AT&T Says It Will Cut Off P2P Wireless Users; But What About Pandora Users?
from the be-careful-on-that-iPhone dept
While those who like to claim that the US broadband market is more competitive than it really is like to point to the rise of 3G wireless networks as proof, they almost always ignore the fact that those 3G networks come with insanely restrictive terms of service, that allow the providers to cut users off for almost any activity outside of email or web browsing. For example, using such a service for video and music has been prohibited in some terms of service. Sprint was the most open with their 3G wireless until recently.Now AT&T is admitting that if it discovers users of its wireless broadband 3G service are making use of P2P apps, it will cut them off completely, and claims that it makes this clear in the terms of service. It hasn't happened yet, but this bit of data will supposedly be used by a dissenting FCC commissioner this week to show that Comcast's traffic shaping is pretty tame compared to other "rules" out there on network usage (ignoring the very different nature of the networks in question, of course).
This raises a number of questions: If AT&T's biggest concern about P2P file sharing apps is clogging its 3G wireless network, why does it allow streaming apps to run on the iPhone? For example, one of the most popular apps on the iPhone is Pandora, whose customized streaming radio offering is super popular (and appears to work quite well). So is AT&T going to cut off users of one of the most popular apps on the iPhone? And how will AT&T respond when someone (inevitably, if they haven't already done so) develops an iPhone app for P2P file sharing as well? This really just seems like AT&T slipping an excuse into the terms of service to cut off anyone they don't like -- but in the long run it may backfire as people get pissed off at AT&T for limiting what new devices like the iPhone can do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: network usage, p2p, users, wireless
Companies: at&t, pandora
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but it is hard to work up much sympathy for those who loathe what AT&T may do to those using P2P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MLS, that is kind of low even by your standards.
What about legit uses of P2P? What, there aren't any?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
P2P does have much to offer, but it has been getting a bad rap precisely because so many using it have adopted a "right this way...it's a 'free'way" mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
PVP Streaming video also is in the works to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, those awful P2P apps like Skype and SETI@Home and Folding@Home.
Evil, evil things.
But, as per usual, MLS is talking about the wrong thing in his weak attempt at misdirection. The explanation given has nothing to do with what people are doing with P2P, but the bandwidth used.
But why should that stop MLS from moralizing, even after it's been pointed out to him, in great detail, why his moralizing is misplaced.
If you honestly think that P2P = "steals stuff" then you have no clue what P2P is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nice way of avoiding the point: AT&T is not doing this because of legal reasons, but for network management. To say that it's okay for them to do things for one reason, when they're clearing doing them for another, you are simply rationalizing your own questionable morality. Oh, wait, that's what you accuse everyone you disagree with of doing.
When we point out economic rationales for things, you get uptight in arguing morality. When we point out that your moral argument doesn't make sense, you go back to "law and order." And here, where AT&T is claiming technical reasons, you go back to morality.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with you, MLS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think anyone denies that the majority of P2P use involves file sharing.
But, again, that's totally off-topic. Why would it even matter, when that's not even what's being discussed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, following up on this, even you should recognize that the legal standard here is substantial non-infringing uses -- of which there are TONS.
Yet, why let that stop you when you're going to argue morality, when the law goes against you.
And why let either thing bother you when the fact is AT&T is only discussing network performance.
Same old MLS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plenty of studies on that (Google is your friend). Sandvine is a biased party (they sell equipment for traffic shaping) but here you go:
http://www.xchangemag.com/hotnews/deep-packet-inspection-dpi-broadband-metering.html
"Howe ver, as a stand-alone category, P2P file sharing is still the leader at 35.5% of traffic, followed by web browsing at 32% and streaming at 18%, according to the customer research. P2P file sharing accounts for 44% of all Internet traffic, up about 4% over last year, according to the company."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, my interest is not necessarily due to copyright infringement. I keep reading about "net neutrality" and other terms of art, so I am curious what kind of data underlies the positions being taken by persons/groups on both sides of these issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone apps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iphone apps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T GOD complex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p on wireless networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They won't get fined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlimited Data My *SS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Series of Tubes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Series of Tubes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor performance
What the town does is put more pipes in to accommodate the subdivision's increase in water usage. This is what the FCC should encourage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P or excessive use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, I could do what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing stuff...
This is true. P2P only equals about 90% "stealing stuff".
But by and large, AT&T's stance is an non-issue, as in the near future demand on it's 3G network will primarily consist of that used by iPhones, and no P2P application exists (or will exist) on of the App Store for the iPhone.
Subtract those numbers, and you're left with the paltry few using some other 3G phone or those who've jailbreaked an iPhone. And even then, given the limited storage and battery life of a mobile device, what idiot would want to run a P2P application on them anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pandora
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Veoh is P2P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.aut.bme.hu/portal/SymTorrent.aspx?lang=en
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet another from the "Don't Bother Me with the Facts" dept.
Did you know that Pandora is available for other AT&T devices on its 3G network?
Did you know Pandora's streaming service operates the same as several other streaming music and video services that are offered on AT&T's WAP deck?
Do you know how much data is consumed by P2P vs. streaming designed specifically for wireless networks?
If you don't know those things, it seems pretty irresponsible to get so wound about things that you clearly don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yet another from the "Don't Bother Me with the Facts" dept.
No, but I'm quite familiar with how Pandora works. If you're not, that would appear to be your problem.
Did you know that Pandora is available for other AT&T devices on its 3G network?
Yup. And on some phones from other carriers as well (though, not for free). The point was that it's been incredibly popular on the iPhone because it's free.
Did you know Pandora's streaming service operates the same as several other streaming music and video services that are offered on AT&T's WAP deck?
Yup. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The point is that AT&T is complaining about bandwidth hogs, but ignoring some of the bandwidth hogs they approve.
Do you know how much data is consumed by P2P vs. streaming designed specifically for wireless networks?
Yup. I actually do. And, yes, P2P *can* use up more bandwidth, but apps like Pandora do use up significant bandwidth.
If you don't know those things, it seems pretty irresponsible to get so wound about things that you clearly don't understand.
And if you assume I don't know these things, it seems pretty irresponsible to get so wound up about what I've written, when it's clear that you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: yet another from the "Don't Bother Me with the Facts" dept.
No, but I'm quite familiar with how Pandora works. If you're not, that would appear to be your problem."
=================================================
The problem is not that I don't understand the application but that you never bothered to get on the phone and ask AT&T what they're actually going to do about Pandora and how it affects their networks compared to P2P.
It's one thing to sit in our offices and say, "If they don't like A then they can't like B either." But a responsible analyst or a journalist could find the the people at AT&T to actually ask. Reading your stuff, Mike, is like fighting with my wife. "I know what you're thinking... " she says. You DON'T know what AT&T is thinking. But you're smart enough and connected enough to ask.
And you should.
And the fact that you are NOT asking the questions of the companies you're complaining about is what's irresponsible. And it reflects very poorly on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Straw Men Much
First of all, you bring up the spectre of AT&T doing something that they haven't actually done. But beyond that, you start going multiple steps down that path, talking about how it will affect iPhone sales, etc. The fact is is that AT&T DOES allow Pandora and other similar apps on the iPhone.
Of course, Pandora isn't a P2P app, so that's a little sleight of hand right there. It may be high bandwidth, but then why does it work just fine on the old EDGE-based iPhone? It obviously doesn't tax the network much.
Beyond that you wonder whether AT&T will start banning P2P apps from the iPhone. But do you really think Apple would let such an app into the App Store? Clearly such an app would be verboten. The point there is that AT&T doesn't have to worry about invoking that issue, since Apple will do it for them.
Again, this is a pure strawman post. You've attacked AT&T for something it didn't do, and then pointed how it's stupid either way.
Another thing with your Comcast example. Yes, the networks are different so comparing one to the other on the FCC's part is silly. But AT&T is disclosing its policy in the TOS. Isn't a big issue with Comcast that they're doing things secretively without telling customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Straw Men Much
I was responding to what AT&T clearly stated it *would* do in response to an FCC question. I didn't bring it up out of nowhere, as you imply.
The fact is is that AT&T DOES allow Pandora and other similar apps on the iPhone.
Yes, and I'm asking why that's okay, whereas other apps are deemed bad.
Of course, Pandora isn't a P2P app, so that's a little sleight of hand right there.
Not sleight of hand. I clearly state that in the post. Or did you not read it? I note that Pandora is a streaming app, not a P2P app, and ask why AT&T is concerned about one, rather than the other, even though both consume a lot of bandwidth.
The only strawman here is you implying I said something I didn't.
Beyond that you wonder whether AT&T will start banning P2P apps from the iPhone. But do you really think Apple would let such an app into the App Store?
Perhaps you missed the point of this. OF COURSE they won't ban Pandora. That's the point. They claim they're so worried about network performance that they'll ban P2P, but then they have no problem with streaming apps, which can use up just as much bandwidth.
But AT&T is disclosing its policy in the TOS. Isn't a big issue with Comcast that they're doing things secretively without telling customers?
If that's the issue, then it's an issue for the FTC, which is concerned with truth in advertising, not the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HUH?
The rights to the device you refer to were negotiated on a free market basis. It makes no sense for you to claim that no selling the iPhone on every platform should be illegal, if AT&T can put forth the capital necessary to secure exclusive right to the phone, what can your issue possibly be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is P2P?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This affects more than phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understanding P2P
To equate streaming media (with it's totally different bandwidth usage) with P2P shows a total misunderstanding of the basic concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At&T wireless phone service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]