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.
Good thing I bought Apple Care.
There's no -1 for "I don't get 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...
In this case, its a question of using the software they want with the hardware and service they are paying for.
It would be similar to your aol internet access not allowing you to use hotmail or yahoo mail unless you use their portal.
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?
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.
'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?
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.
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.
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.
"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
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