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 Working on System to Allow App Devs to Pay for Customers' Data Usage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well ok, Let aT&T create this new 'data plan', No developer is going to accept this though.. Lets take for example Netflix, When creating a mobile account You would have to select At&t or 'Other'. If At&t it will cost you $X.XX more. Consumers will see this happen more and more, and switch over to a different network where there is less fees with apps they want..
Unless AT&t and some how manage to convince all carriers to do this it will only drive customers away from them in droves.
That is the right way to win customers over and make sure they don't go over there limit right?
Unless AT&t and some how manage to convince all carriers to do this it will only drive customers away from them in droves.
That is the right way to win customers over and make sure they don't go over there limit right?
Yup, they realized they couldn't shakedown YouTube and Netflix directly, so now they're trying to appeal to their customers to put pressure on. Except like any deal with the devil, AT&T is the only winner. Customers won't see any net decrease in their bill, and sites like YouTube would either have to charge/advertise more, or go under.
If AT&T wants to start this ******, how about they first give back all the money us taxpayers gave them to build out their phone networks?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)
I find this really interesting. So they say there network is over crowded and that they have to throttle unlimited users but lets say if Netflix is willing to pay the bill for my usage there is all of a sudden enough bandwidth. And don't tell me now they will have more money to upgrade the network cause those greedy bastards have plenty of money.
I find this really interesting. So they say there network is over crowded and that they have to throttle unlimited users but lets say if Netflix is willing to pay the bill for my usage there is all of a sudden enough bandwidth. And don't tell me now they will have more money to upgrade the network cause those greedy bastards have plenty of money.
I am not going to say networks and devs should not do this. I do say that data only links can service vast amounts of voice, text, and web traffic. It is not until you start streaming and doing video that networks get spanked. Therefore there should be data only networks to eliminate fees for text, voice, long distance, dial tone and data. There should be another thread for streaming and video (live and high bandwidth content) which is charged a higher rate which can be co-sponsored.
Listen.
Store-forward 7 minute Super Bowl, FREEeeee!!!!
Rocketman
Listen.
Store-forward 7 minute Super Bowl, FREEeeee!!!!
Rocketman
Last edited:
Why would they do that? They're already gouging them in ridiculous fashion. They probably don't have many, but those guys are cash cows.
Or...
1. Get big name developers that have streaming/download services to pay off the data.
2. Reduce data package *costs* for the same amount of data because they now have a second source of income which more predictably allocates costs to expenses.
3. Make more money than they did under the old model because now they have you paying $5 less per month, but are getting another $10 per month from the bunch of customers of this new service (the various streaming/download services mentioned above).
4. Make even *more* money because now they can advertise that Netflix/Pandora/etc. streaming is *free* on their network.
5. The streaming services make more money from AT&T customers because more of them are willing to pay for the service since they'll actually be able to use it without worrying about huge overage charges on their phone bills.
Hello, net neutrality called...
AT&T makes money selling bandwidth to users. What users do with that bandwidth is not AT&T's concern. If they feel the users are using more than what they are paying for, that's not the content provider's concern either.
If AT&T needs to charge more, they need to charge it themselves and to their users. Otherwise, we might as well just close down the Internet and revert to channel broadcasting like the Cable Co.s and satellite providers do.
So one minute AT$T is bitchin because unlimited contracted customers are overusing data, clogging their networks blah blah blah...the next minute they want to strike deals with app devs that will promote abusing data on the same freakin networks...wow the hypocrisy!!!
I already took that point on back in post #40.
I do see this as quite different than the cable model though.
Generally, as I understand it, the cable companies pay the media companies for their content. This type of model would flip that on its head. The media companies would pay the distribution company to carry their content.
As it stands now, for most legal media consumption, the user pays for bandwidth and the media itself (e.g. AT&T and Netflix/Hulu/etc...) or the media is ad supported.
As long as the current model is not eliminated or the users throttled in any way beyond what they have paid for, I still don't see the net neutrality argument.
It's not that different than an advertiser based model. Some big company is footing some of the bill.
B
Maybe you can explain this to me mate. Because I just don't see how your farmer/gasoline comparison works. It is an entirely different market. Consider this:
Let's imagine the following scenario. Suppose you have 1000 units of an item. Now suppose there is more than 1000 units needed by the public. Finally, last supposition, you can sell these units directly to the public without a middle man (you already have the distribution infrastructure in place) and you cannot replenish your units faster than you sell them. So, tell me, why should someone who buys 500 units, to distribute it to the public for you, get a better rate than the individuals ready to buy one unit at a time? Either way you are selling your entire stock, faster than you can replenish it. To give anyone a bulk discount would be stupidity. You'd be losing profits for no good reason.
"But two 500 unit transaction fees are cheaper than one thousand 1 unit transaction fees, so the distributor would rather sell it to re-distributors". Fine. But you know the re-distributor is going to want to make money and he won't take the transaction fees out of his pocket. So, either way, the consumer is going to pay that transaction fee. It is therefore a non-issue since you can add it to your price and it'll be sold anyway.
Fact: ATT only has so much bandwidth available.
Fact: ATT cut off unlimited data plan going forward and implemented throttling on users to limit their data usage. Why? Because the network was congested. That means it couldn't supply for the demand.
Conclusion, ATT has no problem selling all its bandwidth. Whatever price it will give the distributors will only increase the total cost of bandwidth. So here comes the big question. Who is going to end up paying that cost, at the end of the line? Do you think the middle-men ATT wants to introduce are going to absorb the cost for you, dear user? Hell no. Your total price will only go up. Rather than build more pipes and offer more bandwidth to resolve the congestion, ATT wants to hike the price up to stifle demand yet get the same return.
Reminds me of the diamond industry.
Nope. Technology is moving forward and people are relying more and more on the services AT&T provides. So, since they (AT&T) are in a position of power, they figure they might as well used it. Sure people will complain. But it doesn't matter, at the end of the day, AT&T knows those people will have to come back regardless since they are dependent on keeping up with the progress of technology.
There is only one way to end this cycle, and that isn't to give up on the tech. It is to take AT&T's power to control the tech out of its hands. ---How do you do that? --Not saying.
This just pisses me off. They work tirelessly for years to sell on buying and using these devices. They work their asses off to tell us how great and fast their data network is, and Apple is constantly working on ways to boost the developer crowd and keep a steady stream of functional, cool, fun, useful apps. coming our way. Then these idiots try to charge more and in weird and unthinkable ways.
If my unlimited plan isn't priced right, then charge me more for it. It wouldn't be the end of the world for AT&T to say on the next upgrade "if you want to continue this unlimited plan that we've grandfathered for you twice now, it's going to cost $34.99 a month now, instead..." or something to that effect. Granted I'm no fan of cost increases, but it makes more send then all this tiered/throttled/overpriced crap. Charge what you think its worth already and let us get on with it. Build a better network, increase your profit margins, hell, do ALL of the above... but quit being so damned stupid about it.
This reminds me of the banks. When Visa debit cards were new, they spent millions of dollars advertising the coolness of it. Then they added reward programs and other perks to DRIVE people into switching away from checks and cash... and once we were all hooked on them, and using them more than any other payment method... they started proposing fees. COME ON!!
If my unlimited plan isn't priced right, then charge me more for it. It wouldn't be the end of the world for AT&T to say on the next upgrade "if you want to continue this unlimited plan that we've grandfathered for you twice now, it's going to cost $34.99 a month now, instead..." or something to that effect. Granted I'm no fan of cost increases, but it makes more send then all this tiered/throttled/overpriced crap. Charge what you think its worth already and let us get on with it. Build a better network, increase your profit margins, hell, do ALL of the above... but quit being so damned stupid about it.
This reminds me of the banks. When Visa debit cards were new, they spent millions of dollars advertising the coolness of it. Then they added reward programs and other perks to DRIVE people into switching away from checks and cash... and once we were all hooked on them, and using them more than any other payment method... they started proposing fees. COME ON!!
Do you guys hate 800 numbers too?
I can see immediately how some of my customers can use this feature. Many of them have data intensive apps that their workforce uses, but they have issues with the high cost of individual user data plans.
A high volume, discounted "800" data service, managed by the company, makes perfect sense.
Good on you AT&T
I can see immediately how some of my customers can use this feature. Many of them have data intensive apps that their workforce uses, but they have issues with the high cost of individual user data plans.
A high volume, discounted "800" data service, managed by the company, makes perfect sense.
Good on you AT&T
So you agree that's it's not a neutrality issue when a bandwidth provider stops being a bandwidth provider, and will actually serve content based on which content provider pays them for it ?
What if a small site like Macrumors can't pay AT&T for the data ? Suddenly it's unaccessible to AT&T users ? And you don't see a net neutrality issue there ?
It's a form of censorship, where only big media companies and businesses have the power and money to get to the users, and where small players are left as content consumers and can never become content providers themselves, getting shut out.
Step 1: cite congestion and start capping and throttling.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html
Wireless companies are less restricted by the new rules—a win for the industry because consumers are increasingly accessing the web using hand-held devices such as iPhones or Blackberries. Mr. Genachowski said mobile carriers faced more congestion issues than other companies and need more leeway to manage their networks.
Wireless companies would be prohibited from blocking Internet voice services but they could block access to many other applications, citing congestion issues.
Step 2: start charging for same bandwidth through apps.
http://www.appolicious.com/tech/art...can-throttle-internet-speeds-content-delivery
Don’t expect to turn on your iPhone’s browser in a few weeks and be locked out Gmail or anything later this month, when the FCC’s new rules come into effect -- but do expect some changes in the way the mobile Internet works. Some of them will be good, like manipulating networks to make sure everything runs well; some of them might be bad, like requiring additional subscription payments to stream video to your iPhone. But they will definitely be different. Check back with us on Dec. 21 to find out just how different.
Step 3: charge users twice for same data. glad the fcc was looking out for us.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html
Wireless companies are less restricted by the new rules—a win for the industry because consumers are increasingly accessing the web using hand-held devices such as iPhones or Blackberries. Mr. Genachowski said mobile carriers faced more congestion issues than other companies and need more leeway to manage their networks.
Wireless companies would be prohibited from blocking Internet voice services but they could block access to many other applications, citing congestion issues.
Step 2: start charging for same bandwidth through apps.
http://www.appolicious.com/tech/art...can-throttle-internet-speeds-content-delivery
Don’t expect to turn on your iPhone’s browser in a few weeks and be locked out Gmail or anything later this month, when the FCC’s new rules come into effect -- but do expect some changes in the way the mobile Internet works. Some of them will be good, like manipulating networks to make sure everything runs well; some of them might be bad, like requiring additional subscription payments to stream video to your iPhone. But they will definitely be different. Check back with us on Dec. 21 to find out just how different.
Step 3: charge users twice for same data. glad the fcc was looking out for us.
Traffic flows both ways. As long as it is not preferential I am not too concerned at this point if Netflix pays for bandwidth or KnightWRX pays for it.
FWIW big companies can already buy big swaths of wireless bandwidth. I know of at least one big company that has their own private network with one of the major two wireless providers with tens of thousands of mobile devices that are on that network 24/7, sharing the regular wireless spectrum.
Of course that is the worst case scenario, but it doesn't have to necessarily "go there."
B
I think AT&T sees the writing on the wall. When 4G LTE happens, people are going to be using more data than ever, and when lots more users start getting overage charges (or throttled) there's going to be a customer revolt. To try and head that off, AT&T is looking to shift the charges to larger entities to keep the users happier a little longer....instead of building out their network capacity like they should.
I can't believe the ignorance and hate on this forum. It honestly blows my mind.
Do any of you have any idea how much AT&T spent on expanding their data network last year? 65% of revenue, that's how much. That's a staggering amount. They have the largest mobile data network in the world, and they are expanding it every single year.
You don't like AT&T, switch carriers. You have choices.
Do any of you have any idea how much AT&T spent on expanding their data network last year? 65% of revenue, that's how much. That's a staggering amount. They have the largest mobile data network in the world, and they are expanding it every single year.
You don't like AT&T, switch carriers. You have choices.