Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Introduces "Sponsored Data" Allowing Services to Bypass 4G Data Caps
sirhan writes with news that AT&T has announced a program that allows companies to pay for their services to bypass mobile data caps. "With the new Sponsored Data service, data charges resulting from eligible uses will be billed directly to the sponsoring company ... Customers will see the service offered as AT&T Sponsored Data, and the usage will appear on their monthly invoice as Sponsored Data. Sponsored Data will be delivered at the same speed and performance as any non-Sponsored Data content." The Verge comments: "If YouTube doesn't hit your data cap but Vimeo does, most people are going to watch YouTube. If Facebook feels threatened by Snapchat and launches Poke with free data, maybe it doesn't get completely ignored and fail. If Apple Maps launched with free data for navigation, maybe we'd all be driving off bridges instead of downloading Google Maps for iOS."
Or, think of distributed services: Mediagoblin vs Flickr, pump.io vs twitter, ownCloud vs Google Apps. This is probably a sign that data caps are here to stay, at least for AT&T subscribers (and if it's successful...).
And thus begins the balkanized internet and the end of network neutrality, where service providers can start negotiating big bundle provisioning of their services over others.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This is bad for the market. The glory of the internet is that the barrier ro entry is so low. IF you start making it to where a company has to pay for the bandwidth of its users, then you raise the barrier of entry. Not good for innovation.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
while at the same time giving their customers a bit less
FTFY. Remember the days when AT&T actually gave you unlimited service (back when "unlimited" actually meant "unlimited")? Remember how angry we were when they introduced the data cap?
Palm trees and 8
It's just a repackaging of the old net-discrimination ideas that provoked the Net Neutrality debate.
Make data allowances artificially low, and charge content providers to "ensure" they are not throttled. It's not in the interests of consumers, and it's not in the interests of content providers.
I can see why AT&T might like it though...
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
The issue with wireless data is entirely about last mile, the frequencies alotted and the limits of transfer within a cell at any given moment. Peering works on wired networks because throughput on the last mile outstrips deployment, the exact opposite issue of wireless networks.
Arguing that their obscene data caps are because of the wireless bandwith limits, then turning around and offering this without any true benefit to their bandwith issue other than their bottom line, is assinine.
For something to be win-win, it requires two parties to simultaneously "win". In this case, the only "winner" would be AT&T.
And it rather gives lie to what they claimed to be the entire point of data caps in the first place - to help prevent over-saturation and congestion of their wireless networks. If there isn't enough bandwidth, then there isn't enough bandwidth - it doesn't matter whether or not both ends of a TCP connection pay, or only one.
In theory it's possible to provide more bandwith if there's more revene coming in topay for the infrastructure.
In theory AT&T should be using some of their $3+ Billion per quarter profits to pay for infrastructure upgrades rather than claiming they don't have enough money so they can justify throttling services, applying ridiculous caps and ensuring consumer prices remain high.
You never actually had unlimited transfer quota, at the prices they were charging you it was physically impossible just due to the way spectrum works. What changed is that perhaps truth in advertising became more important (hah), or perhaps peoples understanding of what a gigabyte is got better so it became easier to tell it like it is.
So, the original reason for data caps were that a few unscrupulous users were hogging all of the bandwidth and making everyone else suffer through a poor network experience...
I guess either that wasn't the real reason or AT&T doesn't mind if you have a poor network experience as long as they get more money...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
In theory it's possible to provide more bandwith if there's more revene coming in topay for the infrastructure.
In theory AT&T should be using some of their $3+ Billion per quarter profits to pay for infrastructure upgrades rather than claiming they don't have enough money so they can justify throttling services, applying ridiculous caps and ensuring consumer prices remain high.
Why? They're a for-profit business and they have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder return. They don't claim they don't have enough money -- they're under no obligation to offer unlimited services. They're under one and only one obligation -- maximize profit. You, as a consumer, can choose to buy their service or not. If enough people end up in "not" then maximizing their profits will mean doing something different.
That's the way business works.
They have received much in the way of Federal subsidies to upgrade their infrastructure. If they are not going ot do that, then they should be paying it back with high interest.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
This is anti-net neutrality under a different name. The throttle mechanism is supra-data cap charges instead of literal throttling.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If that's the terms the government wants, they can set those terms.
Since AT&T's lobbyists were responsible for most of the terms, I'm comfortable with Vanderhoth's original assessment. Just because our government representatives were corrupted doesn't mean AT&T is in the right.
They're a for-profit business and they have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder return.
This idea always shows up whenever business is mentioned on slashdot. There is NO legal requirement to maximize profits, shareholder return or even to try to make a profit. The board of directors might get voted out if they keep making bad choices but that is by vote of shareholders, not a legal process.
You should read Google's SEC filings that say something like "we will do whatever we feel like doing even though some of those choices will cause a loss for the company."
Caesors Palace (Las Vegas) destroyed about 90% of the value of the company in the 80's to avoid a hostle takeover. As a shareholder I lost a boatload of money on that one but there was no legal recourse except voting to kick out the board of directors at the next shareholder meeting.
Dyslexics Untie!
There's a lot netflix could do to make this less of a pain in the ass for the ISPs but so far they've been total asshats about the situation.
I disagree about the claim that Netflix is not trying to help the situation. After all they did introduce Open Connect (http://gigaom.com/2013/11/11/netflixs-new-pitch-for-open-connect-it-sucks-less-during-prime-time/) to address this situation. Basically they told ISPs that they would provide a content delivery network that would be colocated on their system to relieve network stresses. Netflix provides the hardware for free and all the ISP has to do is hook it up to their network and provide the space/power for the hardware. On top of that, it gives the ISP participating in Open Connect a competitive advantage since the Netflix streams can be higher resolution than other ISPs that do not participate.
Rather than being an "asshat" this seems to be going above and beyond to provide the ISPs with a solution for the claimed problems. Of course the real issue is that the ISPs (usually cable) are upset that Netflix is rapidly turning them into a dumb pipe and cannibalizing their ad revenue. However, the ISPs know that this is not a customer friendly argument so they make the, seemingly reasonable, argument about the heavy network utilization saturating. Netflix provided a solution to the stated problem, but not the real one (i.e. cable company greed).
It is also important to remember that the reason people pay the ISP for internet access is to have access to services like Netflix. If those services were not available, the ISPs would have less customers. If anything the ISPs should be thanking companies like Netflix, Google, etc. for providing content that people want and therefore compel them to want to buy internet access in the first place.
It's nothing less than turning an inherently peer-to-peer medium for expression into Cable TV 2.0. It's pretty much explicitly designed to stifle new innovation (whether created by a fledgling company or especially when created as an open, distributed/self-hosted protocol) in favor of large entrenched players like Google and Facebook.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz