4 ms·

So, in other words, unless you're already rich enough to pay for your customers' data usage, your app will be at a disadvantage on AT&T's network. This is why w

So, in other words, unless you're already rich enough to pay for your customers' data usage, your app will be at a disadvantage on AT&T's network. This is why we need source-neutrality in networks. Otherwise existing players can subsidize their services and "dump" their product in order to drive new competitors out of the market.

maratd 15y ago
> This is why we need source-neutrality in networks. No, we do not. There are already laws on the books against "dumping" their product to drive out competitors. It's called price bashing and it is illegal. If Netflix is able to subsidize their data usage and remain profitable, great. If, on the other hand, Netflix decides to go with this to kill off the competition with the calculus that they will lose money temporarily and hike prices after the competition is gone ... well, that's illegal and on top of everything, won't even work. Also, AT&T's ploy here won't work either. They are trying to increase data usage while hiding the cost of that usage in 3rd party fees. Yeah. Watch content providers offer two price tiers. One for AT&T and one for non-AT&T. Won't work and a waste of time. You're just shifting costs. Also, 800-numbers became popular during a time when every street corner had a pay phone. It was about actually letting the customer contact you from anywhere, not about shifting costs. There is no need for regulation. The market will take care of this stupidity by itself.
- Hemospectrum 15y ago
  Sounds great on paper. In real life there's a certain degree of collusion between the major carriers, and it's possible AT&T could convince Sprint and Verizon to play the same game. It's also possible one of them had the idea to begin with, and AT&T won't even be the first to implement it. After a couple of years you might get a class action lawsuit far enough along that the FCC says the whole thing is perfectly legal and it doesn't see the problem. Or the carriers might backstab each other for secret reasons. But this matter cannot be trusted to the market.
- Klinky 15y ago
  I believe it's actually called predatory pricing & is covered under antitrust. But it's not that easy to prove. It is also a regulatory practice to keep the market competitive. Additionally offering two tiers may seem easy but you risk pissing off a potentially large portion of your customer base & the ISP who's name your sullying in the public space. It takes some balls to go out and say "AT&T are being dicks so you have pay more", some companies will not do that & would rather do some backroom deal that negotiates a lower rate than the sticker price AT&T is asking. The result is still that AT&T get's more money in the end.

maratd 15y ago

> This is why we need source-neutrality in networks. No, we do not. There are already laws on the books against "dumping" their product to drive out competitors. It's called price bashing and it is illegal. If Netflix is able to subsidize their data usage and remain profitable, great. If, on the other hand, Netflix decides to go with this to kill off the competition with the calculus that they will lose money temporarily and hike prices after the competition is gone ... well, that's illegal and on top of everything, won't even work. Also, AT&T's ploy here won't work either. They are trying to increase data usage while hiding the cost of that usage in 3rd party fees. Yeah. Watch content providers offer two price tiers. One for AT&T and one for non-AT&T. Won't work and a waste of time. You're just shifting costs. Also, 800-numbers became popular during a time when every street corner had a pay phone. It was about actually letting the customer contact you from anywhere, not about shifting costs. There is no need for regulation. The market will take care of this stupidity by itself.

Hemospectrum 15y ago
Sounds great on paper. In real life there's a certain degree of collusion between the major carriers, and it's possible AT&T could convince Sprint and Verizon to play the same game. It's also possible one of them had the idea to begin with, and AT&T won't even be the first to implement it. After a couple of years you might get a class action lawsuit far enough along that the FCC says the whole thing is perfectly legal and it doesn't see the problem. Or the carriers might backstab each other for secret reasons. But this matter cannot be trusted to the market.
Klinky 15y ago
I believe it's actually called predatory pricing & is covered under antitrust. But it's not that easy to prove. It is also a regulatory practice to keep the market competitive. Additionally offering two tiers may seem easy but you risk pissing off a potentially large portion of your customer base & the ISP who's name your sullying in the public space. It takes some balls to go out and say "AT&T are being dicks so you have pay more", some companies will not do that & would rather do some backroom deal that negotiates a lower rate than the sticker price AT&T is asking. The result is still that AT&T get's more money in the end.