AT&T Devises Entirely New Wireless Troll Toll > Why not?

Why not?

reply to elray
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.

reply to elray

reply to elray
its att. they rather make you pay for anything that you did for them .

reply to Linklist
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

reply to elray
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.

reply to Alex J
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)

reply to MovieLover76

reply to elray
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.

reply to elray
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.

reply to Roger Wilco
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.

reply to Precisely
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

reply to Roger Wilco

reply to elray
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.

reply to Simba7

reply to Simba7