Why carriers won't stop iMessages (IANAL)

[brayhite]

For starters, RIM does it already. There's a precedent set, and if any carrier was to object, they'd have to eliminate BBM as well unless they want a lawsuit from Apple. So it's either allow Apple's iMessage service AND BBM, or eliminate both, because one can't live with the other not being allowed.

Secondly, as already mentioned and known, several apps already allow this, across multiple platforms (iOS, Android, etc.), and while the scale of users may not be as large as RIM's and Apple's, it's still the fact that this messaging service is allowed.

Thirdly, other services provided by carriers already have substitutions. Voice calling has Skype, Google's services, etc. And again, though the scale of users may be small as compared to VZ's and AT&T's customer base, it again falls back on the fact that it, too, is allowed. So why couldn't messaging?

And fourthly, iMessages isn't "free". It does still use data, though a very small amount. Carriers will receive some benefit from this, with a marginal increase in chances of overage charges.

 

[boss.king]

For starters, RIM does it already. There's a precedent set, and if any carrier was to object, they'd have to eliminate BBM as well unless they want a lawsuit from Apple. So it's either allow Apple's iMessage service AND BBM, or eliminate both, because one can't live with the other not being allowed.

Secondly, as already mentioned and known, several apps already allow this, across multiple platforms (iOS, Android, etc.), and while the scale of users may not be as large as RIM's and Apple's, it's still the fact that this messaging service is allowed.

Thirdly, other services provided by carriers already have substitutions. Voice calling has Skype, Google's services, etc. And again, though the scale of users may be small as compared to VZ's and AT&T's customer base, it again falls back on the fact that it, too, is allowed. So why couldn't messaging?

And fourthly, iMessages isn't "free". It does still use data, though a very small amount. Carriers will receive some benefit from this, with a marginal increase in chances of overage charges.

1) What's IANAL? Sounds kinky..
2) Why would anyone think a carrier would try block it in the first place?

 

[vultureboy]

You do of course have to remember that pretty much every phone i've had since around 2000 (All Nokias and Ericssons) let me tether to my PC via USB and use data through it on my PC. However doing this on the iPhone still costs me an extra fee! (Excluding jailbreaking methods etc)

Just because it's possible on other phones, doesn't mean that networks won't try and capitalize on the popularity of the iPhone.

 

[boss.king]

You do of course have to remember that pretty much every phone i've had since around 2000 (All Nokias and Ericssons) let me tether to my PC via USB and use data through it on my PC. However doing this on the iPhone still costs me an extra fee! (Excluding jailbreaking methods etc)

Just because it's possible on other phones, doesn't mean that networks won't try and capitalize on the popularity of the iPhone.

Yeah but was there the same possibility to use massive amounts of data on an unlimited plan with your old Nokia?

 

[vultureboy]

Yeah but was there the same possibility to use massive amounts of data on an unlimited plan with your old Nokia?

Actually yes, the internet hasn't changed that much in 10 years. When it comes to data transfer, especially since Napster (the real one) was the in fashion in those days, I used quite a bit of data and I never had a cap (at least one I knew about)

And that doesn't change the fact that to use tethering on my iPhone I have to sign up to a specific data tariff however this isn't a necessity on other phones. No matter how much data I use it's the iPhone that forces me to buy a separate data tariff where I should be able to just use my normal contract even if I have to pay just for usage.

In other words, just because the network allows one phone to do something in a certain way doesn't mean that they will allow a different phone to do it.

 

[boss.king]

Actually yes, the internet hasn't changed that much in 10 years. When it comes to data transfer, especially since Napster (the real one) was the in fashion in those days, I used quite a bit of data and I never had a cap (at least one I knew about)

And that doesn't change the fact that to use tethering on my iPhone I have to sign up to a specific data tariff however this isn't a necessity on other phones. No matter how much data I use it's the iPhone that forces me to buy a separate data tariff where I should be able to just use my normal contract even if I have to pay just for usage.

In other words, just because the network allows one phone to do something in a certain way doesn't mean that they will allow a different phone to do it.

Ok I see what you mean. I think the reason the tethering costs extra (in the US) is that the iPhone is really the first smartphone for the masses, and as such it runs a greater risk of overloading the networks when millions of people decide to use it as their primary internet access point. The data cap keeps that in check. Sure, there are ways around it, but not everyone knows about them or is able to implement them, making data caps effective in terms of the general public.

 

[rdowns]

1) What's IANAL? Sounds kinky..
2) Why would anyone think a carrier would try block it in the first place?

iAnal is what you do after iLubing up. It could also mean I am not a lawyer.

No reason, just to start a meaningless thread.

 

[Jeffrosproto]

I personally don't think anyone is going to be dropping Unlimited messaging because of iMessages. Out of my 100+ contacts, only 4 or 5 have iPhones, and I need to keep texting for the other 96+. I'd imagine it's that way with most other people, too. Therefore, I doubt the carriers will care.

 

[boss.king]

I personally don't think anyone is going to be dropping Unlimited messaging because of iMessages. Out of my 100+ contacts, only 4 or 5 have iPhones, and I need to keep texting for the other 96+. I'd imagine it's that way with most other people, too. Therefore, I doubt the carriers will care.

Exactly. I know a handful of people with iPhones, many with Blackberries, a few on Android, and lots still using dumbphones. The only way this would kill text messaging is if everyone was using an iPhone (and it is also why I maintain that iMessage is less useful than Whatsapp)

 

[lsvtecjohn3]

I personally don't think anyone is going to be dropping Unlimited messaging because of iMessages. Out of my 100+ contacts, only 4 or 5 have iPhones, and I need to keep texting for the other 96+. I'd imagine it's that way with most other people, too. Therefore, I doubt the carriers will care.

I will, most of the people I text have iPhones can't wait to drop my unlimited messaging plan

 

[FSMBP]

iAnal is what you do after iLubing up. It could also mean I am not a lawyer.

No reason, just to start a meaningless thread.

Haha. Makes sense!

 

[openendstraight]

Most of the people I text have iPhones, but I will not drop my unlimited texting because it is only $30 a month for all 4 lines. Plus by having unlimited family texting, I get unlimited mobile to mobile calling free, this means more than the texting to me.

 

[AppleFanatic10]

1) What's IANAL? Sounds kinky..
2) Why would anyone think a carrier would try block it in the first place?

Lmao, it does sound kinky doesn't it?

 

[brayhite]

1) What's IANAL? Sounds kinky..
2) Why would anyone think a carrier would try block it in the first place?

Ask these people:

I seriously believe the US carriers will not go along with allowing iMessage, as they do not want anything eating their profits away. Sure RIM does it, but APPLE is becoming a much larger player than RIM. They will either block that feature, or charge per message.

It is a big step in the right direction and I am interested to see how the carriers react to it.

Not going to pull me away from IM+ though, most of my friends don't have iphones and a couple don't have cell phones.

They obviously have expressed interest in seeing what carriers will do in reaction to this. I doubt they're alone.

Oh, and there IS this whole PCMag article discussing it at length, as well: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386513,00.asp

iAnal is what you do after iLubing up. It could also mean I am not a lawyer.

No reason, just to start a meaningless thread.

See the already stated. It's not necessarily meaningless. You just don't see the point. As I already said, some people have expressed concern over how carriers will react, and I wanted to throw in my two cents as basically a rebuttal to those people.

You do of course have to remember that pretty much every phone i've had since around 2000 (All Nokias and Ericssons) let me tether to my PC via USB and use data through it on my PC. However doing this on the iPhone still costs me an extra fee! (Excluding jailbreaking methods etc)

Just because it's possible on other phones, doesn't mean that networks won't try and capitalize on the popularity of the iPhone.

True, but can you do that with your phone now? I don't know personally, but I'd imagine you can't. So just because they charge for tethering now doesn't mean they can be inconsistent and allow it for one phone but not the other. The solution would be to allow Apple to provide it or none, bringing me back to my point that carriers will either have to abolish it for all phones, Blackberries AND iPhones, or allow it for both.

 

[DDustiNN]

Why would you ever think a carrier can/would stop iMessages? It just uses your data connection, pure and simple.

This thread is a waste...

 

[eastercat]

AT&T stopped tethering from being implemented on their phones, until they could figure out how to charge for it.
If AT&T stopped this, I'm sure the JB community will find a workaround.

Why would you ever think a carrier can/would stop iMessages? It just uses your data connection, pure and simple.

This thread is a waste...

 

[nateo200]

1) What's IANAL? Sounds kinky..
2) Why would anyone think a carrier would try block it in the first place?

Why would a carrier want to block free text messaging? I'm not sure...think about it first.

Anyways if they tried to block it and by they I mean carriers they would be overstepping their scope of influence and the FCC would likely smack them in the ass like they did with AT&T and Apple with I believe Google voice...something to do with VoIP over cellular data.

 

[boss.king]

Why would a carrier want to block free text messaging? I'm not sure...think about it first.

But there are many alternatives to this already in use.

 

[wxman2003]

The point is moot, because all the carriers in the US will eventually have tiered data plans, so you will pay for it anyway.

 

[Pink∆Floyd]

Pfffff, iAnal?

Really?

 

[mysterioustko]

Not sure why so much paranoia of carriers trying to charge for iMessages. Understand that this is not anything new. RIM has been doing it for ages. Android has been doing it since the inception (Google Talk). Add to that the fact that there are more android phones in the market than iphones and carriers have not batted an eye at Google Talk. I doubt very seriously that there is anything to worry about as far as carriers charging for iMessages.