AT&T Finally Allows Skype Over 3G > I dont get it

I dont get it

reply to shaner
They do. $30 per month.

reply to Z80
Yeah, good point.

I dunno, it just seems like this:

Imagine your neighbour asks if you can give her a lift to the store. She'll pay you $30 to provide this service. When you pull up, she loads your back seat with a huge slobbering, shedding dog. She also lights up a smoke all the way to the store. Coming back, she loads your trunk full of groceries, and manages to strap some patio furniture to your roof.

It's your car. It's your gas. You laid out all the capital costs. But as long as she pays you that $30, she can do with your investment all she wants.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

What does this have to do with anything?
Creepy imagery though...

Well AT&T sells you access to their network which they paid for. AT&T should be able to reserve the right to restrict anything they might feel impedes the performance of their network. Whether that means impeding the physical or financial performance, that decision should be up to them. Whether you agree with that decision is not the issue here. Just because they sell access does not mean the users have the right to do whatever they want.

I know it's fashionable to bash telcos and large corporations, but there really are 2 sides to every story.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

reply to shaner
It's their network and they should have final say as to what apps run so long as it is made clear before people sign up, but them saying "skype is getting a free ride", if the ever did say such a thing is bogus. Customer are footing the bill for their data plans.

But it is certain that apps like skype would cannibalize their voice revenues and those revenues are in part necessary to build, expand and/or maintain the network. So if voice revenues drop, data revenues will have to go up. People will pay for all of this one way or another.

reply to shaner
First of all, what you are describing here is illegal. You cannot operate for hire unless you are licensed as a taxicab driver and your car is licensed as a taxicab.

Secondly, your example is way out of proportion. A more appropriate analogy would be a licensed taxicab (which is regulated by the Government) denying someone a ride to the airport because they can make more profit with someone who just wants a ride a few blocks away.

AT&T's network used public airwaves and they are supposed to serve the public with reasonable service. If they fail to do so they should have their licenses revoked and someone who can serve the public interest replace them. That is the price they should pay for using public airwaves.

reply to shaner

reply to shaner
My professor, from as far back as the 60's, always warned that analogies are dangerous. They are useful to a limited point and rarely fits the analogous situation in its entirety.

You have gone way over and beyond in your rendition of your analogy of a taxi to broadband. I know Taxi's where I am from limit where you can put your groceries, and certainly not in a seat that can be occupied by another paying customer. When I use my broadband connection, no one else can be riding on my bit stream that I have contracted to pay for up to my limit.

This analogy is poor, very ... very poor.

Meh. It was off the top of my head.

*shrug*

reply to shaner
No, I got it, but that analogy isn't great. For one thing, at&t is selling access to the internet, NOT their network or content on their network per se. This is what got them to their market share in the first place. What they're trying to do now that there is an established market is to "change the game". The market would not have been there had it been a closed network like they want to do. Look at AOL. They had a close network and it was small until they opened up to the internet. Soooo, really the ISP are conduits to the larger internet. That's how I see it anyway...

reply to shaner
You typed this message in and I downloaded it.

Should you pay me now?

There are 2 sides....

reply to shaner

Re: I dont get it

reply to shaner
Dude, your analogy is absurd!!! Not to be a jerk, but it really is. In your scenario, the neighbor is doing a great deal of damage, more than just gas or normal wear and tear on the car. It goes above and beyond what she is paying for.

As for the AT&T thing, you are paying for 5GB of data per month (since unlimited actually means 5GB with US carriers) to use however. It shouldn't matter how you are using that data, especially since you are paying for a whole lot more than you are getting. Not even considering that I was able to use Skype over 3G with my WinMo phone, just not with my iPhone.

Think of it more that you are being given a pipe that goes from your home to your dumpster to dispose of whatever you may want to dispose of with. There are no regulations on what can go into said dumpster; however, the company who is giving you the pipe decides to say that you can't put any paper down it. It won't hurt the pipe any more than throwing plastic or metal down it and you are entirely allowed to put anything in the dumpster... But you just can't put paper down it because the pipe company wants to charge you more to use a different pipe for that paper. Nevermind the fact that the company who provides the dumpster actually has a machine capable of separating the paper from the metal and plastic... You just can't use that pipe for paper...

The fact that AT&T or any other company can tell us what we can and can't use our connection for is really ridiculous. It's bad enough they put show low caps on service that costs so much.

reply to shaner

Yeah, I certainly don't mean to drag up net neutrality arguments.

I was more thinking that allowing Skype onto their network didn't damage their physical network per se, but it does do damage to their financial network.

I guess I'm asking why AT&T can't restrict access to their network by competitive forces?
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.

reply to shaner
WEll get this i am an ATT customer and I pay for data access via ATT.

ATT is unfairly and non competitively restricting how and what data i use. Suppose they restricted access to the New York times or data hogging Utube?

I am paying for a service that is misrepresented as being open data access and it is not! ATT has a history of bullying customers, the FCC is supposed to protect us. Remember also ATT uses PUBLIC airways (under license) they do not own these airways.

Does this make any sense?

reply to shaner
2 reasons:

1. It's anti-competitive.
2. The customers want it, and pay for it. Therefore they should get it.