AT&T Responds to Net Neutrality Concerns Regarding FaceTime Usage Policy

[QCassidy352]

I'm an AT&T customer, and I do use FaceTime. This is ridiculous, no question. But in practice, I don't think I'd use FaceTime much over cellular anyway. So... Screw you for the principle, AT&T, but I guess it doesn't really mean that much to how I use my phone.

 

[RBR2]

And if it does, AT&T will block all plans from using FaceTime.

FaceTime uses data for which AT&T is paid. The more you use, the more you pay.What's the problem?

The problem is that AT&T wants to sell you data and then keep you from using it as you want.

 

[Kavok]

Last I checked, FaceTime wasn't a "preinstalled app" in and of itself, but rather an integral part of the phone app, which is necessary for the iPhone to function as a phone.

It is only an app on the iPad because it doesn't make phone calls and doesn't have a phone app.

AT&T is dancing around the issue. If everyone refused to use their "shared data plan" then they would have to capitulate.

 

[TonyC28]

Basically AT&T admitted two things: their network can't handle this kinda stuff, AND they know the shared data plans are a bad deal for most people and therefore most will not switch to them and won't be able to use FaceTime to cripple the network.
If the shared data plans were such a great deal then AT&T would have confidence that people would be switching to it and that would shoot a huge hole in their explanation.

 

[cms2]

After ALL these press releases (not even just the FaceTime related news), why does anyone want to give them a dime. At this point it should be the principle of the thing to stand up to this non-sense.

I would love to switch (back) to Verizon, but they don't have coverage within miles of my Mom's house. I visit several times a month (my dad's in poor health), and I have to conduct business while there. I have to have cell service.

I hope the consumer backlash is fierce. Vote with your wallets, people.

See above.

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint are all terrible.

You just have to pick your poison.

Until the FCC and the US Government get involved the carriers will continue to screw their customers.

Our government is effectively crippled. I don't see them taking any real action on this or any other front until something gives with the gridlock (i.e., one side or the other has to gain a stronger majority). With all of two (piece of crap) parties to choose from, I don't see that happening either.

I said... Release the Kraken!
***taps on intercom microphone***
....Hello. Is this thing on? Anyone there? Arn, are you at the kraken cage? Can you let that thing out already please, AT&T needs to feel my wrath.

Hah hah... Oh man, if a Kraken were actually released every time I called for it... carnage and correction everywhere.

Why doesn't Apple get involved? Don't they want more iPhones to sell? Here is a idea, why doesn't Apple start their own Cell Phone service?

In the grand scheme of things, I doubt very much that facetime moves any units for Apple one way or the other. People either want an iPhone or they don't, and of the former, people either can afford an iPhone, or they can't. It's pretty much that simple, IMHO.

 

[koban4max]

Save us Apple! We need you to be a cell provider! They screw YOUR customers, they refuse to push YOUR phone, how much more are you going to take before you throw us a life line?

(Wouldn't it be awesome if Apple said, ok, now Facetime is a downloadable app! lol)

No they didn't. Apple don't need to save you..they need to sell to you.

 

[KdParker]

1) new iPhone going to 4g (sorta)
2) ATT - pulling the same old BS when if comes to data plans



Well this looks like a perfect time to jump off the ATT ship. Hello Verizon! with family plan. Hope I can save a few bucks at least.

 

[ITGuy]

I believe that blocking FaceTime on unlocked LTE iPhones purchased from Apple will violate the conditions attached to AT&T's 700 MHz spectrum license. AT&T probably knows this and is hoping enough people switch to the new mobile share plan before people figure this out.

I also imagine that Apple will once again delay the sale of next generation unlocked iPhones in the USA so the official carrier partners get first dibs on sales and locking customers into new contracts.

-ITG

 

[tbrinkma]

I have a genuine question, what benefit does FaceTime have over other options such as Skype? Is there any real benefit? (ie, less bandwidth, faster connection, etc)

Back when it was first released, it gave better picture quality *and* lower bandwidth consumption that Skype, and other video conferencing apps. I believe Skype has updated the video codecs it uses so that this advantage is decreased significantly, but I'm not positive.

 

[koban4max]

whaha silly american carriers

no. Silly you!

 

[yeah]

T-Mobile here I come!!!!

Oh wait.......

 

[organerito]

Dear Apple,
Make a FaceTime App... Say it's an app for all Apple devices and computers! Go around AT&T's new share plan rule.

Apple is AT&T 's bitch.
Just forget about it.

 

[KdParker]

are there any android phones that come with skype preloaded on AT&T. now that microsoft owns Skype and will start to preload it in windows phone will AT&T block that.

No need since any one with a Windows phone will not have an unlimited data plan.

 

[macUser2007]

LOL! In other words, "We [AT&T] are not stopping you from downloading the app, we are only preventing you from using it as intended."

In the meantime, the FCC is so busy guarding our eyes from naked breasts (but not from seeing heads sliced in half) during Prime Time, that it has no time to focus on real issues, such as Net Neutrality.

 

[Quad 68030]

Go here people. Open Internet (Net Neutrality)

http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

 

[yeah]

Last I checked, FaceTime wasn't a "preinstalled app" in and of itself, but rather an integral part of the phone app, which is necessary for the iPhone to function as a phone.

It is only an app on the iPad because it doesn't make phone calls and doesn't have a phone app.

AT&T is dancing around the issue. If everyone refused to use their "shared data plan" then they would have to capitulate.

Those "share" plans from AT$T and Veriz$n are only good for families, not individuals. I mean, Verizon charges $80 for unlimited talk/text and 300 MB, that's it! No one's moving to those unless they are in a family.

 

[doelcm82]

Giving the benefit of the doubt - I think you misunderstand the point. Besides, spurious emissions in a licensed band are illegal in order to protect the licensed user.

ATT operates a wireless network because they are licensed to do so by the FCC acting on behalf of the public. We, the people, "own" the RF spectrum, the FCC regulates it for our benefit. (This is why you can comment on a TV or radio station's renewal application stating that they have not operated in the public interest - it probably won't affect the renewal but you are entitled to comment)

At its root, ATT operates this wireless network at our pleasure. If they choose not to play by the rules the FCC has laid down they are free to sell their infrastructure to another or cease operating such a network.

OUR problem is that the FCC has only recently begun to enforce neutrality and open access regulations for OUR benefit and that ATT believes it may flaunt those regulations without repercussion. Verizon recently learned the FCC was serious about the open access provisions that encumber the 700 MHz license where they have deployed LTE. Perhaps the FCC can remind ATT it is serious about neutrality when using PUBLIC resources for financial benefit.

If AT&T (or Verizon) isn't playing by the FCC's rules, they should be censured.

I'm just not prepared to play the victim, just because a feature that wasn't available a few years ago is now available at an increased cost. If I want to avoid the cost, I simply have to live without that feature the way I lived without it a few years ago. Or, I have alternative ways to get similar features.

I don't know if the FCC wants to get involved in fighting for your right to use Apple™ FaceTime™ over 3G when Skype™ is available.

 

[tbrinkma]

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if someone already pointed this out...

What I find interesting, is that the only plan they allow FaceTime on, is the one with unlimited calling. So FaceTime won't compete with their income on phone call usage.

They do not allow FaceTime on ANY plan that you can be charged for voice overages.

That's actually a good point.

 

[Le Big Mac]

FaceTime uses data for which AT&T is paid. The more you use, the more you pay.What's the problem?

The problem is that AT&T wants to sell you data and then keep you from using it as you want.

I have no quarrel with the "data is data" argument, but my point is that if someone succeeds on the net neutrality argument because only some plans can use Facetime then AT&T will take the benefit away for everyone.

The issue should not be "only some plans can use facetime", which is not a net neutrality issue any more than the fact that some plans can use tethering.

The issue instead is whether AT&T can block facetime data but not videochat data of other apps. But that issue already exists and has existed since the introduction of facetime.

 

[jlblodgett]

I like it how they say they don't have enough space on the network to accommodate everyone who would use FaceTime.....


.......unless everyone who wants to use FaceTime agrees to pay $35 a month for a new shared plan.


In that case, there'd be PLENTY of network space for FaceTime.


Ridiculous.

 

[nsayer]

yeah, but there are lots of shark attacks in Australia. i'm scared of sharks.

Since when does Australia use Euros?

Big hint: Austria != Australia

 

[directvfan]

This is truly BS

So what makes facetime any Different from Skype or Oovoo. These apps perform the same function and is allowed to operate freely on AT&T's network. Help me understand this because they way im seeing it is that ohhhh these are not apple apps for they can play free but any apple app or pre-installed function has to pay to play......

 

[Technarchy]

I've never seen a more condescending press release. I wasn't even mad before, but now I'm pretty hot.

That's an accurate description. It's reaks with the stench of an old world oligarch saying "let them eat cake".

The language and tone are just loaded with blatant disdain for customers.

 

[dcorban]

I like it how they say they don't have enough space on the network to accommodate everyone who would use FaceTime.....


.......unless everyone who wants to use FaceTime agrees to pay $35 a month for a new shared plan.


In that case, there'd be PLENTY of network space for FaceTime.


Ridiculous.

This is not a strong argument. If, somehow, the majority of users did pay the extra for the facetime plan, AT&T may have to resort to other measures to keep the data usage down.

You are looking at it from the perspective of "they are charging what the market can bear". It could just as easily be "they are charging extra as a disincentive for people to use facetime".

I may accept payment of $1000 from someone who wants to punch me in the nuts. That doesn't mean I want everyone to punch me in the nuts, even at $1000 a pop.

 

[roland.g]

People are REALLY missing the point here.

FaceTime over 3G would be spotty at best on an iPhone 4. It may be marginally better on a 4S with "4G". However to truly get reliable FaceTime quality, you need LTE. And AT&T doesn't have LTE in enough markets.

I paid an ETF (early termination fee) to leave T-Mobile in 2007 to get an iPhone. And I'll pay one again in 2012 to get LTE on Verizon instead of getting poor data speeds on AT&T. It's unfortunate, but I'd rather pay the equivalent of one month of service to leave, than be subjected to their "rules" and lack of LTE coverage.

I've paid over $9,000 in monthly charges to AT&T since joining and they've subsidized 3 phones or $1,200. But their lack of preparedness means this gravy train is leaving the wagon.