PDA

View Full Version : AT&T CEO Acknowledges Rumors of Cellular FaceTime Charges, Says 'Too Early' to Discuss




MacRumors
Jul 17, 2012, 10:40 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/17/att-ceo-acknowledges-rumors-of-cellular-facetime-charges-says-too-early-to-discuss/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/att_logo-150x69.jpg

Following yesterday's discovery (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/16/att-to-restrict-or-charge-for-facetime-over-3g4g-in-ios-6/) of a dialog box in the latest iOS 6 beta suggesting that AT&T users may be subject to restrictions or additional charges if they wish to use the FaceTime video calling feature over the carrier's cellular network, the company issued a brief statement simply acknowledging that it was working with Apple and that more information would be released in the future.

TechCrunch now reports (http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/17/att-facetime-charge/) that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson was specifically asked about the issue at Fortune's Brainstorm conference today, with Stephenson saying that it is simply "too early" to discuss how AT&T will handle FaceTime over cellular networks."I've heard the same rumor," he said, insisting that for now, AT&T is focused on working with Apple to get the technology stabilized, so "it's too early to talk about pricing."Stephenson's comments certainly do not rule out the idea of additional charges for the feature, and it is even unclear what the carrier's timeline is for supporting it at all. AT&T has on several occasions delayed support of similar features such as tethering and iPad personal hotspot connectivity.

In a separate report (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120717-713623.html) today from The Wall Street Journal, Sprint indicated that it will not be charging additional fees for cellular FaceTime usage, considering it part of the customer's existing data package. Verizon, the third major iPhone carrier in the United States, declined to comment on the issue.

Article Link: AT&T CEO Acknowledges Rumors of Cellular FaceTime Charges, Says 'Too Early' to Discuss (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/17/att-ceo-acknowledges-rumors-of-cellular-facetime-charges-says-too-early-to-discuss/)



ffonsok
Jul 17, 2012, 10:42 PM
Not sure who would pay for Facetime over 4g. Talk about fragmenting a service.

palmerc2
Jul 17, 2012, 10:42 PM
I'm sure you'll figure out a way, prick.

simplemind
Jul 17, 2012, 10:42 PM
oh shut up Stephenson... it's my data, I will use it how the hell I want to.

One more thing, improve your damn network man!

levitynyc
Jul 17, 2012, 10:42 PM
Thats the problem!

THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS!!!

DATA IS DATA!

Whether I spend my limited 4GB of data using FaceTime or watching porn, how in the name of all that is holy does it affect AT&T?????

Not to mention that I can tether my iPhone to my Macbook Air and use FaceTime for Mac without a problem.

Do they realize how dumb they sound sometimes?

Helixc0de
Jul 17, 2012, 10:43 PM
If I'm charged extra for FaceTime I'm going to switch carriers. AT&T Sucks!
:apple:

tranceme
Jul 17, 2012, 10:43 PM
So, I don't for Skype video. But, I might have to pay for FaceTime. Seems like something is off here.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 17, 2012, 10:43 PM
It's simply awful that a carrier can dictate how allotted data is used, and charge extra for certain activities. It makes absolutely no sense!

tranceme
Jul 17, 2012, 10:43 PM
If I'm charged extra for FaceTime I'm going to switch carriers. AT&T Sucks!
:apple:

I agree. Double dipping is what I see here.

kniemann
Jul 17, 2012, 10:44 PM
Supposing I decided to pay for it, it only makes sense if all my friends pay for it too. I need new friends :/

Ozy
Jul 17, 2012, 10:44 PM
I'm sure he "regrets" this rumor making it out before all the existing AT&T customers get the iPhone 5 and are locked into AT&T again. He "regrets" we now know early and can make sure we make the switch this time.

I will "regret" losing my unlimited plan... maybe.. nope.

AT&T CEO's "Only Regret" is Offering Unlimited Data Packages
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/04/att-ceos-only-regret-is-offering-unlimited-data-packages/

BJB Productions
Jul 17, 2012, 10:45 PM
I think I need to move to another country. :rolleyes:

noteple
Jul 17, 2012, 10:46 PM
They named him Randall, it should have been Richard

Spectrum Abuser
Jul 17, 2012, 10:46 PM
Wether AT&T decides to charge or not is yet to be determined, but if they do that will not make them an 'evil' company. Traditional voice and texting services are more rapidly being replaced and it's vital for AT&T and other carriers to innovate in order to protect their business. Data service revenue is what's going up. That's where the money is.

tranceme
Jul 17, 2012, 10:46 PM
The funny thing is that it's going to barely work over their network. Yet, they will charge me anyway.

wickerman1893
Jul 17, 2012, 10:46 PM
All they are doing is charging users for features that don't need to be charged for.

its93rc
Jul 17, 2012, 10:47 PM
Dis ho be trippin'

Xenomorph
Jul 17, 2012, 10:48 PM
AT&T charges a fee when you sign up (even though they have you sign a contract as well).
AT&T charges you for a data package, even if you don't want it.
AT&T sets a very low monthly cap that you are able to use up in just a single day.
AT&T can start charging overage fees within hours of your billing cycle starting.
AT&T charges you again for the SAME DATA when another device connects through your phone.
AT&T charges you again for the SAME DATA when you make a video call.

You can get charged twice, three times, or maybe even four times for the same data they are already over-charging for.

Soon, AT&T will charge an "Entertainment Extra" fee when you load your web browser.

AT&T will charge a "Communications Fee" when you load email.

This is what AT&T wants. Nickel and dimes. It all adds up. BILLIONS of dollars in profits just isn't enough.

tranceme
Jul 17, 2012, 10:48 PM
Wether AT&T decides to charge or not is yet to be determined, but if they do that will not make them an 'evil' company. Traditional voice and texting services are more rapidly being replaced and it's vital for AT&T and other carriers to innovate in order to protect their business.

Sure. Then I guess you don't see an issue with your home internet provider charging you an extra fee for video as well? Imagine paying for FaceTime on your mobile and ATT U-verse Internet.

gdjsnyder
Jul 17, 2012, 10:49 PM
Since when is Verizon the third major US iPhone carrier?

tranceme
Jul 17, 2012, 10:49 PM
AT&T charges a fee when you sign up (even though they have you sign a contract as well).
AT&T charges you for a data package, even if you don't want it.
AT&T sets a very low monthly cap that you are able to use up in just a single day.
AT&T can start charging overage fees within hours of your billing cycle starting.
AT&T charges you again for the SAME DATA when another device connects through your phone.
AT&T charges you again for the SAME DATA when you make a video call.

You can get charged twice, three times, or maybe even four times for the same data they are already over-charging for.

Soon, AT&T will charge an "Entertainment Extra" fee when you load your web browser.

AT&T will charge a "Communications Fee" when you load email.

This is what AT&T wants. Nickel and dimes. It all adds up. BILLIONS of dollars in profits just isn't enough.

You forgot the tax on top of being double charge too :eek:

Pakaku
Jul 17, 2012, 10:53 PM
If I'm charged extra for FaceTime I'm going to switch carriers. AT&T Sucks!
:apple:

Not if you're locked into a contract :\

wordoflife
Jul 17, 2012, 10:54 PM
I don't think this will pass.

It's probably a publicity stunt to seem like the good guys by not charging for FaceTime 3G after hearing the "opinions" of it's customers, when in truth they probably weren't even going to charge for it.

You still suck, AT&T.

Radio
Jul 17, 2012, 10:56 PM
what scumbags for even considering to charge

Spectrum Abuser
Jul 17, 2012, 10:56 PM
Sure. Then I guess you don't see an issue with your home internet provider charging you an extra fee for video as well? Imagine paying for FaceTime on your mobile and ATT U-verse Internet.

Don't turn this around. Voice/Texting revenue has been on the decline and unless they adapt as a company to find new ways of profit then the business entity will fail. If home internet providers were threatened by a new product that somehow cut their revenue they would be sure to initiate new forms of cash flows.

Andronicus
Jul 17, 2012, 10:56 PM
Data is data is data.

Every time this dude opens his mouth in thankful that my iPhone is jailbroken. Oh what's that? FaceTime without wifi? Oh yah, I been doing that for a while now.

brendu
Jul 17, 2012, 10:57 PM
I have spent awhile today looking for a way to complain to ATT on their website. It is insanely difficult. I am considering switching to Sprint when the next iPhone comes out. Despite the fact that their network is slower and wont have LTE in my area I am going to strongly consider switching if ATT keeps pulling these ridiculous moves, and if Sprint can match the price I am paying ATT ($70 after employer discount).

It is really just sad that they are allowed to get away with this because no other companies are big enough to stop them by being competitive, or if they are (Verizon) they just adopt the same ********.

Maybe T-Mobile will get the next iPhone finally and I can use it on HSPA+. That would be good enough for me.

EDIT: Maybe I will just do as others have said and use my jailbreak to bypass these stupid restrictions.

Fruit Cake
Jul 17, 2012, 10:57 PM
It just means AT&T has a oversubscribed network. When a telco runs a network, they run on contention ratios, 1 tower for X subscribers, when that tower hits it's limit, often more network infrastructure is built to cater for demand.
Now the marketing dept has the job of selling the network, they offer so many gigs per month per plan with the belief most people will only use a fraction of that. If everyone got 2 gig and used 2 gig, then the networks would be slow all the time.
Now that comes down to likely hood of using the data, 2gig in a phone is unlikely, 2 gig in an iPad is more likely, but not all the 2 gig. 2 gig in a laptop, probably. Hence the tethering control apple have in place.
Now FaceTime is a feature that increases the likelihood of using that data allocation, means apple putting in a additional control. By charging for it, the telco dissuades you from using the data allocation.
The problem is when you charge for tethering and FaceTime features and your competitors don't, you immediately stand out.

Wy charge when other don't, I mean data is data surely? Obviously not when your competitors aren't your network is oversubscribed. I think AT&T is just showing how weak and pitiful their third rate network really is.

Even on LTE people are saying how much more coverage the other telcos like Verizon offer over AT&T, FaceTime and tethering shouldn't even be an issue on LTE, unless your network sux.

someone28624
Jul 17, 2012, 10:58 PM
Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to Sprint I go.

troop231
Jul 17, 2012, 10:58 PM
As a loyal AT&T customer, if they do this, I WILL be switching to Verizon thank you very much. That and the fact that Verizon's true LTE rollout is advancing more quickly than AT&T's, is making it very tempting to drop AT&T for Verizon.

iSee
Jul 17, 2012, 10:59 PM
There's no reason for AT&T not to deny it... if they weren't planning to charge for it. It would seem wildly stupid to carve out a separate charge for this. They'd practically be begging customers to leave for another company. (I'm already plotting out my exit from AT$T... Do they really want to be prompting me to think this way?)

I suppose they could offer FaceTime plans that are significantly cheaper per MB than the general data plan. But that would just make me wonder why all data wasn't available at the better price.

motorazr
Jul 17, 2012, 10:59 PM
Just saying... Verizon has declined to comment.. so.. there goes all the "I'm switching to Verizon" commentary...

..That said, I'd say I'm switching to Sprint if sprint didn't have such crappy cell service.

I think AT&T fears that suddenly data usage will go through the roof if they don't charge for a data-heavy fee-- potentially taking down their networks (again).. just like when the iPhone itself came out. But that's a silly concern at this point, since they charge you if you use more than paid for... so the simple solution is to let people have their overages, collect lots of extra data fees that way, and build more towers so you can actually support the new, possibly insane, network load.

If that's not the concern, than someone is stupid for even making this an issue, down at AT&T. It really is bad enough we're paying extra for tethering (some of us .. like me who don't have time to use workarounds, unfortunately :( ..)

gregwyattjr
Jul 17, 2012, 11:01 PM
I'm actually starting to become happy to be on Sprint. Even though their network is slow as balls, they don't charge the balls out of me.

KanosWRX
Jul 17, 2012, 11:02 PM
The fact that they are even thinking about it just goes to show how they are the sleaziest company around. And I thought Comcast was bad, seeing the CEO say the things he has makes me think things not appropriate for this forum.

If you treat your customers right people will come to your company, simple as that. Data is Data, leave it at that. If I get 4 gigs of data for 20 or 30 bucks or whatever it is, anything I do on my phone, voice/text/facetime/tether should be able to use that 4 gigs for whatever I want.. no if ands of buts!!!! Get it straight... God I wish I worked for the government and could go after these guys with every once of strength I had just to put them in their place!

ryanmcv
Jul 17, 2012, 11:02 PM
Since when is Verizon the third major US iPhone carrier?

I think the author meant to say that Verizon is among the three major iPhone carriers in the US. But I agree, the statement should be clarified.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 17, 2012, 11:03 PM
Don't turn this around. Voice/Texting revenue has been on the decline and unless they adapt as a company to find new ways of profit then the business entity will fail. If home internet providers were threatened by a new product that somehow cut their revenue they would be sure to initiate new forms of cash flows.

I don't think he's disagreeing with you in business strategy; just principle. It is awful for a company to charge a customer again for using data in a way they dislike when the data is already allotted to them. Of course they would be implementing it for the additional revenue; that doesn't make it any less awful.

tigress666
Jul 17, 2012, 11:04 PM
You know, I'm not switching to Verizon or Sprint.

1. Verizon is more expensive for me than AT&T, 30 dollars more expensive with their new plans that would force me to pay texting and force me to pay for an unlimited plan. Neither of which I need (I can do with minimal minutes honestly and I dont need texting at all). Even if AT&T charges 30 dollars more to Facetime, it's just not worth that much to Facetime. Not to mention I'd be downgraded to 1 GB with Verizon for that 30 extra that I'd have to share with my roomate. I already use about 2 GBs and that's not using FT. So really my bill would be even more expensive since Verizon's data is so overpriced now.

2. Sprint lost me long ago when they were so bad I had to ask my parents to stop calling me on their cellphoen cause I couldn't understand a word they said. Apparently it was a pretty common thing. Sure, it's years later. But I hear now their data is super slow. And with my experience with their connections, I could believe it.

And besides, being able to FT over 3G isn't worth losing my unlimited ;). Hrm... lose my assurance I'm not going to get random extra charges or be able to FT over 3G without paying an extra fee. When I barely use FT anyways and haven't seen many instances where I was thinking, "GEe, I wish I could FT right now."

Yeah, I know some of you will say it's the principle of the matter. But I'm poor right now and I'll go with practicality. And AT&T is simply cheaper and has given me good service *shrug*. I mean after all you guys are griping about fleecing and paying more... so why would I quit AT&T so I can definitely pay more? Verizon for me is way overpriced for what I want (Which is not texting or voice).

phinsup
Jul 17, 2012, 11:06 PM
I'm so excited another ATT Wireless Service I get the privilege to pay for that only works some of the time. Like my data, or my phone for that matter.

wordoflife
Jul 17, 2012, 11:06 PM
It's sad how the carrier is raping people's wallets. They alreeady own the infrastructure so it doesn't cost them as much as they charge their customers.

It's really sad how they can get away with the high prices. To be honest, I wouldn't mind paying if it was reasonable services. $30 for 3gb of data. How about $30 for 10Gb of data? They already own the infrastructure ... The costs aren't that Expensive for them

gmanist1000
Jul 17, 2012, 11:07 PM
When is Apple creating their cell network?

Pyrrhic Victory
Jul 17, 2012, 11:08 PM
Maybe Randal Stephenson is such a godawful executive because he spends too much time on rumor sites.

profets
Jul 17, 2012, 11:09 PM
I still don't understand why apple has even given the carriers the a ability to control this.

Same thing isn't possible with other VoIP or video calling apps, so why bother?

petrucci666
Jul 17, 2012, 11:10 PM
They named him Randall, it should have been Richard

Damn that's a good one! He really is a Richard.

DTphonehome
Jul 17, 2012, 11:14 PM
Translation: ****, they're onto us… let's pretend we have no idea what's going to happen, then, when things settle down in a few weeks, spring an overpriced service on everyone. Just like we were planning for months.

----------

When is Apple creating their cell network?

I would hope MS, Google, and Apple would join up and form an Independent Wireless Consortium. All LTE, data-based packages at reasonable prices (say, $10 per GB), with unlimited texting thrown in, and voice for a little more. It would be as big an industry disruptor as the iPhone was. Those companies have the cash to make it happen.

MaxxTraxx
Jul 17, 2012, 11:18 PM
I can't even think when I last used FaceTime.

JayLenochiniMac
Jul 17, 2012, 11:21 PM
A week ago you'd say how useless FaceTime is. Now you're threatening to leave AT&T over it?

someone28624
Jul 17, 2012, 11:25 PM
A week ago you'd say how useless FaceTime is. Now you're threatening to leave AT&T over it?

FaceTime is useless because it's wifi only. With cellular access I can think of lots of ways I would use it. Also, as more and more devices get it, it's become more and more relevant. Finally, it's the principal of the matter. If I know that AT&T is willing to disable features on my phone to fatten their bottom lines, what could be next? I am not going to sign another 2 year contract with such a sleazy company. Next they'll charge extra for Facebook and Twitter.

tranceme
Jul 17, 2012, 11:27 PM
Don't turn this around. Voice/Texting revenue has been on the decline and unless they adapt as a company to find new ways of profit then the business entity will fail. If home internet providers were threatened by a new product that somehow cut their revenue they would be sure to initiate new forms of cash flows.

And when I leave ATT for another carrier that's not charging, how would this help them? At some point, consumers will give up and leave. This is not eating into their profits. You're comparing something that is going away (voice/text) to something they don't even offer (video). Not sure that's same problem for them. They are scared of data usage. My response to that is, adjust data rates. At least that way consumers won't feel like they are being double charged. Make sense?

AppleBoyFreak
Jul 17, 2012, 11:27 PM
Other than the fact that I'm on a family plan I still wouldn't switch carriers. Compared to my friends on Verizon and Sprint I have the best coverage and the fastest speeds. AT&T's coverage and speeds is purely based on location be ause like I said, where I am it is the best option. Also, every time I go out of state or somewhere I still have great reception even out in the country.

einmusiker
Jul 17, 2012, 11:27 PM
ATT=VZW=Overpriced

I'll be with vzw until I lose unlimited data then I'm back to a good ole prepaid flipfone

x-evil-x
Jul 17, 2012, 11:28 PM
one more reason to jailbreak.....

HiRez
Jul 17, 2012, 11:29 PM
So in other words, yes, you are going to charge for it, you weasely dicks.

Killerjoe123
Jul 17, 2012, 11:47 PM
Ill be switching to a Samsung Galaxy note. I'm in need of a bigger screen anyways.

xxmrcxx
Jul 17, 2012, 11:56 PM
I am going to strongly consider switching if ATT keeps pulling these ridiculous moves, and if Sprint can match the price I am paying ATT ($70 after employer discount).

I am on Sprint right now (individual plan) with the iPhone 4S. I live in MN so I know that some of the taxes will be a little different, but I pay $88 a month after taxes and without a discount. I work for a state university so I get 18% off, so that brings my total to $74 a month. Just letting you know basic pricing.

cocky jeremy
Jul 17, 2012, 11:56 PM
Meanwhile, i'm digging my unlimited data on Sprint.. FaceTime included. :D

Geckotek
Jul 17, 2012, 11:56 PM
Not if you're locked into a contract :\

That won't stop me. Selling my phone will pay any penalties I owe+.

anonnymouse
Jul 18, 2012, 12:00 AM
If I wasn't on the ANR plan, I'd leave.

I like how Personal Hotspot is included for free on VZ with any data plan, but I do like my simultaneous voice and data on GSM too. With an LTE iPhone, presumably that won't be a problem on CDMA any more.

Geckotek
Jul 18, 2012, 12:00 AM
Other than the fact that I'm on a family plan I still wouldn't switch carriers. Compared to my friends on Verizon and Sprint I have the best coverage and the fastest speeds. AT&T's coverage and speeds is purely based on location be ause like I said, where I am it is the best option. Also, every time I go out of state or somewhere I still have great reception even out in the country.

Really, when I went out in the country this weekend my crap AT&T service went to Edge. My Verizon was 3G. Verizon has always had better service in the country except for some hilly/mountainous areas of CO and Ca where Verizon's frequencies have a hard time traversing hilly terrain.

khovland92
Jul 18, 2012, 12:01 AM
I'm very seriously considering switching to Verizon over this. Their LTE market is way more impressive, and while sometimes they pull the same stunts as AT&T, they aren't THIS bad.

The fact that this is even being considered is outrageous.

seamer
Jul 18, 2012, 12:01 AM
So.. If this was a car? I can see it now.


Unlocking the garage door fee
Unlocking the driver's door fee
Ignition fee
Steering wheel fee
Exhaust pipe fee

Yes, we know it's in your garage and everything. But who's going to stop us?

Geckotek
Jul 18, 2012, 12:03 AM
I still don't understand why apple has even given the carriers the a ability to control this.

Same thing isn't possible with other VoIP or video calling apps, so why bother?

True, did Skype ask permission?

WardC
Jul 18, 2012, 12:07 AM
The man has no common sense...look at his controversial stand on the BSA issue.

tigress666
Jul 18, 2012, 12:08 AM
FaceTime is useless because it's wifi only. With cellular access I can think of lots of ways I would use it. Also, as more and more devices get it, it's become more and more relevant. Finally, it's the principal of the matter. If I know that AT&T is willing to disable features on my phone to fatten their bottom lines, what could be next? I am not going to sign another 2 year contract with such a sleazy company. Next they'll charge extra for Facebook and Twitter.

Um, and if AT&T starts charging for things they didn't before that I do use a lot, then I'll think about changing. Cause you know what? I'll either have a contract I signed that I'm happy with and they won't be changing until the contract is over. Or they break the contract and I can leave without penalty charges. So, it's not hard to just wait until they start doing something that affects you.

And as I said, for myself, I'm poor and it's just a lot more practical/cheap to stay with AT&T. It would cost me 30 dollars more to go to Verizon, even without Facetime. FT isn't worth that much more (and I'd get less data to boot. Far less than I use in a month).

sziehr
Jul 18, 2012, 12:11 AM
what kills me is that this is going to come out as some sort of service so you can use it all you want and not count against your data. I can now see why they are all so against net neutrality it would prevent just this sort of thing. I think the whole system is a scam and sadly the only sane folks in the wireless game have some of the worst customer service and the weakest network but they are at least up front about it aka sprint. Verizon and ATT are a duopoly they corner over 30% of the market share per company I just wished at we would reconize this and regulate there actions like we do the rest of the worlds monopolys we live with every day. The thing is they say oh well when customers leave or when sales go down the issue is that there is no where elese to go for many people. The majors chop up the US as they see fit i come from a town where it is rulled by verizon you can not get ATT service the reason verzion owns the market over 90% so why spend money to get into a market etc etc the same happens in ATT areas. This creats lock-ins that make them micro monoploys the QOS is not the same for each carier in each market and they use it against us. If i could go from verizon to ATT to spring and get about the same service we would see prices drop and choice increase, sadly this is never going to happen here the laws are bought and paid for by ATT and Verizon lobbiest

euphemus
Jul 18, 2012, 12:12 AM
"I've heard the same rumor"

What vile little PR cretin came up with that line? Slippery little c**ksmoker.

Sardonick007
Jul 18, 2012, 12:18 AM
YES BOB, it's too early to talk about pricing because we are going to be like Verizon and get every hooked on impending tech until they love it, live it, and can't live without it, and THEN, badaboom, we're going to swoop down and drive this big giant stick of success up their collective sd slots and make them pay for even looking at our logo. So no, we're not charging for facetime, until we start charging for it.

mikefla
Jul 18, 2012, 12:18 AM
The truth is their POS network can't handle it. They need to make a serious investment in their network now that they won't be merging with T-Mobile. So they will be charging absurds amount of money for this service. In the mean time i'm sure their top execs are doing very well for themselves.

-Mike

MacInTO
Jul 18, 2012, 12:23 AM
oh shut up Stephenson... it's my data, I will use it how the hell I want to.

One more thing, improve your damn network man!

I second that! Both points!

TUD
Jul 18, 2012, 12:23 AM
FYI, AT&T I am over your cat & mouse game! I only left Verizon for the iPhone & now that they have it I AM DONE! I am taking my 13X.XX a month somewhere else. Buh... Bye!

Edit: BTW, As a former AT&T employee that had a free corp demo phone, I had a personal Verizon phone for a reason.


I'm sure he "regrets" this rumor making it out before all the existing AT&T customers get the iPhone 5 and are locked into AT&T again. He "regrets" we now know early and can make sure we make the switch this time.

I will "regret" losing my unlimited plan... maybe.. nope.


Agree...

Aodhan
Jul 18, 2012, 12:25 AM
This actually will be the last straw for me. If they do charge for this, I will jump ship. I sure won't miss that one and only 20.00/mo texting service. Nhave nearly a year left, but then I'm off to Verizon.

HelveticaRoman
Jul 18, 2012, 12:28 AM
T&AT, the only company where ampersand = W.

mrbyu
Jul 18, 2012, 12:29 AM
That's all because the carriers are frightened from the fact, that soon nobody's gonna use their old, legacy GSM technologies... And they are right, the future is in the internet, it was foreseen. I have 130 contacts right now on my iPhone, 43 of them has Viber... Actually, I hardly send any SMS anymore to anybody. SMS is an expensive, restricted, preposterous thing in 2012...

Even the quality difference between GSM calls and VOIP calls is remarkable, after a Viber/Skype call switching back to GSM is like putting earplugs in your ears...

I'm happy that here in Hungary the carriers (T-Mobile, Vodafone, etc.) are not bitching with us like AT&T in the USA.

bjones521
Jul 18, 2012, 12:32 AM
GUYS.....This FACETIME WONT be free. With Sprint, ATT and Verizon you need to have the wifi hot spot plan to use Facetime. Like for sprint its 19.99 for 2gb of mobile hotspot.

Waaayyy to many people have iPhones and these companies will find another way to make money!!

HavocLink
Jul 18, 2012, 12:32 AM
I don't understand. We pay for data, factime uses data. Why would they charge extra for the same thing? Where is the logic in that?

iSayuSay
Jul 18, 2012, 12:39 AM
If anything, I think it's better to have a slower up/downlink like 1 or 2Mbps with no cap, no tethering BS, no overages fee and all that craps.
Just pure unlimited data plan for whatever purpose customer need it for.

What good is a super speedy 20Mbps LTE connection when you can eat up 1GB monthly cap in 10 minutes before get throttled or applied to overage fee? Is this some kind of tech demo? :rolleyes: .. People shouldn't pay a dime for demo.

I'd rather have a scooter with unlimited fuel than ride a Ducati 1198 with only 1 gallon of fuel allowance. In the end of the day that scooter run miles and miles further.

netdoc66
Jul 18, 2012, 12:55 AM
Yes they once, twice... Three times they played me. And they'll CHARGE yooooouuu...

Unlimited Data Plan= Flipflopped
Pay as you go iPad= Flipflopped
Facetime= Mid Flip

Jimrod
Jul 18, 2012, 01:00 AM
Apple need to go into the network business. They've got the money to buy up some of the smaller guys around the world with good coverage then just charge a monthly (highish) fee that encompasses all calls, texts and data.

In the countries with poor infrastructure you wouldn't clog the system as no-one is going to be downloading films if their speed is 5kbps.

All these big ass-hole networks who want to rape their customers at every opportunity would then be shafted as all the iPhone users start to switch over.

joemod
Jul 18, 2012, 01:05 AM
I am curious about two things.
1) Are AT&T iPhones getting OTA update which disables facetime if not subscribed?
2) Since Facetime is data, is there any clause in the contract which allows AT&T to change the list of applications which are allowed to use the data which you have payed for? I mean it's probably not much different than using data to send/receive emails, chat using Facebook messenger etc.

winterspan
Jul 18, 2012, 01:05 AM
Don't turn this around. Voice/Texting revenue has been on the decline and unless they adapt as a company to find new ways of profit then the business entity will fail.

I completely disagree. Certainly, AT&T is in business to make money. if they need to find more revenue then they should either increase prices or offer new services that add value.
That is very different than the concept of arbitrarily segmenting the data packets traveling over the network into different price buckets depending on what they are carrying or where they are headed. Especially so when customers are on a metered, pay per byte model.


This gets to the very essence of the fight over net neutrality and traffic discrimination. If they go through with this, what's to stop them from charging more for YouTube videos, twitter messages, Facebook posts, etc?

Imagine an AT&T competitor of iTunes where the movies being streamed don't count against your data plan. How is that not unfairly anti-competitive?

iMikeT
Jul 18, 2012, 01:27 AM
Screw you AT&T.

ghettochris
Jul 18, 2012, 01:30 AM
@#$%@#$% you att, stop selling me data by the GB, then trying to only offer tethering, mobile hotspot, and facetime with larger plans or by charging extra.

That's as stupid as if they only let you use speakerphone on the 900 min/month or greater plan. A voice minute is a voice minute, through speaker, earpiece, or bluetooth headset. Data is data, sell me a GB then don't worry about how I use it.

All the limits and extras were fine on unlimited plans, but now that that's gone, it should all be included.

Rollover data would be awesome too.

Voice minutes should just be converted to KB out of my GB plan too...

Azzin
Jul 18, 2012, 01:31 AM
There are many reasons I'd love to live and work in the US (I'm in the UK), but this is not one of them.

The UK mobile (wireless to my American friends!) tariffs are far superior, but then we are a smaller country with more network operators.

We have 5 operators and of course choice is a good thing.

We have 2 that offer truly unlimited data (3 & T-Mobile) and they include tethering and don't care how you use the data you pay for each month.

Also, T-Mobile have a policy for the tariffs that do have a monthly limit, where even if you hit it they don't cut you off. They still allow you to browse the web and get email, they just remove the ability to download and stream video, which I think is a reasonable, customer friendly policy.

We don't pay for incoming calls or text messages either-I still can't get my head around paying for someone to ring me! :eek:

One big difference of course, is that we don't have 4G/LTE yet.

All the operators are trialling it, but it looks like it won't get a public roll out for another year. :(

ThunderSkunk
Jul 18, 2012, 01:34 AM
Ha! Crap company. Never again.

MacDav
Jul 18, 2012, 01:35 AM
If millions and millions of customers drop ATT things will change. Unfortunately, talk is cheap. The people have the power,but they just don't follow through to make the necessary commitment in changing service. ATT is a very corrupt business. I have a land line with them in case of emergency, only because I live in thier zip code. Every month I go through my bill and find added charges that don't belong on my bill. When I call and complain they remove all the extra charges, but then next month there back again. This has been going on for serveral months. I talk to managers and nothing changes. Check your ATT bill carefully every month, because they will cheat you if they can get away with it.

AppleBoyFreak
Jul 18, 2012, 01:46 AM
Really, when I went out in the country this weekend my crap AT&T service went to Edge. My Verizon was 3G. Verizon has always had better service in the country except for some hilly/mountainous areas of CO and Ca where Verizon's frequencies have a hard time traversing hilly terrain.

Yep, went to a place called Gates of Hell that's like 30 miles from no where and still had 3G service. Here in central Kentucky it is unbeatable!

Mr. Gates
Jul 18, 2012, 01:51 AM
THIS ...Is why we Jailbreak

unlimitedx
Jul 18, 2012, 01:58 AM
Yes they once, twice... Three times they played me. And they'll CHARGE yooooouuu...

Unlimited Data Plan= Flipflopped
Pay as you go iPad= Flipflopped
Facetime= Mid Flip

ipad data plans have no contract right? or are you talking about something else?

MuppetGate
Jul 18, 2012, 01:58 AM
Apple need to go into the network business. They've got the money to buy up some of the smaller guys around the world with good coverage then just charge a monthly (highish) fee that encompasses all calls, texts and data.

In the countries with poor infrastructure you wouldn't clog the system as no-one is going to be downloading films if their speed is 5kbps.

All these big ass-hole networks who want to rape their customers at every opportunity would then be shafted as all the iPhone users start to switch over.

And it's not just the mobile networks; the ISPs are just as bad. Apple is relying more and more on fast downloads over storage (especially for stuff like the AppleTV) and if they want to really make the cloud the centre of everything then they have to own the transport. Charge folk a high-ish fee (as you said) tied to two AppleIDs (personal and family) and let folk do whatever they want.

macintoshi
Jul 18, 2012, 02:00 AM
Apple Store Bussy Updateing

bungiefan89
Jul 18, 2012, 02:03 AM
Dear AT&T, Verison, Sprint, and all other major carriers,
You are THE reason I do not own an iPhone. Or ANY smartphone.
You have attached these beautifully advanced pieces of technology to draconian billing plans which serve only to oppress the users.

WHAT GOOD IS THE SPEED A NETWORK IF YOU CAN ONLY DOWNLOAD A LIMITED AMOUNT OF DATA AT A GIVEN TIME!?

That's like charging someone a monthly bill to watch television, then charging them extra if they flip through the channels too much.

I will stubbornly stick to my simplistic flip-phone with the pay-as-you-go and iPod Touch combination until you DRASTICALLY reduce the cost of your pathetic service.

That is all.

Michael Scrip
Jul 18, 2012, 02:13 AM
When is Apple creating their cell network?

That's great... until you realize Apple has the iPhone in what... 100 different countries?

That's one way to blow $100 billion!

:D

iansilv
Jul 18, 2012, 02:20 AM
"AT&T is focused on working with Apple to get the technology stabilized...". What!?! Really Randall??! Yeah- I'm sure Apple is just barely figuring this video-over-the-air-thingamajig out, and you guys have scientists filling in the gaps left and right.

Wow. This is one arrogant CEO. Working with Apple to get this technology stabilized- like the peanut vendors at a Lakers game are working with Kobe Bryant to produce his dunk. Please... AT&T has nothing to do with getting FaceTime to work over their cellular network except to figure out how to screw it up or charge extra for it. There's no 'mysterious technology' AT&T has to stabilize for Apple.

And btw- I hope enough people realize that an additional restriction on what they can do with their data should be considered a contract change and fight to be released from their contracts without paying an ETF. And then go to Sprint.

unlimitedx
Jul 18, 2012, 02:29 AM
The carriers are swooping in over Apple now that Steve jobs is gone :(

baryon
Jul 18, 2012, 02:34 AM
Carriers will hold onto their money for as long as they can. However, they won't be able to do that forever. The internet and new technologies will kill them, just like they are killing record companies and the government that control people.

HMI
Jul 18, 2012, 02:38 AM
So here is my rant:

<rant>
What bothers me most is the arrogance and disconnect most of these evil companies have between their marketing departments and their customer service/business direction.

Customers don't pay as much attention to print, radio, or television advertising, because we all had a bad experience with a company's product/service.

Their marketing told us we were buying product "A", which would fix problem "X", but we found out the hard way that product "A" does not fix problem "X", and was probably never designed to do so in the first place. It is only marketing. It was only a lie!

So after difficulty connecting with untrusting consumers, we move into the new world of social media. One would hope that these evil companies would learn not to violate their customers trust, choosing instead to invest in long term relationships (and, in fact, some better companies are doing so), but the majority of these evil companies are continuing with their same poor strategies, willfully violating consumer trust for short term gain, thus squandering all the benefits and opportunities of this new form of comunication.

Public trust is of little relevance (ie. value) when such evil companies hold near monopolistic power, investing our dollars into corrupt laws and fancy marketing, rather than quality products, helpful customer service, fair and accurate billing, and simple and honest marketing.

Why pay money to gain my trust, when you don't value my trust to begin with?!

It's really like dating an abusive girlfriend who tells you she loves you, but treats you like *****.

I'd rather see an ad tell me the truth than a clever lie!

If a company is evil, they should just say " I'm sorry we were evil, we will be making necessary changes over the next year to fix or problems and regain your trust. We realize we aren't a valuable company without you, our customers." if they are unwilling to own up to their issues, and stop being evil, they should just shut the h*ll up and stop advertising lies. If an evil company really doesn't care about their customers, they should just be honest about it and stop wasting their money trying to convince us otherwise. This is just one more reason why we have all become so cynical. We have learned that the world will say one thing and do another.

If companies like BP, Chase, AT&T, etc. already own a majority of their market anyway, and we have difficulty finding preferable alternatives, they really should have less incentive to lie. We are stuck either way! Why not at least be honest?! I don't get it!

If the girlfriend wants to be a b*tch, why does she even bother pretending to be a saint?!

<\rant>

landroverz7
Jul 18, 2012, 02:55 AM
In Australia here carriers only charge for the data, it's your data so it's upto you how you use it. However the max data plan we can buy is around 5GB. Every MB over that is 15 cents :( the reason why our carriers let hotspot and FaceTime free is they know that their will be some customers who go over their limit and then they can charge more. What I'm trying to say is Aussie carriers are smart lol

pandamonia
Jul 18, 2012, 03:03 AM
i thought we got raped in the UK.

But DAMN the US gets it bad from the carriers.

Oh well at least you dont have VAT @ 20%... and cheap petrol

Dominicanyor
Jul 18, 2012, 03:08 AM
You forgot the tax on top of being double charge too :eek:

You could be right. Sprint network maybe a little slower at least their not charging the prices that AT&T has been doing.

iEvolution
Jul 18, 2012, 03:09 AM
I'm not even a AT&T customer and this pisses me off. When are people going to stop taking these companies crap and start making a statement with their money?

Though the wireless market in general is a giant nickel and diming industry, AT&T is the industry leader in shafting their customers.

Cancel your accounts and advise others to not sign up to AT&T if you want to make a statement, otherwise this craphole of a company will continue to add more and more fees for everything if people continue to just accept it.

I for one will NEVER sign up for AT&T services and thats not limited to just to their wireless.

shaunp
Jul 18, 2012, 03:22 AM
It's pretty simple really. if AT&T are screwing you over then don't renew your contract with them. Just move on to a better supplier. If most of their customers do that they will have to change.

marcinsf
Jul 18, 2012, 03:50 AM
AT&T charges a fee when you sign up (even though they have you sign a contract as well).
AT&T charges you for a data package, even if you don't want it.
AT&T sets a very low monthly cap that you are able to use up in just a single day.
AT&T can start charging overage fees within hours of your billing cycle starting.
AT&T charges you again for the SAME DATA when another device connects through your phone.
AT&T charges you again for the SAME DATA when you make a video call.

You can get charged twice, three times, or maybe even four times for the same data they are already over-charging for.

Soon, AT&T will charge an "Entertainment Extra" fee when you load your web browser.

AT&T will charge a "Communications Fee" when you load email.

This is what AT&T wants. Nickel and dimes. It all adds up. BILLIONS of dollars in profits just isn't enough.

I'm still struggling with the carriers (specifically AT&T) saying "oh, unlimited data plan isn't really unlimited" Who's kidding who? or is it "Ooops, we wrote a contract that says that but that's not what we actually meant"

I think opening up the iPhone to other carriers will find AT&T struggling to keep its customers (think churn time!). I was with AT&T back in the 1990's and was utterly disgusted with their quality of transmission (bad sound, people can't hear me), lack of reliable service ("All circuits are busy. Please try your call again later"), dropped calls and then calling customer support and getting people that have such a thick accent a 10 minute call turned into 90 minutes with the person on the other end constantly repeating what I said.

There are better carriers and higher quality customer service out there. With a iPhone that works across all the networks, there will be choices and people will switch carriers (read into this, I'm switching when the iPhone 5 comes out).

Macboy Pro
Jul 18, 2012, 04:21 AM
The funny thing is that it's going to barely work over their network

Wow, that is an ignorant statement. They have the hands down fastest network in the U.S. for the iPhone.

PLEASE move to Verizon so you can figure out the definition of EVIL Empire.

barryl85
Jul 18, 2012, 04:23 AM
Its funny how you pay for data allowance and you cant use that data for what you WANT it for.

Macboy Pro
Jul 18, 2012, 04:29 AM
I'm still struggling with the carriers (specifically AT&T) saying "oh, unlimited data plan isn't really unlimited" Who's kidding who? or is it "Ooops, we wrote a contract that says that but that's not what we actually meant"




I don't think AT&T caps your data. They throttle it and that makes TOTAL SENSE. When AT&T offered unlimited data plans back at the very beginning of the iPhone world, data was traveling at 1/10 the speed it travels now. You would be lucky to get 3GB-4GB a month. Now, you can get 50GB-100GB a month or more on the AT&T Network.

They have honored the unlimited data and provide you with what you originally purchased (throttled to 2008 speeds).

AT&T is a company and has a responsibility to make money.

Do you work for free?

UmbraDiaboli
Jul 18, 2012, 04:35 AM
Back in 2004/2005 some Nokia phones had FaceTime capabilities. I remember video chatting with a friend and showing him around the street

The reason why Nokia's FaceTime failed was because carriers decided to charge it too high. Lesson to be learned, but I fear with AT&T history will repeat itself.

radiogoober
Jul 18, 2012, 04:50 AM
If I'm charged extra for FaceTime I'm going to switch carriers. AT&T Sucks!
:apple:

I whole heatedly agree. My contract is already over, just waiting on the new iPhone. If AT&T continues down this path, I'll switch to sprint. I believe that sprint has a faster network in my area anyway.

ixodes
Jul 18, 2012, 04:52 AM
If not for AT&Ts willingness to take on the unproven iPhone from day one, the iToyz experience would not exist today.

Steve Jobs took his new project to Verizon first and they told him to pound salt.

Those were the only two carriers with the proper resouces to support the phone. Had AT&T been as stubborn & closed minded as Verizon who knows what the impact would have been.

monaarts
Jul 18, 2012, 04:58 AM
To me, the fact that they are "thinking" about it reassures that they are going to be charging for it. I wish Apple would step in an intervene. Tell them they need to change their practices or no more iPhone, and we all know that can make a huge difference to a carrier (especially stocks - what really matters to this guy).

----------

I don't think AT&T caps your data. They throttle it and that makes TOTAL SENSE. When AT&T offered unlimited data plans back at the very beginning of the iPhone world, data was traveling at 1/10 the speed it travels now. You would be lucky to get 3GB-4GB a month. Now, you can get 50GB-100GB a month or more on the AT&T Network.

They have honored the unlimited data and provide you with what you originally purchased (throttled to 2008 speeds).

AT&T is a company and has a responsibility to make money.

Do you work for free?

No, I don't work for free. But I don't sign a contract to do a 1 year project for someone and slowly work less and less because I only promised the amount of work equal to the pay when I started. AT&T should have figured future costs when it started the plan. I get unlimited data from work so it doesn't affect me, but it's still ********.

nick_elt
Jul 18, 2012, 05:00 AM
So glad at&t isnt here in europe :) that company sounds aweful, how do they have customers?

Thunderhawks
Jul 18, 2012, 05:01 AM
I can't even think when I last used FaceTime.

Totally agreed. A lot of hubbub about a feature that you don't have to use on ATT.

If ATT really thinks through it they will come to the conclusion that this is additional data being consumed.

So, they will either get paid for lots of overages or people have to increase their data plans.

So, get that advertising campaign ready.:

NEW ..now with face time

ATT connecting your loved ones etc.etc.

Many posters here act as if they use face time 24/7.

Why so upset?

I for one want to get every phone call to get over with as quickly as possible.

But that's because I am an old geezer and have other things to do than talk on the phone. I also do not need to be reachable all the time.

Great to be young and happening:-)

......and as others already posted, no problem.

SKYPE and done!

cirial
Jul 18, 2012, 05:33 AM
I sent the ******* an email yesterday (Randall.stephenson@att.com) to voice my opinion on this. This is the reply I got...

Regarding the email below that you sent to AT&T Chairman, Randall Stephenson, please explain to me what your issues are with iOS 6. I researched and this is what I found:

iOS 6

On June 11, 2012, Apple announced the coming release of iOS 6 at the Worldwide Developer's Conference. Customers may visit www.apple.com for more information.

Always encourage customers to download and install the latest version of software available for their device at www.apple.com.


Please respond and I will be happy to research further.

Sincerely,


Grace Milton | Executive Response Team | AT&T Business Solutions | Office: 502-969-0770 | Wireless: 502-403-5829

ccarillo
Jul 18, 2012, 05:36 AM
As a loyal AT&T customer, if they do this, I WILL be switching to Verizon thank you very much. That and the fact that Verizon's true LTE rollout is advancing more quickly than AT&T's, is making it very tempting to drop AT&T for Verizon.

You might want to check first, I recall Verizon charging an 10 or so bucks a months for LTE access....

penajmz
Jul 18, 2012, 05:42 AM
If I'm charged extra for FaceTime I'm going to switch carriers. AT&T Sucks!
:apple:

Same here. Enough is enough.

Macboy Pro
Jul 18, 2012, 05:49 AM
To me, the fact that they are "thinking" about it reassures that they are going to be charging for it. I wish Apple would step in an intervene. Tell them they need to change their practices or no more iPhone, and we all know that can make a huge difference to a carrier (especially stocks - what really matters to this guy).

----------



No, I don't work for free. But I don't sign a contract to do a 1 year project for someone and slowly work less and less because I only promised the amount of work equal to the pay when I started. AT&T should have figured future costs when it started the plan. I get unlimited data from work so it doesn't affect me, but it's still ********.

The unlimited plans were 4 years ago and even at throttled (not capped), they are honoring the contract AND they are providing a much faster data speed.

Sick of the entitlement mentality of the "unlimited" whiners on this forum. I am not saying you are one, I am just sick of hearing people whine about it like they are entitled to free services from telecoms.

Bottom line.... If people don't like AT&T, move to Verizon... (and buy two phones so you can multitask). If people want unlimited data, move to Sprint... (and good luck with your network speed but its "free") Quit the complaining about AT&T but never having the nerves to jump ship. JUMP! Go see what your missing (or figure out the good thing you had).

----------

To me, the fact that they are "thinking" about it reassures that they are going to be charging for it. I wish Apple would step in an intervene. Tell them they need to change their practices or no more iPhone, and we all know that can make a huge difference to a carrier (especially stocks - what really matters to this guy).[COLOR="#808080"]

LOL, is Apple now in control of the telecoms? This is clueless on your part. Apple is not going to tell AT&T or Verizon what to do. Apple needs the telecoms. Apples primary business at this point is IOS devices. Verizon and AT&Ts primary business is NOT the iPhone or iPad.

Mackan
Jul 18, 2012, 05:49 AM
Amazing that they consider charging extra for FaceTime. Bet they are working with Apple on how to detect that a FaceTime call has started.

I know other carriers that require you to sign up for a special Skype data plan. I don't like where this is going.

iPadPublisher
Jul 18, 2012, 05:49 AM
I'm growing tired of AT&T and their pricing games. This is total ********. Data is data is data. All this limiting, extra "service" pricing, and throttling crap is getting out of control.

Heard they're thinking about forcing us unlimited guys to their tiered plans on iPhone 5 release "because of LTE" but the still don't have LTE in my major metro area, yet, so that'd be double ********. They might just lose me on this next round.

fhall1
Jul 18, 2012, 06:03 AM
I sent the ******* an email yesterday (Randall.stephenson@att.com) to voice my opinion on this. This is the reply I got...

Regarding the email below that you sent to AT&T Chairman, Randall Stephenson, please explain to me what your issues are with iOS 6. I researched and this is what I found:

iOS 6

On June 11, 2012, Apple announced the coming release of iOS 6 at the Worldwide Developer's Conference. Customers may visit www.apple.com for more information.

Always encourage customers to download and install the latest version of software available for their device at www.apple.com.


Please respond and I will be happy to research further.

Sincerely,


Grace Milton | Executive Response Team | AT&T Business Solutions | Office: 502-969-0770 | Wireless: 502-403-5829

Well....there's your answer! Aren't you satisfied with the great "research" Grace did?

Randall "Dick" Stephenson is on his way to being the most reviled CEO in the US (just after Mark Zuckerberg in my book).

For the UK folks that brag about multiple choices of carriers and low data rates - remember, your whole country is smaller than most of our states...it's a lot easier to set up a "national" network in such a small geographic area.

I really like the idea of an Apple, Google, MS wireless consortium (with decent prices) to put an end to our entrenched carriers. If that happened AT&T wouldn't have to worry about their network capacity issues any more since the few hundred people in the US that still use only voice over their phones won't be using that much bandwidth.

Macboy Pro
Jul 18, 2012, 06:14 AM
Well....there's your answer! Aren't you satisfied with the great "research" Grace did?

Randall "Dick" Stephenson is on his way to being the most reviled CEO in the US (just after Mark Zuckerberg in my book).

For the UK folks that brag about multiple choices of carriers and low data rates - remember, your whole country is smaller than most of our states...it's a lot easier to set up a "national" network in such a small geographic area.

I really like the idea of an Apple, Google, MS wireless consortium (with decent prices) to put an end to our entrenched carriers. If that happened AT&T wouldn't have to worry about their network capacity issues any more since the few hundred people in the US that still use only voice over their phones won't be using that much bandwidth.

I guess if you sent an email that was as classless as this forum post, I understand why they wouldn't bother with you. Move to Verizon! Whats holding you back?

----------

I'm growing tired of AT&T and their pricing games. This is total ********. Data is data is data. All this limiting, extra "service" pricing, and throttling crap is getting out of control.

Heard they're thinking about forcing us unlimited guys to their tiered plans on iPhone 5 release "because of LTE" but the still don't have LTE in my major metro area, yet, so that'd be double ********. They might just lose me on this next round.

Once again, rumor and ASSumptions. Nothing in any of these articles says they are charging you anything.

cowcaster88
Jul 18, 2012, 06:19 AM
I hope Apple flexes some muscle to AT&T since they've help them sell additional service in the last 5 years. Just let us use our current data plans with FaceTime.

SuperCachetes
Jul 18, 2012, 06:23 AM
It's "too early to discuss" whether or not I will stick with AT&T when I buy the new phone... ;)

hickabob
Jul 18, 2012, 06:24 AM
"too early to discuss"? There's nothing to discuss... I'm going to Sprint or Verizon if this happens as my wife and I are both out of contract next month.

Dronac
Jul 18, 2012, 06:31 AM
Like tethering, there will be a jailbreak workaround. Not a huge deal if your willing to jailbreak.

Wether AT&T decides to charge or not is yet to be determined, but if they do that will not make them an 'evil' company. Traditional voice and texting services are more rapidly being replaced and it's vital for AT&T and other carriers to innovate in order to protect their business. Data service revenue is what's going up. That's where the money is.

That's not innovation though. That's simply finding a way to charge the customer twice and get away with it. AT&T didn't create facetime, so why should they get revenue for someone else's work? Especially with customer's already paying for X amount of data, there is no excuse for charging for facetime. If they really insist on it, it needs to not count against data allowance for those on a teired plan.

To me, the fact that they are "thinking" about it reassures that they are going to be charging for it. I wish Apple would step in an intervene. Tell them they need to change their practices or no more iPhone, and we all know that can make a huge difference to a carrier (especially stocks - what really matters to this guy.

+1. Apple has a stranglehold on Carriers since such a large percentage would leave if they lost future iPhones. The iPhone has put huge pressure on Carriers to upgrade their networks, and has already been a huge boon for consumers.

kugino
Jul 18, 2012, 06:41 AM
let it be part of existing data packages. it will be a novelty at first...then it will wear off. most will use it sporadically, if at all. some will pay for extra data to continue using it. not a big deal, at&t.

the only potential problem i see are to those of us who still have unlimited data plans...at&t might not like the fact that we can use facetime over 3G w/impunity.

k1121j
Jul 18, 2012, 06:45 AM
Verizon is lookin better every day I switch to AT&T for the first iPhone and haven't looked back but these days "unlimited data" or not Verizon is looking better every day the only thing stopping me from switching is data and voice at the same time issue and I don't think that will be a problem once the LTE iPhone is out ;)

r.harris1
Jul 18, 2012, 06:46 AM
We've got two "decline to comment" and one "we won't charge". Sounds like we've really got two "yep we're going to charge" and one "not now, but only cause we're a smaller player and we need the customers.":D

auero
Jul 18, 2012, 06:53 AM
Meh. I think they'll charge for it but it won't affect me personally seeing as I never use FaceTime.

I'd be interested in seeing how many people actually use FaceTime and how often. The only times I've ever used it was when I was around wifi anyway. It's just another way to waste data and get charged for overages. That'll be the next complaint. How much data it uses and the quality of the experience.

Stephanos
Jul 18, 2012, 06:54 AM
The biggest crippling feature of FaceTime is not that it doesn't work over cellular. It's that you can't turn off the video.

For most people video calling is a fringe feature. Maybe once in a while, but most of the time you prefer talking to a disembodied voice before you even consider the bandwidth issues.

If they really want the kudos, Apple should add a little switch to turn off the camera.

SeniorGato1
Jul 18, 2012, 07:00 AM
Why anyone would continue with Scam T&T is beyond me.

donnaw
Jul 18, 2012, 07:05 AM
The biggest crippling feature of FaceTime is not that it doesn't work over cellular. It's that you can't turn off the video.

For most people video calling is a fringe feature. Maybe once in a while, but most of the time you prefer talking to a disembodied voice before you even consider the bandwidth issues.

If they really want the kudos, Apple should add a little switch to turn off the camera.

Actually if you press the Home button it will switch the video off.

My husband works overseas so we use FaceTime or Skype every day. We usually use FaceTime if I'm on wifi but when I'm out of town we use Skype. To be honest if your wifi connection is iffy (and my husband's sometimes is) Skype works better. Last time I was in Vegas we used Skype every day for 5 days, 20-40 mins a day. Because I wasn't sure how much data it would use I kept the video off. All that use resulted in right at 400 mb of data.

Using FaceTime over cellular would be nice but I'm not paying more for the option. Skype works just fine and I'll just continue to use it.

jclardy
Jul 18, 2012, 07:06 AM
The fact that they are even going to be talking about pricing is the problem. AT&T, I have just a few more months left with you.

Once iPhone has LTE then AT&T will have nothing, as speeds will be faster in more places on other carriers.

Macthemaca
Jul 18, 2012, 07:08 AM
Yet another good reason to jailbreak !!:D Facebreak

*Calypso*
Jul 18, 2012, 07:16 AM
It's an iPhone feature, not an AT&T service. Everyone seems to get that except for AT&T. Even thinking about charging for it or disallowing the feature is intolerable and will hopefully lead to both a quick FCC ruling and a huge loss of customers and profits. I am still surprised that Apple even allows disabling one of the big iOS 6 features software-wise. What's next? AT&T charging you extra for using turn-by-turn navigation?

johnnyjibbs
Jul 18, 2012, 07:17 AM
Didn't they delay MMS as well? From what I remember, it was several months after the launch of iPhone OS 2 before AT&T introduced it despite the rest of the world getting it on day 1.

einmusiker
Jul 18, 2012, 07:18 AM
just another reason I'm happy to be on android phone and ipad tablet. Unlimited 4G data for all of my devices at $70/month after all fees, taxes, discounts are taken into consideration. Thats for unlimited everything for me.

SandboxGeneral
Jul 18, 2012, 07:24 AM
This whole US cellular market of data usage is a bunch of bunk. 1Gb, 3GB or unlimited, it's all irrelevant. The quantity of data a person uses has no affect on the network of AT&T, Verizon, et al. What matters and affects the network and it's users is the number of people on the network at a given time, in a given area and how many it can support. That's where the slow downs occur and congestion takes over. This is true whether a person uses 1MB or 10GB; it's all the same.

Imagine a highway with 2 lanes and 100 cars on it driving 55mph. Traffic should run fairly well. Now triple the amount of cars on the same road and traffic is going to get congested and the speed overall is going to drop significantly. If you widen the same road by 1 or 2 lanes, those 300 cars should be able to drive 55mph again and be fine. This is the same principle of the way the networks work.

The bottom line is the cellular companies are taking us for a ride and not a high speed one. They're cashing in on these "data plans" and restricting us the use of the road. We're only allowed to drive 3 miles on the unlimited length of the road each month. That is without regard to how many lanes are available and the amount of cars on the road. You could be the only car on a 3 lane road, but you're only allowed to drive 3 miles per month, or they're going to penalize you for driving further.

Then there is the text messages. Texting costs them next to nothing to accommodate as they insert that data in between regular telephone calls on the same network. Again, charging us all this money for these plans is uncalled for.

They are bringing in the cash hand over fist, yet their networks lag behind in capacity and speed. What are they doing with all this money? Perhaps they need to streamline their corporate & company structure and become more cost-effective.

ChrisTX
Jul 18, 2012, 07:40 AM
I would hope MS, Google, and Apple would join up and form an Independent Wireless Consortium. All LTE, data-based packages at reasonable prices (say, $10 per GB), with unlimited texting thrown in, and voice for a little more. It would be as big an industry disruptor as the iPhone was. Those companies have the cash to make it happen.
That would be EPIC! :D

Will do good
Jul 18, 2012, 07:43 AM
Use pe-paid plan and leave ATT:cool:

Scarpad
Jul 18, 2012, 07:45 AM
I don't use facetime, but these carriers are going to nickle and dime themselves right out of business, I'll not be extorted, I'll go back to a simple Flip phone if this keeps up.

maddog91
Jul 18, 2012, 07:47 AM
I agree. Double dipping is what I see here.

I would love to switch.. But I anywhere from 28-50 bucks a month for top tier service from AT&T... Prices like that, for me, at least. Means I'm staying regardless. Even when I pay 50, Its considerably lower than anyone I know.

mccldwll
Jul 18, 2012, 07:48 AM
The unlimited plans were 4 years ago and even at throttled (not capped), they are honoring the contract AND they are providing a much faster data speed.

Sick of the entitlement mentality of the "unlimited" whiners on this forum. I am not saying you are one, I am just sick of hearing people whine about it like they are entitled to free services from telecoms.

Bottom line.... If people don't like AT&T, move to Verizon... (and buy two phones so you can multitask). If people want unlimited data, move to Sprint... (and good luck with your network speed but its "free") Quit the complaining about AT&T but never having the nerves to jump ship. JUMP! Go see what your missing (or figure out the good thing you had).[COLOR="#808080"]

----------
.

Bingo. All this whining about a non event. T hasn't said yet how it will handle charges, if any. It will have to address grandfathered unlimited plans as well as existing unlimited free calls between T customers and switching between calls and FaceTime.

Leonard1818
Jul 18, 2012, 07:54 AM
Now do you see what I mean when I say Verizon was actually AHEAD of things by coming out with their "share everything" pricing well before the next iPhone? At least Verizon customers and potential Verizon customers know EXACTLY what they're going to be charged. Sure it is "more expensive" to add a line but Verizon has always been expensive and at least I know for sure what I'm getting into.

Good job AT&T. How many customers will your indecisiveness cost you?

TheStoof
Jul 18, 2012, 08:00 AM
Wether AT&T decides to charge or not is yet to be determined, but if they do that will not make them an 'evil' company. Traditional voice and texting services are more rapidly being replaced and it's vital for AT&T and other carriers to innovate in order to protect their business. Data service revenue is what's going up. That's where the money is.

If that's correct, then they should stop charging us for texting/voice because they *are* evil by raising the costs in a crappy economy. That's why people are switching to Verizon/Sprint and pay-as-you-go (even with iPhone).

Gemütlichkeit
Jul 18, 2012, 08:00 AM
They should just stop offering the iPhone if they can't support it's technology.

Skika
Jul 18, 2012, 08:08 AM
I wonder if Apple is pissed about this. And if they aren't, they should be.

AT&T is undermining FaceTime with this.

BJMRamage
Jul 18, 2012, 08:10 AM
"oh crap, people are using the data we are selling them, and using more than we thought. we need to do something."

"how about we charge them more for certain types of data or for data used by certain apps? I know we are charging once already for data but we can call this a new service and charge them again."

"brilliant! it'll be an other upsell to those grandfathered into the unlimited data plans, and just another add-on service for everyone else. this is just like Texting plans, people are already paying more for that anyway."



A$$holes

twilson
Jul 18, 2012, 08:14 AM
Traditional voice and texting services are more rapidly being replaced and it's vital for AT&T and other carriers to innovate in order to protect their business.

How is charging AGAIN, for something that is already being paid for, just because they want to classify it differently "innovation"?

----------

The biggest crippling feature of FaceTime is not that it doesn't work over cellular. It's that you can't turn off the video.

FACEtime. Just sayin'

ScooterLibby
Jul 18, 2012, 08:15 AM
Most pubicly held companies are neither immoral or moral, they are amoral (this includes AT&T and Apple). It is funny to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding the evil AT&T when they are pursuing a strategy to perform their primary function, which is maximizing the utility of their shareholders, not you. I am not saying this in defense of the policy, it may well backfire. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet, as that is the language they speak. I will.

chasecalvin
Jul 18, 2012, 08:18 AM
My FaceTime works over cellular with iOS 6 beta 3, with my At&t Data Pro 4GB with tethering data plan.

Ping Guo
Jul 18, 2012, 08:23 AM
Don't turn this around. Voice/Texting revenue has been on the decline and unless they adapt as a company to find new ways of profit then the business entity will fail. If home internet providers were threatened by a new product that somehow cut their revenue they would be sure to initiate new forms of cash flows.

Yet corporate profits are at an all-time high. What you really mean is they have to find new ways to fleece consumers while continuing to offer subpar service on outdated networks.

Where is the Bureau of Consumer Protection in all this? Oh wait, they're doing the same thing the DoJ and SEC are doing: sweet **** all to protect normal people from predatory companies and Wall Street grifters.

scarred
Jul 18, 2012, 08:28 AM
"Technology to stabilize"... what kind of BS is this? Do they think we are stupid?

3g, 4g, serial cable, ethernet, wifi, token ring, carrier pigeon, doesn't make one bit of difference to "FaceTime" the app. The technology is completely stabilized. The network layer below can change to be completely different, yet FaceTime remains identical in _every single way_. Apple doesn't need to change a line of code for things to work on 3g.

The only "technology" they need to fix are the artificial limitations added, and now they need to stabilize adding the cost code to it. This is just garbage.

No, I'm not leaving just AT&T if this happens, I'll go back to using Android phones. Screw FaceTime...

jmgregory1
Jul 18, 2012, 08:28 AM
This whole US cellular market of data usage is a bunch of bunk. 1Gb, 3GB or unlimited, it's all irrelevant. The quantity of data a person uses has no affect on the network of AT&T, Verizon, et al. What matters and affects the network and it's users is the number of people on the network at a given time, in a given area and how many it can support. That's where the slow downs occur and congestion takes over. This is true whether a person uses 1MB or 10GB; it's all the same.

Imagine a highway with 2 lanes and 100 cars on it driving 55mph. Traffic should run fairly well. Now triple the amount of cars on the same road and traffic is going to get congested and the speed overall is going to drop significantly. If you widen the same road by 1 or 2 lanes, those 300 cars should be able to drive 55mph again and be fine. This is the same principle of the way the networks work.

The bottom line is the cellular companies are taking us for a ride and not a high speed one. They're cashing in on these "data plans" and restricting us the use of the road. We're only allowed to drive 3 miles on the unlimited length of the road each month. That is without regard to how many lanes are available and the amount of cars on the road. You could be the only car on a 3 lane road, but you're only allowed to drive 3 miles per month, or they're going to penalize you for driving further.

Then there is the text messages. Texting costs them next to nothing to accommodate as they insert that data in between regular telephone calls on the same network. Again, charging us all this money for these plans is uncalled for.

They are bringing in the cash hand over fist, yet their networks lag behind in capacity and speed. What are they doing with all this money? Perhaps they need to streamline their corporate & company structure and become more cost-effective.

This is exactly correct. What we as consumers should be lobbying for is to get what we pay for - a certain amount of data at a certain speed of service. That way there would be expectations on the part of the service provider and if they don't live up to their claimed speed, we would have recourse against them.

Otherwise, the way it is now, we pay for say 3gb of data per month, but if the service is so congested that we can't access the data in the first place, we shouldn't have to pay for it. ATT with their "fastest network" claim, should be made to support that claim - at all times and places. Otherwise it's false advertising and probably could be considered mail fraud or something similar.

Butler Trumpet
Jul 18, 2012, 08:37 AM
This gets to the very essence of the fight over net neutrality and traffic discrimination. If they go through with this, what's to stop them from charging more for YouTube videos, twitter messages, Facebook posts, etc?

Exactly. Net Neutrality is the biggest concern here. Without Net Neutrality they could charge for specific sites, and throttle down speeds to competing sites ... this could be the start of a very terrible thing.

jhende7
Jul 18, 2012, 08:42 AM
Don't turn this around. Voice/Texting revenue has been on the decline and unless they adapt as a company to find new ways of profit then the business entity will fail. If home internet providers were threatened by a new product that somehow cut their revenue they would be sure to initiate new forms of cash flows.

I'm sorry your "business assessment" of the situation seems terrible.

By your logic my electrical utility company should start assessing an extra fee when I use electricity for playing Xbox vs turning on a light (regardless of the actual kw usage of course). Maybe the utility companies should also charge me extra for using my water to shower instead of taking a bath? Maybe gas companies should start charging more per gallon of gas if your driving a Toyota corolla vs a truck?? I mean those darn corollas are so fuel efficient were losing an important revenue stream and we need to be sure to initiate new cash flows! I mean this kind of discrimination surely won't lead to lost customers, complaints, lawsuits etc.

You have given me some great ideas. I'm off to one of the banks to pitch a great new idea. I think they should be charging an extra fee when people use there own money to buy an Apple product vs a PC... I mean people that are buying Macs surely could afford it right?

Macboy Pro
Jul 18, 2012, 08:53 AM
If not for AT&Ts willingness to take on the unproven iPhone from day one, the iToyz experience would not exist today.

Steve Jobs took his new project to Verizon first and they told him to pound salt.

Those were the only two carriers with the proper resouces to support the phone. Had AT&T been as stubborn & closed minded as Verizon who knows what the impact would have been.

EXACTLY!! And AT&T did a bang up job keeping up with the iPhone explosion. Sure, some areas were slower than others, but they did it and they still have the largest 4G (iPhone) network and by far the fastest.

No one predicted the iPhone would take off like it did (only 4-5 years ago).

When unlimited plans were offered, AT&T had no idea that it would take off like it did and that bandwidth requirements would be so big and data speed would be so fast.

If you read this forum, people crucify Randall Stephenson for admitting that AT&T made a mistake for even offering unlimited. Good Grief, he is being HONEST. It was a mistake. His responsibility is to the stakeholders at AT&T and customers as a whole, not to the whining freeloaders who want to break rules, jailbreak phones, tether the data, and chew up AT&T bandwidth that the rest of us use.

----------

I'm sorry your "business assessment" of the situation seems terrible.

By your logic my electrical utility company should start assessing an extra fee when I use electricity for playing Xbox vs turning on a light (regardless of the actual kw usage of course). Maybe the utility companies should also charge me extra for using my water to shower instead of taking a bath? Maybe gas companies should start charging more per gallon of gas if your driving a Toyota corolla vs a truck?? I mean those darn corollas are so fuel efficient were losing an important revenue stream and we need to be sure to initiate new cash flows! I mean this kind of discrimination surely won't lead to lost customers, complaints, lawsuits etc.

You have given me some great ideas. I'm off to one of the banks to pitch a great new idea. I think they should be charging an extra fee when people use there own money to buy an Apple product vs a PC... I mean people that are buying Macs surely could afford it right?

You logic works if the telecoms were charging you by the MB. Maybe they should charge by the MB and then you can choose what you spend your money on. Flat rate plans are not the same thing so your analogy is innaccurate.

paulyras
Jul 18, 2012, 08:54 AM
Exactly. Net Neutrality is the biggest concern here. Without Net Neutrality they could charge for specific sites, and throttle down speeds to competing sites ... this could be the start of a very terrible thing.

What really gets me is Apple and ATT are 'partners' on the iphone. True, facetime and imessage do potentially limit revenue, but so do Skype.

It mystifies me that if they're picking winners and losers in the marketplace (which is one concern over the net neutrality exception for cellular carriers, since they are likely to all pick different 'preferred partners'-- typically themselves wherever possible) they would choose a strategy that dilutes the iPhone brand and financially benefits MS (owner of skype).

I'm not going to even bother getting into the negative effects of fragmenting the market with various non-interoperable technologies.

The best thing Apple could do right now is reinstate their launch claim for facetime that they plan to make it an open standard. Allow skype and others to make their clients compatible. That should force the carriers hands, as I'm pretty sure that if you single out one company and force extra charges (rather than a broad type of service) the FCC / FTC will take notice.

kdarling
Jul 18, 2012, 08:57 AM
This is exactly correct. What we as consumers should be lobbying for is to get what we pay for - a certain amount of data at a certain speed of service.

That's like saying we should be guaranteed a certain speed on the highway.

There is no such thing as infinite bandwidth, so restricting simultaneous users is the ONLY way to guarantee a certain speed (unless they set that speed so low as to be meaningless).

Is that really what people want? A limit on who gets to have wireless access? Perhaps a lottery as to who can own a smartphone? Perhaps a tiered speed rate, with a limited number of high priced slots?

There is no easy and fair answer when it comes to limited wireless broadband, except to make sure that everyone is allowed to share it (either equally or by speed tier). In other words, yes, people should be allowed to use whatever app they want, with the caveat that if a cell is crowded, that app might not work too well.

tigres
Jul 18, 2012, 09:01 AM
This whole US cellular market of data usage is a bunch of bunk. 1Gb, 3GB or unlimited, it's all irrelevant. The quantity of data a person uses has no affect on the network of AT&T, Verizon, et al. What matters and affects the network and it's users is the number of people on the network at a given time, in a given area and how many it can support. That's where the slow downs occur and congestion takes over. This is true whether a person uses 1MB or 10GB; it's all the same.

Imagine a highway with 2 lanes and 100 cars on it driving 55mph. Traffic should run fairly well. Now triple the amount of cars on the same road and traffic is going to get congested and the speed overall is going to drop significantly. If you widen the same road by 1 or 2 lanes, those 300 cars should be able to drive 55mph again and be fine. This is the same principle of the way the networks work.

The bottom line is the cellular companies are taking us for a ride and not a high speed one. They're cashing in on these "data plans" and restricting us the use of the road. We're only allowed to drive 3 miles on the unlimited length of the road each month. That is without regard to how many lanes are available and the amount of cars on the road. You could be the only car on a 3 lane road, but you're only allowed to drive 3 miles per month, or they're going to penalize you for driving further.

Then there is the text messages. Texting costs them next to nothing to accommodate as they insert that data in between regular telephone calls on the same network. Again, charging us all this money for these plans is uncalled for.

They are bringing in the cash hand over fist, yet their networks lag behind in capacity and speed. What are they doing with all this money? Perhaps they need to streamline their corporate & company structure and become more cost-effective.

Bingo-
nice synopsis Sandbox

Geckotek
Jul 18, 2012, 09:03 AM
Or perhaps they could spend some of that $3.6 billion on expanding capacity instead.....just a thought.

landrew4
Jul 18, 2012, 09:11 AM
My prediction is this: It will be a "no charge" feature that has to be added to your plan, but can only be added to "currently offered" plans. In other words, anyone who has the old "unlimited plan" will be out of luck using this feature unless they give up that plan. This is very similar to what they did with Tethering - although it is an extra charge, it could not be added to the unlimited plan so users had a choice to give up that plan or give up new features. I do understand that tether'd users and FaceTime users on a "unlimited" plan could do the most damage, so I can see AT&T's interest. They have basically been doing everything they can to get people to "willingly" give up their unlimited plans without AT&T getting bad press about canceling those plans.

kdarling
Jul 18, 2012, 09:14 AM
Or perhaps they could spend some of that $3.6 billion on expanding capacity instead.....just a thought.

To be fair, the total revenue for that quarter was $31 billion, so they spent about $28 billion on running and expanding the network.

The profit was shared with investors.

Contrast this to Apple, who simply banks their much higher profit margin instead of putting it back into R&D or paying out dividends.

As for the profit amount itself, $3.6 billion divided by 100 million users equals only $3 per week per user profit.

SandboxGeneral
Jul 18, 2012, 09:15 AM
This is exactly correct. What we as consumers should be lobbying for is to get what we pay for - a certain amount of data at a certain speed of service. That way there would be expectations on the part of the service provider and if they don't live up to their claimed speed, we would have recourse against them.

Otherwise, the way it is now, we pay for say 3gb of data per month, but if the service is so congested that we can't access the data in the first place, we shouldn't have to pay for it. ATT with their "fastest network" claim, should be made to support that claim - at all times and places. Otherwise it's false advertising and probably could be considered mail fraud or something similar.

Bingo-
nice synopsis Sandbox

We've identified how the cellular data structure functions, it's flaws and how it can be corrected. The tough part is convincing them or a higher authority to change it. Regrettably, I doubt there will ever be a change. I say that because after the big four [cellular] companies were called up on the carpet before Congress (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10037221-38.html) in 2008 about how they charge for texting, nothing changed.

Sixtafoua
Jul 18, 2012, 09:28 AM
This is a new low for AT&T. They way they blame it on technological issues is really funny. Verizon and sprint aren't working with apple to get the "technology stabilized".

Shade12
Jul 18, 2012, 09:31 AM
Well it doesn't matter to me because my data is blocked only use wifi. : D with AT&T save money guys

Major.Robto
Jul 18, 2012, 09:32 AM
Wow you people are freaking out.

First off, if they only are charging for facetime, then use skype! does not take a brain surgin to figure that out.

Also if you don't like at&t why are you still with them?

Man, people think!

jhende7
Jul 18, 2012, 09:41 AM
You logic works if the telecoms were charging you by the MB. Maybe they should charge by the MB and then you can choose what you spend your money on. Flat rate plans are not the same thing so your analogy is innaccurate.

I beg to differ. It's not really a flat rate. If it cost say 30 bucks for 1 GB of data, that equates to 30 bucks for 1024 MB or 3 cents per MB. Then, they usually adjust that to a higher rate once you go over your 1GB limit. Essentially your just getting a "tiered" per MB charge. A flat rate implies you pay one price and get full use of a product or service.

So in essence, the integrity of my first example remains fully in tact.

KdParker
Jul 18, 2012, 09:42 AM
I don't think this will pass.

It's probably a publicity stunt to seem like the good guys by not charging for FaceTime 3G after hearing the "opinions" of it's customers, when in truth they probably weren't even going to charge for it.

You still suck, AT&T.

Still looks like I am moving to verizon. (unless thier 4g sucks).

tbrinkma
Jul 18, 2012, 09:57 AM
They are bringing in the cash hand over fist, yet their networks lag behind in capacity and speed. What are they doing with all this money? Perhaps they need to streamline their corporate & company structure and become more cost-effective.

What are they doing with all that money? Building out infrastructure as quickly as they can get the permits to do so. Seriously. It takes them a month or so for the actual construction/build-out of a new tower. The entire *process* of getting the 'ok' to build the tower in the first place can take upwards of 6 *years* due to EPA studies, zoning permits, locals suing to block construction because they don't want that 'eye sore', etc.

----------

I beg to differ. It's not really a flat rate. If it cost say 30 bucks for 1 GB of data, that equates to 30 bucks for 1024 MB or 3 cents per MB. Then, they usually adjust that to a higher rate once you go over your 1GB limit. Essentially your just getting a "tiered" per MB charge. A flat rate implies you pay one price and get full use of a product or service.

So in essence, the integrity of my first example remains fully in tact.

You do pay once and get full use of the product or service. The product or service you paid for (in your example) is 1GB of data.

I remember back when cell phones were brand-spanking-new. In some of the original plans, if you went over your minutes, your phone stopped working until the next billing period began. *That* went over like a lead brick, so they moved to the overage-charge method.

Trauma1
Jul 18, 2012, 09:58 AM
Data is data, plan and simple...

That having been said, I actually like this. Too many people are walking around town and driving on the streets doing things they shouldn't be doing: texting, using the internet, checking email, etc. What's going to happen when you add FaceTime?

For the most part, FaceTime on Wi-Fi assumes that someone is in a stationary, stable environment. Now if you let go of that restriction, people are going to be even more distracted in even more places. It's the loss of attention that talking on a phone causes, mixed with the loss of vision by staring at the phone (instead of looking forward) that happens with texting.

I don't care if they charge a little or lot for this because I won't be paying it. There are plenty of simple alternatives; Skype, jailbreaking, tethering, in-car Wi-Fi systems, etc. We're smart enough to figure those out. If someone can't figure out these simple work-arounds, then let AT&T make money off them now so they don't have to raise our rates in the future.

Kavok
Jul 18, 2012, 10:00 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/17/att-ceo-acknowledges-rumors-of-cellular-facetime-charges-says-too-early-to-discuss/)
In a separate report (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120717-713623.html) today from The Wall Street Journal, Sprint indicated that it will not be charging additional fees for cellular FaceTime usage, considering it part of the customer's existing data package. [/url]

SPRINT gets it! Data is data and you shouldn't be charged extra based on how you use your data (you already paid for it once). Verizon and AT&T need to learn this.

BFizzzle
Jul 18, 2012, 10:10 AM
what a scum bag, the FTC and BBB will be flooded with complaints if they go through with this. Sprint here i come. Thank god they are adding sprint LTE in my city this fall

SandboxGeneral
Jul 18, 2012, 10:12 AM
What are they doing with all that money? Building out infrastructure as quickly as they can get the permits to do so. Seriously. It takes them a month or so for the actual construction/build-out of a new tower. The entire *process* of getting the 'ok' to build the tower in the first place can take upwards of 6 *years* due to EPA studies, zoning permits, locals suing to block construction because they don't want that 'eye sore', etc.

I fully understand that as I am in the middle of building out an 8-site public safety radio system and have to go through the exact same *process* the cellular companies do. I had one tower held up for 2 months on local public hearings and then another 5 months due to EPA studies and we finally were allowed to break ground last week on the site.

I still must believe that the companies can upgrade their equipment in the shelters of existing sites and greatly improve their capacity, speed and quality of service. Building new sites can only enhance those other efforts.

There are things they can do today to improve things, but it's a matter of will. Will they invest the necessary funds to enhance existing infrastructure or not?

dotme
Jul 18, 2012, 10:14 AM
Data is data, but downstream data isn't upstream data. I don't use Facetime, but I can see how a sudden flood of outbound video streaming using a lot of upload bandwidth might give any ISP/provider a little cause for concern. Most build their networks around the assumption that the user will consume most bandwidth by downloading, so their downstream available pipe is much greater than the upstream.

I don't know what impact a couple of hundred concurrent outbound Facetime streams would have on a tower, but I can see why they might be a little concerned about it.

jhende7
Jul 18, 2012, 10:15 AM
You do pay once and get full use of the product or service. The product or service you paid for (in your example) is 1GB of data.


Are you trying to make my point for me? Yes, if you pay for 1GB of data you should in fact get to freely use that 1GB of data as you please. When you get 1GB you are essentially locking into a fixed per MB rate up to 1GB.

If you pay for 1GB, but they exclude you from using it, or charging you extra for using it a certain way, then the example I used in my first post fits perfectly. Flat rate, fixed rate, variable rate, it doesn't matter.

chainprayer
Jul 18, 2012, 10:29 AM
Streaming 3 straight hours of How I Met Your Mother: go ahead!

5 minute FaceTime call to my wife: This is a strain on our network, so we're going to charge you.

Geckotek
Jul 18, 2012, 10:35 AM
To be fair, the total revenue for that quarter was $31 billion, so they spent about $28 billion on running and expanding the network.

The profit was shared with investors.

Contrast this to Apple, who simply banks their much higher profit margin instead of putting it back into R&D or paying out dividends.

As for the profit amount itself, $3.6 billion divided by 100 million users equals only $3 per week per user profit.

To be completely fair, we'd have to look at their budget to see how much actually went into improving/running the network and how much went into advertising, CEO's salary, and other useless junk. :p

Spicedham
Jul 18, 2012, 10:40 AM
If I paid for 3GB a month for data I should be able to use it how I want to. AT&T doesn't have to do any more work if I use my data for video calls or for sending a simple email. Customers need to stand up against these kinds of business practices. They are only doing it because we haven't stood up to it.

kdarling
Jul 18, 2012, 11:02 AM
This is a new low for AT&T. They way they blame it on technological issues is really funny. Verizon and sprint aren't working with apple to get the "technology stabilized".

Actually, AT&T has different technology (UMTS-3G) with different issues.

With CDMA, Verizon and Sprint have traditionally kept voice separate from data. The downside was no easy simultanous voice+data. The upside was that they don't have to worry about a lot of data users negatively affecting voice users. That's why Verizon only throttles the highest users when necessary to share the data load.

Of course, LTE throws more variables into the equation.

If I paid for 3GB a month for data I should be able to use it how I want to. AT&T doesn't have to do any more work if I use my data for video calls or for sending a simple email.

Yes, you should be able to use the data how you wish. However, if everyone else has the same ability, then your video call might not work very well.

It's no different than paying a toll to go from Exit A to Exit B. You've paid for the distance (amount) but your speed is affected how many others are on the same road (cell).

Customers need to stand up against these kinds of business practices. They are only doing it because we haven't stood up to it.

They're doing it to protect their traditional voice customers, which is something that's deeply ingrained into phone companies.

NeoMayhem
Jul 18, 2012, 11:14 AM
Why do people continue to use these big carriers after they do crap like this year after year?

We have so many options to use smaller or prepaid carriers in this country, but people continue to hand their money to these guys.

In almost all cases, it is cheaper to buy an unlocked iPhone ($649) and pay less each month then to use a major carrier. As ATT and Verizon continue to raise their rates, the keeps getting larger.

Examples:
Cheapest new ATT Plan: $85*24 = $2040
Straight Talk: $45*24 + $649 = $1729

So if you go prepaid in this case, and buy a unlocked iPhone 4s, you would save $311 over 2 years, and have more data.

Look past the price of the phone before you sign a new contract guys. Buying an iPhone for $200 is just like putting a downpayment on in, and then paying $40 a month for it over 2 years.

Navdakilla
Jul 18, 2012, 11:53 AM
So, I don't for Skype video. But, I might have to pay for FaceTime. Seems like something is off here.

Quoted for TRUTH!!

DJsteveSD
Jul 18, 2012, 12:15 PM
Dear Mr. ____,
You corresponded previously with my colleague. I am happy to assist you further with your inquiry regarding an additional data plan with the release of i06.
When/if you update to i06 you will not be required to add an additional date plan. Should you choose to use FaceTime when you are not connected to Wi-Fi you will be using data from your current 4GB data plan.
If you have any additional questions about this issue, please respond to this email. Thank you for choosing AT&T; we appreciate your business.
Devina H.
eCare Customer Service Specialist
AT&T Business Solutions Customer Care

so I have it in writing!

theelysium
Jul 18, 2012, 12:43 PM
T-Mobile gets iPhone... bye AT&T

petsounds
Jul 18, 2012, 01:25 PM
Someone needs to start a Data Neutrality campaign, as these practices will only get worse as we use more and more data services through our smartphones. Personally, I think the FCC should get involved, but we all know they're in the pockets of the telcos.

jmgregory1
Jul 18, 2012, 01:28 PM
That's like saying we should be guaranteed a certain speed on the highway.

There is no such thing as infinite bandwidth, so restricting simultaneous users is the ONLY way to guarantee a certain speed (unless they set that speed so low as to be meaningless).

Is that really what people want? A limit on who gets to have wireless access? Perhaps a lottery as to who can own a smartphone? Perhaps a tiered speed rate, with a limited number of high priced slots?

There is no easy and fair answer when it comes to limited wireless broadband, except to make sure that everyone is allowed to share it (either equally or by speed tier). In other words, yes, people should be allowed to use whatever app they want, with the caveat that if a cell is crowded, that app might not work too well.

I am fully aware that they can't guarantee speed and there is only so much bandwidth to share. As our phones and devices get better at accessing and using data, it's clear that both the amount of data used by a single person AND the overall amount of users will continue to grow.

The issue is that ATT advertises one thing, but they don't really mean what they say - "the fastest network" (unless you read the small print that spells out all the caveats), is meaningless if you can't get on the network because it's overcrowded. And Verizon is no better - "the biggest network", again that's great, but a big network doesn't help if the network speed is reduced in order to offer greater coverage. Same thing with Sprint - unlimited data, except it's unlimited data at slow speeds that make unlimited meaningless.

So my point is all of the telcos should be forced to be honest in what they advertise and offer to consumers. And maybe, just maybe, the US needs to adopt (force) a system like Europe uses where we can choose providers based upon service and price where there can be (and are) real differences between carriers and their plans.

I know this will be fought tooth and nail, but I hope that at some point this will have to be the way it is. The same thing with cable providers. I don't want to have part of my monthly bill covering the NFL's or NBA's or MLB's licensing fees (which help fund player salaries) - if I don't care to watch any football, basketball or baseball on tv. Charge me for what I use and charge others for what they use. Those that dl 10gb of data a month will pay for 10gb of data. I don't want to have a portion of my bill covering their use, the way it is now.

dcorban
Jul 18, 2012, 02:56 PM
I don't understand. We pay for data, factime uses data. Why would they charge extra for the same thing? Where is the logic in that?

Data is not just data. People who currently use 100MB a month in data checking email and browsing the web could suddenly increase that exponentially by making video calls. It isn't a matter of the customers being able to pay for it, it's a matter of the network being able to handle it.

Combine this with the loss of revenue as people use less voice minutes, downgrading or completely eliminating their voice plan (it's possible here in Canada at least), it could severely hurt the company financially and operationally.

As for being able to currently use VOIP, there is a huge difference between a third-party app such as Skype and a native app pre-installed on every phone, and "Facetime with…" throughout the OS (in the messages app, in contacts, etc). People who would never think to use a third-party app quickly and easily become familiar with Facetime.

They need something to actively discourage people from using Facetime.

davido242
Jul 18, 2012, 04:12 PM
Has anyone tried FaceTime over 3G/4G on an iPad with iOS 6?

JForestZ34
Jul 18, 2012, 04:19 PM
I completely disagree. Certainly, AT&T is in business to make money. if they need to find more revenue then they should either increase prices or offer new services that add value.
That is very different than the concept of arbitrarily segmenting the data packets traveling over the network into different price buckets depending on what they are carrying or where they are headed. Especially so when customers are on a metered, pay per byte model.


This gets to the very essence of the fight over net neutrality and traffic discrimination. If they go through with this, what's to stop them from charging more for YouTube videos, twitter messages, Facebook posts, etc?

Imagine an AT&T competitor of iTunes where the movies being streamed don't count against your data plan. How is that not unfairly anti-competitive?


AT&T is in it to make money but they are charging you twice for the same data you already paid for.

That is like filling up your truck with gas and while at the gas station they ask you are you towing with the truck and they charge you more for te gas if you are. It's your gas you can use it as your see fit. You fill up your tank you can go where you want and use your car how you please. Should be the same for data.

Being charged twice for the same amount of data isnt right.


James

laureniam
Jul 18, 2012, 04:21 PM
Has anyone tried FaceTime over 3G/4G on an iPad with iOS 6?

I currently have an iPad 3 with iOS 6 Beta 2 installed. I am able to FaceTime on AT&T over cellular connection. I am also grandfathered into the unlimited plan. But I am hesitant to update to Beta 3 as I don't want to lose the feature. Has anyone with an iPad 3 on AT&T upgraded to beta 3 and retained the ability to FT over cellular?

JForestZ34
Jul 18, 2012, 04:22 PM
Data is not just data. People who currently use 100MB a month in data checking email and browsing the web could suddenly increase that exponentially by making video calls. It isn't a matter of the customers being able to pay for it, it's a matter of the network being able to handle it.

Combine this with the loss of revenue as people use less voice minutes, downgrading or completely eliminating their voice plan (it's possible here in Canada at least), it could severely hurt the company financially and operationally.

As for being able to currently use VOIP, there is a huge difference between a third-party app such as Skype and a native app pre-installed on every phone, and "Facetime with…" throughout the OS (in the messages app, in contacts, etc). People who would never think to use a third-party app quickly and easily become familiar with Facetime.

They need something to actively discourage people from using Facetime.


I hate to say this but if your network can't handle the strain it's time to upgrade. With the ridiculous prices AT&T has they should have no problem upgrading. I know they are in it for money too but if your service will strain cause of the new features don't offer it until you can



James

petsounds
Jul 18, 2012, 09:33 PM
I currently have an iPad 3 with iOS 6 Beta 2 installed. I am able to FaceTime on AT&T over cellular connection. I am also grandfathered into the unlimited plan. But I am hesitant to update to Beta 3 as I don't want to lose the feature. Has anyone with an iPad 3 on AT&T upgraded to beta 3 and retained the ability to FT over cellular?

You don't have much choice -- the betas expire, typically about a month after the next beta is released. They are meant for testing, not for general use.

lowonthe456
Jul 18, 2012, 10:01 PM
I think I have figured out what all this means.

I think maybe:

A. Apple did this knowing it would be a way for the masses to show their discontent for it. Knowing that if the carriers do charge, it looks bad on the carriers and not Apple.

B. Apple may prepay for x amount of FaceTime calls and wanted to get a feel for the response FaceTime over 3g would have.

C. ATT, knowing the iPhone 4 launch day people are coming up on the end of their contracts (and there were millions of them - remember this was pre-Verizon) and now that several regional and prepaid carriers now exist (and hopefully T-Mobile will be added), wanted to gauge the outrage. I don't think FaceTime was all that spectacular, neat yes, but it wasn't a super high feature on the list. I think maybe ATT thought this would be a ho-hum addition but wanted to see how people reacted.

Just my thoughts, ATT doesn't have the monopoly they once had, many more choices now than a year ago. I'm not saying they "care", but clearly charging gives Sprint and Verizon and x carriers a horn to toot and makes for bad publicity.

And, I laugh at this but,a couple of my co-workers are convinced Apple will buy T-Mobile's US operations and be the network they want the iPhone to be on. I remember talk about this back in 2000 or so. I just don't see Apple getting into the network business.

laureniam
Jul 18, 2012, 10:22 PM
You don't have much choice -- the betas expire, typically about a month after the next beta is released. They are meant for testing, not for general use.

I don't want to come across rudely, so this is my best attempt at a "nice" reply. I'm not some newb, or UDID registration purchasing, beta user. I'm a developer. My statement was only made because I am really enjoying using this feature currently. I KNOW that eventually I will have to upgrade to the final version when it is released. Your comment in no way addressed the question that I posed and so it could have been left unsaid. Now if there is anyone who is capable of answering my original question (with an iPad 3 on AT&T that is preferably grandfathered into the unlimited plan, did you lose the ability to make a FaceTime call over a cellular connection?) I would greatly appreciate your answer(s). Thanks!

devilstrider
Jul 19, 2012, 05:33 AM
Not if you're locked into a contract :\

That change maybe grounds for early termination without a ETF.

tbrinkma
Jul 19, 2012, 01:02 PM
Are you trying to make my point for me? Yes, if you pay for 1GB of data you should in fact get to freely use that 1GB of data as you please. When you get 1GB you are essentially locking into a fixed per MB rate up to 1GB.

If you pay for 1GB, but they exclude you from using it, or charging you extra for using it a certain way, then the example I used in my first post fits perfectly. Flat rate, fixed rate, variable rate, it doesn't matter.

Here's the entirety of your post, to which I responded:
I beg to differ. It's not really a flat rate. If it cost say 30 bucks for 1 GB of data, that equates to 30 bucks for 1024 MB or 3 cents per MB. Then, they usually adjust that to a higher rate once you go over your 1GB limit. Essentially your just getting a "tiered" per MB charge. A flat rate implies you pay one price and get full use of a product or service.

So in essence, the integrity of my first example remains fully in tact.

In it, you complain about overage fees. Please tell me where you even mention charging different rates depending on how you use your data allowance. :confused: