AT&T's "new" video streaming terms are a non-issue
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Apr 29th 2009 7:41PM
posted Apr 29th 2009 7:41PM
There's an awful lot of hubbub going around today about "new" terms in AT&T's wireless contract agreement that seemingly forbid streaming video from your television to your PC or your phone -- in other words, using a Slingbox -- which would seem to be a rewrite of language added and pulled a few weeks ago. Here's the problem: the terms aren't new, and they don't forbid video streaming. One of our editors has a month-old hard copy of AT&T's terms that were mailed to him after agreeing to a new contract, and they're exactly the same -- word for word.Furthermore, the language in question is this: "This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers..." but the problem is that the examples given here are referring to earlier language. In that language, we see that AT&T is more concerned about "server devices or host computer applications" -- that's subsection (i), if you're interested. In other words, AT&T's trying to stop you from uploading a television stream using its connection, not downloading -- and frankly, that sounds like the most painful operation ever conceived by man anyway, so we don't think we're going to get too many violators here.
In other words, rest easy; we still don't know whether the now-overdue SlingPlayer for iPhone will ultimately be approved, but if it's not, it shouldn't be because of this.
[Thanks, Mike and Tieguy]
Ah, I get it now. Thanks!
Does no one from Engadget actually read the comments section? I (and others) pointed out when the original story hit that AT&T's TOS didn't really change, and the examples cited were always prohibited under the old TOS. Much ado about nothing.
Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away they did care about the users. I think once they even talked with us...
I think they stopped caring about us and talking to us when the trolls started their "Engadget bias" campaign.
And I don't blame them ... the "bias" claim was rubbish from the start - it was easily disproved just by reading a representative sample of articles, but the trolls did not bother to do that.
They believed that *any* positive mention of Apple meant bias, and refused to acknowledge the negative mentions of Apple and the positive mentions of Apple's competitors.
It's just unbelievable that, when the original "story" was posted, no one from Engadget actually tried to determine whether this was a material change in AT&T's TOS. They just ran with the "story", without apparently doing any research of any kind. Nothing more than an attempt to inflame the fanboys and drive up page views I guess.
AT&T's TOS always prohibited these types of activities. At least anecdotally, no one has had service cut off for these types of activities, as long as they were staying within the stated bandwidth caps, which were just instituted last year.
No need for the Dick fingers -- there was absolutely a material change. Doing a quick comparison in Wayback Machine could've told you that.
Then by all means please point out what the material changes were and where you cited them. They certainly don't appear in your original story or the follow-up the same day (4/3/09). The "changes" cited were always prohibited by the previous TOS language. The only difference was that specific examples were given for each prohibited acitvity. Your original story had a link to the new TOS and no mention of how it was different from the old TOS, only that the new TOS prohibited uses such as SlingPlayer Mobile. Streaming audio and video (except using AT&T's apps for those things) were prohibited under the old TOS, so how is it a change?
If those are "dick fingers" to you then so be it. It seems you are more interested in snark than accuracy.
I totally disagree. The fact that AT&T has spent time and effort on at least two recent occasions now (that we're aware of) to tweak its examples of prohibited use is very, very notable. Furthermore, in the original change, one example specifically calls out streaming video "from a fixed location to a mobile device." That language is at odds with the language earlier in the paragraph, which is likely why they removed it. It was certainly material.
AT&T wants the same attention Time Warner got. I could only think of this is because of large bandwidths.
sucks for iphone users.
What's the difference between "uploading a television stream" and "streaming video from your television"?
Opposite directions.
Or rather, different connections used to perform the upload. AT&T doesn't care if you use your ISP to do it -- they just don't want you upping over their WWAN.
I believe the bandwidth resources are a more limited on the U.E. (user equipment) to site side of things compared to the opposite.
Bet you could edit your comment, right Chris?
I run my slingplayer on my Diamond in "Slideshow" mode. So I am in fact streaming pictures not video... :D
Booya!
DUMP AT&T
Reply Fail. Sorry.
Why exactly should I do that? LAst month my AT&T bill showed 3GB used on one iPhone, 7GB on another, and 27GB used on my 3G AirCard. And right now I'm getting nearly 2.8Mbps down and 1.4Mbps down. Not too shabby! If they were going to throttle me or cut me off they would have done it by now as my consumer account is very heavy on data.
But AT&T is taking me to prom!
Last night, I watched the entire Bulls/Celtics game live over at Justin.tv
Upping a video stream is a lot more common than you think.
You are confused.
Since you were watching content from justin.tv, you were downloading the stream, not uploading it.
If justin.tv had watched the entire Bulls/Celtics game live from your AT&T device, then you would be upping.
I understand the "intricacies" of uploading vs downloading.
I was making a point that many people are broadcasting (uploading) live video streams. The engadget writer seemed to make a point of saying that uploading a a video steam was not worth the time hence, few people do it.
At any given time, you can watch just about anything on justin.tv or mogulus, from major sporting events to streaming movies playing 24/7. Streaming video is going to be a major challenge for a content provider like AT&T to address and moderate.
No, "the engadget writer" (AKA Chris Ziegler) made a point of saying that uploading a TV show from your cellphone to watch it on your computer is not worth the time.
If you read the first part, you'll see that uploading a TV show from your computer (or networked appliance, such as slingbox) is treated as quite serious -- but not forbidden.
I don't think direct-to-mobile TV has really caught on here in the US -- I get the impression it's quite big in Japan, and reasonably popular in Europe, but not really done much here. Carriers do offer it, but the people I know are [i]much[/i] more likely to sling/hava/etc. video from their home machine than to get TV. I wonder if streaming from 1-seg or DVB-H over IP to a big-screened computer is more common there, but I doubt it -- the (reasonable enough) compromises made to bring video to a low-power, small-screen device are pointless on a desktop, and a large high-res monitor will only make them [i]more[/i] irritating.
Even if it said "forbid streaming video from your television" it wouldn't hold water as SlingBox is between the cablebox/DVR/incoming cable feed and your TV. They would surely word it better than that if they want to make it stick.
why no mention of Orb? works awesome with iphone and windows media center. 1 time $10 cost for the app. also, full access to media/files on home pc hard drive. don't know much about slingbox, but from what i know, sounds like you get less features at more cost...
I'm gonna point my N82 at a TV and live stream it over QIK.
Wasn't expecting this. Kudos to At&t! But I'm still waiting for LTE (WiMax, WiBro, FiberOptics, etc.)
Using LocationFree to watch DirectTV on my Mac at home from friends signal. does this affect me?
Yeah, Slingplayer will ultimately be approved when AT&T can allow streaming that won't make the network go belly-up. Who needs an application on a network that appears to add a thousand simultaneous users for every launch. WiFi only and that should be good enough.