AT&T to Restrict or Charge for FaceTime Over 3G/4G in iOS 6? [Updated With AT&T Statement]

[UltraZ33]

My FaceTime works just fine over 3G never got that warning at all.

 

[blucable]

I have been with AT&T for 6 years now, and I wish it wasn't the only thing available in the remote area I live because I would have got rid of it long ago. As soon as some other service becomes available or if I move I am getting rid of the dam AT&T... they want to charge for the words you talk on the phone even. That is a ridiculous fee...

 

[diamond.g]

My FaceTime works just fine over 3G never got that warning at all.

You didn't reset your network settings?

 

[JPark]

I was about as loyal an AT&T customer as they're ever likely to have. I stayed with them through the switch to Cingular and back. I didn't really love their service but figured it wouldn't be any better elsewhere. When they ditched their $5/month text plan, I got angry. When they ditched their $10/month text plan, I got really angry. When they started throttling unlimited data plans at 2GB (the limit of a non-unlimited plan that cost less and wasn't grandfathered in) I finally gave up.

Now my iPhone is on Straight Talk for $45/month (roughly $30 less than my corporate discounted and grandfathered in plan on AT$T). Couldn't be happier, except there won't be a subsidized price for my next iPhone (probably another year out).

 

[3282868]

The problem with not having a down-vote button is that it rewards commenters for taking simplistic, or extreme positions. For example, few will bother to read a long, well reasoned argument, but a simple statement like "this sucks!" will get you an up vote from the 1/2 that agrees with you. And equally "this is the greatest thing ever!" will get you the same.

So here's my statement:

Not having a down vote button is the worst thing ever! It's worse than Stalin!

As stated earlier, has some good points:

Actually, this is good. It is getting people who normally downvote to post a comment instead of a passive-aggressive vote. This brings these people out and allows us to see who is offering civil discourse versus disrespectful banter, thus enables people to ignore those users. It also keeps those individuals who do have good points from being bullied by a select few who down vote their comment(s) even though their points may be beneficial to many.

Personally, I'd do away with all of it, but removing the negative voting is a breath of fresh air. So many times I see new members get reamed for an innocent question by MacRumors "police" with negative votes, and they don't return. They're new and don't have the thick skin yet, sure, but should they have to in the first place?

 

[lkrupp]

It's my data, I pay for it, let me use in anyway that I choose!

No.

Sincerely yours,

Randall Stephenson
CEO AT&T

 

[gotluck]

Yet another reason to jailbreak...
(well, FaceTime over 3G was already a reason to jailbreak to be fair- its been around for years)

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I swear to Cthulhu, all the U.S. carriers are run by the fricken mafia or the NWO. It just keeps getting worse and my ars is sore enough already.

I'm about to say screw smartphones altogether and go back to dumb phones with texting for the entire family. I have my iPad and iPod for apps and crap I can do on WiFi. These crooks don't deserve anymore of my money.

 

[Intarweb]

Sprint is looking better and better.

 

[koban4max]

It's not just AT&T man, it's our entire rotten system of the common working class person being bled dry by the corporations every chance those bloodsuckers get. Then we're just supposed to accept and tolerate this BS!? I say thee, nay.
If only more groups like the creators of LINUX had the support of the majority of the community, then we might have a low cost Ubuntu phone anyone could afford. With majority support and the resources that would follow, the possibilities would be endless. I dare say a phone even better than the iPhone.

So...what the hell are you going to do, Robin hood?

 

[lkrupp]

Just one more reason to switch to Verizon. Peace out, Ma-Bell.

And you are sure Verizon won't do exactly the same thing? Remember when AT&T got rid of unlimited data plans and Verizon followed suit a few months later? Remember when AT&T stared throttling the "data hogs" and Verizon did the same thing?

In my opinion it's time for the handset manufacturers to consider more vertical integration and build their own cell networks to get out from under the established carriers. Apple certainly has the cash and ability to buy T-Mobile or Sprint for example. Hell, they could even buy AT&T mobility if they wanted to start a takeover war.

 

[*Calypso*]

No, that's most certainly *not* the only difference. Facetime, according to some estimates, uses approximately 4MB/minute of bandwidth. Typical web-surfing uses significantly less than 4MB/minute of bandwidth, like on the order of 40-100KB/minute. That's 1/100th-1/40th of the data rate for web-surfing vs. Facetime use.

What difference does it make? Let's say you have a 2 GB data plan. That means you can either talk 8.5 hours on FaceTime or you can surf the web for a whole month. No matter what, your data cap is set and so is the overall network traffic - those are the numbers carriers have to plan their capacity with. Now give me one good reason why (on average) 8.5 hours of FaceTime usage per user should be less evenly distributed over 30 days (720 hours) than web surfing. I say the networks can handle it and if they can't, providers need to upgrade them so they can handle the amount of traffic already paid for. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you use the traffic for as long as not all customers magically decide to use up all their 8.5 hours of FaceTime at the same time.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

Will text messages cost more in German because the words are longer?

 

[JHankwitz]

Why don't providers simply charge $20/month or so to pay for the phone subsidy, plus $X/GB for data used? Why do they keep trying to make a simple phone bill as complicated as the US Tax Code?

 

[samcraig]

What difference does it make? Let's say you have a 2 GB data plan. That means you can either talk 8.5 hours on FaceTime or you can surf the web for a whole month. No matter what, your data cap is set and so is the overall network traffic - those are the numbers carriers have to plan their capacity with. Now give me one good reason why (on average) 8.5 hours of FaceTime usage per user should be less evenly divided over 30 days (720 hours) than web surfing. I say the networks can handle it and if they can't, providers need to upgrade them so they can handle the amount of traffic already paid for. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you use the traffic for as long as not all customers magically decide to use up all their 8.5 hours of FaceTime at the same time.

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying that the difference is that if you surf all day on the next - think of it as a constant/drip of usage on the network. You'll get to your cap whenever during the month. But if you "slam" the server with FaceTime (i.e. it used more bandwidth more quickly) you will burn through that data very quickly. This is good for billing - but on a network it's a question of load balancing.

The network can handle tons of people (for example) trickling their data throughout the month. But if everyone (for example) were to stream netflix and/or facetime at the same time it would, indeed, the network.

It's a valid discussion point.

 

[chainprayer]

I bought a gallon of milk at the grocery store today with my own money. Yes, I paid for it in full and it's mine, but I'm limited to one glass a day, can't make chocolate milk, and am restricted from sharing it with my family.

 

[Daalseth]

I have come to the conclusion that people that were to evil, too larcenous, too despicable, too utterly heinous to be lawyers, hawk male enhancement products, or even sell used cars on the bad side of town, were welcomed with open arms into the Cellular industry.

 

[lzyprson]

Does anyone else have unlimited data through ATT?? I get the feeling that they're going to give us the shaft later on this year... I've had all the iphones and they've given me an upgrade every year as long as i keep signing the two year agreement. Long story short, my plan is sooooo low right now (300 mins (sr. citizen plan), unlimited text, and unlimited data). I pay 89 a month for this plan and last year they told me they would not give me a yearly upgrade because i was spending less than the 115 i paid in the past. I woundup getting an "upgrade" if you want to call it that last year to the new iphone, but get the feeling that im going to have to give up the unlimited data if i want to get the 5 this october.

anyone else in a similiar situation?

 

[BC2009]

It has nothing to do with the network. They lost a lot of money when Apple introduced iMessage, and they don't want that happening again with FaceTime. They can't go back and charge people for iMessage since it's now too late, but they can charge for FaceTime going forward, and they will.

The lesson they learned is to block any app or device that can cut into their revenue stream. They are opposed to technology improving our service and reducing our costs.

The really problem is that their revenue streams are tied to services that they sell for five times their actual value because they have a monopoly. Messaging is a service that should be free or near free with a data plan. If they improved their network to afford the capacity of modern apps they could just charge us per gigabyte and make their money that way. They monetize their inferior network in creative ways to extract as much value as possible.

 

[rworne]

I agree that if you are paying for a specific amount of data - ATT shouldn't dictate how you "spend it. If you are grandfathered from a previous plan that didn't take these services into consideration - they have every right and while I may not like it - I hold nothing against ATT for charging me (if I choose to use) these services vs someone that pays for a specific data allotment.

One issue with that:

I know you say we should be able to use our data any way we want. But AT&T charging me for using these services?

AT&T does not do squat for FaceTime or Tethering, they just push the bits back and forth - just as if I am streaming music or a video or uploading a file.

The only effort they have done to date is to try to detect and block these services. So they spend money to discourage this behavior so they can charge for it.

 

[*Calypso*]

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying that the difference is that if you surf all day on the next - think of it as a constant/drip of usage on the network. You'll get to your cap whenever during the month. But if you "slam" the server with FaceTime (i.e. it used more bandwidth more quickly) you will burn through that data very quickly. This is good for billing - but on a network it's a question of load balancing.

The network can handle tons of people (for example) trickling their data throughout the month. But if everyone (for example) were to stream netflix and/or facetime at the same time it would, indeed, the network.

It's a valid discussion point.

Well, if customers are stupid enough to break through their data cap every month, yes. Then network traffic is higher, but also the revenue they can reinvest in the network.

If customers are aware of both their data cap and FaceTime data consumption, the overall FaceTime traffic should be evently distributed over the month, because there is a limited amount of time you can spend using FaceTime and I don't see why everyone would be FaceTiming at the same time (except for maybe Christmas and New Years, but that is already an issue). This is even more likely when customers have different bill dates on which their monthly data cap is reset.

 

[hitekalex]

Not sure why everyone is so up in arms about Facetime.. Just use Skype, it offers many advantages over FaceTime:

- cross-platform (iOS, OS X, PCs, Android, Windows Phone 8)
- integrates with PSTN, so can truly replace cell voice plans
- works over WiFi, 3G, 4G with no carrier surcharges
- integrated voice, video, IM in a single app
- adaptive codecs, will adjust to network bandwidth
- huge user base

 

[roadbloc]

I'm glad I'm not in America. AT&T sound ****.

 

[samcraig]

One issue with that:

I know you say we should be able to use our data any way we want. But AT&T charging me for using these services?

AT&T does not do squat for FaceTime or Tethering, they just push the bits back and forth - just as if I am streaming music or a video or uploading a file.

The only effort they have done to date is to try to detect and block these services. So they spend money to discourage this behavior so they can charge for it.

FaceTime and Tethering - to me are to different beasts. One is basically an App like skype and tango which lets you chat with video (and audio).

Tethering allows one more more devices (not under contract) to use the same data plan that is tied to a device.

We can argue all day whether or not it's fair - but I think it's also fair to see how FT and tethering are different categories...

 

[pizzafootbal]

It's my data, I pay for it, let me use in anyway that I choose!

Yes, but they're giving you said data, and they'll use it however they'd like. I don't agree with it though