Slashdot Mirror
AT&T To Allow VoIP On iPhone
Toe, The writes "On Tuesday, AT&T announced it will allow Apple to enable Voice over Internet Protocol applications, such as Skype, to run on its 3G wireless data network. Apple stated, 'We will be amending our developer agreements to get VoIP apps on the App Store and in customers' hands as soon as possible.' And Skype, while happy over the move, also stated, 'the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers.'"
Nice to see the robber barons on the run from the administration and the public instead of on the run for once.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Just jailbreak your phone and use Voipover3G
It's super easy and it has saved me lots of overage $$$$
This is a very VERY bad deal for AT&T: VoIP is less efficient than the dedicated cellphone protocols in bandwidth usage, AND AT&T makes less money on data packets over voice packets.
I think this says just how important the iPhone and iPhone users have become to AT&T that they'd even consider this.
Test your net with Netalyzr
They're revising the guidelines now AT&T's approved it. Does that mean that every iPhone developer in the world is limited by the guidelines set by one American network?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Cell phone voice quality is horrible. Sometimes it is pretty hard to get through a thirty minute phone call and keep the 'excuse me, what?' count under 10. I can't even imagine what trying to do skype over a 3g connection is going to be like.
1. No, this doesn't have anything to do with Google voice, as Google Voice isn't VOIP. 2. No, won't hurt the voice network, as the voice network and the 3G data network are not the same. If anything it will help the 2G voice network by offloading some traffic to the data network, which has more capacity and is receiving the preferred 850mhz spectrum. 3. This was inevitable as AT&T is switching to LTE, which will easily support VOIP; you cellular calls in general will probably be handled by VOIP. It's too early to think of anything else, but these are the most often misunderstood aspects of the announcement.
Is there any doubt AT&T is doing this in a feeble attempt to argue to the FCC that net neutrality laws aren`t needed? I have none.
I thought AT&T denied having any involvement in pulling VoIP apps from the app store in the first place.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm waiting for AT&T to allow regular calls on iPhone!
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
I wonder if this is related to Verizon's announcement that they will soon be releasing phones running Android?
When the story broke about the Google apps being pulled from the app store, AT&T made official statements that they had nothing to do with the decision. Now we have AT&Ts blessing of these types of apps and so they will be enabled?
I'm sure there are lots of ways to spin it, but hasn't AT&T been caught in a huge lie?
Google Voice isn't VOIP.
You can't make calls with it.
Google Voice may rely on VOIP for its service but it does not connect to your phone over VOIP; it just uses your cellular voice network or landline. They're doing this to weaken net neutrality disputes and to snub Google.
Which brings up an interesting question - how will this affect Google Voice? Since it's not VOIP and this is about VOIP, google voice could remain blocked from the app store for the "duplication of functionality" or whatever argument Apple is using.
Soon all those that flock to the VOIP will find out how unlimited the AT&T unlimited plan really is. I am sure they will find a way to make money.
MMS almost crashed ATT's network along with constant complains that the iPhone strains ATT heavily..... how the heck are they gonna handle VoIP traffic when they can barley keep calls up in major cities? I am all for this idea and think its great but be real people.
Bryan
'the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers.'
At least when such openness benefits your business model and damages your competitor's.
I dislike Skype as much as I dislike AT&T. Come to think of it I dislike Apple as well. But really there aren't a lot of technology companies that I do like.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Google voice is VOIP, its just not initiated the same way as the traditional voip applications. You make the request via the web interface (or GVoice for jailbroken apps), Google Voice calls your phone, then connects to the individual you are contacting, it is however still a voip service.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
At this point, it has been said so many times that you pretty much have to be a complete idiot not to have grasped that GOOGLE VOICE IS NOT VOIP. It's more like a switchboard, routing calls.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is this because the proliferation of Skype has reached the point where the revenue from the potential lost subscribers outweighed the revenue from people going over their 'free minutes'? Sounds unlikely, but very cool if so. Now, if only someone Spotify would make their iPhone client use the business model of the desktop version (ad-supported) instead of requiring a full, paid-for subscription.
If you have 60 women friends in 60 countries, it saves money.
I wonder if AT&T is doing this so they can then go to those VoIP companies and say "Hey, you guys are killing our bandwidth...give us money to help upgrade out network". Of course, we already knew they were bitching about MMS and other data already bringing their network to its knees (but don't worry AT&T, we won't tell Vonage or Skype ).
Loading...
'the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers'
Why not? See, market pressures worked just fine in this case. It takes a little longer, but there was no panel of people we have to pay in the government telling anyone what to do - and more importantly, when you have such a panel telling people what they can do, pretty soon they are telling people what they CAN'T do.
Why do you want governments damping down the progress of tech companies, when there is no need for it?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
More like how important it is to AT&T not to have network neutrality codified into regulation. This move is only to mollify the FCC and get them off their backs so they can still double-dip by charging companies running popular sites for "preferential" (read non-degraded) access to AT&T subscribers.
AT&T is trying to mollify the FCC so that they can maintain multiple other abusive practices that would be eliminated if the same network neutrality standard that is applied to wired connections is applied to the cell phone networks. The wireless providers don't want to become mindless providers of bandwidth.
-They want to be able to charge $0.20 for each text message.
-They want to force you to purchase a phone from them. They will justify their high rates by explaining that they are subsidizing your phone but even after you've paid off your phone after 1-2 years they will still force you to pay the same inflated rate. If you leave the network you can't take your phone with you because the phone YOU paid for is locked to their network.
-They want to be able to force you to purchase a data plan with certain WiFi phones.
-They want to continue to cripple phones that offer highly desired features unless they can charge for them (e.g. gps chips are common in cell phones but users are not allowed access to the information unless you give the wireless provider cash).
The list goes on and on. I hope that the American public and the FCC isn't fooled by this bone that AT&T tossed our way.
AT&T did this because consumers have alternatives to the IPhone. The AT&T IPhone regime must remain friendly to consumers to win their $ in this free and open marketplace. Capitalism is working for the little guy. This is a good example of that.
Google Voice would actually be good for AT&T, as it would have people using more airtime minutes (if you call from your AT&T phone to another AT&T phone using Google Voice, you BOTH use minutes - calls routed through Google Voice are not "Mobile-to-Mobile" or whatever AT&T calls it).
Google Voice does not include any VoIP capability, and actually uses almost no data. Google Voice is approved for the AT&T network - I use it all the time on my AT&T Blackberry.
The one thing Google Voice DOES do is a visual-voicemail-like capability, and I suspect Apple doesn't like that. In fact, they initially rejected Google Voice because it "duplicated existing functionality on the phone" or somesuch (I think what they feared was that someone would see that they could get Visual Voicemail without needing an iPhone, and would buy a better phone when they renewed).
Now, I can see AT&T objecting because (for example) I'm not locked into an AT&T contract for my primary telephone number. People call my Google Voice number knowing that Google Voice knows how to get ahold of me. They neither know nor care what phone I happen to be using to receive their call, nor what the telephone number is at that line. They've called ME, not my cell phone or my VoIP line or my work number or my Vonage line. And if I miss the call, I have exactly one voicemail box to check, which sends me email and is accessible through my Blackberry.
If I decide to drop this cell phone, I simply log into Google Voice and remove the cell phone from the list of phones to ring.
It also means I can potentially use fewer minutes, because if I'm home and all of my phones ring, I'll choose the VoIP line. Given that I have over 3,500 rollover minutes, I don't see this as a big loss on AT&T's part. But it might be for some who like to go over and incur those oh-so-tasty overage charges AT&T loves. :)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Definitely agree there should be a stronger governed presence, not because Apple says, "oh its ok now because we say so..." that its ok, it is ok because the law says so, and that there should be better understanding of what constitutes fair play especially on a small phone that acts like a computer and can be used to run programs of any nature. You bought the phone it is yours, but you do not allow me to run my app on it because you say I should not....screw you Apple...suck on MY apples!
Do I even have to say it?
This, almost certainly, is a trap!
After all, AT&T has never been in the business of giving customers what they want. Why on earth would they start now?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I guess all of the skyping was too much for the nj/pa/de area 3g network! No internet fix for about 8 hours :(
i am so very tired....
Will it still blend?
I'm more interested in tethering -- I mean, officially-supported, I-don't-have-to-violate-my-warranty tethering. It's been promised for awhile.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
It uses a normal phone network switch. Therefore, it does not use IP. Therefore, it isn't VOIP.
Honestly, I doubt ATT cares about the voice aspect of google voice. What they are running scared from, is the fact that google voice eats into their SMS cash cow which provides a significant portion of their revenue. Once I get a decent app (I use gvoice via cydia at the moment) for google voice that supports realtime notifications of SMS and voicemail (right now I have to run the app periodically, and I have my gv account setup to forward sms messages sent to my gv number, to my normal cell) without using my current allotment of text messages, I will be dropping sms messaging packages from my phone. Figure a few million people drop the $5 to $20 a month SMS packages, and thats a huge dent in ATT's profit margins...
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
I remember, over ten years ago, a computer sci professor pointing out that it's all data --web sites, voice, video are all digital now. It's really comical to me that it's taken this long for people to come to terms with this fact (and that we're paying hundreds of dollars per MB for text messages). I don't think it will be long before everything we access over any network is subject to one fee schedule.
Ask me about my sig!
the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy
Something you don't like? The answer is more government.
Don't you ever get tired of this crap?
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
I'm wondering how Skype will handle a call if you lose your 3G signal and the iPhone switches to an available wi-fi signal, or back?
That's a pretty common scenario here at my workplace, for example. We have wi-fi in the office but sometimes you might walk out to the parking lot where the wi-fi drops out, and you're back on 3G ... and vice-versa obviously happens when you go back inside.
You'd see the same thing happening at restaurants like McDonalds that have free wi-fi for iPhone owners. Are people going to drop all their Skype calls as they leave or enter places like that?
That, alone, could be a big motivator for people to just use the "real" cell network instead of Skype .....
I'm on AT&T, and my "decent app" for Google Voice is, surprise surprise, Google Voice. A real, honest-to-God native application with visual voicemail, integrated outbound GV dialing from my native address book, etc.
Of course, my phone isn't Apple Pie, it's Blackberry Cobbler. Google Voice is readily available in RIM's "Application World".
Why would AT&T give Google the cold shoulder on the iPhone and yet allow it on the Blackberry?
Simple - this is not AT&T's decision, and there's no logical reason to think AT&T is at all involved in the Google Voice decision because the current decision is largely ineffective from AT&T's point of view.
If AT&T honestly cared about Google Voice, they could easily disallow connections to the Google Voice servers on their network for all platforms. It's one network change for them.
They don't need to strongarm Apple into blocking the app, and such a solution only affects a percentage of their customers anyway.
AT&T has far more effective and simpler tools at their disposal if they really have a problem with Google Voice.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Dirty little secret: All cell phone carriers have high latency for voice. And it's double if both ends are cell phones. It's really annoying, and makes you talk over each other.
Anecdotally: I had a cell phone conversation going simultaneously with a Skype video call from my desktop computer, and the audio via Skype was noticeably faster than the audio through the cell phone. I heard the other end first through Skype, and somewhat later via phone. (My end was Verizon.)
Computers obey me.
More half bars in more places.
I've found that ad agencies very often take the weakest part of a product and tout it is the best thing since sliced bread. Take Microsoft for example -- "Our most secure OS yet". You hear this every time they come out with a new OS.
If an ad is talking about their low prices, you can bet they're more expensive than the competetion.
If it says "longer lasting" it probably doesn't last long.
They've found that the truth is irrelevent; as long as a lie is believed, it's better than the truth. And the more often the lie is told, the more it is believed.
So when 18T says it has more bars, you know they're full of shit. Odd, my Boost phone can get a signal almost anywhere in my building, but with AT&T phones you have to go outside.
Too bad the US doesn't have an ASA like Britain does; there, you can complain to the board about false advertising, and after review they'll usually make the advertiser pull the ad. Here, you have to be a company's competetitor to make a false advertising claim.
Free Martian Whores!
Seriously: If you feel you must spend money to be involved with a woman, she is not your friend. Why try to get close to someone who is not your friend?
And although AT&T has had the iPhone for years, and could have made this move at any time, the fact that they only did it when the FCC started sniffing around is purely coincidental. Let's face it - this has nothing to do with market pressure, and everything to do with the threat of government intervention. Customers have had alternatives to the iPhone all along, but only when the FCC got involved did anything happen.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, AT&T felt perfectly free to screw over its customers since they landed the iPhone deal. They didn't stop until the government got involved, and there's absolutely no reason to believe they would EVER have changed this policy without the FCC's interest.
So in answer to your question: no, I'm not tired of this "crap". This is a perfect example of what the government is SUPPOSED to do. What I get tired of is knee-jerk responses that the government is always the problem, when in fact, more/better government is frequently the solution.
Why would they care? Just make billing for data more enticing and you earn the same $$$ and shed the responsibility for quality voice communication. It means supporting less types of traffic over their network once voice and messaging are all done via IP.
Plus it also passes the buck on responsibility. If AT&T's just a data carrier it's really easy to blame Skype when your call sounds like you're in a blender in a tin can. Not that your Telco has ever tried blaming someone else when their connection was at fault :P
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
Google voice is VOIP, its just not initiated the same way as the traditional voip applications. You make the request via the web interface (or GVoice for jailbroken apps), Google Voice calls your phone, then connects to the individual you are contacting, it is however still a voip service.
No, it's not, it uses your cellular minutes, not your data plan. Quit saying that it is.
To Skype: In the spirit of opening access, how about you open your proprietary protocol to let other IM clients connect and use your system so we can just have one god damn IM client opened at once.
Does this mean they will also start to officially let applications like Slingplayer to run across the 3G network?? Anyone know?
Agreed. MOD PARENT UP.
I'm SURE I don't want to be close to a woman who is involved with people because they have money.
If you have at least a 900 minute plan you get the new ATT A-List. Add your GV number to the A-list and you now get unlimited cell voice minutes.
This is my own speculation, but I'm betting that AT&T's poor 3G coverage and endless network snafus have placed it in material breach of the five-year exclusivity agreement it entered into with Apple. I don't think Apple would have partnered with them without attempting to ensure that the end-user experience would be as good as it is with other Apple products. Apple would then be in an advantageous bargaining position, and may be considering opening up the iPhone to other carriers since AT&T isn't holding up their end of the deal.
Ok, what? So you'll still be paying to have the phone functionality, but you won't be using it, instead springing for something that has no cost to AT&T? Now I wonder why they might offer it. Hell, there's probably already an "app" for that.
I mean if anyone has actually used the Skype Iphone App they would know that it doesn't matter via Wi-fi or 3g their app is horrible.
Http://www.tntshoes.com
1) Made of superior quality upper materials
2) Double customs clearance for container customers
3) Unique design and various colors and models available
4) Sizes available
5) Available in stock for prompt shipment
6) Fast delivery: 3 business days
7)fast and safety delibery by EMS, DHL, FEDEX, and so on We sell brand shoes,clothing,bags,hats,belts,watch,sunglasses,mobile phone, and so on.For the detailed informations, please go through our products website.
Please do not hesitate to contact us to know more.
Contact name: jury
OUR WEBSITE:
YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com