

Imagine a world where every app has its own data plan - danielamitay
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/net-neutrality-nightmare-a-world-where-every-app-has-its-own-data-plan.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

======
mortenjorck
Remember this prank image from a few years ago?
<http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg>

Yesterday's jokes are tomorrow's PowerPoint briefings.
<http://static.arstechnica.com/12-15-2010/allot3.jpg>

~~~
jodrellblank
SSH and VPNs: Business class access, $120/month.

~~~
tjarratt
ISPs to 3rd party developers: we hate you and wish you would stop trying to
create useful applications that use bandwidth.

~~~
jerf
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
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
"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
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
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
_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.

------
billybob
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
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
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
Why would you use old types for a complete reorganization?

Steadfastly insisting complexity is a quick way to obscure the issue.

------
Nrsolis
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
Layer 7 network prioritization isn't new, its just slow.

~~~
Nrsolis
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
Oh, sweet. Order-of-Magnitude increases in speed opening new opportunities:
very cool.

------
ax0n
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.

------
cfinke
> "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.

------
jdludlow
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
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.

------
extension
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&_page...](http://www.rogers.com/web/Rogers.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=WLRS_Plans)

<http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpWls_SmartphoneCombo.page>

------
anamax
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
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
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.

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

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

