful and anti GPL comments always go -1, Troll, no matter what. This will be no exception, but I feel compelled to respond in case there is anyone left on Slashdot that is not completely brainwashed.

To be on the safe side we should all probably always use AGPL and/or GPLv3 for everything. We can always go less restrictive...
No. No, no, no. A thousand times no. GPL source code tends to attract more and more contributors. Over time, you have so many contributors that "going back" to another license becomes practically impossible, because at some point you can't successfully contact them all and get them all to agree to a license change. This was RMS's plan from the start -- for GPL to spread in this fashion. If you don't believe me, go look it up.
When that happens, you can't "go back" to a less restrictive license. To do something as simple as change the license... you have to do a full rewrite.
This is one reason why I'm not a fan of the GPL -- it becomes increasingly unlikely to ever be able make a license change over time, and I think that's an awfully bad thing for people.
Re:In doubt... by TemporalBeing · 2012-01-12 10:48 · Score: 1

No. No, no, no. A thousand times no. GPL source code tends to attract more and more contributors. Over time, you have so many contributors that "going back" to another license becomes practically impossible, because at some point you can't successfully contact them all and get them all to agree to a license change. This was RMS's plan from the start -- for GPL to spread in this fashion. If you don't believe me, go look it up.
When that happens, you can't "go back" to a less restrictive license. To do something as simple as change the license... you have to do a full rewrite.
This is one reason why I'm not a fan of the GPL -- it becomes increasingly unlikely to ever be able make a license change over time, and I think that's an awfully bad thing for people.
Well, there's another solution to the issue - and that is Copyright License Assignment/Agreement (CLA), which by the way the FSF requires. So FSF can change their licenses at any time - they could go proprietary with all the FSF/GNU code if they liked as they own all the copyrights for that code. But whether or not copyright assignments are a good thing is still to be decided.

Linux, on the other hand, is in the situation you refer as they don't use copyright assignments; so everything has to be GPLv2 compatible for licenses. OpenOffice proper (Sun->Oracle->Apache) is under a CLA; as is most Apache software to my understanding; as such Sun could transfer to Oracle which could transfer to Apache all the official OpenOffice code; meanwhile LibreOffice does not have a CLA and as such they cannot necessarily contribute their changes back to OpenOffice (the individual authors have to in order to make the license switch to the Apache license) and they may find themselves in a fractured state as a result at some point. But again - the jury is out on whether that is a good or bad thing.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:In doubt... by migla · 2012-01-15 10:15 · Score: 1

[...]Over time, you have so many contributors that "going back" to another license becomes practically impossible, because at some point you can't successfully contact them all and get them all to agree to a license change.
Ah, yes, there is that, of course. Good point. All the other contributors are within their rights to not go along with a licence change or to remain unreachable in the future.
So, if it is looking like one gets lots of contributors, one should take a look at what they want, lest they'd be "locked in" to the GPL.
Going less restrictive at that point might attract and/or repel contributors. Not an easy choice, perhaps, but going BSD-like from the start won't offer that choice at all.
So the original point still stands.

--
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.

In my experience... by feepness · 2012-01-11 13:33 · Score: 2

AT&T often doesn't have the network either.

AT&T to take on AWS? by AlienSexist · 2012-01-11 13:43 · Score: 2

Oh goodness no. Speaking from past dealings with AT&T hosting services they are the absolute last enterprise you would want to deal with. By far the worst of about 6 datacenters / co-location facilities I've used. Lowest quality at maximum price. One could only hope that AT&T will at least try to do a good job and offer some real competition in this space. If OpenStack will be driving all of the technology and AT&T just provides bandwidth then perhaps there is a chance for this to work. It would take far more than competitive pricing to encourage me to ever entrust AT&T with hosting responsibilities again. I do welcome choice however.

Re:AT&T to take on AWS? by dave562 · 2012-01-11 15:50 · Score: 1

Which data center were you in? Which other data centers are you comparing it to? We're co-located in an AT&T facility and I am constantly told by colleagues who have equipment in other centers that ours is much nicer than theirs. We've been there for seven years and never had a single facilities related issue.

S3, Not S2 by Slashdot+Parent · 2012-01-11 14:47 · Score: 2

Simple Storage Service. S3. There is no S2.

--
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock

Good luck with that by JoeCommodore · 2012-01-11 14:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Having used their hosting services, I'd be surprised if they could offer anything that would minimally verge on competition, except the part about them owning the wires too. Their hosting servers were abysmal, email sucked and IIRC then - it was cleartext passwords for email accounts. Unless they significantly added/fostered talent in the systems administration I don't think buying themselves into the market will help.

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield

I really don't get it by Ramin_HAL9001 · 2012-01-11 15:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yet another fail for IT World as far as I can tell; I haven't read a single good or informative article from that site.

When I think "walled garden", I think all services work on a single, proprietary platform, and that platform is owned by one company that controls what services are allowed with that platform, and what services are not. So unless AT&T owned every cable in the world (or even every cable in the US), which they don't, and even if every cable in the world used a communications protocol owned by AT&T (which isn't the case) then there is no platform, and so there can't be any walled garden.

So this Brian Proffitt guy has blown things out of proportion. A better headline would have been, "AT&T Plans to Throw its Hat into the Cloud Computing Ring." This isn't a walled garden, it is more like, "Hey, we have built large systems interconnected computers before, lets do it again with the lovable OpenStack running on top of it and sell it to guys who want cloud services!"

It makes sense to me by dave562 · 2012-01-11 15:48 · Score: 1

AT&T has data centers all over the globe. They already offer managed hosting services, in additional to traditional co-location agreements. A technology like OpenStack that allows users to self provision infrastructure services seems like a no brainer to me.

Re:It makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 19:41 · Score: 0

Yup. If anything AT&T already had the makings of a semi-walled garden (for customers that chose to use all of their stuff), and this OpenStack deal *decreases* lock-in. OpenStack is, in fact, an open standard. If you write your infrastructure configuration to deploy on AT&T's OpenStack-based services, that means it will be relatively easy to pick up and move to a different OpenStack-based cloud provider.
Amazon's the one building the walled garden. Luckily they don't take issue with people copying and genericizing their API, but still, once you go full-on AWS with your infrastructure, there's a level of inherent lock-in because a good number of AWS services have no counterpart in competing clouds.

lol brian profitt again? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 16:22 · Score: 0

Yay! Slashdot picks up another idiotic article from freetarded turd Brian Profitt. So how many of his grand predictions have been correct? Right, not many if any.

Re:Apple and Google could roll out their own netwo by cshark · 2012-01-11 17:19 · Score: 1

Yep. They're rolling out in my neighborhood, here in Kansas City in March. I love Google.

--

This signature has Super Cow Powers

bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 18:34 · Score: 0

Since when is anything made built by AT&T considered a "garden"?

Tech world by dutchwhizzman · 2012-01-11 18:54 · Score: 0

Most of the tech world happens outside of the USA, in countries like China and India. AT&T doesn't have a lot to say or do in those countries, so people that still live in a free market world aren't influenced by AT&T. You might want to look at what a market economy, or a democracy is and compare it to the USA system if you are bothered by the way AT&T gets to do business in your country. Sure, the rest of the planet isn't perfect, but don't call your one country the world.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?

Damn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 21:42 · Score: 0

I'm tired of this "walled garden" thing. Can't you people make up other words for closed environments?

Why is it an issue since it is openstack? by buchanmilne · 2012-01-11 23:50 · Score: 2

"The announcement earlier this week that AT&T joined OpenStack, was greeted with much fanfare (of the 'woo hoo for open source' variety). But dig into why AT&T decided to sign up for OpenStack and things get a lot more interesting.

Would it be any better if AT&T used VMWare Cloud Director and other proprietary tools instead?

Why is it that a company that already provides physical server hosting (as most Telcos do) providing better virtual hosting (which most Telcos want to do) suddenly the creation of a walled garden?

Re:Why is it an issue since it is openstack? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 23:59 · Score: 1

Because "walled garden" is a buzzword. What else would you expect from bullshit press like ITWorld? Prioritizing synergized deep innovative buzzword integration in headlines and articles incentivizes target audience, which provides better monetization opportunities for social media, increasing RoI.

Re:app store killer by TaoPhoenix · 2012-01-12 00:35 · Score: 1

I've idly wondered "what random new service could beat out the App store and/or Facebook?" And thinking that the possible answer could be "The Telcos" just really makes me start thinking of whether I want to be in a pit of snakes or a pit of scorpions.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Correction:s/^No/^So/; s/ usual/ UNusual/ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 00:54 · Score: 0

#include <MOARcoffee>
s/^No/^So/; s/ usual/ UNusual/

Walled Ass by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 01:49 · Score: 0

The thing Apple and to a smaller part Google can provide that AT&T can't is interoperability with other devices in the home. THis is only going to expand and will keep these companies and maybe Samsung ahead of anything they try. We've just come off of a carrier only system and it didn't go so well. Apple and Google have innovated and changed the market. They've made the carriers more money than ever but they're still not happy not controlling the whole pie.
Hey Carriers you've failed at this game before.

Slashdot Mirror

Is AT&T Building the Ultimate Walled Garden?

102 comments