Content Providers and App Developers to Subsidize LTE/3G Bandwidth Costs?

[Ugg]

Where I live you can easily switch to another provider, and the bindings are relatively short (6month max).

The norm is 30 GB data/month over 3G/4G - and if you hit that, you *may* be throttled to a measly 1 Mbps for the rest of the period. Most don't do that automatically; it's just a means for them to stop abusers.

The proper solution is to give more data to a faster technology instead - but that would be in favour of the user, and such solutions do not work in the US.

We like it here though.

Oh, I pay $30 /mnt for LTE at 80/40 Mbps with 30 GB data.

You don't need to have the providers create new models, you just need them to fix their broken ones.

It never ceases to amaze me that European cell phone/text/data prices continue to drop while allowing more minutes/text/data while American prices rise to insane levels.

What doesn't amaze me is that the reason for the change in Europe is increased competition whereas in the US there's basically a cartel of Verizon, ATT and Sprint, with only a handful of small time mostly prepaid providers.

It's time for the FCC to step in and break up the big three like they broke up the original ATT ~40 years ago.

 

[ovrlrd]

The search for more sources of revenue continues for the giant telecoms who are making buckets of money from their insane pricing and fees.

What have they given consumers lately? They added LTE to their network, which was much needed, but it took them 3 years to implement, making it 4 years before devices could use it, and probably 6 years before it is widespread enough. Plus they haven't even implemented VoLTE yet! If it wasn't for market leaders like Apple and Google, they probably wouldn't have even done this much.

All while reaping in the profits and continuing to raise the cost of data, instead of decreasing them like the cost of bandwidth has been on their end.

 

[MacManTexas56]

dumb idea. in the end the consumer will be the one forking out the money. All this awesome new technology has to come out magically once data caps are put into place? ridiculous.

 

[mysticbluebmw]

Wow, people are complaining that CONSUMERS must pay in some way for the the goods they CONSUME? Why do so many folks want everything for free, or to have someone else pay for them. I do think limits caps should be increased as new technology deems, such as in this case, but come on, unlimited is a thing of the past in this new world of giga consumption.

 

[garbeth]

Horrible idea. This will certainly smash small companies and individual app developers.

Just get rid of stupid bandwidth caps and quit screwing over customers and squeezing every penny out of everybody to line your investors pockets. Try building up a better network and being a good, quality business instead of greedy *******s.

I can not possibly put into words how correct this statement is!

 

[LuckyLuke007]

Then why am I paying monthly fee

If developers are paying for the bandwidth. I shouldn't be charge monthly fee, they are paying for me to use the app..

 

[BC2009]

Just a thought. How about Over the air HD antennae in the next iPad?

Somebody makes an accessory for iPad that does that (Tivizen?). I'm not sure how good the reception is on such accessories -- especially since moving a TV antenna often changes your signal and you usually have to raise an antenna a good distance off the ground to great signal.

 

[BJMRamage]

I still see this as a plus.

I don't think every app is going to NEED this.
Words with Friends doesn't really.

But say you watch ESPN/Hulu/Netflix, whatever and you are a subscriber already. Getting you to use the app more often is a bonus for them. Sure they might add a dollar to your subscription but that dollar will buy more than YOUR dollar will because they will buy in Bulk.

Now, like stated above, why are we fine with commercials on Over-the-Air content but not the same WEB-based content. Why must we get FREE internet ABC Shows without ads when Free ABC shows on TV have ads. I can see this being an ad supported venture.

Also, I don't see a small-time competitor like Netflix or a developer offering ABC (for lack of better channel) shows now as it is. People say the big dogs will WIN but I think you'll have the same BIG DOGS winning that are currently winning.

I like the idea that Apple Apps would't count, or that HBO Go (when I had HBO) would offer "free" content when I was already a current subscriber.

YES, carriers should up their data limits. Or be on a Group/Family plan with multiple devices sharing data and minutes…1Minute of Voice is Same as 1MB of data, or something like that. Purchase movement through the cellular lines and share amongst phones/devices and family on same plan.

 

[mattraehl]

Terrible idea.

 

[eric/]

Wow, people are complaining that CONSUMERS must pay in some way for the the goods they CONSUME? Why do so many folks want everything for free, or to have someone else pay for them. I do think limits caps should be increased as new technology deems, such as in this case, but come on, unlimited is a thing of the past in this new world of giga consumption.

Assuming unlimited is a thing of the past is the wrong mentality to have.

People aren't asking for things to be free, they're asking for a reasonable price. And one that doesn't involve anti competitive practices and stifling of innovation and start ups.

 

[BC2009]

I don't see how AT&T can offer any such a plan when they don't actually have the network infrastructure in place to support the increased bandwidth. There is only so much spectrum out there to be had and while spectrum is one limiting factor so is AT&T's coverage in general. They need to build a whole heck of a lot more towers.

 

[b166er]

Interesting idea, although that just means these apps will just turn into Hulu (ads every 3 minutes) or you'll have to pay a subscription fee, which is basically the same thing as paying for the data plan.

I agree that in one way or another the cost will fall back to the customer. But Hulu offers a lot of content commercial free. It's new content usually has 3 commercial breaks for a half hour show- which is the same as watching on tv. If you don't have a tv or if you missed your show last night, that is a fair enough way to see the program the next day.

When LTE hits the iPhone we're all more or less screwed.

 

[eric/]

I still see this as a plus.

I don't think every app is going to NEED this.
Words with Friends doesn't really.

But say you watch ESPN/Hulu/Netflix, whatever and you are a subscriber already. Getting you to use the app more often is a bonus for them. Sure they might add a dollar to your subscription but that dollar will buy more than YOUR dollar will because they will buy in Bulk.

Now, like stated above, why are we fine with commercials on Over-the-Air content but not the same WEB-based content. Why must we get FREE internet ABC Shows without ads when Free ABC shows on TV have ads. I can see this being an ad supported venture.

Also, I don't see a small-time competitor like Netflix or a developer offering ABC (for lack of better channel) shows now as it is. People say the big dogs will WIN but I think you'll have the same BIG DOGS winning that are currently winning.

I like the idea that Apple Apps would't count, or that HBO Go (when I had HBO) would offer "free" content when I was already a current subscriber.

YES, carriers should up their data limits. Or be on a Group/Family plan with multiple devices sharing data and minutes…1Minute of Voice is Same as 1MB of data, or something like that. Purchase movement through the cellular lines and share amongst phones/devices and family on same plan.

The problem is that the big dogs, on the Internet at least, aren't winning. And if they are, it's through legitimate competition. How often do you go to NBC.com for any reason? You don't. Yet they're certainly larger than Netflix or Hulu.

 

[smithrh]

Something I haven't seen discussed much (OK, at all) is the fact that many costs for operators are actually dropping like a rock.

LTE was designed from the very beginning to be a low-cost technology for the operators, and it has succeeded fairly well on that front with a lot more cost reduction still to come.

CAPEX (Capital EXpenditures) are a fraction of what they were with 3G (both UMTS and EVDO). BSCs and RNCs are extremely expensive compared to their LTE equivalents, MMEs and PDN-GWs and SGWs.

At the cell site, a fully loaded CDMA/EVDO BTS could cost over $3 million USD, while an "equivalent" eNB might be priced around $250k or even less, and with prices lowering even from that point as time goes by.

Equipment at the MTSO (which is really an obsolete term now if you think about it) now no longer fills an entire basketball-court-sized room, now it's a few 19" racks in a corner. It's odd to step into one of these rooms and see how empty it becomes as they remove the old gear.

OPEX (OPerating EXpense) is also coming down by design, although not quite as quickly. Over time, LTE networks are designed to be "self organizing" and "self optimizing" saving on personnel costs.

Power draw is also much less. They pay utility bills like we do.

Backhaul technologies exist with much lower cost per bit than ever before. Note, in the recent past, backhaul (cell site to MTSO) costs were the largest expense operators had to bear. This is likely still true but it won't be for long.

I don't like this move by the operators - it smacks of entitlement to me.

 

[MacManTexas56]

I still see this as a plus.

I don't think every app is going to NEED this.
Words with Friends doesn't really.

But say you watch ESPN/Hulu/Netflix, whatever and you are a subscriber already. Getting you to use the app more often is a bonus for them. Sure they might add a dollar to your subscription but that dollar will buy more than YOUR dollar will because they will buy in Bulk.

Now, like stated above, why are we fine with commercials on Over-the-Air content but not the same WEB-based content. Why must we get FREE internet ABC Shows without ads when Free ABC shows on TV have ads. I can see this being an ad supported venture.

Also, I don't see a small-time competitor like Netflix or a developer offering ABC (for lack of better channel) shows now as it is. People say the big dogs will WIN but I think you'll have the same BIG DOGS winning that are currently winning.

I like the idea that Apple Apps would't count, or that HBO Go (when I had HBO) would offer "free" content when I was already a current subscriber.

YES, carriers should up their data limits. Or be on a Group/Family plan with multiple devices sharing data and minutes…1Minute of Voice is Same as 1MB of data, or something like that. Purchase movement through the cellular lines and share amongst phones/devices and family on same plan.

it depends on each consumer. There will be some consumers that only watch netflix/hulu when they are at home on wifi....

look at how netflix handled the split of the dvd/streaming service. you think they will just increase your monthly rate by $1? get real.

 

[mmendoza27]

Just wait until the LTE iPhone comes out in the fall. You think people are complaining now, just wait until then.

No more steaming video or music for long periods of time. You'll hit your cap within a few days.

I think it's going to be up to the settings of the app. For instance, although we may have faster speeds, we can continue to download lower quality audio streams for apps like Pandora, Spotify, etc.

I mentioned this on twitter, it's only the case because we are downloading more HD and higher quality content. Better quality = higher file sizes = more bandwidth which is the true root of our problem.]

The problem with the carriers, is they feel they can define the cap size (and to an extent, I can see why). It should really be up to the type of content available. What's the purpose of having LTE speeds while downloading EDGE-quality video? Hopefully they'll change the caps and allow higher sizes. I'm interested in seeing how the family-shared data plans work.

 

[brdeveloper]

Looks like Apple is ahead of current technology in terms of bandwidth usage. It's like having a plutonium-powered car in the oil era.

 

[SockRolid]

Mobile carriers = Dumb pipes

[...] Mobile carriers in the U.S. have been moving away from unlimited bandwidth plans over the past few years. Instead bandwidth is sold in specific allotments (2GB, 3GB) per month with additional fees for overages. [...]

AT&T, Verizon, and the also-ran cell carriers of the world are doing everything they can do to make themselves appear relevant. The sooner they're kicked down the dumb-pipe stairs, the better.

That could happen when "real 4G" is rolled out. It will combine voice and data into a single packet stream, so there won't be any difference between voice "minutes" and data. Of course, the carriers can and will do anything they can to hide that fact. They want to keep on charging us separately. That's why AT&T calls their network "4G" now, even though it's a mix of LTE (aka 3GPP) and old-school 3G. Real 4G exists only in the lab now.

The only reason we don't immediately quit AT&T and Verizon and sign up with a cheaper, un-capped cell carrier is because there aren't any good ones. It's an oligopoly. They silently collude to drag their feet in everything except marketing.

So no, I don't want app developers to help subsidize "LTE/3G bandwidth costs." That's like Shell Oil and Chevron asking auto makers to help subsidize "gasoline and diesel costs." It's unbelievably arrogant.

----------

[...] It's time for the FCC to step in and break up the big three like they broke up the original ATT ~40 years ago.

Agree. Consumers are being exploited.

 

[The DRis]

If the cost of the bandwidth is being shifted to the app developer, who then just shifts the cost back to the user by increased monthly subscription or app cost, how is the cost being shifted to the developer? It's still being covered by the users.

 

[jmnikricket]

Wirelessly posted

Why not have Apple and companies with app stores subsidize all bandwidth (eg raise caps)? 30% of each app sale is pretty generous, or increase it a couple percent and give to the carriers. At least then it's a constant percentage for all developers and the consumer can choose freely which apps to use. Plus no increase for the end user, unless app developers take the risk of increasing price... Better than this proposal at least.

 

[Dorv]

This might be the only way I accept AT&T or Verizon for another contract with capped data: If all my streaming video is subsidized. Otherwise I'm going to Sprint where I can still get unlimited data (I don't care what the speed is as long as I don't have to watch my data usage.)

That's what I thought, too.

The data on the phone was unusable, and I live in a fairly well developed urban area.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Wirelessly posted

Why not have Apple and companies with app stores subsidize all bandwidth (eg raise caps)? 30% of each app sale is pretty generous, or increase it a couple percent and give to the carriers. At least then it's a constant percentage for all developers and the consumer can choose freely which apps to use. Plus no increase for the end user, unless app developers take the risk of increasing price... Better than this proposal at least.

What is their incentive to do that?

They've got everybody that's bought into the cloud
between a rock and a hard place walking around with
devices that have severly limited local storage, no way
to expand it and no way to hook up a portable external HD.

Enjoy the data caps and outrageous data fees.
And for those times when you can't access the cloud...

Magic.

 

[URFloorMatt]

It's just going to make those content providers raise their prices elsewhere (online content, cable costs etc) so the consumer will end up paying for it somehow.

Not necessarily. If the app is ad-supported, the cost can likely be recouped via increased ad rates from increased views due to free bandwidth.

But we see now why AT&T and Verizon both moved to end their unlimited data packages. They realized the danger with LTE that people could use a wireless package to supplant their home's Internet package.

 

[bfu]

Why are prices so high / why are there caps?

Carriers have claimed that they've stopped offering Unlimited plans and have started jacking up the prices because of limited bandwidth. Classic supply and demand, they claim.

Now, if bandwidth is truly limited, where are the carriers expecting to get the additional bandwidth to sell to the app developers?

I can't help but feel that we're being lied to by the carriers... </sarcasm>

 

[GFLPraxis]

This is a terrible idea. One of the best things about the App Store for developers is that it allows small companies to compete against the big boys. Doing this allows the big companies (that can afford to) pay the bandwidth costs, while smaller companies that might not be able to afford this will lose out, as the customer will always go to the app that doesn't count against their usage allowance

Thisthisthisthisthis.

If you think this is a good thing, you're not thinking it through. It eliminates a huge advantage that small developers have.