Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T to Face Net Neutrality Complaint Regarding FaceTime Over Cellular Limitation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While we are used to telco companies setting the rules which are often arbitrary and unfriendly to customers, what we have here is a more serious case of selling a product (bandwidth) and then hobbling it so we cannot use what we are paying for. It's like selling a car and fixing it so it won't go ore than 20 miles at a time. We pay for the bandwidth and if we want to blow it all in a one hour HD video call, that's up to us. The issue is more basic than this case presents. It's one of making it impossible for a customer to use the produce he/she has purchased.
This is the best I can do, so I'll use my post again.
What I sent AT&T after they reached out to me because I complained to the FCC:
I emailed you yesterday, did it not go through? Regardless, I'm trying to figure out how this does not break with the principles of net neutrality? From everything I have gathered thus far, your plan is to block my access to and usage of specific data that is both legal and reasonable--unless I choose to pay more for less data on a different plan. I do not pay AT&T for specific content, I pay for access to that content. As a wireless provider, your responsibility is to provide access to data in exchange for a fee; by forcing me into a plan with less data for a higher price, is inherently forcing me to pay more for a service that sends and receives data packets just as Skype, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook and other apps do. A bit is a bit is a bit. To differentiate between them and charge more (inherent in the forced plan migration) for one set of 1's and 0's as opposed to any other set of 1's and 0's is a breach of net neutrality. I pay for the 1's and 0's, not what they translate to. But lets take a step back for a moment and look at your actions in a different industry:
Say my car is in the shop, and my only option is to use a taxi service. On Monday, I call them up ask them to take me to the grocery store, so they come and pick me up in a Toyota Prius. That's cool, I don't mind being seen in one--they save the environment and what not. Tuesday comes around, and I call the taxi service, here's the conversation I have:
Me: Hey, I'm the guy you took to the grocery store yesterday, could you pick me up? I need a ride today.
Taxi service: Oh, well great to hear from you! Sure we'd love to do that--we'll send one of our taxis right on over! Where are you going to?
Me: To the airport.
Taxi service: You're aware that will cost more money, right?
Me: That makes sense--I figured having the taxi take me farther would cost me a little bit more.
Taxi service: No sir, apparently you don't understand. It will cost more because you have to take a different vehicle to go to the airport.
Me: Why?
Taxi service: Oh, well typically, people going to the airport don't go by themselves, so typically you need the extra seating room, and typically people going to the airport need more room for their luggage, and the Lincoln TownCar has a bigger trunk than the Prius.
Me: Oh, that's not necessary, I'm going by myself and only taking a small carry-on.
Taxi service: You don't understand, if you're going to the airport, you have to take the Lincoln TownCar.
Me: But I don't need it, the Prius will do just fine. Is it really necessary for me to take the TownCar?
Taxi service: Yes.
Me: But I don't need it, and since this is a technicality on your part, can you just charge me the regular Prius rate?
Taxi service: I'm sorry I can't provide you the Prius service rate if you are going to use the TownCar.
Me: But I don't need the TownCar...?
Taxi service: Oh, so you're not going to the airport, then?
Me: No, I'm still going to the airport, I just don't need the TownCar.
Taxi service: Well, if you're going to the airport, then you need the TownCar.
You see, I understand that I have to pay to use services, and if I use more of them, I should have to pay more. What doesn't make sense is why I should have to pay an additional fee for something simply because of the way I'm using it. If I don't need all the seating and trunk space to go to the airport, I shouldn't have to pay more for it when their is a simpler, more affordable alternative available to me. But say I need to go with a friend to the home improvement store, and I need a saw horse; I call up the taxi service and pay for the TownCar (you won't believe how big the trunks are). I needed the space, and operating a TownCar is more expensive than a Prius so it will most likely cost more to use. It would be silly for a taxi to charge me more based solely on where I was going to and not on how long it took me to get to my destination.
Back to the real world. You are implementing a policy of data discrimination and taking an emphatic position against the principles of net neutrality. Using "legalese" to wiggle your way out of a situation to justify forcing customers to purchase an inferior product at a higher price is inexcusable. Justifying the decision by saying that you are forcing people to use the Mobile Share Plan in order to "[monitor] the impact the upgrade to this popular preloaded app has on our mobile broadband network, and customers, too, will be in a learning mode as to exactly how much data FaceTime consumes on those usage-based plans," is a cop-out. Limiting this feature to this group of customers for monitoring implies that it will be a small user-base. We both know that it will be a small user-base because people don't want the plan, because they don't want to pay for features they don't need, in order to to get less data.
Your slogan is "Rethink possible," and your policies lead me to believe that less is possible.
~JuBe
P.S. Here's a deleted scene:
Me: I don't understand why I need to pay for the TownCar to go to the airport.
Taxi service: Sir, if I can be honest with you--and this stays between you and me, but if we don't require you to use the Lincoln TownCar to get to the airport, then people would never use the TownCar service.
Me: So by cutting options, you can force people into plans that make you more money?
Taxi service: Bingo! Oh--the higher-ups are coming! (in a scripted voice) Oh, no sir! The Lincoln TownCar really will serve your needs better!
What I sent AT&T after they reached out to me because I complained to the FCC:
I emailed you yesterday, did it not go through? Regardless, I'm trying to figure out how this does not break with the principles of net neutrality? From everything I have gathered thus far, your plan is to block my access to and usage of specific data that is both legal and reasonable--unless I choose to pay more for less data on a different plan. I do not pay AT&T for specific content, I pay for access to that content. As a wireless provider, your responsibility is to provide access to data in exchange for a fee; by forcing me into a plan with less data for a higher price, is inherently forcing me to pay more for a service that sends and receives data packets just as Skype, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook and other apps do. A bit is a bit is a bit. To differentiate between them and charge more (inherent in the forced plan migration) for one set of 1's and 0's as opposed to any other set of 1's and 0's is a breach of net neutrality. I pay for the 1's and 0's, not what they translate to. But lets take a step back for a moment and look at your actions in a different industry:
Say my car is in the shop, and my only option is to use a taxi service. On Monday, I call them up ask them to take me to the grocery store, so they come and pick me up in a Toyota Prius. That's cool, I don't mind being seen in one--they save the environment and what not. Tuesday comes around, and I call the taxi service, here's the conversation I have:
Me: Hey, I'm the guy you took to the grocery store yesterday, could you pick me up? I need a ride today.
Taxi service: Oh, well great to hear from you! Sure we'd love to do that--we'll send one of our taxis right on over! Where are you going to?
Me: To the airport.
Taxi service: You're aware that will cost more money, right?
Me: That makes sense--I figured having the taxi take me farther would cost me a little bit more.
Taxi service: No sir, apparently you don't understand. It will cost more because you have to take a different vehicle to go to the airport.
Me: Why?
Taxi service: Oh, well typically, people going to the airport don't go by themselves, so typically you need the extra seating room, and typically people going to the airport need more room for their luggage, and the Lincoln TownCar has a bigger trunk than the Prius.
Me: Oh, that's not necessary, I'm going by myself and only taking a small carry-on.
Taxi service: You don't understand, if you're going to the airport, you have to take the Lincoln TownCar.
Me: But I don't need it, the Prius will do just fine. Is it really necessary for me to take the TownCar?
Taxi service: Yes.
Me: But I don't need it, and since this is a technicality on your part, can you just charge me the regular Prius rate?
Taxi service: I'm sorry I can't provide you the Prius service rate if you are going to use the TownCar.
Me: But I don't need the TownCar...?
Taxi service: Oh, so you're not going to the airport, then?
Me: No, I'm still going to the airport, I just don't need the TownCar.
Taxi service: Well, if you're going to the airport, then you need the TownCar.
You see, I understand that I have to pay to use services, and if I use more of them, I should have to pay more. What doesn't make sense is why I should have to pay an additional fee for something simply because of the way I'm using it. If I don't need all the seating and trunk space to go to the airport, I shouldn't have to pay more for it when their is a simpler, more affordable alternative available to me. But say I need to go with a friend to the home improvement store, and I need a saw horse; I call up the taxi service and pay for the TownCar (you won't believe how big the trunks are). I needed the space, and operating a TownCar is more expensive than a Prius so it will most likely cost more to use. It would be silly for a taxi to charge me more based solely on where I was going to and not on how long it took me to get to my destination.
Back to the real world. You are implementing a policy of data discrimination and taking an emphatic position against the principles of net neutrality. Using "legalese" to wiggle your way out of a situation to justify forcing customers to purchase an inferior product at a higher price is inexcusable. Justifying the decision by saying that you are forcing people to use the Mobile Share Plan in order to "[monitor] the impact the upgrade to this popular preloaded app has on our mobile broadband network, and customers, too, will be in a learning mode as to exactly how much data FaceTime consumes on those usage-based plans," is a cop-out. Limiting this feature to this group of customers for monitoring implies that it will be a small user-base. We both know that it will be a small user-base because people don't want the plan, because they don't want to pay for features they don't need, in order to to get less data.
Your slogan is "Rethink possible," and your policies lead me to believe that less is possible.
~JuBe
P.S. Here's a deleted scene:
Me: I don't understand why I need to pay for the TownCar to go to the airport.
Taxi service: Sir, if I can be honest with you--and this stays between you and me, but if we don't require you to use the Lincoln TownCar to get to the airport, then people would never use the TownCar service.
Me: So by cutting options, you can force people into plans that make you more money?
Taxi service: Bingo! Oh--the higher-ups are coming! (in a scripted voice) Oh, no sir! The Lincoln TownCar really will serve your needs better!
I have been pointing out this issue generally for years.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15730258/
They may simply increase the data plan charge and give text and voice free to offset.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15730258/
They may simply increase the data plan charge and give text and voice free to offset.
I'm not on an unlimited plan so it doesn't really affect me. It is, however, very evident that AT&T is trying about everything they can to force people off plans that they sold to them. If someone is on a grandfathered unlimited plan, it means that they have been with you for a while. You would think a company would want to reward loyal customers, not punish them...
I've never seen a company who spearheaded one of the most transformational products of all-time (without even seeing it) make as many missteps in supporting the customers who actually use their product. It's like, they don't care about you after you've already purchased the product, as long as you keep buying from them.
This is just another example of how the free market totally F-ks people and these legal options for federal action are actually a lifeline for people who can't afford to be put in uncomfortable financial situations.
This is just another example of how the free market totally F-ks people and these legal options for federal action are actually a lifeline for people who can't afford to be put in uncomfortable financial situations.
I don't expect AT&T to allow people on unlimited plans to be able to to do Facetime over 3G. And I don't think that's what this complaint is about. The uproar is over the metered plans being restricted. If you're on the 2GB data plan, then why the heck should AT&T care how you use that data? Aren't you paying for a certain amount of data and have an agreement in place for overages? It just doesn't make sense.
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.
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.
I am not using FaceTime either ... but I would like to use it. But it is pointless without using it over the cellular network. I would like it in situations where either I or my wife is traveling, meaning one of us is probably not in a wifi network. Sure, we can try to make things complicated and inform the other one through text message if currently on wifi (in the hotel or so) ... but that just limits the usefulness way too much
two sides to a story
I'm not backing AT&T up or anything... they're the only service provider that catches at my house...
It works both ways... trying imagine what our data speeds would be like if they did allow facetime over cellular? talk about bogging down the network it be pointless to facetime being all choppy and lagging...
be happy AT&T didn't do what verzion is doing... NO UNLIMITED plans with iPhone 5...
and on the plus at least we can talk and browse...
it's not much, but it is something...
I'm not backing AT&T up or anything... they're the only service provider that catches at my house...
It works both ways... trying imagine what our data speeds would be like if they did allow facetime over cellular? talk about bogging down the network it be pointless to facetime being all choppy and lagging...
be happy AT&T didn't do what verzion is doing... NO UNLIMITED plans with iPhone 5...
and on the plus at least we can talk and browse...
it's not much, but it is something...
A great many of you are too young to remember when ATT, WAS the telephone company. The ONLY phone company. They pulled this crap back then and it took deregulation to break them up and create competition. This is the reason you now have choices. Trust me when I tell you that they would have screwed you up one wall and down the other and often did back then.
READ THIS TO SEE HOW THEY WERE/ARE
http://economics.about.com/od/governmenttheeconomy/a/telecom.htm
This needs to happen again and then and only then, they will stop pulling this crap.
Yeah, and Apple must be so sick of AT&T because AT&T sells so many of those darn iPhones to customers, regardless of any limitation on features.
"Incredibly harmful to all of its users?" Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but I still agree a formal neutrality complaint is in order.
It's not just about FaceTime, is about the practice of treating data (content) differently, in an un-neutral way.
Maybe someone will jailbreak the iPhone 5 and make a tweak that changes Facetime so it looks like Skype (from a network perspective) when you use it, though AT&T will probably look at the traffic and see it's going to Apple's IP and not Skype's. Maybe they are not looking that closely, so we could run a Facetime proxy server at home that would relay the connection to Apple and AT&T couldn't see you were communicating with Apple.. and therefore have a sleuthly Facetime connection. 
WOW. Look who is talking. Apple is the biggest offender of this... Starting with the iphone. Following with the charging port. Apple is planning to make $100,000,000 in the first year from charging people for the updated plug...
Greed at its finest.
What a daft comment. It worked out just fine for the British, and I suspect it will work out fine for AT&T if you decide to declare your independence from them. Oh the tyranny!
Many people do. I use it on occasion, and would use it more often if I could while on cellular.
However, it's more of a principle thing for me and probably most of us who complain about this issue. It's completely wrong that AT&T is trying to do this, and it's almost unethical. Data usage is data usage - the company shouldn't regulate how we use our data. If we want to use it all up on FaceTime, that's our choice to make, not theirs.