dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-02-27 12:02:08: In 2005 then-AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre told Business Week that because people use Google, Google should help pay for AT&T's network deployment (or as Ed put it, Google "ain't usin' his pipes for free"). ..

page: 1 · 2 · next
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

Why not?

Isn't this what Amazon already did with the Kindle?

Why can't we expect providers to "buy out" our caps, or guarantee delivery rates?

What are you so afraid of?

Alex J

@sunwave.com.br

Re: Why not?

What are you so afraid of?

AT&T picking winners or losers and imposing themselves as an unnecessary toll and control player in the wireless ecosystem, driving up costs for everyone?

Impose artificial limits not based on reality, then charge a completely unnecessary toll to help avoid them.

Yeah, with AT&T's history what could anybody possibly be afraid of...
en103

join:2011-05-02
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Re: Why not?

As apps are developed for the internet (not specifically a carrier - land or wireless), AT&T may have a difficult push, except for the fact that users are being capped... in AT&T's case both on land (ADSL, VSDL) and wireless. Other carriers have not 'passed the buck' on this on land (TWC) or wireless (Sprint, MetroPCS)

MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
there is a huge difference between paying for an extremely low bandwidth 3G connection for your customer and paying for data that flows to your customer, for which the customer has already paid for access.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Why not?

said by MovieLover76:

there is a huge difference between paying for an extremely low bandwidth 3G connection for your customer and paying for data that flows to your customer, for which the customer has already paid for access.

Funny, most of the net-neutrality zealots would claim "data is data".

Of course, there is a difference.

But if Netflix wants to assure that its streams get delivered to me at full speed, without meter anxiety, why can't they negotiate on my behalf?

As the customer, I *haven't* paid for guaranteed bandwidth from Netflix. I've only paid for, as you call it, "access". For large volume, near-real-time requirements like HD video streams or videoconferencing, priority routing and delivery, indeed, might cost a bit more than an extremely low bandwidth 3G connection.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Why not?

Wow.. That's like paying for a GigE connection, then having each site flow through it at dialup speeds unless you pay for an upgrade to each site.

I think they tried this crap in the past.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Why not?

said by Simba7:

Wow.. That's like paying for a GigE connection, then having each site flow through it at dialup speeds unless you pay for an upgrade to each site.

I think they tried this crap in the past.

No, it isn't.
You aren't paying for a GigE connection.

And Netflix isn't "each site". Even their crippled streams constitute the largest use of peak hour bandwidth, nationwide.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by elray:

Isn't this what Amazon already did with the Kindle?

Amazon did deals with 1st Sprint and then later AT&T to let the Kindle Reader(not the new Fire tablet which is WiFi only) download data and prepaid a fee to the carrier that Amazon ate on behalf of the customer. Amazon, of course, expected to sell things to their customers to cover their data transfer costs to the carriers.

I guess AT&T could plan on doing similar deals for other devices that use LIMITED amounts of predictable data as opposed to laptops and smartphones. Extending that kind of deal to SPECIFIC apps on a smartphone could work in some unusual instances. I would really have to read AT&T's thoughts about what kind of apps might fit in to that kind of thinking before deciding if it would work or not.

So far, I haven't found any other sources of Donovan's interview that aren't behind the WSJ paywall, to see if he elaborated on what types of apps he was thinking about.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Why not?

This could open up a huge can of worms, however. Use "approved" "sanctioned" "partner" apps or pay more.

You could see how this could extend to well.... everything. Browsers, everything. Then in turn the apps makers have to charge more to customers to cover their payola deals.

You could even have "exclusive" contracts like only being able to use certain apps on certain ISP's..... basically the companies would move into a position of being able to tell the users what they will use and how--- of course you could still use whatever you wish... but pay astronomically more for it under such a model.

This could be used to to squeeze independents or third parties completely out of business. It could also potentially lead to the internet being sold the same way PayTV is.

Ouch.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL
its att. they rather make you pay for anything that you did for them .

Precisely

@speakeasy.net
You're exactly right. AT&T canvasses the country and builds a network. A network that is ESSENTIAL for an industry. Why can't they charge for that? Microsoft charged PC makers to load the software. Amazon eats the Kindle delivery charge. Google ITSELF charges for priority access to consumers (bid more - top of the results page! Network neutrality should dictate that Google posts everyone's ads equally/randomly, no matter the bid price). Tell me where, in business, one company provides a completely and entirely essential service to another company and isn't paid for it?
The carriers want to be like a shopping mall that charges for parking. The users pay for parking. The companies lease space. The carriers, like the developers, actually break ground and build the whole thing. It's getting tiring hearing the person in a dark room coding on their terminal whine that they aren't able to reap billions when the carrier employee climbing up a telephone pole and weathering the elements sees little. The coder needs the carrier employee. The carrier employee does not need the coder.

Basically, why can't the carriers be like the yellow pages? They provide free content (listing directories) but also charge for premium ads. Right now the carriers charge both sides but that could go away when MetroPCS begins offering free plans subsidized by all the premium access.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Why not?

Think of it this way. Someone fences off and gates off your property, then if anyone wants access to your home, they charge them to open the gate.

Those people, in turn, charge you more to service you.

It's bad idea.

AT&T walls you off with caps, then offers app makers the choice of paying them for "better" access to the customer.

How is this not like a protection racket, where businesses are squeezed to pay money so that "they are protected" from bad things happening to them... which will if they don't!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Roger Wilco

@wavecable.com
So in your alternate universe, the [content] providers "buy out" our caps on their own dime? Isn't it conceivable to you that they might in turn have to recover these costs from us? What I'd be afraid of is having to pay for my bandwidth twice.

Precisely

@speakeasy.net

Re: Why not?

Roger Wilco - Yes. The same way that local merchants recover the costs of advertising in the yellow pages (plus the profit of yellow pages) via the rates they charge for their services.

Or you pay for "free shipping" via the cost of the item.

FedEx charges you to ship both ways. Zappos just covers it for you when you buy their shoes by their price. (Zappos does NOT have a low price guarantee, nor Amazon.)

It's amazing that a consumer PAYS to be able to access iTunes over the air. If a business relies 100% on another business, everywhere else in the world that business charges them. You currently pay Netflix for access AND pay for delivery.

I take the long view. 1. There is more access to spectrum and airwaves than getting onto Cable. 2. If data usage was based on the ability to charge companies to access the user base, companies would try their damndest to ensure uptime and cover more people. 3. All this FCC bullcrap about subsidizing rural people would go away as the carriers with the most coverage would be the most attractive. 4. Low cost provides like MetroPCS would work on lowering the data plans. 5. Incentives would be properly aligned.

Imagine a Yellow Book you had to PAY to receive versus a free one. What would you choose? Now imagine a Yellow Book you had to pay to receive that had EVERYTHING in it, or a Yellow Book you got free that had fewer companies (but all the people) but was free and let you call out to anyone?

Basically the government should stay out of this. 100 other industries operate this way (shopping malls with pay parking, shopping malls with free parking, Google's bid-more-for-premium-placement, Free Shipping, 1-800 numbers, etc).

Just imagine a world where you got data for free and had no carrier lock in or ETF. Imagine how badly carriers would compete on customer service and coverage and call quality. If a carrier tried to blacklist various sites for not paying, consumers would switch to a carrier that did.

This is a step in that direction. Getting companies to pay for data is the first step. AT&T is tightening its own noose and doesn't know it, because they will allow competitors to go for the jugular with free data (but limited services).

I agree though - Cable companies are the worst. But that's because they have local MONOPOLIES. Carriers have competitors everywhere.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by Roger Wilco :

So in your alternate universe, the [content] providers "buy out" our caps on their own dime? Isn't it conceivable to you that they might in turn have to recover these costs from us? What I'd be afraid of is having to pay for my bandwidth twice.

Of course they're recovering it from us.

But I'd rather see Netflix charge me an extra $5 on my subscription, to guarantee performance via my local ISP, than have my local ISP told by the FCC to provide "neutral" connections, which will perform equally poorly for all concerned.

Why should YOU pay extra for MY bandwidth?

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Why not?

said by elray:

Of course they're recovering it from us.

But I'd rather see Netflix charge me an extra $5 on my subscription, to guarantee performance via my local ISP, than have my local ISP told by the FCC to provide "neutral" connections, which will perform equally poorly for all concerned.

Why should YOU pay extra for MY bandwidth?

Heh.. You're freakin' clueless, aren't ya?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,1G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital QP DE504,Compaq DP NC3131,2xSun QP GigaSwift, SMC 8432BTA, Gentoo]
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Why not?

said by Simba7:

said by elray:

Of course they're recovering it from us.

But I'd rather see Netflix charge me an extra $5 on my subscription, to guarantee performance via my local ISP, than have my local ISP told by the FCC to provide "neutral" connections, which will perform equally poorly for all concerned.

Why should YOU pay extra for MY bandwidth?

Heh.. You're freakin' clueless, aren't ya?

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not a socialist.

Some of us prefer to pay our own way, for quality service, rather than succumb to the vast, inefficient, overpriced wasteland that is The Commons.

myanon

@pacbell.net
This is much different than Amazon.

Amazon sold a product and included access to Whispernet.

I already pay for broadband. No developer should have to pay for what I'm already paying for. Also, your foolish if you think these charges won't end up in you paying more to help pay the developers fees.

Uncle Paul

join:2003-02-04
USA
kudos:1

ATT then rides for free

Once implemented, wonder how long it takes ATT to become a content provider where all their content is 'free'.
en103

join:2011-05-02

Re: ATT then rides for free

AT&T's own content (junk) will always be free... to the point that it will be pushed marketing/sales/junkmail spam.
bklass
Premium
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:2
Bell already has this in Canada with "Bell Mobile TV" - if you subscribe to Bell TV, and have a Bell mobile device with a data plan, you can watch wireless IPTV on your phone and it doesn't count towards your data plan. Don't ask me how they get away with it.

MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

Not money saving at all.

AT&T should just stop, no matter what way the try to do this, it's still double billing the content provider for bandwidth that the customer has already paid for, this will not save customers money at all, if say Netflix agrees to these AT&T charges so customers can use there service more, you will get billed for that, in the form of higher prices for Netflix per month, their is no where in the process were you can double bill content providers and not raise prices for consumers.
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 edit

2 recommendations

What a scam!

In AT&T's insatiable thirst for more profits and to screw everyone over at the same time, this is pure genius.

Remember when we discussed caps, and people said that, over time, as data consumption continued to increase and the cost of data to the wireless and wireline carriers decreased, caps should be adjusted upwards? Yeah, right! With this little gem of a scheme, AT&T will do no such thing. They'll simply tell content providers that, if they want their customers to be able to reach them with their ever-shrinking caps (if data use increases and caps remain the same, they'll effectively shrink in terms of their usefulness), then they'd better be prepared to pay the carriers. And, as time goes on and people feel the squeeze of the caps more and more, the pressure will increase on content providers to pay up.

Ain't it funny how these companies could somehow make boatloads of money off of Internet users for years with no caps, and now, suddenly, they just can't seem to break even without them?

EDIT: It just occurred to me that this is an even lousier deal than I'd previously thought. See, if we look at the current caps, then you as a customer would only pay overages if you exceed them. However, with this scheme, the content providers will pay that additional fee when you interact with them, whether you've reached your cap or not. And, as you can imagine, they're going to pass that cost back to you one way or another, so you're essentially paying for exceeding your cap even if you don't actually exceed your cap. Pretty slick on AT&T's part, don't you think?

asdfdfdfdfdf

@myvzw.com

Re: What a scam!

I hadn't thought of it like that but I think you are correct.
It is tantamount to having companies pay user overage fees for all traffic, even if the customer hasn't hit their cap.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

I wonder what technical methods they can use for this

Would they have some kind of database at every router around the country, with a list of web addresses to exempt? Or would they be querying some central database for every network packet? It sounds expensive, especially if few websites pay for it.
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: I wonder what technical methods they can use for this

They'll probably adjust their routing so that data going to these content providers is routed differently and bypasses their meters. Participating content providers will probably get an AT&T-assigned IP address where data can be routed to and from, and that IP will be written into their apps.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

Re: I wonder what technical methods they can use for this

Heh, force them to host with AT&T, that's almost too evil even for AT&T.

marker

@207.204.188.x
Actually, they would be metered... just not charged.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Not implementable

They won't be able to figure out how to actually do this...
ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ

1 recommendation

Stop them now before it's too late.

AT&T is an evil company that should be broken up again.
flashcore

join:2007-01-23
united state

1 recommendation

Re: Stop them now before it's too late.

Its not so much that they need to be broken up, which I agree they do, but what really needs to happen is to take all of the cellular company's (ATT, VZW, Sprint, TMobile, etc...) and create a new company with regulated rates that control's the spectrum and towers turning the current company's into resellers. This would also eliminate the bullshit "spectrum crisis" that they are all whining about and possibly create more competition and lower prices when there is nothing to differentiate the different company's other then the phones they offer.

Lets face it, all of these cellular company's in the US have gotten out of hand with there bullshit and there really is no need for all these separate standards (CDMA vs GSM vs LTE) and frequency's when they can all be bundled into one GSM/LTE standard and spread out over a lot more spectrum shared with all of the resellers.

Ben
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL

1 recommendation

Re: Stop them now before it's too late.

     Strictly speaking, T-Mobile and Sprint both have the advantage of no overage fees on data, which give piece of mind.  T-Mobile is a slightly better value on the low end individual voice plan (500 vs. 450 minutes).  VZW has "Friends & Family Numbers," and really has the best 3G coverage (they are the only 3G option in Wyoming, for instance).  Though for all practical purposes, they are highly similar.

     More or less, I agree with you.  It would also eliminate unnecessary and unplanned redundancy, from not having extra towers as a result of multiple carriers having to build out their own networks.

     In fact, a similar thing can be said about the current state of broadband Internet access.  Build out fiber to every building, using USF funds to build it.

     Generally, I don't like the government getting involved in others' business, but sometimes it's almost needed.

     These are both of those cases where government intervention would be needed to get things as close to a free market as possible, as funny as that may sound.

     Without government intervention in some cases, some houses would likely have never seen POTS, and some rural houses to this day would be relying on diesel or propane electricity generators.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Kill the Competitor

This type of business model would potentially make it impossible for certain types of industries to endure with any real sustainability. In fact, it would be real easy for AT&T to set costs that are far too high for any competitive or innovative idea that might threaten their total control.

Apps like Sling Media player, Netflix, Skype, or anything else that AT&T does not want to compete with will simply be priced out of the equation.

What exactly am I getting for my 22GB metered data service with my wireless carrier? It's very expensive, and now these carriers are searching for a way to get me to pay twice for the same thing? Enough already!
xenophon

join:2007-09-17

1 recommendation

Love the...

...troll pic.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Re: Love the...

You gotta pay the troll toll...
LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1

Re: Love the...

said by morbo:

You gotta pay the troll toll...

exactly what i was thinking.

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

as much as this sucks...

...for a variety of reasons; providers will pile on board and sheeple users will rejoice.

•••
markinect

join:2011-01-20
Lansing, MI

this would be good for skype

With Skype you have to buy minutes and worry about data .i say do this for Skype and Skype only.........go windows phone
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Re: this would be good for skype

It wouldn't surprise me if AT&T refused to allow services like Skype to get in on such a deal, since they siphon off business that AT&T would otherwise get when people make international calls.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

Sums it up...

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0


I swear, AT&T execs must live in a padded room somewhere.

This is just flat out idiotic.
Arty50
Premium
join:2003-10-04

Thanks, Google!

Once again, I would just like to thank Google for rolling over on their original net neutrality stance and caving on wireless nn. Odd how your compromise ended up basically becoming FCC policy. Thanks a million!!!

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

Re: Thanks, Google!

Just curious. How does an article about how AT&T would like to charge app makers a fee to remove their app from metered billing tracking translate into "It's Google's fault"?
--
-Jason Levine
Arty50
Premium
join:2003-10-04

Re: Thanks, Google!

It's not their fault entirely, but their deal with Verizon ended up becoming the FCC policy...which this plan fits oh so nicely into. It also helped to somewhat "legitimize" this sort of sleazy behavior.
InfinityDev

join:2005-06-30
USA

toll free apps are a good idea

Michael Mace hit upon this over 2 years ago:
»mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2···ata.html

See "Toll free" Applications in the text, I'll wait.

The implications are that it needs to be implemented the same on all carriers. A nigh-impossibly tall order.

The most impressive part is that toll free apps would mean everyone's phone could conceivably use them -- a phone with no data plan, or maybe a prepaid data plan -- could use as many toll free apps as they wanted with no financial impact on their account since the app provider/publisher/whatever is footing the bill.

That means if you have a phone you aren't left out of the mobile internet, and you are a consumer on the mobile internet, enabling all sorts of crazy new commerce.

Unless of course the carriers remain deregulated to where they can continue to obliterate all market-creating and market-expanding innovations like this would be.
MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium
join:2003-01-02
Monterey, CA

Re: toll free apps are a good idea

...and you think we have privacy problems now on smartphones. They are already intruding into privacy already and those based on free apps. Wait till they have to start paying for us to use those apps, they'll want to intrude into everything.
InfinityDev

join:2005-06-30
USA

Re: toll free apps are a good idea

They don't even have to wait for that. Your carriers and ISPs already resell our surfing, calling, txting, and browsing habits 10 ways to Sunday and we are PAYING THEM for the privilege.

Not like this is news to anyone who reads these comments let alone this site, but it sure would be nice to just be able to pay for something in return for the thing and not have them think they are entitled to reselling our personal use of that service for more money.
slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1

Two tiered

Internet coming soon from ATT

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

Re: Two tiered

No, it'll be a three tiered Internet.

Tier 1 - AT&T offerings
Tier 2 - Content providers that pay AT&T
Tier 3 - Everyone else
--
-Jason Levine
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Two tiered

Excellent point. It's specifically why I think seeking cash from OTT service providers is a really bad idea. As soon as someone creates a popular service, the carriers will immediately be able to create a competitive service with underlying cost advantages.

I also believe there will never be equity in Tier 2. The bigger you are the better deal you'll get. (...even if the Duke brothers let you run their firm, the "old money" establishment will do everything to get rid of you...)

In another post I believe it would be far better to meter users and force us to pay. At least its out in the open and consumers maintain control. Granted, we're sometimes sheep when it comes to speaking with our wallets but I'd rather get extorted once rather than twice (once from the carrier and again from the big, established service/content providers/creators who muscle out the little buy by negotiating better deals due to their size. This is like the Wal-Mart effect all over again.)
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

1 recommendation

Who should pay for advertising using up your allotment!

I think that there are some situations where the website should pay. Particularly when they are using up users allotment sending advertising to their browser. Windows Update, Virus signatures and other security updates, should be applied without impacting users allotment or website.

There should be three classes of data.
1) No usage charged to website or subscriber for security, virus signature updates and patches including Windows Update.
2) User paid for accessing selected websites for traditional browsing.
3) Advertiser paid for sending advertisements to your browser whether requested or automatically downloaded.

After all, any solicitor wanting to make a sales pitch does not make collect calls or send advertisements postage due, why should internet advertisers, be any different. There is a law against sending junk faxes because the receiver has to incur the cost of ink and paper, why not the same rules for internet advertising. On the other hand if a user wants to download Open Office the usage for the download should be charged against my allotment.

••••••
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

AT&T: What's new is old

As the article points out, this is just like the 800 numbers from years ago. Consumers demanded them because long distance (LD) was incredibly expensive. Because of technological advances, the FTC and regulation, today LD fees are a relic about which few concern themselves. Most of us pay for an unlimited plan that does not distinguish between 15 or 1500 miles.

The same will be true of data and that's why AT&T, Verizon and the rest are running scared. Technological advances will eventually provide plenty of data bandwidth and the need to constantly upgrade networks will fade. When that happens, data connectivity will end up as a low-margin commodity business. AT&T desperately seeks to write a future where OTT service providers funnel cash in their direction.

However, if there's competition, how will AT&T distinguish itself? If there's plenty of bandwidth and coverage, what will they provide that makes consumers choose them over Verizon, Sprint or other providers? The only thing left will be to remove the tolls paid by service providers. Won't service providers then wage immediate war on those networks it still has to pay? They'll immediately incent customers to move to "free networks" through lower prices. Defection will be massive until all carriers drop the fees.

In my opinion, as long as there's competition, isn't this just a flash in the pan on the road to getting us to the ultimate network destination?

Given the decades that AT&T held us hostage with horrible service and unbelievable phone bills, perhaps I shouldn't discount the power of a monopoly and it's ability to grease palms to maintain the status quo. I hope we're all smart enough to demand competition and network neutrality.

I'd rather pay for metered service than head down this hidden cost/fees road. At least then those doing the metering will have to justify what they charge. If the margins remain incredible and get better as the network costs less and less, that will make it very profitable for others to enter the market and compete. That means we should arrive in a future where data connectivity ends up a low margin, commodity business. Of course this is theoretical capitalism.
cwcjr

join:2002-08-02
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Knology

Re: AT&T: What's new is old

What if I do not want to provide doubleclick, clickthru, clickthrough, akamai, yads, zedo, servedby.advertising, yimg, atwola, or dozens of other sites that I did not put on the address line any information about me, my browser, my operating system, my ISP, my computer, the time of day nor do I want any of their clients to bombard me with junkmail that I do not want?

And those are not the insidious ones...
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: AT&T: What's new is old

I'm not following your comment on my comment. While I too don't want privacy-invading parasitic HTTP requests making the meter spin, that type of stuff helps cover the cost of the content site and keep it free.

I still believe metering the consumer is better than extorting money from OTT service providers/content creators. When the consumer is involved, it's out in the open. Hidden fees remove the consumer from the equation and immediately grant carrier-provided services a cost advantage. We should seek a regulatory environment that discourages this.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Congestion...

At least this proves once and for all that usage caps aren't about network congestion...

SrsBsns

join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK

Mobile Carriers Dream of Charging per Page

So this is the fruits of this 2010 story? Just when I thought the death star could not sink any lower. Even wired could not believe it at the time and thought it could be a hoax.

»www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/···y-tiers/

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

Just know this...

AT&T has never done anything to save a customer money...

It's like the 3 rules from this guy (@ 2:30)

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkHmXIkFPN8