How do you figure? AT&T would be using LTE for data also and 3G for voice. What is the difference? Facetime still needs to be prioritized to not stutter or drop frames and audio. That is where the problem with FaceTime over cellular is. Regular old data can buffer ahead for audio and video and also an occasional freeze is not going to be a deal beaker, but when you are having a conversation you don't want it to be out of lip sync let alone freeze up from time to time. It costs more to provide that level of service.
Thats twice that you've posted this and twice you've been wrong. AT&T does not offer any QoS for FaceTime. You are merely paying more for the right to pass FaceTime packets.
Thats twice that you've posted this and twice you've been wrong. AT&T does not offer any QoS for FaceTime. You are merely paying more for the right to pass FaceTime packets.
Yes, there is no QoS promise, not even a hint of on one, for FaceTime traffic. But, even if there were, it wouldn't matter. All that would mean is that they are degrading the rest of your traffic. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
Yes, there is no QoS promise, not even a hint of on one, for FaceTime traffic. But, even if there were, it wouldn't matter. All that would mean is that they are degrading the rest of your traffic. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
For the most part, but for anything that isn't timing critical, you're not likely to notice unless there is a glut of QoS traffic.
For the most part, but for anything that isn't timing critical, you're not likely to notice unless there is a glut of QoS traffic.
Unless there is a glut of traffic, unless the network is overloaded, it won't matter whether there is QoS priority or not. By its nature, for QoS to make a difference for one service, something else has to be paying the price.
But, again, there is no QoS priority promised for FaceTime. All AT&T is offering is not to block it, if you pay them more.
Unless there is a glut of traffic, unless the network is overloaded, it won't matter whether there is QoS priority or not. By its nature, for QoS to make a difference for one service, something else has to be paying the price.
OK, to state it better, I meant that the fraction of traffic for video conferencing is likely so insignificant that you'd never notice the degradation of non-QoS traffic.
But, again, there is no QoS priority promised for FaceTime. All AT&T is offering is not to block it, if you pay them more.
I wasn't contesting that [AT&T isn't promising QoS priority for FaceTime traffic].
Which makes the discussion of QoS in relation to FaceTime entirely beside the point. Not that that's your fault, but I wish people would stop defending AT&T's actions with fictional tales of QoS benefits.
AT&T is using the ability to use FaceTime on their network as a cattle prod to force people into plans that are more profitable for AT&T, pure and simple, end of story.
Comments
The ITU calls HSPA+ 4G now. That news wasn't very widely spread.
http://m.intomobile.com/2010/12/18/itu-reverses-its-decision-lte-wimax-and-hspa-are-now-4g/
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
Thats twice that you've posted this and twice you've been wrong. AT&T does not offer any QoS for FaceTime. You are merely paying more for the right to pass FaceTime packets.
Yes, there is no QoS promise, not even a hint of on one, for FaceTime traffic. But, even if there were, it wouldn't matter. All that would mean is that they are degrading the rest of your traffic. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
For the most part, but for anything that isn't timing critical, you're not likely to notice unless there is a glut of QoS traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
For the most part, but for anything that isn't timing critical, you're not likely to notice unless there is a glut of QoS traffic.
Unless there is a glut of traffic, unless the network is overloaded, it won't matter whether there is QoS priority or not. By its nature, for QoS to make a difference for one service, something else has to be paying the price.
But, again, there is no QoS priority promised for FaceTime. All AT&T is offering is not to block it, if you pay them more.
OK, to state it better, I meant that the fraction of traffic for video conferencing is likely so insignificant that you'd never notice the degradation of non-QoS traffic.
I wasn't contesting that bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I wasn't contesting that [AT&T isn't promising QoS priority for FaceTime traffic].
Which makes the discussion of QoS in relation to FaceTime entirely beside the point. Not that that's your fault, but I wish people would stop defending AT&T's actions with fictional tales of QoS benefits.
AT&T is using the ability to use FaceTime on their network as a cattle prod to force people into plans that are more profitable for AT&T, pure and simple, end of story.