Sidebar Sidebar
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

VenusianSky said:
What if? I don't live by what ifs; only by what is.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But I was trying to give an example of how absurd it is and to bring it into perspective. I pay for data...I should be able to use it how I want - be it playing a game online, using skype, browsing the internet, watching youtube, OR FaceTime.

BTW: Skype works just fine over cellular and I use it on my iP4. The problem is not everyone has the skype app installed, with a username setup, with me on their friends list. FaceTime already has the infrastructure in place.
 
urbanslaughter said:
But of course, you realize that's the entire foundation of our legal contract system? If people were able to get out of contracts because they wanted out, then we would no longer have reliable contracts. As someone else pointed out, my circumstances have changed during the years I've had this contract with them. AT&T certainly wouldn't let me change the rules, nor should we let them.
Click to expand...

Your contract was for 2 years, right? Yes.
Are you still within that 2-year term? No.
They've allowed you to keep that plan *beyond* the 2-year term, right? Yes.
Is there any legal or contractual requirement for them to *continue* to allow this? No.

If they stopped allowing 'grandfathered' unlimited plans (like Verizon did), they'd be fully within their rights.

That's how contracts work. A 2-year contract doesn't obligate *anyone* to do *anything* past the end of it's 2-year term.
 
and yet, some believe too much government is "evil". This is what happens when any organization, government or corporate, has too much power. This is a case in which objective third party regulation is much needed.

Checks and balances, checks and balances...
 
samson533 said:
I didn't say that AT&T it operating at a loss. I just said people wouldn't care if they did as long as they got the service they felt entitled to. AT&T is a public company and you can get access to their financial statements any time you want.

I'm sorry you got so worked up over all this you had to use your symbols *&#$&%*#. I didn't intent to use conjecture. I've just simply said that AT&T is free choose to offer whatever plans and services they want. If they are going to start offering Facetime (A NEW SERVICE THEY HAVEN'T PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED), then it can be on their terms.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. By offering FaceTime, AT&T does not incur any additional cost. Data is data. If I pay for data, what difference does it make what I use it for? If I use to much data I get throttled. That's how AT&T controls costs.
 
samson533 said:
First of all, consumers have zero right to tell a company how to use its profits.

Secondly, AT&T has zero obligation to the customer beyond what they already agreed to. In this case, AT&T never agreed to allow unlimited Facetime. As technology changes, so does company policy and the services it offers.

Thirdly, you have TONS more options than the iPhone on ATT and Verizon. Choose a different phone. Choose Sprint, T-Mobile, US Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Cricket. Or another option people tend to forget about, choose to not have a cell phone. Not 15 years ago, most of America and the world operated just fine without them. ATT (or any other carrier for that matter) has no "obligation" to provide that to you.

This is not "high school" economic theory. It's free economic theory. You have to either have gone to college or own a business to understand. Heaven forbid you do both.
Click to expand...

Right, they agreed to a contract with the customer for data, not how that data should be used. It has NOTHING to do with FaceTime. It's about them wanting more money and forcing customers into new service plans and new contracts before a customers current contract ends. They are trying to break their contract in an underhanded way. In fact, THEY are adding blocks to your usage that you paid for, that you are on contract for that says nothing about what apps can be used and the fact that FaceTime is now allowed over 3G, but isn't in your contract, should be held against the customer, but it is.
 
Codyak said:
That's actually not true, if you had unlimited with Verizon before you can keep it, but you don't get a subsidized phone price. I guess it comes down to, would you rather pay less and get throttled/not-existent LTE, or pay more and get the opposite?

The choice is all up to the user.
Click to expand...

Sorry I read it wrong... =) you are right...

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/1...tomers-get-5gb-on-lte-before-being-throttled/

Additionally, unlike Verizon, which is no longer offering unlimited data customers discounted pricing on new handsets -- even with a new, two-year contract -- AT&T will honor its subsidized pricing policies even for its customers with unlimited data plans.
 
macrumorschamp said:
And you can add that tag onto any car so his point is still valid. What is going on in his example is that the company made their price gouging decision to only place them on towncars instead of putting half on towncars and half on prius's.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can add those tags to any car, assuming you buy a new one for each car. That's the trick. The tags (in most cities that use them) are associated with *both* the car and the company. If the company sells the car, the tag is invalidated, even if it's bought by another taxi service. If the service needs to replace the car, they need to buy a new tag. (Oh, and the tags are usually for a short, but multi-year term.)

Given the example, the tags were likely on the Towncars because that's what they used *before* the Prius was released.

Frankly, it's a bad example, because it doesn't map well at all to the situation the OP was trying to analogize. The circumstances are sufficiently different, and the OP apparently doesn't understand how/why the airport-specific cars came into being.
 
Teathering

Why are they stopping at FaceTime, tethering is a bigger issue for me, tethering is a feature created by and operated by apple not the carrier, why do they have any right to ask for any money for this service.

If use data on my phone it free, if i decide to use my iPad via tethering i have to pay every month, absolute rubbish and completed immoral and probably illegal.

I personally couldn't careless about FaceTime but support all those who want it within there existing data bundle.

Offering a new 2 year service that gives it is not a compromise in my book.
 
JuBe said:
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!
Click to expand...

JuBe uses Wall of Text on AT&T. . .

It's not very effective.
 
Psychj0e said:
Awesome, so now we have communists posting on Macrumors.
Click to expand...

:confused: I have absolutely no idea how you got 'communists' from his post. It was *squarely* capitalist in nature.

... and apparently I was the 4th person to comment on it. Oh well.
 
0815 said:
I hope AT&T looses this one ... sick of AT&T screwing its customers by limiting the features (remember how long it took AT&T to support MMS, while the rest of the world was already enjoying it on the iPhone?)

I am just afraid that if they are forced to allow it, that they will only allow it if I give up my unlimited data plan and switch to one of the stupid shared plans.
Click to expand...

This currently how it is. The ones that are allowed to use FaceTime over cellular are those on shared data plans. Those of us grandfathered into unlimited data plans are the ones that are not allowed to use FaceTime over cellular. If AT&T loses, you can bet that we will be forced into shared data plans.
 
Karllake said:
Why are they stopping at FaceTime, tethering is a bigger issue for me, tethering is a feature created by and operated by apple not the carrier, why do they have any right to ask for any money for this service.

If use data on my phone it free, if i decide to use my iPad via tethering i have to pay every month, absolute rubbish and completed immoral and probably illegal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Data is data. Let me use it that way.

Now that Bluetooth is in the top-level settings in iOS6 the ONLY reason I need to Jailbreak is for PDANet. Let me tether and I'm all stock.
 
JerseyDoug said:
I think you are missing the point. By offering FaceTime, AT&T does not incur any additional cost. Data is data. If I pay for data, what difference does it make what I use it for? If I use to much data I get throttled. That's how AT&T controls costs.
Click to expand...

You completely miss the point. FaceTime replaces existing revenue (talk minutes). As the network improves voice over data becomes as good or better than talk - O great, change you unlimited talk to the bare minimum, save a ton of money, hurts AT&T's bottom line.
 
Legally, it's going to be a hard sell.

Net Neutrality rules state that they can't block a competing product or service. AT&T don't have a competing product, so they are allowed to limit an application or service.
 
So facetime is blocked on all AT&T data plans, not just the unlimited plan? I'm confused.
 
darkslide29 said:
No reason to go into name calling, you're not going to get anyone to take you seriously, it only takes away from your post.

If you read the entire article, you saw that AT&T for its part said "it was within its rights to block FaceTime over Cellular for customers on other plans because net neutrality regulations do not apply to apps that are preloaded on devices as seen with Apple's FaceTime app", so no they won't go on to do this with every app in the App Store, as you stated.

I agree with you that I should be able to use my data as I please, and find it odd that FaceTime is not OK, but Skype is OK. Data is data, I will rarely hit my 5gb max before being throttled, but why do they care how I get there? Oh well, we'll see how this plays out.
Click to expand...

You are right, so I edited that post. However, FaceTime is not a standalone application and can only be accessed from the phone dialing app. It is a part of the operating system and can not be removed simply by removing the application. This would be like saying that the voicemail feature should cost more simply because it's on the iPhone (NOT visual voicemail, but simply voicemail as it was on the original iPhone) and not also charge Android users the same.

Android also has video chat over 3G features through Google Talk which comes bundled with the phone and it is advertised on say the Google Nexus S phone amongst others. Why aren't they going through the same hoops? Exactly because AT&T is stuck with iPhone grandfathered users and even users on their current plans who they want off of them and see this as a sneaky way to go about it. They should just drop the plans, suck up ETF costs, and apologize for ending the agreement early or at all. All this other nonsense they are doing opens the door to do this on any application at all on any phone. One day they could say they want to charge you for the gamecenter data usage that occurs when you launch Angry Birds simply because so many people own that game and it causes a strain on their network (which they refuse to provide and prove occurs in the slightest).
 
macrumorschamp said:
Try to imagine that skype is free to video chat over cellular amongst dozens of others and what it would be like if they started asking you to get a new data plan just to use them. Try to imagine a world where you are told you can buy eggs, but not use them to bake a cake, only make an omelette. The fact is, they have ZERO proof to show there is a data increase that would even slightly put strain on their network and have lawsuits that they have been postponing and prolonging for years now where they refused to release that information.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120911-712699.html

I understand what you mean...

I just saw it as more users using more data = slower network...
 
VenusianSky said:
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.
Click to expand...

If iPhone users can't use a service or services, then people won't buy iPhone's from AT&T. Sales will drop and AT&T or Apple will have to do something about it.

So your quote doesn't hold much water.
 
tacobandit said:
You completely miss the point. FaceTime replaces existing revenue (talk minutes). As the network improves voice over data becomes as good or better than talk - O great, change you unlimited talk to the bare minimum, save a ton of money, hurts AT&T's bottom line.
Click to expand...

and iMSG, WhatsApp and FB doesnt hurt text messaging?

---

the name itself is silly "mobile sharing" indicates that u want to share your data with another device, what does it have to do with using facetime on your one and only device
 
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