or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AT&T CEO says it's 'too early' to talk about 3G FaceTime fees
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T CEO says it's 'too early' to talk about 3G FaceTime fees - Page 2

post #41 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

It might not be as bad as people think. I'm pretty sure they're doing this to prevent people from chewing all their data in just a few FaceTime calls.
FaceTime data won't count toward your monthly data allowance since it will be a separate feature, which is not bad as long as AT&T doesn't charge more than $5 for the service.

 

If FaceTime 3g can't be implemented without gouging customers even more for their already overpriced and unreliable cellular service, Apple should just leave this as wifi only.

post #42 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

It might not be as bad as people think. I'm pretty sure they're doing this to prevent people from chewing all their data in just a few FaceTime calls.
FaceTime data won't count toward your monthly data allowance since it will be a separate feature, which is not bad as long as AT&T doesn't charge more than $5 for the service.

 

You must be new to the world of cellular carriers. Do you realize that you're paying anywhere from $700-1500 per MB for txt messages, which do not require any special routing or QoS like voice calls?

post #43 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Maybe they'll make it separate data, too, but I think the most likely is to charge a flat monthly fee (which is essentially for priority data) and but having it still use your total data allowance/

 

I read your explanation on how regular and video calling are inherently more expensive for carriers to support that regular data, due to the special handling required to ensure quality of service (minimal latency and dropped data).

 

Can you explain what special requirements justify the carriers charging upwards of $1300/MB for text messaging?

post #44 of 62

In Ireland I pay €5 per month to a MVNO on the o2 network for unlimited monthly data transfer (I don't know if it's truly unlimited yet, but I used 7GB last month and they didn't complain), and have the €5 left to spend. That includes tethering. Practically all international calls including the US cost 1c/min, and local calls cost either free, 3c/min or 19c/min (same network, landline and mobile). Incoming calls are of course unlimited and free. And when I top up by €5, I get €10, so in actual fact those costs are halved...

 

Mind you it didn't used to be like that here. I used to look at US plans with jealousy, but not anymore.

post #45 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

I don't get it. What does this have to do with his comment? If anything, your explanation underscores the fact that with users spending less and less time on voice calls and more time on data, the rates should be going down not up.

There is no reasonable way for you to come to that conclusion. Think of a highway. Think of a traffic jam. Now think of emergency vehicles riding on the shoulders or having other vehicles move out of the way to let them by. This is what QoS does for realtime voice and video. It has to be first or the system breaks down. Do you not see how these public services have costs that are different from getting in your dar and casually driving from point A to B?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

I read your explanation on how regular and video calling are inherently more expensive for carriers to support that regular data, due to the special handling required to ensure quality of service (minimal latency and dropped data).

Can you explain what special requirements justify the carriers charging upwards of $1300/MB for text messaging?

There is no reason why should be charging such an exorbitant rate and having it increase drastically over time which is why I refuse to pay for the service and with it would be investigated as potential price fixing and an oligopoly.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You must be new to the world of cellular carriers. Do you realize that you're paying anywhere from $700-1500 per MB for txt messages, which do not require any special routing or QoS like voice calls?

1) He never mentioned SMS in his comment.

2) SMS does require special routing. A direct connection isn't established between the two end parties like with a voice call or webpages. The data is sent between carriers and stored on their servers and then sent to you when your device is available, which is usually right away since SMS is sent over a special carrier channel that it keeps active so the telco knows what tower you are at when a call comes in.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #47 of 62

That may be the case, but I don't think much of the telcos' existing QoS. For all the times I've missed important moments because the text messages arrive 30-90 minutes later...

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #48 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Really? Maybe I am expecting too much.
Here's the basic rundown. When you load a website, get an iMessage, email, etc the data comes from the source to your device. Your device will inspect and acknowledge the data and if anything is corrupted or lost it can request new packets that are sent and then rechecked. There are many levels of redundancy built into the networking model to ensure delivery.
With VoIP (and by extension, video conferencing) all that goes out the window. There is a session set up to link the two end points and then the data is sent back and forth without the redundancy, error checking, and retransmissions that you find with TCP/IP. This is because RTP is better for UDP/IP. This is because TCP likes reliability where as UDP likes speed. This is important to VoIP because any delay is jarring to the listener. Even if we weren't used to standard telco voice calls feeling instant it would be jarring.
Now for VoIP to work it's not simply using the transport protocol with the smaller, simpler header but also making sure that these very specific packets using these very specific protocols are sent first. We call this QoS (Quality of Service). That means when all these packets get routed through router after router across the globe that the ones being used for VoIP are sent with the highest priority. This type of effort is considerably more complex and costlier to setup and maintain.I know this because I've done this.
It's easy to think of a 64Kbps analog call that can be compressed to 8Kbps for a modem voice codec as tiny but when you need that protocol to have no noticeable delay (or other routing artifacts) it gets tricky. Now at this point I've only really mentioned VoIP but video conferencing is no different, expect for the fact that it has all the same pitfalls as VoIP except that video requires a lot more data than simply voice. Now there is the benefit that a missing or corrupt packet might not be noticeable to the naked eye as easily with voice but there is so much traffic for video compared to voice that the issue is significant, especially when you through in QoS.
Does that clear how a webpage is different from a voice call?

 

That's a lot of fancy techno mumbo jumbo, and there is no way I can argue with you as far as how the technical aspects of VOIP work, but you need to answer me one question. Why havn't they been charging for it over wifi? The fact of the matter is, when you pay for a block of data usage, it should be good for whatever you want to use it for. Anything contrary to this is detrimental to net neutrality.

post #49 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) He never mentioned SMS in his comment.
2) SMS does require special routing. A direct connection isn't established between the two end parties like with a voice call or webpages. The data is sent between carriers and stored on their servers and then sent to you when your device is available, which is usually right away since SMS is sent over a special carrier channel that it keeps active so the telco knows what tower you are at when a call comes in.

SMS is in essence no different than an email where AT&T would be your outbound email gateway. Millions of internet providers manage to provide this service for every internet user, and many provide it for free. They gouge on the price. Any claims to the contrary are bullshit.

3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Double doesn't equal additional.
2) I'm amazed that you don't see how voice call is inherently different from loading a webpage despite, at the base level, it's all technically data, yet you aren't saying that carriers are wrong for charging you for voice minutes instead of just accounting for the actual data being sent and received. In 2012 people I do expect people on an tech forum to have a modicum of comprehension about differences between standard best effort data over TCP that can be checked and resent if something is missing and UDP real time data with the highest QoS priorities to ensure the best possible conversation with a importance in preventing from delayed, dropped, or out of sync frames.
 

I understand your analogy and what you are talking about when you compare UDP to TCP, but I completely disagree that the average person should be expected to understand this.  Also, people mentally view voice, SMS, and data as separate, even if they are all traveling over same network, because it has always been charged separately.  Most people think with their wallets.  I think AT&T has an uphill battle if they plan to make video conferencing separate, especially if Sprint and Verizon do not follow suit.  That said, I don't believe it should be illegal for AT&T to charge extra for FaceTime or video conferencing at all.  I think that is absurd. 

 

For me, prioritizing network traffic and using QoS is part of the job when you are managing a large network.  There will always be additional costs to ensure the best performance, scalability, and security.  You should pass those along, but it needs to be kept simple so people understand.  It also seems to me that forcing people to pay for priority of certain protocols and services would really re-spark the whole "network neutrality" debate and possibly push it into high gear.  If that happened, you may lose a lot of the freedom you have to prioritize traffic currently.  Adding the complexity and checks to see if a packet is from a paying customer seems like would make your network more complex and error prone.  That leads to more upset customers.  Everything is already complicated enough.  Maintain your network so people get the best performance possible and build those costs into the data plan.  Keep it simple.

 

Limited data is here to stay.  As Verizon seems to be heading towards a "one data plan for everything" strategy, I think people will prefer that to a strategy where you get nickled and dimed for "different" types of traffic. The average person wants to pay for 4GB of data and use it however the want. Can't say I blame them. 

post #51 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7 View Post

That's a lot of fancy techno mumbo jumbo, and there is no way I can argue with you as far as how the technical aspects of VOIP work, but you need to answer me one question. Why havn't they been charging for it over wifi? The fact of the matter is, when you pay for a block of data usage, it should be good for whatever you want to use it for. Anything contrary to this is detrimental to net neutrality.

It's not fancy, but it is complex. That said you or anyone else should be able to grasp how gasoline is different break fluid just as you should be able to grasp how a VoIP call is different from a webpage.

As for WiFi I have no idea what you mean by this but I have charged money for setting up WiFi routers to be optimized for VoIP data and I have setup WiFi routers to block various types of data, including protocols that VoIP possible. If you want all traffic to be truly equal vis-à-vis neutral then you have FIFO data which means that VoIP and videoconferencing becomes a complete waste. QoS is there for a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

SMS is in essence no different than an email where AT&T would be your outbound email gateway. Millions of internet providers manage to provide this service for every internet user, and many provide it for free. They gouge on the price. Any claims to the contrary are bullshit.

That's right, but email being stored by a provider is different than from that than provider simply passing data requests along inside and outside their network.

I never said or even eluded to the cost being high. I thought I clearly stated it was low and that carriers should be investigated for the excessive charges for SMS data.
Edited by SolipsismX - 7/18/12 at 2:36pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #52 of 62

The funniest part of this thread is SolipsismX pretending to be a network engineer.

 

1. Data is data, TCP/UDP doesn't matter.  

 

There are NOT special pipes that ATT has that your UDP stream is sent down to get priority, routers do NOT give UDP streams priority when they route packets.  The main reason that a VoiP call would use UDP is, like you said, UDP doesn't care about packet order.  UDP will deliver the packets to the end device in the order in which they're received, if packet 3 arrives after packet 4 is already delivered UDP will simply throw it out (ever get those small freezes when on VoiP/skype/facetime, it's missing packets).  

 

TCP is required for data integrity, which is rather important for most things on the Internet.  IF, as you claim, services like skype/facetime use UDP it would actually be cheaper for the carrier since UDP will not request missing packets...

 

Think about you're argument for a minute.  IF UDP really was given special priority then all ISPs would charge extra for it, I get no extra fees from comcast when I facetime from my apartment.

post #53 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post

I understand your analogy and what you are talking about when you compare UDP to TCP, but I completely disagree that the average person should be expected to understand this.  Also, people mentally view voice, SMS, and data as separate, even if they are all traveling over same network, because it has always been charged separately.
Not the technology, just that different tech is handled differently and therefore there are pros and cons, which could include increased costs. If people don't want to acknowledge that then they are not thinking critically as that is common with everything in life has these caveats.

Imagine if people were complaining that UPS same day mail is more expensive than USPS best effort ground mail. Would you defend that it should all cost the same simply because it's all "mail." I certainly hope not.



PS: Uh oh! Looks like myapplelove created a new account.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #54 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


PS: Uh oh! Looks like myapplelove created a new account.

 

If you're referring to me, then you would be wrong.  I've been visiting appleinsider for a few months now and the amount of misinformation you're spreading throughout this thread is so large that I felt the need to create an account and correct you.  If you have any rebuttals to what I've stated then by all means, lets have it.  Disregarding my post by claiming I'm someone else (whom I assume has fought with you in the past) doesn't disprove what I've stated or prove what you've stated...

post #55 of 62

That would be even more outrageous than them charging extra to "enable" the iPhone as a WiFI hotspot. 3G uses data, data that people pay for and can use however they darn well please. I don't pay extra for 3G Skype calls. If I have a lot of unused data and want to FaceTime, I should be able to without paying. If they DO end up charging, well, let's just say they shouldn't be surprised if they lose a customer at the end of my contract.

 

However, I seriously doubt they would charge anything. It seems no different than them not charging for using iMessage texts.

post #56 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squat View Post

If you're referring to me, then you would be wrong.  I've been visiting appleinsider for a few months now and the amount of misinformation you're spreading throughout this thread is so large that I felt the need to create an account and correct you.  If you have any rebuttals to what I've stated then by all means, lets have it.  Disregarding my post by claiming I'm someone else (whom I assume has fought with you in the past) doesn't disprove what I've stated or prove what you've stated...

Rebuttal what? That TCP and UDP functional the same way because, as you put it, data is data? That there is no QoS needed for real time data for VoIP, videoconferencing, et al. That pushing certain data types ahead of others requires certain preparation, configuration, support, and HW over a standard FIFO connection? There is nothing to rebuttal because it would be like trying to explain to a 2yo the physics involved with the Earth revolving around the Sun.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Rebuttal what? That TCP and UDP functional the same way because, as you put it, data is data? That there is no QoS needed for real time data for VoIP, videoconferencing, et al. That pushing certain data types ahead of others requires certain preparation, configuration, support, and HW over a standard FIFO connection? There is nothing to rebuttal because it would be like trying to explain to a 2yo the physics involved with the Earth revolving around the Sun.

 

Here's the problem with your argument, you didn't really respond.  All you did was insult my intelligence.  If you actually take a look at your argument rationally, then all ISPs would charge more for UDP traffic, comcast is just as 'evil' as ATT.  The ISP doesn't care what kind of traffic it is.

 

I've worked on quite a few software projects that utilize both TCP and UDP.  The software on both ends treats them differently, but the network treats them both the same.  

post #58 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squat View Post

Here's the problem with your argument, you didn't really respond.  All you did was insult my intelligence.  If you actually take a look at your argument rationally, then all ISPs would charge more for UDP traffic, comcast is just as 'evil' as ATT.  The ISP doesn't care what kind of traffic it is.

I've worked on quite a few software projects that utilize both TCP and UDP.  The software on both ends treats them differently, but the network treats them both the same.  

This just shows you don't know what you're talking about. UDP has less overhead than TCP so if an ISP were charging by the segment then UDP would be cheaper but why would they even do that? it's fuckign ridiculous. Your comment simply makes no sense and in no way addresses my comments about QoS prioritizing data and therefore requiring more overall cost to maintain a feasible QoS for real time traffic.

PS: You insulted yourself on your first post to this forum.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #59 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This just shows you don't know what you're talking about. UDP has less overhead than TCP so if an ISP were charging by the segment then UDP would be cheaper but why would they even do that? it's fuckign ridiculous. Your comment simply makes no sense and in no way addresses my comments about QoS prioritizing data and therefore requiring more overall cost to maintain a feasible QoS for real time traffic.
PS: You insulted yourself on your first post to this forum.

You're not even addressing my points. You brought up the fact that FaceTime uses UDP instead of TCP. If you had read my first post you would realize that I mentioned that UDP would be cheaper for ISPs.

My point is that there is no QoS guarantee when using the Internet. Every provider will tell you speeds of up to X Mbps, but there is nothing in place on the net that gives priority to different packets. If there were it would be abused by everyone.

I am happy to be wrong about that assertion, but you need to provide a source that shows there is hardware in place that will prioritize traffic.
post #60 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squat View Post

My point is that there is no QoS guarantee when using the Internet. Every provider will tell you speeds of up to X Mbps, but there is nothing in place on the net that gives priority to different packets. If there were it would be abused by everyone.
I am happy to be wrong about that assertion, but you need to provide a source that shows there is hardware in place that will prioritize traffic.

Your point is axiomatically wrong. There is plenty of prioritizing being used to ensure certain types of traffic are delivered before other types. This is fundamental stuff not some fringe concept written about in a science fiction novel.

As for the hardware in place that does this: ROUTERS!

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #61 of 62

700

 

 

 

Also: Sprint promises no FaceTime fee. News!

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #62 of 62

700

 

 

 

Also: Sprint has promised no FaceTime fee. News!

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AT&T CEO says it's 'too early' to talk about 3G FaceTime fees