 | | So where's the Update! Where's the update to Skype? | |
|
 |  NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | Re: So where's the Update! Probably sitting in the apple update queue. You know there's a non-negligible turnaround time for even putting out updates, right? As they're subjected to the exact same scrutiny and prolonged process as normal app submissions.
3G Unrestrictor has done this forever for all of us that care.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. | |
|
 shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | I dont get it Why isn't AT&T (or any other carrier) allowed to restrict what applications access their network? I mean sure, be honest about it, but why should they be forced to carry a semi-competitive service which has the possibility to eat into their revenues? Maybe AT&T should bill Skype for the data traffice their "free" service uses. | |
|
|  Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | Re: I dont get it said by shaner:Maybe AT&T should bill Skype for the data traffice their "free" service uses. The CUSTOMER pays for the traffic Skype uses when they cut their monthly check to AT&T. | |
|
| | shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Re: I dont get it 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: I dont get it What does this have to do with anything?
Creepy imagery though... | |
|
| | | | shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Re: I dont get it 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: I dont get it said by shaner: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. It's not about impeding the performance of their network.
Analogies suck, but since you insist.
It's more like paying for internet from your cable company, then they refuse to let you watch youtube, because it 'provides a competing service, and a company shouldn't be expected to facilitate their competition'. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | 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... | |
|
| | | | |  tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA | You typed this message in and I downloaded it.
Should you pay me now?
There are 2 sides....  | |
|
| | | | | | | I agree with your point Shaner. That said, I doubt Skype is damage AT&T's network, I just agree that since it is THEIR network, they should be able to make the rules--it's only logical. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: I dont get it said by Fox McCloud:I agree with your point Shaner. That said, I doubt Skype is damage AT&T's network, I just agree that since it is THEIR network, they should be able to make the rules--it's only logical. So if AT&T wanted to restrict access to websites geared towards African-Americans, Latinos, Gay and Lesbians or women's groups should they be allowed to, because it's their network?
The answer is no, because while it is their network they are subject to regulation, since they are using public airwaves and public rights of way. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  Re: I dont get it
said by fifty nine:said by Fox McCloud:I agree with your point Shaner. That said, I doubt Skype is damage AT&T's network, I just agree that since it is THEIR network, they should be able to make the rules--it's only logical. So if AT&T wanted to restrict access to websites geared towards African-Americans, Latinos, Gay and Lesbians or women's groups should they be allowed to, because it's their network? Yes, they should be able to do all those things--I might not agree with any of that, but they have the right to do that, since again, it's their property.
The answer is no, because while it is their network they are subject to regulation, since they are using public airwaves and public rights of way.
only within the current paradigm--airwaves are no different than land, and should be treated as such; sadly, Mr. Hoover didn't like this idea, thanks to influence by special interests. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: I dont get it so if att wants to charge you for using http on your phone because it's "slowing their network" it's fair? Are you kidding me? skype is voip which is data, and i pay 30 bucks a month for unlimited data. it's false advertisement by its definition and thats why fcc stepped in. open your eyes and start thinking buddy, noone will do it for you. | |
|
| | | | | | | Skype uses a paltry 6 kB of data throughput, so the restriction can't be about network performance, especially since AT&T touts video streaming in their own ads about their network.
If they are worried about financial performance, then what you're saying is that AT&T should be able to restrict anything that they can't make additional money in providing the service. That means good-bye to Google Maps, because they have their own service. Good-bye to email, because they too have their own email. Whatever AT&T wants to make money on above and beyond the $30 per month, they should be able to cut off, charge extra for and eliminate any consumer choice.
How 1950's. Here's your email, here's your mapping, and here's your big black bakeline phone that you can only get from the phone company. | |
|
| | | Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | | | shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Re: I dont get it Meh. It was off the top of my head.
*shrug* | |
|
| | | innoman-Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·VoicePulse
| 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: I dont get it Your dumpster analogy is actually true in many places. You do know that recycling is mandatory in many places, and that you could be fined for throwing recyclables in the trash, right? | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | If she is paying you to transport her and her goods, then yes.
She paid. You should deliver. | |
|
| | |
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | They do. $30 per month. | |
|
|  nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by shaner:Why isn't AT&T (or any other carrier) allowed to restrict what applications access their network? I mean sure, be honest about it, but why should they be forced to carry a semi-competitive service which has the possibility to eat into their revenues? Maybe AT&T should bill Skype for the data traffice their "free" service uses. Sounds like you drunk the same Koolaide that the telco execs did when they were talking, loudly, about Google (et al.) should have to pay them for use of their pipes to deliver content to the telcos' customers.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
|
| | shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Re: I dont get it 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: I dont get it said by 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? So, should Comcast & AT&T be able to block access to netflix and youtube for their residential broadband customers, since they provide competing services? | |
|
| | | | | said by shaner:I guess I'm asking why AT&T can't restrict access to their network by competitive forces? Simple answer: Because they are a dumbpipe and just don't know it yet. | |
|
| | | 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?
| |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | 2 reasons:
1. It's anti-competitive.
2. The customers want it, and pay for it. Therefore they should get it. | |
|
| | | You don't get it because either:
1) You're a telco shill
OR
2) You don't understand that the user has already paid the telco for data service | |
|
| | shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Re: I dont get it Ahhh yes. But Skype is different isn't it? It has the *potential* to erode voice revenue. | |
|
| | Sticking with WinMo One of the many reasons I love my WinMo phones. No one telling you what you can and can't do with the phone and service you pay/paid for.
--
SouthWest Louisiana PC Users Group »www.swlapcug.com | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Sticking with WinMo Yup - even though WinMo is far from a perfect platform, it has less restrictions than others. I use PocketPuTTy, Remote Desktop, zmIRC and Skype Mobile on it.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | Re: Sticking with WinMo said by en102:Yup - even though WinMo is far from a perfect platform, it has less restrictions than others. I use PocketPuTTy, Remote Desktop, zmIRC and Skype Mobile on it. Been using Slingplayer and VoIP software over the 3G cellular connection for more than 2 yrs on the WinMo platform.
--
SouthWest Louisiana PC Users Group »www.swlapcug.com | |
|
Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | This will simply lead to data caps Much more of this and AT&T will just put the same 5GB monthly cap they have on LaptopConnect plans on the iPhone plans. | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: This will simply lead to data caps iPhone users, unless they're tethering, don't hit 5GB anyway, and won't even with Skype. | |
|
 PhilRojo SolPremium
join:2001-06-11
Downers Grove, IL
kudos:2 | Google Voice... | |
|
| | | Re: Google Voice... said by Phil:...approve it now! Ya know, in light of everything..
There's an app that will sync your contacts to Google.
There's multiple apps that use voice minutes to make calls and use their own dialer interface.
There's multiple apps that provide SMS service.
Yet they deny google voice. | |
|
| | | | Re: Google Voice... Five bucks ATT/Apple approves Google Voice after telling them to make one stupid face saving change (e.g. "change the color of the program"). Even corporations need to save face. | |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Slingbox... What about 3G Support for that app? And yet, the Slingbox App remains crippled to Wifi on the iPhone while Blackberry devices can use it over 3G. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Slingbox... What about 3G Support for that app? said by IPPlanMan:And yet, the Slingbox App remains crippled to Wifi on the iPhone while Blackberry devices can use it over 3G. Because iphone users tend to be suckers. After all they bought an iphone  | |
|
| | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Slingbox... What about 3G Support for that app? And how is this Apple's fault? | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Slingbox... What about 3G Support for that app? said by IPPlanMan:And how is this Apple's fault? Dont sign a contract with a carrier that discriminates on its cellular internet connection. | |
|
| | | Yeah something stinks. I agree. And its AT&T opening the 3G network to every app developer except the Slingbox.
What a load of horse $#%#. | |
|
| | I Love This New Administration At least they are tackling issues, instead of going around them.
cough cough GW Bush | |
|
| | | Re: I Love This New Administration They're tackling issue alright! Looks like enslavement to me. All the big companies are getting their payoffs it seems. Looks like "both sides" are kind of sucky... | |
|
 Jim_in_VA
join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4 | Slingbox... yeah I love that app on my Sprint Touch Pro. Works great. I do wish Sprint would sign on with ESPN360 though ...
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/ | |
|
| | re: skype on iphone Cue data plan rate hikes in 3....2....1 | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| LMAO!!! All I know is my iPhone does what I want it to do. I stream live TV to it from my computer at home without any Slingcrap. I don't do the tethering BS either. I didn't live off of MMS so there goes that. Its fast anywhere I go and I travel on the road a lot. Stop drinking that Haterade!!!!! Lets talk about the root cause of the issue. People can't either afford it or they wouldn't know how to use it.
I have to admit I drank some of that haterade a while back but I have now seen the light and I pay my monthly access. The day I open up a wireless company it will be different.
Work it Bs!!!! | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | What's their new business model? Begin business model discussion :
at&t's iphone plan is something like this right now:
$30/month data
$40/month for 450 minutes, $100/month for unlimited (with intermediates)
$20/month for unlimited text
now, I assume the sms is not affected in any way,apple already replaced it with free e-mail, and sms will die a long slow death at its current price.
It seems though, that they're going to have to shift the "basic access toll" from charging minutes to charging data.
I would bet that the price will have to move to something like
$70/month for basic access, ~10GB data cap and 1000 minutes voice
+$10/month unlimited voice (SMS?)
+$20/month unlimited data or higher data cap
What do you all think? I figure at the very least this is good for ending the cross-subsidization that was appearing on the wireless networks... | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: What's their new business model? Metered billing per byte instead of per minute. | |
|
| | bemis
join:2008-07-18
Reading, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: What's their new business model? said by openbox9:Metered billing per byte instead of per minute. Awesome...
DS0 (uncompressed digital telephone line) are spec'd at 64Kb/s ... let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume a full duplex connection requires 64Kb/s in each direction ... further let's assume they begin spinning the byte meter forward for both upload and download transfers...
128Kb/s = 960KB/min ...
5GB = 5,242,880KB
So my 5GB cap nets me over 5400 minutes per month of full-rate, uncompressed, full-duplex talk time. | |
|
 B52GUNRKM 7D love and D3 NirvanaPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA | Latency...ugh While it's a nice CYA maneuver by AT&T, I can't even imagine using VoiP with the latency over 3G (the best I've seen is 150ms). Still, I agree that users should be able to use their phone however they want and this is a good thing, again, even if it was a CYA.
--
Some assembly required, your mileage may vary, no pixels were harmed in the writing of this post. Brain cells, though, are a different matter. You want fries with that? | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
|
