dslreports logo
 story category
Consumer Groups to File Complaint About AT&T's Facetime Ploy
As AT&T Prepares to Use Rule Loopholes to Dodge Complaint

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. Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute collectively say they'll be filing a complaint with the FCC, a statement from Public Knowledge insisting AT&T's decision violates the FCC's network neutrality rules. An additional letter to AT&T (pdf) puts it this way:

quote:
Click for full size
We respectfully request that AT&T reconsider its behavior and the impact that blocking FaceTime will have on its customers, particularly the deaf and hard of hearing,as well as all who use this application to communicate with family and friends over the Internet. Making mobile use of the application available only to those customers who pay for unlimited voice and text messages harms individuals and innovation alike.

We ask instead that AT&T make this core feature of the popular iPhone and iPad devices available to all of its customers, in compliance with the Open Internet rules that "preserve the Internet as an open platform enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission."


Given the fact the FCC's rules are intentionally packed with loopholes (having been written with more than a little closed-door industry input) it remains unclear if they'll actually be enforceable in this instance. It also remains unclear if the FCC much cares about such issues, having previously hinted that such pricing practices are simply "creative" marketplace experimentation. In September the FCC crowed that they'd yet to see a single neutrality complaint, so this appears to be the first.

AT&T previously called the response to their Facetime blockade "kneejerk reactions," insisting that they technically weren't violating network neutrality because Facetime came preloaded on devices. As noted the rules clearly have loopholes, and AT&T is at least pretending they see one that allows them to argue it's fine to discriminate and otherwise hinder apps -- provided they're already on the device at sale.
view:
topics flat nest 

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

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
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

2 recommendations

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Simple solution..

Like Apple actually gives a shit about the customer

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Re: Simple solution..

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.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to Metatron2008

Member

to Metatron2008
Did you mean Apple or AT&T ?

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Simple solution..

said by en103:

Did you mean Apple or AT&T ?

any corporation

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

inteller

Member

This town needs an enema!

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

»images.businessweek.com/ ··· nson.jpg
Snapped 2012-09-18 11:09:43

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

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

berto 1355
@blazenet.net

berto 1355 to inteller

Anon

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

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

inteller

Member

Re: This town needs an enema!

well I wanted to respect the man's privacy and not show any of his home photos.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to Metatron2008

Member

to Metatron2008
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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Simple solution..

never was any network neutrality violation since NN does NOT even exist. On top of that the data on the cell network is still data, and data/HSI is NOT regulated by the FCC.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to Metatron2008

Member

to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:

Like Apple actually gives a shit about the customer

Apple sucks. Plain and simple. Here's one of the many reasons why.

That company will never see a dime of my money, nor will any Apple products exist in my household. Err, wait, I mean to say Apple (tm) products, I don't want to be sued for trademark infringement.....

Clemcon
@sbcglobal.net

Clemcon

Anon

Re: Simple solution..

I agree. I have never owned an Apple device nor do I plan to -in the forceable future.. the products are arrogantly overpriced. I'll admit the products are quite handsome looking, innovative and intuitive, but $349 - $900 for a cell phone.. not from my pocket. I also believe their products are over-engineered. Oh - forgot to mention I don't like the fact that probably 100% of their products are produced in China.

mpls_nathan
@comcast.net

mpls_nathan

Anon

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

Os

Member

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.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium Member
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA

Mizzat

Premium Member

Re: Think of it Like This

duplicate

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

inteller to Os

Member

to Os

Kung Fu Randall says...

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


»cdn4.macnn.com/article_i ··· n-sm.jpg
Snapped 2012-09-18 11:15:17

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to Os

Member

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.

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

inteller

Member

Re: Think of it Like This

oh yes because dropping LTE with no fallback when you make a call is so much better.

carpetshark3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO

carpetshark3 to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

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.

Some might just prefer GSM to CDMA. I can hand down phones to relatives in EU, and I can use theirs here.
MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium Member
join:2003-01-02
Columbia, SC

MrHappy316 to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
But then I can't facetime and browse the internet at the same time

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD

Anon

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.
maestro7
join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA

1 recommendation

maestro7

Member

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

1 recommendation

battleop

Member

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.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

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.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

You mean for the most part verizon has good nationwide coverage.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
Just because one has better coverage than another does NOT give some "group" like Public Knowledge or Free Press the right to demand crap like they do. Neither of them are in it for the public, they're only in it to make the bank off the consumers that donate and who ever gives them $$$$.

ATT has ever right to require this just as they require you to have a certain data plan to use tethering. Those customers don't like it, tell them not to buy the new iPhone from ATT.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

I and a vast majority of those that know what Net Neutrality is would strongly disagree with you on both the FaceTime and tethering apps.

These companies should do nothing more than provide you the service, how you choose to use it is your business. And before you try to pull the lame and BS "network management" card, they have all the network management they need with caps and overages on wireless connections. How quickly you use your allocated time is not their business. As long as you are willing to use it and pay for more through the system they setup, then it is not their concern.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
They already charge you for the data, with hefty overages. If I've bought the data they shouldn't be able to restrict what I use the data for.

It infuriates me when people say things like vote with your wallet or they can screw customers all they want.
These are laissez faire capitalist arguments, which have been repeated a ridiculousness amount of times in all tech forums since 2008, the situation isn't even considered, just the same right wing mantra repeated over and over.

In economies of scale, utility providers, monopolies or duopolies free market idea's simply don't work. Most people need better coverage than T-mobile or Sprint provides, so most people are stuck in the AT&T/Verizon duopoly whose prices are for all practical purposes identical, as they don't want actual competition, and they actively buy up spectrum to prevent any real competition from forming.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to battleop

Member

to battleop
Good points. Of course the sacrifice to the norm here is the extra money that the customer pays, or of they go to Sprint, a less robust network. However, if enough people went to Sprint, they'd have enough money to expand their network to match at&t/Vz if they wanted to do that instead of giving it to the shareholders.

clemcon
@sbcglobal.net

clemcon to battleop

Anon

to battleop
You heard it here first: as soon as Sprint's 4G LTE network has a sizable foorprint the unlimited plans will start disappearing or expect a rate increase. Unlimited data on 3G...who cares. Here in MI, only 1 market has 4G - Grand Rapids.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to maestro7

Premium Member

to maestro7
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.
maestro7
join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA

maestro7

Member

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.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Not sure what the big deal is?

Welcome to the world of business where the government defines how you may conduct your business whether you think you as an "owner" have a right to do what you will or not. They can tell you when, how and even if you can operate your business.

And lets not forget, they lease the spectrum from the government, they actually own nothing.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx to maestro7

Premium Member

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...)
maestro7
join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA

1 recommendation

maestro7

Member

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.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to JasonOD

Member

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.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to JasonOD

Premium Member

to JasonOD
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.

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

inteller

Member

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!


»news.isc.vn/en/tinkinhte ··· uy-1.jpg
Snapped 2012-09-18 11:35:45

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: Laughing Randall says...

Oh gawd.. my eyes.. MY EYES!!

Morac
Cat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ

Morac to JasonOD

Member

to JasonOD
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.

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.

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).

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

1 edit

Nezmo

MVM

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.

••••••••
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

perhaps too late?

perhaps people should have opened their mouths when at&t grabbed bell south & cingular again in that grand bargain for wireline.. condone bad behavior in the past and then you won't be able to stop it in the future..

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

In all fairness...

Iphone owners should be able to burn through their data caps however they see fit.

AT&T, on the other hand, doesn't want to deal with all of the whiny people who complain that they went over their cap and have to pay more and have to deal with all of the web sites that post horror stories about it.

SmokChsr
Who let the magic smoke out?
Premium Member
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL

SmokChsr

Premium Member

My Responce to AT&T & Apple as well

The last time I used a Apple product before I purchased an Iphone 4 it was an Apple IIe computer.

After getting the Iphone and learning the way that AT&T and Apple work together to excessively (reasonable charges would be acceptable) charge for everything, my solution will come very soon in the way of a Android on Metro.

PS I've been with the same carrier (was Bell South Mobility) since the late 80's. I've finally decided to throw in the towel and depart.