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!
Competition among carriers and a proven track record of what customers are willing to pay renders your argument moot.
If there were competitors willing to offer truly unlimited access per month the larger companies might drop their fees.
It seems incongruous to me that someone named "Muppetry" could make such an astute observation.
Made me laugh!
Best.
Some readers have raised the suspicion that it's not my real name. As a username, it generally ensures low expectations that anything I write will make sense.
I think this will end badly for all of us. If only the largest companies with the deepest pockets can sponsor the data, then it means smaller start-ups can't compete. Similarly Pandora can't afford to do this, but Apple, Google, and SiriusXM could which would pretty much end Pandora overnight.
Still, let the free market decide, or at least let the consumers go screw themselves further with "free" services.
Some readers have raised the suspicion that it's not my real name. As a username, it generally ensures low expectations that anything I write will make sense.
Yes, yes, I'm beginning to see it, now. "Muppetry," it does have a certain flair. One might even say, elan. The confident dash of a cavalry officer.
Some readers have raised the suspicion that it's not my real name. As a username, it generally ensures low expectations that anything I write will make sense.
More like with a Kermit voice than whether you make sense or not.
Combined with AT&T Internet in the home (either the current wired flavor or future home LTE IP services), this is the replacement for the traditional cable box/company. It encourages content owners to peer directly with AT&T regional backbones and ushers in levels of QoS, bandwidth reservation and live multicast features directly to the content owners cutting out the middle industry. Pick the Appliance that provides the best a la carte or bundles that fits the consumer. This has to be putting pressure on cable companies that are, at best, tier 2 ISPs
I can't see how Verizon isn't next to this dance. It has to be what is on Google's mind.
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!
This is simply not the case. Every carrier pays for 3rd party last mile, long haul and trans-oceanic. And it reads like your are not accounting for maintenance and upgrades. Think going from OC-12s to 48s to 192s to 10GE, to 100GE just happens at no cost? The savings is in the fullest pipes carrying the most profitable payload.
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!
This is simply not the case. Every carrier pays for 3rd party last mile, long haul and trans-oceanic. And it reads like your are not accounting for maintenance and upgrades. Think going from OC-12s to 48s to 192s to 10GE, to 100GE just happens at no cost? The savings is in the fullest pipes carrying the most profitable payload.
Well said!
I am no particular fan of AT&T, but in the free-market economy -- they have the ability to take risk and realize the reward!
This is just a sneaky way to get around net neutrality. Sure, make it seem like they are doing a nice thing. But it is quite obvious they want to see content providers pay for tiered access to the net.
Sounds like a great opportunity for ATT to double dip.
If I purchase MLB.TV subscription and during those162 games, MLB shows me targeted ads vs what is currently a bland screen during inning breaks and pitcher relief. Instead of splitting ad time with a local cable carrier all ads and all revenue goes to MLB. In exchange for the burden of being sold at during a game MLB picks up the BW costs while I'm on the wireless carrier network.
MLB bolting up AT&T directly could leverage multicast to drastically cut the bits on the wire compared to a few hundred thousand individual streams. Costs are cut, revenues grow, margins grow, savings will be passed on as soon as a 2nd carrier does the same deal with MLB. MLB can negotiate a better rate or better features playing one carrier against the other. Enter 3rd Tier 1 carrier, then the tier 2 and 3 carriers.
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.
Exactly! This would make sense for things like ITunes Radio, especially if they already are running ads on the system. If I have to listen to ads then why am I paying for the bandwidth to do that. This is even more rational for iOS devices.
However I can see this clogging up AT&Ts networks. No matter how good you are you can't beat the physics of radio technology.
However I can see this clogging up AT&Ts networks. No matter how good you are you can't beat the physics of radio technology.
So we’ll have to go around it. What’s the limitation here? Let me guess, no looking anything up.
Only a certain number of people can connect to each tower because each telecom is only allotted a specific section of bandwidth. Additionally, within that section of bandwidth, there is a minimum distance between which individual users can tune so that they don’t hear each other’s conversations or receive static.
Because we’re running up against the maximum number of users per tower (there’s a cell phone for every person on the planet, right?), more towers have to be built. But then telecoms are still restricted to their specific bandwidths, so there’ll still be the problem of shared frequencies and overlap and whatever.
Oh, and on top of that, the frequencies allotted to all cellular telephony has a maximum… compressible (?) data rate due to the limitations of the physics of the frequency itself.
Right? Something like that?
So what are some options for getting around this? Microcells instead of larger towers? Shorter range but all the same frequency options to serve more people, more locally? That would also spur on fiber adoption.
Oh, and why can’t we just hop up into the terahertz bands to get past the data limitations? I can’t imagine those are in use. Still too much power draw to use them effectively?
It seems incongruous to me that someone named "Muppetry" could make such an astute observation.
Made me laugh!
Best.
"One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things just does not belong.
Can you guess which thing is not like the other?
By the time I finish this song?"
I am assuming that many Appleinsider visitors will not accept that plan from AT&T because they hate ads. Many tech enthusiasts are always complaining about free products that come with ads. But providers need to make money by using different methods. Even Samsung needs some help right now because profit view widely misses estimates on huge bonus payout. http://ow.ly/skKW8
How is this a bad idea? Really you must ask? What this means is data will be pay to play. This is the opposite of net neutrality. It means if Youtube sponsors data because they have more money than Vimeo (or a better deal with AT&T) than you'll only be watching YouTube. It means any information or knowledge you wish to seek that isn't from a wealthy cooperation will cost you, but whatever propaganda a huge corporation wishes to push on you is what you will see. This is a DANGEROUS slippery slope, and it is exactly why NET NEUTRALITY laws which currently only apply to landline providers exist, and need to be expanded to ALL providers.
Comments
Competition among carriers and a proven track record of what customers are willing to pay renders your argument moot.
If there were competitors willing to offer truly unlimited access per month the larger companies might drop their fees.
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.
Some readers have raised the suspicion that it's not my real name. As a username, it generally ensures low expectations that anything I write will make sense.
Similarly Pandora can't afford to do this, but Apple, Google, and SiriusXM could which would pretty much end Pandora overnight.
Still, let the free market decide, or at least let the consumers go screw themselves further with "free" services.
Some readers have raised the suspicion that it's not my real name. As a username, it generally ensures low expectations that anything I write will make sense.
Yes, yes, I'm beginning to see it, now. "Muppetry," it does have a certain flair. One might even say, elan. The confident dash of a cavalry officer.
Best.
More like with a Kermit voice than whether you make sense or not.
I can't see how Verizon isn't next to this dance. It has to be what is on Google's mind.
This is simply not the case. Every carrier pays for 3rd party last mile, long haul and trans-oceanic. And it reads like your are not accounting for maintenance and upgrades. Think going from OC-12s to 48s to 192s to 10GE, to 100GE just happens at no cost? The savings is in the fullest pipes carrying the most profitable payload.
Well said!
I am no particular fan of AT&T, but in the free-market economy -- they have the ability to take risk and realize the reward!
You've got a helluva deadpan delivery.
Detelecom the Internet, at least.
If I purchase MLB.TV subscription and during those162 games, MLB shows me targeted ads vs what is currently a bland screen during inning breaks and pitcher relief. Instead of splitting ad time with a local cable carrier all ads and all revenue goes to MLB. In exchange for the burden of being sold at during a game MLB picks up the BW costs while I'm on the wireless carrier network.
MLB bolting up AT&T directly could leverage multicast to drastically cut the bits on the wire compared to a few hundred thousand individual streams. Costs are cut, revenues grow, margins grow, savings will be passed on as soon as a 2nd carrier does the same deal with MLB. MLB can negotiate a better rate or better features playing one carrier against the other. Enter 3rd Tier 1 carrier, then the tier 2 and 3 carriers.
a la carte
However I can see this clogging up AT&Ts networks. No matter how good you are you can't beat the physics of radio technology.
So we’ll have to go around it. What’s the limitation here? Let me guess, no looking anything up.
Only a certain number of people can connect to each tower because each telecom is only allotted a specific section of bandwidth. Additionally, within that section of bandwidth, there is a minimum distance between which individual users can tune so that they don’t hear each other’s conversations or receive static.
Because we’re running up against the maximum number of users per tower (there’s a cell phone for every person on the planet, right?), more towers have to be built. But then telecoms are still restricted to their specific bandwidths, so there’ll still be the problem of shared frequencies and overlap and whatever.
Oh, and on top of that, the frequencies allotted to all cellular telephony has a maximum… compressible (?) data rate due to the limitations of the physics of the frequency itself.
Right? Something like that?
So what are some options for getting around this? Microcells instead of larger towers? Shorter range but all the same frequency options to serve more people, more locally? That would also spur on fiber adoption.
Oh, and why can’t we just hop up into the terahertz bands to get past the data limitations? I can’t imagine those are in use. Still too much power draw to use them effectively?
Again, I’m not looking up diddly right now.
"One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things just does not belong.
Can you guess which thing is not like the other?
By the time I finish this song?"
(originally sung by a muppet I believe...)