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.
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.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
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?
Don't worry they'll packet shape it into oblivion and turn around and blame google or skype for the crappy quality citing exactly what you state.
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'm waiting for AT&T to allow regular calls on iPhone!
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Actually, doesn't AT&T have download caps on its cell network? I imagine someone using Skype regularly would hit that wall pretty fast, and end up paying AT&T for the overage anyway. Combine that with the fact that they will probably ultimately figure out a way to override the FCC's recent stance on net neutrality (allowing them to degrade VoIP calls with packet shaping), and it seems that they might not lose anything with this move after all. It's likely more of a PR move to placate the FCC and get Apple off the hook. I very seriously doubt they're just going to roll over and let users bypass their phone network entirely (not that this is even possible, since I don't think they even offer a data-only plan for the iPhone).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
I don't really see how $24.99 per month is a better deal than $20 over four months
With the $25 a month, you get unlimited calls to the U.S and most of the rest of North America, plus a phone router, plus a real phone number with voicemail, caller ID, free incoming calls, 3-way calling, etc., etc., a bunch of stuff you don't get with Skype.
Plus he wouldn't have to budget his time on the phone, he can talk all he wants and not worry about how much it's costing him.
And like the other guy said: if he were a studly man with 60 girlfriends in 60 countries, that would save him a bundle. :-P
My blog
Agreed. As other posters point out, they'll probably traffic-shape VoIP into a useless protocol over 3G. What I care more about is VoIP over my phone's WIFI. It's my freaking phone, and my WIFI and internet connection, and AT&T doesn't even work inside my house. Yet AT&T and Apple wont let me run software that already exists for the iPhone to solve this problem.
There is some sort of new software freedom needed here. If an iPhone were a closed system, like the iPod Nano, it would be unreasonable for the government to force Apple to support developers. However, the iPhone is programmable. What's new here is how Apple regulates software that can run on the computers their customer's buy (an iPhone is a computer). I think companies should be barred from limiting what programs I run on any generic programmable computer I own. Any computer where programmers are encouraged to create 3rd-party software should have the ability to run such software without interference from evil companies. This freedom could be stated as:
Freedom to run applications of my choosing on computers I own, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.
Such a right should be guaranteed, right along with other fundamental network neutrality rules, like non-discrimination based on source or destination of packets.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Perhaps instead, the specifics of Network Neutrality enforcement should be amended to make more sense. As you suggest, unrestricted free VoIP over 3G might cause your web and e-mail mobile experience to suffer. However, AT&T is free to charge customers using more bandwidth more money, if this becomes a problem. Even if the FCC decides to allow AT&T to perform traffic shaping to help average users have more responsive network access, the FCC should still require AT&T to practice non-discrimination against packets based on source or destination. AT&T should never be allowed to extort fees from content providers for access by AT&T's customers, regardless of what physical form the network takes.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
I think expanding network neutrality arguments to cell networks is a little over-reaching.
Which is exactly what AT&T and the other wireless providers want you to think. Hell, even the ISPs want you to think that for your cable/DSL.
Admittedly, I don't know the specifics completely nor do I know for sure if it extended to cellular providers, but sometime during the 90s the ISPs were provided money in some form or fashion to build up their infrastructure to support the growing userbase. They took the money but didn't use it the way they were supposed to. I'd be willing to bet most of these companies have the money now but they won't use it to do the upgrading needed.
Why should they? With heavily limited competition, they could give customers horrible service while increasing their rates and most would still use their service because there aren't any viable alternatives. Upgrading infrastructure and capacity does nothing to increase their profits as they've discovered they can simply oversell their existing capacity legally with the magic words "speeds up to". Profits go up with no extra cost to expand which makes their actual customers, the shareholders, happy.
I already get charged $0.20 per text message, both incoming and outgoing. So that means, when I text my wife -- we share the same plan -- it costs us $0.40 to send one text message. I would love to see an anti-double billing practice put into legislation.
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher