Based on what we're hearing, a slate of soon-to-be-proposed FCC rules may
stop the likes of Comcast from
discriminating against P2P applications on their networks, and AT&T sure will have a tougher time justifying why it won't let the
iPhone's version of SlingPlayer run on 3G while giving WinMo and BlackBerry users all the bandwidth they can handle. Julius Genachowski, the
new chairman of the entity, is slated to discuss the new rules on Monday, though he isn't expected to dig too deep into the minutiae. Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services." We know what you're thinking: "Huzzah!" And in general, that's probably the right reaction to have as a consumer, but one has to wonder how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
posted September 18th 2009 4:42PM
pwnd
The reason that ATT does not allow it on iPhones is because people use DATA a lot more on the iPhone and it would kill the ATT network, if people started to use Slingplayer. ATT's network is already struggling to keep up with capacity....
@fatima
part of me would like to believe that, but how is it any different than watching a video on youtube? like, i dont think that many people would go out and by a slingbox for like $200 and pay another $30 for the app because of the current economic conditions. AT&T just wants our money. like if i have a 5gb cap, why should i have to pay more to tether if the cap is still the same? all in all, screw AT&T.
The FCC doesnt care about network bandwidth, they just want to be able to tell companies what to do. When everyone is having horrible service people will yell at their service providers for not keeping up with demand, not at the FCC for forcing carriers to stretch their networks.
Fatima: GOOD!
Force ATT to and make them suffer because obviously they aren't spending the $80 a month I send them to upgrade their network!
The reason the networks are so stretched is because the companies are being so greedy. AT&T had one of it's most profitable years last year. They make a ton of money on data plans, and they could definitely afford to upgrade the network more... but they're a business, and they're here to make money, so that's what they're doing. Minimalize network traffic, and what people can do on the network, but still charge a high price because you can do "almost anything you want."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that AT&T has been sticking it to its customers for quite some time. The FCC has come out with a lot of good news today for the consumer. AT&T has no right to tell an iPhone what it can't do while allowing another handset more bandwidth. If their network is not robust enough, then maybe they need to hire some people that have been layed off and spend some of those hefty profits on building their network. Not feeling sorry for them one bit. They want exclusivity with iPhone but put limitations on what they allow an iPhone to do. AT&T, open your wallet like the rest of us do to you each month for your overpriced service. On a related note today, the FCC is looking again at the Apple rejection of the iPhone Google Voice app which I suspect AT&T is trying to squash. This app provides many free services which would allow AT&T users to lower their minute and messaging plans, saving the consumers big dollars. FCC, thank you for looking out for the consumer. Time for AT&T to stop limiting competition in the marketplace.
@ Cindy, are you a communist?
the government shouldn't be able force AT&T how to use their money!! if customers want to be able to use the internet how they please then go to a different carrier!- OR- start your own network with ZERO regulations and let me know how that goes for you...
The problem Fatima, is that other phones ARE allowed 3G usage of Slingbox. Not only that but iPhone users are paying high data rates for LESS service. That is NOT fair. AT&T should also have known their network would get a workout with iPhone usage and upgraded it accordingly. Instead they held back and now it's coming to bite them in the a$$! We're seeing AT&T network upgrades JUST RECENTLY??? When they've known about this problem of network strain for how long?
@ murmermer
Since AT&T literally refuses to listen to the customers...since they don't have to, as there are no other options for the iPhone and other cellular providers see them making a killing then copy their shitty practices;
- The government SHOULD be able to step in and help out the people against greedy corporations with shitty or just plain unfair business practices.
- They SHOULD be able to ensure AT&T uses OUR money to progress cellular service instead of just cutting huge profits every month with the same shitty, sub-par service and forced limitations just to keep said shitty service just barely chugging along.
- The FCC should also step in and FINALLY say something about us being charged such high fees for the basic service of text messaging, which actually requires little to no extra data transfer and is piggybacked onto the cellphone service we all already pay for.
If you believe corporations like AT&T should be allowed to do as they please with no regulation you're quite naive and frankly deserve to be taken for a ride and milked out of every penny you earn...you probably can't be trusted with the money anyway.
Like it or not, government regulation is about the ONLY way anything would get changed. Even if customers have a problem it's not easy to get out of lengthy contracts and even if they do, there are few options.
murmurmur...the government definitely needs to be allowed to step in and block ridiculous plans like this. It's just as bad as what the antitrust laws prohibit. Consumers get ripped off.
You sound like a far-right guy trying to call Obama a socialist fascist evil dirty commie dictator...wait, you just contradicted yourself four times.
To those saying the network will be overloaded by this:
Well then they'll have to build a better network or rework the plans. Right now I am paying for an Unlimited Data plan for my iPhone. But we are far from unlimited in what we can do with that plan. If AT&T can't handle the load, they can get rid of their Unlimited Data plan and make people pay based on usage. Then people wouldn't go berserk and rape the network. I'd prefer that type of plan structure with freedom instead of the current unlimited plan with no freedom.
Oh...so many contradictions. Net neutrality will increase some aspects freedom on the internet. But, then it's seen as government being overbearing on individual companies. I can imagine Glenn Beck's head exploding at this thought.
This just in: YOU DONT HAVE TO PURCHASE AT&T SERVICE!
with a number of other wireless service providers, what dictates that you have to have AT&T? government interferance is always a bad idea... why dont they make verizon lower their prices, or T-MoBILE have 3G everywhere? businesses should be allowed to run them any way they see fit (within the confines of law of course) otherwise it is pure socialism. downrank if you must, it is the truth
@Nightmare: you are an idiot. Did you use "terrorist" to describe everyone who was associated with any kind of crime too? Your use of "socialism" is so Fox News it's ridiculous. I can't believe I have to even write this, but regulations have a role in many government functions, and to consider simple regulations as "socialism" is just plain stupid. No one is saying that the FCC should mandate AT&T or any other carrier to upgrade their network or whatever - AT&T will be free to do that or not do that - but the FCC *is* saying that it's not okay to prevent users from doing whatever the hell they want to with their phones. In terms you might understand, they're saying AT&T can't act like a totalitarian. AT&T can choose to a) upgrade their network to handle the increased traffic, b) do nothing (since the SlingBox issue is actually not about increased traffic but a competition to their own services like Cellular Video), c) introduce more sophisticated bandwidth limiting measures on their network to ensure equal access to all paying the same rates, d) introduce hard caps such that when you hit 5GB or whatever you are cut off until the end of the month, c) adjust their plans to remove the "unlimited" option, etc. There are many options - they just can't continue to say "You can do this or this, but not THIS with your data pipe."
Sometimes consumers get to have rights too.
Oh... SKYPE!!!! On 3G!... I can't wait!
that would be epic!
What? You don't get Skype on 3G?! What the hell are you doing in the US?! o_O
@loocas
Everything wrong :-(
And where pray tell can you get skype on 3G? Without a hack that is
does this mean i could get slingplayer for my VZW BB?
from what i've read, it *might* work, but is technically against VZW's TOS and they could basically drop you if they find out you are doing it....
anyone have any insight on this?
This is saying their TOS are bogus. If the FCC approves this change, you can do whatever you want with your data, TOS or not, and the carrier can't do anything about it.
Basically they will have to tell tellcos to rewrite their TOS completely.
I would imagine that network quality would surely suffer in the beginning, but it would also put needed pressure on the carriers to step up their efforts, as their brand perception would suffer even more. While I do realize the need for newer technologies, it makes me crazy that AT&T is actively building a 4g network, when their 3g network has never been acceptable to begin with. Am I to believe that their 4g network will not suffer the same problems while they start on a 5g system?
AT&T is not actively building a 4G network. They stated just this week that they will continue with their HSPA 7.2 (3G) upgrades and begin deploying LTE (4G) in 2011.
"Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids."
That's the thing though, what have they been doing with my money up till now then?
With my 2 year contract and $30 "unlimited" data plan, they basically allotted me "unlimited" bandwidth for $30.
If they continue adding users to the point where they are out of bandwidth to allot, they need to add bandwidth to take care of additional users.
Using my monthly bill to overcompensate executives and not expand their bandwidth shouldn't be my problem.
I agree that it shouldn't be your problem, but sadly, it is.
Capitalism.
YES !!!
We Can?
Seriously, Obama appointed the guy, right? I was a little worried htere for a while about how he will handle the Internets, but so far so good.
lol, by forcing carriers to allow extremely data centric applications it will force carriers to raise prices to support the network. therefore YOU PAY MORE because of the guy OBAMA appointed... but then again if you cant see that then I must be making no sense to you.
@murmurer,
I don't disagree with the basic economics, but I don't understand why you think carriers arbitrarily limiting what you use their network for is a GOOD thing for you.
@murmermer: This is technology site. Opening up networks to all applications is a technology fan's dream come true because it drives innovation and competition for applications and media. The network providers can adapt and compete by adjusting their pricing and bandwidth caps. They can also develop their own services if they so choose.
I suppose that the glibertarian perspective is to allow the mega-corporations to have all the control they want over their networks. That's fine with me, as long as they return their spectrum and franchise rights and truly compete.
@murmurer: Are you not able to read? No one is proposing that carriers are forced to provide truly unlimited data at the maximum throughput and for the same prices. Carriers will OF COURSE simply throttle data back so you can only have whatever throughput makes economic sense, and with a maximum monthly data cap (instead of their claims of "unlimited" today). It's not even hard to do technically, as the networks already support all of this (and they already use it!). So shut up already - this isn't about politics or good vs evil or whatever - it's just about calling the wireless (and DSL/cable) networks the equivalent of the standard wired phone networks - they provide a pipe, and you do what you want to with that pipe. I understand the carriers not wanting this because they give up control; why wouldn't YOU want this? Are you really so dense to think this has anything to do with Obama?
We do pay for unlimited data after all...
Bet we start seeing data caps...
we already have data caps, read your fine print.
Whereas in China they wave the data cap in your face just so that you know that you're not getting unlimited data. And I get 30GB for the same price you pay for 5GB. And down south in HK unlimited really means unlimited. We need Three in America.
FCC should now address the HUGE markup on text messaging. 1-2KB of data per message sent on the network does not justify the text/price ratio.
I would agree that carries need to lower prices but wouldnt that be considered making a price ceiling?
SMS do not cost carriers a thing -- they piggyback unused bytes in frames that are passing between tower/terminal anyway.
It doesn't matter that text messages cost the carrier no money. What matters is that they have value to you. No one forces you to write a text message and spend the money to send it. As iPhone users were so fond of stating when MMS was unavailable, you can always just send an e-mail for free.
Yay, does this mean that AT&T will have to upgrade their network yet again... I mean, they JUST added MMS and THAT was so much data usage.
I can't believe people pay for AT&T crap. More money for less service. If people refused to buy into the hoopla and go to Verizon, Tmo or Sprint, AT&T would find that its in their best interest not to discriminate and to give more value for the dollar spent on monthly bill.
Suck it Comcast!
And please somebody bring Verizon FIOS to northwest Houston or a similar service, guess I'll have to do with ATT U-Verse. I hear ATT has bandwidth caps, is it nationwide like fucking Comcast or in some markets like Beaumont?
The thing is, people already paid the bill, on the agreement and understanding that they can use what they want, it's the sleazy providers who warp the system and want 100% profit without expanding backbones (or bother too much with customer service/satisfaction in general)
Not correct. If you read your TOS (who does.. I didn't) I'm sure it says exactly what you can and can not do. You may think you can do what you want, but the carriers have other ideas.. and you agreed to them when you signed your contract. Which hopefully now will be changing!
If that were true comcast for instance would not have been a) lying and b) been told they had to quit by the government.
What about reverse-net neutrality? Like ESPN 360
Bout damn time...
But now that it is coming... WOOHOO!!!
They'll just do what tmobile does. Throttle all data indiscriminately when the network is overloaded. Although judging by the way ATT and Comcast usually do business, unlike tmobile, they won't limit it to heavy traffic periods and will apply it to anyone who seems like they might be engaging in filesharing, such as those with a lot of upstream traffic.
"how network quality for all will be affected if everyone is cut loose to, well, cut loose. Oh, and if this forces telecoms to deploy more cell sites to handle the influx in traffic, you can rest assured that the bill will be passed on to you. Ain't nuthin' free, kids."
It is unnecessary to worry about that, Telecom are already charging the max of what people are willing to pay already, it's not like they are charging based on marginal profit.