AT&T to Allow Skype and Google Voice to Operate on Its Mobile Network?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/06/atandt-to-allow-skype-and-google-voice-to-operate-on-its-mobile-network/)

The Washington Post reports (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/are_apple_and_att_getting.html) that AT&T may be planning to announce support for Skype, Google Voice, and other related Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services over its mobile networks, including via Apple's iPhone.One source close to the thinking of AT&T executives said the company has been deliberating the decision for weeks and that top executives have said they were close to accepting voice over Internet services on all AT&T phones, including the iPhone. The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because a decision hadn't been officially announced. Skype currently operates on the iPhone through WiFi access, but not on AT&T's 3G mobile network.Apple reportedly rejected (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/28/apple-rejects-official-google-voice-iphone-application/) a Google Voice iPhone application in late July, sparking an inquiry (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/31/fcc-investigating-apples-rejection-of-google-voice-iphone-application/) into the situation from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In its response (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/21/apple-publicly-responds-to-fcc-inquiry-comments-on-google-voice-app-status/) to the FCC, Apple claimed that it had not formally rejected the application and was still reviewing it, but Google's response (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/18/google-claims-that-apple-did-reject-google-voice-iphone-application/) painted a very different picture, claiming that Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller had directly delivered the rejection notice to a Google executive via telephone.

For its part, AT&T noted that it played no role in the specific Google Voice iPhone application review process, although the company's agreement with Apple does reportedly require that it provide permission for any iPhone functionality to originate or terminate a VoIP connection on its network.

Article Link: AT&T to Allow Skype and Google Voice to Operate on Its Mobile Network? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/06/atandt-to-allow-skype-and-google-voice-to-operate-on-its-mobile-network/)

[iansilv]

Man I love competition. Thank you Verizon.

[joemama]

Finally! Now we can lower the monthly minute plan.....

[blizaine]

wow, this coupled with push notifications, may allow you to receive calls as well, when the app isn't open.

[iMJustAGuy]

NICE! Arn't unlimited minutes on skype only like $2.99 a month. (non - comp to comp)

[Warbrain]

NICE! Arn't unlimited minutes on skype only like $2.99 a month. (non - comp to comp)

30 bucks for a year but if you want people to call a Skype number you pay more.

[macfan881]

Finally FCC does something that isnt Stupid great job! :)

[daniel4]

This is great news!

I'm glad to see some competetion!

The only bad thing is that VoIP over 3G drains the battery very very quickly (2 hours) and the phone gets very hot especially if it's in a case. Be careful! :-D

[charlituna]

this isn't a total shock, the recent 'net neutrality' stuff probably has ATT legal telling the bigs that they are likely going to be forced to do this same thing in the very near future anyway. by doing it now they look like the good guys cause they did it 'voluntarily' and didn't have to be forced.

oh and that whole "provide permission for any iPhone functionality to originate or terminate a VoIP connection on its network" stuff sure sounds like ATT has a say in apps since they can refuse permission. and if there was any change that Google Voice or Skype could lose them money you know they would have done just that.

[infiniteentropy]

This would all be nice... but how about the tethering in the USA? COME ON AT&T!!! AHHH!!! Okay, had to get that out of my system. I'd love to ditch my Verizon modem and just have a single device for everything. If my iPhone could tether, my enjoyment of the device would be complete, as I regularly (nearly always) get better data rates on my iPhone than on my Verizon card, even though Verizon is supposed to be better.

If AT&T announces tethering at CTIA tomorrow, I'll be doing a happy dance.

[dagamer34]

When AT&T allows VoIP on other phones and not the iPhone, it definitely looks fishy.

[spazzcat]

I think that this is in response to the Verizon-Google News (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14868/verizon_and_googles_android_together_at_last?source=rss_cwbloggers) today.

And what exactly does Google Voice on the iPhone mean? Will it be able to be operated over AT&T's network or will it jut be like Skype/Vonage? (http://9to5mac.com/voip_for_att_coming_to_iphone_maybe)

GV is not VOIP service. It is nothing like Skype or Vonage.

[solace]

GV is not VOIP service. It is nothing like Skype or Vonage.

THANK YOU.

how many people need to state this before people start to understand it?

do that few people actually have Google Voice accounts in that a wide swath of people still believe it's some sort of VOIP system?

:(

[wrlsmarc]

It is not VOIP but they provide VOIP in a traditional sense however they carry calls at the same price points as VOIP so they fit in the same category.

GV is not VOIP service. It is nothing like Skype or Vonage.

[sishaw]

GV is not VOIP service. It is nothing like Skype or Vonage.

Right, it's more something to help you manage your phones. I basically use it to screen out solicitation calls, and people that have several phones can forward them all to one number. You can also set up groups that have different screening rules and greetings for different callers.

[aegisdesign]

wow, this coupled with push notifications, may allow you to receive calls as well, when the app isn't open.

Except the VoIP carrier would have to implement push notification AND a custom app on the iPhone AND you're still at the mercy of your VoIP call being interrupted by one of Apple's apps taking priority.

It's a step in the right direction but Apple need to stop pissing about and allow 3rd party background tasks OR implement their own SIP stack that other VoIP providers can access like Nokia do.

[spazzcat]

Right, it's more something to help you manage your phones. I basically use it to screen out solicitation calls, and people that have several phones can forward them all to one number. You can also set up groups that have different screening rules and greetings for different callers.

I use it as my super secret number. that I only give to friends...Well at lease that is what I tell them when I give them my GV number.
:)

[dr_lha]

It is not VOIP but they provide VOIP in a traditional sense however they carry calls at the same price points as VOIP so they fit in the same category.
Its not in the same category at all because you still use phone minutes to make and receive calls in Google Voice, so you're not taking revenue away from AT&T by using it (apart from international calling I guess, but who would call abroad from their cell phone, give AT&Ts ridiculous rates?) Google voice is really no different from using a calling card for making outgoing calls.

Google Voice works just fine now on AT&T's network, the only thing that doesn't work about it is that Apple have rejected or pulled all the Apps that make Google Voice easier to use on the iPhone. It still works on the iPhone if you go to the Google Voice webpage through Mobile Safari.

[slffl]

I don't see what AT&T is worried about. Just like SMS vs chat apps, most people aren't nerds and don't have everyone they know also using chat. Same goes with VoIP. Personally I know nobody who would use chat and VoIP apps, yet they all have cell phones and use SMS.

[eh270]

As much as I am all for this in theory, I can't help but wonder the toll it will take on their already strained 3G network.

[DipDog3]

Did this occur because of the pressure from the FCC?

[*LTD*]

As much as I am all for this in theory, I can't help but wonder the toll it will take on their already strained 3G network.

Good point.

AT&T bit off more than it could chew with the iPhone, and this might be more of the same.

[drumrobot]

Right, it's more something to help you manage your phones. I basically use it to screen out solicitation calls, and people that have several phones can forward them all to one number. You can also set up groups that have different screening rules and greetings for different callers.

Google Voice's screening feature is very useful...

I love Night Watch!

[drumrobot]

It is not VOIP but they provide VOIP in a traditional sense however they carry calls at the same price points as VOIP so they fit in the same category.

Calls on Google Voice are free (as long as they are not international), which is different from VOIP services.

[DipDog3]

Wait.

AT&T's 3G is overloaded as it is!

Isn't this just going to make things worse?

[bastiangatten]

It's about freaking time.

[lynxdeb]

i hope that's unlock the VoIP over 3G also on internation iPhone..

i don't understand why my italian iPhone can't do voipover3g because AT&T :mad:

[lifeinhd]

Can you say "more dropped calls than ever?" This will simply prove too taxing on AT&T's weak infrastructure. It was a nice idea though.

[BeyondtheTech]

Hey, what's that up there? Look, beyond the clouds!

"Oink! Oink!"

[meagain]

I wish I could rate this negatively just because I don't believe AT&T, but that wouldn't be right.

[IronLogik]

Hopefully they'll allow the Google Voice application. I have no interest in Skype or any other VoIP service. But Google Voice is actually usable without an application. The App would just make it even more useful and easy to access. Particularly if it offers text messaging notifications via Push. I can drop $20/mo on my phone bill just with that.

[xhambonex]

Hey what do you know...

Right after Verizon announces its partnership with Google, bringing 2 new Android devices to their network, "there's a map for that" commercial, and Verizon saying it will support Google Voice outright...we hear a rumor that At&t is considering it. Well let's hope so considering everyone else is offering GV.

There's talk, which is funny because this seems obvious that they had a hand in the apps rejection.

I would keep playing catch up At&t, it's working well for your customers.:rolleyes:

[thecypher]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that. Who pays for the infrastructure? Which business invests money into something if it is not going to make profit on it and it is expected to just give it away for free? No business can make money giving stuff away. We all saw that in the big dotcom bubble bust. All the wonderful give everything away business models. But people still think that they are doing a great thing by dropping their voice plan minutes and using their unlimited data plan to make free voip calls. Gee! when we have enough people doing this your free voip calls aren't going to work either.

How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!! How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!! But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

[uricmu]

Wait.

AT&T's 3G is overloaded as it is!

Isn't this just going to make things worse?


I doubt it.
VOIP to Skype is a nice feature to have (E.g., I need to make many international calls), but for the vast majority of people, it's not practical since most contacts use regular phones. Besides, with free cell-to-cell, night and weekends, and all that stuff your long calls are probably not the issue. It's the small calls to land lines (e.g., being on hold) that add up.

[BornAgainMac]

Won't Apple reject that Google Voice formally? AT&T is slick. They know Apple would reject it anyways so they will look like the good guys.

[hotzenplotz]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that. Who pays for the infrastructure? Which business invests money into something if it is not going to make profit on it and it is expected to just give it away for free? No business can make money giving stuff away. We all saw that in the big dotcom bubble bust. All the wonderful give everything away business models. But people still think that they are doing a great thing by dropping their voice plan minutes and using their unlimited data plan to make free voip calls. Gee! when we have enough people doing this your free voip calls aren't going to work either.

How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!! How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!! But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

Take a chill pill, for goodness sake.

Telecom companies charge handsomely for data access. My EDGE 2G iPhone barely ever communicates via their data network, so my $20 go pretty much to waste. They offer data services...no...they REQUIRE data services on the iPhone, so the ball is in their court for all I care. It is THEIR responsibility to provide service, for which we pay fair-and-square.

[crackbookpro]

Won't Apple reject that Google Voice formally? AT&T is slick. They know Apple would reject it anyways so they will look like the good guys.

...was thinking along those same lines.

[spaceballl]

Ah great news! And then if you can just unrestrict Slingplayer and let me pay for tethering... then i'll have no more reasons to jailbreak!

[eastcoastsurfer]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that. Who pays for the infrastructure? Which business invests money into something if it is not going to make profit on it and it is expected to just give it away for free? No business can make money giving stuff away. We all saw that in the big dotcom bubble bust. All the wonderful give everything away business models. But people still think that they are doing a great thing by dropping their voice plan minutes and using their unlimited data plan to make free voip calls. Gee! when we have enough people doing this your free voip calls aren't going to work either.

How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!! How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!! But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

WTF are you talking about? First, without all the companies providing stuff to do over the data lines there would be no need for data in the first place. Second, we all are currently PAYING for our data connection. If ATT can't provide me the bandwidth I pay for then lower the price. Finally, all these telcos are using public airwaves that they have rented. Additionally the government has traditionally given companies like ATT tons of cash and tax breaks so they would expand their network.

Also, your post is totally wrong in it's facts. Google pays a TON for bandwidth. What the telcos want to do is charge Google for it's bandwidth, charge you for your bandwidth and then charge Google again for your bandwidth. That is criminal in my book.

So, in short go learn something before posting again.

[thecypher]

Take a chill pill, for goodness sake.

Telecom companies charge handsomely for data access. My EDGE 2G iPhone barely ever communicates via their data network, so my $20 go pretty much to waste. They offer data services...no...they REQUIRE data services on the iPhone, so the ball is in their court for all I care. It is THEIR responsibility to provide service, for which we pay fair-and-square.

Fair and square until you start dropping minutes and start using Skype and using up too much bandwidth. When we have enough people doing this that is when we will have a problem.

[thecypher]

WTF are you talking about? First, without all the companies providing stuff to do over the data lines there would be no need for data in the first place. Second, we all are currently PAYING for our data connection. If ATT can't provide me the bandwidth I pay for then lower the price. Finally, all these telcos are using public airwaves that they have rented. Additionally the government has traditionally given companies like ATT tons of cash and tax breaks so they would expand their network.

Also, your post is totally wrong in it's facts. Google pays a TON for bandwidth. What the telcos want to do is charge Google for it's bandwidth, charge you for your bandwidth and then charge Google again for your bandwidth. That is criminal in my book.

So, in short go learn something before posting again.

Google pays for bandwidth? What bandwidth is Google paying for?? Do you even know what you are talking about?

[spaceballl]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that.
Many of us here would happily pay for services like tethering, but AT&T restricts this altogether. Many people here just want access, not restrictions - things don't necessarily need to be free.
How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!!
Seriously? Google is one of the largest owners of internet infrastructure in the world. See here (http://www.microsoftstartupzone.com/Blogs/the_next_big_thing/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=6bab7b08%2D81ca%2D4602%2Dbd97%2D4b7b2c893e88&ID=301). Do some google searching for even more info.

Step 1 - get your facts straight. Step 2 - calm down.

[memeslayer]

ATT is very smart. They will save money on crazy termination charges for landlines. If people use Skype or other services, termination charges to landlines will not be ATT's responsibilities. Besides, they make 69.99 on all smartphone accounts anyway. I bet ATT will do similar to Sprint to make mobile-mobile unlimited. They will kill the purpose to use VOIP for mobile-mobile.

[rwitte42]

Google pays for bandwidth? What bandwidth is Google paying for?? Do you even know what you are talking about?

They pay for an internet pipe just like anyone else. Their ISP, in turn, pays for their connection, which eventually flows to the owners of the infrastructure being used.

I would venture to say Google pays for a pretty big pipe, too.

[RazHyena]

So the iPhone is still left out of the possibility of getting GV?

[erikjenkins1187]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that. Who pays for the infrastructure? Which business invests money into something if it is not going to make profit on it and it is expected to just give it away for free? No business can make money giving stuff away. We all saw that in the big dotcom bubble bust. All the wonderful give everything away business models. But people still think that they are doing a great thing by dropping their voice plan minutes and using their unlimited data plan to make free voip calls. Gee! when we have enough people doing this your free voip calls aren't going to work either.

How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!! How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!! But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

As someone who works for a LARGE telecom testing firm that sells VZ/AT&T most of they're test gear, he's got a point, network expansion is REALLY expensive. One of our OC-192 testers loaded up with some physical fiber testing options goes for a quarter of a million, how many $30 dollar data plans do they have to collect to get that back? 8,333 iPhone users pay for one little part needed for the install! And that's just for the equipment to QUALIFY the install! If you include all the parts and labor for towers, switch houses, land line fiber to the data center, repeaters, etc etc, that's a big bill Jack!

That being said, At&t is a lazy, big, cumbersome company that rests on the laurels of the iPhone's runaway success too often. They need to get cracking, Verizon's coverage area KILLS them!

[ssspinball]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free.

What you need to realize is that Google is getting NOTHING for free. GOOGLE PAYS HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO CONNECT THEIR DATA CENTERS TO THE INTERNET.

I wrote that with extreme emphasis, because folks like you seem to miss this absolutely critical point continually, in every single debate where net neutrality is mentioned! :mad:


How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!

Wrong and wrong again! Do you think that Google builds massive data centers all ove the world and gets a FREE internet connection to them? NO! They pay MASSIVE internet bills at each one.

How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!!

That's closer, as it's P2P-based, but still BOTH peers are paying for their connection. Why can't they use what they paid for?


The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth.

If that's true then why in the hell would the ISPs be providing it for that cost? Are you calling them idiots?

Net Neutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

Net Neutrality has never been about bandwidth. It's about the ISP blocking/slowing whatever types of traffic they feel like. Net Neutrality does NOT stop them from charging for bandwidth used.

Now PLEASE go educate yourself on this topic (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/editorial-network-neutrality-or-network-neutering.ars) and stop spreading this false information!

[ssspinball]

Google pays for bandwidth? What bandwidth is Google paying for?? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Omg, I can't believe I wasted time responding to this guy. :rolleyes:

[hiimamac]

I have gv mobile but in AT&T that mean nonfree calls. Have to wait until contract ends then go to a plan that offers friends and family with Internet. You then add you gv number to that list therefore, all calls are free.

Hope that help explain. I think that this is in response to the Verizon-Google News (http://blogs.computerworld.com/14868/verizon_and_googles_android_together_at_last?source=rss_cwbloggers) today.

And what exactly does Google Voice on the iPhone mean? Will it be able to be operated over AT&T's network or will it jut be like Skype/Vonage? (http://9to5mac.com/voip_for_att_coming_to_iphone_maybe)

[thecypher]

Omg, I can't believe I wasted time responding to this guy. :rolleyes:

You guys are totally right. Google pays whatever to connect their data centers to the Internet. Who pays for carrying the traffic and bandwidth from that point on to your house?? Duh?? Is that free?? You think your $20 a month pays for that fat pipe?? Does Google pay Verizon or AT&T or Comcast to pull that high speed fibre line to your door? These companies invest a fortune on this infrastructure so they can recover that money and make some on top of it by selling their own services and content. They don't make a dime off access lines alone. I know that for a fact. Doesn't matter how fat a pipe Google uses to connect their servers to the Internet, if the backbone is clogged up nothing else matters. I think the point you are missing is who pays for carrying that traffic to your house? Google certainly doesn't. I don't work for a telco but I look at these numbers for a living unlike many of you here you just comment based on some Internet articles you read. And I can tell you with a very high degree of confidence that this model of net neutrality where the ISP cannot prioritize packets is not sustainable. It is just a matter of time before we all pay a price for this. And Google knows this very well. In the meantime make hay while the sun shines.

[BryanLyle]

So, when hell freezes over and AT&T allows this.... what exactly can I do with it?

Will I be able to make and receive phone calls directly from my iPhone over WiFi?

[Mark Booth]

Now, if this newfound "openness" also leads to AT&T allowing us to use our Sling Player app over the 3G network, I'll stop planning to defect to Verizon when they get the iPhone. At the VERY least, let me use 3G to log into my SlingBox/Cable Box and set up a recording when I'm on the road and away from any WiFi signal.

Mark

[rwitte42]

You guys are totally right. Google pays whatever to connect their data centers to the Internet. Who pays for carrying the traffic and bandwidth from that point on to your house?? Duh?? Is that free?? You think your $20 a month pays for that fat pipe?? Does Google pay Verizon or AT&T or Comcast to pull that high speed fibre line to your door? These companies invest a fortune on this infrastructure so they can recover that money and make some on top of it by selling their own services and content. They don't make a dime off access lines alone. I know that for a fact. Doesn't matter how fat a pipe Google uses to connect their servers to the Internet, if the backbone is clogged up nothing else matters. I think the point you are missing is who pays for carrying that traffic to your house? Google certainly doesn't. I don't work for a telco but I look at these numbers for a living unlike many of you here you just comment based on some Internet articles you read. And I can tell you with a very high degree of confidence that this model of net neutrality where the ISP cannot prioritize packets is not sustainable. It is just a matter of time before we all pay a price for this. And Google knows this very well. In the meantime make hay while the sun shines.

Okay, Mr. Numbers...

AT&T has approximately 2.5 million iPhone subscribers. If you take the money from their data plan (not the voice, just the $30/mo data), that comes to $75M per month or $900M per year.

Yeah, I think someone could carve a budget out of that to do some network expansion. I believe AT&T is planning something on the order of $18M for network expansions. That's 2% of revenue from the iPhone data plans alone .

Make no mistake ... the revenue is there. AT&T has been pocketing it and has NOT been upgrading as they should. They got caught behind the curve. I have no pity for them. Time for them to suck it up and invest in their infrastructure.

[thecypher]

Okay, Mr. Numbers...

AT&T has approximately 2.5 million iPhone subscribers. If you take the money from their data plan (not the voice, just the $30/mo data), that comes to $75M per month or $900M per year.

Yeah, I think someone could carve a budget out of that to do some network expansion. I believe AT&T is planning something on the order of $18M for network expansions. That's 2% of revenue from the iPhone data plans alone .

Make no mistake ... the revenue is there. AT&T has been pocketing it and has NOT been upgrading as they should. They got caught behind the curve. I have no pity for them. Time for them to suck it up and invest in their infrastructure.

I think you got it slightly wrong. It is $18B not $18M. The 'B' make a B-ig difference. So now how does the math work?? :D

[IronLogik]

I think you got it slightly wrong. It is $18B not $18M. The 'B' make a B-ig difference. So now how does the math work?? :D

Actually. His math was fine. He merely mistyped. Besides it isn't exactly fair to say that just the iPhone is causing issues with the network. It is merely the fact that AT&T is the biggest major provider with a fairly large selection of smart phones. The smart phone market probably seeing the biggest growth right now than any other cell provided market (normal handsets/data cards).

The sheer amount of money rolling into AT&T's coffers is more than you or I can fathom. They should be investing a lot more into their network than they are.

[thecypher]

Actually. His math was fine. He merely mistyped. Besides it isn't exactly fair to say that just the iPhone is causing issues with the network. It is merely the fact that AT&T is the biggest major provider with a fairly large selection of smart phones. The smart phone market probably seeing the biggest growth right now than any other cell provided market (normal handsets/data cards).

The sheer amount of money rolling into AT&T's coffers is more than you or I can fathom. They should be investing a lot more into their network than they are.

Probably true. Perhaps they can invest more. But I think we are all forgetting that throwing more money at it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Forgetting about big bad greedy AT&T or the $ and cents for a moment and if we think logically, if AT&T opens up say Skype that will probably increase the data usage by may be double triple? I am dying to get Netflix streaming on my iPhone. So they open that and that will increase the bandwidth usage by probably 10 fold all of a sudden. Everybody is streaming movies. People want to be able to stream content from their homes via SlingBox and that is another 10 fold increase. There are providers out there who want to rent movies to you and stream it to your wireless device and that is another significant increase. The problem is you can't just flip a switch and double your capacity. There is a tremendous amount of work that needs to go in and a significant amount of infrastructure that needs to be built and I think we are all underestimating that effort. We take it for granted that to add an extra lane to the freeway that is always clogged up on our morning commute takes years but we expect that a provider can double bandwidth in a snap. I guess its human nature because we don't really see what is needed and what happens behind the scenes in this case but we see the construction workers working on the freeway everyday.

[Stridder44]

This would all be nice... but how about the tethering in the USA? COME ON AT&T!!! AHHH!!! Okay, had to get that out of my system. I'd love to ditch my Verizon modem and just have a single device for everything. If my iPhone could tether, my enjoyment of the device would be complete, as I regularly (nearly always) get better data rates on my iPhone than on my Verizon card, even though Verizon is supposed to be better.

If AT&T announces tethering at CTIA tomorrow, I'll be doing a happy dance.


Tethering (rather, the lack thereof) is my biggest complaint by far.

[EarthDawn]

WOW !!!

Thats like... good news ... and from the FCC ????

hoo raaah ?

[atomic.flip]

this isn't a total shock, the recent 'net neutrality' stuff probably has ATT legal telling the bigs that they are likely going to be forced to do this same thing in the very near future anyway. by doing it now they look like the good guys cause they did it 'voluntarily' and didn't have to be forced.



Not only do they look like good guys by doing this before they are forced to do so by the FCC but they are protecting themselves from civil suits (likely class action) filed against them by angry consumer groups. This would all be in the same vein as that which happened to the Cable Operators who's former network policies enforced blocking P2P data transfers.

[atomic.flip]

THANK YOU.

how many people need to state this before people start to understand it?

do that few people actually have Google Voice accounts in that a wide swath of people still believe it's some sort of VOIP system?

:(

The answer to that question would be "Yes." I too am frustrated by so many online journalists and bloggers referring to GV as a VOIP app when it is anything but.

[williedigital]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that. Who pays for the infrastructure? Which business invests money into something if it is not going to make profit on it and it is expected to just give it away for free? No business can make money giving stuff away. We all saw that in the big dotcom bubble bust. All the wonderful give everything away business models. But people still think that they are doing a great thing by dropping their voice plan minutes and using their unlimited data plan to make free voip calls. Gee! when we have enough people doing this your free voip calls aren't going to work either.

How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!! How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!! But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

I think the issue is that people recognize that technology soon will make bandwidth "virtually free". Fiber can send so much data so cheaply that costs quickly reduce down to zero. There is a one-time investment in the infrastructure, but once that's paid, there is relatively little maintenance required and major profits to be made. Once a cell tower is constructed, the upgrades are cheap to spit out more bandwidth.

[avigalante]

WSJ just confirmed this:

Article Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125486091615268647.html?mod=djemalertNEWS)

WASHINGTON – AT&T Inc. reversed course Tuesday and said that it will allow Internet phone software applications on the iPhone to run on its 3G network.

AT&T had previously prevented iPhone Internet phone apps from using it wireless network although subscribers could use the software to make calls over Internet hot-spots and wi-fi networks.

The change means that iPhone users can now use Skype and other Internet phone services on AT&T's 3G network.

The change came after the Federal Communications Commission began looking into why Google Inc.'s Google Voice Internet phone software was rejected by Apple Inc. for inclusion in its App Store. The agency raised questions about why the wireless carrier wasn't allowing iPhone Internet phone apps to use its 3G network.

At the time, the company cited concerns that the services might cause congestion on its already-strained 3G network. The company had not blocked AT&T customers from using Skype and other Internet phone applications on other phones, just the iPhone.

"Today's decision was made after evaluating our customers' expectations and use of the (iPhone) compared to dozens of others we offer," said Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T's wireless division. Although company executives had been debating lifting the restriction for several weeks, the company informed Apple and the FCC of its decision Tuesday afternoon.

[NeoMayhem]

GV is not VOIP service. It is nothing like Skype or Vonage.

GV gives you unlimited free calls to canada and $.02/minute calls to most developed parts of the world. It is pretty much the same as VoIP, except it uses your local cell minutes instead of a data plan.

[NoExpectations]

Can someone enlighten us....why do we want Google Voice? What are the features....what are the limitations?

Thanks in advance.

[pdjudd]

Can someone enlighten us....why do we want Google Voice? What are the features....what are the limitations?

Thanks in advance.
Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_voice

[MasterDev]

Oh this is going to be really awesome!

[bozzykid]

This article is poorly written. AT&T is changing it's public policy to allow VOIP apps on all of it's phones on the network. However, Apple didn't reject the GV app on AT&T's request. So to imply that GV is coming to the iPhone because of this policy change is disingenuous at best. Unless Apple is going to back track and state it will allow it because of this change, nothing will happen on the GV/Apple front. If Apple does allow it based on this change, then it makes them look like a bunch of liars to the FCC since they said they are reviewing it but it duplicates functionality.

[dfa4]

GV gives you unlimited free calls to canada and $.02/minute calls to most developed parts of the world. It is pretty much the same as VoIP, except it uses your local cell minutes instead of a data plan.

Thank you for noting this. I have a Google voice number and I use it exclusively (almost) to call family and friends in Canada without paying the international rate for Canada that AT&T charges. So, Google Voice is not merely a phone forwarding service, it is also a telecom service that offers cheaper rates that AT&T... not so innocuous a service now, is it?

[sam011989]

Can someone enlighten us....why do we want Google Voice? What are the features....what are the limitations?

Thanks in advance.

I have three phone numbers, and i hate giving out all 3 to friends/businesses/etc. So google voice gives me a 4th number, but that number calls the other three at the same time, and i can answer on whatever phone is more convenient to me.

Example, I've been doing alot of business with the FAA for past two years, but I hate them calling my cell and using my minutes when i'm home, but i hate missing their calls when i'm not home. so the google voice number calls my home phone numbers AND my cell phone, and i can answer on whichever is more convenient. i can record the calls if i need to, and people can even text the google voice number which forwards it to my cell, or i can just text off the internet instead of my phone, or even through email. plus all my voicemails are transcribed and emailed and texted to me, or i can read them online when i can't listen to the voicemail (i.e. in class). another feature is that if i take an incoming call on my house phone but need to leave, i press * and my other phones ring, and transfers the call to whichever i answer so i can go from house phone to cell phone seamlessly and the calling party can barely tell.

limitations? well, the main one is that you can only record incoming calls, not outgoing. and, i can only transfer calls from one phone to another during incoming calls, not outgoing; again.

many other features, but you'll need to check their website.

[AbSoluTc]

This is getting good.

[Rocketman]

All this FCC government interference in private contracts is going to do is more fully burden the AT&T network and prevent the rightful owners of that network from controlling their fee and service income for that network.

As VoIP for example becomes readily available, people will migrate away from voice contracts which constitute considerable revenue for AT&T, and more fully use the data portion of their service in exchange for no new fees there.

So one might claim it is good for consumers because some can eliminate voice usage fees, but it is bad generally for ALL AT&T network users since the network will be considerably more congested.

Furthermore as revenues drop in customer count specific terms, they will have less capital for network expansion and modernization.

Their prior policy was designed specifically to address all of these issues in an environment of extremely rapid uptake in customer count and even more rapid uptake in data usage.

There are no one-sided coins.

Rocketman

Who wants to bet if data plan prices rise on the back of this news? So those who still need/want voice service will simply be paying more, not less. Thank you FCC.

The Verizon 5gb wireless plan is $60/mo
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans
The ATT iPhone data plan is about $30/mo

[Oliver.m]

Do you think that the UK version would change too?

[pmjoe]

Who pays for carrying the traffic and bandwidth from that point on to your house?? Duh?? Is that free?? You think your $20 a month pays for that fat pipe?? Does Google pay Verizon or AT&T or Comcast to pull that high speed fibre line to your door? These companies invest a fortune on this infrastructure so they can recover that money and make some on top of it by selling their own services and content. They don't make a dime off access lines alone. I know that for a fact.
I pay $60/month for that broadband line to my door, and it sure as hell ain't fiber. I guarantee you Comcast makes money off of that, so no, you don't "know that for a fact."

For that matter, the line to my door was probably installed 2 decades ago.

[apull]

lol, this is going to make at&t's network suck even more, VOIP will barely work (if at all) over 3G, and the net gain will be... +5 for Verizon.

[NoExpectations]

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_voice

OK...so how does this save me money on my cell plan? Does Google bypass my calling plan minutes?

Thanks.

[G4R2]

Hopefully the holy grail of mobile communications, videochat, will soon follow.

[pdjudd]

OK...so how does this save me money on my cell plan? Does Google bypass my calling plan minutes?

Thanks.
Not from what I have read no - you still use your minutes. However I can't say with absolute authority since its a beta product and I have yet to be invited.

[Diseal3]

say AT&T before a contract expiration.

[BryanLyle]

Of course, if you don't live in an area that has 3G coverage, this means nothing, right?

[WolfgangK]

In the end, whether anyone likes it or not, the carriers are going to end up having to leverage the one thing they have that is of value. The network. AT&T ought to be busting their asses to catch up to Verizon, because if they were forced to compete without an exclusive handset with their network, they'd be so screwed.

Because whoever has the best network to handle all this dumb data(sorry, dumb data network is inevitable) is going to be the big winner among carriers.

The carriers can keep gripping to some kind of fantasy world where they think they're providing value to users with this V Cast nonsense, crippling devices and whatnot...but their specialty is not content. So they best stop worrying about juicing us for a drip of every little piece of content...and worry about their networks being up-to-snuff to handle all this data.

I'm willing to pay a fair price for that dumb-data pipeline, and I would be happy to use what I pay for, in whatever way I want.

[Rodimus Prime]

OK...so how does this save me money on my cell plan? Does Google bypass my calling plan minutes?

Thanks.


Google Voice uses your cell minutes.

Google Voice is NOT I repeat NOT a VOIP service.

Google voice act more like a forwarding service. Some one dails you GV number and it will ring your cell phone, home phone and work (or what ever numbers you tell it to). You answer it connects you call.

GV was block by apple. AT&T does not give a damn about GV because it still uses plan minutes.
The only way GV can save you money is if you use it as one of you A-list numbers because it will be free for all calls (all incoming and out going from the same number)

Oh and yes I do have a GV number and the app on my Blackberry. It works great.

[NoExpectations]

Google Voice uses your cell minutes.

Google Voice is NOT I repeat NOT a VOIP service.

Google voice act more like a forwarding service. Some one dails you GV number and it will ring your cell phone, home phone and work (or what ever numbers you tell it to). You answer it connects you call.

GV was block by apple. AT&T does not give a damn about GV because it still uses plan minutes.
The only way GV can save you money is if you use it as one of you A-list numbers because it will be free for all calls (all incoming and out going from the same number)

Oh and yes I do have a GV number and the app on my Blackberry. It works great.

Thanks.

Wonder if Google will force me to listen to an ad before the call is connected.

:)

[optophobia]

This would all be nice... but how about the tethering in the USA? COME ON AT&T!!! AHHH!!! Okay, had to get that out of my system. I'd love to ditch my Verizon modem and just have a single device for everything. If my iPhone could tether, my enjoyment of the device would be complete, as I regularly (nearly always) get better data rates on my iPhone than on my Verizon card, even though Verizon is supposed to be better.

If AT&T announces tethering at CTIA tomorrow, I'll be doing a happy dance.

you don't have tethering on your iphone ? Well I can tell you its awesome ;)

[vivithemage]

awesome!

[akm3]

Google Voice uses your cell minutes.

Google Voice is NOT I repeat NOT a VOIP service.

Google voice act more like a forwarding service. Some one dails you GV number and it will ring your cell phone, home phone and work (or what ever numbers you tell it to). You answer it connects you call.

GV was block by apple. AT&T does not give a damn about GV because it still uses plan minutes.
The only way GV can save you money is if you use it as one of you A-list numbers because it will be free for all calls (all incoming and out going from the same number)

Oh and yes I do have a GV number and the app on my Blackberry. It works great.

Google Voice can save you money on texting, but even then it's easier to have it forward you texts to your normal texting plan, still using AT&T texts. Really the only way AT&T loses is if they have a 'friends and family' plan and you make your GV number one of your 'free' (doesn't use minutes) numbers. In that scenario, all your calls could be free.

[CylonGlitch]

Won't Apple reject that Google Voice formally? AT&T is slick. They know Apple would reject it anyways so they will look like the good guys.

Now we will have an interesting situation. If Apple approves the app, then we know that AT&T was the one holding things up and being wienies. But if Apple continues to reject the app, then we know it was Apple.

For some reason, my bet is that AT&T is the bad guy in this. But we will see.

[dukebound85]

Google pays for bandwidth? What bandwidth is Google paying for?? Do you even know what you are talking about?

do you?

your argument is beyond false

[lkrupp]

Finally! Now we can lower the monthly minute plan.....

Why lower it at all? Just cancel the voice plan. The next logical step would be for users to demand a data only plan, no voice calls. Why have the ability to make voice calls of you're going to use Skype or Vonage for that purpose? Of course if enough people did that then the carrier (at&t, verizon, etc.) would have to raise the price of the data plan to recoup the lost revenue from voice plans that were canceled. It's a slippery slope but one thing is certain, the companies are going to get the revenue from somewhere. Nothing is free. The customer will pay one way or the other. If you plan to use Skype for your voice calls then expect higher data plan rates.

This has already happened with DSL. Originally DSL was offered only as lineshare service. You got dialtone and DSL on the same line. Now at&t offers DSL without the dialtone, and guess what, the DSL only service costs more than the DSL+Dialtone. The same will apply for data only 3G service.

[nc7r]

I hope that this will signify some pressure on other carriers (UK ones!) to allow it over 3G also.

It's a shame that it will drain the battery SO much doing it over 3G :(

[GeekLawyer]

Maybe this is about getting ahead of any FCC action on net neutrality. Maybe it's about leveling the playing field a bit on the heels of Verizon and Google's announcement.

But I think it's really all about keeping their exclusivity with Apple next year. Tethering will be next to get added. (If not streaming video from Sling or Netflix over 3G.)

[WolfgangK]

Why lower it at all? Just cancel the voice plan. The next logical step would be for users to demand a data only plan, no voice calls. Why have the ability to make voice calls of you're going to use Skype or Vonage for that purpose? Of course if enough people did that then the carrier (at&t, verizon, etc.) would have to raise the price of the data plan to recoup the lost revenue from voice plans that were canceled. It's a slippery slope but one thing is certain, the companies are going to get the revenue from somewhere. Nothing is free. The customer will pay one way or the other. If you plan to use Skype for your voice calls then expect higher data plan rates.

I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to pay like $50/month for unlimited mobile data with an iPhone. I'd even pay full price for the iPhone. And be able to use that data pipeline however I want. How this hasn't happened yet, is totally beyond me.

I pay $25/month for the same unlimited pipeline at home...seems paying double for mobile would be pretty fair. It just makes too much sense, that's why it hasn't happened yet.

[mambodancer]

In the end, whether anyone likes it or not, the carriers are going to end up having to leverage the one thing they have that is of value. The network. AT&T ought to be busting their asses to catch up to Verizon, because if they were forced to compete without an exclusive handset with their network, they'd be so screwed.

Because whoever has the best network to handle all this dumb data(sorry, dumb data network is inevitable) is going to be the big winner among carriers.

The carriers can keep gripping to some kind of fantasy world where they think they're providing value to users with this V Cast nonsense, crippling devices and whatnot...but their specialty is not content. So they best stop worrying about juicing us for a drip of every little piece of content...and worry about their networks being up-to-snuff to handle all this data.

I'm willing to pay a fair price for that dumb-data pipeline, and I would be happy to use what I pay for, in whatever way I want.

Could not agree more. That's why I think ATT, Comcast, Qwest, etc. are scared to death of the internet. They all would be soooo screwed if a company with really deep pockets, say maybe $20 - 40 billion dollars or more came along and built a nationwide, high speed data network from the ground up.

[jdechko]

In the end, whether anyone likes it or not, the carriers are going to end up having to leverage the one thing they have that is of value. The network. AT&T ought to be busting their asses to catch up to Verizon, because if they were forced to compete without an exclusive handset with their network, they'd be so screwed.

Because whoever has the best network to handle all this dumb data(sorry, dumb data network is inevitable) is going to be the big winner among carriers.

The carriers can keep gripping to some kind of fantasy world where they think they're providing value to users with this V Cast nonsense, crippling devices and whatnot...but their specialty is not content. So they best stop worrying about juicing us for a drip of every little piece of content...and worry about their networks being up-to-snuff to handle all this data.

I'm willing to pay a fair price for that dumb-data pipeline, and I would be happy to use what I pay for, in whatever way I want.

Glad someone finally brought this up. I'm totally willing to go the "dumb pipe" route as soon as I can figure out how to do it. I think Skype/GV is a good start, but I'm not sure of the direction to take with it all.

[Xibalba]

I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to pay like $50/month for unlimited mobile data with an iPhone. I'd even pay full price for the iPhone. And be able to use that data pipeline however I want. How this hasn't happened yet, is totally beyond me.

I pay $25/month for the same unlimited pipeline at home...seems paying double for mobile would be pretty fair. It just makes too much sense, that's why it hasn't happened yet.

last i checked, the cheapest phone plan was $40 and unlimited data was $30, so for $70 you can get what you were "more than happy" to pay for at $50. and if you were willing to pay full price for the iphone, you could get the subsidized rate and with the $200-300 savings, you could pay the $20 monthly difference (discussed above) for well over the next year. so actually, what you want does exist but not in the box you imagined (data with no wireless service).

just a thought...

[Rodimus Prime]

This has already happened with DSL. Originally DSL was offered only as lineshare service. You got dialtone and DSL on the same line. Now at&t offers DSL without the dialtone, and guess what, the DSL only service costs more than the DSL+Dialtone. The same will apply for data only 3G service.

Umm you are incorrect on this. Yes at first it was that way but now DSL cost the same weather or not you have land line service.

I had ATT DSL for over a year, with no land line. Same cost. The only cost saving I got was installing it for free because I also order ATT uverse TV.

[Xibalba]

Now we will have an interesting situation. If Apple approves the app, then we know that AT&T was the one holding things up and being wienies. But if Apple continues to reject the app, then we know it was Apple.

For some reason, my bet is that AT&T is the bad guy in this. But we will see.

i, too, am waiting to see how the Google Voice app gets handled in all of this.

my biggest desire for having google voice interface flawlessly with the iphone is its ability to block numbers. this would be so useful for me - esp in my line of work as a physician - and allow me to protect my cell number less tightly. now, i only give out my vonage or google voice numbers and allow them to funnel to my cell.

[rtdunham]

The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth.

If that's true then why in the hell would the ISPs be providing it for that cost? Are you calling them idiots?

Does the following suggest the situation we're in? Suppose your electric company established service for $20-$30/month, and everyone is using light bulbs and a TV. Then outside vendors sell us refrigerators, and air conditioning systems, and electric ranges (you get the idea) and we hook all those up to the infrastructure. Think the electric company's still gonna succeed with that $20-$30 service charge? Are prices gonna have to go up? Or will we have brownouts and find our ice cream melted? Or...?

(I'm asking: is that a fair analogy?)

[a.gomez]

wow, things sure start to move over at Apple and AT&T when the Feds show up reminding everyone what "my house my rules" really means in a grand scale :)

[rtdunham]

WSJ just confirmed this:

Article Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125486091615268647.html?mod=djemalertNEWS)

A key quote seems to be:

"The change means that iPhone users can now use Skype and other Internet phone services on AT&T's 3G network."

How literally are we to take that "now"?

[audioteknika]

Biggest news of the year so far.

[satcomer]

Everybody pony right up to Google and let them listen to your cell phone calls. They already read you email now so what is the problem? The men called Uncle already read all Google email and they are salivating for people to start using Google Voice.

[numbersyx]

Huge news and another blow to long distance charges....

[ruinfx]

Everybody pony right up to Google and let them listen to your cell phone calls. They already read you email now so what is the problem? The men called Uncle already read all Google email and they are salivating for people to start using Google Voice.

is that a black helicopter in the distance?

[numbersyx]

is that a black helicopter in the distance?

No it's the aliens that Mulder and Scully told us about....

[CustomMacSales]

This means the end of unlimited data plans. Pretty smart business move for AT&T. Allow the service but make sure you get paid for it.

[coleridge78]

do that few people actually have Google Voice accounts in that a wide swath of people still believe it's some sort of VOIP system?


Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

Like a lot of Google services (despite the hype in tech circles), it's been an abject failure in the marketplace. So far. That might change as the market changes and it becomes a more useful proposition, but right now it offers essentially zero value for the vast majority of people.

Notice I said majority, not all. That doesn't mean you as an individual can't find it useful. You certainly might. So don't bother with a "BUT IT CAN SCREEN CALLS! EVERYONE SHOULD USE IT!!!" diatribe.

[audioteknika]

This means the end of unlimited data plans. Pretty smart business move for AT&T. Allow the service but make sure you get paid for it.

5GB isn't what a would call unlimited..

[*LTD*]

It was AT&T all along.

[Rhalliwell1]

This shouldn't effect me as i live in the United Kingdom, where AT&T has no market presence, but it does. Sad, Apple. Very Sad.

[satcomer]

is that a black helicopter in the distance?

Read the book Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Pablo-Worlds-Greatest-Outlaw/dp/0142000957/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254870219&sr=1-3) and then you will know how they get to you trough your cell phone. Then get back to me.

They are tracking people through Google Voice & Email. It has actually made their tasks easier once people started using services on the "cloud". It made a central location for them to look for targets.

[mwg]

Any idea when it will be available?

[Saladinos]

Probably scared of losing their exclusivity agreement. Others in the world have been toppling like dominos.

Hopefully O2 does the same due to competition.

[rjohnstone]

5GB isn't what a would call unlimited..
That is a false statement that seems to persist.
The 5GB cap is on data connect plans and tethering plans.

Unlimited data plans for Smartphones/PDA's and Blackberry's are unlimited.

[rnizlek]

What about tethering?

I'd so much rather be able to tether than make VoIP calls. I have Skype on my iPhone, I pretty much only use it when I'm abroad. I'm really not going to use it as VoIP, my phone makes calls and I have more than enough minutes as it is.

But tethering would be so helpful when working on the train, sitting in an airport and generally being on the go. Tethering will at least bring in some additional revenue for AT&T. I think this is a little bit ridiculous, in my opinion.

[Adrien24]

What about Canada? Would it work on the 3G here?

[CustomMacSales]

5GB isn't what a would call unlimited..

That was my point. It use to be unlimited, now its 5GB.

[Fruiteatingbear]

iPhone is a fantastic device. What a shame that bowing to what is arguably one of the least progressive cellular phone companies in the world, AT&T allowed a breathing space for the competition to catch up.

[rtdunham]

Read the book Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World's Greatest Outlaw and then you will know how they get to you through your cell phone. Then get back to me.

I can see why you'd find that frustrating, Pablo, but for the rest of us...?

They are tracking people through Google Voice & Email. It has actually made their tasks easier once people started using services on the "cloud"

Next time someone rapes or kills a family member, I'll be glad they have that capacity. Are you of the school that thinks police shouldn't be allowed to patrol? After all, when they're out on the roads, they're (get ready for it) watching all of us. Oooohhh. :)

[rtdunham]

Any idea when it will be available?

WSJ says, ""The change means that iPhone users can now use Skype and other Internet phone services on AT&T's 3G network."

As an experiment i just downloaded the free skype app from the app store, logged in with my skype* info, and placed a call. (Sooner or later someone will try that and it WILL work!) Unfortunately, it wouldn't place the call over 3G; I turned on wi-fi and the call went thru fine. So "now"for 3G isn't "now" "yet". :)

*--i like skype on my computer because i can be working away at something, and if i need to call someone quickly i just dial from my MBP (and, of course, it incorporates my entire >700-entry address book list) and I'm talking away while still working on the computer. It's very convenient: I don't have to pick up my iPhone and pop a bluetooth headset in my ear first, or tuck my ISP voip phone on my shoulder. And for the few cents it costs (so i can call landlines or mobiles in addition to other skype users), it's entirely affordable. I signed up for the caller ID function, where people I call will see my mobile phone number so know it's me: I just tested it and as they promised, caller ID is working 24 hours later.

I'm looking forward to having this service on my phone.

[aristobrat]

Okay, Mr. Numbers...

AT&T has approximately 2.5 million iPhone subscribers. If you take the money from their data plan (not the voice, just the $30/mo data), that comes to $75M per month or $900M per year.

Yeah, I think someone could carve a budget out of that to do some network expansion. I believe AT&T is planning something on the order of $18M for network expansions. That's 2% of revenue from the iPhone data plans alone .
Your math is off.

In 2009, AT&T has committed to spending between $17- 18 BILLION into network improvements.

$18 BILLION = 100% of revenue from 50 MILLION $30 data plans.

Problem is, AT&T doesn't have 50 MILLION customers paying $30/month for data. AT&T only has 80 million customers total. No way 62% of AT&T's customers has a $30 data plan.

So AT&T is using 100% of the revenue from *every data plan* (iPhones + others), plus billions of other money, in 2009 network improvements.

And their network still has huge issues in some areas...

[Scooterman1]

This is going to be interesting. Apple can't even get Flash working.

[techwarrior]

This means the end of unlimited data plans. Pretty smart business move for AT&T. Allow the service but make sure you get paid for it.

Good! I use less than 30 MB per month for an average of $1 per MB. With 3 iPhones in the family and nobody using more than 100MB, I expect I could save considerable amounts with metered data plans. Most of my data use is at home or office where I have wifi access. I doubt I would try to use Skype on 3G, it is already iffy on wifi but good enough for a toll bypass app.

I am one who considers the unlimited plan and restrictions on apps due to data use concerns to be one of the greatest negatives with the iPhone. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't change, but would welcome a more logical approach.

[spazzcat]

This is going to be interesting. Apple can't even get Flash working.

Flash would work with the iPhone with little problems. The problem is Flash is a huge resource hog.

[Bevz]

A step in the right direction. Excellent news! Just need o2 in the UK (or possibly orange and vodafone) to follow suit.... ;)

[theLastBeatle]

I can see why you'd find that frustrating, Pablo, but for the rest of us...?



Next time someone rapes or kills a family member, I'll be glad they have that capacity. Are you of the school that thinks police shouldn't be allowed to patrol? After all, when they're out on the roads, they're (get ready for it) watching all of us. Oooohhh. :)


be careful what your willing to give up. the government isnt going to give it back. Think about all the injustice the government will inflict on the people. America shouldn't be a police state. we are free, or so the saying goes.

[Taximan]

AT&T has matched the fav 5 list they call it A list it is on their site. Just registered so I am using google voice as one of my 5 free calls now all incoming calls are free. They have accepted it so we'll see if it works. I am using the GV number for business calls and random people. Great way to save minutes.

[mwg]

My wife (who is a foreigner) would be able to call home from anywhere (with 3G coverage of course) without using minutes or a international calling card.

[techwarrior]

Problem is, AT&T doesn't have 50 MILLION customers paying $30/month for data. AT&T only has 80 million customers total. No way 62% of AT&T's customers has a $30 data plan.



Don't forget the Crackberry and 3G phone users as well as iPhones. Clearly, 62% with $30 plans is not likely, but 62% with some form of data plan may not be too far off. Plus, investments with 2-3 year returns would not be uncommon given the long term revenue stream such an investment could generate for T.

[jb510]

THANK YOU.

how many people need to state this before people start to understand it?

do that few people actually have Google Voice accounts in that a wide swath of people still believe it's some sort of VOIP system?

:(

Well apparently more... because GV IS A VOIP SYSTEM and not a new one.

This isn't really the venue for the discussion, just because your call originates and terminates on the PSTN doesn't mean it isn't carried by VOIP between those endpoints, which is exactly what Google does and this is why they can undercut the pricing of those relying on just the PSTN network.

This is nothing new, many international and some domestic long distance providers have done this for about a decade. Those providers often relied on a similar automatic call back system to originate the call, where you called into a local number and told them who you wanted to call, they then bridged the two calls. Google has just added a web interface to initiate those types of calls.

[jb510]

Calls on Google Voice are free (as long as they are not international), which is different from VOIP services.

Actually no... Google Voice doesn't offer free calls to AK and HI as well as many small localities. This become rather controversial recently when AT&T (throwing out a red herring) suggest GV be required to abide by common carrier provisions:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-to-at-letter-to-fcc-on-google.html

[rnauman821]

Don't forget the Crackberry and 3G phone users as well as iPhones. Clearly, 62% with $30 plans is not likely, but 62% with some form of data plan may not be too far off. Plus, investments with 2-3 year returns would not be uncommon given the long term revenue stream such an investment could generate for T.

I guarantee that at least 75% have some form of a texting plan. Texts cost them nothing and is pure profit. Maybe they will use the butter we have been providing them for something useful for a change.

[jb510]

Alright I seem to be on "Tin Foil Hat Patrol" today... and I thought I was done, but this is particularly stupid so I had to respond.

<clip>
How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!!
Actually billions... Google pays for it's side of bandwidth, it's not like get to hook up to the internet for free. Further the service THEY provide causes users like ME to buy internet service on the other end which is then rolled into infrastructure as well.

How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!
Right because they get free postage right? They're investing at least millions in postage... As for streaming, once again they are paying for THEIR internet connection in addition to creating a service that encourages consumers to pay for the other end of the connection

How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!!
Once again... Skype is outlaying money for THIER side of the bandwidth they use in addition to fostering use and purchasing of bandwidth on the other side...

Is this getting repetative now?


But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!

Where do you think those backbone builders and providers get that money for captial improvements? Seriously?

Look, presently I have a contract with my ISP in which I agree to pay $34/month and they are to provide UNLIMITED data at 3Mbps/768Kbps. If they want to change the terms of that contract next time I renew it then that's fine with me. If they want to discourage me from using as much data as a can squeeze through then I'd particularly like them to offer me a discounted plan that caps data to 25GB per month...

It's not my fault they decided to create a business model around marketing unlimited volume data plans.

[iphones4evry1]

AT&T makes the bulk of their income from the fixed minimum $79.99 per month that it charges us. The revenue they get from long-distance calls pales in comparison. It would be a great publicity move for AT&T to allow Skype.

[Rodimus Prime]

Well apparently more... because GV IS A VOIP SYSTEM and not a new one.

This isn't really the venue for the discussion, just because your call originates and terminates on the PSTN doesn't mean it isn't carried by VOIP between those endpoints, which is exactly what Google does and this is why they can undercut the pricing of those relying on just the PSTN network.

This is nothing new, many international and some domestic long distance providers have done this for about a decade. Those providers often relied on a similar automatic call back system to originate the call, where you called into a local number and told them who you wanted to call, they then bridged the two calls. Google has just added a web interface to initiate those types of calls.

Well you have a lot of learn about the telephone industry.
By the standards you just described all the phone calls we make are VOIP. Telephone companies for years have been taking calls on there network and sending them over the internet to another place.

The VOIP technology was pioneered by MCI but it moved into the backbone of the telephone network were almost all calls were being router over IP.

GV my be part VOIP but the part were minutes get charged it is exactly like a normal phone and not over IP.

Think of Google voice more as a bridge between other numbers.

[skwoytek]

I'm not going to argue about the infrastructure costs for VOIP providers, because you are correct.

However, when it comes to Google Voice, you don't need broadband unless you're using a VOIP client like Skype. Googles system operates just as many communications companies do - they send portions of the voice call over the internet. Google voice requires a data connection for setup and initiating calls only.

In this way, Google does not affect AT&T's data network like Skype does. And Apple is holding up Google Voice, not AT&T. Apple doesn't like the way Google Voice obfuscates calling features via iPhone.

[hotzenplotz]

Fair and square until you start dropping minutes and start using Skype and using up too much bandwidth. When we have enough people doing this that is when we will have a problem.

Dropping minutes is already a reality on ATT, so your point is mute.

As of April '09, ATT had over 1.6 million iPhone users. Some rough math would suggest $96 million in charges from only the iPhone crowd - a month! The quarter ending in April of 09 saw a $3.13 BILLION profit (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE53L29L20090422) (down from about $3.5). "Oh, but look, we're expanding our network so we can have MMS on the iPhone". How pathetic.

The whole voice+data setup is a scam; your voice travels over fiber/the net to the next tower in bits and bytes.

[aristobrat]

The whole voice+data setup is a scam; your voice travels over fiber/the net to the next tower in bits and bytes.
In the terms of VoIP, yeah, but when it comes to you making a voice call vs you streaming Pandora, one of them uses a whole lot more "bits and bytes" (and its not the voice call).

[Almy]

I'm not sure this really matters right now. Carriers like AT&T aren't offering data only plans. And until they do you'll have to at least pay for minimum minute plans in order to also get the data plan to use skype over IP. Pretty toothless IMO.

[aristobrat]

I'm not sure this really matters right now. Carriers like AT&T aren't offering data only plans. And until they do you'll have to at least pay for minimum minute plans in order to also get the data plan to use skype over IP. Pretty toothless IMO.
AFAIK, all carriers have data-only plans.

Here's AT&Ts for Smartphones:
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/data-cell-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=295942

At the bottom of each column is a "Data Only" option.

I'm sure they won't let an iPhone qualify for this, but the other smartphones should...

[thecypher]

Alright I seem to be on "Tin Foil Hat Patrol" today... and I thought I was done, but this is particularly stupid so I had to respond.


Actually billions... Google pays for it's side of bandwidth, it's not like get to hook up to the internet for free. Further the service THEY provide causes users like ME to buy internet service on the other end which is then rolled into infrastructure as well.


Right because they get free postage right? They're investing at least millions in postage... As for streaming, once again they are paying for THEIR internet connection in addition to creating a service that encourages consumers to pay for the other end of the connection


Once again... Skype is outlaying money for THIER side of the bandwidth they use in addition to fostering use and purchasing of bandwidth on the other side...

Is this getting repetative now?




Where do you think those backbone builders and providers get that money for captial improvements? Seriously?

Look, presently I have a contract with my ISP in which I agree to pay $34/month and they are to provide UNLIMITED data at 3Mbps/768Kbps. If they want to change the terms of that contract next time I renew it then that's fine with me. If they want to discourage me from using as much data as a can squeeze through then I'd particularly like them to offer me a discounted plan that caps data to 25GB per month...

It's not my fault they decided to create a business model around marketing unlimited volume data plans.

Perhaps you are failing to see that "their side" is only from "their" datacenter to the backbone. That is like paying for gas for just the 1st mile of a 1000 mile long journey. Who is paying for the remaining 999 miles??? Or like paying for paving a little side road from your house to the freeway. Who pays for the freeway?? Your ISP also pays for its 1st mile to get to the backbone. Assuming it is a mom and pop ISP and not a large carrier who actually owns and operates the network. Does Google pay for the backbone, the under sea cables that connect continents, the communication satellites that carry data traffic across the world?? Nobody is saying the backbone builders are building the backbones out of the generosity of their hearts. The point is if this trend continues they will stop building backbones because they will only lose money by building them while companies like Google make money by hogging majority of the infrastructure without spending a dime on it. And then how are you going to access your favorite Google apps?? We all know unlimited is not really unlimited because there is only a finite amount of something. If everybody starts using unlimited in the true sense it is simply not going to work. Of course it can be argued then why it is the case that they advertise unlimited. But that is futile because it doesn't help anybody or change the facts. It is just a matter of time before we will all be capped on our usage. The carriers are already doing usage based broadband trials in the US. Stay tuned.

[xhambonex]

Perhaps you are failing to see that "their side" is only from "their" datacenter to the backbone. That is like paying for gas for just the 1st mile of a 1000 mile long journey. Who is paying for the remaining 999 miles??? Or like paying for paving a little side road from your house to the freeway. Who pays for the freeway?? Your ISP also pays for its 1st mile to get to the backbone. Assuming it is a mom and pop ISP and not a large carrier who actually owns and operates the network. Does Google pay for the backbone, the under sea cables that connect continents, the communication satellites that carry data traffic across the world?? Nobody is saying the backbone builders are building the backbones out of the generosity of their hearts. The point is if this trend continues they will stop building backbones because they will only lose money by building them while companies like Google make money by hogging majority of the infrastructure without spending a dime on it. And then how are you going to access your favorite Google apps?? We all know unlimited is not really unlimited because there is only a finite amount of something. If everybody starts using unlimited in the true sense it is simply not going to work. Of course it can be argued then why it is the case that they advertise unlimited. But that is futile because it doesn't help anybody or change the facts. It is just a matter of time before we will all be capped on our usage. The carriers are already doing usage based broadband trials in the US. Stay tuned.

So you don't think when it gets to that point the pricing structure or however any of this crap gets paid for will have changed?

Sure someone's got to build it and pay for it, but that doesn't mean things can't be changed around so we, or whoever does have to pay for it.

You know way more than I do, it just seems like if they continue to go this way then things will have to be changed around...

[iMJustAGuy]

It amazes me how smart people sometimes don't realize that nothing in life is free. Everybody wants free Internet, free phone service, free TV, free this, free that. Who pays for the infrastructure? Which business invests money into something if it is not going to make profit on it and it is expected to just give it away for free? No business can make money giving stuff away. We all saw that in the big dotcom bubble bust. All the wonderful give everything away business models. But people still think that they are doing a great thing by dropping their voice plan minutes and using their unlimited data plan to make free voip calls. Gee! when we have enough people doing this your free voip calls aren't going to work either.

How much money is Google investing in infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!!! How much money is Netflix investing in Infrastructure?? Gee! ZERO!! How about Skype? Let me guess ZERO!!! But they think they can all hog bandwidth for free and make money while communications companies are investing billions on data networks. Verizon, AT&T etc. spend a fortune laying the optical fibre lines and connecting homes to the Internet. The money that we pay these companies for Broadband service whatever it is $20-$30 a month nowhere near covers the costs if everybody starts hogging bandwidth. The same people will complain that the network is slow. Gee I wonder why the network is slow?? No matter how much bandwidth these companies add there will be ever increasing demand because the likes of Google will use this bandwidth for free and make a fortune. This can only be sustained for so long. NetNeutrality will only result in us going back to the stone age and progress will come to a standstill. But everything will be FREE!!!


Advertisements

[goosnarrggh]

Once again... Skype is outlaying money for THIER side of the bandwidth they use in addition to fostering use and purchasing of bandwidth on the other side...
Skype-to-Skype calls are peer-to-peer, and the bits-n-bytes associated with the voice calls do not go through Skype's data centres. So it's the sending and receiving customers (and all other intermediate nodes in between) who are paying for their share of the bandwidth involved by paying their ISPs' service fees. Then their ISPs, in turn, pay for their wholesale usage of the Internet backbones through their service fees paid to the backbone providers.

Skype-to-PSTN and PSTN-to-Skype calls do go through Skype's data centres, so both Skype and the caller are contributing their share to the cost of the bandwidth involved.

If the backbone providers are undercharging for the value provided by the backbone, then that's the backbone providers' responsibility, not the customers who make use of the advertised service. If the backbone providers really aren't getting paid enough money to sustain the continued operation and growth of the Internet, then personally, I would welcome a revolution in pricing whereby they are compensated justly.

As an aside, if we look at AT&T Wireless's infrastructure as an independent business unit from AT&T's investment in the fibre optic Internet backbone (which is exactly the way the FCC requires them to operate), then the portion of a Google Voice call that AT&T Wireless experiences really is purely PSTN. AT&T Wireless would experience significantly more burden from a over-the-air ViOP service like Skype than it would from an over-the-air PSTN (albeit backbone VoIP, but not necessarily travelling over any AT&T-owned backbone) service like Google Voice.

[3D0G]

I would like to get an iPhone, but I haven't yet because of Apple's exclusive arrangement with AT&T--I don't want to support a company that knowingly broke laws to spy on Americans in collaboration with the Bush Administration.

Well, I guess I'll have to wait another year or two...I'm sure eventually Apple will open it up to other providers.

[Rocketman]

Here's some business advise for AT&T. People want to use 3G where they can't get other internet access, and soon they will want LTE. AT&T networks will not be able to handle true laptop wireless speeds until LTE is deployed. These are facts. People wanting broadband, tethering, VoIP and HD streaming video notwithstanding.

AT&T should have a "family plan" for devices. For each iPhone plan one can add-on tethering or a wireless access device to a laptop for a small additional fee on the theory only one can typically be used at once.

If a family has 4 iPhones, 4 iPhone data plans and up to 4 add-on plans.

AT&T needs revenue, albiet at a more moderate rate than now so people don't simply revolt. People want VoIP and tethering so when they NEED a critical email, they can get it.

Can't AT&T offer a Firefox plug-in that reduces feed resolution and thus bandwidth when on 3G?

AT&T needs to keep customers for the LTE rollout when things get real.

Rocketman

[53buick]

Tethering (rather, the lack thereof) is my biggest complaint by far.

i'm with ya. i'm willing to pay a little extra. i don't care, i just want access.

[Rodimus Prime]

AFAIK, all carriers have data-only plans.

Here's AT&Ts for Smartphones:
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cell-phone-plans/data-cell-phone-plans.jsp?_requestid=295942

At the bottom of each column is a "Data Only" option.

I'm sure they won't let an iPhone qualify for this, but the other smartphones should...

they allow it for all other smart phones other than the iPhone.

I completely understanding them saying no to the iPhone on it considering they have to pay Apple $400 for each iPhone. At the $35 a month off data they only get $835 and of that 835 I bet all the profit for ATT is in that $150 difference in subsidize

[AtlasBoy]

There has been a lot of discussion here about how AT&T pays for it's infrastructure and how much it costs. I'm not going to debate any of that, but I will say that for 2008, their income (profit) was $19,903B (yes Billion) before tax and $12,867B after tax (link below). Granted this was from all sources of revenue - not just wireless - so they do have some $$$ they can put into infrastructure. I've seen it reported that they plan to put $18B into their network which is a good thing because it's really needed IMHO. What's unclear to me is the timeframe that this $18b upgrade will be done. Is it this year, the next 2 years, over three years? Does anyone know?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=t

[Rocketman]

There has been a lot of discussion here about how AT&T pays for it's infrastructure and how much it costs. I'm not going to debate any of that, but I will say that for 2008, their income (profit) was $19,903B (yes Billion) before tax and $12,867B after tax (link below). Granted this was from all sources of revenue - not just wireless - so they do have some $$$ they can put into infrastructure. I've seen it reported that they plan to put $18B into their network which is a good thing because it's really needed IMHO. What's unclear to me is the timeframe that this $18b upgrade will be done. Is it this year, the next 2 years, over three years? Does anyone know?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=t

It's about a 2+ year build-out period for that $18B.
They committed a large sum last year and the year before that as well.

The $12B net profit is after infrastructure improvement. Since they have a roughly 20% gross margin in the corporation, that means 80% of gross covers expansion, labor, taxes, overhead, R&D, etc., etc.

The figure I find notable is this particular unit, wireless, is committing $18B this year to expansion and is receiving gross revenue of about that same figure, or less. For that to make sense with a 20% margin they clearly expect future revenue to provide a profit margin.

VoIP, tethering and Sling Player ought to kill that! :D

EDGE had/has a useful life of over 10 years. 3G is likely to almost get there. LTE (4G) is designed to morph over time so it is more akin to OSX with occasional software upgrades so the useful life gets closer to 15 years.

I have had houses far older than that. They didn't cost billions of dollars either. It takes chutzpah to invest in this industry.

Rocketman

[AtlasBoy]

It's about a 2+ year build-out period for that $18B.
They committed a large sum last year and the year before that as well.

The $12B net profit is after infrastructure improvement. Since they have a roughly 20% gross margin in the corporation, that means 80% of gross covers expansion, labor, taxes, overhead, R&D, etc., etc.

The figure I find notable is this particular unit, wireless, is committing $18B this year to expansion and is receiving gross revenue of about that same figure, or less. For that to make sense with a 20% margin they clearly expect future revenue to provide a profit margin.

VoIP, tethering and Sling Player ought to kill that! :D

EDGE had/has a useful life of over 10 years. 3G is likely to almost get there. LTE (4G) is designed to morph over time so it is more akin to OSX with occasional software upgrades so the useful life gets closer to 15 years.

I have had houses far older than that. They didn't cost billions of dollars either. It takes chutzpah to invest in this industry.

Rocketman

Thanks for the info Rocket. I noticed that too. When I looked at the 10K for the quarter ended 6/30 (the latest numbers filed with the SEC), the wireless business post tax income is about the same compared to Q2 2008. They must be expecting higher % profit margins sometime this year, but half way through the year it does not seem to be happening. They do however have more cash on hand (7.3B vs 1.6B last year).

We'll see where this all goes. I'm happy that the network is opening up to more types of traffic (I really want tethering), but I do wonder at what cost to us customers. I think adding VoIP could make things MUCH worse than we have it today unless ATT does something quickly - which ain't gonna happen IMHO. I guess we'll know soon.

[sammyv]

...that this might open the door to allowing VIDEO / VOIP over the data networks?

Your iPhone as your webcam?

[segfaultdotorg]

I speculate that AT&T may be in material breach of the exclusivity agreement it has with Apple. Apple probably would not enter into a relationship with a cellular provider without being assured that the user experience would meet quality standards expected of Apple's products and services. Based upon the very limited 3G coverage and the constant complaints about AT&T that I see, if those standards exist, I don't think AT&T is meeting them.

If there is such an agreement, and if AT&T has breached it, Apple would have a way out of the exclusivity agreement, and AT&T will be doing everything they can to keep Apple from shopping the iPhone to other carriers.

[kdarling]

Speaking of agreements, I noticed something while reading ATT's response to the FCC.

ATT stated that they were paying their "highest subsidy" ever for buyers of the iPhone. They also noted that allowing VoIP apps over 3G, could allow customers to have lower voice plans, which would cut into the bottom line necessary to allow those subsidies.

You can extrapolate the possible consequences from there...

[dukebound85]

nvm

[twoodcc]

well looks like this turned out to be true today. very interesting.

[rwitte42]

Glad someone finally brought this up. I'm totally willing to go the "dumb pipe" route as soon as I can figure out how to do it. I think Skype/GV is a good start, but I'm not sure of the direction to take with it all.

I use Vonage for VoIP. My employer provides GV-like shell over the top of that for my business # and voicemail. I use GV for my personal # and voicemail.

So if I could have a Vonage client and GV on my iPhone, I'd be all set. Heck, I'd be happy if I could just use those on WiFi networks and forward to my regular AT&T phone # when I'm out of WiFi coverage.

And if AT&T is so concerned about network congestion, they could give us Femtocell routers for free to allow our home network pipes to bear some of the load (until Comcast cries foul).

[dankybear]

...that this might open the door to allowing VIDEO / VOIP over the data networks?

Your iPhone as your webcam?

they would have to start placing the cameras on the front of the phones... like laptops... :/

[outphase]

they would have to start placing the cameras on the front of the phones... like laptops... :/

Or European phones. Check out some of HTC's European lineup. Phones dating back to the Kaiser and possibly beyond have the front facing camera. The AT&T Tilt (US equivalent) did not :(

[Rocketman]

It's about a 2+ year build-out period for that $18B.
They committed a large sum last year and the year before that as well.

The $12B net profit is after infrastructure improvement. Since they have a roughly 20% gross margin in the corporation, that means 80% of gross covers expansion, labor, taxes, overhead, R&D, etc., etc.

The figure I find notable is this particular unit, wireless, is committing $18B this year to expansion and is receiving gross revenue of about that same figure, or less. For that to make sense with a 20% margin they clearly expect future revenue to provide a profit margin.

VoIP, tethering and Sling Player ought to kill that! :D

EDGE had/has a useful life of over 10 years. 3G is likely to almost get there. LTE (4G) is designed to morph over time so it is more akin to OSX with occasional software upgrades so the useful life gets closer to 15 years.

I have had houses far older than that. They didn't cost billions of dollars either. It takes chutzpah to invest in this industry.

Rocketman


http://www.slate.com/id/2231646/