Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

Do they have broadband Internet connectivity (other than via satellite)? If so, then get the Network Extender. Instant Verizon coverage in their house whenever you are there.

Now, AT&T has a Microcell, which over the course of almost two years gave us nothing but problems. But Verizon's Network Extender works flawlessly, and has served us just fine since a week after the 4S was introduced (and we switched).
 
So.... AT&T,

What's next?

Want to count our iMessages texts towards our text limit?

Use of the Youtube app will be only for shared data plans as well?

Wait wait, don't get any ideas!!! :mad:
 
Disappointing...for sure

I've been a loyal AT&T customer for probably over 20 years. When I see them pull this s....stuff on their customers...:eek:

We don't have iPhones yet, but when we decide to make that move, we will definitely be shopping around.
 
I don't know about the people on this forum but nobody that I know uses FaceTime right now. Absolutely nobody. Lol. Just a little perspective from my world.
 
Imagine a highway with 2 lanes and 100 cars on it driving 55mph. Traffic should run fairly well. Now triple the amount of cars on the same road and traffic is going to get congested and the speed overall is going to drop significantly. If you widen the same road by 1 or 2 lanes, those 300 cars should be able to drive 55mph again and be fine. This is the same principle of the way the networks work.

Imagine if every teenage girl with an unlimited data plan in a 10 mile radius were able to FaceTime over the cellular network. Absent a plan with some restrictions on data allowance that 2 lane road would turn into a 1 lane road with a pilot car.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I see this as a necessary move by AT&T.
 
So all Apple has to do is require it to be downloaded from the App store and this all goes away!? Come on Apple - make it a download application like FaceTime on the Mac!!!


- Joe
 
So all Apple has to do is require it to be downloaded from the App store and this all goes away!? Come on Apple - make it a download application like FaceTime on the Mac!!!


- Joe

No, all Apple has to do is remove the ability for carriers to enable/disable the feature. They're essentially responsible for it.
 
No, all Apple has to do is remove the ability for carriers to enable/disable the feature. They're essentially responsible for it.

True. You would think that Apple's track record of doing whatever necessary to make sure the user experience is it's best would mean that Apple would not let this happen. This was one of my top 3 favorite features of iOS6... Until recently. :-(
 
This is world wide, not just in the states. My guess is that it is part of the contract with carriers.

In most countries outside of the US this usually is not a problem. Here in Asia most telecom providers do not nickel and dime you the way AT&T does. You get a Data plan with either a certain amount of Megabytes,Gigabytes or unlimited and they do not charge you extra for tethering,switching sim card to another device,using iChat or some other BS.

AT&T sucks period. Screw AT&T and their stupid ways that they nickel and dime their customers. BGR editor pretty much handed it to them the other day and he is right about what he said about AT&T
 
I posted this in another thread not long ago, but it bears repeating again in this thread.



^^^That is total BS!

From my other post earlier...

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

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

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

While I hate AT&T for this and their stupid technicalities they think make it "okay" for them to do, your analogy actually isn't quite accurate. It's not like an X number of lane highway at all. If anything, it's more like a water line; there's a reason why your internet connection is commonly referred to as a "pipe."

Nearly everyone I'm sure has experienced the frustratingly annoying phenomenon of trying to take a shower while the clothes washer is going and not have any water pressure. Or while you're showering, someone else turns on a sink or flushes a toilet and your pressure/temperature changes and you pretty much have to stop showering until things go back to normal. This is because water pipes can only handle so much water at any given moment and can only handle push a certain amount of water through at a time without bursting the pipes. Buildings with a poor plumbing infrastructure due to old/shoddy construction or location (being on the outskirts and far away from the main pump has an effect).

Similarly, your internet connection can only handle pushing so many bits at a time. The more faucets that are turned on (devices connected to the internet) and using some pressure (bandwidth), the less pressure there is for everyone else.

Now imagine if you had a water system with some sort of priority capability where the first person to turn on their shower gets all the pressure, that would make things worse; if they liked taking 3 hour showers, everyone else would suffer for extended periods. Upgrading your plumbing with bigger pipes and pumps can be expensive and time consuming. People like to avoid doing this for as long as they can and try to just live with the problem, or find ways of deterring the water abusers.

Some try to charge for the amount of water used, so if you want to use all your water in one shower you can but then you have to pay more money for each additional shower after that. Others put pressure limiters on individuals' pipelines so they can decrease your pressure anytime they feel you're using too much water.

I hate when internet companies try to impose these sorts of limitations as it's not in my best interest as a customer, even when I understand the technical reasons behind their decisions. But I try to deal with it and move on because that's that and isn't likely to change anytime soon (rather than reinvesting into their infrastructure and aggressively building out their pipes to accommodate more bandwidth, they're just concerned about making more money than they have before every 3 months, can't even sit still for a year while they get healthy).

The major problem for me comes when they try to tell you what you can and can't use the water for. You can have a shower in one apartment but you're not allowed to pump that water next door and shower there. You can wash your clothes but you can't wash your car. Who freaking cares what I'm using the water for if I'm paying you for the water? What does it matter to you, especially if you have the water usage discouragement tactics in place mentioned above?

Saying that that irks me would be an understatement.

T-Mobile's new $20 unlimited plans are SOOO tempting. If they get the new iPhone this fall, I'm switching. Easy as that.



Anyway, sorry for the long post but I couldn't let that broken analogy get so many up votes without a correction in the thread.
 
AT&T: "The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones. Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps."
Ok, but the application "availability" is not what is being restricted. The application is available, but network traffic to/from that application is being selectively blocked whereas similar traffic from competing applications is not blocked. Isn't that exactly what net neutrality rules prohibit?

AT&T: "AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems."
Ok, so as soon as I get iOS 6.01 as an OTA update, I have "downloaded" the application and now it will be allowed. Right? Right??

Seems like pretty weak arguments by AT&T here, IMO. But then the FCC is pretty weak too, so a weak argument may be all they need. :rolleyes:
 
This whole US cellular market of data usage is a bunch of bunk. 1GB, 3GB or unlimited, it's all irrelevant. The quantity of data a person uses has no affect on the network of AT&T, Verizon, et al. What matters and affects the network and it's users is the number of people on the network at a given time, in a given area and how many it can support. That's where the slow downs occur and congestion takes over. This is true whether a person uses 1MB or 10GB; it's all the same.

Huh? No fan of AT&T here, or their FaceTime restriction. But, of course the quantity matters. That is the measure of how much you use the network and is no different than adding users. One user consuming 10GB is the same as ten consuming 1GB. A person using 1MB (in your example) is going to be on for a minute, and then gone as a user or cause of traffic. A person using 10 times the data will be on, as a contributor to the traffic congestion, 10 times as long (or as much). By comparison, if users are driven constantly to Wi-Fi to make sure they don't exceed their plan's limits, they are not a member of the traffic congestion at those times. Data quantity directly impacts the number of users on the network at any time and how frequently they can revisit.

Essentially, by your argument, if a carrier like AT&T added no additional subscribers and simply quadrupled everyone's data limit, there would be no hit on network capacity or reliability because you say it is about number of users and not their data quantity. Simply incorrect.
 
What I find most amazing is the apparent ambivalence or ignorance of how this will be perceived by the existing customer base. If you anticipate an unsustainable amount of new data traffic on your network that will impact “user experience” then make that your primary communication. Customers would understand and accept a restriction for all while AT&T ensures that network capacity is sufficient. Instead AT&T has chosen to position FaceTime as a premium service available only to users willing to pay more for it by switching to new plans that are not in their best interests. Customers smell BS and the pre-loaded app argument is just that.

Verizon can expect my business in September when I likely fire AT&T.
 
so you can use whatever other software you want (Skype, etc) over cellular but somehow because Facetime is built in and not a downloaded app, it isn't included in that? How is that fair or reasonable?
 
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've never been anywhere that didn't have some type of Verizon coverage. I even get faster speeds/latency with their LTE in the fields on North Western Virginia than my cable outside of DC provides (Comcast 24/4).
 
Other Considerations

Could it be that the Feds may have whispered in AT&T's ear with regards to mobile, real-time video chat -- can't allow the Occupy Wall Street protesters to have such a tool in their arsenal?

More to the point -- one of the driving issues for the wireless carriers, as they seek to expand their available bandwidth in various markets, is that local and regional governmental authorities often play hard ball with regards to approval process required for the building out/placement of additional cell towers and nodes, dragging out the issuance of building permits for months, if not sometime years. Second, there is only so many places that can physically support the wireless carrier infrastructure in a given area, sometimes severely limited the choices/options available to the wireless carriers as the seek to expand. Third, physics tells us that there is only so much authorized/licensed frequency space available -- in some areas/nodes, likely that the wireless carriers have run into this particular fact/brick wall of the scientific world.

Niffy
 
So glad I ditched AT&T for Straight Talk. I understand it's the same network, but I'm just glad I'm not lining AT&T's pockets still. These "too big to fail" companies need to wake up.

----------



I use it when chatting with friends over seas. I like it a lot over Skype.

But my take on it is that they shouldn't even offer it over cellular. Any video chat should require Wifi for the sake of video and audio quality.

I've tried the sweet honey of Straight Talk. They throttle you after 15 MB per day, then reset the following day. I talked to them about this and it's actually AT&T's policy (S.T. uses their network, therefore abides by their terms). They'll be happy to reset you that day if you call in... Needless to say, I did not plan on calling in every time I sending 5 photos in an email.. or listen to an hour of spotify.., etc..
 
Apple should make FaceTime a dedicated app on the App Store and negate every reason AT&T just made for disabling it on non-Share customers.
 
Props to AT&T. No one should be using heaving video streaming on wireless connections anyway. Just use your home internet. Problem solved.

Your comment makes no sense. Aren't they all "wireless" connection? And what is heaving video streaming? FaceTime doesn't even use much data. AT&T is only doing this to get the unlimited users to relinquish their grandfathered plans. Just like they did with tethering. You must work for AT&T. That, or you're not very bright.
 
The 'technicality' is technically BS

Facetime is NOT a downloadable app. It is preloaded on the phone as part of iOS. It cannot be purchased or downloaded separately. Their 'argument' is as bad as their service.
 
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.

Excellent point. Kind of like they did once iMessage came out. Once iMessage came out, they did away with tiered SMS plans and went to unlimited only, so that iMessage would not compete with SMS.

Every minute of FaceTime is one minute of voice not counting against their monthly allotment. Although the customer IS paying for the data, which is NOT unlimited.......I don't know.......the whole thing just stinks.....
 
Here's the way I see it. AT&T is writing checks it can't afford to cash. They sell all these high GB plans, then fool people into thinking that they are actually encouraging people to use the data ("Come to our network", "Share your data!!" etc) but their networks wouldn't be able to handle all the bandwidth if people did. So they limit stuff... no tethering, no face-time, they throttle you if you get too high... all that crap to actually discourage people from using it all. yet, they don't make it feasible to go to a lower plan. I think now they have a 300MB, then it jumps up to 3GB "for only $10 more". when I'm really only going to use about 1GB. Reminds me of the Movie Theater. Med drink, $5 "but for 50¢ more, you can get this super duper jumbo cup!" which I'm never going to finish anyway.
 
I'm on Verizon, and don't really use facetime, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

But still, I object to the breach of net neutrality, once they start inspecting and blocking one type of data, it's a very slippery slope until they start interfering with other data.

Quick question for more network savvy people, does apple really have to give them the ability to block facetime traffic, or could they do so simply by blocking the ports used by facetime on unlimited accounts. In other words does apple have to give them a "block facetime over 3G switch", or can they do so without apple's help?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.