Riiiight, just what we need, more Big Brother meddling in our markets.
They have lots more regulation in Europe, and they are way ahead of us. More competition, better service, and lower prices...
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.
Carriers Quiet on Prospects for FaceTime Over Cellular Networks with iOS 6
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have lots more regulation in Europe, and they are way ahead of us. More competition, better service, and lower prices...
I wish there were more features. Particularly on the mac. Screen Sharing would be really nice. So would a messaging section so I can send a link while i'm talking, but overall I like it fine.
Twitter & Facebook integration for social networking
Native Mail for mail
Messages app for texting
[iChat?] for Voice Chat
Facetime for Video Chat
3rd Party Cellular for Telephone Service
There's something missing from Apples communications lineup.
Native Mail for mail
Messages app for texting
[iChat?] for Voice Chat
Facetime for Video Chat
3rd Party Cellular for Telephone Service
There's something missing from Apples communications lineup.
Then why does FaceTime still work just fine on our wifi-only iPads? Voice certainly isn't being handled via a cell network.
It's extremely rare that I suffer audio glitches with voip services, whether Skype or iChat. Hasn't happened yet this year. I haven't owned an actual cellphone since iPad1 hit. Voip provides the same service for 1/100th the cost.
I believe the difference between Facetime and all the other apps mentioned. Is that Facetime can actually be tied to a customer's cell phone number tied to that carrier, much like iMessage. All these other apps, tend to use other means at identifying other users. Some may tie it to your cell phone number, but usually you have to jump through a few hoops that it's not as seemless of an integration as Facetime and iMessage are, where one does not have to jump through those hoops.
"limitations imposed by the carriers"
Cellular carriers have to be pushed a little by the Congress... too much power they have!
The last thing we need is more government control over business. Socialism has never worked and never will work.
Government mandates will not magically build new cell towers or increase bandwidth. It takes time and money, something government doesn't take into account when issuing mandates.
European carriers are a joke. They have extreme amounts of roaming charges (100s of times as much as normal conversation costs). Often you drive 50 miles and you're in a different country. People living close to the border must disable roaming. At least in the US there's no roaming between the states.
Exactly, it is DISabled in iOS 5. You stated in your previous post it was ENabled. See the difference?
I am fully aware 3G/FaceTime can be enabled via hack or jailbreaking.. Which puts it out of reach of average user.
That's just because it would have given VZW a competitive advantage over T. ATT may no longer be exclusive, but various things point to an agreement that new features and capabilities arrive at both carriers at the same time or better. VZW has more 4G LTE built out and is less swamped by existing iPhone customers. If that feature were enabled the already marginal ATT experience would get worse fast. Verizon simply has not had as much uptake yet.
Rocketman
Here's the thing, while FaceTime may work fine for you over 3G, keep in mind that 3G's speed is not the same in every part of the country. You tend to get much higher speeds within city limits, while you could easily get a 10th of the speed up in the boondocks. I think that the advent of HSPA+ and LTE are the main reasons behind Apple lifting this limitation. Even crippled HSPA+ is probably "ok" for FaceTime, and certainly crippled LTE would be.
This is why I refuse to ever get AT&T. I moved from T-Mobile to Sprint and I'll gladly pay a fair [price for unlimited slower data to the small guys who aren't trying to pocket every penny in my pockets![/QUOTE]
I agree with you on the Sprint statement 100%!!!
I agree with you on the Sprint statement 100%!!!
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
This is the biggest disconnect we are having to deal with. The manufacturers of the smart phones keep coming up with cool things to use the smart phone for which are data-intensive. On the other hand you have the carriers that are trying their best to limit how much data is being used on their networks. All this does is catch the consumer in the middle trying to use what they have already paid to use, but are unable to because there is a perceived shortage of bandwidth.
Something has to give. The current business models for the carriers is antiquated and needs to be seriously revamped. They are impeding the progress of communications technology.
Personally, if indeed bandwidth consumption is an issue and they need to throttle people that are "abusing" the system, I think they should follow the model that wire-based Internet providers do. Charge for the speed of the data, not the amount used. Those that use a lot of data will want faster speeds, but those that only check email and text wouldn't need data as fast.
Also, charging someone for an amount of data for use, and then charging for HOW they access the data is double-dipping and should be outlawed. Case in point: charging extra just to use your data service as a hot-spot. Data is data, no matter how it is accessed.
I know I'm getting tired of this tug-of-war between the carriers and the manufacturers.
This is the biggest disconnect we are having to deal with. The manufacturers of the smart phones keep coming up with cool things to use the smart phone for which are data-intensive. On the other hand you have the carriers that are trying their best to limit how much data is being used on their networks. All this does is catch the consumer in the middle trying to use what they have already paid to use, but are unable to because there is a perceived shortage of bandwidth.
Something has to give. The current business models for the carriers is antiquated and needs to be seriously revamped. They are impeding the progress of communications technology.
Personally, if indeed bandwidth consumption is an issue and they need to throttle people that are "abusing" the system, I think they should follow the model that wire-based Internet providers do. Charge for the speed of the data, not the amount used. Those that use a lot of data will want faster speeds, but those that only check email and text wouldn't need data as fast.
Also, charging someone for an amount of data for use, and then charging for HOW they access the data is double-dipping and should be outlawed. Case in point: charging extra just to use your data service as a hot-spot. Data is data, no matter how it is accessed.
I know I'm getting tired of this tug-of-war between the carriers and the manufacturers.
Apple 'forcing the carriers hands' is what got this whole ball rolling.
AT&T was required to provide 'unlimited data' as terms of being the exclusive carrier for the origianal iPhone. AT&T knew it wasn't practical, but since their handwas 'forced' they went with it. Back then average data use was likely 1/10th of what is now.
Yet customers expected a lifetime right to $30 data, AT&T to never dare do anything to increase revenue AND manage to continually reinvest in their infrastructure.
They take a beating on this board despite having the fastest cell network in the US anytime they try to make an extra nickel...yet Apple applauded for taking their customers to the cleaners with everything they build.
The cell companies are in a tough spot. I'm sure they want to support features that help cell phones...but they have to try to keep their network in check.
It doesn't matter if data is tiered, if they risk promoting functionality that cripples their network performance, they will be crucified for it.
We should each sue individually in small claims court. Imagine if 100,000 customers filed a suit on the same day in different courts all over the USA and at&t had to defend all of these cases independently.
How could AT&T or Verizon have anything to say about FaceTime over cellular at this point?
They've already strong-armed everyone onto tiered plans, on which you pay for every single bit of data that you use, no matter how you use it.
Shouldn't they be giddy over anything that drives up bandwidth usage now?
They've already strong-armed everyone onto tiered plans, on which you pay for every single bit of data that you use, no matter how you use it.
Shouldn't they be giddy over anything that drives up bandwidth usage now?
I use it several times a week (on WiFi, of course). I've always called home around lunch time to say hi to the wife and I sometimes go to FaceTime on the call. It's really nice, and extra special when I get to interact with my son (11 months old now). These days I absolutely LOVE FaceTime
Actually, I think the carriers prefer that people use less data and don't come anywhere near the caps. The caps are just a way of making us paranoid about our data usage so we keep it to a minimum. This is what is most profitable for them, since it means they can have more subscribers.
This.
I laugh every time I see someone on this forum call for Congress (in their infinite wisdom and concern for the individual) to save us from the horrible carriers.
Yes, the carriers suck.
And yes, they get away with exactly what we let them get away with.
Baa baa baa. We all line up each month to feed from the expensive data trough while complaining about the carriers.
We suck.
so? there's a difference between a different STATE and a different COUNTRY, of course you have to pay more if you use a sim from a different COUNTRY. however there are new EU regulations, so its not that expensive anymore. plus you can get cheap sims in any supermarket e. g. a call to india is 5 cent from germany and incoming calls are always free
i pay $40 for unlimited text, calls & data and got the iPhone 4S for 1 Euro on top of it. i could never pay those sums in the US and i doubt people would be willing to here either. $40 is already fairly expensive, there are prepaid offers for $25 nowadays
But if you go to another country, you can just switch sims because they all have to use the same system. You don't get charged for incoming calls or texts, and if you want to switch you don't need to get another phone. The service is good and they actually have REAL 4G... Not what the carriers here are trying to call 4G. The US carriers could use some more regulation to increase competition and make it better for the consumer.