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.'"

Comments

About time.

[base3]

Nice to see the robber barons on the run from the administration and the public instead of on the run for once.

Re:About time.

[aicrules]

I do not understand

Re:About time.

[y86]

I hope your right, but me thinks AT&T will just shape traffic so VOIP doesn't work well al la Comcast torrenting.

Re:About time.

[urulokion]

The current FCC is looking into the celluar provider exclusive deals for phone. (i.e. AT&T being the carrier that can have the iPhone.) And the FCC is forumulating rules on Network Neutrality. That means treating all network traffic on their networks equally: no port blocking, no throttling. Internet connectity should be a pipline to the customer. The customer determine how they want use their bandwidth.

AT&T and other ISPs and cellular providers will fight it tooth and nail. But they realize it's a loosing battle. So they are gonna pick their fights. They will give ground in hoping that the things will stop short of Network Neutrality as the rule of law. Hence them giving in to allowing VoIP traffic on their cellular network.

But if you can't wait...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Just jailbreak your phone and use Voipover3G

It's super easy and it has saved me lots of overage $$$$

Re:But if you can't wait...

[morgan_greywolf]

You might want to check out my current VoIP provider, Vonage. They're offering a plan that includes unlimited calls to over 60 countries when you sign up for a one year contract for $24.99 a month. I believe China is included in the 60 countries, but I can't link it since there seems to be something wrong with their website at the moment. Anyway, seems like it would be a good deal for you.

Re:But if you can't wait...

[socsoc]

I don't really see how $24.99 per month is a better deal than $20 over four months

Re:But if you can't wait...

[morgan_greywolf]

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

Bad deal for AT&T

[nweaver]

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.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[base3]

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.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[MistrBlank]

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.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[elrous0]

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).

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Its called google voice.. and yes it is a voip service, but its initiated via an analogue connection (atleast for iphones using gvoice).

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I suspect it has less to do with ATT heading off the FCC, and more to do with the recent announcement by Verizon stating they will be carrying a number of Android based phones, and explicitly stated they would permit voip over their data network (and I believe they mentioned Google Voice and Skype by name in that release).

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[morgan_greywolf]

Not true. Here's a recent PCWorld story (too lazy to search for the /. story) It's called Google Voice.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Wireless Joe]

For the purposes of this discussion, Google Voice is not VOIP. It uses regular cellular minutes, not your data connection.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[WaywardGeek]

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.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[jellomizer]

Or the fact that the capitalist economy does indeed self regulate.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[WaywardGeek]

Way too many people here on Slashdot bash apple for pathetic reasons. Why all the Apple hate?

Apple is just trying to be a good corporate citizen. They have absolutely no hidden agenda, like placating the FCC, or responding to competitors... all they really want is your love. Steve Jobs is your friend. Love him, and trust his judgement. He really only cares about you, and Apple's profits are simply a blessing from Heaven that comes along as a side benefit while Steve looks out for your best interests. He limits the programs you can run, so you wont run anything dangerous to yourself. He protects you through Apple's wonderful EULA, and through limiting your choices to only gold-standard Apple blessed applications.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[WaywardGeek]

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.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Dog-Cow]

You do have this freedom with the iPhone. Apple does not make it easy, they don't support or sanction it. But it is possible.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Carewolf]

Or the fact that the capitalist economy does indeed self regulate.

.. when threatened with government intervention.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Sandbags]

Google voice is not VoIP, it is a VRU.

It handles hunt groups, caller ID data manipulation, DTMF code transforms, voice response, and DTMF tone response. It's a glorified call router (actually, its a higly SIMPLIFIED call router, barely using a fraction of the functions of a true VRU), but by itself it is NOT a VoIP service.

Yes, it CAN route a call to and from an existing VoIP service, like Gizmo, but it does not place calls via SIP itself directly, it only initiates and received calls from other existing SIP extensions and numbers, and can not be substituted in place of Gizmo. It uses your Gizmo number and requires a gizmo client.

The Google Voice App is simply an IP based system for communicating to the VRU to cause it to initiate calls, and to manage voicemail, account settings, and contacts. That's it.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[whoop]

The Internet uses IP. Google is on the Internet. Google Voice uses voices. Therefore, Google Voice is Voice over IP.

For a technical crowd, the folks here haven't been able to wrap their head around just what Google Voice is. Every story that comes up (especially the GV Iphone app store thing), bunches of people post how GVoice is VOIP, blah blah blah. It is just a call router and voicemail.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Toothpick]

I've had pretty decent VoIP conversations on as little as 15 kilobits per second symmetric connections (about 2 kilobytes), or about half the available speed of your average dialup modem.

Not surprising. GSM goes down to 6.5kbps!

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Danathar]

Capitalism is NOT dominant in the U.S. region. Creditism is. Nobody uses capital except people at the top of the food chain. Everybody below has to use credit to buy anything of substantial worth.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Dotren]

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.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[jwslash]

> Command Syntax of the ultimate computer languge: DoWhatIWant() DoIFaster(Function), eg. DoItFaster(DoWhatIWant()) Won't compile: There's a syntax error in your signature.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[aca_broj_1]

ghostbusters?

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[cjb658]

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.

I'd expect nothing less from the number one political gift donor in America.

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[j-turkey]

...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...

I completely agree that it's silly that Apple limits customers from running what they want to run. However, it's my opinion that this should be Apple's choice. I also believe that it should be your choice to not buy Apple's iPhone. Why should it be a fundamental right for you to run any software that you want on a programmable device? Is it a grave injustice that you are forced to endure, or do you just feel that you deserve legal entitlement to using a great product any way you want at the expense of Apple's freedom?

The same argument goes for video game consoles. These could easily be designed as general purpose computing devices - and made to be user-programmable. However, they are hindered by nearly identical restrictions as the iPhone. Why can't those companies try to protect their own revenue streams? Further, why can't another company develop a device that will compete by allowing users to program their own?

Re:Bad deal for AT&T

[Sandbags]

for the uninitiated, and to further clarify; if packetized voice is voice over IP, then so are your landline analog calls, for the last 10 years or longer.... By the logic people are using, your landline is VOIP.

Just because the voice traffic is at some point sent across digital trunk lines does not make it an IP protocol. VoIP/SIP includes endpoint to endpoint (or at least endpoint to analog handover) communication to a SIP device that is addressed not by a phone number, but by a dotted quad. A True VOIP call can happen IP to IP without any telco involvement other than the VOIP Provider. Google voice is ENTIRELY dependent on traditional ISP telecommunications systems and traditional call routing (though it's a hybrid that does include SIP sipport for Gizmo), it is NOT VOIP.

Google Voice may handle incoming and outgoing VOIP calls centrally, but that's no differnt than having PRI, T1, and IP connections into the same VRU chassis at the same time. The technology is not the medium through which the call is processed, it is simply a device that ROUTES the call through other call handling systems. You can not ansewr a google phone call unless you have a traditional call system. There is no IP device or software addressible directly by Google's systems, therefor it is not a VOIP system.

AT&T sets developer guidelines?

[Sockatume]

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?

Can't wait for even worse quality.

[lessthanjakejohn]

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.

Re:Can't wait for even worse quality.

[muffen]

While not on a phone, regular skype on a laptop with a 3G dongle is fairly poor. On a good day it will work, but it is not consistent. 3g doesn't seem to be fast enough for it.

Skype on a jailbroken phone over 3g (with VoIPover3g) works just fine, can even run it with backgrounder so don't think the 3g network is the problem in your case.

Some prefunctory rebuttals:

[Wireless Joe]

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.

Wait Just a Minute

[sonicmerlin]

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.

Re:Wait Just a Minute

[gEvil (beta)]

There's absolutely no doubt that this is what AT&T is trying to do. This is par for the course for nearly any industry. As soon as the government starts looking into corporate practices and begins putting together something that will regulate an industry, that industry suddenly perks up, changes their behavior a little bit and says "No, see, we can self-regulate. No need to tell us what to do. The market is working." When in fact, if the market were working, the government wouldn't need to begin investigating those practices in the first place.

Wait a minute

[elrous0]

I thought AT&T denied having any involvement in pulling VoIP apps from the app store in the first place.

Re:Wait a minute

[crmarvin42]

They played a role in the writing the EULA to prohibit the use of VoIP, but the decision to pull apps that shouldn't have been approved in the first place based on the EULA was Apples decision. At least that's how I understand the situation. While I think most posters are being a little hypocritical "AT&T is evil for prohiting VoIP and evil for allowing it". I do agree that this is probably an effort to avoid regulation and stay competetive with Verizon.

Who cares about VoIP

[WebMasterJoe]

I'm waiting for AT&T to allow regular calls on iPhone!

Re:Who cares about VoIP

[L4t3r4lu5]

You can make regular calls! If by regular, you mean "when everyone else is asleep, as long as there is nobody else making a call through your local cell."

Re:Who cares about VoIP

[socsoc]

You get reception? I'll have to try at night. More half bars in more places.

Re:So AT&T WAS inhibiting Apple software/featu

[vxvxvxvx]

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.

Google Voice is NOT VOIP

[SuperKendall]

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.

Oh sure, for just one..

[Futurepower(R)]

If you have 60 women friends in 60 countries, it saves money.

Re:Oh sure, for just one..

[TooMuchToDo]

You obviously have no idea how women correlate to money =)

Re:Oh sure, for just one..

[milamber3]

If you have 60 women friends you are probably not reading slashdot...

AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash

[Michael G. Kaplan]

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.

Re:AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash

[demonbug]

My wife just went in to an AT&T store to pick up a new phone (hers was ~5 years old, and the last time she dropped it the thing finally [mostly] died). Yes, they have text message plans. In fact, in order to get the phone she really wanted (with a qwerty keypad), she would have been required to add unlimited text messaging. Not a big deal, right? Wrong. They want $20 per month for an unlimited texting plan (or $5 per month for 200 messages). Absolute insanity.

I'd threaten to switch to another carrier, but all of the national carriers seem to be in on the text messaging extortion these days. And no, $0.20 is not the cost without a plan (unless you mean a separate text messaging plan). I regularly pay $3-$5 in text message fees every month for the few text messages my friends insist on sending (yes, I could probably disable them [the text messages, though probably most of my friends too if it came to that :] - but I actually rather like text messages, I just think the carriers charge astronomical rates for something that should be included in a calling plan for free).

Re:AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash

[iron-kurton]

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.

Re:AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash

[KitFox]

I really wish the people who complain about this would at least provide the proper perspective. The $0.20 per text cost is the cost without a plan. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile (AT&T as well?) all offer unlimited plans nowadays. Nobody with a clue is actually paying $0.20 per SMS.

$20/month for unlimited SMS means that in order to "Break Even" and have them at a discount, a person would need to use 100 SMS per month. Even though there are lots of exceptionally heavy users, the last time I looked up stats for a wireless carrier on SMS usage of Unlimited SMS customers, the average was 62/month. That puts the average unlimited-SMS-for-$20 customer paying $0.32 per SMS.

Your observation that "Nobody with a clue is paying $0.20 per SMS" is wholly correct. There are a lot of clueless folks with unlimited SMS packages though that are paying a whole lot more than that.

The actual point of it though is that it costs a rediculously low amount of money to the wireless carrier to handle an SMS. Fractions of a cent. SMS handling... I forget the precise numbers, but with overhead an SMS is about 182 bytes I think. I'll round it up to 200 bytes just for calculations. If one SMS is 200 bytes, and you only paid a single penny per SMS, that would still be $500 for one megabyte of data transferred, including the header and structure overhead. That is what folks are complaining about.

VOIP is cool, but what about tethering?

[Anonymusing]

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.

How does Skype handle changing to/from wi-fi?

[King_TJ]

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 .....

Re:Seriously, all joking aside:

[ovu]

I would like to counter with:
If you think you can get away with not spending money on your woman, your misconception will be corrected.