AT&T to Restrict or Charge for FaceTime Over 3G/4G in iOS 6? [Updated With AT&T Statement]

[iMacRum0rs]

The advantage to Skype and Tango right now might not be as amazing call quality - but you can do it anywhere and it's device agnostic.

The DISadvantage to Skype and Tango is that both parties need to be signed in, like an IM client. For most of my friends and family, I'd have to call them first and tell them to sign in so we could video chat. FaceTime, on the other hand, works like a phone call and goes directly to the device, no sign in required. THIS is what makes FaceTime stand out.

Perhaps AT&T is trying to make FaceTime over cellular an LTE only feature for the iPhone 5? No additional charge, but you have to be on the LTE network to use it?

 

[JohnDoe98]

Why not just boycott at&t? I know there are millions of customers out there BUT if the company makes a decision to charge more for their services and we as customers just sit by and pay up.. I only see things changing for the worse. Unless we stop giving them money, they won't change a single thing to benefit us customers.

If we boycott the company, I'm sure they'll take notice.

Easier said than done, people actually need mobile phones and if all carriers are do this, and they all do in slightly different ways, there is nothing people can do other than to boycott the entire technology. Well that's never going to happen.

The way to fix this (good luck though considering lobbying is allowed) is to place government restrictions on what the carriers can do, so long as the carriers continue to use public spectrum.

 

[samcraig]

Almost. They would only be in their right to block those services when the system is actually taxed.

No - according the the contract you signed - the services did not include tethering nor did it include new services that would/could be created. That's at the discretion of ATT. Which is why I said - if you're grandfathered in on that plan - ATT has every right to charge a la carte for features not covered under the original agreement.

How is AT&T in their right to charge one user for a feature of the phone but not another. It should not matter what plan a person has, this is a feature of the phone that uses a data plan that you already purchased. It should not matter what feature you use this data plan for. What it boils down to is the carriers need to find ways to keep their revenue up because they don't want to become what they actually should be, dumb pipes.

See above.

I agree that if you are paying for a specific amount of data - ATT shouldn't dictate how you "spend it. If you are grandfathered from a previous plan that didn't take these services into consideration - they have every right and while I may not like it - I hold nothing against ATT for charging me (if I choose to use) these services vs someone that pays for a specific data allotment.

To be blunt - if you are still getting unlimited data - stop pissing and moaning because as obnxious as ALL carriers are - be thankful at least that you weren't forced into a newer plan. You aren't entitled to anything "extra."

IE - just because Siri can run on the iPhone4 doesn't mean you are entitled to it. You don't have to like it. But that's not the same as feeling you are entitled to it.

----------

The DISadvantage to Skype and Tango is that both parties need to be signed in, like an IM client. For most of my friends and family, I'd have to call them first and tell them to sign in so we could video chat. FaceTime, on the other hand, works like a phone call and goes directly to the device, no sign in required. THIS is what makes FaceTime stand out.

Perhaps AT&T is trying to make FaceTime over cellular an LTE only feature for the iPhone 5? No additional charge, but you have to be on the LTE network to use it?

No. Tango doesn't require me to be signed in. Once installed - it's there. I've never had to sign in after that first set up.

So either you've never used it - or missed that

 

[JohnDoe98]

Perhaps AT&T is trying to make FaceTime over cellular an LTE only feature for the iPhone 5? No additional charge, but you have to be on the LTE network to use it?

They could easily ask Apple to do program that limitation in the software. There would be no need to call AT&T to accomplish that. Rest assured, anytime you are forced to call in for something, it is because they need your authorization to charge you for an additional fee.

 

[KdParker]

Are there any third-party video chat apps for iOS yet? If so, do they work over 3G?

skype

 

[zin]

Translation: "Pay us more money to use this data service even though you already pay for a data package".

I feel for you people who have to put up with this horrendous company. I don't think I've ever read one positive thing about AT&T.

 

[donrsd]

People actually use FaceTime? The novelty wore off for me the first week...

i only use it to facetime with the woman when she is out and the kids want to 'see her'
or
to videochat with family who want to see my kids or i want to see their kids.

its like siri......rarely used, but there if you need it

 

[JohnDoe98]

No - according the the contract you signed - the services did not include tethering nor did it include new services that would/could be created. That's at the discretion of ATT. Which is why I said - if you're grandfathered in on that plan - ATT has every right to charge a la carte for features not covered under the original agreement.

What service? I'm not asking AT&T for any additional service. Netflix and Youtube aren't in my contract either, yet I can use that software if I choose. AT&T can't block that willy nilly. There is no principled difference with tethering, just norms people have come to blindly accept.

I agree that if you are paying for a specific amount of data - ATT shouldn't dictate how you "spend it. If you are grandfathered from a previous plan that didn't take these services into consideration - they have every right and while I may not like it - I hold nothing against ATT for charging me (if I choose to use) these services vs someone that pays for a specific data allotment.

There you go twisting things again by calling software features "services". AT&T can throttle you, that's about it.

IE - just because Siri can run on the iPhone4 doesn't mean you are entitled to it. You don't have to like it. But that's not the same as feeling you are entitled to it.

You are entitled to your data, you paid for it.

 

[LoraoTX]

Easier said than done, people actually need mobile phones and if all carriers are do this, and they all do in slightly different ways, there is nothing people can do other than to boycott the entire technology. Well that's never going to happen.

The way to fix this (good luck though considering lobbying is allowed) is to place government restrictions on what the carriers can do, so long as the carriers continue to use public spectrum.

I'm not saying is 'that easy' but we have to start somewhere.. I remember a couple of months ago where an article was posted by high ups over @ T-Mobile saying that they lost thousands of customers to at&t because of the iPhone and so on.. So what 'good' came out of that? The possibility of T-Mobile being on board with the iPhone. Even though that could have happened before but I think that thousands of people leaving T-Mobile, gave them a push...

If enough people make the switch, at&t will notice thats all I'm saying..

 

[*Calypso*]

It's not randomly blocked. They just need to say, "any device that automatically does tethering or voip is blocked from the network until the software is changed in a manner that allows us to charge for those features". That would apply to Apple, Google, Samsung, Nokia, whoever doesn't want to play by their rules.

There was a time when the Nokia N95 was blocked from AT&T's network because it had built-in VOIP.

It is random because they can exploit their market power to make up random rules. Competition also means that there is no direct link between two markets, meaning that mobile carriers cannot interfere with the mobile devices market and vice versa. Tethering and VoIP is data usage and it's none of the carrier's business what someone uses paid data for.

What's next? Texaco telling you what car to drive?

So the government should clarify what services mobile carriers can provide: They can offer voice minutes (non-IP), SMS/MMS and data - no further classification allowed. Splitting up data into VoIP, video calls, tethering, instant messaging, P2P, ... is like electricity providers splitting up you electric bill into TV, aircon, computer and charging different rates - just ridiculous.

 

[KdParker]

I'm leaving Att for Verizon data family share and LTE when the new iPhone comes out so it won't phase me. I am done with them, Verizon is even including tethering.

+1 This facetime charge is the last straw. Hello verizon

 

[RulinSmoove]

the only thing worse than this.....


.... will be reading ATT's excuse as to why they are doing it.


Deplorable. I pay for unlimited data. I rarely hit 2 gigs. Not a chance they will dime me for facetime, as it is not their feature.

I agree with you 100%, as reading the reasoning behind this will be interesting. It isn't their feature, but it is their network. Sucks I know.

 

[Pukey]

What would be the point? The thing is that it is another option for people underutilising their data plan, and At&t seems to be against that. So it is okay for people to use their allotted data for streaming youtube, but not talking with other people?

Facetime with video turned off would basically make it a low-data usage calling alternative. Your suggestion makes it indistinguishable from normal voice plans. Why even bother?

This is an interesting idea, Facetime with video turned off! Would it be kind of like Skype then? Seems like it could be a nice money saving work around potentially...

In a way, this kind of makes sense. Think of how many ignorant people will use FaceTime over 3G/4G without knowing it uses their data.

Most people here at Macrumors would be aware, but I assure you the average user is not. Who do you think will have to deal with all those complaints when customers are going over their data plans and having to pay fees?

Don't get me wrong, I personally dislike it (and will be switching to Spring for unlimited data when the next iPhone is release). Just playing devil's advocate.

Don't do it! Don't switch to Sprint! From reading these threads on MacRumors it seems many are in agreement that Sprint phones which are CDMA are not as good since they're locked to one carrier. You get more for your money with a GSM phone. I believe T-Mobile has this kind of iPhone on a pay as you go plan even.

 

[JohnDoe98]

It is random because they can exploit their market power to make up random rules. Competition also means that there is no direct link between two markets, meaning that mobile carriers cannot interfere with the mobile devices market and vice versa. Tethering and VoIP is data usage and it's non of the carrier's business what someone uses paid data for.

So the government should clarify what services mobile carriers can provide: They can offer voice minutes (non-IP), SMS/MMS and data - no further classification allowed. Splitting up data into VoIP, video calls, tethering, instant messaging, P2P, ... is like electricity providers splitting up you electric bill into TV, aircon, computer and charging different rates - just ridiculous.

Exactly. But for that to happen, our public needs to become far better informed. They just accept the PR line these carriers feed them.

 

[arkmannj]

Isn't it already paid for in the Data plan? If you use your data for Facetime then how is that any different than downloading files, or using Netflix? IF you go over your data then you pay extra for it, if you don't then why shuold AT&T care? Data packets are data packets it doens't matter if someone is using it for web pages, streaming or video conferencing. If AT&T charges extra to use FaceTime then they better have rock solid 3G/4G everywhere tht can handle the converation without stuttering or dropping the Facetime chats.

BTW I think it would be pretty awesome to see the big phone makers create a communications company.
Google, Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Sony, Nokia all go in on a joint venture to create a nation/world wide data only network. That would shake up the current telecoms and get some real competition & innovation going. I know that it seems unlikely that those companies would join together, but in the smart phone areana they have aligned interests and share the dsame problems with the Telecoms.

 

[samcraig]

What service? I'm not asking AT&T for any additional service. Netflix and Youtube aren't in my contract either, yet I can use that software if I choose. AT&T can't block that willy nilly. There is no principled difference with tethering, just norms people have come to blindly accept.

We will have to agree to disagree. Tethering allows more than one device (the one contracted) to use the data plan which opens up the network for being taxed. I'm not saying it is or has been. I'm saying that it could. And tethering - since day one has always been a pay-for-play service on ATT. It was never included.

And actually the FCC had to step in to prevent skype and netflix (two examples) from being blocked.

Again - agree to disagree. You can believe you're entitled to something I believe you aren't under the unlimited data plan.

If you want to argue that people paying for a capped data plan shouldn't be restricted, I'm first in line to agree.

----------

So the government should clarify what services mobile carriers can provide: They can offer voice minutes (non-IP), SMS/MMS and data - no further classification allowed. Splitting up data into VoIP, video calls, tethering, instant messaging, P2P, ... is like electricity providers splitting up you electric bill into TV, aircon, computer and charging different rates - just ridiculous.

A agree. But question. If you signed a contract for unlimited electricity (let's call it $50 a month and this was back in 1940). A few years later TV comes around and sucks up a lot of electricity and wasn't part of the original unlimited agreement. But - at the same time - the company offered a metered plan and you could choose to go metered and do whatever you want with the electricity or stay on the unlimited but have to pay a la carte for powering a tv. Would that be OK or would that be insane?

While I might not like it - I would see that scenario as OK. What I don't find OK is ATT dictating how someone metered can spend that data. You should be able to use metered data however you want.

I don't feel the same way towards the grandfathered unlimited plan that I, myself, have.

 

[Puevlo]

If you don't like it start your own carrier.

 

[kalsta]

I can't help but think it's about the minutes.
If you FaceTime everyone instead of calling you're using Data alright, that your'e paying for, but you're also NOT using any minutes...so you could drop your minutes plan down to a minimum, bump up your data, and end up cheaper possibly.

ATT already losing revenue on texting with iMessage.

I don't know why they or someone doesn't just lead the pack and provide a Data-Only plan already...it's not like Voice or SMS are something special any more.

Yes, of course it's about the carriers losing their traditional revenue streams. They make obscene amounts of money from timed calls and SMS texts. It's inevitable that mobile communications will transition to the Internet, and when that transition is complete, all plans will just be data plans… but the carriers won't just roll over and let it happen without a fight. Why would they? They stand to lose too much revenue.

So no one should really be surprised by this. They're not wanting to kill this cash cow until they've milked the last drop from it.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Tethering allows more than one device (the one contracted) to use the data plan which opens up the network for being taxed. I'm not saying it is or has been. I'm saying that it could.

You make sensible points, but this one bothers me. I know you already asked me to agree to disagree, which is fine, but I did want to say one thing regarding this line of reasoning. Here goes my analogy.

An asteroid could take down a bunch of towers. I'm not saying that it has or will. I'm saying that it could. So please pay the asteroid safety fee next month.

A agree. But question. If you signed a contract for unlimited electricity (let's call it $50 a month and this was back in 1940). A few years later TV comes around and sucks up a lot of electricity and wasn't part of the original unlimited agreement. But - at the same time - the company offered a metered plan and you could choose to go metered and do whatever you want with the electricity or stay on the unlimited but have to pay a la carte for powering a tv. Would that be OK or would that be insane?

Completely fine if AT&T just turned off the unlimited plan. I have no problem with that. They do not have to renew the contracts once they expire. The contracts are typically renewed on a yearly basis, so they could effectively end all unlimited plans by this time next year in a fair and reasonable manner.

While I might not like it - I would see that scenario as OK. What I don't find OK is ATT dictating how someone metered can spend that data. You should be able to use metered data however you want.

Agreed.

I don't feel the same way towards the grandfathered unlimited plan that I, myself, have.

That's what I don't understand, but as you said, perhaps it's best to agree to disagree.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Ridiculous!

I've been with AT&T since the first iPhone hit the market. I know some parts of the country have had coverage/quality issues but it has worked well for me here in central Florida and in places I have traveled to in the U.S. I've also used my iPhone abroad (UK) on vacation and signing up for extra data coverage abroad, while expensive, was painless and worked well. Dropping the extra data service after my vacation was likewise painless.

In spite of my overall positive experience with AT&T, this nickel-and-dime stuff with the data really aggravates me. The way I see it, if FaceTime is a bandwidth hog (I don't know if it is), users are more likely to hit their monthly data caps and AT&T would be entitled to charge them for extra usage anyway. So, why complicate matters by treating FaceTime as somehow different than any other type of data? I'm paying for data and it should be up to me how I use it and what kind of data it is (what services/protocols I use).

IF AT&T pulls the trigger on additional fees for FaceTime, I'll be one of many looking at alternatives when my contract is up. I just hope other major U.S. carriers do not follow suit. (** Yeah, American mobile carriers really do suck in general. ** )

 

[JohnDoe98]

Isn't it already paid for in the Data plan? If you use your data for Facetime then how is that any different than downloading files, or using Netflix? IF you go over your data then you pay extra for it, if you don't then why shuold AT&T care? Data packets are data packets it doens't matter if someone is using it for web pages, streaming or video conferencing. If AT&T charges extra to use FaceTime then they better have rock solid 3G/4G everywhere tht can handle the converation without stuttering or dropping the Facetime chats.

Right, it would be ok to offer an additional FaceTime data package if they want, but if they just flat out charge for any FaceTime use over and above what you pay for your current data, then there is something very wrong there.

----------

If you don't like it start your own carrier.

How? The public spectrum isn't unlimited and it's currently all used up, the lion's share going to AT&T and Verizon. This isn't SimCity.

 

[hansenc]

I'm sure its already been said but I'm about sick of ATT and all the little fees.

DATA IS DATA

Why do they care WHAT we use it for? I pay for 4gb I should be able to use it however I want.

 

[samcraig]

You make sensible points, but this one bothers me. I know you already asked me to agree to disagree, which is fine, but I did want to say one thing regarding this line of reasoning. Here goes my analogy.

An asteroid could take down a bunch of towers. I'm not saying that it has or will. I'm saying that it could. So please pay the asteroid safety fee next month.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly. My point is - not working for ATT and knowing their usage and network specifics - I can't comment on whether they get or have been taxed. I know that here in NYC - there have been plenty of times where network congestion seems to be an issue.

So, although a leap of faith and an assumption - if ATT says that their network suffers and people can/would experience issues - then without them being audited - we're sort of at their mercy to take their word for it. What should really happen is some additional regulations and auditing of networks and quarterly - they should release a report as part of everyone's statement or otherwise on network conditions.

As for other who comment about skype, etc eating into voice plans - it's true. But I read somewhere - and believe - that eventually there won't be any voice plans at all. Everything will move to a data only plan and we will all be paying capped plans.

Calls/texts/emails/video calls/etc will all be under the capped data plans. And no doubt will rake the networks even more money unless they get regulated at least a little.

 

[Zimmy68]

We are working closely with Apple...

How is that going? Is it the same guys that are working closely to get personal hotspot on the new iPad?

 

[JohnDoe98]

Perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly. My point is - not working for ATT and knowing their usage and network specifics - I can't comment on whether they get or have been taxed. I know that here in NYC - there have been plenty of times where network congestion seems to be an issue.

Throttling during, and only during, peak network congestion times strikes me as the appropriate response to this problem.