Slashdot Mirror
Group Pushes FCC To Investigate Skype for iPhone
Macworld is reporting that an internet advocacy group has asked the FCC to investigate whether the WiFi-only restriction on the Skype for iPhone app is in violation of federal law. "Since its release on Tuesday, Skype for iPhone has been downloaded more than a million times — that's a rate of six downloads a second, according to the company. All this despite the fact the software only works via the iPhone's Wi-Fi connection, and not AT&T's 3G network. [...] The letter cites the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (PDF link) which states that 'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice' in order to 'preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.'"
Not to sound jaded, but Slashdotters know the outcome of this already.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I...if this...orking or...an you he...ause I ca...ou...Wha...er...is...ucks.
well, if the cellular network is not running on IP and requires a bridge, then technically this is not an issue. Does anyone know how software developers interact with the data stack on cell phones? Is it the same as the wifi stack with another device name given or does it have its own API?
When all else fails, try.
"preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet."
Someone missed their interweb for dummies class.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
Good thing I bought Apple Care.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
"The letter cites the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (PDF link) which states that 'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice' in order to 'preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.'""
And consumers are choosing to use an iPhone to access the internet. What's the problem? Don't like the product don't use it.
I don't think 3G is good enough whether or not it gives a public IP adress is besides the point... 3G can be expected to provide 384 kbit/s at or below pedestrian speeds, but only 128 kbit/s in a moving car...Thus making WiFi really the only viable way to do it in the first place. It's not so much them restricting it just to be evil...
You sound as though you keep being inconvenienced by two or more people sucking your penis at the same time.
an internet advocacy group has asked the FCC to investigate whether the WiFi-only restriction on the Skype for iPhone app is in violation of federal law.
If it is in violation (or rather, if AT&T's requirement that led to the software being restricted is in violation), wouldn't they already be having problems with their no-tethering rules for some data/internet plans?
I've searched for Skype on the App Store and I'm not seeing any official Skype app. Does anyone know the full exact name of the application on the App Store?
That application developers have to develop their applications to be used in all possible circumstances? It says users may use applications of their choice, not that developers need develop all applications so that they may be used by all users in order to connect to the internet by all possible means. If this is some restriction placed by the carrier, then I can see this making some sense (though in that case it would be most appropriate if Skype themselves lodged the complaint). Is it?
Some more links on MacRumors:
"T-Mobile in Germany, however, threatened that it may take action to prevent its customers from using Skype on the iPhone. [...] Skype has proven to be massively popular on the iPhone and iPod Touch reaching over one million downloads in the first two days of availability."
Animoog.org
not just skype...and that would be the wireless telcos policies and various restrictions (hardware and software) and additional fees, etc., surrounding tethering and data transfer in general terms. Bits are bits are bits, they shouldn't be allowed to charge "extra" for moving bits based on what the bits are doing, or if they are traveling through an additional legal device the consumer may own and use. Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever? They are getting away with charging different fees for different things like that, when it is all just the same "bits" moving around.
Doesn't sound all that inconvenient...
Local music(to upstate NY). http://gnarfel.com/ radio.
'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice' in order to 'preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.'"
So AT&T/Apple get to create an effective monopoly by tabooing the use of the iPhone with other services, but their fanboys are up in arms when Skype provides a service that doesn't use 3G?
If anything, consumers should be weary of 3G lock-in. Who cares if an app only works via wifi? Why the hell would you use voip on your phone if you are already paying for the phone connection? Isn't that antithetical to any reason consumers would prefer voip to more traditional solutions?
You should check it out http://www.freeswitch.org
Also check out ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com
Maybe now consumers will actually get to use their devices. I have a Blackberry from Verizon and the ex parte filing addresses 1 of my concerns: tethering. If I pay for an unlimited data plan... why can't I tether?
My second issue isn't mentioned but seems anti-consumer. Why can't I use the GPS on my Blackberry Pearl in Google Maps? I even pay for the stupid VZ Navigator software and Google Maps still can't use the GPS.
Someone port Wengo or Gizmo5 to iphone, quick!
1. Wengo phone http://www.wengophone.com/index.php
2. Gizmo5 http://gizmo5.com/pc/
The Jajah devs made this point just yesterday: http://digg.com/software/FreeSWITCH_Skypiax_Skype_For_All
I highly recommend you check it out. We can use OSS software to force the *opolies to get with the times.
www.freeswitch.com -MC -- See you at ClueCon! www.cluecon.com
Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever?
I don't mean to defend the phone company (especially AT&T), but there are legitimate reasons to differentiate between different bits, both for the cell company and the consumer.
I want all my "voice" bits to have low latency, and high reliability. I don't mind if my web page loading pauses for a half second; but a half second pause in a conversation is less acceptable. They're both just bits. But most customers appreciate a distinction between the two.
Now, the cell network is not an unlimited pipe. There are a certain number of bits which can go through it over a specified period of time. But, people have an almost unlimited capacity to use all available bandwidth. So, you have to find some way to ration that bandwidth, while still retaining the distinctions between different "flavors" of bits.
AT&T has outright banned some activities on the iphone (tethering, 3G skype, 3G VOIP in general), as a way of rationing that limited bandwidth. They could also choose to implement price discrimination: charging customers more to tether, for example.
But, ultimately, they have to find a way to bring the "bandwidth actually used" number to at or below the "bandwidth available" number. All the while respecting the expectations of the consumers regarding different "flavors" of bits.
Now, you could just say, "To hell with it," and remove all caps and restrictions, making every bit equal. But, you'd lose customers as people get pissed at the terrible voice quality.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
My guess is that if the FCC declares that Skype has to be allowed to work over 3G too, AT&T will force Apple to drop it from the App Store so people won't be able to use Skype even on WiFi.
So...not really a win.
I can certainly understand why AT&T doesn't want you to use Skype to circumvent using minutes if overage charges are their business model. However, they already grossly over charge on data, and many companies seem to be shifting to a $99.99 unlimited everything plan.
Frankly, I think if you asked AT&T if they'd be happy if most of their customers paid $99.99 a month, they'd be thrilled, because it is vastly more than they pay now. And at the same time, if consumers have an unlimited everything plan, they why restrict how they use it? If they want to use Skype to call, as opposed to a normal phone call, then let them.
Be the first company to have the smarts to enable your consumers, and watch consumers to flock to you.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Does anybody know why Amazon MP3 on Android will let you access song lists and even previews over the cell network, but forces you to download purchased songs over wifi? I suspect there are similar business shenanigans going on.
AT&T provides voice service over their GSM network, they do not provide VOIP over their 3g network. I am used to seeing half second pauses when loading pages (ok, I use verizon...*multi*second pauses) over 3G and at this point it doesn't bother me too much since I am still astounded that I am getting quick internet in my pocket (although when I was testing an AT&T blackberry, the network was much more responsive).
Being familiar with my web browsing speeds, I would probably recognize that my skype calls are going to break up and choose to use the real phone instead. AT&T has no obligation to treat bits differently (I would prefer they are all the same thank you very much)and I feel like with their current 3g performance, treating all bits the same is the best way to prevent people from using skype.
The tethering thing is still bull shit. I understand that they are trying to tier prices based on use since laptop users probably use more bandwidth than a guy with a number-key only phone but they are doing it wrong. A better option would be to allow anyone to tether...and charge them for it (though people here would probably get mad). Offer capped plans with tethering enabled and feel free to charge people for overuse...offer a truly unlimited plan priced above that (the people who just want to play around can use a capped acount and just not go over...the serious users should be able to pay for unlimited)
Bottles.
Different bits have different link characteristic demands. Go look up QoS.
In theory they _could_ introduce high jitter to their 'data' service.
i.e. Artificial jitter.
Text Web bits would still do fine, and web users would never notice, due to TCP's characteristics, but the link would be unusable for 'voice bits', without some type of caching or shaping at both ends (that would also terribly compromise the experience), to compensate for the intentional conditioning of the link.
'Text' as in SMS are a totally different protocol and require totally different handling by the provider from 'web' data bits, so it's understandable it would be priced separately.
(Although charging per-message is clearly a farce. It's almost like your ISP charging you for by the packet for every e-mail you send or that someone sends you, whether you wanted them to send it to you or not.)
Now, you could just say, "To hell with it," and remove all caps and restrictions, making every bit equal. But, you'd lose customers as people get pissed at the terrible voice quality.
Or you could sell a plan that honors QoS tagging and includes a small (good for a VoIP connection) rate of high QoS packets - with high QoS packets exceeding the contracted rate demoted to "best effort". (And yes it's OK to rewrite the type-of-service field.)
Then the limited-but-quality-sensitive VoIP (or whatever) stream(s) can go through, whether they're the carrier's calls or VoIP/streaming apps, the file transfers (and any excess streaming traffic) get "use what's left and take the quality hit", and both the carrier's and the customer's interests are protected.
Except for the carrier's interest in overcharging for voice transport, of course. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Then they shouldn't market the data plan as "unlimited". It's simply false advertising.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
"Apple provides the product and they should be able to tell you how you are allowed to use it."
Exactly. Read your EULA, or whatever the iPhone's equivalent is. You were pitched a locked-down device with a closed software stack, and you went "fine, whatever, as long as it Just Works(TM) you can do what you want."
Now they're doing what they want -- leveraging the closed platform to shut out competition. And you're bitching.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
There is a simple fix to this whole issue from a cell companies perspective. Never offer 'unlimited' internet plans or charge huge amounts of money for them. Charge for every byte of data so that it no longer becomes viable to use skype over standard calling and now consumers are in a worse position.
If you don't understand why skype should not be allowed to be run over the cell networks then I don't know what to tell you. It is not a corporate scam to steal money from consumers, that is for sure.
Be careful what you wish for.
I understand that there is a difference between the QOS settings for voice and data. That makes sense. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to stop differentiating between voice and data, but if I choose to use my data connection to run VoiP (assuming I'm willing to put up with the increase in skipping, if there is one) or to tether to my laptop then that should be my decision to make, not theirs. They have no business even knowing what kind of software/hardware I'm using on my end of the wireless connection.
The idea that a laptop, inherently, uses more bandwidth than a smart phone is just pure bull-crap. A laptop or smartphone uses only as much bandwidth, at any given time, as the cell phone company has set their servers/towers to provide. If they sell an "unlimited" plan then I have every right to run my smart phone at max bandwidth 24/7 if I choose to. Otherwise, they shouldn't be calling it unlimited. They could implement usage caps if they're afraid of people over using they network, but they choose not to. Instead, they try to run a bait-and-switch scam by selling you a connection that is supposed to be "unlimited" 128kbps-384kbps (grabbed from an above post as the rated speeds for 3G) and then, artificially, ban selective applications that, if used, might require them to, actually, hold up their end of the bargain.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Yea, and if anyone could ever force the release of documents proving they had, intentionally, crippled their internet access to maintain their voice business they'd be in a world of hurt similar to, or much worse, than this could turn into. That's the kind of stuff the FCC and the FTC exist to step on.
As for SMS, you're right. It is a separate protocol, but not in the way you seem to be suggesting. SMS exists because there happened to be unused fields in the header of digital voice service packets. That means that that data is sent every time your phone connects to a cell tower for any reason whether you send a text message or not. The end result, is that txt messages don't just cost the cell phone company less than broadband, they cost the company $0.00. Yup, that's right nothing, noda, zip, zilch.
Besides, the idea of saying that the difference in protocol makes the bits of digital data, somehow, different is a farce in-and-of itself. The only thing that should differentiate any of this is the fact that the actual voice data (not the txt messages) requires QoS priority. However, no-one is suggesting that they be forced to stop providing voice service on a different tier of pricing. On the other hand, if I decide to use the "unlimited" data plan they sold me to run VoiP then, as long as I'm willing to accept the increase in skipping that may or may not happen, I should be free to do so without their permission.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
. . . when some entreprenuer starts a mobile TCP/IP *only* mobile communications company. Honestly, the current mobile co.s have the most insane pricing structures based on this incredibly convoluted notion of artificially seperating and billing for different types of digital data. What utter rubbish. Voice, text messages, instant messages, email, pictures, or MP3s - it's all data.
Seems to me that all you need is TCP/IP with QoS/Traffic Shaping to make sure that voice calls get priority on your network. Then, simply sell people Megabytes instead of minutes, texts, and 'data'.
I for one would be happy to have an all tcp/ip cell phone using something like SIP for the voice portion of communications, and pay, I dunno, maybe something like $20/mo for 500MB, $30/mo for 1GB, $40/mo for 2GB, etc. (I'm not saying that would have to be the exact pricing structure - just giving an idea of what I might find reasonable, as a consumer).
Nice and simple, no need to complicate matters with all this artificial segregation of traffic.
Once upon a time. SMS over a GSM bearer, yes. Most phones these days, most provider settings, in the days of ubiquitous EDGE and 3G networks will use SMS over a GPRS bearer, which is essentially data in the sense that you might consume TCP/IP.
The problem of delivering text message to the right place is a hell of a lot more complicated, and a lot more expensive than TCP/IP routing. IP routing is fairly trivial; there is commodity equipment for this, and the databases are fairly small.
With SMS routing, the databases would be massive.
The difference is still at least as big as the difference between customer using an ISP's mail server, and the customer using a third-party provider's mail server.
The cell carriers have to provide the storage, processing, and routing required for SMS messages for them to sucessfully get from point A, to point B.
SMS is not just a peer-to-peer protocol where your phone figures out an IP address of the phone you're sending a message to and sends packets that blindly get routed to it.
You transmit the SMS to your provider.
Your provider has to store the SMS message somewhere until it can be delivered, and then attempt to figure out where to route it to, depending on if the destination number belongs to the same provider or not, and what area the destination number is in, etc.
If you have a cell phone, you can be almost anywhere in the world.
To get that message to you, your local cell site needs to somehow figure out there's a message for you, that you haven't gotten yet.
It means some central intelligence is required on their network. There are various ways they could go about implementing that, all ways are expensive (though not very expensive per message).
At bare minimum, they need databases to hold the messages that haven't been delivered yet, and databases that tell them _where_ cell phones are connected from on their network.
When a Verizon subscriber sends a SMS to a T-Mobile subscriber, they have to have some other database to consult for that, as well.
Reply to undo accidental wrong mod...
Get used to it! It's coming soon to the intratubes, when net neutrality is liquidated for the sake of the children.
Oh, and money. A boat full of money. Maybe a small fleet of boats.
Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
couldn't at&t partner directly with skype and make all their voice calls operate as voip calls, then they would be using the same "pipes"? could't they just make sure the path to the skype servers isn't congested.
Users still have the choice not to use Skype, if they wish to use AT&T's 3G service.
This is just plain corporate bullying, and they should be sued for it.
1. As much as I hate telecom companies, AT&T, like any other ISP, has the right to offer or not offer any particular service they want, with any terms they want. You, and everyone else, has the right to decide wether to purchase service from them.
2. Skype is closed proprietary crap anyway. If you are gonna use VoIP, use real VoIP (eg, SIP).
Disclaimer - I have an iPhone. I don't have AT&T service. I don't use Skype. I *do* use VoIP (and *have* tried a couple of iPhone SIP clients [Hint: They arent in the appstore and some of them *do* work over cell-data Internet] just for grins, but don't really have any need for one, either over Wifi or Edge/Cellular[I have an orig iPhone not 3G])
Yea, and if anyone could ever force the release of documents proving they had, intentionally, crippled their internet access to maintain their voice business they'd be in a world of hurt similar to, or much worse
They don't need to make any such documents, there is a very obvious reason to introduce delays: new congestion control initiatives on their network.
And by the way, introducing latencies under 200ms, or utilizing controls that have a side-effect of jitter aren't "crippling" their network.
When you attempt to utilize VoIP technologies over a network access service they are offering for web surfing, you are using it outside the scope of its intended uses.
They have no obligation to make sure the link and performance characteristics of their network make it work well for just _any_ possible use you can conceive of.
Sure, you can complain to your provider. But if you don't have a SLA or a signed contract that says they have an obligation to provide you sub-100ms latency to network peering points within certain parameters,
There's no case for the FCC to tell carriers "You can't sell this as internet access, because people have found the characteristics of the connection does not meet the extreme needs of certain highly-demanding applications."
You cocksm0kers should know this most of all, especially you gnarfel. I hope CmdrTACO bouncs yo0r a$$ off Slashdot for failing your troll and ruining the Slashdot Experience(tm)
Well the AT&T TOS says you can use the network to browse the web and use email. The Apple iPhone developer program does not allow you to write applications that compete with programs they already supply, and since Apple already supplies a web browser and an email program... I believe this means that we are not allowed to write programs for the iPhone that uses network communication capabilities for any purpose whatsoever. As a developer who is a communications engineer (and who had planned to write iPhone apps) I find this disappointing.