It's not like AT&T and Apple are just winging it with their plans. They knew the direction this was going to go. I feel like you and some others on here are just making excuses. C'mon, we've all had our share of the Apple and now AT&T Kool-Aid, but you have to be blind if you can't see an ulterior motive. AT&T wants to charge iPhone users more than everybody else because we all pay a premium. They want to give you garbage media like Sprint did and offer CNN, WEATHER CHANNEL, and FASHION NETWORK and charge you $30 a month for it.
It has nothing to do with "baby steps", it's all about charging us for something that should be included.
You're wasting your time. solopism will defend anything and everything that comes out the pipeline. Apple could team up with AIG and he would defend it.
Looks like we're seeing a repeat performance of the Sirius/XM debacle. Apple took an unusually long time to approve the Sirius/XM radio player from nicemac, and ended up rejecting them -- giving absolutely no justification for it. This is where we pay for not having an open platform: Apple must comply with their own financial interests, secret contract with industrial stakeholders like cell phone companies, and their own secret product schedule.
At the end of the day, it benefits Apple in the short term because they keep complete control of the entire platform; but this stranglehold keeps prices high and artificially limits capabilities, which only hurts the success of the platform in the long run.
After all, if Android or the new Palm feature a large choice of software and particularly the applications that Apple systematically turns down, no matter how much users love their iPhones they're going to look on the other side of the fence. It's not like AT&T is giving away their contracts, anyway.
This article is just a rumor, but I'd have to think it's very likely with the fragility of AT&T's network, especially in NYC.
I can picture a dozen SlingPlayer users bringing AT&Ts network to it's knees. The application should only be allowed over WiFi, only. Forget about any bandwidth hogging applications getting on AT&Ts 3G network. Don't look for any streaming services until 4G networks are rolled out.
I'd want SlingPlayer because I'm one of the few fortunate ones that has had a SlingBox Pro for a couple of years and Iove it for use around the house over WiFi. But I wouldn't want to use SlingPlayer at the expense of having other people not being able to make and receive telephone calls. It too unfair for the 98% of the iPhone users that don't have SlingBoxes. AT&T is to blame for all these problems of crappy bandwidth, but little can be done about it in this point in time. 4G is on the way and that's what AT&Ts cash should be spent on.
It's not like AT&T and Apple are just winging it with their plans.
We can't have it both ways. It's funny that the same people who yesterday were saying how much AT&T's network is crap, that it can't handle the users that it already has in x-city, that it isn't spending its billions upgrading their network fast enough are now saying that AT&T sould allow it and there network is fine.
I have owned a SlingBox (not the afore mentioned SlingBlade I referred to). It was great when I needed it but I would spend a great deal of continuous time on it compared to watching a video or two on YouTube. If you've owned one you'd know that it's just not a great fit to be thrown willy nilly onto an already saturated network. It's just too easy to abuse the data requirements. I have great throughput with my iPhone and my 3G card for my notebook, both on AT&T, most of the time, but large cities are still very much hampered at this time without SlingBox and the next iPhone due out shortly causing making things worse. I would prefer for Apple and AT&T to only sell iPhones when the network can handle it. While it would suck to be on a waiting list for a couple months I would rather have that happen than get a new iPhone and have network trouble with it like too many did last year. It's just not good for business. MobileMe has been working since 3 days after its launch and yet it still has a stigma of being shoddy because of a poor release plan.
That said, if a SlingPlayer for iPhone app were to be allowed I would buy the new device immediately so I could use it on my iPhone. It's up to AT&T to keep up with the devices they allow, not me.
Its not true that all phones can use Sling Player, mostly only newer models.
Oh... do you shop at a store that sells OLD MODELS? What are you talking about? I was streaming my slingplayer on my Pocket PC for at least a year before I bought my iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What exactly is true streaming media?
I guess I'm referring to streaming live local TV vs. Streaming movies from my home storage using Telekinesis (or similar software options), which is slow and requires several steps to get it on your computer to begin with and then it requires storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Who is nickel and dimeing exactly for what?
Phone Service (standard)
Texting (ridiculous prices for iPhone)
Data (included in the more expensive iPhone service plan)
Tethering (not available yet for iPhone, but will cost more even though it uses the same zeros and ones as the safari browser)
Do I really need to list more?
As others have said, AT&T is probably working on some crappy MEDIA service that will not step on Apple's toes too much. It's just a matter of time before their "TV" app comes out where you can watch your favorite shows on stations like SPEED, NFL NETWORK, FOOD NETWORK, FOX NEWS, and CNN. It will be a joke, but people will bite.
I already pay a premium for my cable service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to enjoy it over the internet when I'm waiting for a flight or waiting to purchase the new iPhone.
Perhaps Serious/XM did not give nicemac permission to create a radio player. According to this article Serious./XM will soon provide their own player for the iPhone.
"Satellite Radio company Sirius XM plans to roll out an iPhone App in the second quarter of 2009. The Sirius iPhone App would be available to the 19 million Sirius XM subscribers and to the 7 million iPhone users in the US. As the radio service will also be available through Wifi it will also be available on the iPod touch."
Looks like we're seeing a repeat performance of the Sirius/XM debacle. Apple took an unusually long time to approve the Sirius/XM radio player from nicemac, and ended up rejecting them -- giving absolutely no justification for it.
Apple took an unusually long time to approve the Sirius/XM radio player from nicemac...
I was so looking forward to that app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
But I wouldn't want to use SlingPlayer at the expense of having other people not being able to make and receive telephone calls. It too unfair for the 98% of the iPhone users that don't have SlingBoxes. AT&T is to blame for all these problems of crappy bandwidth, but little can be done about it in this point in time. 4G is on the way and that's what AT&Ts cash should be spent on.
This wouldn't effect voice it would affect data. As for 4G, there is so much more growth that 3G can achieve We are using HSDPA with the iPhone, and not even with the highest download capable on their the iPhone's HW or from AT&T. The next iPhone will reportedly have double the download capacity and have a a much faster upload potential with the inclusion of HSUPA. That still won't be the highest possible for HSUPA, but after that there is HSPA+ which is still 3G. After that you get to 4G. AT&T has stated that they will be focusing on their 3G network for the awhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi
As others have said, AT&T is probably working on some crappy MEDIA service that will not step on Apple's toes too much.
What I don't understand is if this feature was so popular to AT&T's bottom line why didn't they offer one 2 years ago when the iPhone was released. Surely their partnership would have allowed AT&T to have an app that would help sell more iPhones with a TV service. Or when the App Store came out? They would have had a year with the SDK now if, for some unknown reason, Apple wouldn't work with them on the app. There is an important piece of the puzzle we are not seeing.
The real problem here is the physics of wireless propagation. Cellular and WiFi play by different sets of rules and that creates different outcomes.
WiFi equipment is usually installed inside homes and business to reach gadgets inside that same building. Low power, low antennas, and high frequencies (2.4 and 5.6 GHz) mean the signals don't travel very far outside that building and no one cares. If anything, limited range is a plus.
Cellular equipment plays a different game. The base station power is much greater, the antennas are outside with more gain and higher up, and the frequencies are a bit lower, giving a bit more penetration. The goal is to cover areas up to several square miles with enough strength to penetrate through blocking buildings and inside the building a user is in. That's why I can't see a Starbucks WiFi half a block away but get excellent coverage from a T-Mobile cell half a mile away.
That difference has important implications. If I stream video from an iMac in my office to a MacBook in my den, I'm filling an WiFi channel that barely gets beyond the taller buildings on either side of me. Not so when I take a cell phone call. T-Mobile probably can't reuse the slot my voice is taking for a radius of several miles. Fortunately, voice doesn't require that much spectrum.
I worked with channel allocation in the early days of cellular. At that time, it was thought that we could keep shrinking the size of cells down to accommodate growth. Geography, the existence of buildings, and the use of cell phones as personal devices we expect to work inside buildings changed all that. It is easy to reach a car phone (the early vision of what cellular would mean) with an excellent external antenna cruising down an open street. It's far harder to reach a tiny pocket device with a concealed antenna deep inside a building. The latter requires that engineers keep the antennas high (to pass over intervening buildings) and the base power high (to penetrate inside buildings). The only way to beat that technological problem might be a low cell site every block or two, but that would create other technical problems and cost much more.
Those who want to stream a personal video to their iPhone should keep these factors in mind. There's only so much spectrum allocated to cellular services. Grabbing a major slice of that spectrum, particularly in spectrum-clogged major cities, may simply be unfeasible. Cell companies are trying to avoid a situation where spectrum is rationed either by setting the price high or by sluggish service.
In short, it's not unreasonable to force people who want to watch YouTube videos of kittens tumbling down stairs to find a WiFi they can use. Some cell providers are helping matters a bit by providing free WiFi access at certain locale as a part of their service fees. Spectrum is a resource like water or electrical power. In many situations, particularly the built-up areas in major cities, it's not something that can be wasted.
Oh... do you shop at a store that sells OLD MODELS? What are you talking about? I was streaming my slingplayer on my Pocket PC for at least a year before I bought my iPhone.
The software doesn't stay the same and they don't continue to support old phones. You cannot even use the newer mobile Sling software with an older Sling Box, you have to buy a new Sling Box to use the newer Sling mobile software.
Quote:
I guess I'm referring to streaming live local TV vs. Streaming movies from my home storage using Telekinesis (or similar software options), which is slow and requires several steps to get it on your computer to begin with and then it requires storage.
I don't see the big deal with streaming live television. Do people really desire to live their mobile lives around a broadcast schedule?
I already mostly watch television on DVR or VOD. I would rather watch TV on my schedule instead of living around a broadcast schedule.
Quote:
Phone Service (standard)
Texting (ridiculous prices for iPhone)
Data (included in the more expensive iPhone service plan)
Tethering (not available yet for iPhone, but will cost more even though it uses the same zeros and ones as the safari browser)
Do I really need to list more?
I think its ridiculous to pay anything for text myself. The iPhone Data plan is not more expensive its the standard unlimited AT&T 3G plan. They were actually charging less than their standard data for the original iPhone. Tethering will cost more because typically people will be on a notebook for a longer period of time than a phone.
Quote:
As others have said, AT&T is probably working on some crappy MEDIA service that will not step on Apple's toes too much. It's just a matter of time before their "TV" app comes out where you can watch your favorite shows on stations like SPEED, NFL NETWORK, FOOD NETWORK, FOX NEWS, and CNN. It will be a joke, but people will bite.
I already pay a premium for my cable service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to enjoy it over the internet when I'm waiting for a flight or waiting to purchase the new iPhone.
You would have to take that up with your cable company.
Perhaps Serious/XM did not give nicemac permission to create a radio player. According to this article Serious./XM will soon provide their own player for the iPhone.
"Satellite Radio company Sirius XM plans to roll out an iPhone App in the second quarter of 2009. The Sirius iPhone App would be available to the 19 million Sirius XM subscribers and to the 7 million iPhone users in the US. As the radio service will also be available through Wifi it will also be available on the iPod touch."
Nice find. The simplest answer is that Nicemac didn't give permission and so the app got the kibosh. That last sentence is interesting as it includes the adverb 'also'. I would have thought that any service that uses the carrier network would also be available on WiFi by default.
? I hope that they also allow for EDGE use.
? I hope that they allow you to choose an option for 128Kbps for WiFi, even though I assume that 34Kbps will be used for the carrier's network.
? I hope they allow for caching and timeshifting for x-minutes of audio.
All I know is if this app doesn't come out and I don't get my Dish VIP 922 I am going to flip shit. I could care less about all other apps. I want my DVR and television viewable from my phone at a monthly service of $0!!!
All I know is if this app doesn't come out and I don't get my Dish VIP 922 I am going to flip shit. I could care less about all other apps. I want my DVR and television viewable from my phone at a monthly service of $0!!!
Why would you "flip out"? Was this promised to you when you bought the iPhone and/or Dish VIP 922?
I have no problem at all running Sling software on my MBP with my unlimited EVDO Sprint 3G account. So I just don't buy this hooey that it will somehow bog down the network, and it looks to me as if this is just another AT&T attempt to seize the TV streaming market for itself so it can continue to overcharge its customers for virtually every service it offers.
The real problem here is the physics of wireless propagation. Cellular and WiFi play by different sets of rules and that creates different outcomes.
...
Spectrum is a resource like water or electrical power. In many situations, particularly the built-up areas in major cities, it's not something that can be wasted.
Good call. It's ridiculous that people think that it's a matter of AT&T flipping a switch. A cellular network is an expensive thing to build, maintain, and upgrade. And millions of customers pay a small monthly fee to use it.
Fifteen years ago, many of us had 56k modems at home, and no mobile service whatsoever. I'm very satisfied with the advancements in communication. People just need to be patient. I'm sure we're not far off from mass-supported video streaming on the iPhone, but it may take a couple more years to make it worth doing.
As for AT&T blocking SlingPlayer in favor of offering their own service, that raises some serious net neutrality issues.
I have no problem at all running Sling software on my MBP with my unlimited EVDO Sprint 3G account. So I just don't buy this hooey that it will somehow bog down the network, and it looks to me as if this is just another AT&T attempt to seize the TV streaming market for itself so it can continue to overcharge its customers for virtually every service it offers.
Actually, Sprint changed their terms of service last year on your aircard or tethered phone to include a five gigabyte soft limit. It seems the unlimited access "somehow bogged down their network."
I seriously doubt AT&T has ANY say in this. Apple has them by the balls because all the other carriers would give their left one to have the iPhone on their network.
Simplify Media already lets you stream the music portion of your iTunes library to an iPhone, iPod Touch or any other Mac or (Win-Linux pc). I have an iPod touch (with which it works perfectly), but I also loaded the Simplify Media Mac client on my work computer and then tethered my Windows Mobile phone (Samsung Blackjack II) and streamed my music from home perfectly. So whats the big difference with Sling. Is it just video vs audio?
Comments
It's not like AT&T and Apple are just winging it with their plans. They knew the direction this was going to go. I feel like you and some others on here are just making excuses. C'mon, we've all had our share of the Apple and now AT&T Kool-Aid, but you have to be blind if you can't see an ulterior motive. AT&T wants to charge iPhone users more than everybody else because we all pay a premium. They want to give you garbage media like Sprint did and offer CNN, WEATHER CHANNEL, and FASHION NETWORK and charge you $30 a month for it.
It has nothing to do with "baby steps", it's all about charging us for something that should be included.
You're wasting your time. solopism will defend anything and everything that comes out the pipeline. Apple could team up with AIG and he would defend it.
At the end of the day, it benefits Apple in the short term because they keep complete control of the entire platform; but this stranglehold keeps prices high and artificially limits capabilities, which only hurts the success of the platform in the long run.
After all, if Android or the new Palm feature a large choice of software and particularly the applications that Apple systematically turns down, no matter how much users love their iPhones they're going to look on the other side of the fence. It's not like AT&T is giving away their contracts, anyway.
I can picture a dozen SlingPlayer users bringing AT&Ts network to it's knees.
I'd want SlingPlayer because I'm one of the few fortunate ones that has had a SlingBox Pro for a couple of years and Iove it for use around the house over WiFi. But I wouldn't want to use SlingPlayer at the expense of having other people not being able to make and receive telephone calls. It too unfair for the 98% of the iPhone users that don't have SlingBoxes. AT&T is to blame for all these problems of crappy bandwidth, but little can be done about it in this point in time. 4G is on the way and that's what AT&Ts cash should be spent on.
It's not like AT&T and Apple are just winging it with their plans.
We can't have it both ways. It's funny that the same people who yesterday were saying how much AT&T's network is crap, that it can't handle the users that it already has in x-city, that it isn't spending its billions upgrading their network fast enough are now saying that AT&T sould allow it and there network is fine.
I have owned a SlingBox (not the afore mentioned SlingBlade I referred to). It was great when I needed it but I would spend a great deal of continuous time on it compared to watching a video or two on YouTube. If you've owned one you'd know that it's just not a great fit to be thrown willy nilly onto an already saturated network. It's just too easy to abuse the data requirements. I have great throughput with my iPhone and my 3G card for my notebook, both on AT&T, most of the time, but large cities are still very much hampered at this time without SlingBox and the next iPhone due out shortly causing making things worse. I would prefer for Apple and AT&T to only sell iPhones when the network can handle it. While it would suck to be on a waiting list for a couple months I would rather have that happen than get a new iPhone and have network trouble with it like too many did last year. It's just not good for business. MobileMe has been working since 3 days after its launch and yet it still has a stigma of being shoddy because of a poor release plan.
That said, if a SlingPlayer for iPhone app were to be allowed I would buy the new device immediately so I could use it on my iPhone. It's up to AT&T to keep up with the devices they allow, not me.
Its not true that all phones can use Sling Player, mostly only newer models.
Oh... do you shop at a store that sells OLD MODELS? What are you talking about? I was streaming my slingplayer on my Pocket PC for at least a year before I bought my iPhone.
What exactly is true streaming media?
I guess I'm referring to streaming live local TV vs. Streaming movies from my home storage using Telekinesis (or similar software options), which is slow and requires several steps to get it on your computer to begin with and then it requires storage.
Who is nickel and dimeing exactly for what?
Phone Service (standard)
Texting (ridiculous prices for iPhone)
Data (included in the more expensive iPhone service plan)
Tethering (not available yet for iPhone, but will cost more even though it uses the same zeros and ones as the safari browser)
Do I really need to list more?
As others have said, AT&T is probably working on some crappy MEDIA service that will not step on Apple's toes too much. It's just a matter of time before their "TV" app comes out where you can watch your favorite shows on stations like SPEED, NFL NETWORK, FOOD NETWORK, FOX NEWS, and CNN. It will be a joke, but people will bite.
I already pay a premium for my cable service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to enjoy it over the internet when I'm waiting for a flight or waiting to purchase the new iPhone.
"Satellite Radio company Sirius XM plans to roll out an iPhone App in the second quarter of 2009. The Sirius iPhone App would be available to the 19 million Sirius XM subscribers and to the 7 million iPhone users in the US. As the radio service will also be available through Wifi it will also be available on the iPod touch."
Sirius XM gets serious about the iPhone
Looks like we're seeing a repeat performance of the Sirius/XM debacle. Apple took an unusually long time to approve the Sirius/XM radio player from nicemac, and ended up rejecting them -- giving absolutely no justification for it.
Apple took an unusually long time to approve the Sirius/XM radio player from nicemac...
I was so looking forward to that app.
But I wouldn't want to use SlingPlayer at the expense of having other people not being able to make and receive telephone calls. It too unfair for the 98% of the iPhone users that don't have SlingBoxes. AT&T is to blame for all these problems of crappy bandwidth, but little can be done about it in this point in time. 4G is on the way and that's what AT&Ts cash should be spent on.
This wouldn't effect voice it would affect data. As for 4G, there is so much more growth that 3G can achieve We are using HSDPA with the iPhone, and not even with the highest download capable on their the iPhone's HW or from AT&T. The next iPhone will reportedly have double the download capacity and have a a much faster upload potential with the inclusion of HSUPA. That still won't be the highest possible for HSUPA, but after that there is HSPA+ which is still 3G. After that you get to 4G. AT&T has stated that they will be focusing on their 3G network for the awhile.
As others have said, AT&T is probably working on some crappy MEDIA service that will not step on Apple's toes too much.
What I don't understand is if this feature was so popular to AT&T's bottom line why didn't they offer one 2 years ago when the iPhone was released. Surely their partnership would have allowed AT&T to have an app that would help sell more iPhones with a TV service. Or when the App Store came out? They would have had a year with the SDK now if, for some unknown reason, Apple wouldn't work with them on the app. There is an important piece of the puzzle we are not seeing.
WiFi equipment is usually installed inside homes and business to reach gadgets inside that same building. Low power, low antennas, and high frequencies (2.4 and 5.6 GHz) mean the signals don't travel very far outside that building and no one cares. If anything, limited range is a plus.
Cellular equipment plays a different game. The base station power is much greater, the antennas are outside with more gain and higher up, and the frequencies are a bit lower, giving a bit more penetration. The goal is to cover areas up to several square miles with enough strength to penetrate through blocking buildings and inside the building a user is in. That's why I can't see a Starbucks WiFi half a block away but get excellent coverage from a T-Mobile cell half a mile away.
That difference has important implications. If I stream video from an iMac in my office to a MacBook in my den, I'm filling an WiFi channel that barely gets beyond the taller buildings on either side of me. Not so when I take a cell phone call. T-Mobile probably can't reuse the slot my voice is taking for a radius of several miles. Fortunately, voice doesn't require that much spectrum.
I worked with channel allocation in the early days of cellular. At that time, it was thought that we could keep shrinking the size of cells down to accommodate growth. Geography, the existence of buildings, and the use of cell phones as personal devices we expect to work inside buildings changed all that. It is easy to reach a car phone (the early vision of what cellular would mean) with an excellent external antenna cruising down an open street. It's far harder to reach a tiny pocket device with a concealed antenna deep inside a building. The latter requires that engineers keep the antennas high (to pass over intervening buildings) and the base power high (to penetrate inside buildings). The only way to beat that technological problem might be a low cell site every block or two, but that would create other technical problems and cost much more.
Those who want to stream a personal video to their iPhone should keep these factors in mind. There's only so much spectrum allocated to cellular services. Grabbing a major slice of that spectrum, particularly in spectrum-clogged major cities, may simply be unfeasible. Cell companies are trying to avoid a situation where spectrum is rationed either by setting the price high or by sluggish service.
In short, it's not unreasonable to force people who want to watch YouTube videos of kittens tumbling down stairs to find a WiFi they can use. Some cell providers are helping matters a bit by providing free WiFi access at certain locale as a part of their service fees. Spectrum is a resource like water or electrical power. In many situations, particularly the built-up areas in major cities, it's not something that can be wasted.
Oh... do you shop at a store that sells OLD MODELS? What are you talking about? I was streaming my slingplayer on my Pocket PC for at least a year before I bought my iPhone.
The software doesn't stay the same and they don't continue to support old phones. You cannot even use the newer mobile Sling software with an older Sling Box, you have to buy a new Sling Box to use the newer Sling mobile software.
I guess I'm referring to streaming live local TV vs. Streaming movies from my home storage using Telekinesis (or similar software options), which is slow and requires several steps to get it on your computer to begin with and then it requires storage.
I don't see the big deal with streaming live television. Do people really desire to live their mobile lives around a broadcast schedule?
I already mostly watch television on DVR or VOD. I would rather watch TV on my schedule instead of living around a broadcast schedule.
Phone Service (standard)
Texting (ridiculous prices for iPhone)
Data (included in the more expensive iPhone service plan)
Tethering (not available yet for iPhone, but will cost more even though it uses the same zeros and ones as the safari browser)
Do I really need to list more?
I think its ridiculous to pay anything for text myself. The iPhone Data plan is not more expensive its the standard unlimited AT&T 3G plan. They were actually charging less than their standard data for the original iPhone. Tethering will cost more because typically people will be on a notebook for a longer period of time than a phone.
As others have said, AT&T is probably working on some crappy MEDIA service that will not step on Apple's toes too much. It's just a matter of time before their "TV" app comes out where you can watch your favorite shows on stations like SPEED, NFL NETWORK, FOOD NETWORK, FOX NEWS, and CNN. It will be a joke, but people will bite.
They already have a crappy media servce, AT&T Mobile TV
I already pay a premium for my cable service. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to enjoy it over the internet when I'm waiting for a flight or waiting to purchase the new iPhone.
You would have to take that up with your cable company.
Perhaps Serious/XM did not give nicemac permission to create a radio player. According to this article Serious./XM will soon provide their own player for the iPhone.
"Satellite Radio company Sirius XM plans to roll out an iPhone App in the second quarter of 2009. The Sirius iPhone App would be available to the 19 million Sirius XM subscribers and to the 7 million iPhone users in the US. As the radio service will also be available through Wifi it will also be available on the iPod touch."
Sirius XM gets serious about the iPhone
Nice find. The simplest answer is that Nicemac didn't give permission and so the app got the kibosh. That last sentence is interesting as it includes the adverb 'also'. I would have thought that any service that uses the carrier network would also be available on WiFi by default.
? I hope that they also allow for EDGE use.
? I hope that they allow you to choose an option for 128Kbps for WiFi, even though I assume that 34Kbps will be used for the carrier's network.
? I hope they allow for caching and timeshifting for x-minutes of audio.
All I know is if this app doesn't come out and I don't get my Dish VIP 922 I am going to flip shit. I could care less about all other apps. I want my DVR and television viewable from my phone at a monthly service of $0!!!
Why would you "flip out"? Was this promised to you when you bought the iPhone and/or Dish VIP 922?
I have no problem at all running Sling software on my MBP with my unlimited EVDO Sprint 3G account.
The real problem here is the physics of wireless propagation. Cellular and WiFi play by different sets of rules and that creates different outcomes.
...
Spectrum is a resource like water or electrical power. In many situations, particularly the built-up areas in major cities, it's not something that can be wasted.
Good call. It's ridiculous that people think that it's a matter of AT&T flipping a switch. A cellular network is an expensive thing to build, maintain, and upgrade. And millions of customers pay a small monthly fee to use it.
Fifteen years ago, many of us had 56k modems at home, and no mobile service whatsoever. I'm very satisfied with the advancements in communication. People just need to be patient. I'm sure we're not far off from mass-supported video streaming on the iPhone, but it may take a couple more years to make it worth doing.
As for AT&T blocking SlingPlayer in favor of offering their own service, that raises some serious net neutrality issues.
Why would you "flip out"? Was this promised to you when you bought the iPhone and/or Dish VIP 922?
Your insipid mantra is so tiring.
That's not what he means and you know it.
I have no problem at all running Sling software on my MBP with my unlimited EVDO Sprint 3G account. So I just don't buy this hooey that it will somehow bog down the network, and it looks to me as if this is just another AT&T attempt to seize the TV streaming market for itself so it can continue to overcharge its customers for virtually every service it offers.
Actually, Sprint changed their terms of service last year on your aircard or tethered phone to include a five gigabyte soft limit. It seems the unlimited access "somehow bogged down their network."
At least it got me out of my Sprint contract.