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

[ravenvii]

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.

Um... overages?

Two things could happen:
a) parents get bill shock, stop the teenagers. Problem solved. Or
b) overages abound, AT$T get more $$$ to build better towers. Or just plain more $$$, the pigs.

This policy isn't necessary; it doesn't make sense.

 

[tdmac]

What I am hoping and what would be ideal is if Apple just forced AT&T's hand. Remember, iOS6 is not released yet. Just because the APP is integrated in the beta does not mean it has to be in the final product. AT&T basically said if it was a separate app then facetime over cellular is fine. These are the same people that were screwing Apple by trying to push Android phones over iPhones in stores, so this would be nice Apple payback.

They do the separate app thing with podcasts now. Wondering if this was also done this way due to net neutrality rules.

 

[GQB]

Apple sucks for handing AT&T the ability to disable FaceTime over cellular.

And Consolidated Trucking sucks for handing over the ability to forbid 18-wheelers on residential dirt roads to the State Highway Commission.

Same logic.

----------

Um... overages?

a) parents get bill shock, stop the teenagers. Problem solved. Or

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Written by a person without teenagers.
Simple case-in-point...
School has put all study, homework materials and inter-student communications on-line, and half of homework assignments now include making videos of the project. That's the reality of school today.
Cutting off internet access guarantees lower grades.
Try putting that into your simplistic solutions.

 

[twosee]

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.

You are correct, and in a perfect world (although unrealistic), they would just stop adding new customers until their network could handle all the bandwidth they are selling. If they were really concerned with user experience, this is what they would do until they upgrade. Seems to me it's just greed on ATT's part. I's like the Dr's office who keeps adding new patients and overbooking appointments when they cant handle what they have now. Just makes the wait take an extra hour or two.

 

[GQB]

solution: divorce content from pipe.
Split 'em up.
No more conflict of interest, and data is paid according to usage like any other commodity.

Problem solved.

 

[WordMasterRice]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Written by a person without teenagers.
Simple case-in-point...
School has put all study, homework materials and inter-student communications on-line, and half of homework assignments now include making videos of the project. That's the reality of school today.
Cutting off internet access guarantees lower grades.
Try putting that into your simplistic solutions.

Let me get this straight, you can't control what your children do so we all have to deal with ridiculous rate hikes to use something we already pay for? Definitely using some quality logic there.

 

[b_scott]

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.

yeah, I thought of that too. Good idea.

 

[JAT]

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.

Um, the two analogies are essentially the same, and as such, both work just fine. I tend to find fault with most of the analogies given here at MR, but both of these work for me. You both made different comments/extrapolations about them, but not contradictory.

Similar features:
Absolute maximum "width" is fixed number
Number of users variable
Amount of usage variable by both time and user
Speed dependent on the interaction of those numbers

 

[Gasu E.]

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.
.

You are missing the whole point of this bandwidth thing. In your highway analogy, you need to extend it so that some people are driving passenger cars and some are driving 18 wheelers.

 

[palmerc2]

Right now I pay $130 a month for unlimited talk, text and data. In 5 years from now we might all be paying $200 a month for 2,000 minutes, unlimited texts, and 1GB Data (highest option available). I wouldn't be surprised if it does happen.

I read one person who wrote that the Big 3 (Apple, Google and Samsung) should just start their own LTE Network, that actually seems kinda reasonable as all 3 device makers all have Smart Phones and Tablets that currently use one of the networks. This seems (in my eyes) to be a great option. If it doesn't happen soon, it'll be too late. The carriers will get too greedy and say "these smartphones are taking up too much data!!!"

AT&T says it takes them a while to put up a tower in San Francisco because of permit / land issues, when Apple has retail stores and they could (possibly) build a tower within the building. Don't quote me on that as I'm not a pro when it comes to this subject - just thinking, that's all.

 

[faroZ06]

Props to AT&T. No one should be using heaving video streaming on wireless connections anyway. Just use your home internet. Problem solved.

I agree with this, but as a matter of principle, cell companies should see all data as equal. Even worse, everyone charges $30/month or something for SMS, which is barely any data.

----------

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Written by a person without teenagers.
Simple case-in-point...
School has put all study, homework materials and inter-student communications on-line, and half of homework assignments now include making videos of the project. That's the reality of school today.
Cutting off internet access guarantees lower grades.
Try putting that into your simplistic solutions.

You're sounding like the people in ads for 4G. Do your teenage children need this data wherever they go? There are open wifi networks in many places, probably including your own home. Being a teenager, I have the best perspective, and I hardly ever need to use the 4G on my iPhone unless it's just the automatic receiving of messages while it's in my pocket.

 

[jsalda]

I agree with you on everything but this part

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.

By having tiered data plans, it keeps people off of that "highway." I currently have the 200MB data plan, I'm almost always on wi-fi. When I'm not on wi-fi, I can usually wait until I get there to do anything data intensive. However, I can tell you, if I was on an unlimited plan, I would use a whole lot more data than I currently use. Just because I had it, I would use it. Thus I would contribute to the "highway" congestion.

Do I agree with their outrageous prices and policies? Most certainly not. But I don't agree with your reasoning on this.

 

[faroZ06]

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.

Anyone who wants fast service and does not have unlimited data should be rooting for anything AT&T does to kick unlimited users out. They slow the network down. I don't want fast service, though.

 

[Dominicanyor]

Switch to sprint unlimited data.

 

[laff555]

Let's all say it together.....bullllll shiiiiiiiittttt

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

People use Facetime, that horribly pixelated video chat option which is far inferior to Skype?

 

[JohnDoe98]

People use Facetime, that horribly pixelated video chat option which is far inferior to Skype?

Yes, and sometimes it's good for audio only that has high quality AAC. So it's a nice VOIP alternative when the data bandwidth is sufficient.

 

[416049]

Switch to sprint unlimited *slow* data.

Fixed that for you

When I tried it, i thought it was pretty slow and since than the reviews are read weren't the greatest when it came to their speed.

 

[wizard]

Actually it does. Increasing costs will curtail usage.

This is such bs. They tell you they don't want to tax their network but it's ok I'd you pay them more. Like paying more money to use the service is going to ease the network congestion or use.


James

AT&T is caught between a rock and a hard place here. In many locations network expansion is extremely difficult so even if they could technically expand they can't. This is directly related to local regulation which is seldom fact based.

The next issue you have is that a given technology can only support so much bandwidth. Many people are of the mindset that AT&T restricts bandwidth artificially, I can't comment on artificial restrictions but there are physical limits that determine how much data can be pumped through an RF based system.

Now I'm not saying AT&Ts approach here is perfect, I'm just saying they need a solution that doesn't lead to an overly contested network. FaceTime over cell is one of those things that could be a big concern if it takes off with customers.

 

[slykens]

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 think the bitch is that there is no technical reason why Facetime over 3G is different from Skype over 3G. (For purposes of this discussion)

ATT's choice to treat that data differently violates the principal of neutrality, if not the letter of the regulations promulgated by the FCC.

I don't really use Facetime, however, allowing ATT to discriminate against this feature sets a precedent that may affect a feature I *do* want to use in the future. (In fact, these nonsense rules have affected me as I desired to have the hot spot feature available and would have paid $20 in addition to my plan to have it but it cannot be provisioned together with unlimited data - so I took this business to Verizon)

What if ATT prohibited cloud downloads from Apple via 3G for grandfathered unlimited users? Their interpretation of neutrality would make this a legitimate exercise of their discretion. How about email? How about Safari? VVM? iMessage? Those are all integrated applications as well. At what point does it become unacceptable?

(I have to admit I am surprised they haven't tried to monetize iMessage yet - it has the potential to significantly erode text profits)

 

[JohnDoe98]

AT&T is caught between a rock and a hard place here. In many locations network expansion is extremely difficult so even if they could technically expand they can't. This is directly related to local regulation which is seldom fact based.

The next issue you have is that a given technology can only support so much bandwidth. Many people are of the mindset that AT&T restricts bandwidth artificially, I can't comment on artificial restrictions but there are physical limits that determine how much data can be pumped through an RF based system.

Now I'm not saying AT&Ts approach here is perfect, I'm just saying they need a solution that doesn't lead to an overly contested network. FaceTime over cell is one of those things that could be a big concern if it takes off with customers.

The problem is if the network is actually constrained they could throttle it during and only during those congested times, then people wouldn't want to use FaceTime in those times anyway since the network performance is low. AT&T throttles across the board after a certain amount of usage which suggests the "congested" point is simply a talking point to justify their shady conduct.

 

[edk99]

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?

I really don't think it has to do to much with port blocking or things like that. Pretty sure it is a switch that the software checks to allow it or not just like it is doing it now.

This is the same thing for tethering. These options get set from your carriers account settings when you are connected to the network.

If the law states that ATT can deny you the use of preinstalled apps unless you have this data plan then it seems pretty straight forward and not a violation. ATT did not write the law.

 

[Tadros]

Petition

Can't we petition Apple to make the FaceTime app available in the app store? I'd sign it!

 

[jrawl004]

....

S. Derek Turner was right when he fired back at AT&T's response:

"AT&T is inventing words that are not in the FCC's rules in a weak attempt to justify its blocking of FaceTime. The FCC's rules are crystal clear: AT&T is not permitted to block voice or video telephony applications that compete with its own services. There is simply nothing in the rules that distinguishes 'preloaded' applications from 'downloaded' applications."

 

[twosee]

Apple is not likely to "force" AT&T to allow facetime, IMO. Lets assume they do, and at&t does allow it on all plans. Networks become more congested, slowing transfer speed, resulting in poor quality facetime/web browsing etc. This would make the Apple products appear worse. Bad publicity, forums filled with "Facetime/Apple sucks!". I think by Apple leaving things as they are, it keeps the pressure on AT&T to improve their networks. Remember, Apple's main concern, aside from profits, is user experience.