Bad AT&T Ideas Are Contagious: UK's Vodafone Wants To Try 'Sponsored Data' Idea
from the ridin'-them-pipes-for-free dept
AT&T poured napalm on the network neutrality debate here in the States back in 2005, when then CEO Ed Whitacre proudly proclaimed in an interview he "wasn't going to let Google ride his pipes for free." Ed and most telco executives quite honestly believe that historically-pampered phone companies are entitled to an additional "troll toll" by content companies simply for the honor of touching the ISP network. Never mind that consumers and content companies already pay for bandwidth and (like Google) invest in infrastructure of their own, telco logic dictates that content companies get a "free ride" and must pay more. You know, because.AT&T's attempts to double dip aren't just domestically dumb, predatory and dangerous, they seemingly have an infectious quality for overseas telcos looking for ways to make additional money for doing nothing, but who aren't gifted with AT&T's knack for truly obnoxious ideas. We've seen it in the way European telcos mimic AT&T's rhetoric in claiming content companies ride their pipes for free, and therefore really ought to pay an additional tax to the phone companies (again, you know, just because). Despite being such a bizarre, fundamentally flawed assumption, the concept carries a lot of traction in telecom circles, thanks largely to hired think tanks and PR flacks who go to great, great lengths to frame it as entirely reasonable.
Yet oddly, the "hey, give me more money for doing nothing" approach hasn't worked well, resulting in AT&T recently introducing their "sponsored data" idea. As we recently discussed, sponsored data involves certain large companies paying AT&T an extra fee to have their content not count against wireless consumer caps. While framed by AT&T as "free shipping" or a "1-800 number for data," it's simply more of the same idea, and potentially devastating for smaller companies and startups that can't afford to pay AT&T to get preferred listing in AT&T's promotional materials. AT&T's effectively imposing entirely arbitrary caps (based in no way on real-world economics or network congestion), then charging multiple times for the same bandwidth.
Not too surprisingly, AT&T's latest brain child has again had an infectious impact on overseas telcos. UK's Vodafone now says the company is interested in trying the sponsored data idea as well:
Vodafone is looking at offering sponsored data to its customers. The move would see customers agreeing to receive sponsored data on their devices in return for lower data bills. CEO Vittorio Colao revealed Vodafone's interest in sponsored dat this week. The CEO said he is closely watching US operator AT&T's recent move to allow sponsored data.What Colao is watching for specifically is the regulator response to AT&T's sponsored data. If FCC boss and former wireless and cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler signs off on sponsored data as a form of "pricing innovation," that opens the door to the possibility that overseas regulators can be conned into thinking this is actually an innovative idea as well. It's worth noting that AT&T wanted to acquire Vodafone's wireless assets, but it's largely believed that AT&T's incredibly cozy relationship with the NSA has soured European regulators on the idea -- for now. After the European Parliament elections in May, it's very likely AT&T and Vodafone will merge to become one company, which can further help spread AT&T's bizarre and predatory logic worldwide.
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: data, sponsored data, uk, wireless
Companies: at&t, vodafone
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basic infrastructure
Surely these are something the government should be running?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Basic infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Basic infrastructure
you know it doesn't really matter *who* abuses their powers, because both will eventually, BUT a government run company has some distinct advantages, they don't have to run on a for profit basis, and they can be forced to invest in unprofitable areas. and *that* is why infrastructure doesn't belong in private hands. the potential for abuse is about the same.
on a general note, this is not specific to the us government, I'm from germany and we have the same bullshit going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Basic infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T wouldn't last more than a week before it lost 90% of its customer base due to lack of ability to check mail, search the web, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see everybody thinks it wont affect them, until one day it does...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can also be sure that the money that say an ESPN pays to play along is somehow coming out of your pocket as well somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since they are not being paid to do it, they have no reason to maintain network and router hardware necessary to connect to sites other than the sponsored ones, resulting in a degradation of performance.
In theory that could metastasize into an arrangement where you pay only to access a particular site, such as $10 for Google, $10 more for Facebook... etc.
That is the true meaning of net-neutrality, being certain that the internet, the whole internet, the good and the bad, is efficiently accessible.
Going against net neutrality, is all about cost cutting (for the ISP) and control, anybody who thinks it's good for the consumer is either in denial, or has been drinking the kool-aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sincerely, the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost the exact same thing, except AT&T is using artificially low "data caps", in an attempt to frame their whole diabolical plan as "voluntary" and "opt-in".
If anyone choose NOT to "volunteer", they get hit on the head with the "data cap" club. AT&T uses this club to hit people with massive overages fees or denies access to services because their customers know using that service is out of their "data cap" league.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL answer
Netflix pays AT&T for 'sponsored data' to get a preferential connections to you the consumer.
Since Netflix's content is considered premium content worthy of preferential treatment, why shouldn't AT&T introduce a new fee to the consumer to get good access to Netflix content.
Ahh, nothing like triple dipping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sponsored Data works for small companies, too
Don't jump to conclusions before we see what actually happens in practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do your homework, Bode
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because "sponsored data" could go both ways. Google could pay the telcos for having sponsored data (that's the telcos reasoning) but if everyone wants so see youtube, google might have the idea, that they provide the full featured youtube at a decent speed only to telcos which *pay google*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content companies would need to bill customers to pay ISPs
The funny thing I head this morning was that Comcast, at the request of the FCC, had a precondition from their NBC acquisition to obey net neutrality rules until 2018. Stupid or not? Why end date anything like that. It's like telling the Taliban the date they won't be confronted with any US troops in Afghanistan. I mean, what do you expect to happen if you're given a date beyond which you can gouge customers to your hearts content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is called advertising. Small start-up and large companies should have equally access to advertising. Should we not allow large companies to buy time for Superbowl commercials, because small companies can’t afford to do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 14th, 2014 @ 7:53am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes it is, if your subsidy means that I will have crappier, more expensive service -- which seems like the most likely result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T Sponsored Data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T Sponsored Data
And right now, without this risky "sponsored data" plan, both the consumer and business pay for the improvements. What's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]