Homezone's Walled GardenUsers will only be able to surf AT&T partner content sites? ( old news - 10:18AM Monday Jun 19 2006) tags: Video · hardware · content · net-neutralityThe Wall Street Journal print edition today reports that AT&T's Homezone, a hybrid satellite receiver, DVR, and broadband driven media-center (using this 2wire box) will be launched next month. AT&T hopes to have the device available in 80% of its broadband market by year's end. This will be AT&T's "stopgap" measure as they deploy "Project Lightspeed.""After Lightspeed is fully deployed and U-verse is fully deployed, there will be areas that are just not economic to offer fiber everywhere," recently stated AT&T's Homezone managing director Ken Tysell. "Homezone gives us a great product to make available to residential customers in all of the other areas, too. So we are going to coordinate the offer strategy and the rollout strategy between the two."The service is currently being trialed by some 230 users, mostly AT&T employees. Coming in high-definition and standard-definition versions, the boxes will offer users media sharing, on-demand content (see our Akimbo report), remote DVR programming, and possibly place-shifting Slingbox functionality - if the legal issues can be worked out. AT&T however won't allow users to browse to just any content, according to the Wall Street Journal: "While the Homezone set top-box will be connected to the Internet, users won't be able to surf to any Web Site. They will only be able to download content from providers who have made deals with AT&T. In that sense, the service will be like the so-called "walled garden" that America Online tried to create with its Internet service in the 1990s before it was pressured to give its customers access to the open Internet." Dave Burstein, who discusses this via his newsletter, says Verizon's CEO Ivan Seidenberg is a little more friendly to the idea of open content. "We want to get cable out of the house. Telephony and data are our moneymakers, not video, and we’re willing to discuss opening our network," the CEO recently told Burstein.
Related:- SlingPlayer 2.0 Finally Released
- Friday Morning Links
- IPTV / Cable to Launch Personalized Video Services
- Netflix Streaming Hits TiVo
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
- Wait, Why Exactly Am I Writing About Zillion TV?
- Verizon Working On FiOS Place Shifting
- AT&T Offers Free iPhone U-Verse DVR App
|
 GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | More like Stumblegap & Project Limpspeed. Remember my fellow cowsumers, AT&T is the company still banking of 1950's facilities to deliver you their interpretation of the future. | |
|  | 
th good ol days
@rr.com | Re: More like Stumblegap & Project Limpspeed. wow i didn't know remote terminals and dslams were available back then. | |
| Pictor Guy
join:2004-06-21
Sammamish, WA
| AOL? "In that sense, the service will be like the so-called "walled garden" that America Online tried to create with its Internet service in the 1990s before it was pressured to give its customers access to the open Internet."
Uh... AOL had access to the Internet before most others in the early to mid 90's? AOL users could get out but others couldn't get in. That's what the AOL Walled Garden was about. | |
| | 
jaxdomino
join:2001-12-01
Jacksonville, FL
| Re: AOL? You are absolutely WRONG! AOL did in fact create a Walled Garden approach and that is why they were originally called an Online Service Provider versus an Internet Service Provider. I remember the old days of CompuServe, AOL and Prodigy fighting over who had the best Online Service. CompuServe and Prodigy allowed their users to "surf" the Internet and it was not unitl the early 1990's that AOL opened up the gates. They did it first with an in-house built "browser" solution then integrated IE into the AOL client. I still remember the uproar when AOL did this, because they screwed with people's IE settings without telling them first. | |
| | | Pictor Guy
join:2004-06-21
Sammamish, WA
| Re: AOL? That was 1995-1996. In the early 1990's AOL still allowed people to use AOL via TCP/IP access to many points on the Internet. At that time IE wasn't more than an idea and Mosaic was the browser of choice. CS used the same approach. In fact, even when AOL used it's own "booklink" browser you still had the option to use any TCP/IP based browser you wished. Both AOL and CS let users use email go out on to the Internet and AOL also had Gopher access as well as Newsgroup and IRC access. AOL even owned a few IRC reflectors that was part of it's "give back to the Internet" plan. Newsgroups were open but searching newsgoups may have been limited giving people the impression that they didn't offer access to all groups. Some of the alt groups didn't come up on the searches due to parental control issues but if you knew the address you could still access it. CompuServe and AOL had very similar services but CS had better support groups and message boards but (at least with the CompuServ WinSim graphical client) both CS and AOL gave everyone access to the rest of the Internet but didn't give the Internet access to it's internal content (online-service). | |
| | | | 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
1 edit | Hmmmm... "We want to get cable out of the house. Telephony and data are our moneymakers, not video, and we’re willing to discuss opening our network," the CEO recently told Burstein.
"While the Homezone set top-box will be connected to the Internet, users won't be able to surf to any Web Site. They will only be able to download content from providers who have made deals with AT&T."
And this, my friends, is the start of AT&T controlling what site we can browse to and the pay for content that they want and the reason they are fighting net neutrality.
Edited to insert correct quote.. Not enough coffee this morning...
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | 
bsc
Premium
join:2003-03-11
Lexington, KY
1 edit | Re: Hmmmm... except thats a quote by verizon's CEO  and it's saying they want to have open networks, not close them up.. | |
| | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs: | Re: Hmmmm... Hehehe... Thanks for the heads up... Edited to include the quote I meant to put in...
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
| | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| said by ropeguru  :And this, my friends, is the start of AT&T controlling what site we can browse to and the pay for content that they want and the reason they are fighting net neutrality. Yes...they will control what you watch on your tv. Just like the cable companies always have. The only difference is that they allow for the possibility of 3rd party providers of content, which the cable cos do not.
This has big potential. Right now, if you want to make a tv show, you have to go through the relatively few companies that produce them. This would allow anybody to create a tv show and get it aired, at least to at&t customers, bypassing hollywood entirely.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Thankfully, we'll be able to see how it plays out, because the 'net neutrality' folks lost in DC.
Oh, and to point out the obvious- this has nothing to do with where you can browse at your computer connection- it only has to do with TV. | |
| 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
·VoicePulse
| Begining of the 2 tier network access plan? I can see this being ATTs alternative to the whole net neutrality debate. Sell your DSL connection at a given speed (say, 6/1) but users only get those speeds on the ATT network. Anything that requires true internet access is only 1/3rd the speed.
Alternatively, my old provider in FL sold their DSL connections based on internet speed. (I think at the time it was a 3/768 connection) However, speed to/from other TBDSL users and their servers, anything that didn't require passing beyond the providers net routers, would run up to 14/4. They didn't advertise this feature, they just mentioned it when you ordered. I loved it, more so since their web hosting was cheap, and I could send files to my hosted server very quickly.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| Re: Begining of the 2 tier network access plan? said by Camelot One :I can see this being ATTs alternative to the whole net neutrality debate. Sell your DSL connection at a given speed (say, 6/1) but users only get those speeds on the ATT network. Anything that requires true internet access is only 1/3rd the speed. It will be the other way around. They'll sell the dsl for $15/1.5, and if you are getting something from a preferred provider, they'll uncap it. Not a bad deal. | |
| | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | Re: Begining of the 2 tier network access plan? I think you'll see no change in prices, but caps placed on everything but "preferred providers". | |
| | | | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| Re: Begining of the 2 tier network access plan? said by Camelot One :I think you'll see no change in prices, but caps placed on everything but "preferred providers". Sure; that is another way of saying the same thing. Preferred providers are speed uncapped, the rest stay like they have always been. So there is a net benefit to the consumer. | |
| | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
·VoicePulse
| Re: Begining of the 2 tier network access plan? What I meant was that "preferred providers" would continue to pull at the curent everyone package speed, but with no decrease in price, everyone else would be capped at a lower rate. I don't see them uncapping anything, just finding another way to charge a premium from certain providers just to give the consumer the same speed we are getting now.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
1 edit | Re: Begining of the 2 tier network access plan? said by Camelot One :What I meant was that "preferred providers" would continue to pull at the current everyone package speed, but with no decrease in price, everyone else would be capped at a lower rate. I don't see them uncapping anything, just finding another way to charge a premium from certain providers just to give the consumer the same speed we are getting now. I think you'll see pigs fly before you see that happen. The goal is for them to get more customers and revenue, not less. They've already as much as said that they would offer higher/uncapped speeds to the preferred providers.
They have been offering higher speeds at a lower price lately...this would allow them to have an even better offering, but with some revenue attached to it. And everybody is happy- customer gets a better product, 3rd party gets a customer, and AT&T gets more revenue. | |
| 
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Like AOL? Yeah, AOL's the model to follow to ensure a successful business...
 | |
| 
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Not econimical "After Lightspeed is fully deployed and U-verse is fully deployed, there will be areas that are just not economic to offer fiber everywhere," recently stated AT&T's Homezone managing director Ken Tysell.
Can you say "Redlining"? I knew you could.
This is just what cities like Geneva, IL. are trying to avoid.
--
A difference which makes no difference is no difference. - Spock | |
| | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Not econimical said by BK3 :"After Lightspeed is fully deployed and U-verse is fully deployed, there will be areas that are just not economic to offer fiber everywhere," recently stated AT&T's Homezone managing director Ken Tysell. Can you say "Redlining"? I knew you could. This is just what cities like Geneva, IL. are trying to avoid. So AT&T should be forced to deploy their network everywhere, even if it looses them money?
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
| | |
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
2 edits | Re: Not econimical said by joako :said by BK3 : So AT&T should be forced to deploy their network everywhere, even if it looses them money? No, if they want to deploy in Illinois, they need to follow state law -->
Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)]
Since Geneva requires equal access by other providers (Comcast) and Comcast complies, then it is only correct and legal that AT&T do the same.
Redlining will not be permitted.
Some will say that AT&T is not providing TV services like comcast, since AT&T calls it an IP service. To this is reply by saying:
A rose by any other name ......
An Addendum:
AT&T wants to deploy using the city owned Rights-of Way and easements. Since these are city owned and controlled, shouldn't the city have some say in how they are used? According to AT&T, evidently not. AT&T appears to feel the the ROWs are free for them to use as they see fit, which is not so. If AT&T wants to deploy in Geneva, using Geneva's ROWs, to Geneva citizens, then they can do so, but they must then follow Geneva's (and the state's) rules. We will not be bullied by a big corp.
AT&T not only doesn't appear to want a level playing field, but appears to want an unlevel playing field in their favor, and are willing to (and have) go to court and sue to get it. This, to me, has the appearance of very poor corporate citizenship, it seems more like a small child throwing a tantrum. Rather than working with us to achieve a mutually beneficial resolution, they want it all their way. This from a company that said in the not-to-distant past that fiber was an "unproven technology".
It also leaves a bad taste in my mouth and leads me to mistrust them in any future endeavours.
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
Yours may differ
Sorry for the rant, but this issue strikes home (both literally and figuratively)
For reference:
»www.geneva.il.us/att/Lightspeed.htm
»Interview: Fighting AT&T
--
A difference which makes no difference is no difference. - Spock | |
| | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Not econimical said by BK3 :said by joako :said by BK3 : So AT&T should be forced to deploy their network everywhere, even if it looses them money? No, if they want to deploy in Illinois, they need to follow state law --> Illinois Level Playing Field Statute [65 ILCS 5/11-42-11(e)] Since Geneva requires equal access by other providers (Comcast) and Comcast complies, then it is only correct and legal that AT&T do the same. Redlining will not be permitted. Some will say that AT&T is not providing TV services like comcast, since AT&T calls it an IP service. To this is reply by saying: A rose by any other name ...... That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. Yours may differ. Speaking of rose being a rose, why do the calbe companies not complain about not following the POTS regulations with their VOIP service. THey are afterall the same service. Or at least no more different than IPTV vs cable tv. | |
| |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| Well if the law states they must do x, then they must do x.
Otherwise I see no reason why anyone should tell them what to do. If they decide to install fiber in the areas that they think will make them profit and move all the DSL equipment to those areas that they feel will all be profitable, that's totally fair!
If there is a neigborhood where most of the people are below the poverty line, IE: cannot afford luxury services, why should AT&T deploy those services there, much less be required to do so?
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
| 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs: | What's the point even bothering? Telcos suck when it comes to content partnerships and always have.
-SC | |
| | | |
|
|
was because of the focus on in-house content, not because they didn't allow Internet access at all. I don't remember which one was first, but by late '95 or early '96 all of them provided access to the full Internet one way or another.