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

Clever?

[Vermonter]

This is a clever idea. After all, now they are potentially getting money from deep corporate pockets, while at the same time giving their customers a bit more. Seems like it might be a win-win for AT&T.

Re:Clever?

[betterunixthanunix]

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?

Re:Clever?

[Raumkraut]

Seems like it might be a win-win for AT&T.

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.

Re:Clever?

[Charliemopps]

No, I work in the industry, there actually ISNT enough bandwidth. If this becomes popular, wait for the data caps to get lowered.

The only legitimate argument I've heard for this is that the content providers have been irresponsible with their delivery because it costs them nothing. For example, not allowing users to download off-hours, even encouraging them to all download at peak times, and not using proper compression. If using more bandwidth cost them more money then they'd be more inclined to work with the ISP to reduce the load on the consumers end.

Re:Clever?

[Vanderhoth]

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.

Re:Clever?

[Sarten-X]

Yet AT&T profited by $7.3 billion last year, which is enough to replace 2.3% of their assets (including buildings and wires). They've had sustained profits for many years, but yet there's still not enough bandwidth.

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?

[swv3752]

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.

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?

[Jherek Carnelian]

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.

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.

Re:Clever?

[Rotag_FU]

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.

Re:Clever?

[houstonbofh]

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

No it isn't. Since bandwidth is now a metered product, this is noting more than a network 800 number. The speeds are the same, it is just a question of who pays.

Re:Clever?

[mrchaotica]

this is noting more than a network 800 number

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.

And thus begins the end

[msobkow]

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.

This is bad

[LandDolphin]

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.

Re:This is bad

[Raumkraut]

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.

Internet companies already pay for the bandwidth of their users - all incoming and outgoing traffic to a data centre is bandwidth which the data centre must pay their internet provider to carry.

Re:This is bad

[TWiTfan]

This is bad for the market.

That's unpossible! All my libertarian friends assure me that getting the government off the backs of our noble corporations will result in more freedom and openness, a free market utopia!

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

[DigitalSorceress]

Exactly - it's reverse net-neutrality.

I wonder when wired broadband service providers will do that - as it is, I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity is doing sort of the same thing - I can watch as many things "on demand" on my cable box as I want without touching my bandwidth cap, but if I stream the same movies/shows from Netflix/Hulu, etc... then it does count against my cap (which I will just preach to choir and say "what part of unlimited don't you understand")

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:low cunning, not clever

[jd2112]

Exactly - it's reverse net-neutrality.

I wonder when wired broadband service providers will do that - as it is, I'm pretty sure Comcast/Xfinity is doing sort of the same thing - I can watch as many things "on demand" on my cable box as I want without touching my bandwidth cap, but if I stream the same movies/shows from Netflix/Hulu, etc... then it does count against my cap (which I will just preach to choir and say "what part of unlimited don't you understand")

Unlimited - adj. The amount of money that a service provider can extract from you, either directly or indirectly. e.g. "Comcast offers Unlimited internet connections"

Re:low cunning, not clever

[Anonymous Coward]

This, with a healthy dose of "post it on the top of every page of the site until the issue goes away" at those three sites, and the ISP's will have so much backlash it'll break their necks. Bonus points if they also say "loading this page has cost you $X bytes of data usage against your cap." Extra bonus points if they say "contact $ISPName customer service at $ISPPhoneNumber to ask for a data plan that doesn't have this limit."

Then watch as the fecal material collides with the mechanical cooling device.

Oh? Bandwith caps due to frequencies what?

[PPalmgren]

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.

Double Dipping

[DigiWood]

This is called "double dipping". These providers are not supposed to be able to do this according to the common carrier rules. The subscriber pays and they get their allotment. Any other payments to "overlook" a data cap that are made by a third party violates the common carrier rules because it creates an unfair advantage for large companies. They can afford to pay a fee to basically make the little guy penalized (having the little guys data count against the subscriber). If the subscribers complained to the FCC this pilot project would be stopped dead in its tracks.

I fear though that the only people that would care are the technically minded subscribers. The others would be snowed by some marketing speak.

We are coming full circle

[betterunixthanunix]

There is nothing new under the sun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuServe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cable

Inversion of Control

[Warbothong]

What makes this interesting is the inversion of control. For years, net neutrality has basically hinged on the fact that users are paying their ISP for bandwidth, so it's up to the user what they do with it. This idea completely inverts that, so the user has absolutely no control anymore.

We were worried that walled gardens like Facebook were turning the Web into a consumer service, well this will do the same for the Internet itself.

geezer on the deck.

[nimbius]

the realist in me cant wait for this ayn-rand-as-a-service model to fail quietly another testament to ATT's pissbucket service in general. when given the opportunity, people will find other means to consume their favourite-as-a-service product that dont require sponsorship from some obtuse telecommunications conglomerate. every device on the planet has the option to connect to a wireless network, and that network likely doesnt have the kind of caps we're talking about in 4G land. WiMAX and municipal projects, library wireless and other providers will just make the effort that much more futile.

but im an old man (whats berkley vs ATT?) and the last big innovation for me was adding another monitor. Every turtleneck wearing coffee guzzling poseur giving their IDevice shaken-baby-syndrome in cap-induced frustration is instantly drowned out in the roaring cacophany of my mighty model M. Every tween fruit slashing and bird launching their way to mediocrity, tramp stamps and low test scores, is rendered irrelevant by my Thinkpad TrackPoint, gingerly lubricated in years of fine oils from chester cheetah himself. And the road warrior adjacent my supple yet torturous airport lounge chair gazes upon me as some sort of mystic christgod. For from the aether my sorcery has conjured up hundreds of thousands of documents when his most fervent efforts could not. in bated breath he will ask me, "how?" as his battery fails and his wireless bars recede. "local, repository." will be the words I visit upon him and like a cry so maddening unto his ears he will be rendered forever enlightened.

now if you'll please get off my lawn, I need to go back inside. the wheel is on.

These aren't the facts you're looking for.

[rmdingler]

So you mean the people with the money (corporations) would prefer to censor the information the average citizen has access to?

This would be unprecedented.

The future of the internet

[TWiTfan]

With the end of net neutrality, it was really only a matter of time before we started to see the internet turn into a place where the big companies control the data, and the little guys and startups get shut out. Free market my ass.

What happened to "networks are overloaded"?

[It doesn't come easy]

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...