Re: Simple solution.. Like Apple actually gives a shit about the customer
| |RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
Re: Simple solution..
said by Metatron2008:I know. I just wanted to start the thread off on the right foot.
Like Apple actually gives a shit about the customer
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
Re: Simple solution..
said by en103:any corporation
Did you mean Apple or AT&T ?
| |intellerSociopaths always win.
Re: This town needs an enema! well I wanted to respect the man's privacy and not show any of his home photos.
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!"
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.
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.
Re: Not sure what the big deal is? Sorry -- I'm too much of a libertarian to need to go to the government every time I think that a business is potentially harming my enjoyment of their property.
More practically, once again, AT&T (in this case) isn't actually *blocking* anything; they're *restricting* the usage of a service on their network to certain categories of usage (say, wifi, or to certain blocks of data, versus unlimited).
Yet, as I've said before, maybe there'll be enough of an outcry that AT&T will eventually relent on their current policy, which is meant to protect their property.
For me, yes -- I'm on an unlimited plan as well, and when I receive my iPhone 5, I know that my "throttled" limit goes to 5GB (even though all my past monthly usage shows I never go beyond 2GB). I think the idea of using FaceTime over the cellular network is a waste of two things: time and bandwidth.
First, you have to get sender and receiver set up to do the call, then the network has to be clear enough to ensure that the reception is decent enough to even carry on the call for the duration of the call, and then to stop it.
For my wife and I, it's so much simpler to either text each other or make a plain, old, telephone call. But maybe that's just us.
| |MoracCat godReviews:
| |said by JasonOD :AT&T is blocking a third party usage of their network, which is the very definition of a network neutrality violation. AT&T claims they can do this because FaceTime is built into iOS.
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.
Say AT&T decides they want to block YouTube, which is another built-in app (in iOS 5 and earlier). Well according to AT&T, they can block it if they want. Now as of iOS 6, YouTube is no longer built-in, it's a downloadable app. According to AT&T, they can't block those apps.
So if AT&T was blocking YouTube, they could do so under iOS 5, but not iOS 6. That makes as much sense as AT&T blocking FaceTime and claiming that they are "allowing it over WiFi" (which makes even less sense).
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.