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

[KnightWRX]

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.

So you're OK with AT&T selectively accepting return traffic based on which content providers pays them for the "priviledge" or displaying the content to their users ?

This is exactly what Net Neutrality is against, because it introduces a form of censorship and breaks the fundamental model of the Internet, which basically Free (as in freedom, not as in beer) access to information that is posted online. I pay my hosting provider for hosting, he pays his uplink provider for connectivity to the backbone, which in turn have peering agreements with other backbone providers for traffic exchange between AS'. On the other side of the fence, the user pays AT&T for bandwidth, AT&T pays their uplink provider for connectivity to the backbone, which in turn has peering agreements with other backbone providers for traffic exchange between AS'.

This is how the Internet functions. Bandwidth is paid for by the appropriate party and there is no selection on which data makes it through from the content provider to the user. There is no limits on who can provide content and who can consult that content.

The model of "content providers pay ISPs for the user's use of their content" breaks this fundamental model, and makes it so that ISPs become "channel" providers, where if you want access to Hulu or Netflix, you need AT&T because they don't pay Verizon. On the other hand, you need a Verizon connection for Google services. Bing ? That's only on Comcast, has they have an exclusivity agreement with Microsoft.

And you're for this ? Really ? With a straight face ?

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.

Which has nothing to do with the topic. If big companies want to become private network owners and try to compete with the Internet, that is their perogative. It's trying to go back to the America Online, Compuserv or the original Microsoft Network model which failed spectacularly, or the more underground BBS (Bulletin Board System) we had over POTS in the 80s, early 90s.

The Internet made all of these things obsolete, for good reasons. For the precise reasons that I listed above : Free (as in Freedom, not as in beer) access to information, unfiltered and not limited to certain providers.

Of course that is the worst case scenario, but it doesn't have to necessarily "go there."

B

"Give them a foot, they'll take a mile". Net neutrality is something you're either all in, or the Internet will fall apart and become just another broadcast medium, where the few rich media companies can deliver content and the user is not empowered to voice his views, provide his content, or other.

Would you be OK if all programming forums went away and the only source of programming information online was O'Reilly because they are the only ones able to afford it ? And they don't like programmers sharing information, they'd rather the upcoming crowd in programming learn from their books rather than forums...

A good rant by Eric S. Raymond to politicians about the laws they are trying to enact was posted a couple of days ago, but it also applies to telcos in general trying to lock down content based on who pays to get the eyeballs :

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4155

 

[balamw]

Net neutrality is something you're either all in, or the Internet will fall apart and become just another broadcast medium, where the few rich media companies can deliver content and the user is not empowered to voice his views, provide his content, or other.

Sorry, but I'm just not on board with the whole GNU/GPL/FSF world view that it's all-or-nothing. I respect ESR and some of the others, but just don't fully share the extreme Stallman vision of the world.

The original Kindle 2 had Whispernet 3G access via Sprint paid for by Amazon. You could only use Sprint and didn't have the option to pay for your bandwidth yourself.

How is that kind of model necessarily a bad thing?

If they did something similar with the Kindle Fire, tied it to a single wireless provider and threw in the bandwidth for "Amazon Prime Mobile" users, is this necessarily a bad thing?

If a given cell site had lots of Amazon-sponsored KF users on it and this shut out other non-Amazon users. Is this not the same problem?

What if Amazon's deal would include all of your bandwidth for Amazon hosted content (including your own cloud based content), but if you stray off the reservation, they'd let the ISP charge you by the bit.

Is this necessarily bad for the consumer? How does it differ substantially from what seems to be being proposed here?

Since the actual air interface bandwidth is a shared resource you might see why a company putting lots of data hungry devices on AT&T or Verizon's network in their own private IP network (no traffic flowing to the internet or to consumers of any kind) might be a relevant problem.

You throw around lots of words like exclusivity and lockdown, but I don't see that as being explicit or necessary in what is being discussed here.

Free (as in beer) internet content is already driven by big company money in the form of advertising, and big companies will always be able to outbuy smaller ones. In some cases you can pay the provider directly, such as buying a $25/yr. MR membership, to eliminate the ads. You've just shifted who is paying for the content.

Likewise, I don't immediately see how shifting who is paying for the bandwidth is necessarily a bad thing. As long as there is no preferential treatment, exclusivity or lockout etc...

B

 

[KnightWRX]

Sorry, but I'm just not on board with the whole GNU/GPL/FSF world view that it's all-or-nothing. I respect ESR and some of the others, but just don't fully share the extreme Stallman vision of the world.

A good thing then I was referring to ESR's views on the matter, and not Stallmans. Give the piece I linked to a read.

The original Kindle 2 had Whispernet 3G access via Sprint paid for by Amazon. You could only use Sprint and didn't have the option to pay for your bandwidth yourself.

Whispernet is not Internet access, like what you subscribe to when you get an AT&T data plan. It's not advertised as such. If AT&T wants to do a AOL like or Compuserv like or Whispernet like limited service, then they need to be advertising their Data plan access as such, same as my carrier, Rogers, was doing back when their "data plan" wasn't Internet access, but access to Roger's portal services.

Oranges and Apples.

 

[EvilEvil]

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.

AT&T apologists defending such a crappy company blows my mind. I look forward to the day AT&T crumbles at its feet.

 

[MonsterRain]

Doesn't AT&T's network (or the iPhone) already prevent you from downloading files greater than 20MB over 3G? I know I've seen that when downloading something before. I can't imagine the initial download themselves using all that much data.

The GPS/music streaming apps, i can totally see. Those are, unfortunately for AT&T, the nature of the beast. As long as the unlimited plans exist, the unlimited usage will continue.

I just really wish the "limited" bandwidth plans were more reasonable in price.

 

[SolRayz]

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/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

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.

That's nice and all but ummm...you wanna pay my $300+ ETF. Please be my guest...

 

[Zonz]

Sometimes companies will add new features without charging the users to keep them from switching to alternatives. Why is everyone assuming we will be charged twice? Yes that is possible, but not inevitable. Look at the business model Sony uses for the PS3. Initially it is sold at a loss so that the money may be made back elsewhere, and this works because it ties the consumer into their ecosystem.

I see this as a marketing strategy for At&t to combat the negative press surrounding their tiered data plans and throttling. If most of the apps streaming video and music, i.e. the highest bandwidth apps, suddenly don't count against your usage, then consumers won't be having problems with these tiered plans and throttling because they will use less data. Also, companies like Netflix won't necessarily charge you more for the feature because it allows them to have higher infiltration on mobile devices; customers won't need to worry about the data usage so the will use the app unregulated. It will also allow them to compete against other apps like hulu, who will then be given the incentive to offer the feature to compete. "Subscribe to Netflix and not Hulu so that you may have unlimited streaming on mobile devices."

It won't necessarily work out this way but it is a plausible business strategy. Everyone could win.

 

[UnusedLoginID]

If the main issue for AT&T is bandwidth, or lack of, - which I thought it was when they started throttling and not offering unlimited plans - then this strategy is need to account for it. You can't make a deal with NetFlix, have the customer pays more for their NetFlix subscription, get unlimited movie streaming and not be handicapped sooner or later with bandwidth. Knowing AT&T is smart, I see the kind of deal where AT&T would ask NetFlix (and companies alike) to no longer offer unlimited 3G streaming but offer only "unit-based" 3G subscriptions. I explain: You pay $8.99 per month, you get unlimited streaming on WiFi, and no movie on 3G. You pay $10.99, $1.00 of which AT&T receives, and you get one movie per month on 3G. You pay $14.99, $3.00 for ATT, and you get 2 movies on 3G. $24.99 gets you 3 movies on 3G per month (and still unlimited WiFi streaming). I'd do an exponential pricing, making sure no one can afford a level where you get past the 5GB per month of movie streaming.

 

[Music4Film]

It sounds like they're trying to get around net neutrality.

Net neutrality legislation does not really apply to the mobile space. To the users..it is the internet. But to the way the laws are proposed...it is a different area and jurisdiction.

 

[Small White Car]

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.

That's a big assumption. It's the opposite of my assumption. How did you arrive at it?

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.

So that's your reason?

I dunno, seems like a guess to me. What proof do we have that they're running out of bandwidth?

The only thing you can give me is: 'They're restricting people.' But that's not really proof. It's true that if they're running low they'd have to restrict people. But the mere act of restricting people doesn't prove their running low. We can't run the logic backwards like that.

So let's compare A and B:

A
AT&T has too much bandwidth so they made this announcement that they want to sell it in bulk to other companies because it will make them money on something they currently can't sell.

or

B
AT&T has too little bandwidth so they made this announcement that they want to sell it in bulk to other companies because _________.


I can finish typing out A. I can't figure out the end to B. Since B starts with your theory you'll have to help me finish it. I really don't know how to do it. If you can finish B I'll certainly consider it. But right now I can't believe in a theory that I can't even fully explain.

 

[KnightWRX]

Why is everyone assuming we will be charged twice?

Well, you pay once for Data from AT&T, and then you'll pay again for Data from the content provider you're trying to access, that's just forwarding you whatever AT&T is charging them.

Finally, content providers that can't afford to pay up will eventually get dropped, AT&T will charge both ends for all data, and there will be no more Free (as in freedom) Internet, where bi-directional communication for all is garanteed. You'll be fed the content that the telcos and cable cos get paid to feed you.

 

[JAT]

Doesn't AT&T's network (or the iPhone) already prevent you from downloading files greater than 20MB over 3G?

It's now an option in your phone/pad.

 

[JohnDoe98]

That's a big assumption. It's the opposite of my assumption. How did you arrive at it?

As you perceptively anticipate...

So that's your reason?

Yes.

I dunno, seems like a guess to me. What proof do we have that they're running out of bandwidth?

The only thing you can give me is: 'They're restricting people.' But that's not really proof. It's true that if they're running low they'd have to restrict people. But the mere act of restricting people doesn't prove their running low. We can't run the logic backwards like that.

Normally I would agree. From the mere fact that they are trying to cut off unlimited plans we can't infer much. However, the issue with throttling makes things slightly better for us. As I'm sure you are well aware, people on capped plans are getting throttled too. Now, I'm not sure about you, but if I have extra bandwidth to sell, I'm not going to throttle people to make it so they never reach, or go beyond, their caps; I'm not going to throttle people to make them dissatisfied with the service to the extent that they would potentially consider leaving my service for other providers. What I'm inclined to do is let them run their data plans right up to their limits and beyond so that I can collect on overage fees in addition to the monthly fees they pay.

The only compelling reason to stop me from allowing this to happen is if all the consumption of data on my network is destroying the quality of service. Then I will have to throttle people to limit their usage so that I don't loose costumers who aren't happy with the quality of service. Then I'm going to inform them that their high consumption is degrading the network. I'll tell them, if I'm smart, that they need to use more data during off-peak times and less during the peak times when I will be throttling their service. Sadly, AT&T hasn't opted for this option, they simply went all-out with throttling. Perhaps there aren't peak and off-peak times on their network and their networks are always strained. I don't know. What I do know is throttling is a bad idea unless it is to try to improve the quality of the network.

So the question is this: What causes a network's quality to degrade? Demanding of it more than it can supply is my answer. And what that implies is that their bandwidth is not capable of meeting the demand.

So let's compare A and B:

A
AT&T has too much bandwidth so they made this announcement that they want to sell it in bulk to other companies because it will make them money on something they currently can't sell.

Possible, but then how do you explain the throttling? Seems to me if they have extra bandwidth to go around, throttling makes bad business sense as it will lower how much one can collect in overage fees. So you'd need to explain that to me.

or

B
AT&T has too little bandwidth so they made this announcement that they want to sell it in bulk to other companies because _________.

I can finish typing out A. I can't figure out the end to B. Since B starts with your theory you'll have to help me finish it. I really don't know how to do it. If you can finish B I'll certainly consider it. But right now I can't believe in a theory that I can't even fully explain.

Well it's a complicated strategy and it probably has many reasons. But here is one quick plausible reason. As far as AT&T is concerned, if they can convince developers to pay for bandwidth, then they can sell the same bandwidth for more than they can sell the same amount now. Imagine you have to pay Netflix a fee every month, and Pandora another fee, Youtube a third fee, etc. What AT&T is counting on is that you will not be using up all the data in each of these programs, but since you want to be able to use each of these options during a month, you will have to pay all three. When you control your data you know if you want to do more Pandora this month, you can't do as much Netflix. No problem, you just re-allocate your data. But under this new model, since you can't predict what, and how much, you will need in each App, you will have to pay for each one.

So, in short, it would seem that AT&T would be able to charge the same rates, and do more with the data, since this system would make it so you can't control your usage as easily. It would make it so that you end up using less data than before, but for the same price as before.

You are not going to get unlimited Netflix streaming for 5$ a month. You will probably get 5 movies for 5-10$ with them. And x hours of Pandora for 5-10$.

 

[madmax_2069]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.5; en-us; M886 Build/HuaweiM886) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Even more of a reason why I am glad I am not a AT&T user.