Oh, easily. They are attempting to push their costs to the content providers. If the content providers fall for it by "sponsoring", the content providers will have to up the price of their service. The company does not care if the end user pays more, just that they are not perceived as the one increasing the cost. Plus, it's a double-dip: customers and the content providers.
This is exactly what Net Neutrality is fighting against, this being the flip-side of the pay-to-play coin.
At first it will be "sponsored data as an exception", eventually it will become the rule. Ultimately, you and I will end up paying more.
What we should be working towards is what Sprint and Tmobile are going for: unlimited data - which most importantly means: no random overage charges.
I haven't paid a data overage fee for the past 8 months on TMO (while we paid one at least 2-3 times a year in the 4 years on ATT and Verizon before that).
I don't normally agree with you, but on this one, you're totally right.
Thanks. It makes total sense, our need for more data is only going to increase. I did most of my Christmas shopping from my phone, and on occasion will watch a TV show I missed on it, these things were not possible just a few years ago. So having a company like Netflix or Amazon foot the bill for my data usage accessing their content makes a lot of sense.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the story here, this sounds like nothing but good news. Why not enable certain apps or services to "pay" for the cost to download or stream something? They could make their money back with sponsorships also.
I'm kind of with you here, Spam. Not sure I understand the "ins-and-outs," but anything to throw a monkey wrench into the status quo is fine with me.
Right now the telcom (and Cable companies) are acting like the Railroads of old. Spending more time, effort and money bribing Congress to protect their monopolies than truly providing good services and innovating.
Again, how is this any different from a 1-800 number?
And why do we need 1-800 numbers? Have you forgotten most phone service now includes unlimited long distance?
The content providers pay their ISP for access, and the end users pay their's. And this will only lower AT&T's costs; it will not lower the end user's costs in the long run.
I'm kind of with you here, Spam. Not sure I understand the "ins-and-outs," but anything to throw a monkey wrench into the status quo is fine with me.
Right now the telcom (and Cable companies) are acting like the Railroads of old. Spending more time, effort and money bribing Congress to protect their monopolies than truly providing good services and innovating.
I disagree, they're all rolling out LTE at a fantastic rate, with VZW leading the charge, which surprised me. As far as innovating goes I'm not quite sure how they can do things any different than every other telecom does this world over. It's only natural that as some revenue streams dry up that they add others and this time at no cost to us.
One of the best uses for this will be for companies to offer their employees, customers, and clients free data and business-to-business access. If you're an electrician, you can locate what you need with a smartphone app, order it, and have it ready and waiting for you at will-call when you drop by. Paying the cost of that access means happy customers and more business.
And the reason you can't do this now is because....?
Quick note: The other morning, my GF, BJ (not her real name.) went to the fridge to get the strawberry jam jar for some toast. I had used all the jam up, and for no particular reason, put the empty jar back.
She opened it up and while holding up the empty jar to her eye, said, "What the hell is this? It's like the Donner Party round here!"
Unless I'm misunderstanding the story here, this sounds like nothing but good news. Why not enable certain apps or services to "pay" for the cost to download or stream something? They could make their money back with sponsorships also.
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
And why do we need 1-800 numbers? Have you forgotten most phone service now includes unlimited long distance?
The content providers pay their ISP for access, and the end users pay their's. And this will only lower AT&T's costs; it will not lower the end user's costs in the long run.
We mostly don't need them anymore and haven't for quite some time but yet there still are people out there that don't have unlimited nationwide calling. It won't lower your cost but it will prevent you from overage charges plus you're more likely to use that companies site more often because it not using your data. They make more money thus making it a smart move.
I disagree, they're all rolling out LTE at a fantastic rate, with VZW leading the charge, which surprised me. As far as innovating goes I'm not quite sure how they can do things any different than every other telecom does this world over. It's only natural that as some revenue streams dry up that they add others and this time at no cost to us.
I suppose.
I've had a bad experience with ATT. Got the orig. iPhone, grandfathered in "unlimited data." Paying $110/mo. Got a new iPad and wanted to "tether" it to my iPhone 3GS (I think) and they not only wanted to charge me an additional $40/mo., they said, b/c I was changing my plan, I would lose my "unlimited data" featured. I canceled my account and went to Sprint.
Hope that doesn't sound too petty, but my natural, default position as far as telcom's is one of distrust.
Also, I'm not as well-versed in the European services as I should be, but what little I've been able to glean (mostly from these boards) they offer better value. (I may be wrong about this.)
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
So we've been getting ripped off by the telecoms for the last 100 years or so? Freaking telecoms, how dare they make money with manufactured rates.
Oh, easily. They are attempting to push their costs to the content providers. If the content providers fall for it by "sponsoring", the content providers will have to up the price of their service. The company does not care if the end user pays more, just that they are not perceived as the one increasing the cost. Plus, it's a double-dip: customers and the content providers.
It's as if AT&T were providing a service by merely sitting at the end of a pipe and charging access. Everyone providing the dang "content" on the Internet is just a useless data waster in there business model.
And let's add that the Pipe they sit on the end of was paid for by taxpayer dollars, and their service is building the last mile to the customer -- and charging and charging and charging.
Why exactly don't the content producers charge everyone to access their CONTENT, and then based on a piece of their "sit on the end of the pipe and put up a toll booth" they would pay the content providers back? I don't know - it sounds too much like a merit based system to me, and in America, we've got to over feed the parasites and charge the dog for the blood.
So we've been getting ripped off by the telecoms for the last 100 years or so? Freaking telecoms, how dare they make money with manufactured rates.
The business model for AT&T is to charge forever for the Toll booth -- the taxpayer and providers pay for the road.
Now if you didn't have a toll booth at the end of the Internet, you might suspect that AT&T were making money for nothing -- but you see, they've got to have really high quality toll booths.
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
I have to wonder if there is ANY cost to the internet after the electricity is turned on. I mean, sure there are "bits and bites" moving along it, but isn't there a certain amount of data capacity that is unused? If I have a wire with a certain current -- is it "expensive data" if I measure the fluctuations or not? There may be some spinning platters that temporarily store data for various NSA uses, but other than the fiber moving all these bits, it's a fixed cost until they add a new line.
We have absolutely NO IDEA what it costs to run the internet. It isn't ZERO, so we only have the good intentions of the data providers at the toll booth operators (also known as an ISP) of what it requires. In many circumstances, and locations, providers have a monopoly on service.
Comments
Oh, easily. They are attempting to push their costs to the content providers. If the content providers fall for it by "sponsoring", the content providers will have to up the price of their service. The company does not care if the end user pays more, just that they are not perceived as the one increasing the cost. Plus, it's a double-dip: customers and the content providers.
I knew it! Thx!
At first it will be "sponsored data as an exception", eventually it will become the rule. Ultimately, you and I will end up paying more.
What we should be working towards is what Sprint and Tmobile are going for: unlimited data - which most importantly means: no random overage charges.
I haven't paid a data overage fee for the past 8 months on TMO (while we paid one at least 2-3 times a year in the 4 years on ATT and Verizon before that).
I'd pay $10 a month for that
You may have misunderstood the concept here.
It seems incongruous to me that someone named "Muppetry" could make such an astute observation.
Made me laugh!
Best.
Thanks. It makes total sense, our need for more data is only going to increase. I did most of my Christmas shopping from my phone, and on occasion will watch a TV show I missed on it, these things were not possible just a few years ago. So having a company like Netflix or Amazon foot the bill for my data usage accessing their content makes a lot of sense.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the story here, this sounds like nothing but good news. Why not enable certain apps or services to "pay" for the cost to download or stream something? They could make their money back with sponsorships also.
I'm kind of with you here, Spam. Not sure I understand the "ins-and-outs," but anything to throw a monkey wrench into the status quo is fine with me.
Right now the telcom (and Cable companies) are acting like the Railroads of old. Spending more time, effort and money bribing Congress to protect their monopolies than truly providing good services and innovating.
And why do we need 1-800 numbers? Have you forgotten most phone service now includes unlimited long distance?
The content providers pay their ISP for access, and the end users pay their's. And this will only lower AT&T's costs; it will not lower the end user's costs in the long run.
I disagree, they're all rolling out LTE at a fantastic rate, with VZW leading the charge, which surprised me. As far as innovating goes I'm not quite sure how they can do things any different than every other telecom does this world over. It's only natural that as some revenue streams dry up that they add others and this time at no cost to us.
One of the best uses for this will be for companies to offer their employees, customers, and clients free data and business-to-business access. If you're an electrician, you can locate what you need with a smartphone app, order it, and have it ready and waiting for you at will-call when you drop by. Paying the cost of that access means happy customers and more business.
And the reason you can't do this now is because....?
...(or waiting for the snowplows at Donner Pass)?
Damn, all of sudden I'm really hungry!
Quick note: The other morning, my GF, BJ (not her real name.) went to the fridge to get the strawberry jam jar for some toast. I had used all the jam up, and for no particular reason, put the empty jar back.
She opened it up and while holding up the empty jar to her eye, said, "What the hell is this? It's like the Donner Party round here!"
The reference really made laugh, as did yours.
Sorry, rambling.
Best.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the story here, this sounds like nothing but good news. Why not enable certain apps or services to "pay" for the cost to download or stream something? They could make their money back with sponsorships also.
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
OK.
We mostly don't need them anymore and haven't for quite some time but yet there still are people out there that don't have unlimited nationwide calling. It won't lower your cost but it will prevent you from overage charges plus you're more likely to use that companies site more often because it not using your data. They make more money thus making it a smart move.
I disagree, they're all rolling out LTE at a fantastic rate, with VZW leading the charge, which surprised me. As far as innovating goes I'm not quite sure how they can do things any different than every other telecom does this world over. It's only natural that as some revenue streams dry up that they add others and this time at no cost to us.
I suppose.
I've had a bad experience with ATT. Got the orig. iPhone, grandfathered in "unlimited data." Paying $110/mo. Got a new iPad and wanted to "tether" it to my iPhone 3GS (I think) and they not only wanted to charge me an additional $40/mo., they said, b/c I was changing my plan, I would lose my "unlimited data" featured. I canceled my account and went to Sprint.
Hope that doesn't sound too petty, but my natural, default position as far as telcom's is one of distrust.
Also, I'm not as well-versed in the European services as I should be, but what little I've been able to glean (mostly from these boards) they offer better value. (I may be wrong about this.)
Yep. LTE is good!
So we've been getting ripped off by the telecoms for the last 100 years or so? Freaking telecoms, how dare they make money with manufactured rates.
Oh, easily. They are attempting to push their costs to the content providers. If the content providers fall for it by "sponsoring", the content providers will have to up the price of their service. The company does not care if the end user pays more, just that they are not perceived as the one increasing the cost. Plus, it's a double-dip: customers and the content providers.
It's as if AT&T were providing a service by merely sitting at the end of a pipe and charging access. Everyone providing the dang "content" on the Internet is just a useless data waster in there business model.
And let's add that the Pipe they sit on the end of was paid for by taxpayer dollars, and their service is building the last mile to the customer -- and charging and charging and charging.
Why exactly don't the content producers charge everyone to access their CONTENT, and then based on a piece of their "sit on the end of the pipe and put up a toll booth" they would pay the content providers back? I don't know - it sounds too much like a merit based system to me, and in America, we've got to over feed the parasites and charge the dog for the blood.
So we've been getting ripped off by the telecoms for the last 100 years or so? Freaking telecoms, how dare they make money with manufactured rates.
The business model for AT&T is to charge forever for the Toll booth -- the taxpayer and providers pay for the road.
Now if you didn't have a toll booth at the end of the Internet, you might suspect that AT&T were making money for nothing -- but you see, they've got to have really high quality toll booths.
I'm dismayed how many of you are falling for this. The "cost" of data is a manufactured one. It is not as if AT&T is paying someone else to carry data. They are the data carrier! They can make the data "cost" whatever they want. There is no "savings" to be found here by anyone. There is just more profit for AT&T by making both ends of a data transmission pay for it. Stop buying into the deception!
I have to wonder if there is ANY cost to the internet after the electricity is turned on. I mean, sure there are "bits and bites" moving along it, but isn't there a certain amount of data capacity that is unused? If I have a wire with a certain current -- is it "expensive data" if I measure the fluctuations or not? There may be some spinning platters that temporarily store data for various NSA uses, but other than the fiber moving all these bits, it's a fixed cost until they add a new line.
We have absolutely NO IDEA what it costs to run the internet. It isn't ZERO, so we only have the good intentions of the data providers at the toll booth operators (also known as an ISP) of what it requires. In many circumstances, and locations, providers have a monopoly on service.
So we've been getting ripped off by the telecoms for the last 100 years or so?
Yep, pretty much.
Then why stop now?