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

[JohnDoe98]

It goes to show just how insufficient their network is. They have no confidence in it.

It has nothing to do with the network. They lost a lot of money when Apple introduced iMessage, and they don't want that happening again with FaceTime. They can't go back and charge people for iMessage since it's now too late, but they can charge for FaceTime going forward, and they will.

The lesson they learned is to block any app or device that can cut into their revenue stream. They are opposed to technology improving our service and reducing our costs.

 

[The Phazer]

'Cause the EU isn't a heartbeat away from dissolving.

Errr… no, it flat out isn’t….

Even the Euro isn’t particularly near dissolution, and the Euro as a currency and the EU are two entirely different things with different memberships (the UK for example isn’t a Eurozone country but is a member of the EU).

You probably need to seek better news sources.

Meanwhile, back on the subject: the US’s carrier market is broken. Quelle surprise. However, if anyone is going to have to pay for 3G calls it feels distinctly odd for the iPhone not to support the UTMS/3G video calling standard, which is built into network infrastructure and is cross platform… (and to be fair Android does not consistently implement it either, though some manufacturers such as Samsung do).

 

[Small White Car]

You honestly think AT&T will give you some sort of discount if you are an iPhone user and don't use Facetime on their network?

Of course not. It's not about prices going down, it's about how they go up in the future.

Let's imagine AT&T charges $10 for FaceTime. Within a year I know Verizon will raise everyone's price by $5 and say "well, we include FaceTime which costs $10 at AT&T, so we're cheaper."

Well, yes, but only if you wanted FaceTime.

I mean, come on, Verizon just did this a few weeks ago. They raised prices for almost everyone by forcing unlimited voice and texts on them and said "but if you bought those on AT&T it would cost more!" Ok, but I don't want those things so I'm glad I'm not forced to buy them.

So wait and see...if you want FaceTime eventually Verizon will be a better bet, but if you don't they'll just use it as an excuse to raise your rates anyway.

This is not about AT&T being good. They both suck. This is about Verizon being worse. Given the choice I'll be sticking with "less worse."

What it is that you smoke so I stay away from it???

Explain to me how I'm wrong. Verizon JUST did this trick. Did everyone forget?

 

[JohnDoe98]

Everyone is knocking on AT&T for this, but have you thought maybe AT&T will offer unlimited FaceTime calls for $6.99/mo that doesn't use up your regular data allotment? Or a 'pay as you go' alternative per minute

Jeez!!!

Why should we have to add a second data plan for Apps? If we already have a data plan and are happy to use it's allocated data, charing anything more is too much.

So you are going to pay 1$ for Emails,
2$ for Safari,
5$ for iCloud music,
7$ for FaceTime....


That's your idea of an intelligent system?

----------

Yeah! The government should step in and tell private companies what to do. Vote with your dollars. That's how capitalism works. We seem to expect Uncle Sam to ride in on a white horse and save us every time we are inconvenienced, not realizing that every time it happens, we are a little less free than before. The government needn't do anything. If you're unsatisfied with how AT&T chooses to run their business, send your $ elsewhere. If you've signed a 2 year contract to get a free phone, you weren't compelled to. You signed it of your own volition and you either need to pay the fee or suck it up.

Private company using public spectrum? You forget if all the carriers do this crap there is no elsewhere to go since all the spectrum has been allotted to these thieves. It's not like new networks can just pop up, they would have to bid for the spectrum and get all sorts of licensing for the towers.

Now it's pretty simple, if "private" companies want to be allowed to play with public licenses, they have to cater to what the public wants. Government does have a role to play here.

----------

Just to make this real clear: It is Apple's fault to even allow carriers to control certain features of iOS. It was Apple's decision to hold back FaceTime over Cellular until now and they are to blame if carriers can interfere with the functionality of YOUR phone. Same goes for Personal Hotspot.

Yes, AT&T are *******s, but they are not actively blocking any data traffic, they are just happily exploiting the power Apple gave them in the first place.

So you guys should not only switch providers, but also post a complaint with Apple saying that you want all iOS features to work no matter if your carrier is happy with them or not.

Technically there are just three types of cellular traffic: voice, SMS and data. Don't let them fool you by splitting data further up into tethering, VoIP, video calls, instant messaging and what not. The fight for network neutrality has only just begun. Overpriced voice calls and SMS are gonna diminish quickly and carriers are gonna do everything in their power to extra-charge you for data use.

So let's play this game. Let us imagine Apple says, f it, we add in all features. Now the carriers say F Apple, no more iphones on our networks. Now what?

----------

If you are a heavy FT user, you don't have to use up all your entire data plan. You can get unlimited FT for an extra one-time fee.

The point is there should be no fee.

 

[SuperMatt]

Honestly I kind of LIKE having this broken out so I have the chance to not pay for it.

The fact that Verizon now makes you pay for unlimited voice and texts no matter what you want makes them a non-starter for me. I kind of like the idea of a carrier that lets me not pay for certain things. (And this certainly is one of those things that I wouldn't pay for.)

You can opt out of texting altogether. I do that, and use one of the App Store's free texting apps for when I need it, and iMessage to contact my iPhone-using friends.

 

[samcraig]

Apple is going to hate this. As ATT has a very significant chunk of iPhone users in the US - the public will opt to use skype/tango or some other video conferencing instead of making Apple's facetime ubiquitous for video chatting. It will be like Apple didn't enable facetime for 3g at all for a huge demographic. And *if* other carriers follow suit now or later - it's also very bad.

The other issue with FaceTime is that it's still only Apple to Apple devices. Apple hasn't released the technology as they originally had said they would (I know - they could still do it). This already means a limited use case for FaceTime and knowing what device the person on the other end has.

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.

 

[fsck-y dingo]

Well that's horrible. I'm using FaceTime with 3G Unrestrictor and it's not really affecting my data plan at all. For those who may not know FaceTime uses about 3MB per minute. At least the last time I looked it up.

I bought the iPhone 4 on release day. My contract is officially up and my reasons for staying with AT&T are dwindling by the day.

 

[JoJoCal19]

Every time Verizon does something that pisses me off, I look at moving to AT&T as an alternative, and every time they do something equally as stupid, whether it's matching Verizon's prices or changes exactly or things like this. It's no wonder I just stay put.

 

[mantan]

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

 

[JohnDoe98]

Apple is going to hate this.

Yes, and Apple probably also wanted unlimited plans to stay, but the sad fact is they can't do anything about it, unless, which won't happen, they setup their own infrastructure to compete with the carriers.

 

[samcraig]

btw - does anyone know if this is account based (sorry for not reading the whole thread..)

IE - is the message popping up for everyone - or just users with unlimited data.

I have always maintained that those "blessed" with being grandfathered into the unlimited plan - I can understand ATT charging for tethering and something like facetime. It could be a huge drain on resources.

However - if you buy "x" gigs a month - it shouldn't matter at all how you eat that up. Tethering, facetime, whatever.

For a restaurant - it's one thing to restrict the all you can eat buffet with some rules so you don't kill profit margins. It's another to let someone order off the menu and then insist that they eat their dinner exactly how you want.

----------

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

I would agree up until 3.5 months ago when my daughter was born. Now video chatting (we don't use face time - we use tango since it's platform agnostic and can include everyone and via LTE too) is great so that both sets of grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunts can see our daughter all the time since they live around the US.

There are some great niche uses for video chatting.

 

[*Calypso*]

So let's play this game. Let us imagine Apple says, f it, we add in all features. Now the carriers say F Apple, no more iphones on our networks. Now what?

Then people buy their iPhones contract-free and choose a carrier. I never understood this stupid link between phones and plans. You don't buy your car from Texaco with a 2-year gas plan*, do you?

*Unlocking the aircon feature is an extra $10 a month, obviously

 

[ardy8888]

You honestly think AT&T will give you some sort of discount if you are an iPhone user and don't use Facetime on their network? You will continue paying the same amount...what's not to like!?

Bottom line is this isn't AT&T's feature. To charge for it is borderline illegal.

Now if they said "you can disable Facetime over 3/4G and receive a $5 discount" that would be more palatable. To simply charge an above and beyond fee for Apple's feature is seriously shady.

You should have the exact same argument about the tethering option. Tethering and FaceTime over 3G are both features of the device and should not cost a user extra to use. Its simply a way for the carrier to scam more money from their customers that can't really do much if all the carriers do it.

If this does come out as an added charge when iOS6 rolls out, I'll certainly look at changing carriers.

 

[samcraig]

Then people buy their iPhones contract-free and choose a carrier. I never understood this stupid link between phones and plans. You don't buy your car from Texaco with a 2-year gas plan, do you?

You can do that now. Most people (in the US) have gotten accustomed to subsidized phones.

Also - I think only t-mobile actually takes it into consideration for plans. Meaning - whether or not you subsidize your phone - you are paying the same rate for talk/data. So unless you really hate contracts - there's little incentive to own a phone outright because it costs more in the long run.

----------

You should have the exact same argument about the tethering option. Tethering and FaceTime over 3G are both features of the device and should not cost a user extra to use. Its simply a way for the carrier to scam more money from their customers that can't really do much if all the carriers do it.

If this does come out as an added charge when iOS6 rolls out, I'll certainly look at changing carriers.

Ardy - see my post above. In short - if you're grandfathered on unlimited - I think ATT is in their right with these alternative services that can tax the system to charge a premium. But if you're paying for "x" amount of data - they shouldn't be able to dictate HOW that is "spent"

 

[JohnDoe98]

There are some great niche uses for video chatting.

FaceTime isn't video only. It can do audio only if we want it to. So in short, FaceTime is like iMessage, where iMessage targets text plans, FaceTime targets voice plans.

 

[*Calypso*]

Most people (in the US) have gotten accustomed to subsidized phones.

There's no such thing as a free subsidy. I did the math (in Germany) and unless you are going to use 100% of the included voice minutes, texts and data, you are usually better off with buying the iPhone separately and then choosing the best carrier/plan for you needs.

 

[furqan8421]

May have been brought up not sure

But this doesn't necessarily say they will charge extra. Maybe you call to confirm/setup because the possibility for going over your data limit is much higher this way?

They may want you to confirm so that at the end of the month people aren't shocked at going over their data limit

 

[JohnDoe98]

Then people buy their iPhones contract-free and choose a carrier. I never understood this stupid link between phones and plans. You don't buy your car from Texaco with a 2-year gas plan*, do you?

*Unlocking the aircon feature is an extra $10 a month, obviously

Ok, so now you have an unlocked 700$ phone that doesn't work on any carrier's network. How does that help? The point I made (you quoted the wrong person, those are my words) is that unless Apple let's the carriers control some of the features iOS provides, like tethering, i.e. Personal Hotspot, and FaceTime, the carriers can block the Apple phones from the network all-together. The question of those phones being locked or unlocked is irrelevant.

----------

Ardy - see my post above. In short - if you're grandfathered on unlimited - I think ATT is in their right with these alternative services that can tax the system to charge a premium. But if you're paying for "x" amount of data - they shouldn't be able to dictate HOW that is "spent"

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

 

[ardy8888]

You can do that now. Most people (in the US) have gotten accustomed to subsidized phones.

Also - I think only t-mobile actually takes it into consideration for plans. Meaning - whether or not you subsidize your phone - you are paying the same rate for talk/data. So unless you really hate contracts - there's little incentive to own a phone outright because it costs more in the long run.

----------



Ardy - see my post above. In short - if you're grandfathered on unlimited - I think ATT is in their right with these alternative services that can tax the system to charge a premium. But if you're paying for "x" amount of data - they shouldn't be able to dictate HOW that is "spent"

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.

 

[JohnDoe98]

May have been brought up not sure

But this doesn't necessarily say they will charge extra. Maybe you call to confirm/setup because the possibility for going over your data limit is much higher this way?

They may want you to confirm so that at the end of the month people aren't shocked at going over their data limit

That sounds like wishful thinking. We already know AT&T's CEO wasn't too happy with having so many texting plans diminished or canceled when iMessage was introduced. They are not going to make that mistake twice.

 

[ardy8888]

May have been brought up not sure

But this doesn't necessarily say they will charge extra. Maybe you call to confirm/setup because the possibility for going over your data limit is much higher this way?

They may want you to confirm so that at the end of the month people aren't shocked at going over their data limit

Doubt it, I think the carriers WANT you to go over your limit so they can charge you overage fees. That's why they dropped the unlimited plan. Not because it was over taxing their network, but because they realized they can make more money by forcing lower plans and waiting for people to go over their limit.

 

[cdmoore74]

I want to see Apple sue any carrier that blocks or charges for built in features. Where is Apple when you need them. Damn hypocrites!!

 

[*Calypso*]

Ok, so now you have an unlocked 700$ phone that doesn't work on any carrier's network. How does that help? The point I made (you quoted the wrong person, those are my words) is that unless Apple let's the carriers control some of the features iOS provides, like tethering, i.e. Personal Hotspot, and FaceTime, the carriers can block the Apple phones from the network all-together. The question of those phones being locked or unlocked is irrelevant.

Wow, you really do need some government intervention if carriers are allowed to randomly block mobile devices from using their network. I didn't even consider something that absurd.

 

[LoraoTX]

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.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Wow, you really do need some government intervention if carriers are allowed to randomly block mobile devices from using their network. I didn't even consider something that absurd.

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. When they realised VOIP on 3G, at the time sucked, they let the devices on the network.