AT&T Network Can't Handle Slingbox For iPhone? > Can you say Anti-Competitive

reply to fAcEtIOUs

Re: Can you say Anti-Competitive

Except in this case it's time shifted video which HAS NO BUSINESS running over voice centered cellular networks. If it's allowed to run just WiFi, someone will break it out to run over ATT on the jailbird phones, so it's best not to even release it.

reply to JasonOD
You couldn't be ANY more wrong in your post there guy. "Voice centered cellular network"? really? Voice is voice.. data is data. I don't think my data was interrupted by someone trying to use my data line to make a call.

And second of all, I really could care of the "what if's" in this argument. Someone can already break the network by writing their own app and running it on the phone. AT&T has Windows mobile phones and sling has an app for it now. So, what's different?

Hackers can hack an app, the phone, or open developers can make apps of their own that will do things that go against the system, so the potential is already there. So, with your thinking, should be constantly live in the fear of what-if? .. should be all be inside pulling the shades in fear that there is a possibility that someone may try to harm you? No.. we go on with out lives, and we deal with life in risk management. Right now, there is no major risk that needs to be dealt with. In society, you can't punish everyone for the possibility that a few may do something the rest doesn't like. So yea.. let's block out a million legitimate people from using WiFi on their iPod becuase a few may jailbreak the app.... seriously! .. give me a break.

I'm leaning to believe that this is an attempt to protect the U-verse product coming to iPhones soon.

Voice and data for the most part share the same frequency. In some cases data takes up more "Channels" on the backhaul than a single voice call.

Either way data really does not block up a site, but the wireless companies backhaul barely handles what's available and LTE is going to break their networks unless they upgrade to bigger pipes.

reply to fiberguy
youre' kidding right? It's a digital network and voice is carried via IP i.e. voip so its all data anyways. Its not rocket science, think about it. Even if you're using an analog house phone everything is converted to IP anyways to save on bandwidth over the haul. Actually take the time to research or go on some telecom forums and read, you'll see. I bet we have a few phone tech reading thru these and I bet they can even give the specifics of their networks doing.

No matter what is said "technically" here matters.. and is not valid to the point I was stating. It's not a "voice centered network" when they are selling a voice service and a data service. To me, the consumer, dropping $59.99 a month on data, it's a data network. When you spend what ever you do on voice, it's a voice network. I could care less how the back end technological points work. If they stopped selling voice service, then its a data network, right? And, if you say, as you did, "it's all data" then the problem lies with the fact they are over selling services they shouldn't in the first place.

It seems now we're getting into a semantics game. It is now becoming who's paid-for-services are more important than the others. If there isn't enough room for both on the network, they either need to upgrade the network's capacity, or stop selling a service, data, that they can't sell in the first place.. IF it's impacting the network's voice services.. that is, if VOICE is more important to them. (Or, better yet, raise the rates to something more sustainable and plow money into the network to increase capacity) This is one of those times where morals actually do play out in business.