AT&T Should Be Investigated For 'Fraudulent' Data Policies, Says PK 138
zacharye writes "AT&T on Monday announced a new plan that will let developers pay for the data used by their apps and services. The data consumed by apps that make use of this new feature would not apply toward a user's data cap. The new service was pitched as a way for content providers to ease customers' growing concerns over wireless data usage, however one public interest group sees the feature as a slap in the face to AT&T subscribers. 'This new plan is unfortunate because it shows how fraudulent the AT&T data cap is, and calls into question the whole rationale of the data caps,' Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. 'Apparently it has nothing to do with network management. It's a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.'"
AT&T Investigated (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need to read more than "AT&T Investigated" in order to agree.
That is all.
Hang'em high.
So now AT&T is saying it's NOT a capacity prob (Score:5, Insightful)
Since people balked, even sued, AT&T now proposes that maybe developers could pay the difference.
That is telling. It means the bandwidth necessary for, say, Netflix never was a technical problem. It's just that AT&T looked at the fact that they are just a dumb pipe and AT&T wanted more money for valuable content traversing its network. It's the Net Neutrality problem all over again.
Re:Well, yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are talking about government granted monopolies to public spectrum. There is a limited amount of spectrum. It's not infinite. Government manages it in the public interest. AT&T is granted a license to use some spectrum in the public interest. They cannot just do anything they want with it and charge anything they can manage to swindle customers out of.
If AT&T were charging for access to read their opinions, then that would be a free market. I could just say no and go away. I could go elsewhere and read someone else's opinions for less, or for free. The difference is that there is an extremely limited number of wireless operators that effectively collude on price. Therefore it is important to regulate AT&T and prevent them from charging arbitrarily high prices that are completely unrelated to the cost + reasonable profit of delivering those services.
My response to complaints about the regulation of public utilities is this: If AT&T doesn't like it, then they could just get out of the business and let someone else take over their license to that valuable public spectrum.
Re:Tethering (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how now that they have data caps, they STILL charge for tethering, even though they have no justification for doing so. I also love how if you put a smartphone on their network, they will add a data plan and charge you for it, even if you have data BLOCKED on your account.
I think that always proved the point this article is making. Once they came out with data caps, they should have made tethering free. It's not a case where you use more data because you tether something, just that you use it differently.
I've had numerous people ask me about getting a smartphone without a data plan, because they would be fine with only making calls/txts while out and about, but spend most of their time in the office/home/other wifi zones.
It's ridiculous that you can buy an iPad in wifi or wifi+3g, and data is optional, but you can't buy a "normal" phone with an ipod touch built in. There are plenty of people that would be fine only using wifi for everything besides calls and texts.
It takes a while for the obvious to sink in (Score:5, Insightful)
" 'Apparently it has nothing to do with network management. It's a tool to get more revenue from developers and customers.'"
To use a phrase, "Well, DUH!".
If you had looked in AT&T Wireless's annual reports for the past two years, they never indicated they were reaching any sort of limits on their network.
So either they were lying to their shareholders or to a gullible press and public.
Which is more likely?
Re:So now AT&T is saying it's NOT a capacity p (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:AT&T Investigated (Score:2, Insightful)
No, no, no!
Yeah, he kinda is. Direct quote from him during the election: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history." We now have back room deals with record labels and the Department of Homeland Security search and seizure of laptops at border crossings and the wonderful National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. Yeah, he's a real charmer.
That's something the retarded American public (especially Fox News viewers and Talk Radio listeners) don't get.
No, of course not. Anyone opposing this guy is obviously evil. Freedom of speech is a gift, until you get into power. Then its a real problem.
Re:So now AT&T is saying it's NOT a capacity p (Score:3, Insightful)
1. User pays same amount for 'capped' bandwidth regardless
2. "Developer" pays for their bandwidth - even though it doesn't really line the pockets of the user with any savings
3. "Developer" passes buck to users with higher prices/more ads.
Wham-bam, thank you ma'am.
Re:what is wrong with this? (Score:2, Insightful)
So when are they returning all the public funds they used to build this infrastructure?(with appropriate interest)
Re:AT&T Investigated (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the only one's using the words evil are those opposing Obama, you should check your inflammatory rhetoric as it will accomplish nothing. You can state that you are unhappy that he hasn't lived up to certain campaign promises but to call him evil in the face of all the horrors that were acceptable under his predecessor is quite disingenuous given that most of these policies started with him. Of course many of the policies we all disagree with go back much further to Reagan.
I hate this hyper-polarized political climate we have these days, people spend way too much time calling people names and not enough time actually debating the issues.
Re:AT&T Investigated (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no, no!
Yeah, he kinda is. Direct quote from him during the election: "Mine will be the most transparent administration in history." We now have back room deals with record labels and the Department of Homeland Security search and seizure of laptops at border crossings and the wonderful National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. Yeah, he's a real charmer.
And when did he start writing the laws ? Oh you mean the senate and the house wrote and passed the law (and probably had enough votes to override his veto) ? Oh. Never mind then.
Re:AT&T Investigated (Score:5, Insightful)
They are beyond redemption, but not alone. It's good somebody is bringing that up.
*EVERY* carrier is fucking over the consumer with over sold bandwidth, unrealistic caps, and deceptive marketing practices.
It's more problematic with wireless carriers since they have real problems trying to over sell it because everyone is breaking down the door at the same time for the non-existent bandwidth.
Same thing has happened to Clear in more than a couple of markets. They overloaded their networks so badly their 4G operates no better than 3G.
I hope they destroy AT&T over this, and stick their head on a spike. Maybe put some fear into Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint from pulling the exact same crap.
Will Someone Think of the Developers! (Score:5, Insightful)
At first glance, this seems like a good idea for the consumer, but for smaller, independent and boot-strapped developers (from whom most of the innovative products come) this is basically a nail in the coffin. The only reason the Internet is as innovative as it is now is because any Joe Schmoe with a great idea, some time on his hands and a deep willingness to learn can get his software into hands of millions of people and literally disrupt industries.
Allowing a company to pay for their users' data usage seems like a great idea for consumers, at least in terms of immediate monetary value. Google or Pandora can pay for my data usage and I can consume all I want.
The real problem is that this allows large, well-funded (and probably stagnant) software companies to completely crush smaller, less well-funded companies who have innovative or disruptive ideas. Who's to say You and I don't have a great idea together and want to compete with Pandora? Oh that's right, they have millions in investment capital and we only have time and development skills.
This is the same argument as allowing certain websites to pay extra for faster Internet speeds. Sounds like a great idea on paper, especially for consumers in the short-term, but in the long-term it will harm the entire industry in general by stifling creative innovators.
In the end, whoever has the most money wins.
Re:So now AT&T is saying it's NOT a capacity p (Score:1, Insightful)
I wouldn't have a problem with your mindless regurgitation of the tired assertion that, "Charging for something is a way for regulating demand for a scarce supply of something," if it was a hard good that was being sold. But you're talking about bandwidth that's sold on both the up and down side. Not to mention the fact that as a 'consumer' I have no control over the commercial side of the payload I'm required to download along with the 'content' I request.
The average webpage has mushroomed in size from 15k in 1985 to over a 1MB today, and I have no say in the matter other than the choice not to play.
AT&T on the other hand provides services to consumers and the purveyors. It's a stacked deck, and even though each state has an agency charged with scrutinizing the tariffs, I no one seems at all interested in what's best for the lowly consumer.
Econ 101 would also inform you that you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg... oh no, that's a fairy tale... just like the one you're spouting.