dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-18 11:59:28: Consumer groups will be filing an official complaint against's AT&T's decision to force iPhone users to upgrade to an AT&T shared data plan if they want to use Facetime video chat over cellular networks. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2

Simple solution..

@pple can fix this by removing Facetime in iOS 6.01, and then making Facetime a downloadable app through the app store.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

2 recommendations

Like Apple actually gives a shit about the customer


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Metatron2008:

Like Apple actually gives a shit about the customer

I know. I just wanted to start the thread off on the right foot.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us

en103

join:2011-05-02
reply to Metatron2008
Did you mean Apple or AT&T ?


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
said by en103:

Did you mean Apple or AT&T ?

any corporation


mpls_nathan

@comcast.net

people should know better by now

A few years ago I would feel bad for consumers who had the misfortune to deal with at&t. Not anymore. At&t has made it abundantly clear that that it will gouge it’s customers whenever possible. If you choose to do business with this company you have no right to complain you should know better by now.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Think of it Like This

We're the children between a marriage of Apple and AT&T.

Needless to say, we're going to be needing lots of therapy.


JasonOD

@comcast.net

Not sure what the big deal is?

AT&T never took anything away from users, and never offered facetime over 3g until now. They added 3g facetime as a subscriber benefit to data plans that allow potential heavy-use compensation to AT&T in the form of overages. That's really the entire story, no net-neutrality issue here.


Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
reply to Os

Re: Think of it Like This

duplicate

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast

1 recommendation

reply to JasonOD

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

I'm going to have to agree with this and, hence, go against the mob.

Who owns the network? Who owns FaceTime?

These are both critical questions when considering any argument RE: net neutrality.

In answer to my own questions, the former is AT&T and the latter is Apple. So, if it's their property, and I as a consumer agree to use said property per certain terms and conditions (and assuming that these conditions are legally applicable), then I am beholden to the property owner for so long as I agree to be bound by said terms and conditions.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to Os

Re: Think of it Like This

It really sucks that Sprint and Verizon does not have the iPhone.... Oh wait. They do but it's easier to moan, bitch, and sue that it is to vote with your wallet.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
reply to Metatron2008

This town needs an enema!

All you whining customers need to shut up and pay up so I can afford my Botox shots!

--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

reply to maestro7

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

You have it all wrong.... If customers pay for 1 iPhone and 1 monthly subscription the customer is entitled to a seat in the boardroom. /sarcasm off

If you don't like a companies policy you can always leave when your contract is up. You can bitch and moan all you want but if you keep paying your bill they are going to assume you are a happy customer. They are in the business of making money and if they don't see a change in revenue then they are going to assume that they are on the right track. Until people get off their lazy asses and start leaving companies over stuff like this they are going to keep doing this stuff.

Right now Sprint has unlimited data for the iPhone and Verizon and AT&T has caps. Verizon and AT&T are the two biggest wireless carriers so it appears in numbers that people are happy with caps. If there was a mass exodus to Sprint from both carriers you can bet that AT&T and Verizon would notice and they would react accordingly.

It will never happen because consumers are too lazy and unwilling to make any kind of sacrifice to change the norm.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to JasonOD
This is precisely a net neutrality issue: forcing users to pay more for specific traffic. AT&T and any other provider shouldn't decide what traffic is free and what should cost extra. Data is data.


inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
reply to Os

Kung Fu Randall says...

your ass...its where my fist is going.


--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to inteller

Re: This town needs an enema!

The guy makes millions, he can easily get them.

You must mean to pay for a non ugly face


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to JasonOD

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

said by JasonOD :

AT&T never took anything away from users, and never offered facetime over 3g until now. They added 3g facetime as a subscriber benefit to data plans that allow potential heavy-use compensation to AT&T in the form of overages. That's really the entire story, no net-neutrality issue here.

And those filing the complaint with the FCC bring up the deaf as being discriminated against - guess what - there are other products for the iPhone that can do what Facetime does. Ever hear of Skype? So the deaf won't be shut out from communicating face to face.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/


inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
reply to battleop

Re: Think of it Like This

oh yes because dropping LTE with no fallback when you make a call is so much better.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to maestro7

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

Thats like saying it's okay if they force you not to be able to use the phone app because you are on plan so and so.


inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
reply to FFH5

Laughing Randall says...

no please DO send those complaints in!

Me and the boys at the FCC love sitting around the table knockin back brews while reading these and getting a good laugh out of them!


--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to battleop

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

Though I would agree with you on some levels, I will whole heartedly disagree with you on the underlying message that says they are doing the right thing if they remain so large.

For the most part only AT&T and Verizon have good nationwide coverage, especially over Sprint and T-Mobile. This has been said over and over by many here that use their services and have used "competitors". So with that in mind it really isn't a matter of just switching to another carrier and it really isn't that they are so big because they are "better".

If all things were equal and you can get Sprint, T-Moble, AT&T or Verizon with the same services quality all over this nation then 1 of 2 things would happen: 1.) Verizon and AT&T would actually compete and have lower prices along with unlimited data / voice / text. or 2.) Sprint and T-Mobile would be eating Verizon's and AT&T's lunch.

Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. Right now we have 2 companies that own a vast majority of the market because they own a vast majority of the spectrum and coverage of the country. Therefore those 2 companies do not compete with one another nor with any smaller competitors. Instead, they coexist and extract as much as regulations and their monopolistic market control will allow without being officially labeled as such or as companies in collusion.


Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1

1 edit

Who cares?

Facetime means both parties need iOS. Use Skype or any of the other options and video conference to your hearts content over cellular and with anyone, not just an iOS user.

Apple and AT&T really have nothing special in Facetime. I don't understand the uproar.
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo


inteller
Sociopaths always win.

join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
because stupid lemmings who only buy idevices think Facetime is the only option.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Nezmo
Agreed, Skype would be a better alternative. However, the issue is that they are selectively discriminating against an application. How good or bad that application is and the limitations it may have is irrelevant in every way.

They claim they can do this because it is preloaded. What if they start preloading Skype and Netflix and Pandora or any other popular app that may use bandwidth and/or threatens a service they provide? I would be willing to bet that if they are allowed to do this with Facetime you will certainly see anything threatening to them preloaded.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to Skippy25

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

You mean for the most part verizon has good nationwide coverage.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to maestro7
I would understand restricting this for grandfathered "Unlimited" customers (and I'm one of those customers).

However, for customers paying for blocks of data, I think the FCC should strictly enforce net neutrality. If I'm paying for a specific quantity of data, I should be able to use it however I want. I shouldn't have to pay extra for tethering or FaceTime. There's no excuse other than gouging to force people to switch to a share plan for this feature.

I get your argument that it's their business, but sometimes the government needs to step in to prevent outright consumer abuse. Remember when we were required to rent a landline phone from the phone company? Remember when we used to have to pay per TV connected to cable? (Oh, wait...)
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


berto 1355

@blazenet.net
reply to inteller

Re: This town needs an enema!

Click for full size
Fixed that picture for you...


Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
reply to Skippy25

Re: Who cares?

said by Skippy25:

Agreed, Skype would be a better alternative. However, the issue is that they are selectively discriminating against an application. How good or bad that application is and the limitations it may have is irrelevant in every way.

They claim they can do this because it is preloaded. What if they start preloading Skype and Netflix and Pandora or any other popular app that may use bandwidth and/or threatens a service they provide? I would be willing to bet that if they are allowed to do this with Facetime you will certainly see anything threatening to them preloaded.

Generally that would require a revenue sharing agreement between the parties, so the maker of the app would have to agree...
--
-M

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
reply to Metatron2008

Re: Simple solution..

I'm pretty sure that AT&T wouldn't have done this without Apple's support. It's not a network neutrality violation if the application maker writes the software that way.

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast
reply to Metatron2008

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

I never said that anything was OK. I merely stated who owned what and therefore said property owners have certain intrinsic rights to their property, which means that a renter of such property cannot demand those same rights, unless the property owner allows it.

If I owned my own wireless telephone network, and I knew that certain devices tended to "overstay" their welcome on the network to the point that there were imminent, potential ramifications to others who were similarly on my network, then I have the right (as the owner of said network) to restrict usage based on those products/services that tend to have a bigger "overstay" potential.

Also remember that this isn't *blocking* usage, this is *restricting* usage. Then again, perhaps if enough people find such restrictions harmful enough to their general usage and enjoyment of network rental, perhaps the owner of said network will relent and make a change.