or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC asked to investigate iPhone's restriction on Skype calls
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FCC asked to investigate iPhone's restriction on Skype calls - Page 2

post #41 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2002brian View Post

If it acts as a tether, then the iPhone should see wifi (in theory) and allow VIOP. Right?
So for $40 a month I can have unlimited data and email from t-mobile. Run it through a router convert to wifi and use VOIP. Right?

If your iPhone is connecting from itself to WiFi then VoIP will work. The device isnt' smart enough to know what is beyond that network connection so it's a moot point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

I paid full price for my unsubsidized v1 iPhone so it would be okay to use Skype on that or one of the unsubidize iPhones ATT is selling right now. 2. Being a shareholder gives you certain rights. Read them. 3. As a consumer I am not going to let a company get away with trying to screw me over. That is how AIG came into this - their actions have changed the business world forever. 4. To paraphrase Churchill, "I may be drunk but you are ugly. And I will be sober in the morning."

You didn't pay full price for the original iPhone, you paid a price that didn't have a contract directly tied to it upon purchase. Beyond that, the use of Skype on AT&T has to do with deals inked between Apple and AT&T that Apple will not allow VoIP apps to be used over AT&T's network. Being a shareholder of either AT&T and/or Apple does not give you any more rights than a non-shareholder. You can only legally do what you are allowed to do per your contract.

There was a simple hack in iPhone OS v1.x that allowed you to use your carrier's IP address to set up an ad-hoc network that made the device think it was on WiFi, thus allowing you use VoIP apps on their network.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #42 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHKOsta View Post

This is very much not the same situation as the one you're comparing it to. Traditional phones didn't require a carrier subsidy to avoid an upfront hardware cost of $600 to the consumer. That's a lot of cheddar, yo! And it has to come from somewhere. If monthly charges were partially circumvented by VOIP, AT&T would make less money from iPhone customers and would have less incentive to subsidize hardware upfront. Only a very small percentage of people are willing to fork out more than $200-300 upfront for a cell phone, no matter how much ass it kicks. Hopefully nobody has to explain this to you in even plainer terms.

No one has to because it's bullshit. AT&T still gets at least $70 per month whether or not you make any phone calls on your iPhone. Further more, AT&T sells data only plans, so it does not rely on subscriptions to it's phone service to subsidize devices. AT&T is blocking VoIP applications simply to force it's customers to pay for data and voice, even though the latter is redundant. Telcos need to wise up and realize that phone service as they knew it decades ago is irrelevant, and data is the only way to go.
post #43 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Simple. Go to: www.joikuspot.com. Download the free version. Install it on your Symbian phone. Did I say Symbian? Connect your iPhone to your Symbian phone via wifi. As always, the Symbian phone will do the heavy lifting and connect to the 3G network. Tell AT&T, and T-Mobile to "eff" off.

I learn so much from you guys. Get a sym phone and iPhone with no plan and there you go. An overly complicated way to get done what should be doable from one device. Now, since we can prove it's possible to bypass this restriction, and quite easy. How much footing can ATT really have.

OT.
Why is it in this county when a company does too well (Ma Bell) we break them up. But, when a company does really poorly WE bail them out.
My uncle said something to me that was quite interesting. The government insures saving and loan banks via FDIC. Leaving the investment banks UNinsured. Why is it that the opposite seems to be playing out?
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #44 of 61
first off folks. that $30 a month is for 3g data. not wifi. that is free so long as the owner of the hotspot wishes it to be. and if you are using an iphone, ATT gives you access to their hotspots for no cost. to be 'nice' (more like cause they knew folks would gripe up a storm if they didn't)

and skype is voice over IP, a computer protocol. so why is anyone shocked about this restriction.

if folks wanna gripe about something, how about the alleged thousands in profits that cell phone providers make on SMS messages, outrageous long distance fees that make using skype needed or the lack of tier data plans so those that barely use 3g data don't have to pay as much as those that use it enough for 5 people.

and honestly folks, if you are trying to avoid costs to ATT and still use things like Skype, why not get a Touch. no contracts, no plans (other than perhaps for hotspot access), no qualifying for a cheaper price.
post #45 of 61
I'd say we're 5-10 years off having real unshackled 'pay-per-packet' phones. The phone companies are so used to being able to charge massive amounts for 'special' tiny bits of data (SMS) and voice that it's going to take government regulation to wean them off it. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't something the EU government looks at within a few years - they're already mandating massive cuts in roaming costs within the EU, which is about the only thing I know the EU has actually done for us!

I think the phone companies are really really worried that they'll become like ISPs - interchangeable conduits to the internet. ISPs are trying more and more to provide added services to get some more money (and commitment ) from you. The phone companies will fight tooth and nail against having to allow anything on their networks and more importantly, charging for them indiscriminately.

charlituna: I think you're missing the point, the FCC are being asked to investigate why they're limiting what's usable on their network. People want to be able to make phone calls with their data allowance. In practice I'd think this would give very poor call quality, but I agree the option should be there.

I'm not sure what you mean by "computer protocol" - a protocol is a specification, it's not generally tied to any particular device. IP is intentionally device agnostic, Skype clearly is too.
post #46 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by heaven or las vegas View Post

I prefer to stay right where I'm at and protest against a doctrine whose central tenet is based upon the misguided concept of separate but equal.

It's not an Equal Rights Amendment issue. It's a Business Contract.
post #47 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If AT&T doesn't want to allow that feature on their network, who are we or anyone else to stop them? When you sign up for the service, you agree to their terms do you not?

Silly me. I'd forgotten what Lily used to say, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
post #48 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

It's not an Equal Rights Amendment issue. It's a Business Contract.

Everything is connected in the modern world. Sooner or later you'll have to decide which you value more:

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or business, contracts and the pursuit of money.
post #49 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by heaven or las vegas View Post

Everything is connected in the modern world. Sooner or later you'll have to decide which you value more:

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or business, contracts and the pursuit of money.

Your life, liberty nor your pursuit of happiness are tied to you getting what you bitch about on a Wireless network provider.

Your Cellphone isn't an Immutable Right.
post #50 of 61
AT&T wouldn't actually lose any money from me by allowing Skype. Even on the cheapest plan, I use at most 10% of my anytime minutes each month (lots of unlimited mobile to mobile though) and have more rollover minutes than my total usage in over a year.

However, it would be nice to be able to call those who are only reachable online where I wouldn't be able to use the phone feature anyway. Those include people who don't have good cell signal in their dorm room or don't have a cell phone and calling home later at night would wake others up.
post #51 of 61
It's about feakin' time.

Finally some people with brains. I hope this goes thorugh as it will be a huge victory for us consumers. What's the point of the $30 unlimited data plan if the only thing you can use it for is email and web. Did you read about AT&T amending their policy to stop P2P downloads, video streaming and tethering? They pulled it and apologized but oops we know what they were thinking.
post #52 of 61
Ok I dug up some stuff on landline networks, indicating we've paid public money to create a network we'll never see. Public money went into this network so we should therefore have a say in how it's implemented.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...021240_F.shtml

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

We did not get what we paid for or were promised, but regardless of that, we still have a right to demand things from landline network providers.

That said, ATT has been paying a lot of their own money to increase their wireless network capacity. Unless someone here can demonstrate where ATT has used public funds to create their nationwide network, I don't see how anyone who values private property can say that ATT should be forced to do anything that they don't want to do with their network, be in allow Skype or heavy bandwidth video or data streams.

Here's a link to ATT pushing out a costly network update on this site.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ne_launch.html

Now, ATT is paying for this, and people are screaming that they cannot say what can be done with their property? Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Free Press' request for the FCC to investigate AT&T's obviously anti-competitive behavior would have been answered with a Foghorn Leghorn, "I say, I say, go away, boy! Don't bother me."

Now that the grown-ups are in charge and the Rule of Law is returning, this might get a serious look.

I'm not going to get into the political aspect of this, as I'm really not interested in a debate over Obama vs Bush, or democrats vs republicans, etc. However you seem to be advocating that ATT is not allowed to determine how to use the property they created. That you'd prefer that the network they created be given for free to a competitor via government mandate.

I haven't seen any evidence that ATT's network is publicly funded like landline networks has been, and you don't seem to be arguing that. Unless you are, make that clear, you're saying you essentially do not respect private property if I'm understanding you correctly.

Is this a blanket viewpoint or do you pick and choose what private property you respect? Do you freely share your private property with friends strangers and enemies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

If AT&T's network is that piss poor, they should be giving service away for free. You (plural) can not continue to apologize for crappy service that you are paying for.

You didn't indicate where you live or even admit to being an ATT customer. I can tell you that ATT's service is great in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas where I live and work. I don't speak for it's quality across the entire country, but even if it's the worst network (which it's not), don't buy it. If I don't like the food at a restaurant I don't eat there. But I also don't demand free food from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgetang View Post

What about Slingbox? and Internet Tethering?

These shouldn't be a restriction from AT&T as well!

Why is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

I'm all in favour of pay-per-packet rather than the nasty rates we pay for things like SMS or voice, but why did these guys wait for Apple? Carriers have been shafting customers for years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

I bought a BMW... ...Apparently, for $99 a month, you can pay them to leave the wheels on the car that you bought.

I hate the carriers.

How do you propose that ATT and other providers recover the costs associated with setting up their networks, on top of subsidizing individual cell phone hardware?

Is any company that recovers the costs of business and adds a little profit "gouging"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by heaven or las vegas View Post

So what if broadband providers (like Comcast) decide to block Skype? Or they decide to charge customers more money to use apps like Skype? Apple's iPhone eco system makes it easy to assert this level of control. Would you feel the same if it spread to all service providers?

Show me some evidence that ATT's wireless network is publicly funded. I provided some links indicating that landline broadband received 200 billion of public money. If this network is funded entirely by ATT, then it's not the same as landline based networks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar View Post

It's not about getting anything for free. Consumers PAY to transmit IP data over AT&T's network, and AT&T is discriminating against certain types of devices and data. That is illegal with or without network neutrality.

Illegal? Seriously? It's illegal for ATT to determine what they do with their property that they created with their own hard work and financial investments?


So lets say I build a road using my own money on my private property, some company, lets call them Skoop wants to have a street fair on my private road and set up vendors and collect ticket sales for admission to their fair. Would it be illegal for me to tell Skoop they can take their street fair and stick it where the sun don't shine? Or should Skoop hit up federal agencies to force me to have the street fair on my private road without compensation or permission on my part, while Skoop who paid nothing for the road collects all the money?


The whining in this site over this issue is almost as bad as Slashdot.
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
post #53 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by heaven or las vegas View Post

Everything is connected in the modern world. Sooner or later you'll have to decide which you value more:

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or business, contracts and the pursuit of money.

I'm sorry, how much is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness paying you? Are you putting food on the table with that? You pay your rent or mortgage with it?



So if it's not okay for ATT to make money, then neither is it okay for you, personally.

Make up your mind, is that what you want?
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
post #54 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R Wilson View Post

Ok I dug up some stuff on landline networks, indicating we've paid public money to create a network we'll never see. Public money went into this network so we should therefore have a say in how it's implemented.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...021240_F.shtml

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

We did not get what we paid for or were promised, but regardless of that, we still have a right to demand things from landline network providers.

That said, ATT has been paying a lot of their own money to increase their wireless network capacity. Unless someone here can demonstrate where ATT has used public funds to create their nationwide network, I don't see how anyone who values private property can say that ATT should be forced to do anything that they don't want to do with their network, be in allow Skype or heavy bandwidth video or data streams.

Here's a link to ATT pushing out a costly network update on this site.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ne_launch.html

Now, ATT is paying for this, and people are screaming that they cannot say what can be done with their property? Huh?



I'm not going to get into the political aspect of this, as I'm really not interested in a debate over Obama vs Bush, or democrats vs republicans, etc. However you seem to be advocating that ATT is not allowed to determine how to use the property they created. That you'd prefer that the network they created be given for free to a competitor via government mandate.

I haven't seen any evidence that ATT's network is publicly funded like landline networks has been, and you don't seem to be arguing that. Unless you are, make that clear, you're saying you essentially do not respect private property if I'm understanding you correctly.

Is this a blanket viewpoint or do you pick and choose what private property you respect? Do you freely share your private property with friends strangers and enemies?



You didn't indicate where you live or even admit to being an ATT customer. I can tell you that ATT's service is great in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas where I live and work. I don't speak for it's quality across the entire country, but even if it's the worst network (which it's not), don't buy it. If I don't like the food at a restaurant I don't eat there. But I also don't demand free food from them.



Why is that?





How do you propose that ATT and other providers recover the costs associated with setting up their networks, on top of subsidizing individual cell phone hardware?

Is any company that recovers the costs of business and adds a little profit "gouging"?



Show me some evidence that ATT's wireless network is publicly funded. I provided some links indicating that landline broadband received 200 billion of public money. If this network is funded entirely by ATT, then it's not the same as landline based networks.



Illegal? Seriously? It's illegal for ATT to determine what they do with their property that they created with their own hard work and financial investments?


So lets say I build a road using my own money on my private property, some company, lets call them Skoop wants to have a street fair on my private road and set up vendors and collect ticket sales for admission to their fair. Would it be illegal for me to tell Skoop they can take their street fair and stick it where the sun don't shine? Or should Skoop hit up federal agencies to force me to have the street fair on my private road without compensation or permission on my part, while Skoop who paid nothing for the road collects all the money?


The whining in this site over this issue is almost as bad as Slashdot.

AT&T wireless operations aside, until the US Congress eliminate regional monopolies [the original baby bells were all original monopolies] and allow for Verizon, Qwest and AT&T to offer competing services, we're once again literally going to see Anti-trust return and hopefully, this time they break them all up and say,
Quote:
``feel free to compete in each other's zones, but don't expect to consolidate once more. Create as many new corporations under your umbrellas all you want, just don't restructure under any of those and think you can reconsolidate later on and create once again this triad of anti-competition.''

I remember growing up in the 70s and early 80s with Ma Bell and later Regional Ma Bell to this day that other than being different names has remained a one stop shop for the services. The only difference is that we could buy any type of phone we want without having to buy from MaBell only.

Whoopee!

With regards to the $200 Billion in tax credits and subsidies for these corporations they have failed to deliver the Fiber across the Country they promised. The government used that to show how great it will be in the future knowing full well it would never happen.

It's time for the FCC to give Municipalities the right to lay their own solutions and compete with the Telcos. That is the only way these under 30 and use over 30 folks will truly get the best bang for our buck.
post #55 of 61
@Steven R Wilson

My point above was that I have to pay a very high price for SMS and voice while others are video streaming and want tethering. That's why I am in favour of some kind of pay-per-packet and feel I am getting a bad deal for being a 'good' mobile net citizen ( i.e., I use side-loading or wifi for large data, and use mobile networks for more immediate but low volume data ).

I would be happy for carriers to take their profit on a basis that reflects their investment in infrastructure and service rather than artificially denying me the obvious VOIP alternative to very expensive voice pricing.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #56 of 61
This is about a little more than a company trying to make money...

And FYI, that is not the goal of a business anyway. The goal is to satisfy a demand, which they (judging from this) are not exactly fulfilling. Therefore it is their own fault, and their own problem.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
- Indian Proverb.
Reply
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
- Indian Proverb.
Reply
post #57 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

My point above was that I have to pay a very high price for SMS and voice while others are video streaming and want tethering. That's why I am in favour of some kind of pay-per-packet and feel I am getting a bad deal for being a 'good' mobile net citizen ( i.e., I use side-loading or wifi for large data, and use mobile networks for more immediate but low volume data ).

I would be happy for carriers to take their profit on a basis that reflects their investment in infrastructure and service rather than artificially denying me the obvious VOIP alternative to very expensive voice pricing.

I would agree from a consumer standpoint that would be preferable. And I would like that option as well. I can't however in good conscience tell ATT they must be compelled to do this against their will unless someone can show me where public money was used to fund the creation or expansion of their wireless network.

Note, since there is more than one option for wireless networks, ATT could offer this as a competitive advantage over their rivals if they felt they could grab more customers and make more money. But that is their call to make. It's possible this will happen inevitably, but I'm comfortable letting the market settle things out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greglo View Post

This is about a little more than a company trying to make money...

And FYI, that is not the goal of a business anyway. The goal is to satisfy a demand, which they (judging from this) are not exactly fulfilling. Therefore it is their own fault, and their own problem.

Please try to make some sense? Was there a point here? If so I missed it completely.
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
post #58 of 61
@Steven R Wilson,

I am currently posted in Finland working for State. So I can say that I know a thing or three about good networks verses ones that use excuses for their poor service. I have also lived in the Mid East for a bit, and can say that many to most networks there are quite good as well. The problem with AT&T's network is that AT&T wants to do it on the cheap. The only way to have good quality is to have good network planners, more base stations (incorrectly called antennae's, good software on the base stations, and a good core IN). AT&T would rather talk about rogue applications crashing their network, or having some screwed up terms of service, or anything other than calling it what it is: a poorly implemented network buildout.
post #59 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

@Steven R Wilson,

I am currently posted in Finland working for State. So I can say that I know a thing or three about good networks verses ones that use excuses for their poor service. I have also lived in the Mid East for a bit, and can say that many to most networks there are quite good as well. The problem with AT&T's network is that AT&T wants to do it on the cheap. The only way to have good quality is to have good network planners, more base stations (incorrectly called antennae's, good software on the base stations, and a good core IN). AT&T would rather talk about rogue applications crashing their network, or having some screwed up terms of service, or anything other than calling it what it is: a poorly implemented network buildout.

Nowhere did I claim ATT did a fabulous job of building a network, nowhere did I say that the US ground based internet or wireless data networks were shining examples to the rest of the world.

I just said that it was built with private money and should not arbitrarily be subject to government involvement. Certainly not requiring them to freely hand over their investment to their competitors, who built nothing.

I won't single out ATT in complaining about the US cellular and data networks, they certainly lag far behind much of the rest of the developed world. However, that is a completely different topic.
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
(.mac registered user since July 18, 2002)
Reply
post #60 of 61
Take a look at Finland on a map, now take a look at the USA, what AT&T and other networks in the US are dealing with is more like Europe as a whole with all the seperate countries and networks and combining them into one.

Of course they face difficulties in combining a host of previously regional networks.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #61 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R Wilson View Post

Nowhere did I claim ATT did a fabulous job of building a network, nowhere did I say that the US ground based internet or wireless data networks were shining examples to the rest of the world.

I just said that it was built with private money and should not arbitrarily be subject to government involvement. Certainly not requiring them to freely hand over their investment to their competitors, who built nothing.

I won't single out ATT in complaining about the US cellular and data networks, they certainly lag far behind much of the rest of the developed world. However, that is a completely different topic.

It [Wireless ]was built with private money and large tax deduction incentives. In short, it was subsidized. The WAN backbone was massively subsidized--the bulk of MaBell prior to the fiber roll out promise and during the roll out promise was government funded.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC asked to investigate iPhone's restriction on Skype calls