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...).

Comments

low cunning, not clever

[feepcreature]

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...

Re:low cunning, not clever

[N1AK]

Quickest way to kill this? Google, Facebook and Twitter all bring in a policy saying that they won't pay providers who want to do this and providers doing this must pay them (at the same rate they charge) for all of their bandwidth their customers use or be blocked.

Re:Clever?

[tgd]

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.

Re:Clever?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is anti-net neutrality under a different name. The throttle mechanism is supra-data cap charges instead of literal throttling.

Re:Clever?

[smillie]

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.