or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AT&T to require new Mobile Share data plans for FaceTime calls over cellular
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T to require new Mobile Share data plans for FaceTime calls over cellular - Page 3

post #81 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What?! They absolutely do guarantee QoS for voice calls. All the telcos put voice over data. That does means it'll be perfect every time but all the voice traffic does get the highest priority due to it's real time nature. Voice is technically just data but it's not sent FIFO like the data you buy for your phone. It has a higher priority that is called QoS.


Are you actually on AT&T? Although, I was in fact being sarcastic, but quality and service are not words I'd use together in describing AT&T's voice traffic.

post #82 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


Are you actually on AT&T? Although, I was in fact being sarcastic, but quality and service are not words I'd use together in describing AT&T's voice traffic.

Quality of Service does not mean that the service will be quality. All it means is that certain data will be given special treatment. This is usually for telephony purposes because of the real time nature of the data a half second delay or out of out packet for a website isn't an issue for people but for real time audio and video it's everything.

Imagine getting to board a plane first because you're in First Class or whatnot. But then imagine that the plane can't leave the gate or is taxing on the runway, or can't land for whatever reason thus resulting in your plane being late. Now let's say that's all the fault or the airline or airport and that it all could have been prevented if they invested more into their service and weren't so incompetent. That's what AT&T is in this analogy. Their voice call packets are getting First Class service but if things fall down elsewhere it doesn't make the experience good.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #83 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Quality of Service does not mean that the service will be quality. All it means is that certain data will be given special treatment. This is usually for telephony purposes because of the real time nature of the data a half second delay or out of out packet for a website isn't an issue for people but for real time audio and video it's everything.
Imagine getting to board a plane first because you're in First Class or whatnot. But then imagine that the plane can't leave the gate or is taxing on the runway, or can't land for whatever reason thus resulting in your plane being late. Now let's say that's all the fault or the airline or airport and that it all could have been prevented if they invested more into their service and weren't so incompetent. That's what AT&T is in this analogy. Their voice call packets are getting First Class service but if things fall down elsewhere it doesn't make the experience good.


I'm aware of what quality of service means, but, sarcasm often involves some license in the use of language.

 

However, the bottom line is, AT&T has made no statement at all regarding QoS for FT, so it's nothing but idle speculation to talk about that as a justification for forcing people to pay more if they want to use it.

post #84 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


I'm aware of what quality of service means, but, sarcasm often involves some license in the use of language.

However, the bottom line is, AT&T has made no statement at all regarding QoS for FT, so it's nothing but idle speculation to talk about that as a justification for forcing people to pay more if they want to use it.

This is a rumour site. Pretty much everything we talk about has some degree of speculation with it. Have I not qualified my statements accordingly to note that it's speculative? Is it not speculative that AT&T will charge for this service for non-unlimted data plans simply because we've seen what we presume is a legit screenshot from iOS 6 that might be part of a different scenario, like unlimited data plans?


PS: I've been happy enough with AT&T because they offered the best service for my needs but I'll be switching to Verizon under the speculation of an LTE iPhone with simultaneous V&D. Verizon's LTE network is pretty well built out now, especially in my area(s), and I expect 3rd gen LTE chips to be used in the upcoming iPhone, also something I speculate will be announced and released in the next month or so.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/18/12 at 12:09pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #85 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


This is a rumour site. Pretty much everything we talk about has some degree of speculation with it. Have I not qualified my statements accordingly to note that it's speculative? Is it not speculative that AT&T will charge for this service for non-unlimted data plans simply because we've seen what we presume is a legit screenshot from iOS 6 that might be part of a different scenario, like unlimited data plans?
PS: I've been happy enough with AT&T because they offered the best service for my needs but I'll be switching to Verizon under the speculation of an LTE iPhone with simultaneous V&D. Verizon's LTE network is pretty well built out now, especially in my area(s), and I expect 3rd gen LTE chips to be used in the upcoming iPhone, also something I speculate will be announced and released in the next month or so.

 

There's speculation and then there's utterly baseless speculation. Does AT&T charge extra for tethering? Does it have anything to do with QoS? Do we have any reason to think there would be anything of actual benefit for paying extra?

post #86 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Pretending that data isn't data isn't data isn't data is a slope covered in axle grease, banana peels, marbles, and anti-friction spray.

 

Is it unethical?  Yes.   Is it illogical?   Yes.     But with no real alternatives (Verizon and AT&T have most of the U.S. market and basically copy each other's pricing) and a Congress unwilling to take on big companies like this, they'll be able to get away with it.   It will most certainly not lead to their demise until the day that WiFi is ubiquitous (which will never happen because we refuse to build the infrastructure) and even then, they'll find some way to stop people from using Skype and other apps to make phone calls.    

post #87 of 105
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
…even then, they'll find some way to stop people from using Skype and other apps to make phone calls.    

 

Don't really see how they could when I would be in control of the Wi-Fi…

 

If Apple wanted to take down the telecoms, they'd put out 802.22 chips in all their computers and an 802.22 AirPort family.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #88 of 105

Another reason I'm bailing on AT&T after going with them for my iPhone 3G back in 2008.  I stayed with them for the iPhone 4 two years ago...and then my wife got a 4S last xmas. Screw them..their network is a pile of crap and there is no LTE where I live (there is on Verizon, however).  Bye bye, dicks!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #89 of 105

Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Presumably, with the FaceTime feature on AT&T's network you get QoS that will put your FT traffic before all other traffic. Whether people want to believe it or not this does cost money and is needed for a quality realtime audio and/or video.
That said they should (at least) just let FT be the same FIFO as regular web traffic with no QoS for those that don't want to pay for it. FT may or may not always work well and they can offer the better plan as an option without making it a requirement for those that want it. By being the only carrier not offering this as part of your regular service they just make themselves look stingy. As I said, it costs money for QoS on equipment that can handle the load but it's not so much that they can't absorb the cost into their tiered plans they are charging for data. I expect them to drop this after they lose plenty of users. If the next iPhone has LTE I'll be switching to Verizon for the increased performance and simultaneous V&D option.

I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth. In IT vocabulary it is synonymous with throttling. Are you sure they open up the stream for video and FT?

 

Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Well, they haven't made any commitments along those lines, so that would be, at this point, just a baseless speculation. The real problem is that AT&T simply doesn't want to invest in infrastructure, so they try to keep anything data intensive off their network and price data exorbitantly to discourage use. They do, however, want to milk their existing infrastructure to maximize profit without further investment.

 

Meanwhile, the carriers become an obstacle to technological advancement, which essentially means that they are working to stifle innovation by other companies. The only solution is for the government to step in and start forcing them to operate the public radio spectrum in the public interest. Otherwise, we'll always have a situation where the carriers decide which technologies will be allowed and which won't.

 

At&T is actively trying to build more towers but it is not that easy. Even with the lease rates they are offering for land there are many zoning and regulatory restrictions, especially in the more densely populated areas. They are spending billions on their LTE rollout. Perhaps Verizon is spending a bit more but it is a complicated process. The carriers payed for use of the spectrum and there are laws regarding it's usage. If you want to change the laws then get into politics of sue the government.

 

As much as I support thoughtful use of our Federal tax revenue, nationalizing communications is not what I would consider a prudent course of action. We have 3-4 major networks with many smaller ones in competition already. I'm not against government involvement in building out and maintaing infrastructure such as highways and bridges but I prefer utilities to be market driven until they step outside the law such as what happened in 2000s with the power brokers from Enron. I say let the free market play out. Perhaps Apple should get into the network business as well. If they deployed fiber and WiFi throughout my city I would definitely switch and pay them the same or more monthly fee that I'm paying to wireless and cable now. Then they could deploy iMessage for voice as well.

 

I mean really in terms of the government stepping in to right the supposed wrongs of big corporations we would eventually be a socialist state. Why not take over the oil refineries then as well since they are opposing the progress of electric vehicles, it goes on and on. Careful what you wish for.


Edited by mstone - 8/18/12 at 4:27pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #90 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Incoming text sound: "AT&T billing; your account ([xxx-xxx-xxxx]) has been terminated without refund due to unauthorized data access. Thank you for shopping with AT&T. Also, as this text is 242 characters, you have been charged for two of them, as that's over 160."


Why does somebody always post something silly like this?

 

Won't happen.  I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering.  Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it.  I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection.  He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.

 

I already use facetime over 3g.  Have been for a long time.

 

What you're suggesting simply does not happen.

post #91 of 105
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post

What you're suggesting simply does not happen.

 

They forcibly add data plans to accounts without them. They reserve the right to terminate accounts at any time, for any reason, including tethering. It may not have happened, but they can do it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #92 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post


Why does somebody always post something silly like this?

Won't happen.  I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering.  Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it.  I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection.  He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.

I already use facetime over 3g.  Have been for a long time.

What you're suggesting simply does not happen.

I just want to point out that the fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth.


I'm not using it that way.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/18/12 at 7:20pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #94 of 105

On a semi-related question, are all 4G LTE phones able to do voice and data at the same time? (It's the differentiating factor why I've stayed with AT&T for iPhone)

 

If I can do voice and data simultaneously on iPhone "5" on Sprint or Verizon, I'll definitely consider jumping. 

post #95 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post


Why does somebody always post something silly like this?

Won't happen.  I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering.  Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it.  I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection.  He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.

I already use facetime over 3g.  Have been for a long time.

What you're suggesting simply does not happen.

AT&T dropped me from Unlimited to a metered plan because of tethering outside my contractual agreement. I had jallbroken had bought no less two apps on the Cydia (can't recall if that was the newer or older store), the newer one stating that Apple couldn't tell how the data was being used. Regardless, I had some months pushing 100GB and averaging around 12GB so I think it was pretty obvious what I was doing.

Did I dislike that I got bumped? Sure. Do I blame them and claim they treated me unfairly? Absolutely not. I had that going for many years. I tried to find ways around it when they first called and warned me but ultimately I lost that plan. The penalty wasn't severe so the effort was well worth the risk.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #96 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexDeafy View Post

FUÇK you, AT&T. I'm deaf and was impressed of Steve Jobs for thinking about deaf and hard of hearing (he show it on his keynote with iPhone 4). I'm on 5GB data plan with tethering (to avoid being busted by AT&T). I don't have voice plan, just data plan. My sister and I dont want to share data plan because it cost a lot for extra GB that my sister and I both will use a lot of data. My sister use Facebook for her "business" and text. She's hearing. Me, since I'm deaf, I only use data plan. Why the fuçk ain't AT&T support this plan for FaceTime?! I'm so pissed off. I can't jump the ship and join other carrier because of stupid ass credit check with expensive deposit! So FUÇK YOU, AT&T!!!!
Posted via my IPhone 4S with stupid ass AT$T. I'm not going to use AT&T from now on. AT$T that is!!
Edit: change the character from Ć to Ç

Sounds like a Mifi would be a good option for you.

post #97 of 105
Quote:
I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth. In IT vocabulary it is synonymous with throttling. Are you sure they open up the stream for video and FT?

QoS is about traffic shaping, not bandwidth, and traffic shaping is all about scheduling priorities. When a network is congested, traffic shaping can make certain kinds of services more or less reliable or fast depending on their priority rules, so yes, traffic shaping can do both throttling and acceleration in proportion to the natural contention caused by the congestion. With traffic shaping you can effectively make FaceTime fast on a congested network by giving it a high priority; likewise you can make it very slow by giving it a low priority. Network neutrality proponents usually only focus on the negative consequences of traffic shaping while ignoring the positive ones, which is why people tend to associate QoS with throttling (I have no opinion on the matter, and my protocol is designed to avoid traffic shaping altogether).
post #98 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post


QoS is about traffic shaping, not bandwidth, and traffic shaping is all about scheduling priorities. When a network is congested, traffic shaping can make certain kinds of services more or less reliable or fast depending on their priority rules, so yes, traffic shaping can do both throttling and acceleration in proportion to the natural contention caused by the congestion. With traffic shaping you can effectively make FaceTime fast on a congested network by giving it a high priority; likewise you can make it very slow by giving it a low priority. Network neutrality proponents usually only focus on the negative consequences of traffic shaping while ignoring the positive ones, which is why people tend to associate QoS with throttling (I have no opinion on the matter, and my protocol is designed to avoid traffic shaping altogether).

 

Even more important points, neglected in the discussion of whether AT&T has any plans to make FT traffic higher priority on their network. (Which we have no indication of.) It's not about bandwidth, it's simply a question of prioritizing traffic. There is no significant additional cost of setting QoS higher for some traffic. It's just a matter of improving throughput on certain traffic by effectively degrading other traffic (if there is congestion). Even if FT traffic is assigned a higher QoS than, say, web traffic, that alone doesn't automatically justify forcing customers to pay more.

 

What this is really about is that AT&T a) doesn't want unlimited users using FT, and b) wants anyone using it paying the highest possible rates.

post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm not using it that way.

I reread all your comments and it definitely appears as though you are associating the term QoS with increased quality which the opposite of what it really means. In IT terminology it means that no service is allowed to hog all the bandwidth thus crippling the other services. Instead the data hogging service is throttled so that everyone can share the available resources. The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled. If a service is not controlled by QoS that means they have a wide open pipe.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #100 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I reread all your comments and it definitely appears as though you are associating the term QoS with increased quality which the opposite of what it really means. In IT terminology it means that no service is allowed to hog all the bandwidth thus crippling the other services. Instead the data hogging service is throttled so that everyone can share the available resources. The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled.

I clearly used the word priority. That has no barring on the bandwidth. It has no barring on performance. It has no barring on an achieved service quality. I'm simply referring to data getting a higher priority over other data based on the kind of traffic it is. This is imperative for proper telephony services.

Quote:
The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled. If a service is not controlled by QoS that means they have a wide open pipe.

That is axiomatically incorrect. Check out Vaelian's post above.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/19/12 at 8:01am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #101 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I clearly used the word priority. That has no barring on the bandwidth, it means that regardless of the bandwidth higher priority traffic gets sent before lower priority traffic.

After reading Vaelian remarks, perhaps my view of QoS is on the negative side which is the way it is used on our own network. In the case of AT&T imagine that regular voice calls have no QoS other than audio compression so they can be sent as close to real time as possible. Since FT would also require real time speed to be usable, I can see how it would need a similar priority however, it does seem like a luxury version of personal communication so it probably should only be available when/if network conditions permit. Using your air passenger analogy, when flying a twin prop commuter flight there is no first class seating.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #102 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



That is axiomatically incorrect. Check out Vaelian's post above.

I did read his post but what I said is not incorrect in that if there is no QoS the pipe is wide open. QoS either downgrades the bandwidth or it doesn't, there is no increasing the bandwidth. Prioritizing, true, but lack of QoS means there is no throttling at all.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #103 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

After reading Vaelian remarks, perhaps my view of QoS is on the negative side which is the way it is used on our own network. In the case of AT&T imagine that regular voice calls have no QoS other than audio compression so they can be sent as close to real time as possible. Since FT would also require real time speed to be usable, I can see how it would need a similar priority however, it does seem like a luxury version of personal communication so it probably should only be available when/if network conditions permit. Using your air passenger analogy, when flying a twin prop commuter flight there is no first class seating.

Audio compression is a part of trying to get audio as real time as possible but I guarantee you that AT&T (and all MNOs) use QoS for their voice traffic.

Their voice traffic, not all audio. If you make a call you will get the best possible transmission they can offer. You should never on a call talking whilst using Safari and have the audio drop out for a second when you refresh a page.

I hope that AT&T is going to give it priority over other traffic. It does use all the standard protocols for video conferencing and it's hard to imagine Apple wouldn't want to pimp their VC service over others with an indication of a real benefit over their competitors. Allowing carriers to add an additional charge without a benefit to the vendor is the opposite of what Apple has done with the industry thus far.

If there is a cost for metered data users I'd think it would be just a flat fee and if that is the case then they will offer QoS priority for FT because otherwise there is no real benefit for the additional charge. However, I'm thinking right now that it's mostly likely to only be a charge for those with unlimited data to prevent abuse. I say that because it's what I'd do to help prevent those with unlimited data from abusing this priority service. I'd also use it as a way to help pluck the abusers off the network that JB their phone and skirt their contract by enabling it.

As for cost, there definitely is a cost, just like with SMS, but I don't it's much. They do offer QoS for their phone service (for which they charge an arm and leg for) but it's only voice. When you add video you add a lot more data that has to be sent in real time. The only benefit to video over voice is that you can get away with a few bad frames of video but you garble a second of voice and you can really miss something important and become frustrated with the service quickly.

Now lets take into a account the way we use these devices as opposed to pre-iPhone. AT&T might have to deal with less priority traffic now than it did in 2007 simply because sending a best-effort packet as an iMessage, email, whatever, is more common than calling someone up. I know I certainly try to not use my phone... but that's not exactly proof of anything.


I know you have cisco routers at your work. Aren't you using IP phones, too? It's hard for me to imagine you are not. That is a positive use of QoS.

Understanding QoS

Typically, networks operate on a best-effort delivery basis, which means that all traffic has equal priority and an equal chance of being delivered in a timely manner. When congestion occurs, all traffic has an equal chance of being dropped.

When you configure QoS, you can select specific network traffic, prioritize it according to its relative importance, and use congestion-management and congestion-avoidance techniques to give preferential treatment. Implementing QoS in your network makes network performance more predictable and bandwidth utilization more effective.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3550/software/release/12.1_13_ea1/configuration/guide/swqos.html



PS: If I were Apple negotiating this deal I would also try to swing Siri as part of QoS to help make that service as fast real time as possible. It's not telephony but I can see how every millisecond counts here because you want this to be as fast as possible. I think the packets are already pretty small as the local device cuts down on a lot of the voice data that is unessential to the Dragon Dictation-backend and, of course, the data packet you receive will be efficient, but I would certainly pay several dollars a month for FT priority (which I'll never use) if it also came with Siri priority service. That said, I'd rather have Apple's complex association with the carriers allow for Siri QoS as part of buying an iPhone, but that's probably too much to ask for.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/19/12 at 10:49am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #104 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I did read his post but what I said is not incorrect in that if there is no QoS the pipe is wide open. QoS either downgrades the bandwidth or it doesn't, there is no increasing the bandwidth. Prioritizing, true, but lack of QoS means there is no throttling at all.

I'm not sure why you are brining bandwidth into this. It's all relative to a discussion of QoS. It does affect actual throughput as there is additional processing, but that's par for the course, just like a router incurring more overhead than a switch and ACLs over no ACLs.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #105 of 105
Of course they have removed a feature. The customer is already paying to have his data moved across the network. AT&T is deciding there are some bits they won't move for a paying customer. It is none of their business how the customer uses those bits. This is what network neutrality is about. The actions of AT&T are outrageous.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AT&T to require new Mobile Share data plans for FaceTime calls over cellular