5 ms·

Imagine a world where every app has its own data plan

44 points by danielamitay 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jdludlow 16y ago
How about no? I want a single bill for data across all of my devices. I pay a flat rate for my cable internet connection. It doesn't matter how many devices I use on my wifi network. The bill remains the same. I want the same thing for my mobile devices.
- droz 16y ago
  Exactly. I'm all about making money, but people need to realize the difference between fleecing their customers and being compensated for the services they provide.
- muhfuhkuh 16y ago
  If you have Virgin Mobile or have mifi available on Verizon, you can use all of your mobile devices with one mobile hotspot. So, if possible, you could get a paygo voice (who really needs voice minutes, anyway ;) ) and pay US$40/mo. for broadband on the go. Acceptable speeds, too (for the most part).
gigantor 16y ago
Would this be eventually gamed, spoof all data to come from facebook and get free bandwidth at facebook's expense?
- pfarrell 16y ago
  Just because the measure can be gamed doesn't mean it's not worth fighting against.
Nrsolis 16y ago
Don't count this technology out. There is a lot of pressure to take the money loser services like Public IP transport and turn it into a real money maker. Charging by the bit has been on the radar for a long time and there is a significant effort to make it happen. At least one company (Procera) has demonstrated the ability to identify INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS within a WoW-type game (I think it actually was WoW) and filter/rate-limit traffic BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER TYPE. (e.g. Orcs respond slower then elves accomplished at the NETWORK level)
- aaronblohowiak 16y ago
  Layer 7 network prioritization isn't new, its just slow.
  - Nrsolis 16y ago
    That's not entirely true. 3D graphics on PCs was slow until cheap GPUs became commonplace. The new ATCA-based systems are a big step forward in making what was traditionally a function run on NEBS-compliant PCs using hacked up Squid proxies into something that would be more suitable in the edge network of a CableCo headend.
    - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
      Oh, sweet. Order-of-Magnitude increases in speed opening new opportunities: very cool.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
mortenjorck 16y ago
Remember this prank image from a few years ago? http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg Yesterday's jokes are tomorrow's PowerPoint briefings. http://static.arstechnica.com/12-15-2010/allot3.jpg http://static.arstechnica.com/12-15-2010/allot3.jpg
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  SSH and VPNs: Business class access, $120/month.
  - tjarratt 16y ago
    ISPs to 3rd party developers: we hate you and wish you would stop trying to create useful applications that use bandwidth.
    - jerf 16y ago
      No, no, no. ISPs to 3rd party developers: "We want a cut. Probably a very big cut." Very, very different. Different problem, different solutions.
      - tjarratt 16y ago
        I was thinking more of small, 3rd party developers. Right now, if I'm deploying a client-server app, I ssh into my machine, send lots of debug json at it via curl, and do a lot with "arbitrary data" that would end up costing me a lot of money under their proposed scheme. The last thing I want is for my ISP to have a developer program where I get certified to send the packets I want to across their network. I just want to write a server to back my app!
billybob 16y ago
"One obvious potential problem with switching from an "open Internet" approach to this "charge by app" approach to data is just how much power it gives the established players. Say some new video on demand service comes along; it needs plenty of bandwidth, but it can't afford to strike a deal with carriers so that its app bandwidth is free to users. How many users will even try it out when an app from Hulu or Netflix is free (to them) to use, while accessing the startup will cost them money?" This is exactly why such a plan would be short-sighted on the part of the carriers. "Hey, people love the internet. How about we sell them access, and simultaneously start choking the life out of it?" Carriers already proved they can't compete with the marketplace to make operating systems and apps; now they're considering a plan that effectively picks winners from that marketplace? Guess what - it will suck compared to true competition. Sell us access and stay the heck out of the way. That's what your customers want, and it will be more profitable for you in the end.
- doki_pen 16y ago
  How will it be more profitable in the end? If verizon can't differentiate themselves, they will find themselves in a more and more competitive market, driving prices down. I hate this idea, and I think it's wrong for us to allow it to happen, but it's the right move for the carriers.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    Wouldn't an idea like pricing per-site only work if all the carriers did it? I know that ISPs are not the most...competitive of markets, but it seems like this would be a risky leap to make unless it was guaranteed that their competitors would make the same move.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      Wouldn't an idea like pricing per-site only work if all the carriers did it? Yes, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Look at the near-simultaneous doubling of text messaging charges from all carriers a few years ago.
  - 16y ago
ax0n 16y ago
And as people find new and interesting ways to encapsulate and tunnel traffic through their mobile carriers, I'd bet "uncategorized" traffic will get billed at an obscene rate that makes it less desirable than just horking over 5 EUR per month for some random service.
billybob 16y ago
Imagine the following conversation: Carrier: "You're making money by having access to our customers. You should pay us." Facebook/Youtube/whoever: "You're making money by selling access to our service. You should pay us." [awkward slap-fighting ensues] Seriously, is either of these more true than the other? And if so, is it the other party's fault? I can't see how it's productive to argue about it, tangle it up in financial bargaining, and complicate everything for the users. Carriers and services should focus on doing what they do best and charging a fair price for it, not trying to cast a symbiotic relationship as a parasitic one.
- sudont 16y ago
  I really think the only solution to this is to classify the internet as a utility, a big dumb pipe. Users need to buy their access and bandwidth, services need to buy access and bandwidth. Simple. The regulation of utilities is to prevent the type of profiteering American ISPs are heading to.
  - logic 16y ago
    Who buys the access and bandwidth between service providers? Can you clearly differentiate between a service provider, a content provider, and a user? Steadfastly insisting a nuanced problem is "simple" is a quick way to get poorly-informed legislation.
    - sudont 16y ago
      Why would you use old types for a complete reorganization? Steadfastly insisting complexity is a quick way to obscure the issue.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Think more "hey, Ballmer, wouldn't it be nice if Bing enjoyed lower network latency [than Google]? We can make it happen, for a small fee". And the telecoms making out like bandits in the ensuing fight. This can be stopped if Google, Facebook et al. don't "defect", or if a sufficiently strong conglomerate of services blacklists any carrier who tries, but if even Google isn't willing to seriously fight for (mobile) net neutrality, why would anyone else?
cfinke 16y ago
> "The potential upside to users is a smaller data bill." Ideas that are terrible for end users almost always include a line like this: one small potential benefit for the group getting screwed. The possibility that any users will see that benefit approaches zero the closer the plan comes to fruition.
anamax 16y ago
I'm pretty sure that AT&T can't ask IBM for a cut of consulting revenue for delivered over the phone, so how does AT&T get a cut of netflix revenue for bits delivered over the intertubes?
iigs 16y ago
The promises of additional revenue always seem ignorant of the basic reality that users are only willing to pay so much per month for mobile service. If you assume that is true, the result is that people end up paying the same amount for less service. Getting into the business of selling less service for the same money seems suicidal in an established commodity market. It is too bad the cable tv model hasn't played out to its conclusion yet. It is pretty obvious that it would serve as another corpse on this trail as a warning. The Telecom / wireless industry is absolutely littered with expensive, legacy, high margin solutions to previous problems. Key among them are military / 911 grade service level equipment. Frankly, people don't have the same expectations of IP applications, and those apps don't rely on service at the same level. I contend that the road to profitability is through reduced cost, not increased revenue or reduced service.
loumf 16y ago
This is basically what Amazon is planning to launch with the KDK. Amazon's model is fixed price per app, not bandwidth based. Since 3G is free with the device, apps that need bandwidth need to have a subscription price to use the network. Amazon takes some, you get some. Presumably, Amazon uses this to offset 3G costs or pays it to the carrier.
extension 16y ago
In Canada, both Rogers and Bell have been doing this for a while already. Many of their data plans include "unlimited social networking" which is unmetered data to Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, and a few IM services. http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=WLRS_Plans http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_page... http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpWls_SmartphoneCombo.page http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpWls_SmartphoneCombo.page

44 points by danielamitay 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

How about no? I want a single bill for data across all of my devices. I pay a flat rate for my cable internet connection. It doesn't matter how many devices I use on my wifi network. The bill remains the same. I want the same thing for my mobile devices.

droz 16y ago
Exactly. I'm all about making money, but people need to realize the difference between fleecing their customers and being compensated for the services they provide.
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
If you have Virgin Mobile or have mifi available on Verizon, you can use all of your mobile devices with one mobile hotspot. So, if possible, you could get a paygo voice (who really needs voice minutes, anyway ;) ) and pay US$40/mo. for broadband on the go. Acceptable speeds, too (for the most part).

gigantor 16y ago

Would this be eventually gamed, spoof all data to come from facebook and get free bandwidth at facebook's expense?

pfarrell 16y ago
Just because the measure can be gamed doesn't mean it's not worth fighting against.

Nrsolis 16y ago

Don't count this technology out. There is a lot of pressure to take the money loser services like Public IP transport and turn it into a real money maker. Charging by the bit has been on the radar for a long time and there is a significant effort to make it happen. At least one company (Procera) has demonstrated the ability to identify INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS within a WoW-type game (I think it actually was WoW) and filter/rate-limit traffic BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER TYPE. (e.g. Orcs respond slower then elves accomplished at the NETWORK level)

aaronblohowiak 16y ago
Layer 7 network prioritization isn't new, its just slow.
- Nrsolis 16y ago
  That's not entirely true. 3D graphics on PCs was slow until cheap GPUs became commonplace. The new ATCA-based systems are a big step forward in making what was traditionally a function run on NEBS-compliant PCs using hacked up Squid proxies into something that would be more suitable in the edge network of a CableCo headend.
  - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
    Oh, sweet. Order-of-Magnitude increases in speed opening new opportunities: very cool.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

mortenjorck 16y ago

Remember this prank image from a few years ago? http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg Yesterday's jokes are tomorrow's PowerPoint briefings. http://static.arstechnica.com/12-15-2010/allot3.jpg http://static.arstechnica.com/12-15-2010/allot3.jpg

jodrellblank 16y ago
SSH and VPNs: Business class access, $120/month.
- tjarratt 16y ago
  ISPs to 3rd party developers: we hate you and wish you would stop trying to create useful applications that use bandwidth.
  - jerf 16y ago
    No, no, no. ISPs to 3rd party developers: "We want a cut. Probably a very big cut." Very, very different. Different problem, different solutions.
    - tjarratt 16y ago
      I was thinking more of small, 3rd party developers. Right now, if I'm deploying a client-server app, I ssh into my machine, send lots of debug json at it via curl, and do a lot with "arbitrary data" that would end up costing me a lot of money under their proposed scheme. The last thing I want is for my ISP to have a developer program where I get certified to send the packets I want to across their network. I just want to write a server to back my app!

billybob 16y ago

"One obvious potential problem with switching from an "open Internet" approach to this "charge by app" approach to data is just how much power it gives the established players. Say some new video on demand service comes along; it needs plenty of bandwidth, but it can't afford to strike a deal with carriers so that its app bandwidth is free to users. How many users will even try it out when an app from Hulu or Netflix is free (to them) to use, while accessing the startup will cost them money?" This is exactly why such a plan would be short-sighted on the part of the carriers. "Hey, people love the internet. How about we sell them access, and simultaneously start choking the life out of it?" Carriers already proved they can't compete with the marketplace to make operating systems and apps; now they're considering a plan that effectively picks winners from that marketplace? Guess what - it will suck compared to true competition. Sell us access and stay the heck out of the way. That's what your customers want, and it will be more profitable for you in the end.

doki_pen 16y ago
How will it be more profitable in the end? If verizon can't differentiate themselves, they will find themselves in a more and more competitive market, driving prices down. I hate this idea, and I think it's wrong for us to allow it to happen, but it's the right move for the carriers.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  Wouldn't an idea like pricing per-site only work if all the carriers did it? I know that ISPs are not the most...competitive of markets, but it seems like this would be a risky leap to make unless it was guaranteed that their competitors would make the same move.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Wouldn't an idea like pricing per-site only work if all the carriers did it? Yes, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Look at the near-simultaneous doubling of text messaging charges from all carriers a few years ago.
- 16y ago

ax0n 16y ago

And as people find new and interesting ways to encapsulate and tunnel traffic through their mobile carriers, I'd bet "uncategorized" traffic will get billed at an obscene rate that makes it less desirable than just horking over 5 EUR per month for some random service.

billybob 16y ago

Imagine the following conversation: Carrier: "You're making money by having access to our customers. You should pay us." Facebook/Youtube/whoever: "You're making money by selling access to our service. You should pay us." [awkward slap-fighting ensues] Seriously, is either of these more true than the other? And if so, is it the other party's fault? I can't see how it's productive to argue about it, tangle it up in financial bargaining, and complicate everything for the users. Carriers and services should focus on doing what they do best and charging a fair price for it, not trying to cast a symbiotic relationship as a parasitic one.

sudont 16y ago
I really think the only solution to this is to classify the internet as a utility, a big dumb pipe. Users need to buy their access and bandwidth, services need to buy access and bandwidth. Simple. The regulation of utilities is to prevent the type of profiteering American ISPs are heading to.
- logic 16y ago
  Who buys the access and bandwidth between service providers? Can you clearly differentiate between a service provider, a content provider, and a user? Steadfastly insisting a nuanced problem is "simple" is a quick way to get poorly-informed legislation.
  - sudont 16y ago
    Why would you use old types for a complete reorganization? Steadfastly insisting complexity is a quick way to obscure the issue.
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Think more "hey, Ballmer, wouldn't it be nice if Bing enjoyed lower network latency [than Google]? We can make it happen, for a small fee". And the telecoms making out like bandits in the ensuing fight. This can be stopped if Google, Facebook et al. don't "defect", or if a sufficiently strong conglomerate of services blacklists any carrier who tries, but if even Google isn't willing to seriously fight for (mobile) net neutrality, why would anyone else?

cfinke 16y ago

> "The potential upside to users is a smaller data bill." Ideas that are terrible for end users almost always include a line like this: one small potential benefit for the group getting screwed. The possibility that any users will see that benefit approaches zero the closer the plan comes to fruition.

anamax 16y ago

I'm pretty sure that AT&T can't ask IBM for a cut of consulting revenue for delivered over the phone, so how does AT&T get a cut of netflix revenue for bits delivered over the intertubes?

iigs 16y ago

The promises of additional revenue always seem ignorant of the basic reality that users are only willing to pay so much per month for mobile service. If you assume that is true, the result is that people end up paying the same amount for less service. Getting into the business of selling less service for the same money seems suicidal in an established commodity market. It is too bad the cable tv model hasn't played out to its conclusion yet. It is pretty obvious that it would serve as another corpse on this trail as a warning. The Telecom / wireless industry is absolutely littered with expensive, legacy, high margin solutions to previous problems. Key among them are military / 911 grade service level equipment. Frankly, people don't have the same expectations of IP applications, and those apps don't rely on service at the same level. I contend that the road to profitability is through reduced cost, not increased revenue or reduced service.

loumf 16y ago

This is basically what Amazon is planning to launch with the KDK. Amazon's model is fixed price per app, not bandwidth based. Since 3G is free with the device, apps that need bandwidth need to have a subscription price to use the network. Amazon takes some, you get some. Presumably, Amazon uses this to offset 3G costs or pays it to the carrier.

extension 16y ago

In Canada, both Rogers and Bell have been doing this for a while already. Many of their data plans include "unlimited social networking" which is unmetered data to Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, and a few IM services. http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=WLRS_Plans http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_page... http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpWls_SmartphoneCombo.page http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpWls_SmartphoneCombo.page