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

AT&T’s FaceTime Blocking Hurts the Deaf?

Interesting that the Text Accessibility Plan wasn't open to deaf iPhone 4S owners. I'm sure if deaf people get "loud" enough they'll change their policy. FaceTiming would be the perfect medium for communicating over the air by sign language.
 
While it may be more useful to those who are deaf/HOH, the charges are the same for everyone. ATT already came up with a specific texting plan to accommodation those who are deaf. Last time I checked Apples facetime was not written into the ADA.
 
NathanMuir said:
In addition to what the other posters have noted, AT&T is not 'blocking' FaceTime.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Last I heard they're blocking FaceTime on the non-share plans. Seems strange that they won't allow FaceTime on the TAP plan given that deaf individuals can't normally communicate by auditory means alone (i.e. talk on the phone).
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
What do you mean? Last I heard they're blocking FaceTime on the non-share plans. Seems strange that they won't allow FaceTime on the TAP plan given that deaf individuals can't normally communicate by auditory means alone (i.e. talk on the phone).
Click to expand...


I'm sure they would if the price is right. The point is deaf and HOH people made the case (and rightfully so) that it was pointless to have to pay for a voice plan when they don't use it. Text messaging has been a god send because it cut out the need for a relay. Now the next cool thing comes out and it's automatically suppose to be given to them? Do we even know how much data facetime burns up over a 20min conversation?
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
What do you mean? Last I heard they're blocking FaceTime on the non-share plans. Seems strange that they won't allow FaceTime on the TAP plan given that deaf individuals can't normally communicate by auditory means alone (i.e. talk on the phone).
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in rehashing this argument. Try either of these threads (one, two) if you're looking for an argument.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Their problem I guess. They're limited to 3 GB of data and if they want to use up all of it by facetiming instead of texting they'll have to pay for the overage charges.
Click to expand...


Now you open a can of worms. Now you're discriminating because they require ASL to communicate. If they were able to talk on the phone they would be more than happy to, but they were born DEAF.
 
BoxerGT2.5 said:
Now you open a can of worms. Now you're discriminating because they require ASL to communicate. If they were able to talk on the phone they would be more than happy to, but they were born DEAF.
Click to expand...

Then your previous argument doesn't make much sense. Texting was a "next cool thing" at one point that allows them to communicate over the phone and now why should facetiming be any different?
 
That's an interesting angle against ATT. I have ATT and I only use one device, my iPhone. So in my opinion their attempt to muscle me into getting a shared data plan is kind of stupid. I don't use facetime ever. I would use it more but most of the time I communicate with just a few words via text or with a mass communication method like a private facebook event.

I'm all about anyone trying to knock ATT down a peg though. This duopoly between them and VZW is getting more ridiculous by the month.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
Then your previous argument doesn't make much sense. Texting was a "next cool thing" at one point that allows them to communicate over the phone and now why should facetiming be any different?
Click to expand...


Not when you consider the amount of data used in a single text vs. video calling. Not when someone is being forced to pay for a voice plan in order to get a text plan when they can't HEAR. Dropping the voice plan requirement and allowing them to purchase text and data only meets the reasonable accommodation clause under ADA.
 
Deaf people have a choice. There is Skype, google chat, yahoo messanger and other ways to video chat. It's not like they don't have alternatives.
 
BoxerGT2.5 said:
Not when someone is being forced to pay for a voice plan in order to get a text plan when they can't HEAR. Dropping the voice plan requirement and allowing them to purchase text and data only meets the reasonable accommodation clause under ADA.
Click to expand...

Fair enough argument. I can buy that.

My point of contention is still why not let us use data how we want, even if that means we use up our monthly limit faster. Obviously if they're not blocking FaceTime over cellular on the non-share plans the lack of this feature won't even be an issue for the TAP plan. It's plain obvious they're allowing FaceTime over cellular only on the mobile share plan in order to get people to switch over, despite having the same monthly cap (per individual).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back