Some people don't work in an office. They work out "in the field" so to speak, and that is where this may come in handy for businesses.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Introduces 'Sponsored Data' to Allow Businesses to Cover Cost of Mobile Data Downloads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some people don't work in an office. They work out "in the field" so to speak, and that is where this may come in handy for businesses.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AT&T took the risk, and did one bang up job handling the onslaught of the smartphone era. It's pathetic to see all these folks who want everything for free. AT&T is a BUSINESS. They have to answer to shareholders. They can't build the largest and fastest (BY FAR) network in the world and then provide it for free.
Many of these folks posting here are jokes and its a shame...
If you think about this idea, it allows companies to pickup the tab for your business. They will likely get a better rate and that lower cost will trickle down through basic economics....
Funny, it T-Mobile had this idea, all the leeches would be singing their praises
Because your might want to allow your end users to download the subsidized content even when away from your WiFi network?
There's a fine line between wanting something for free cuz you're a cheapskate, and complaining when you're being gouged by the telcos yet again.
Every time AT&T, Verizon, et al. offer up some too-good-to-be-true plan or promotion, I always end up digging through the fine print to see exactly how and where they're overcharging me.
It would be a perk that need not exist any more.
It's basically saying that if you download whatever app facilitates using your personal device for work purposes, you'll never see the data use from that App hit your statement.
If my employer got on board with this, I'd get to use my work app as much as I need without biting into my personal allotment. My "reimbursement" through my employee doesn't scale with the data I use for work, it's a flat rate.
I'd no longer see that reimbursement, but work apps would no longer take a hit to your own data cap.
Actually, I thought it was Cingular that agreed to take the initial risk, and then was absorbed by AT&T. At that point, AT&T needed something to make them stand out from the pack. They agreed to demands from Apple that other companies thought were outrageous (including those now-missed "unlimited data" plans). I don't think that AT&T knew at the time how much of a game-changer the iPhone would be. But now that smartphones are basically standard mobile devices, AT&T is looking to maximize its profit any way it can.
Although I like AT&T's coverage and service, I can no longer justify the excessive monthly cost compared to so many other alternatives that are now available.
what about something like Netflix offering to use their service in a streaming manner over 3G/4G/LTE and you don't get "charged" the data for it?
You pay them a monthly fee...Netflix pays ATT a cheaper data fee than you or me because they buy in bulk. This is "good" for ATT and Netflix as ATT can say using Netflix is no charge to data on our network. Netflix can gain MORE customers as it says on "x" plan you are free to stream and won't be charged for data.
Sure, there are smaller developers/businesses that have apps that cannot do this and it stinks but there are some people who don't like the "big guys" and will already/continue to buy into the smaller developer's apps.
You pay them a monthly fee...Netflix pays ATT a cheaper data fee than you or me because they buy in bulk. This is "good" for ATT and Netflix as ATT can say using Netflix is no charge to data on our network. Netflix can gain MORE customers as it says on "x" plan you are free to stream and won't be charged for data.
Sure, there are smaller developers/businesses that have apps that cannot do this and it stinks but there are some people who don't like the "big guys" and will already/continue to buy into the smaller developer's apps.
Net Neutrality laws are there to make sure the internet works for everyone without the telcos getting in the way.
I can't think of any American companies that are more anti-consumer than wireless service providers. It's insulting and depressing and I'm so so done with it all, and all the happier for it.
I suppose maybe those payday loan businesses could be worse, but who else really?
I suppose maybe those payday loan businesses could be worse, but who else really?
AT&T HATED iPhone. Steve Jobs had to practically sue them to honor the contract with CINGULAR that Apple made before AT&T played their little games to corner the wireless market.
AT&T has always been the LAST if the worldwide vendors to implement iPhone network features, often over a year after Apple added them. AT&T hates iPhone because it stopped their steady metering out of PHONE features with per-month fees and turned them into a "dumb pipe" (and made them Billions of dollars... When it could have been double the billions with less work on their part)
This is a good idea. Imagine if Netflix, Youtube start paying for our data. They increase traffic to their websites also. They could earn that money back by throwing a few advertisements our way.
It's a win-win for us.
----------
The iPhone wouldn't exist if it wasn't for AT&T. VZW told them to screw off originally.
----------
AT&T hated iPhone so much that it brought them new customers in droves. Customers that upgraded their phones almost yearly and kept extending out the contracts. Customers that didn't mind paying any price to get an iPhone. Customers that pretty much single-handedly paid for all the infrastructure upgrades to their network that makes AT&T by far the fastest and most reliable 4G LTE network.
It's a win-win for us.
----------
This needs to be repeated. All spot on.You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AT&T took the risk, and did one bang up job handling the onslaught of the smartphone era. It's pathetic to see all these folks who want everything for free. AT&T is a BUSINESS. They have to answer to shareholders. They can't build the largest and fastest (BY FAR) network in the world and then provide it for free.
Many of these folks posting here are jokes and its a shame...
If you think about this idea, it allows companies to pickup the tab for your business. They will likely get a better rate and that lower cost will trickle down through basic economics....
Funny, it T-Mobile had this idea, all the leeches would be singing their praises
The iPhone wouldn't exist if it wasn't for AT&T. VZW told them to screw off originally.
----------
AT&T hated iPhone so much that it brought them new customers in droves. Customers that upgraded their phones almost yearly and kept extending out the contracts. Customers that didn't mind paying any price to get an iPhone. Customers that pretty much single-handedly paid for all the infrastructure upgrades to their network that makes AT&T by far the fastest and most reliable 4G LTE network.
A win-win. Sure, if you like monopolies and less choice.
ATT had nothing to do with the iPhone, it was Cingular, which was later purchased by ATT.
The more complicated and contrived it is, the harder it is for the customer to figure out what a shoddy deal they're getting.
So if you end up with an unexpected overage one month, do you argue with AT&T or one of a myriad of data sponsors? They'll all just point the finger at the other guy - so good luck running in circles.
The only sure thing is that AT&T will bill you.
Last edited:
A quick plan to come up with would be separate data plans for unlocked phones. Stop making everyone pay the subsidized data plan rates.
I did, and for ages I said that AT&T AND the US 'subsidized' phone models are the reason we have an iphone, but just take a look at the massive growth in number of subscribers from 2007.
AT&T were key in introducing the iPhone yet, but iPhone didnt' dramatically increase number of subscribers to AT&T. It's a great win/win business deal I guess
This is basically saying they have the bandwidth for these services, paid for by subscribers, but they want to sell the new bandwidth for more money. They have succeeded at turning themselves from "Internet providers" back into "walked gardens" like AOL complete with toll booths. Just like toll roads, they want to make it more difficult for you to stop at the small places, and want you to use the services in their "mall".. Services that will have to pay them kickbacks of their profits, and not just the cost of bandwidth.
Because "residential" bandwidth or hosting on Cable or Telco is outrageously expensive because they have deliberately skewered their peering arrangements. Just like toll roads, they've bully in unnecessary choke points for traffic... And spiked the value of traffic that can easily get in or out thru "their" connections to the Internet.
This is an affront to you the customer because instead if selling to YOU, what YOU have been paying for as a regulated monopoly, they are trying to hold BUSINESS hostage to get to your device...
Other way around. ATTWS was purchased by Cingular after a bidding war with Vodafone in 2004. Cingular and AT&T maintained two different networks (Blue and Orange for those who remember) until about 2005 when they started to combine and dump redundant sites.
The ATTWS name was dumped and it ran under the name of Cingular until late 2006. The iPhone partnership was done under Cingular in 2006. Cingular was the name for the cellular service. AT&T was the name used for data/wireline. It was still AT&T.
Early 2007 (post-BellSouth), they rebranded the entire Cingular division to the "new AT&T." This is why when the original iPhone was shown, there was a cingular logo on the screen, but by the time it came out, the AT&T rebranding had started to take place.
Cliff notes: it's the same company. Cingular rebranded to AT&T. Therefore, it's the same people. Ralph De la Vega signed the iPhone deal back then. He's the CEO now.
Jan. 2007
Around launch
Definitely not a win if I see advertisements. I gladly pay for content that let's me avoid ads. Pay and no ads > free with ads
Yeah, and I'm agreeing with you. I'm all for net neutrality laws. I believe telcos should be nothing more than dumb pipe providers, and shouldn't have the ability to give preferential treatment to their own services over those offered by 3rd parties.
If net neutrality were to fold tomorrow, the only thing consumers would gain would be a bigger bill for the exact same services.
If it's anything like Youtube's current ads, shouldn't be a bad deal. 10 seconds or 5 seconds, then skip.