AT&T to Face Net Neutrality Complaint Regarding FaceTime Over Cellular Limitation

[someone28624]

You whiners need to get over it. AT&T is a business and therefore it makes business decisions. When AT&T offered unlimited data, devices simply didn't use that much, they were slow, apps were slow, steaming movies and videos through cellular technology wasn't quite here yet, etc.

Now data consumption has gone through the roof and AT&T has to manage their costs. You are bunch of entitled babies that expect businesses to operate at a loss to give you the service you think you deserve. You are lucky they didn't strip away your unlimited data already. Businesses are NOT in business for the good of humanity. They are here to make a profit. They make a profit by providing goods or services at a price where we can FREELY choose to trade our hard earned dollars for that service. If you don't like the service they provide, STOP freely CHOOSING to trade your dollars for their service. It's as simple as that.

But you're totally missing the point because this doesn't just affect people on unlimited plans. I pay for 2gb a month and should be allowed to use those 2gb however I feel fit (within legal limits). If I go over, I pay more Why should AT&T dictate what apps I'm allowed to use with the bandwidth I'm buying from them? It's as insane as my power company dictating that I can only power lamps, not a microwave or the bank that holds my mortgage telling me what color I can paint my house.

 

[st1y]

True, however, there are a lot of LTE phone currently out there and 1 out of every 2 new phones being produced will have LTE or HSDPA+ and so on. If it doesn't come from iPhone usage, it will be from Android and so on. The fact is, that data usage would happen regardless. It's an inevitable outcome of technological progress and the slow growth of the infrastructure. Another fact remains that AT&T and other carriers have been sitting on their laurels cashing in on outdated technology for over a decade. We are close to a decade behind in cellular technology compared to those overseas. As a fact, my friend John lived in Japan and in 2001 he had a popular cellphone which had video chat over the cellular data network then which I witnessed him using with several people in the city. Even the UK was doing this with Sony Ericsson phones almost that long ago. We believe what we're told with no proof. AT&T even refused to divulge the facts on "more bars in more places" and several lawsuits ended in failure. For some reason, those facts were held back due to national security. Makes no sense, but there it is. If you can't provide evidence of the usage, how can you make these statements without being called on false advertising? I don't understand how they continue to get away with these things.

thankyu for the insight! you are def. right... we are way behind... as for me I live in Hawaii... in the middle of the ocean and we don't even have LTE here for AT&T... LoL... we're like 10 years, well maybe more like 5 behind of the rest of the country... we need more bars here!

 

[jctevere]

I look at it like this:

Since AT&T throttles my unlimited data plan (to almost unusable speeds) when I hit 3GB - then that measure is to prevent me from congesting networks and becoming wasteful and negatively impacting the network. At which point, FaceTime will also no longer work on such slow speeds.

HOWEVER, limiting FaceTime simply for the fact that I have an unlimited data plan is unjust. If they didn't limit my speeds and throttle me after 3GB - then okay, you're monitoring network usage. So either take away the throttling and you can take away FaceTime over 3G for unlimited plans, or cut the bullsht and let me use FaceTime over 3G...

Not to mention, that AT&T's voice service can be seen as a "pre-loaded" app on an iPhone. So the Net Neutrality laws do specify pre-loaded apps, since it talks about AT&T service...

 

[punchwalk]

If it's true that net neutrality doesn't apply to preloaded apps (which seems like nothing more than a convenient loophole for carriers), then this should be an open and shut case.

I think the upcharge for tethering is equally if not more crappy but people seem to have gotten over that.

 

[macconservative]

I never understood why companies would care how you would use the data that you pay for. I am in agreement with most on this board that I should be able to use the data I pay for however I want to whether that is tethering, streaming, or video call.

 

[peteypab2133]

So... you wanted Apple to use the old 30-pin connector for the rest of eternity?

How would YOU have updated to a new charging port standard?

You are missing my point. Apple did update it fine. But to hold out on allowing anyone to copy it for car chargers and home chargers holds them to basically a monopoly.

They are greedy. I am a GM at verizon, and we will only get the Apple ones in stock till further notice. It bothers me, and then when I hear people complaining about ATT not allowing something it makes me laugh. typical apple fan bois.

 

[samson533]

Wrong. The mobile share plan is NOT a better value because it discriminates deaf people who rely on texting and video conferencing. I don't use AT&T but on a different carrier using a FLAT fee per month for unlimited data without voice calls. And no, it's not Verizon. All audio calls are blocked and that policy cannot be lifted. I know because I'm part of that demographic and use this special plan for the hard of hearing and deaf.

I know about it because many deaf people who use AT&T are livid.

The only time I can use FaceTime (or Skype if need be) is via wifi, but that changes tomorrow if 3G works. Wifi does a better job of it, but 3G makes me leery on how it may stream live.

So, in that sense, keep in mind that each phone user has different needs. Deaf people require mobile devices to have texting and video capabilities, especially the latter if they need to sign visually.

Charging deaf people under a voice plan is VERY insulting and degrading. I'm surprised Apple did not get sued for Siri if a deaf person tried to use it unsuccessfully. That would've been a huge class action lawsuit right there.

Listen, I can appreciate people with disabilities needing different services. But it's not illegal for companies to provide a service that isn't suited for all people regardless of physical limitations.

AT&T is a telecommunications company. In most cases that means that people have to be able to hear, speak hold a device to their ears, have the mental capacity not only to interpret the sounds coming out of the device and then verbally respond but to be able to operate the device as well.

I think its great that new technology is out that allows deaf to video conference and sign. But it's impractical to force ALL companies in the communication space to provide that service the way you want it. Its great you found a company that will do it for you.

 

[samson533]

Now I have no problem calling you an idiot. It's the bureaucratic powers that give you the freedoms you have now in the USA. If you don't use them, you lose them. You don't give people, governments, or in this case, businesses absolute power in how to dictate usage. You take away the rights of the people by doing so. Without the ability to legally object to these changes, we have no other recourse if we are locked into a contract. Sure, once our contract ends, we can leave WITHOUT penalty, but at that point, will it matter? You would have gone two years without a feature people on the same network using a different smartphone were getting at no additional cost. Why do I have to pay more because I own an iPhone? Idiot.

----------



I am on an individual plan and I would absolutely pay more. What is wrong with my current plan that they can't enable the usage of FaceTime on this plan as opposed to their Shared Data plan with whom I have no one or any other devices to share my data with? It's bogus.

Read the Declaration of Independence buddy. Bureaucratic powers do NOT give rights and freedoms. Our country was founded on the idea that rights are unalienable and endowed by our creator . . . not bureaucrats. I'd call you an idiot, but it's not your fault. Public education is probably more likely the one to blame.

Haha, and NO I don't work at AT&T. I actually hate a lot of things about AT&T. Especially their phone customer service (dumbest people on the face of the earth!!!), but I stay there because I can't get the service I want (tethering, talk and surf, etc.) for the price I want anywhere else. I choose to stay there.

You must be on the 450 minutes. So changing to the mobile share would increase your bill by $20 (assuming you pay for texts and 3gb). But your minutes would then be unlimited and you get an extra gb.

You seem to be an "in-the-know" kind of guy. Were you unaware that Facetime wouldn't be allowed over cell networks on your iPhone before you signed your current contract?

I don't know why they wouldn't allow it on your plan. They could simply discontinue your plan for your next contract and force you to switch companies or adopt the mobile share. It makes sense to me trying to get rid of the unlimited plans. Do I think it'd be nice for them to allow it on your plan? Absolutely! But do I think they should be forced by government to do so? NO!!!

----------

You're jumping straight to "the end justifies the means". They are indeed charging for different types of 1's and 0's when they decided to say, "This plan gets FaceTime, but on this other plan we're going to block it because it's not in our interest". That's a violation of FCC net neutrality rules.

There is a much easier solution to AT&T's problem than running afoul of the FCC and generating a lot of customer hatred: charge more for unlimited plans. As I said before, AT&T has every right to set the price of bytes, and the FCC agrees with that.

I think there would be an absolutely ENORMOUS uproar if AT&T raised the price on their unlimited plans, especially compared to this thing with Facetime. In the grand scheme of things Facetime isn't that important to most iPhone users. I personally think its a pain in the butt.

----------

Yes, we should just STOP freely choosing to trade in our dollars... other than they sign you in to ridiculous 2 year contracts.

Unfair business practices are unfair. Even Teddy Roosevelt, who was a famous Republican fought hard against greedy, uncapitalistic, business practices like monopolies and collusion. Stop being a corporate apologist.

You FREELY choose to sign that contract because you valued the use of cellular technology (and the subsidized phone) more than the freedom to change carriers whenever you want.

HAHA are you part of Romney's 47%? Don't be a victim. No one forced you to do anything.

----------

They have already responded to the unlimited plans in a way that they say helps to keep their networks healthy (i.e. throttling). Recognizing that fact, you're left with the reality that there should be no reason that FaceTime cannot be possible. There is no reason to say that I can stream Netflix until I'm throttled and then to turn around and say I have to buy a different plan just so I can stream someone's face until I'm throttled. What AT&T is doing is discriminating against legal uses of data for the purpose of coercing customers into paying more for less data.

I think streaming Netflix and streaming Facetime are two totally different technologies. Netflix allows for buffering 10, 20, 30 minutes ahead of where you are viewing, then turns off the connection allowing you to watch video without a connection, then it will buffer again. This makes full use of the 3G bandwidth in short spurts and allows for varying data speeds.

Facetime on the other hand is a constant stream. It probably doesn't maximize 3G very efficiently and the connection has to remain on and fairly consistent.

I understand your throttling argument, but I think that people could be and are equally upset about that when they are paying for "unlimited" data.

 

[DJsteveSD]

I agree that it would not make sense for everyone. But I suspect that it is still a more valuable option since I am going to assume you haven't factored in the unlimited calling, unlimited text message, and now your mobile hotspot is included and not an additional charge which you could use to provide cell data to your iPad. But if you are trying to reduce your overall cost, then paying more doesn't make sense in your situation.

Again, AT&T should not have forced people to the mobile shared data plan for Facetime since I suspect that for many people the mobile shared plan would be an economic choice anyway.

actually I did, except for the unlimited calling, which I dont need considering I have over 4000 rollover minutes, I do have the unlimited text for $20. the AT&T rep and I calculated it out and came up with about $20 more a month. I do get a corporate discount applied to my calling plan AND data plan, if I switch to shared the discount will only apply to the $70 data plan.

 

[Cigsm]

The problem with a la carte cable is it would be quite a bit more expensive then pre-packaged deals.

Right now, Comcast pays about $6 per subscriber for ESPN, by including it in a package available in most homes & IF Comcast accepts other Disney owned channels (ABC Family, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, etc). Imagine the price if it was a la carte. Everything would be HBO prices & you'd have 10 channels for $150 a month.

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. We are going backwards not forward.

Did I forget to mention that I worked for ATT back then and I remember the BS they used to pull. I also jumped ship for a while to Pioneer Teletechnologies which was bought by MCI/Worldcom for a while.

Remember all the phone calls trying to get you to switch?

Yeah (sadly) I helped them do that.

Same BS. It was profits above all else then, and it is now.

How about providing decent service and not nickel and dimming people to death?

Take Cable:

There are millions of people who can't/won't pay $100 per month to watch the 10 channels they actually like.

If the cable companies figured out a way to charge $25 for those 10 channels, they would gain millions of customers overnight. But they won't?

There are ways to do things better.

 

[unplugme71]

Your quote holds about as much water as mine, probably less. You sound very confident with these predictions. Can you give me the upcoming lottery numbers?

----------



I hear you. However, I have realized that all US cell companies have something to complain about, so I find it not worth complaining at all if I am going to continue to use a cell phone.

Then I'm glad you are one of those people willing to buy products that need services you can't use.

 

[Windlasher]

The problem with a la carte cable is it would be quite a bit more expensive then pre-packaged deals.

Right now, Comcast pays about $6 per subscriber for ESPN, by including it in a package available in most homes & IF Comcast accepts other Disney owned channels (ABC Family, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, etc). Imagine the price if it was a la carte. Everything would be HBO prices & you'd have 10 channels for $150 a month.

But what if I only want HBO & ESPN? Then I would be paying $20.

Local channels should be free... that gives you another 15 or so channels.

I'm not saying you should buy 40 channels at $10 each. I'm saying you should have the option of a big package at $100 or 2 or 3 at $20 or $30.

EDIT: AND.. if you have to buy the box from apple, and you are already paying Comcast for internet, there is no additional charge to Comcast. I'm pretty much betting that apple would foot the bill to add the single channel subscription capability into the next apple TV.

WIN WIN For Comcast.

 

[Cigsm]

I guess if you only wanted 2 channels, then you've made out. I currently pay $50 a month from Comcast for about 200 channels (on a promotion - which I call every 6 months & they renew it). So for $30 a month more I get 198 more channels.

But what if I only want HBO & ESPN? Then I would be paying $20.

Local channels should be free... that gives you another 15 or so channels.

I'm not saying you should buy 40 channels at $10 each. I'm saying you should have the option of a big package at $100 or 2 or 3 at $20 or $30.

EDIT: AND.. if you have to buy the box from apple, and you are already paying Comcast for internet, there is no additional charge to Comcast. I'm pretty much betting that apple would foot the bill to add the single channel subscription capability into the next apple TV.

WIN WIN For Comcast.

 

[theelysium]

F at&t

AT&T needs to be sued for this. It's a scummy way to make people like me change my data plan to a less favorable one. It's unfair and rude. If AT&T never planned to honor unlimited data then they never should have offered it. It's AT&T's inability to properly configuring their towers that is the problem. Instead of fixing their inadequate back haul they want to punish their customers, because they think that's better then building their network correctly. Hey AT&T instead of wasting 16 Billion on advertisement how about you put that 16 billion towards your towers? Then we can use the service we pay for. Well I hope this lawsuit wakes them up.

 

[jjp007]

Yeah me too. A Heidi Terrell? I responded to her email, but she kept sending notices like I hadn't responded (or my messages were filtered into spam). I guess she told the FCC I hadn't responded because then they sent me a letter, so I finally called and left a message for her on Friday... haven't heard back.

I just filed a complaint as well. I shall see if I hear from Heidi as well.

 

[JuBe]

I just filed a complaint as well. I shall see if I hear from Heidi as well.

Yeah, I still haven't heard back.

 

[whiteshadoww]

This is crazy frustrating and I don't feel there is sufficient public backlash momentum against AT&T like in other casees when public pressure forced them to back down. What can we do to mount the pressure?

So unfair!

 

[Natasha ley]

The FCC has yet to comment on AT&T's decision to limit FaceTime over cellular connections.

 

[yeah]

lol

 

[who-dat]

So, any progress? I've filed a complaint w/the FCC as well as signed petitions w/groups such as freepress.
I wanna use my data as I see fit, now how att sees fit.

 

[who-dat]

Anybody?
Or did everyone switch to a mobile share plan......