AT&T Working on System to Allow App Devs to Pay for Customers' Data Usage

[gnasher729]

This is a terrible idea. I honestly can't see anyone taking part in this. "Sure buy my app that doesn't pay a ton to begin with unless I get lucky but here, I'll also pay for your data to download it".

I think it is more for apps that do actually pay money. Like downloading or renting movies from iTunes; I'm sure Apple would get a better price per GB than the end user; the cost would be included in the rental price. Or a company specific app that a company gives to its employees; would be great if the company could pay for data so that employees bringing their own devices don't have to pay for data as well.

 

[nagromme]

So if this supposed “flexibility” is supposed to make it easier to use data bandwidth, and encourage people to download big stuff that they wouldn’t have wanted to before.... how on Earth does that help AT&T’s lack of data capacity in their network? Or do they just want to sell bytes to as many people as possible, no matter how slowly?

Granted, AT&T is nice and fast in my city, but I hear horror stories from some larger cities! It varies by region—and that’s true as LTE rolls out as well.

 

[Can't Stop]

This could possibly be amazing. (Emphasis on the 'could.') It wouldn't' make sense for 95% of apps, but for a choice few this could be game-changing.

Imagine Netflix making a deal with AT&T so that I pay Netflix $2 extra per month and now all my Netflix watching doesn't affect my limit.

If they can work out numbers like that, it'd be worth it.

If they can't, well, no one will sign up for it. So there's no downside for me...either it's a good move for devs or its not. If it's not we'll never see it.

As soon as you realize the fact that a certain amount of such users would again gobble all the bandwidth very fast you understand that it's not a sustainable plan.

 

[mazz0]

It costs them NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to send text messages

Well that's not entirely fair - in order that you are able to send text messages on demand they have to build and maintain a network, both when you're using it and when you're not.

 

[guzhogi]

Something I'd like to know: how will AT&T know whether you're using one of these apps or not?

 

[Daveoc64]

Something I'd like to know: how will AT&T know whether you're using one of these apps or not?

It's very easy to do. Potential options:

Usage of a specific port
Sending data to/from a specific "whitelisted" hostname or IP address
Usage of a different APN

Some carriers already exclude certain web pages or Apps from data allowances/charges. Things like Apps that let you check your account details or software updates on some phones.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

Imagine Netflix making a deal with AT&T so that I pay Netflix $2 extra per month and now all my Netflix watching doesn't affect my limit.

If they can work out numbers like that, it'd be worth it.

Regardless of who pays for the data or how they pay it, bandwidth is bandwidth.

All I see here is a means for AT&T to bill for the same bandwidth twice. Once to the consumer as part of a forced tiered data plan. Then a second time to the content provider. And likely a third time when the content provider resells that chunk of data to the consumer with a markup.

I see nothing here of value to the end user.

 

[newdeal]

this makes perfect sense for something like an apple television. instead of playing for a data plan apple just pays them per unit to allow the user to stream the data over their network and includes it in the cost of the movie

 

[BJMRamage]

Yeah, they have grocery stores. That doesn't hurt the point here. They can sell it to me there and get $X from the grocery store. They can also take it to the ice cream factory and get $1/2 X.

I too saw this as a good thing and was surprised by so many against this.


Though I think it would be awesome I only see a few Apps/companies willing to do it.

Like those listed before let's think NetFlix and Why would AT&T "lose" money from us by selling the data cheaper to NetFlix?
The way I see it is if AT&T could say you can use Netflix anywhere on the AT&T network and not be charged for data, just the subscription price you pay already to NetFlix....don't you think some users might switch to AT&T to be able to do something like that?

This isn't for the FREE apps or Dollar Apps. Doesn't make any sense. What about the Paid Pandora. I know there are some people who stream that all day. I don't because I don't want it eating into my Data Usage. I use my iPod/Music on the phone instead. For any Unlimited user it means "maybe" less chance for getting to that strange Throttling limit. and you'd be using the same amount of data, BUT since the App Developer is buying the DATA for you and in bulk pricing, they know they are getting that extra money coming in and you are "slightly" happy with ATT for NOT throttling them.


So, I see this as a good thing for ATT. I also see this as a way to attract customers and for current customers who are paying a subscription anyway to some services to now be able to use them "free" and still have leftover Data for other things.

--Ready to be called an idiot though--

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Yeah, they have grocery stores. That doesn't hurt the point here. They can sell it to me there and get $X from the grocery store. They can also take it to the ice cream factory and get $1/2 X.

Do you know why that is? Why would that farmer do that? It's the same thing that's going on here, and neither AT&T nor the farmer loses money by doing it.

What this shows is that both of them have excess goods. The farmer CAN'T sell me any more because there's more than enough milk in the store already. I can't drink any more. Likewise, as many have said here, AT&T has more bandwidth than they need. So what to do with it? Well, clearly, selling it to ANYONE at ANY price is better than letting it go to waste.

So that's what they're trying to do. They give better prices to the bulk buyers just so they can get money for what's left over. It'll go to waste otherwise. People won't buy more milk than they can drink and AT&T apparently can't get people to sign up fast enough to use up all their bandwidth.

"But wait," you say. "Doesn't that mean AT&T is charging more than they should? Shouldn't they be giving us 6 GB for $30 then?" Well, that's a nice theory, but now you're thinking like a good ol' socialist like Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela. They like to do things like set price based on production cost.

It's a legitimate viewpoint! You're free to hold it!

But here in the U.S. both Wall Street and the U.S. government tends to favor the 'invisible hand' theory of Adam Smith. That means we base cost on demand. It's just how things are done here. And that invisible hand is telling us that 3 GB for $30 is appropriate.

So AT&T charges that and then they end up with extra bandwidth. They can either let it sit there doing nothing or they can try to sell it to Netflix. That's their motivation...to earn money off of something that's currently doing nothing for them. That's a big win for them if they can pull it off.

You're arguing that the U.S. should be run more like Venezuela and that AT&T should be taking that extra bandwidth and just dividing it up amongst everyone. That's a defensible viewpoint, but very, very unlikely to ever happen anytime in the near future in this country.

I'm not sure what you are smoking, and I don't understand how did Venezuela got into the conversation, but in case you didn't know, in the business world:
"Making less money = loosing money".

Some companies may be willing to change their business strategy and be like the one you propose, in order to gain attention and more customers. What wold be considered a loss to others, they see it as a marketing campaign.

In AT&T's case, they have been around for so long that they don't need to do anything like this. People keep flowing to them, mainly because they are the only ones to carry the iPhone in a GSM 3G network.
One more time (hopefully you'll finally understand)...
Based on how AT&T has been doing business for over a century, all this makes no sense at all. There has to be some kind of catch to it.
One thing for sure, it makes no sense to a developer, and much less to the enduser (that is, if the enduser is capable of thinking outside the cube).

 

[ArchaicRevival]

I don't care what anybody says this is absolutely stupid!

 

[pmz]

So rather than just improving their network toward offering more data for less, their long term plans include how to charge developers for the data being consumed by the use of their app.

Wow. Just, f'n wow.

I see where AT&T thinks this makes sense. Customers have dozens of data hungry apps, and can't use them, either because of throttling, or because of the limits of their data plan. They know they can't get users to pay MORE for data, or buy more than they are buying now. But perhaps, developers who are suffering from their apps not being used (****because of AT&T's own doing****), might be tempted to offer "Apps w/ No Data Usage" to their customers, because they're paying some flat fee for data, for every purchase of their App.

AT&T created the situation that might motivate developers to take this on. They're creating the environment where customers are less likely to buy/use Apps that rely heavily on data....and are going to USE this creation of theirs, to extort money from developers.

"These people don't have the money, so lets go after these people who do."

I see NOTHING in this related to improving the network, and only further lining the pockets of a company making too much money off of too little service.

 

[Small White Car]

All I see here is a means for AT&T to bill for the same bandwidth twice.

How so? Let's say I pay AT&T $30 for 3 GB. Then I pay Netflix $2 for 3 more GB. I use all 6 GB. I'm not getting charged twice.

But what about you? You only use 1 GB of data normally and another 1 GB for Netflix. You're already paying for 3 GB in total. Well then you shouldn't sign up for Netflix's little $2 deal. That's the better plan for this hypothetical you.

The only way this could be bad is if Netflix doesn't give you that choice and makes you pay that extra fee no matter what. But my god, that'd be stupid of Netflix, wouldn't it?

but in case you didn't know, in the business world:
"Making less money = losing money".

That's true.

But this won't result in AT&T making less money.

You do know that AT&T is the one proposing this, right? You think they came out and announced a plan to make less money? Does that SOUND like the AT&T you know? You really think that's what's going on here?

 

[jlgolson]

True. Imagine you are a developer who sells an app for $.99 and your app requires you to pay about $.10 per user per month to AT&T for data usage. This means that at the 7th month your app profit started to become a loss.

You'll be forced to raise the price of your Apps, and to make periodical new versions as a paid upgrade or charge a subscription fee for the use of your app. Who will loose? Both the user and the developer.

First, where did you get the idea that developers would be required to take part in this service?

Second, it's "lose".

OK.. I see you didn't get the point at all. You are just looking at it from one NARROW angle.

THINK OF THIS: Why would AT&T take $2.00 from Netflix instead of taking $25.00 from you???

Because they don't want to take $25 from you, they just want their costs covered and to make a profit. I know that CORPORATIONS = EVIL, but this would be an entirely optional program.

Either the consumer pays for data, or the service provider does. Not both -- and, as pointed out above, Netflix can negotiate WAY lower data rates than the individual customer can.

- Customer wins by getting the content they want for a reasonable price, and not having to worry about going over their data cap.

- Developer wins by enticing more customers with unique benefits like free data.

- AT&T wins by getting more revenue without scaring away the customer with expensive data bills.

 

[8CoreWhore]

So I pay at&t for unlimited... then the dev has to pay at&t also? BS! SCREWATT!

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I don't care what anybody says this is absolutely stupid!

It is. Just think of all the free apps you use to stream video. To name a few:
YouTube,
AirVideo Free,
Crackle, etc.

Who's going to pay for the bandwidth??? The developer is already giving them out for free. And how's AT&T know if whether you have Air Video Free or the paid version? How can the developer make sure its not getting ripped off by AT&T and their marvelous service?

 

[jlgolson]

Who's going to pay for the bandwidth??? The developer is already giving them out for free. And how's AT&T know if whether you have Air Video Free or the paid version? How can the developer make sure its not getting ripped off by AT&T and their marvelous service?

If you use those services, then the data is charged to the 3GB (or whatever) bucket of data that you purchase with your $25 or $30 per month.

If you use Netflix or Pandora or Hulu, which offers to cover your data bill as part of its monthly service plan, your data bucket is left untouched.

Pretty simple.

 

[Can't Stop]

How so? Let's say I pay AT&T $30 for 3 GB. Then I pay Netflix $2 for 3 more GB. I use all 6 GB. I'm not getting charged twice.

But what about you? You only use 1 GB of data normally and another 1 GB for Netflix. You're already paying for 3 GB in total. Well then you shouldn't sign up for Netflix's little $2 deal. That's the better plan for this hypothetical you.

The only way this could be bad is if Netflix doesn't give you that choice and makes you pay that extra fee no matter what. But my god, that'd be stupid of Netflix, wouldn't it?




That's true.

But this won't result in AT&T making less money.

So you're kind of off topic with that one.

This doesn't make sense at all. All you talk about is how much it costs and how much data you get, when in fact DATA kinda tends to be slow and unreliable quite often. The point is moot.


If your service is unreliable then you have no use for this and if it is reliable a bunch of such 'users' will make it unreliable in zero seconds flat.

 

[JAT]

Yeah, they have grocery stores. That doesn't hurt the point here. They can sell it to me there and get $X from the grocery store. They can also take it to the ice cream factory and get $1/2 X.

No, they sell it to the distributor for $x. The distributor sells to the grocery store, and the ice cream maker, for $2x. (maybe $1.5x to the ice cream maker) The grocery store sells it to you for $4x, or in the form of ice cream for probably $10x. The farmer still gets x.

 

[Can't Stop]

If you use those services, then the data is charged to the 3GB (or whatever) bucket of data that you purchase with your $25 or $30 per month.

If you use Netflix or Pandora or Hulu, which offers to cover your data bill as part of its monthly service plan, your data bucket is left untouched.

Pretty simple.

Simple and unsustainable. Not in the US at least. All they do is complain that people use too much data, why the unlimited plans are going away.

How the hell a stunt like this would look to the moaning and whining about network congestion.

 

[Small White Car]

No, they sell it to the distributor for $x. The distributor sells to the grocery store, and the ice cream maker, for $2x. The grocery store sells it to you for $4x, or in the form of ice cream for probably $10x. The farmer still gets x.

I lumped 'farmer/distributer' into one person for my example. But whatever you call that person, no, they don't always sell it to everyone for the same price. The factory buying 20,000 gallons is going to get a better price than the grocery buying 2,000 gallons.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

This helps me how, exactly?

As a consumer, I potentially have to pay more for apps.
As a developer, I potentially have to part with more of the money spent on my apps.

 

[pmz]

I too saw this as a good thing and was surprised by so many against this.


Though I think it would be awesome I only see a few Apps/companies willing to do it.

Like those listed before let's think NetFlix and Why would AT&T "lose" money from us by selling the data cheaper to NetFlix?
The way I see it is if AT&T could say you can use Netflix anywhere on the AT&T network and not be charged for data, just the subscription price you pay already to NetFlix....don't you think some users might switch to AT&T to be able to do something like that?

This isn't for the FREE apps or Dollar Apps. Doesn't make any sense. What about the Paid Pandora. I know there are some people who stream that all day. I don't because I don't want it eating into my Data Usage. I use my iPod/Music on the phone instead. For any Unlimited user it means "maybe" less chance for getting to that strange Throttling limit. and you'd be using the same amount of data, BUT since the App Developer is buying the DATA for you and in bulk pricing, they know they are getting that extra money coming in and you are "slightly" happy with ATT for NOT throttling them.


So, I see this as a good thing for ATT. I also see this as a way to attract customers and for current customers who are paying a subscription anyway to some services to now be able to use them "free" and still have leftover Data for other things.

--Ready to be called an idiot though--

A lot of what you said is true. What bothers me is that AT&T has CREATED this arena by their own horrible practices regarding data.

What they SHOULD be doing is just trying to expand, expand, expand to the point where this kind of thing isn't necessary. Their goal should be providing lots of data at reasonable prices to consumers.

In a few years we should have 5 GB LTE plans for $10 a month. $2 per GB should be the goal, and it should be a pay per use. If I use 15 GB one month, then I pay $30. If I use less, I pay less.

Thats convenient and fair, and thats where we (AT&T) should be heading. Not towards, "How do we make more money with our current, awful model?"

 

[Amazing Iceman]

First, where did you get the idea that developers would be required to take part in this service?

Did you read the title of the article in question?
"AT&T Working on System to Allow App Devs to Pay for Customers' Data Usage"

That "Allow" will become "Required", just like "Unlimited Data" became 'Limited Data' without loosing its name.

Second, it's "lose".

Thanks, Doc. One extra 'o' slipped away. Many people in this forum would get upset when corrected in their spelling, but I don't.

Because they don't want to take $25 from you, they just want their costs covered and to make a profit. I know that CORPORATIONS = EVIL, but this would be an entirely optional program.

And let's all pray it remains 'optional'.

Either the consumer pays for data, or the service provider does. Not both -- and, as pointed out above, Netflix can negotiate WAY lower data rates than the individual customer can.

And why would Netflix would want to do that??? That would increase their operation cost, forcing them to increase their fees. Goodbye $8.00/month, hello confusing monthly plan with a lot of formulas and options.

- Customer wins by getting the content they want for a reasonable price, and not having to worry about going over their data cap.

I thought that getting an Unlimited Data Plan was going to be the end of my worries, when in fact it just made it worse.

- Developer wins by enticing more customers with unique benefits like free data.

Why don't you ask a REAL DEVELOPER about this...?

- AT&T wins by getting more revenue without scaring away the customer with expensive data bills.

AT&T wins either way. They never lose.
AT&T's periodical 'Mood Swings' are scary enough, yet many people still would take a chance just to be able to have an iPhone.

EDIT: I have just noticed you are a M.R. Editor. This is the first time I see an Editor get involved in a thread.

 

[Small White Car]

Thats convenient and fair, and thats where we (AT&T) should be heading. Not towards, "How do we make more money with our current, awful model?"

Heh.

I'd like to piggy-back off this wonderful little comment to say that I think some people are under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to defend AT&T.

No. Just explain them. Nothing more. You don't have to agree with what they do in order to say that it makes sense from their perspective to do it.