AT&T tweaks wireless terms of service to forbid video streaming, filesharing, data tethering

Looks like AT&T's taking some aggressive steps to manage network traffic now that it's offering subsidized netbooks -- the carrier updated its data plan terms of service last night to specifically single out and prohibit "downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, web broadcasting, and... any applications that tether the device... to Personal Computers or other equipment." That's an impressively strict set of rules that seemingly bans a number of apps AT&T customers are already using without complaint -- everything from SlingPlayer to Qik to Skype to Jaikuspot -- so we'll see if the company is really so tone-deaf as to try and retroactively prohibit their use, or if it'll just ignore what it can't possibly enforce. We've pinged AT&T for comment, we'll let you know what they say.

P.S.- It's not just AT&T struggling to keep up with how people actually use its network -- Deutsche Telekom today threatened to cut off German T-Mobile customers who dare to use Skype. Nice. Can someone give all these guys some new ideas, please?

[Via GigaOm]

[Andrew @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:29PM]

MLB.TV + N85 FTW

[OneLove @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:50PM]

AT&T is da devil!

[MJZimmer88 @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:34PM]

New idea:
What does it take to support a more powerful network? Infrastructure... is that why we're paying these guys in the first place? I certainly don't seem to be paying for customer service...

[air12ick @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:40PM]

We are paying for their marketing blitz and their "exclusive" partnership contracts. If you take a look around you, how many billboards are a cell phone company's ad, or on tv, each show has some kind of cell phone company ad, even at your local sport center (stadium, ball park, even the pool) there is an ad.

On top of the ads, AT&T pays rediculus amounts to "rent" a small space for their cell towers, or pays a thrid party to "rent" their tower for their use.

I would say only 10-20% of our bill actually pays for the operation of the cell tower and the cell phone service, the rest is pure profit, not for AT&T but for those Ad agencies or those land owners with a cell site on their property.

[sycks @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:43PM]

If this is a change to the ToS, does that mean we can get out of our contracts?

[dnensel @ Apr 3rd 2009 3:08PM]

And didnt MLB just release an Iphone app that streams video clips and possibly whole games... pretty sure the iPhone is "only on AT&T" (officially anyway) sooo how's that gonna work?

[KevinC @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:19PM]

@air12ick - er, with regard to the 'outrageous' fees that land owners collect from at&t...I don't think so. I rent a lot to AT&T for a massive tower...massive. It takes up about the same space as a small house and I make about $8500.00 a YEAR on it. Not the huge income generator you implied.
-KevinC

[Derek @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:53PM]

Doesn't this mean you can't use the YouTube application on the iPhone, etc?

[Steve Miller @ Apr 3rd 2009 6:27PM]

I have a better idea for AT&T...how about they just improve their network...with...wait for it...FRIGGIN LASERS!.

[Markarian @ Apr 3rd 2009 9:34PM]

I use my iPhone 3G to tether using PDA Net. I've heard tons of rumors and warnings that ATT will charge you for your data usage if you "get caught" or use "too much" data, or will cut you off entirely. No matter how hard I searched, I couldn't event find a single anecdote that described this actually happening to someone. As a matter of fact, the guy at the ATT store where I got my iPhone specifically told me I could use my SIM in an HSDPA card. So what's the real deal? Now that there's more apps than ever that are data-intensive (Skype, YouTube, Pandora), how is ATT monitoring the traffic? Is there a soft cap? What happens when you go over?

[stinkiemcphee @ Apr 4th 2009 9:19AM]

I dunno about you guys, but I get (upto) 2.2Mbps out near philadelphia on my tilt....

[air12ick @ Apr 4th 2009 4:36PM]

@KevinC I guess it has to do with location, company, or time frame. I remember having a conversation with someone who would get $900-$1000 per month to rent the portion of property (which I don't think it was AT&T, it was someone else). Also, this property was considered to be buisness property not personal property. But I also have heard people just like you would get as low as $5000 a year. This was usually out of a dense population, like a farm. Keep in mind, it is just vauge details I get through casual conversation, so I don't know the terms I just go wow, thats a lot. I did not mean to offend any of the land owners with cell sites on their property, I was trying to imply that there should be a better way to handle cell site rental.

Plus, considering the amount of cell sites that exist, adding them all up would be a lot of money.

P.S. I'm in the San Diego region also, where a lot of "cell phone testing" goes on. Which probably would explain that outrages rental figure. Though having Qualcomm nearby is pretty cool, because sometimes you get to see the next big thing with cell phones with someone holding it around town (you have to have a good eye to catch these, I've only caught 4, which one was the MediaFlo tech before it launched).

[electron @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:29PM]

may you die a slow and painful death, AT&T... (actually, don't... but still, wth guys?!?)

[Josiah @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:36PM]

@ electron I second that...

[Kamokazi @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:02PM]

Yeah seriously.

All these Telcos are fighting so hard to avoid becoming a dump pipe for Internet access. Do they really think they can accomplish that? I don't. What they should be focusing on is the opposite. Instead of trying to be more than a dumb pipe, they should try to be the best damn pipe possible. Improve speed, service, reliability, and price, and you will get my business and many others'.

[wrabbit @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:52PM]

@Kamokazi: Couldn't have said it better myself.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:30PM]

Don't be surprised to see Verizon follow suit, if they don't already have strict terms like that.

[p3t3b2 @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:05PM]

Nah, I doubt it, Verizon along with Sprint have far superior networks (JDPower can attest to that). The EVDO network was built for that very reason, to allow what At&t is blocking it's customers from doing. This also shows that EVDO it superior to HSDPA. This brings up an interesting question as to why Verizon chose LTE, especially since LTE is a build-off of 3G GSM. Whereas, Wimax is outside the box new from the ground up. The reason GSM in America is struggling, is due to GSM being a build-off of an old cellular network. CDMA and EVDO are not build-offs, they were new networks built from the ground up. I remember when in the beginning Sprint was knocked for choosing CDMA, at the last minute other carriers decided to go CDMA. I would not be surprised if something similar happens.

[R. Corrino @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:28PM]

@ p3t3b2

I'm not sure but i think you may have it the other way around. GSM bas built for digital transmission, CDMA had analog roots.

The reason, I think, that GSM is less common in the USA as opposed to Europe and Asia is that when cellphone technology (analog) started here, the CDMA carriers had the most invested. When GSM came along, they were hesitant to make the switch because of the investment they made in the infrastructure. Late adopters (AT&T i.e. Cingular) and T-Mobile ( a German company) had less of an investment so they could go with GSM. After that, it's just market forces that came into play. Consumers chose the older CDMA versus the newer GSM (just like they chose the inferior VHS over Betamax). With this momentum, CDMA carriers were able to advance to 2G and 3G technologies faster than GSM.

While I agree that EVDO is faster than HSDPA, a lot can be attributed to coverage area. Verizon and Sprint have more 3G towers than AT&T than the almost non-existent 3G of T-Mobile.

Which still pisses me off because I have to have 2 phones to get good reception. A CDMA one for when I am in the US and a GSM one for when I go overseas.

[p3t3b2 @ Apr 3rd 2009 2:57PM]

@R. Corrino

Sprint was the 1st US carrier to go all digital, PacBell, Sprint, and GTE (now Verizon) provide PCS 1900 which was the original 2G digital. Sprint and GTE used the Q-CDMA system, analog GSM was a combination of FDMA and TDMA:

–Frequency spectrum divided into two
frequency bands
–One band for uplink, other for downlink
• A frequency carrier is a pair of
uplink/downlink frequencies
–Each is 200 Khz

GSM maximum "cell" radius was 20 miles, keep in mind, Cell = Analog, PCS = Digital. Sprints 'wired-line' service started out analog.

[DallasFlier @ Apr 3rd 2009 3:56PM]

@ p3t3b2:

Your reference to "analog GSM" shows that you do have it wrong, there was never any such thing as "analog GSM." From the wikipedia article on GSM: "GSM differs from its predecessors in that both signaling and speech channels are digital, and thus is considered a second generation (2G) mobile phone system." GSM has been a 2G digital system from its inception. Also, there's the little fact that (again from wiki) "80% of the global mobile market uses the standard. GSM is used by over 3 billion people across more than 212 countries and territories." You're correct about the earlier deployment of CDMA here, which led to the "legacy" systems such as Verizon's and Sprint's advancing in that direction, rather than implementing GSM as most of the world has done. So currently there is some edge in speed, but there is so much R&D money, as well as market momentum behind GSM that it will be very difficult for the non-GSM world minority of carriers to keep pace with technological advances over the next few years. Also, I do love using my GSM 3G phone here in the US, because *I* don't have to carry two phones for my international travels, as you admit and complain that you do. :-)

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:05PM]

@p3t3b2 your assumptions are actually wrong. HSPA is faster, starting with 3.6mbps and beyond. If AT&T's network is performing less than verizon, it is related to network congestion (which AT&T gets slammed datawise), lack of backhaul (a problem in my area), and or lack of spectrum.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:11PM]

You have to realize, most of these sites are ran off of primarily T1s. In my area, I've observed that there are only a single T1 per 3g site, mainly because there isn't quite the demand for it yet. That is 1.5mbit for 3 3.6mbit HSPA sectors, not nearly enough. Keep in mind i live in a small city of approx. 220k pop, with a low population density. The single T1 is justified as speeds are fine.

In places like NYC, most areas are still running off of a single 1900mhz channel, that is only 5mhz of spectrum to all 3g capable users. Verizon has probably 30mhz total to devote to one technology. That is where you see the speed difference. AT&T is currently working on 850mhz overlays which add a second 3.6mbit channel which will double capacity....at least air interface wise, the backhaul still won't match what HSPA can do.

[santaninja @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:17PM]

cdma came first and is old technology and gprs/gsm is new, and better and AT&T and T-mobile used it first

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:22PM]

Sorry, not most sites have a single T1, but anywhere with low pop. density will generally have single T1s...which is a lot of places. Other places may have 2-3 and sometimes even more.

[p3t3b2 @ Apr 3rd 2009 5:15PM]

@DallasFlier

You're not understanding the different types of GSM and how it has evolved over the years. The original GSM was born out of analog radio frequency way back in the day, the late 70's. It has since had several generations in upgrades. The original GSM was created to counter the USA's AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone Service) network.

@zephxiii

It is apparent you do not realize the HSDPA speed test At&t were boasting, are laboratory location specific test (no real world world test were done). At&t knew it's devices could not achieve those speeds, if At&t attempted to allow devices on it's network to run at higher speeds, their network would slow to a crawl. At&t put a cap on HSDPA at 1.4Mbps down. Apple and European carriers selling the iphone are being sued due to the misleading commercials which boast the iphone as having the fastest 3G speeds.

@santaninja

You have it wrong, the 'concept' of CDMA technology was developed back in 1988, CDMA went live in 1992, Sprint launched it's CDMA network in 1994. As I mentioned above, GSM technology has been around since the late 70's. Conference of European Posts and Telegraphs (CEPT) created the GSM mobile network in 1989. A GSM group outlined standards, researched technology and designed a way to implement a pan-European mobile phone network. In 1989 work done by the GSM group was transferred to the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI). The name GSM was transposed to name the type of service invented. The acronym GSM had been changed from Group Spécial Mobile to Global Systems Mobile Telecommunications. Commercial service for GSM began in 1991.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 5:33PM]

@ p3t3b2: Wrong again, there is no cap at 1.4mbit.
http://www.howardforums.com/showpost.php?p=11942741&postcount=12
http://www.howardforums.com/showpost.php?p=12121920&postcount=5

1.4mbit may look like a cap if the site only has 1 T1. Also, apple wasn't comparing speeds to other carriers, they were comparing to their non-3g Iphone.

Also your logic doesn't make any sense, the site will balance speeds between users. It's best to let them download as fast as the site can push so they can get out of other people's way.

[p3t3b2 @ Apr 3rd 2009 6:11PM]

Let's see, do I reference a Blog, or do I go straight to the horses mouth?... LINK HERE: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=25791 Under, "AT&T's 3G Wireless Network."

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 6:41PM]

Yea p3t3b2, and obviously that isn't the reality of things either as shown in my post above. Ya can pull more than 1.4 if the site has enough backhaul to it as demonstrated. Note that 1.4 is just under the speed of a T1, which a large amount of sites only have. They are saying you are limited to 1.4, they are just giving the top end range of average.

Also might want to check:
http://gizmodo.com/5111991/austin-3g-test-att-sprint-and-verizon

Another example that 1.4 isn't a cap, it's just conservative claim that all carriers make. They hit or nearly hit 2mbit in austin.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 6:43PM]

*Correction* I mean to say: "They are NOT saying you are limited to 1.4, they are just giving the top end range of average. "

[p3t3b2 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:07PM]

You putting your own spin on it does not change the fact the article says this... "The iPhone 3G harnesses the power of AT&T's broad and powerful 3G mobile broadband network, which offers 3G mobile phones download speeds of up to 1.4 Mbps." It does not get more clear than that.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:14PM]

No, it doesn't get more clear than the fact that speeds can and do get above 1.4mbit as demonstrated in the links i posted. YOU are just ignoring the REALITY of it for the sake backing your own argument. You are putting your spin on it as a cap, when in REALITY it isn't as demonstrated. All of those links are dated after June 08 too btw in case you didn't notice.

You are similarly trying to argue that glass isn't transparent, when in reality it is as observed.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:32PM]

OH p3t3b2, you fill my heart with warmth, here is another one just for you:

http://www.howardforums.com/showpost.php?p=11456114&postcount=33

And another:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?s=4bcaa195092fcecd285695745b2dd945&p=5787164&postcount=16

[p3t3b2 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:45PM]

Are you really that thick? Seriously?? How am I putting a spin on an article provided by At&t? I did not write it. According to JDPower Sprint has not only toppled Verizon, they are greatly out pacing At&t in network speed. You're cherry picking old info, why do you think there are many law suits brewing which challenge At&t's and Apple claims of "the fastest 3G network"? For the record, Sprints and Verizon's EVDO Rev-A is actually 3.5G.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:03PM]

Thick? You're the one being thick. You are ignoring linked references like an idiot, then getting all pissed off while trying to stray the argument somewhere else. The point was about the caps, which obviously there aren't any as shown in the links provided. Quit being such a noob. You act like your pride is hurt so bad that deep painful wounds ripped open in your chest.

Oh and just for reference:

"Mobile Broadband is Verizon Wireless' premier data service, offering your company one of the fastest, fully mobile wireless Internet data solutions available today. This ultra-high-speed wireless service available in various cities throughout the U.S. only from Verizon Wireless, provides users with typical download speeds of 600 Kbps – 1.4 Mbps and typical upload speeds of 500 – 800 Kbps*."

http://support.vzw.com/faqs/VZAccess/faq_natlbrdbandaccess.html

WOW, 0.600-1.4mbps!!!!!! Going by your logic, there must be a cap at 1.4!!!!!!!! funny how that top number is the same as Verizon's isn't it? We all know damn well neither are actually speed capped at 1.4 though. Have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chris Anderson @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:31PM]

What the heck is happening with all these ISPs/carriers becoming more and more restrictive?!?!? Are they purposely trying to regress? The sad thing is, most people don't even know their rights, or what their devices can do, and they give up that freedom without even realizing it existed...and then those practices become more and more commonplace with each carrier.

[Viakenny @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:58PM]

they don't want to become dumb pipes, just providers of internet service with low margins. they're a corporation, and like every corporation, they have to make money.

[acme @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:27PM]

last time i checked a bigger customer base meant more money...

[Viakenny @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:31PM]

bigger customer base = more money
bigger customer base, but with low margins = not so much more money

[Cheetah @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:42PM]

Viakeny you are wrong. If you keep prices affordable, you will have loyal customers that will stay for years. Your customer base will grow because of THAT and it's guaranteed cash flow for them. Instead, AT&T is being greedy and is quickly trying to capitalize off of the iphone because they know people do not like them because of overcharging and high price plans and will soon leave, which is what I recently did. Now I use my iphone for everything but calls. I browse over wifi, get email over wifi, listen to my tunes, do all that my apps allow, play games, get serious work done, etc . . There are cheaper alternatives out there as far as business devices that at least get the job done until Apple decides to leave corny greedy AT&T alone.

[Nic @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:32PM]

what are they smoking? so if I got this right, for $60 and 2 yr contract I can check my email and do "light" browsing (5gb cap.)?

[NHAnimator @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:38PM]

This just in: E-mail accessed prohibited.

[Adam @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:42PM]

I thought it was a 250mb cap for the netbook data plan...which still is a bunch of bull$hit

[Chad @ Apr 3rd 2009 12:31PM]

I call on the FTC to put a stop to using the term unlimited when it clearly is not.

[Temo @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:07PM]

I second this MOTION!!!

[Fernando @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:18PM]

I

[strider_mt2k @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:33PM]

Agreed.

Clearly misleading and false.

-and TRICKSEY! I CALL TRICKSEY YOUR HONOR!!

[NKT @ Apr 3rd 2009 3:06PM]

Show me where it says unlimited...

[Sentax @ Apr 3rd 2009 3:31PM]

@NKT

Straight from the iPhone data plan details when you take the time to visit AT&T to shop..

"Data Plan for iPhone 3G includes unlimited data in the U.S."

[purepowerproduction @ Apr 3rd 2009 4:35PM]

Under "Feature," then "Data Plan for iPhone"

"Data Plan for iPhone 3G includes unlimited data in the U.S. "

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/packages/packages-details.jsp?q_sku=sku2640250&q_package=sku3190234