or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T defends plan to block 3G FaceTime for non-Mobile Share customers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T defends plan to block 3G FaceTime for non-Mobile Share customers - Page 4

post #121 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It isn't voice-ONLY, like Skype can be, which is the kicker, I think.

Exactly. It was that you can make a voice to voice only call that got Skype cleared under this rule

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #122 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

You got your rate information wrong there...check again.

As a single user, you will not get on a "shared" plan.  The key word is "shared" meaning additional users on the same plan.


Not exactly, shared means at least two devices. They don't care if that's used by two people or one.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #123 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Jailbreaking is a time consuming pain in the ass though.  

Only a geek wants to spend that much time fooling around with the guts of their phone and boot-loaders and such and you have to give up on having all the latest stuff as you are always one release behind. 

Shows how much you know about the subject (which is absolutely nothing). Yep, it's a total pain in the ass to plug in your phone and click a button on a 5MB program you downloaded. Thanks for stereotyping people like me ( a 27 year old married father of one who jailbreaks for 3 tweaks) as geeks. This isn't android we are talking about.
post #124 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Last week in a similar thread, Soli was discussing that FaceTime is not like regular data which is not prioritized. FaceTime actually needs to be the same priority as voice because dropped data packets are not really acceptable for real time communication. Because it is a higher priority it costs more.

It's not the same data. It doesn't use very specific protocols that you won't encounter unless you are using other VC or telephony apps, save for H.264 and AAC but those are just the most efficient codecs for the task. If it was the same data then you have to wonder why SIP,
STUN, TURN, ICE, RTP and SRTP are needed in the first place and why these technologies are typically used over UDP instead of TCP.

It's fundamental to to the service that these packets are delivered as close to real time as possible and even just a small difference is annoying. I'm sure you've had a video encoded where the sound is a fraction of a second off and the lips don't line up or seen a satellite interview where there was an irritating pause between a question asked and a response. This is more likely to happen without QoS.

If your company isn't using QoS that will put file transfers at a lower priority than IP phones then they're doing something wrong. This isn't some crazy hypothesis this is real shit that we've had since the 90s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Except there is absolutely no reason at this time to believe that FaceTime will receive any QoS priority, so that argument doesn't fly.

And, even if it did, it would mean that AT&T would degrade other traffic, so while you FT traffic might (and, again, there's no reason to think it will) receive higher priority, your other traffic, as an inevitable consequence, will be degraded. So, it really evens out, and you aren't getting any additional bandwidth, so the whole QoS argument is just a red herring.

The bottom line is that AT&T doesn't want to upgrade their network to support new technologies, when they can get away with not doing it but simply raising rates. In other words, AT&T, and other carriers, are, through well orchestrated collusion (is it really a coincidence that AT&T and Verizon are pushing people into pretty much exactly the same sorts of data plans?), choking the life out of innovation in mobile. And the Feds don't have the spine to do anything about it.

1) I said was that AT&T and Apple could do this which does cost money. I also said it's a nominal cost which would seem to hurt them more than they'd ever gain and that I was very much against AT&T for charging for this for any cellular-based FT. I also stated that they already do QoS for voice traffic but you've oddly ignored that.

2) Jobs mentioned the lack of FT over cellular was that they need the carriers to update their services. Why is the usability of a service important to Apple but not now? What do you think is meant by that outside of making sure SIP, RTP, et al. get a priority on their network instead of FIFO? Of course, the real reason for that could be contractual and that contract will be expired by the time iOS 6 arrives but then that doesn't explain how AT&T could stop FT from even being activated.

3) You've eluded many times that AT&T hasn't upgraded their network yet that's axiomatically wrong as you can see by the speeds now supported.

4) If you're so against certain data being delivered before other data then never make a phone call on your cellphone again. QoS is real and it's spectacular.

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 #125 of 141

Any lawyer that wants to start a class action lawsuit is welcome to contact me.

post #126 of 141

Reason #137 for dumping AT&T.  It's getting pretty clear they don't like customers.

post #127 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

Currently Sprint doesn't have LTE, unless their first test markets have rolled out.  They have WiMax (not compatible w/LTE) currently.

 

Sprint has deployed LTE to several markets as a matter of fact, including the following; Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City and San Antonio. 

 

“By the end of 2013, Sprint expects to have largely completed the build out of its all-new 4G LTE nationwide network – with an all-new enhanced 3G network – covering 250 million people across the United States.”  (1)

 

1.  Unattributed.  16 July 2012.  Sprint 4G LTE Launch Extends to 15 Cities Throughout Portions of Georgia, Kansas, Missouri and Texas.  Sprint.  Retrieved 22 August 2012.

 
post #128 of 141

Hey AT&T, how about deploying donkeys lol.gif

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/22/3260147/israel-wi-fi-donkeys

post #129 of 141

Wow they really love to just abuse you guys don't they!

 

In the UK the carrier would be broke by now as they would of been abandoned.

post #130 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtidmore View Post

...An individual user can sign up for the new mobile share plan, but it may NOT make monetary sense. 

 

Actually, I was told by an AT&T rep over the phone yesterday,  that the mobileshare plans are not available to less than two devices. So unless you have two smartphones, or one phone and a data device (iPad or modem), you cannot get the service.  That means single device users are precluded from FaceTime.  Not good.

post #131 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

... QoS is real and it's spectacular.

 

I've just quoted the essence of your lengthy strawman fantasy, above. No one is denying that networks often prioritize some traffic over other. Spectacular might be overstating the case a bit, but, ok.

 

However, that AT&T currently prioritizes some traffic, is irrelevant to whether or not they will be prioritizing FT traffic, and they haven't stated they will. It's a little tiresome to have to keep repeating that to you, but, since your entire apology is based on that assumption, and there's no evidence for that assumption, I have to keep reminding you that you are using "facts" the existence of which is imaginary to support your arguments.

 

And let's also stop pretending that QoS is some sort of magic bullet that will speed every designated packet to it's destination without delay with no effect on other traffic. So they prioritize some packets (which doesn't mean they are guaranteed to make it there "on time", just that they get preference), that just means the rest of the traffic on the network is degraded. So, while some of your traffic may flow just fine, other traffic gets dropped. If we assume they prioritize FT traffic, and that that justifies charging more, by that same logic, they should lower the price on other data because it's been de-prioritized.

 

I used to think you had some good ideas, but, more and more, lately, I think that, like some others, you come here just to "debate" and don't really care about truth or facts, just about "winning arguments".

post #132 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I've just quoted the essence of your lengthy strawman fantasy, above. No one is denying that networks often prioritize some traffic over other. Spectacular might be overstating the case a bit, but, ok.

However, that AT&T currently prioritizes some traffic, is irrelevant to whether or not they will be prioritizing FT traffic, and they haven't stated they will. It's a little tiresome to have to keep repeating that to you, but, since your entire apology is based on that assumption, and there's no evidence for that assumption, I have to keep reminding you that you are using "facts" the existence of which is imaginary to support your arguments.

And let's also stop pretending that QoS is some sort of magic bullet that will speed every designated packet to it's destination without delay with no effect on other traffic. So they prioritize some packets (which doesn't mean they are guaranteed to make it there "on time", just that they get preference), that just means the rest of the traffic on the network is degraded. So, while some of your traffic may flow just fine, other traffic gets dropped. If we assume they prioritize FT traffic, and that that justifies charging more, by that same logic, they should lower the price on other data because it's been de-prioritized.

I used to think you had some good ideas, but, more and more, lately, I think that, like some others, you come here just to "debate" and don't really care about truth or facts, just about "winning arguments".

Fact: QoS is what makes VoIP feasible.

Fact: AT&T uses QoS now.

Fact: Apple has attempted to make FT as real time as possible.

Fact: Apple getting with carriers to ensure FT does get priority traffic would be a reason for its delay.

Fact: You don't know shit about QoS but you're sure it's has no benefit for the user.

Fact: I keep saying that you can't AT&T could add QoS for FT which is a reason that AT&T might decide to charge for the service and why Apple might be fine with this, and you keep saying that I can't say they could wilthou having proof that they will. Take about a fallacious argument.

Fact: You're better off exploring all possibilities instead of making a rash judgment and then formulating your argument to support your slant.

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 #133 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Fact: QoS is what makes VoIP feasible.
Fact: AT&T uses QoS now.
Fact: Apple has attempted to make FT as real time as possible.
Fact: Apple getting with carriers to ensure FT does get priority traffic would be a reason for its delay.
Fact: You don't know shit about QoS but you're sure it's has no benefit for the user.
Fact: I keep saying that you can't AT&T could add QoS for FT which is a reason that AT&T might decide to charge for the service and why Apple might be fine with this, and you keep saying that I can't say they could wilthou having proof that they will. Take about a fallacious argument.
Fact: You're better off exploring all possibilities instead of making a rash judgment and then formulating your argument to support your slant.

Ug. And this sort of tit for tat crap is exactly why I regret ever clicking on a comments link on the interwebz.

post #134 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedicivalvole View Post

Wow they really love to just abuse you guys don't they!

 

In the UK the carrier would be broke by now as they would of been abandoned.

 

That is because it easier to roll out a network in an area about half the size of Texas than it is the whole US...

post #135 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

 

Not a speck of AT&T LTE here in Philly. I 'believe' we are done with AT&T as well next month.

 

Since Verizon is just as bad, any idea how LTE coverage is for Sprint and Tmobile?

post #136 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

That is because it easier to roll out a network in an area about half the size of Texas than it is the whole US...

You would think the UK would have had LTE ahead of a lot of markets. Does anyone know the story behind their delay? Government, perhaps?

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 #137 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waverunnr View Post

 

Since Verizon is just as bad, any idea how LTE coverage is for Sprint and Tmobile?

T-Mobile has effectively blanketed the United States in DC-HSPA+ coverage.  DC-HSPA+ carrier speeds are comparable to current implementations of LTE at 42 Mbps theoretical maximum speeds.  The Qualcomm MDM9615, seemingly the most likely candid for the new iPhone, baseband processor supports DC-HSPA+.

 

 

Sprint has deployed LTE to several markets as a matter of fact, including the following; Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City and San Antonio. 

 

“By the end of 2013, Sprint expects to have largely completed the build out of its all-new 4G LTE nationwide network – with an all-new enhanced 3G network – covering 250 million people across the United States.”  (1)

 

1.  Unattributed.  16 July 2012.  Sprint 4G LTE Launch Extends to 15 Cities Throughout Portions of Georgia, Kansas, Missouri and Texas.  Sprint.  Retrieved 22 August 2012.

 
 
post #138 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You would think the UK would have had LTE ahead of a lot of markets. Does anyone know the story behind their delay? Government, perhaps?

 

Makes one wonder.........

post #139 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


[bunch of stuff labeled "Fact" that is either completely false, opinion or part of a continuing straw man argument]

 

Oh, sorry, there isn't anything there worth responding to.

post #140 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MADSCI3NCE View Post

Imagine if there were reliable city-wide or nation-wide Wi-Fi available today where you pay a subscription fee for the internet speed you want.  How many people would drop their monthly minutes & texts immediately?  The less tech-savvy would follow suit bit by bit and cell phone service as we know it would go the way of Tower Records.

 

p.s. I cut the cable cord a few years back and haven't missed it at all.  Netflix, Hulu Plus, Redbox, iTunes Store … good to go.  Fewer commercials (ZERO Political Commercials!!!), less crap TV to sort through, and with the savings I put some toward faster home internet speeds so all the streaming & download services work better/faster.

Back in the end of Eighties, a consortium of company, including Apple ask for worldwide frequency, to create an open wireless data network. The project died with the visionless people who had decision power at that time.

 

In france, Free an Internet/TV/Cellular provider want to put wifi antenna on all it's setup Box. The result is a very good coverage in all major city, Cell phone user in the street will be able to place call through this Wifi network. They even talk about offering rebate to user living in area with less coverage to extend their net. 

 

As far as cutting the cord, even if don't have hulu and other US content provider in canada,  I am ready  :-)

post #141 of 141

You make a powerful statement.  Yet, it is understated.  Network services ... call, video, text et al are just zeros and ones.  The cell providers are fearful that the average Joe will wake up and begin to understand that data is ... well.... plainly.... just data.  The Cable providers are as fearful.  TV, Phone and Internet is ... well... just data.... its the same service... but one is charged three times!  Its time to take the Internet back.  One service... all you can eat.... on any device.... anytime.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T defends plan to block 3G FaceTime for non-Mobile Share customers