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

[codewrangler]

Excellent Point

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.)

Excellent point!

The best thing I like about my grandfathered in Data plan with AT&T, is that I don't have to worry if I am going over my limit. I really hate that.

At home, I pay a flat rate for Internet Access and it should be the same for mobile.

The biggest problem with mobile, is not the amount of data, it's the infrastructure. All the biggies are moving fast to implement, but whenever there is a change in technology, they wind up spending a lot of money to support new standards.

Hopefully with LTE, which is designed to expand, they can move back to unlimited data plans for all.

 

[TallManNY]

Makes sense. I could see this happening.

For me, I prefer an ad free experience. That is one reason why I do most of my media consumption through paid services (iTunes, netflix, NBA League Pass). I'd rather pay up front and save myself 15 minutes of ad watching.

 

[brdeveloper]

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.

They're just shifting costs to the weaker side. Developers are being squeezed by the Apple's 30% and now they'll have to charge customers for bandwidth usage acting like a carrier's dealer (but without any payment for it). Apple then gets 30% over bandwidth payments made through AppStore.

In practice, Apple gets 30% plus 30% over bandwidth usage. Carriers also get a further revenue from developers. Conclusion: actually only consumers and app makers will be charged.

 

[axonic labs]

This could be a huge trend/shift.

 

[drober30]

The current free way to get ABC (over the air) currently 'costs' about 15 minutes of ads per hour.

I think it's nice that we WANT that to end just because they're shifting from radio towers to cellular towers...but what reason do we have to EXPECT that?

In other words, why does a change in broadcast technology suddenly mean TV networks can't play the same ads they did before or charge money?

Well, I guess you have a point if I get a free app and they are paying for the bandwidth but if I'm paying for my data plan, why do I want streaming commercials over cellular to eat up my data.

 

[Navdakilla]

I have a wifi only. However I feel companies need to have cheaper data plans. 250mb is not enough

 

[charlituna]

I'm sure it is great to have LTE speeds... but when you've got 3GB data caps I don't really see the point for the majority of users.

Network speed really has nothing to do with that. You don't pay by speed, you pay by data consumed. A 1GB file doesn't suddenly become 1.5GB because it is on LTE rather than 3g. You just get it a little quicker that's all.

----------

The free ABC Player app would then cost $49.00 a year or 15 minutes of commercials would be embedded into everything you stream.

They already have ads in the stream via the web or the app.

And when you consider that the nets don't count those views for make good but rather 'pay' for shows via the ratings based OTA viewing, any money off those online ads is essentially profit why not have them turn some of that around to pay at least some of the data cost. Especially if they aren't going to credit those shows in their make good with the view.

 

[badpinoy]

the carriers simply went to a tiered planning because people were willing to pay for it. carries are just nickel and dining consumers to increase their revenue. I foresee that eventually carriers will go back to unlimited plans.

 

[drober30]

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.

OTA, or Over The Air = Free = No DitecTV, Comcast or AT&T bill. therefore ads pay for the free programing, just as TV started out, no monthly bills!

Now with DirecTV, Comcast or AT&T, for the monthly fee, I should not have to watch commercials. Pay TV use to imply no commercials. Nor should I have to put up with the networks logo constantly on my screen or stupid animations coming on in the middle of my show advertising other shows!

----------

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.

I agree and don't understand how a company like AT&T, who was a pioneer in the telecommunication industry, is so behind on LTE.

 

[Tiger8]

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

I second that, in addition, sooner or later the 'content provider' is going to push that cost down to you, so once they kill the competition,,,, watch as free (good) apps become a thing of the past...

 

[charlituna]

Just get rid of stupid bandwidth caps and quit screwing over customers

A main reason they put up bandwidth caps and throttling is because some customers are greedy *******s and if allowed they would run everything on cell data non stop without a care over the fact that towers do have limits on how many connections etc. They would take what they want without a care that they are blocking other folks usage etc.

Now, if you want to argue that their pricing is perhaps a bit extreme for the amount of data you are allowed, sure that's a fair argument. Even saying that there shouldn't be a download cap from the iTunes stores is fair. I mean if someone wants to blow their allotment on downloading a 1080p movie let them. Or perhaps tie the cap to the service plan they are on. So if you paid for the 3gb plan that's your size cap. Anything bigger than that and you either upgrade your cellular plan or do it on wifi. Argue that apps that are heavy data users like FaceTime or streaming video need to warn folks about the amount of usage they are about to incur if they are on cell data and then if they agree to it anyway, its on them.

But arguing there should never been caps or throttling is opening a flood gate of hurting the little guys because some folks want to be royal jerks. Then the carriers get complaints and law suits from those lighter users that can never get service and so on.

----------

Are you KIDDING ME???
Maybe developers should pay for the electricity for charging the device and provide warranty for hardware damage?

No one is forcing developers to do this. It's an option that they can use or not use as they wish.

in truth it won't likely be for things like streaming video but more likely for things like games that need to call out to a server to work. Say all those 'with friends' games. They need a quick hit on the server to look up whose move it is and to send your new one. They can do that for thousands of users on the same 3gb plan we are paying and it encourages folks to spend the $2-3 dollars for the app. on the free versions you might still have to pay for everything including moves and ad data.

 

[The DRis]

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.

I don't want ads in my apps. I'm so freaking sick of ads. Everywhere you turn, billboards, flyers, telephone calls, mailers. I don't want ads.

 

[drober30]

I did not buy an LTE iPad simply because it's just not worth it for me.

If I commuted on a train for 45 minutes or more each way to work, I might have the need for one but with W-Fi just about everywhere, it eliminates the "just for the heck of it" purchase of an LTE iPad.

Now if the carriers provided an unlimited plan for $20 a month to those that are already paying for a smart phone data plan, then I would have bought an LTE iPad. That means I would be paying my carrier $50 a month for unlimited data on two devices.

I pay $30 for unlimited data and the use of unlimited devices for my DSL connection at home.

My bill for three iPhones is $200 a month! Give me a break! That's outrages but I'm a techie and love my toys!

 

[Nunyabinez]

This is a legitimate question, not meant to troll or start a flame war, but what are people consuming that is using up so much data? I am still on AT&T's unlimited plan, just because I didn't want to give it up (I know, not good logic), but I seldom use more that 1GB of data in any given month. At work and at home I have WiFi. Do most people really spend that much time away from a WiFi source? I really want to know why people are using so much data with their phones. Are they streaming Netflix at the grocery store?

And secondly, I am also confused why people are burning through so much more data with LTE than 3G. I can understand if Netflix is sending higher quality video because you can handle it, but that can't explain it all. What is it about LTE that makes people data hogs?

 

[charlituna]

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.

You raise a very good point.

Perhaps the answer to this situation isn't the cell companies at all. After all, in regards to the iPad in particular, cell data is meant to be a supplemental connection not THE connection. So perhaps the issue is that the main intended connection form isn't up to speed. What we need perhaps isn't more towers, lower fees, unlimited cell data service etc but more and better wifi. Some cities are installing wifi systems in their metro stations and even along the tunnels so you can ride across town and still be online. Some cities are installing wifi along major streets and in major parks etc. Public libraries and other public buildings are installing public access free wifi. And so on. Perhaps what we need is more of that. More businesses being encouraged to host wifi hot spots that are open to the public. If we get a better blanket of wifi, especially at this new 802.11ac speed, then we won't need huge caps on LTE/3g for constant use.

 

[peteo]

Sneaky way for net neutrality? hmmmm

This is exactly my thought. This achieves the same goals as AT&T charging a company to get access to its users.

I'm just amazed how these companies can try to worm there way around laws. First drop unlimited plans, then roll out far more efficient and faster networks but do not lower the price. Cause user to use higher bandwidth apps that suck all their data allotment in mere minutes. Charge apps to give "free" data access to user. Users only use apps that give them "free" access, effectively blocking out the little guy that can not pay.

AT&T wins, Big Content Wins, Users get a closed internet!

 

[applesith]

Watch the price of apps go up or become more subscription based. No one is going to simply absorb the costs. It's just like moving taxes around- someone will have to pay them.

 

[romjet]

No one is forcing developers to do this. It's an option that they can use or not use as they wish.

in truth it won't likely be for things like streaming video but more likely for things like games that need to call out to a server to work. Say all those 'with friends' games. They need a quick hit on the server to look up whose move it is and to send your new one. They can do that for thousands of users on the same 3gb plan we are paying and it encourages folks to spend the $2-3 dollars for the app. on the free versions you might still have to pay for everything including moves and ad data.

The developers have to recoup costs or go out of business. If they have to pay for bandwidth, then they have to charge more for the games. Either way we're still paying for the bandwidth in one way or another. And all this complexity and accounting probably drives up the overall costs even more.

 

[smithrh]

And secondly, I am also confused why people are burning through so much more data with LTE than 3G. I can understand if Netflix is sending higher quality video because you can handle it, but that can't explain it all. What is it about LTE that makes people data hogs?

New device and new network - people are trying both out and using up a boatload of data at the same time. "Wow look at how quick LTE is! Let's watch an HD video!"

Usage patterns will settle down pretty quickly once people fall into more routine and typical daily use.

Same goes for battery usage and heat.

----------

You raise a very good point.

Perhaps the answer to this situation isn't the cell companies at all. After all, in regards to the iPad in particular, cell data is meant to be a supplemental connection not THE connection. So perhaps the issue is that the main intended connection form isn't up to speed. What we need perhaps isn't more towers, lower fees, unlimited cell data service etc but more and better wifi.

LTE picocells/"small cells" are coming to fill this need.

Handover/handdowns to WiFi are problematic for a variety of reasons.

But, yes you've hit on a big issue - operators are building out initially for *coverage* so those maps look impressive. However, building for coverage almost by definition hurts *capacity*.

Hence, small cells - cells that cover an intersection, a portion of a shopping mall, a city street for a block and so on. If you remove the need for a cell to have a wide coverage area, your capacity can shoot up tremendously - especially in the higher frequency bands (1.5Ghz and higher).

Google "small cells" for more info.

 

[barkomatic]

This is a legitimate question, not meant to troll or start a flame war, but what are people consuming that is using up so much data? I am still on AT&T's unlimited plan, just because I didn't want to give it up (I know, not good logic), but I seldom use more that 1GB of data in any given month. At work and at home I have WiFi. Do most people really spend that much time away from a WiFi source? I really want to know why people are using so much data with their phones. Are they streaming Netflix at the grocery store?

And secondly, I am also confused why people are burning through so much more data with LTE than 3G. I can understand if Netflix is sending higher quality video because you can handle it, but that can't explain it all. What is it about LTE that makes people data hogs?

There are some who rely on cellular data as their only internet connection. A jailbroken iPhone or iPad with unlimited data was used to supply service to a variety of internet enabled devices in the home. Now that LTE is hitting the market, that practice might become more widespread -- except now that carriers have effectively capped even the grandfathered existing unlimited plans data usage is now an issue for those people.

 

[Nunyabinez]

There are some who rely on cellular data as their only internet connection. A jailbroken iPhone or iPad with unlimited data was used to supply service to a variety of internet enabled devices in the home. Now that LTE is hitting the market, that practice might become more widespread -- except now that carriers have effectively capped even the grandfathered existing unlimited plans data usage is now an issue for those people.

Very interesting. I went with the WIFI only iPad because I am usually at the university where I teach (fast internet) or at home (fastest Comcast, I feel the need for speed). I figure if I need data while "roaming" my iPhone will be sufficient. But I guess to each his own. I don't want to minimize this issue for others, but it really is a non-issue in my specific case. But as I said, it is interesting to see how other people are approaching this.

 

[dgree03]

This is exactly my thought. This achieves the same goals as AT&T charging a company to get access to its users.

I'm just amazed how these companies can try to worm there way around laws. First drop unlimited plans, then roll out far more efficient and faster networks but do not lower the price. Cause user to use higher bandwidth apps that suck all their data allotment in mere minutes. Charge apps to give "free" data access to user. Users only use apps that give them "free" access, effectively blocking out the little guy that can not pay.

AT&T wins, Big Content Wins, Users get a closed internet!

In effect, what they are trying to do is pass the "selective bandwidth" option to the app producers instead of the company themselves limited access based on what you are accessing.

Its very sneaky because all this will do, if adopted, is increase the price of those services. Nothing will be free or out of the goodness of their hearts! netflix is 7.99 now, with priority/selective bandwidth now that price is 10.99.

 

[barkomatic]

Very interesting. I went with the WIFI only iPad because I am usually at the university where I teach (fast internet) or at home (fastest Comcast, I feel the need for speed). I figure if I need data while "roaming" my iPhone will be sufficient. But I guess to each his own. I don't want to minimize this issue for others, but it really is a non-issue in my specific case. But as I said, it is interesting to see how other people are approaching this.

I think most people currently use wifi at home and cellular data when they travel and don't hit their caps if they select the appropriate plan. That's what I do. However, with LTE being as fast or even *faster* in some cases than home wifi it seems redundant to pay a separate bill--except for the fact that home internet is usually unlimited(though evil cable companies even tried to cap that unsuccessfully).

I think we may see a day in the not to distant future when we will all have just one universal data plan. All voice/text service, and what is now "cable" programming will all go through that one connection. We could do that now, but the related industries need to be reorganized and the studio/ network/carrier heads don't like change one bit.

 

[eric/]

A main reason they put up bandwidth caps and throttling is because some customers are greedy *******s and if allowed they would run everything on cell data non stop without a care over the fact that towers do have limits on how many connections etc. They would take what they want without a care that they are blocking other folks usage etc.

Now, if you want to argue that their pricing is perhaps a bit extreme for the amount of data you are allowed, sure that's a fair argument. Even saying that there shouldn't be a download cap from the iTunes stores is fair. I mean if someone wants to blow their allotment on downloading a 1080p movie let them. Or perhaps tie the cap to the service plan they are on. So if you paid for the 3gb plan that's your size cap. Anything bigger than that and you either upgrade your cellular plan or do it on wifi. Argue that apps that are heavy data users like FaceTime or streaming video need to warn folks about the amount of usage they are about to incur if they are on cell data and then if they agree to it anyway, its on them.

But arguing there should never been caps or throttling is opening a flood gate of hurting the little guys because some folks want to be royal jerks. Then the carriers get complaints and law suits from those lighter users that can never get service and so on.

sure there would be users who use more than the average, but for every above average user there will be a below average user. I just don't see it as a problem, and definitely not a justification. I don't see hard line Internet companies using that argument to impose bandwidth caps.

 

[Mr Fusion]

That's what I thought, too.

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

I work at an airport. AT&T there is equally unusable. Sounds like Sprint has met my expectations.

Excellent point!

The best thing I like about my grandfathered in Data plan with AT&T, is that I don't have to worry if I am going over my limit. I really hate that.

I too have the unlimited data plan, but now I have to mildly concern myself with exceeding 3GB/mo. or face the throttle. I don't care what other people's definition of "unlimited" is, but that's not mine so I'm leaving.

At home, I pay a flat rate for Internet Access and it should be the same for mobile.

My ISP caps my monthly data usage at 300GB. Fortunately that's still plenty high that I don't have to think about it.

The biggest problem with mobile, is not the amount of data, it's the infrastructure. All the biggies are moving fast to implement, but whenever there is a change in technology, they wind up spending a lot of money to support new standards.

Hopefully with LTE, which is designed to expand, they can move back to unlimited data plans for all.

Well, the infrastructure is their problem, not mine. I don't make excuses for not paying by bill, and they shouldn't make excuses for not delivering the service I expect in return.

I agree with you, I hope this capped data nonsense goes away soon.