AT&T Exempts Itself From Its Data Cap

[SilentPanda]

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/...-violates-leas

Last year, Comcast started exempting its own online video service from the data cap it imposed on consumers. When consumers streamed online video (say, because they were thinking about cutting the cord and replacing their Comcast cable subscription with an online competitor), that video counted against their cap. Unless, of course, that online video came from Comcast. Online video coming from Comcast was exempted from Comcast’s own data cap, giving consumers a disincentive to watch video from a competitor. We urged the FCC to investigate this anticompetitive use of data caps, and are still waiting for a resolution.

Today, while we continue to wait for the FCC to investigate data cap abuse, AT&T has decided to follow suit and exempt data from its own services from the data cap it imposes on its DSL and U-verse customers. Unlike every other type of data on those connections, data from an AT&T wireless phone does not count against the DSL/U-verse cap.

What are your thoughts on this practice? The provider that owns the line can give their content preferential treatment. From a technology standpoint it likely does cost them less to send their own data. But it also means that data not hosted by them is less likely to be accessed if people have data caps. This practice isn't specific to AT&T (as the article states).

[benthewraith]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/...-violates-leas



What are your thoughts on this practice? The provider that owns the line can give their content preferential treatment. From a technology standpoint it likely does cost them less to send their own data. But it also means that data not hosted by them is less likely to be accessed if people have data caps. This practice isn't specific to AT&T (as the article states).

I wonder if this means AT&T is going to start enforcing their U-Verse data cap? As of yet, they haven't. Regular DSL users have received notifications about it.

[ugahairydawgs]

I don't see any problem with that. Just another company leveraging their services for the sake of their ecosystem.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

I don't see any problem with that. Just another company leveraging their services for the sake of their ecosystem.

What if your ISP said "You can go to MacRumors.com for a penny per page or go to MacStuff.yourisp.com for free"?

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

What if your ISP said "You can go to MacRumors.com for a penny per page or go to MacStuff.yourisp.com for free"?

That's not what is happening here though. You're still going to be paying the penny. AT&T is just offering a carrot for their services that if you use them your penny will go a little further.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

That's not what is happening here though. You're still going to be paying the penny. AT&T is just offering a carrot for their services that if you use them your penny will go a little further.

It's exactly what's happening. Video served from their site will not count towards your cap (it's free) but video from a competitor (youtube for instance) will count towards your cap.

[likemyorbs]

Glad I have cablevision. Data caps on home Internet is ridiculous

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

Glad I have cablevision. Data caps on home Internet is ridiculous

The actual topic is on mobile Internet.

[Rodimus Prime]

to me I see massive conflict of interested. Data caps of any type I generally think are crap and pretty much nothing more than a money grab.

[rdowns]

And now we see why ATT and Verizon are opposed to net neutrality.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

That's not what is happening here though. You're still going to be paying the penny. AT&T is just offering a carrot for their services that if you use them your penny will go a little further.

That's exactly what's happening. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple even, are going to continually be squeezed by data limits while service providers will allow you to use their services, data free, to access the content they own.

Example, Time Warner owns media company X, they sell you your Internet and are the only provider in town. Then they hit you with a "modest" data cap of 20gb per month. You want to buy a hit tv show season that media company X produces, but it's going to count 8gbs on your data cap to buy from iTunes, where it's data free from Time Warner.

See where this is going? Because I do, and I don't like it.

Would you like it if your electric company decided what brand devices you could run, and how long?

[MacNut]

This proves that there is no issue with bandwidth or network restrictions, it's all about the ISP not wanting you to use outside products. The same bits are going through the pipe be it ATT or Netflix.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by MacNut

This proves that there is no issue with bandwidth or network restrictions, it's all about the ISP not wanting you to use outside products. The same bits are going through the pipe be it ATT or Netflix.

It doesn't actually prove that. Crappy ASCII diagram incoming!

Phone <---> AT&T servers with AT&T content <---> Netflix

Since you're on the AT&T network, all your data obviously comes through their servers. If they attach their content servers directly to this, the content comes straight from them. Netflix has to come from Netflix, through AT&T servers, then out to you. So it could cost more for the extra bandwidth to get the data from an outside source.

I still don't agree with the data capping plan, but it may be cheaper for them this way.

[MacNut]

How is data more expensive for AT&T, they own a lot of the infrastructure. It costs more for Google or Netflix but not AT&T. They are one of the big boys who build the back bone. I say AT&T meaning the original company not SBC.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by MacNut

How is data more expensive for AT&T, they own a lot of the infrastructure. It costs more for Google or Netflix but not AT&T. They are one of the big boys who build the back bone. I say AT&T meaning the original company not SBC.

Just because you own the infrastructure doesn't make it free. Somebody still has to pay the gas bill.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by eric/

That's exactly what's happening. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple even, are going to continually be squeezed by data limits while service providers will allow you to use their services, data free, to access the content they own.

Example, Time Warner owns media company X, they sell you your Internet and are the only provider in town. Then they hit you with a "modest" data cap of 20gb per month. You want to buy a hit tv show season that media company X produces, but it's going to count 8gbs on your data cap to buy from iTunes, where it's data free from Time Warner.

See where this is going? Because I do, and I don't like it.

Would you like it if your electric company decided what brand devices you could run, and how long?

Fair enough. When I first saw it I saw AT&T and was only thinking mobile. Push it to home internet use and it becomes a horse of a different color for sure.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

Just because you own the infrastructure doesn't make it free. Somebody still has to pay the gas bill.

And they charge enough in internet fees to be able to cover it. There is no need for data caps of any kind. It is all a ploy to force you to use their cable services and not Netflix.

[j.dstasio]

Am I missing something???

In reading the article, it sounds like all they are doing is exempting the data consumed by the use of an At&t MicroCell from counting against the cap.

Correct?

That doesn't seem horribly unfair to me.

[mobilehaathi]

Originally Posted by eric/

That's exactly what's happening. Companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple even, are going to continually be squeezed by data limits while service providers will allow you to use their services, data free, to access the content they own.

Example, Time Warner owns media company X, they sell you your Internet and are the only provider in town. Then they hit you with a "modest" data cap of 20gb per month. You want to buy a hit tv show season that media company X produces, but it's going to count 8gbs on your data cap to buy from iTunes, where it's data free from Time Warner.

See where this is going? Because I do, and I don't like it.

Would you like it if your electric company decided what brand devices you could run, and how long?

Well it finally happened. I agree with everything you said here!

I wonder if you would consider transforming Internet service into behaving more like a utility.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by mobilehaathi

Well it finally happened. I agree with everything you said here!

I wonder if you would consider transforming Internet service into behaving more like a utility.

haha.

It was tough trying to articulate that little paragraph to drive the point home.

But yes, I think that the Internet should be treated as a public utility. To me it's basically a digital road, and you wouldn't but caps on where people can drive on the road would you?

[mobilehaathi]

Originally Posted by eric/

haha.

It was tough trying to articulate that little paragraph to drive the point home.

But yes, I think that the Internet should be treated as a public utility. To me it's basically a digital road, and you wouldn't but caps on where people can drive on the road would you?

I have to agree. Internet communication has moved beyond mere luxury. It is now nearly required for conducting business on many levels. This leads me to believe that treating it as a public utility is in everyone's best interest.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by eric/

haha.

It was tough trying to articulate that little paragraph to drive the point home.

But yes, I think that the Internet should be treated as a public utility. To me it's basically a digital road, and you wouldn't but caps on where people can drive on the road would you?

Tolls are roads are more expensive during rush(peak) hour so actually they are trying to cap the amount of people on roads at certain times of the day.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

Tolls are roads are more expensive during rush(peak) hour so actually they are trying to cap the amount of people on roads at certain times of the day.

So what does a data cap do to prevent peak hours?

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by eric/

So what does a data cap do to prevent peak hours?

Beats me. I was just addressing the analogy.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

Beats me. I was just addressing the analogy.

Well, if you wanted to address it then you would have to come up with a much more elaborate one. One involving ATT+media company controlling the roads, and not charging you to go through their tolls compared to charging you to go through Apple's tolls, to get to the same place where you buy the same thing from ATT+media company.