Skype for iPhone Sparks Battle Between Consumers and Carriers

[DELLsFan]

I knew and hoped an issue like this would eventually force the carriers into revealing their true, greedy colors. Don't feel sorry for ANY of them. AT&T just happens to hold the iPhone reins at the moment.

T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint - they are all peas of the same pod, arguing their infrastructure, and rising bandwidth and operational costs justify the fleecing the cell customers are getting. Make no mistake about this: the carriers want their profits - obscene profits to continue at the expense of their consumers. SMS pricing is just one example of a pricing structure out of control. They will fight together as hard as they can to keep the status quo.

Years ago, America Online (as it was named before being American became passe') made the decision to offer unlimited pricing. It wasn't easy losing the per-minute revenue from those hopelessly addicted at the time, but AOL is still in business today. So it will be for the cell carriers. As the business model evolves, so must the company. There are no more $300 America Online phone bills. Eventually, there will come a day when 20 cents per SMS text message will not be tolerated either.

Unlimited data = Unlimited data. Sorry, AT&T and others - we consumers are onto you. You can either ride the wave, or be swept away by it.

 

[gmcalpin]

It irritates me that I am gouged as a consumer to pay for mediocre service...

What, are you a communist? This is pure, 100%, free market capitalism, baby! Companies should always be allowed to charge you whatever they want, whyever they want – and collude with their so-called competitors to make sure your only other options are just as bad.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, it's just a matter of time. Big business always wants its high profit margins and tries its damnedest to make sure no smaller companies can come along and undercut them with, you know, reasonable rates. They just slow down real progress by a few years when they do that, though.

It's like the whole battle over DRM, or — hell — video tapes. Anytime something "new"(-ish) comes along, they bitch and moan until they figure out how to make money off of it themselves.

 

[djdole]

All I can say...

Being an iPhone user that doesn't use skype, all I can say is this had damn well better not result in AT&T upping the 'unlimited data use' charge.

 

[kntgsp]

Let me break it down for you:

Fring = barely usable Skype client. Because the calls have to be routed through Fring proxies, the contact state has significant lag, and the quality of voice call is somewhere between poor and unusable. Doesn't support full Skype functionality like contact search, etc.

Skype = fully functional Skype client. Because it's a native client, it has none of the above issues and supports full set of Skype functionality.

Fring worked quite well for me with Skype. Never had any problems with it.

So what exactly is the outrage? The only thing the Skype app does is improve a service that was already available anyway. AT&T didn't let you use VoIP on their 3G network before and they don't now. What's the change?

 

[needthephone]

This just shows that basically the Mobile carriers are operating a dying business model.

There is no future in it.

It's all data whether its a voice call or downloading a web site.

They have to realise this and realise their future is selling data time not voice calls.

The writing is on the wall.

I think apple know this and are working towards the multiple wifi solution (can't remember the name of it but it is a vast network of small to medium wireless wifi routers basically)

I suppose it must hurt the carriers after spending gazillions on their mobile towers to see the whole thing undermined by a few D link routers!!

Tough but they invested in the wrong technology.

 

[diamond.g]

And what's wrong with that? That's what I WANT to happen.

Don't charge me $30 and then tell me all the things I can't do.

Charge me $60 and let me do everything. (Skype, laptop tethering, app-store apps over 10 MB, etc.) Continue to offer the "$30 but you can't do everything plan" for whoever wants it.

I would GLADLY pay more for actual unrestricted service. I hope this IS what happens.

Sadly most other folks just want to use Skype for the price they currently pay.

 

[mister880]

Skype is a god send for iPHONE!

I love my iPhone and truthfully haven't really had a problem with AT&T's service. I love the fact that my phone works in so many countries I travel too. But one thing that has always bothered me is how crippled I am overseas because of the expense of using my phone / data connection abroad.

Skype on a WIFI seems like a fair trade off for AT&T and USERS. It would allow me to call back home without huge fees that are split between AT&T and what ever no name carrier im on like O2, Orange UK, or French Telecom.

If only AT&T could work out a cheaper universal data plan for iPHONE I would pay top dollar for worldwide data access from my phone if it was unlimited.

I understand carriers not wanting to be able to use Skype over their data networks but what we do off their network has nothing to do with them!

Mister880

 

[joemama]

What about Boost Mobile?

Doesn't Boost Mobile already do the unlimited data plan? $50 text, voice, web....

 

[42gb]

download

I learned my lesson when I didn't snatch up NetShare when it went back on the AppStore. Even though I didn't need it at the time, I knew there would be a time when I would, so I figured I'd just buy it whenever that time came. Oops.

I foresaw this battle so I grabbed the Skype app even though I almost never use it, at least as of yet.

 

[synth3tik]

I have never used Skype. However I could see how if someone had Skype at home, how they might want to have it on their phone too. I don't see the problem with phone users like me. I barely ever talk on the phone and have between 50-75% of my minutes rolling over. AT&T does not loose anything. I have a hard time too thinking of most people using only skype.

I don't see Apple restircting skype to wi-fi as a problem. They made the phone, they choose what the program could do. However I think it is kind of a bitchy move to directly screw people over like what T-mobile Germany seems to be doing.

In any regards I may be one of the only people that did not download Skype for the iPhone, but I think the millions who did don't deserve to be screwed over by Apple or their carrier.

 

[briand05]

It's time for the FCC to step in and stop this crap. I'm a supporter of strong government regulation over these corporate thugs. Net neutrality must be applied to all internet access. Unlimited Internet access means unlimited access to the full internet. No more hidden crap in the TOS, it's time for the government to step in and tell these companies who's boss. This fake advertising must be stopped now.

 

[iphones4evry1]

On the flip side, an open-Internet advocacy group is asking the FCC to see if AT&T and Apple are violating federal rules by restricting Skype to just Wi-Fi.

I think the courts can use common sense to see that this is Not a matter of "open access" (like a library not censoring books), but rather a matter of operating revenue. If Skype was an internet website that provided content it would be different. But Skype is merely a program that allows people to talk. It is not content. Hopefully, the courts will realize this.
My personal opinion is that I have no problem with Skype being used over WiFi (because people could otherwise use their laptop computers), but if Skype is used over carrier networks (3G and EDGE) then Skype will need to begin paying royalties to the carriers WHO SPENT BILLIONS BUIDING THE NATIONWIDE AND WORLDWIDE NETWORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
A lot of you might not realize when you pay your monthly cell phone bill that the carriers had to spend Billions to build nationwide 3G networks. It's not just the millions of antennas nationwide; it's also the technology and software development. If carriers lose revenue because of Skype, they may no longer be profitable and if there are no cell phone towers and no networks, Skype is going to be useless.
(FYI: I do not work for a carrier and I do not own stock in a carrier. In the past, I did own stock in AT&T. It has been about two years now since I sold my AT&T stock and bought Apple stock. I know that AT&T is not flush in profits like the oil companies. AT&T has to reinvest large amounts of their income back into network upgrades every year to keep up with the competition. 3G network equipment for nationwide coverage is NOT cheap!)

 

[donbadman]

Good.
Maybe now i'll actually be able to take calls when in my flat seeing as my wifi has great reception and o2 is to be honest, crap.
At least my contract is up this month, it doesn't seem too bad being an early adopter now as I can go pay as you go on orange...
(with much better service than o2)

 

[donbadman]

It's time for the FCC to step in and stop this crap. I'm a supporter of strong government regulation over these corporate thugs. Net neutrality must be applied to all internet access. Unlimited Internet access means unlimited access to the full internet. No more hidden crap in the TOS, it's time for the government to step in and tell these companies who's boss. This fake advertising must be stopped now.

+1 you are talking pure sense, aint nothing worse than corporatocracy.

 

[imacdaddy]

Just remember that a lot of the cell infrastructure is paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, through government money.

They (as in res/biz voice, res/biz broadband, biz data (local loop/VPN/Eth etc)) all run on the same infrastructure/network/DWDM backbone. They just fan out 8 - 12 T1's to the cell site in a building already serving landline voice/broadband. The ROI on these cell sites is roughly less than 12 months. The majority of the infrastructure itself is manly paid back through services provided to businesses/banks/special projects in less than 2 - 3 years.

Why does the government provide money to these telcos?

 

[jw2002]

Any time a company gets into the business of attempting to control their customers' behavior, they are skating on thin ice. The airlines tried this with all sorts of limitations, and all it did for them was shed customers to the low frill carriers. The movie and recording industry attempted the same thing -- with disastrous results.

Apple, T-Mobile, and ATT need to realize that they will never succeed in controlling user behavior. The Apple iPhone is an extremely powerful device that is clearly more flexible than a traditional hand phone and technically subject to none of its limitations. If the providers don't provide telephone calls that can compete with Skype, then they will lose in the long run. Any impediments they try to erect will easily be circumvented by users through jail-breaking and proxy servers.

What next? Prohibit emails on the iPhone because it is viewed as a way for customers to skirt around the $0.20 fee per instant message?

 

[(L)]

Gray area

One one side, I have 1000s of rollover minutes (minutes I'll never use) that AT&T overcharges me for. On the other side, it's nice having a number, and if no competitor offers me a cheaper package with less minutes (which is improbable since all you people talk with too much reliance on machines), I'm not going to save any money.

Skype is cool anyway, and phoning over the internet is obviously the future. What was costly in one era may become cheap in the next. That's just how it works. They might want to, but ultimately can't, just manipulate data costs, etc. There will be a cheaper, more competitive provider who is not afraid to provide more for less to more people. (Google? Who knows.)

Until then, it's just one cloudy haze for me. Let's say Skype usage explodes. Will people be willing to give up their numbers? Can you Skype offices, businesses, or emergency dispatchers? AT&T will continue to rob me so long as I barely use my phone, but for most people who use more minutes, it doesn't seem so unfair to me. They provide a service (with terrible support), and people use that service. They're not just going to give us all a break.

 

[MikeTheC]

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. I can appreciate the business end of the situation; nevertheless, I would never make the mistake of putting them up on some kind of lofty pedestal either.

Where the biggest influential factor I think will come from is in government and how they decide to pursue regulation and control in the future. It may well be that, in the final analysis, the carriers aren't our worst enemy...

 

[imacdaddy]

True. But consider this: I have a paygo iPhone and I do not feel like paying for international calls to call my friends and family in Europe. I can call them now for 2 cents/minute.

It works both ways. You can say the same that people in Europe wanting to call an AT&T fixed/mobile line of their friends/family in the States via Skype out. AT&T will make $ from terminating the incoming international call. At the end of the day the average ratio of outgoing vs incoming is going to be the same. AT&T is not going to lose any money.

Skype to Skype over 3G may put a strain on a SINGLE cell site that you are connected on but not on the network. As I mentioned in my previous reply, it rides on the same infrastructure/network as other products (voice/broadband/data). But I don't think there will be more than a few simultaneous Skype connections on a single cell site via iPhone at any given time.

The Carriers are already making VERY good margins on the mobile/data price plans. If they weren't so "greedy" and limiting/restricting types of use (ie Skype, voip, tethering...) they can see more subscribers and renewing customers....this will be a positive impact on their cashflows. IMO, there will be more casual users than heavy users if Skype, voip, tethering etc.

 

[kdarling]

They are telling us that texts cost X, data costs Y, and calls cost Z, when it is patently not true. AT&T has a set cost per unit of data.

This claim couldn't be more wrong, at least with current systems.

Voice calls and texts are handled quite differently from internet data.

Voice uses switched circuits, similar to your home phone. When a call goes through, that slot on that tower is dedicated to YOU and YOU alone. It's your guaranteed bandwidth, whether you talk or not. That's why voice calls are charged by time.

Data uses shared circuits, similar to cable broadband. The bandwidth is shared between everyone. You only get just enough slots to carry your data. That's why internet access is charged by the byte.

Mix in that that voice & data must share the wireless towers, but voice is the main reason for phone carriers to exist. And that data is usually shunted directly to the internet, but voice uses carrier infrastructure.

As for those who claim that Skype is free to call from home... either you must be too young to pay for your home internet connection, or you're stealing someone's WiFi.

 

[Alisstar]

I bought my first cell phone at 18 yrs old back in 1997. I remember back then I didn't have to pay for SMS. Hardly anybody used it so they gave it away free if you requested it. Then as more people started using it, they raised the price to .03 cents, then .05 cents, then .10 cents, and then .20 cents. Obviously, at .20 cents per text, with more and more people texting me, and without an unlimited data plan available at the time, it created a bad financial formula for my pocket. I had to cut my bad habit, and I cut it cold. I completely canceled anything that had to do with data, that is until they started coming out with unlimited data plans a few years ago. Now I'm back to being addicted to SMS.

Having said all that, if they were to raise prices again on SMS, I think I would probably cut it off again from my plan and just use the feature called phone I hardly ever use anymore. I know it'll be very hard for me. But I also know that if I did it in the past, I can do it again .

 

[iMaggot]

I'd rather pay 50 bucks for unlimited 3G and be able to use Skype on the cellular network. Instead of paying 70 dollars for minutes I rarely use and 30 dollars for internet.

I agree, all i use is the 3G on my iPhone, i would love to just pay for the 3G and use Skype for cell calls.

 

[Davy.Shalom]

pardon my french, but EFF the carriers

Agreed.

 

[troller]

Is apple to stupid to sell the iphone nly by themselves ? I give a f*** about the carriers and anyway I don't want this contract ****. Sell the iphone unlocked and let the carriers go to hell.

BTW. In Germany they try to block the skype app.

 

[peterdevries]

Is apple to stupid to sell the iphone nly by themselves ? I give a f*** about the carriers and anyway I don't want this contract ****. Sell the iphone unlocked and let the carriers go to hell.

BTW. In Germany they try to block the skype app.

eeehm, to use the phone features of the iPhone you need a carrier. Otherwise you could buy an iPod Touch, it's cheaper and also runs Skype..

I agree though that the carriers abuse their position. The reasoning that T-Mobile uses here in Europe is plain lying.