[quote]The body isn’t even cold yet, but AT&T is wasting no time in rolling out new “features” that fly in the face of net neutrality. The company has expanded its “sponsored data” program to prepaid wireless customers, offering content companies the option to “sponsor” their data so that it doesn’t count against users’ caps.
This, in case you’re wondering, is what you find under the definition of “paid fast lanes” in the net neutrality false promises hall of fame.
As of right now, the only three services using AT&T’s sponsored data program are DirecTV, UVerse, and Fullscreen. By a huge coincidence, those are three video services owned by AT&T. “Now your plan includes sponsored data. This means, for example, that customers who have DirecTV or U-verse TV can now stream movies and shows … without it counting against their plan data,” AT&T told customers in a text message earlier today.
This flies directly in the face of a statement AT&T made just last year, when it was trying to persuade consumers that the FCC’s net neutrality repeal wouldn’t be the end of a free and open internet. “AT&T intends to operate its network the same way AT&T operates its network today: in an open and transparent manner. We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic,” executive Bob Quinn said at the time.[/quote]
[url=http://bgr.com/2018/02/23/att-net-neutrality-wireless-plans-ugh/]BGR[/url]
Wooow, who'da thunk.
Thanks again to Ajit for [I]saving the internet[/I]
am I the only one that doesn't think this is as sensationalist as this article is written? there's no "fast lane". they're just saying if you use these services THAT AT&T ALSO OWNS, it won't count towards your data cap. why is that a huge deal? every carrier has been doing this for a long time. see T-Mobile Tuesdays, or Verizon's equivalent.
all they're saying is they're not going to veritably charge users twice for the service they are already paying monthly for. now don't get me wrong, AT&T is a bunch of scumfuckers, but not because of this "new" announcement that actually isn't very new at all
[editline]23rd February 2018[/editline]
wouldn't it be worse if AT&T said "hey look, we already take your money for phone service AND for DirecTV, now we're gonna also take up a large chunk of your data if you want to actually use any of those services"
[editline]23rd February 2018[/editline]
by making the AT&T-owned content not count against the data cap, isn't that making it BETTER for other websites? because now users will have significantly more data to be used on other websites???
[QUOTE=FFStudios;53154862]am I the only one that doesn't think this is as sensationalist as this article is written? there's no "fast lane". they're just saying if you use these services THAT AT&T ALSO OWNS, it won't count towards your data cap. why is that a huge deal? every carrier has been doing this for a long time. see T-Mobile Tuesdays, or Verizon's equivalent.
all they're saying is they're not going to veritably charge users twice for the service they are already paying monthly for. now don't get me wrong, AT&T is a bunch of scumfuckers, but not because of this "new" announcement that actually isn't very new at all
[editline]23rd February 2018[/editline]
wouldn't it be worse if AT&T said "hey look, we already take your money for phone service AND for DirecTV, now we're gonna also take up a large chunk of your data if you want to actually use any of those services"
[editline]23rd February 2018[/editline]
by making the AT&T-owned content not count against the data cap, isn't that making it BETTER for other websites? because now users will have significantly more data to be used on other websites???[/QUOTE]
That was the way it was before the net neutrality bill was passed. Originally it was just ISP's own products that didn't count against a user's data cap. Now they're opening up the same service to other companies so that they're products don't go against the user's data cap.
[QUOTE]The company has [b]expanded[/b] its “sponsored data” program to prepaid wireless customers, [b]offering content companies[/b] the option to “sponsor” their data so that it doesn’t count against users’ caps.
[b]As of right now,[/b] the only three services using AT&T’s sponsored data program are DirecTV, UVerse, and Fullscreen.[/QUOTE]
So the article is saying that AT&T has created a new service whereby their versions of certain products don't count towards a data cap, but they're also shopping around for companies to pay them to make their products also be "sponsored services".
The article is very confusingly written.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;53154862]am I the only one that doesn't think this is as sensationalist as this article is written? there's no "fast lane". they're just saying if you use these services THAT AT&T ALSO OWNS, it won't count towards your data cap. why is that a huge deal? every carrier has been doing this for a long time. see T-Mobile Tuesdays, or Verizon's equivalent.
all they're saying is they're not going to veritably charge users twice for the service they are already paying monthly for. now don't get me wrong, AT&T is a bunch of scumfuckers, but not because of this "new" announcement that actually isn't very new at all
[editline]23rd February 2018[/editline]
wouldn't it be worse if AT&T said "hey look, we already take your money for phone service AND for DirecTV, now we're gonna also take up a large chunk of your data if you want to actually use any of those services"
[editline]23rd February 2018[/editline]
by making the AT&T-owned content not count against the data cap, isn't that making it BETTER for other websites? because now users will have significantly more data to be used on other websites???[/QUOTE]
They shouldn't have data caps in the first place. By making their own services not count toward their artificial cap they're pushing people to use their services above similar competing services.
Wireless carrier internet connections never fell under the net neutrality rules.
They've been doing this for quite some time. Like T-Mobile's thing were Netflix doesn't count to your data cap.
This article clearly is intended to confuse readers on what is going on.
Yeah I'm not seeing the fuss about this. If somebody with more know-how into why this is a bad thing for the consumer please speak up cause it just seems to be folk taking the piss out of AT&T for being AT&T.
I personally like this as opposed to fast lanes.
I already don't have unlimited data, so the option to purchase it again would be nice. I hope this leads to them opening up their unlimited plans even more for more services in the future. Stuff like Spotify, Navigation (Google Maps/Waze), etc. since on long car drives I have to use monthly data for that stuff as is.
what i could imagine this leading to is another netflix situation, where only certain services are "sponsored" and the rest fuck your data cap up. so only the services that pay at&t out of their ass to become sponsored get any people to use their service because people don't want to use their data. it's basically sounds like a big "pay us money or nobody will use your app"
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53155001]Yeah I'm not seeing the fuss about this. If somebody with more know-how into why this is a bad thing for the consumer please speak up cause it just seems to be folk taking the piss out of AT&T for being AT&T.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;53155030]I personally like this as opposed to fast lanes.
I already don't have unlimited data, so the option to purchase it again would be nice. I hope this leads to them opening up their unlimited plans even more for more services in the future. Stuff like Spotify, Navigation (Google Maps/Waze), etc. since on long car drives I have to use monthly data for that stuff as is.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53155038]If you had a low data cap that often ran out, you'd be financially forced to use their services.
And they've lowered data caps in the past.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be more of an indication that there could be problems in the future if this service was combined with, for example, lowered data caps for non-sponsored services, or other things of that nature.
It's moreso a sign of things to come, now that there's no limit on what tactics an ISP can use in order to maximise profits at the expense of a fair and open internet. They would prefer to gradually move towards these less competitive business endeavours in order to normalize them and reduce outrage as opposed to instantly enacting them as soon as net neutrality is appealed.
Look at what happened with monetisation of microtransactions and downloadable content in online apps/games for an example. They didn't just switch overnight, it was a gradual process of seeing what they could get away with and then carefully pushing the bar over time. Until we got to the nickle-and-diming we see today within online apps and 'games as a service', causing us to ask "what happened?". It is a gradual process.
Reminder that AT&T was split up by Ronald Reagan
think about that
[QUOTE=Zyler;53155112]This seems to be more of an indication that there could be problems in the future if this service was combined with, for example, lowered data caps for non-sponsored services, or other things of that nature.
It's moreso a sign of things to come, now that there's no limit on what tactics an ISP can use in order to maximise profits at the expense of a fair and open internet. They would prefer to gradually move towards these less competitive business endeavours in order to normalize them and reduce outrage as opposed to instantly enacting them as soon as net neutrality is appealed.
Look at what happened with monetisation of microtransactions and downloadable content in online apps/games for an example. They didn't just switch overnight, it was a gradual process of seeing what they could get away with and then carefully pushing the bar over time. Until we got to the nickle-and-diming we see today within online apps and 'games as a service', causing us to ask "what happened?". It is a gradual process.[/QUOTE]
A process that has taken literal decades to become this perverse which is now also in the process of being regulated by the government because of how invasive it's become. I also have the choice of just...not contributing to the microtransaction bonanza?
They're not going to lower data caps for specific services, that'd be stupid. It's impossible to regulate individual websites like that. The only way to capitalize on this is by making their own services more appealing, which they have done as we can see from the article. Then they can offer other companies the same benefits to further monetize this business process.
Is it unethical from a competitive standpoint? Probably, welcome to the new FCC. Does it harm us from a consumer standpoint? Not at all.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53155114]Reminder that AT&T was split up by Ronald Reagan
think about that[/QUOTE]
Honestly seems like it's time to do it again, but this time to all the telecoms
Especially fucking Comcast.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53155178][B]Offering this to other companies is pretty much fast lanes. So yes, it does harm us from a consumer standpoint.
[/B]
Every single ISP harms us from a consumer standpoint. That's their entire goal, because its profitable to harm us.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not? A fast lane is an ISP deliberately throttling your current speeds. It's actively being malicious.
Data caps on the other hand have [B]always[/B] been a thing and have always been a part of cell phones (minutes, SMS limits, etc.). AT&T is opening them up to be unlimited now for their services. It's not beneficial to other companies for them to do so, but it isn't malicious as fast lanes are intended to be.
It may be anti-competitive, but it's not anti-consumer. For it to be comparable AT&T would also have to be actively lowering everyone's data or slowing service speed.
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;53155224]No, it's not? A fast lane is an ISP deliberately throttling your current speeds. It's actively being malicious.
Data caps on the other hand have [B]always[/B] been a thing and have always been a part of cell phones (minutes, SMS limits, etc.). AT&T is opening them up to be unlimited now for their services. It's not beneficial to other companies for them to do so, but it isn't malicious as fast lanes are intended to be.
It may be anti-competitive, but it's not anti-consumer. For it to be comparable AT&T would also have to be actively lowering everyone's data or slowing service speed.[/QUOTE]
Data caps are anti-consumer. There is no reason to have them besides getting people to use your services over others, or to get you to pay more to have no cap or more data. You're essentially forced to pay more money or user their services to not have an artificial arbitrary limit to how much data you can use forced on you.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53155317]I seem to recall there being no data caps in the late 90s and early 2000s, and surely to hell I didn't just make that up.[/QUOTE]
to be fair, there was a lot less internet users and congestion in that time
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53155317]I seem to recall there being no data caps in the late 90s and early 2000s, and surely to hell I didn't just make that up.[/QUOTE]
For hard-line, no of course. but iirc back in the day for txt/mobile data they'd continually charge you for every kb/mb you used and cut you off when you finally racked the bill up high enough.
[QUOTE=Exploderguy;53155372]to be fair, there was a lot less internet users and congestion in that time[/QUOTE]
Data size has nothing to do with congestion.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53155439]For hard-line, no of course. but iirc back in the day for txt/mobile data they'd continually charge you for every kb/mb you used and cut you off when you finally racked the bill up high enough.[/QUOTE]
There were still plenty of unlimited plans in the earlier times of mobile data. We pay more for mobile data than plenty of other countries.
[QUOTE=Levelog;53155488]There were still plenty of unlimited plans in the earlier times of mobile data. We pay more for mobile data than plenty of other countries.[/QUOTE]
Where would I go to see old archived cell phone plans anyway, google is no help.
[QUOTE=reedbo;53155476]Data size has nothing to do with congestion.[/QUOTE]
A large/unlimited data size usually leads to congestion? It allows more opportunities for users to eventually congest a network, forcing ISPs to upgrade their network exchanges which was probably one of the reasons ISP's added a cap in the first place
It honestly boggles my mind that there are still data caps in the 21st century in countries like the US. Other poorer countries i could understand, but jesus. Ive never seen datacaps on internet outside of my phone
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;53155224]No, it's not? A fast lane is an ISP deliberately throttling your current speeds. It's actively being malicious.
Data caps on the other hand have [B]always[/B] been a thing and have always been a part of cell phones (minutes, SMS limits, etc.). AT&T is opening them up to be unlimited now for their services. It's not beneficial to other companies for them to do so, but it isn't malicious as fast lanes are intended to be.
It may be anti-competitive, but it's not anti-consumer. For it to be comparable AT&T would also have to be actively lowering everyone's data or slowing service speed.[/QUOTE]
Anti-competitive [B]is[/B] anti-consumer. If some startup can't get off the ground, or a company goes out of business, or even just does a little worse because they can't compete with preferential treatment given to services owned by isps or companies who can afford to pay them off, that is a loss. When there's less competition, there's less incentive to improve or charge reasonable prices.
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;53155147]A process that has taken literal decades to become this perverse which is now also in the process of being regulated by the government because of how invasive it's become. I also have the choice of just...not contributing to the microtransaction bonanza?
They're not going to lower data caps for specific services, that'd be stupid. It's impossible to regulate individual websites like that. The only way to capitalize on this is by making their own services more appealing, which they have done as we can see from the article. Then they can offer other companies the same benefits to further monetize this business process.
Is it unethical from a competitive standpoint? Probably, welcome to the new FCC. Does it harm us from a consumer standpoint? Not at all.[/QUOTE]
How is not obvious to you that it is going to harm consumers severly when they start stifling competition like this? It's not merely "unethical". They will lower the overall data caps the moment they consider it profitable, and in the end only big corporations who can afford this deal can get their service any users at all.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53155001]Yeah I'm not seeing the fuss about this. If somebody with more know-how into why this is a bad thing for the consumer please speak up cause it just seems to be folk taking the piss out of AT&T for being AT&T.[/QUOTE]
There's a data cap. Data isn't a finite resource that needs to be mined from the earth and processed. They can either support the number of people on their network or they can't. They can. But there's a cap anyway. Now they're offering up their OWN services to not count towards that data cap (How generous) while still making everything else count. So they're giving incentive and prioritizing their own services over others.
This could potentially allow them to control who wins and who loses when it comes to internet businesses. Let's say AT&T decides to block Facetime on all iPhones so that all their customers have to pay for and use their more expensive plan to use it (Because they have their own app they'd rather you use). Pretty shit, right? Oh, also, They have blocked Facetime on all iPhones and forced their customers to pay for a more expensive plan before. AT&T doesn't have SHIT to do with Facetime, yet did that
And you think AT&T is the only ISP that's done something like that? There's a huge ass list
Every day I have less reasons to host my stuff in the US, in fact I moved my servers from the US to lithuania around a year ago.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53155502]Where would I go to see old archived cell phone plans anyway, google is no help.[/QUOTE]
Most of the carriers way back when had a pay per MB model, a 200 (500?) MB/mo model (usually meant for feature phones) and an unlimited model. At least Verizon did.
Of course, back then, smartphones were extremely expensive and a huge niche item. They also were very difficult to use more than a GB, since you were using old 500 KB/s 3G, so it was practically unlimited.
[QUOTE=Exploderguy;53155659]A large/unlimited data size usually leads to congestion? It allows more opportunities for users to eventually congest a network, forcing ISPs to upgrade their network exchanges which was probably one of the reasons ISP's added a cap in the first place[/QUOTE]
Oh noo muh ISP forced to go with time and upgrade it's network :'(
Seriously, how much some of you US citizens pay for Internet, ISPs could upgrade their whole network every month.
[QUOTE=Zyler;53154957]
So the article is saying that AT&T has created a new service whereby their versions of certain products don't count towards a data cap, but they're also shopping around for companies to pay them to make their products also be "sponsored services".
The article is very confusingly written.[/QUOTE]
yeah I don't think I fully grasped that when first reading the article. I feel like it should have been a much bigger deal that this plan is intended to also be used with third-party vendors, and not the fact that AT&T also owns DirecTV
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
