Considering how much AT&T makes, $8.2million is drop in a bucket. With potential backlash from privacy groups and customers, I'm sure the carrier would be happy to forgo that particular source of revenue if they weren't legally compelled to do so.

In 2011, AT&T made 22 billion in revenue for wireless data. 8.2 million is 0.03% (if I didn't make a mistake). I wouldn't call that big bucks.

http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/annual_report/pdfs/att_ar...

To piggy back on your comment, overall ATT generated $126.7 billion in revenues in FY 2011. There are more important issues at stake here, focusing in on the financial aspects is missing the mark.

> With potential backlash from privacy groups and customers [...]

We should be glad that this type of backlash is ready to rear it's head. The limiting factor to the revenues gathered from data sharing are public/contractual commitments to protect consumer privacy and the threat of consumer backlash. The key here is that the data sharing is only with law enforcement -- we're all lucky that they're not actively sharing with: a) each other or b) other corporate interests

I don't know how much longer that can or will last though. Ad exchanges are becoming easier and easier to integrate with each passing quarter, along with a wider variety of bidders. Depending on the evolving bid action, carriers searching for alternate growth revenue streams may (have already?) seriously consider(ed) how much this type of data sharing is worth.

The great news is that this type of exercise has a lot of hurdles (regulatory, consumer privacy, integration and billing, consumer permission, growth justification) to overcome before they graduate from sharing with just law enforcement to a wider audience.

Last year I went to a conference and met an American Express guy. To make a long story short, he was telling me Amex (and other credit card companies) also sells information to 3rd parties. For example, you like Italian food (they can tell by multiple purchases in Italian restaurants) and fly on Airline X? The airline might be interested in that data, so it could change its food offering on the plane. This is just ONE example.... So, I'm not surprised.

What should be a relief to all is that this isn't permanent. There will come a point where wifi will defeat cellular in terms of technology. This is what Apple, Google and MS are all waiting for and why none of them have bought a telco. The future is based off of unlocked phones with dirt cheap data plans. Technically the iPod touch will become a phone at that time because the tech will become so cheap.

What makes you think it won't be the other way around -- say, a "5G" network that's an order of magnitude faster than LTE, and available anywhere.

And at that point, what if people then stop buying wired Internet lines and wireless routers (because they all get the same bits, anyway), and instead use the cell network that already surrounds them.

But at what point is the significant increase in speed returning only a marginal increase in customer satisfaction? If the experience is the same in terms of usable speed, then it will come down to what is cheaper and easier (which will probably be whichever is more open).

LTE already keeps up with the (admittedly a bit slow, 10Mb/s) average cable line around here; the prohibitive cost (~$5-10/GB) is all that keeps it from competing with landline connections. Drop the cost to be closer, LTE-Advanced will be more than enough.

That seems really unlikely. Doesn't the FCC limit the range at which consumer radio products can transmit from their source? So, part of it is a technological limitation of WiFi, but also legal. And long-distance WiFi already exists, isn't that what WiMax was?

I don't think the telecom companies are going to be displaced very soon because the simplicity of never having to choose a network to connect to is just how people think. Continguous and unibiquitous mobile broadband is probably not on the horizon from someone who isn't a large telecom.

The move to unlocked phones though, I think is spot on.

That's not enough. If WiFi had a higher power there would be more interference and things would be slower.

Cell data server works mainly because they put up a HUGE number of towers. But on the flip side, because they put up a limited number of towers, and make sure to not interfere with themself by carefully adjusting the transmit power.

> There will come a point where wifi will defeat cellular in terms of technology.

Can you please elaborate? I haven't seen any movements in this direction, in terms of wifi technology.

> There will come a point where wifi will defeat cellular in terms of technology.

This will only happen when people stop locking WiFi access points. It's rare for me to be in an area with no WiFi at all (except for parks, and freeways), but they are almost always locked.

Is it true that if the WiFi is not locked then all the data is transmitted in the clear?

>Is it true that if the WiFi is not locked then all the data is transmitted in the clear?

Yes.

I wish HN would make users confirm a "Does it matter?" alert before posting.

Well, it's like they say: if you're not paying, you're not the customer, you're the product.

I pay them $194.24/mo for five lines with data and texting add-ons. Isn't that sufficient to be the customer instead of the product?

The greed at the top is too hungry for it to ever be enough. Whatever sum of money you pay them if they can make an extra $X on top of it selling you out they will.

So you're pretty much always the customer and the product.