AT&T patents concept to detect and charge more for certain traffic

[MatheusSanzo]

A patent application by telecoms giant AT&T details a traffic management system set to add a little more heat to the net neutrality debate. Rather than customers using their Internet connections to freely access any kind of data, the telecoms giant envisions a system in which subscribers engaged in "non-permissible" transfers, such as file-sharing and movie downloading, can be sanctioned or marked for increased billing.

 

The system is revealed in a patent filed by AT&T Mobility in September 2013 and published this month. Its stated aim is to stop customers from “abusing a telecommunications system” by consuming too much bandwidth.

 

Titled “Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System”, the patent is likely to get net neutrality advocates hot under the collar as rather than targeting bandwidth consumption overall, it seeks to penalize the transfer of certain kinds of data linked to “excessive” consumption. “When a user communicates over a channel, the type of communication is checked to determine if it is of a type that will use an excessive amount of bandwidth,” the patent reads.

The system works by awarding the subscriber with “credits” and subtracting from those when monitored traffic is deemed to have been consumed in potentially bandwidth-hungry fashion.

 

“The user is provided an initial number of credits. As the user consumes the credits, the data being downloaded is checked to determine if it is permissible or non-permissible. Non-permissible data includes file-sharing files and movie downloads if user subscription does not permit such activity,” the patent application reads. “If the data is permissible, the user is provided another allotment of credits equal to the initial allotment. If the data is non-permissible, the user is provided an allotment of credits less than the initial allotment,” it continues.

By marking some traffic type usages as acceptable and others not, the system described by the patent application can develop in a couple of directions. The subscriber can remain in “credit” and continue about his Internet activity as usual, or find that his “credits” are diminishing towards zero. At this point he can be asked to pay more money, be subjected to sanctions that affect his ability to communicate (such as by blocking movie downloading), or be incentivized to maintain preferred consumption habits.

 

Complete article: http://torrentfreak.com/att-develops-credits-system-to-limit-file-sharing-bandwidth-140129/

 

I think it's one of the dumbest things ever, they already have bandwidth caps, and now they want to limit certain service usages as well? Fucking NO.

[fredey]

God damn it why can't nobody tell these corporations that there making money of stuff there not supposed to do already and now the greedy bastards want more I really hope this backfires big time and kills them I am sick and tired of them having all the freedom to do all the shit they want to do. I mean the government told them in the past to upgrade the networks constantly and there still clinging to old copper networks

[MasterJV]

Oh god why...

[bob345]

“Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse" Really at&t? Why would i pay more for data that you wont even let me use. This kind of thing needs to be illegal. Data is data, it should not matter what it is used for.

[zanduh]

so we get capped data and THEN get charged more if we use our service for things they don't approve? Fuck AT&T

[Osmium]

Well at least they patented it. Nobody else can do it...

[sof006]

God damn it why can't nobody tell these corporations that there making money of stuff there not supposed to do already and now the greedy bastards want more I really hope this backfires big time and kills them I am sick and tired of them having all the freedom to do all the shit they want to do. I mean the government told them in the past to upgrade the networks constantly and there still clinging to old copper networks

Even the UK uses fibre cabling for everything now...

[Covalent]

It's like if your bank charges you more to make purchases at walmart, and doesn't charge you more when you shop at target.

[MatheusSanzo]

Well at least they patented it. Nobody else can do it...

Well, you have a few possible scenarios.

 

1 - They patent it but don't intend to use it (i doubt it) and neither can the competitors...

2 - They can license it to the others...

3 - The others can come with the exact same thing but a different implementation (most likely)

[jecho]

This could all be fixed if they would take the BILLIONS of dollars in income and reinvest in next generation fiber networks rather than worrying about people using too much bandwidth. Everyone in a major city should have modestly priced 100 mb up and down. It's like they are trying to kill internet movie watching to save the dying cable industry. I could put some of the blame on slow adoption of 4k on the ISPs that are capping bandwidth.

[Imaginaerum]

This could all be fixed if they would take the BILLIONS of dollars in income and reinvest in next generation fiber networks rather than worrying about people using too much bandwidth. Everyone in a major city should have modestly priced 100 mb up and down. It's like they are trying to kill internet movie watching to save the dying cable industry. I could put some of the blame on slow adoption of 4k on the ISPs that are capping bandwidth.

AT&T isn't primarily an ISP... so this statement is best used somewhere else.

[Nineshadow]

This will,most probably, result in $1000/Mb on porn sites.

[MatheusSanzo]

This will,most probably, result in $1000/Mb on porn sites.

But then their costumers wouldn't need the porn websites because AT&T would already be fucking them.

[Nineshadow]

But then their costumers wouldn't need the porn websites because AT&T would already be fucking them.

That's a good point.

[hawaiims]

Complete article: http://torrentfreak.com/att-develops-credits-system-to-limit-file-sharing-bandwidth-140129/

 

I think it's one of the dumbest things ever, they already have bandwidth caps, and now they want to limit certain service usages as well? Fucking NO.

Fucking scumbags. ISPs and Telcoms need to be deregulated furthermore in the US so that these POS companies can finally learn their lesson. I know in Japan for example there were literally 80 ISPs I could choose from because the main telecom (NTT) is forced to provide infrastructure at a reasonable price through their fibre lines etc for a reasonable price to others if asked to do so. Therefore all these small ISPs just pay NTT a fee for using their infrastructure and there is lots of competition. 

[jecho]

AT&T isn't primarily an ISP... so this statement is best used somewhere else.

Correction. AT&T has been greatly working on expanding their internet and tv services. The fact you seem to think that AT&T is just a cell company makes you ignorant. I am not sure you have heard of U-verse. Last time I checked they have 17 million subscribers. You sir are wrong. And yes net neutrality applies to ISPs and mobile companies. If you include mobile as a platform to the internet then AT&T and Verizon are the largest "ISPs" in the US.

[Imaginaerum]

Correction. AT&T has been greatly working on expanding their internet and tv services. The fact you seem to think that AT&T is just a cell company makes you ignorant. I am not sure you have heard of U-verse. Last time I checked they have 17 million subscribers. You sir are wrong. And yes net neutrality applies to ISPs and mobile companies. If you include mobile as a platform to the internet then AT&T and Verizon are the largest "ISPs" in the US.

I said primarily. I am fully 100% aware they provide internet services, but you rambling on about internet neutrality didn't make that much sense to me. If it were about Time Warner or Comcast I wouldn't have said anything at all, and saying I think they're "just a cell company" is you putting words into my mouth. Please don't do that.

[EChondo]

It's like if your bank charges you more to make purchases at walmart, and doesn't charge you more when you shop at target.

Not a good comparison.

 

More like your bank charges you for withdrawing at a different bank's ATM, rather than their own.