Is AT&T Building the Ultimate Walled Garden?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is AT&T Building the Ultimate Walled Garden?

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @12:27PM from the you-can-checkout-any-time-you-like-but-you-can-never-leave dept.

itwbennett writes "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. 'AT&T is about to take on Amazon's EC2 and S2 cloud services, and OpenStack's technology is going to be the engine that drives it,' writes blogger Brian Profit. 'Leaving aside the potential problems for user privacy here — and oh, there are many to be addressed to be sure — a plan such as this would represent a stunning coup for AT&T, since they would be able to provide the one thing Apple and Google have not been able to have in their respective plans to own the entire stack: the network on which all communications must flow.'"

29 of 102 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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
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.
1. 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!
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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".
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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!
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
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.
1. 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!
2. 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: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.
1. 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.
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.
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.
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!"
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?