Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Defends Controversial FaceTime Policy Following Widespread Backlash
zacharye writes "AT&T is wasting no time hitting back at critics of its decision to limit the use of popular video chat app FaceTime over its cellular network to users who sign up for its shared data plans. In a post on the company's official public policy blog on Wednesday, AT&T chief privacy officer Bob Quinn sneered at criticisms that restricting FaceTime over cellular to shared data plans violates the Federal Communications Commission's network neutrality rules for wireless networks."
File a complaint against AT&T here: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
nil
I know I'm not. They can't upgrade the infrastructure fast enough to keep up with the explosion in devices and bandwidth-hungry applications, so they rate-limit, restrict, and jack the rates on an increasingly over-subscribed (with corresponding decreases in performance) in the interest of keeping things just usable enough to not lose too many customers.
It's not like there are a lot of alternative providers out there who offer better service or more compelling pricing....
The tl;dr of Quinn's argument is that since the FaceTime app itself will only work on approved plans, the network isn't doing the blocking, it's the app that's doing it.
That "defense" seems to be worse than the Dallas Cowboys Defense of last year (excepting DeMarcus Ware...he's the MAN!). So AT&T -ADMITS- they're blocking capriciously and discriminatively, but then says "We're doing nothing wrong."?
I'm not sure what violating net neutrality looks like then, in these guys' minds. So Comcast can block Hulu, that's just fine, but only allow it for their Triple Play customers, since they're trying to reduce congestion???
BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer, jerk.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
> AT&T chief privacy officer Bob Quinn sneered at criticisms
"On retrospect, I probably should have turned off face chat before doing that."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
AT&T wants to dictate how you use the data transfer you paid for by charging even more for specific applications. This plan only works if AT&T colludes with other carriers to do the same. Now we see if the industry wide collusion happens and if the government chooses to do anything about it.
Quick, lets restrict their use to 'other' networks first so that we can still claim our network is fast. Heavens forfend if the users start using our network. They might find out it sucks...
Yeah, I think that pretty much covers it.
I kinda like his explanation though. If you do not know any better, you might believe it.
I know back in the day Verizon, AT&T and other providers used to get to pick and choose what built-in apps they wanted on their phones, but that's not done anymore since phones aren't really customized for carriers anymore. At least not in the case of the iPhone (other than the CDMA/GSM difference). The same built-in apps are on all iPhones, regardless of the carrier. As such the FaceTime app is being provided by Apple, not AT&T. It shouldn't make any difference whether it's built-in or downloaded. If it did, then Apple could simply add a FaceTime 3G Unlock app to the App Store and then according to AT&T's logic, AT&T would have to allow it.
I suppose since AT&T is subsidizing iPhones, that AT&T can have some say over how things work, but how can they justify applying those same restrictions to people paying full price for the phone or no longer under contract?
I have great concern over a carrier thinking they can tell a customer what apps they may or may not use. AT&T needs to be challenged or this is a bad road we are heading down.
When there's competition, someone will arise to fill that niche. When there's no competition or competition is unfairly hobbled by regulation or subsidization of one set of competitors over another, you only get a very minor deviation of competition among a collective "monopoly".
Which are you voting for this November?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
could get any worse and here you go and surprise me again. I really do feel sorry for you guys as you had the best deals on the planet (by far) pre-iPhone and now there some of the worst.
Let's run with their argument for a moment, I think it's bogus, but let's assume there is a difference between an App AT&T sells you on the phone, and an App you download/sideload, whatever.
What if I go buy an unlocked phone from the Apple store and ask AT&T to put it on a plan. AT&T hasn't now sold me the application, so preventing Facetime would be preventing me from using the app I acquired and would seem to run afoul of the rules using their logic. However, I'm fairly sure they don't treat unlocked phones any differently.
Their argument is full of holes, and I hope people keep pounding them on it.
We gained a bunch of customers by advertising a data-hogging feature of our phones, but then the customers had the audacity to want to use that feature! How dare they!
If his first paragraph is correct, then the Network Neutrality rules for wireless broadband are so weak that they don't actually enforce any kind of neutrality.
Providers of mobile broadband Internet access service are subject to two net neutrality requirements: (1) a transparency requirement ... and (2) ... prohibited ... from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services.
That first rule sounds like "You can dictate to users what they can run on their phones, you just have to tell them first." That is only slightly better than no rule at all. We have a long way to go in this fight.
I actually RTFA and apparently this is a pre-loaded app. I.e. an App that AT&T themselves put on there. This isn't a user downloading the 'facetime' app and subsequently finding out it can't be run - the app's already on the AT&T phone, out of the AT&T box.
I guess it becomes worrying when the OS doesn't allow you to remove the pre-installed version and replace it with a user-downloaded version (without jumping through a bunch of hoops) or if the user-downloaded version still gets recognized by AT&T's code as being facetime and get blocked all the same. But any information on that appears to be missing from the article(s).
I can only hope that some of the more clueless net neutrality opponents will be singing a different tune once it starts affecting them personally.
Since when has a net neutrality law ever passed? I'm pretty sure it would have been on slashdot if it did, lol. No wonder they said "rule" since I can't imagine what law they'd be referring to. I'm not even sure what rule they're referring to. AT&T is just being assholes.
The "network neutral" solution is to bill based on content-neutral things like:
* "technical" service levels, where you pay more for for fatter pipes, lower-latency pipes, and whether your usage is more or less tolerant to congestion-management.
* non-technical service levels, such as 24/7 telephone support, detailed billing, etc.
* coverage area / strength of signal / etc. - carriers with bigger and faster networks or which offer free use of others' networks to provide wide and robust coverage will be able to command a higher price than those without.
* "perks" like free Wi-Fi at participating businesses, availability of roaming and whether it is free or not, etc.
* Either a minimum charge or a flat fee for just being a customer. This covers the cost of billing (about $1-$2 for a paper bill, almost nothing for an e-bill) and the averaged costs of customer support calls (it's very bad customer service to charge per call for customer support, so this cost has to be covered somehow). Some carriers will "absorb" this cost and spread it out over the prices of all of their products. Others won't.
However, network neutrality is violated when a wireless internet provider also provides wireless phone or VoIP service (most but not all do) and prices its "good enough for voice" wireless IP services to the point that it's impractical to sign up for a data-only plan and make a phone call. Likewise, it is violated if the wireless internet provider also provides video services but prices its "good enough for similar video services over IP" plans to be non-competitive with its own plan.
The same goes for wire-line providers who offer separate voice or video services (practically all consumer DSL and Cable-Internet providers in the USA over voice, video, or both).
Eventually, most cell plans geared for data-intensive users will be "data only" anyway, voice and video will be just one more thing that runs on top of the data path.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Another factor we can see more and more of is pay-by-the-byte, or gigabyte, as the case may be.
For "reserved pipes," where you are effectively renting guaranteed bandwidth availability for the duration of a transaction, "pay by the byte" turns into "pay by the maximum potential use" which turns into "pay by the second/minute/hour."
Like the other "neutral" ways of billing, this means any provider who provides voice or video and who doesn't charge the same "by the bit" rate for those products as for other data needing the same latency, throughput, and other technical characteristics is violating network neutrality, at least in spirit.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Am I reading this right?
AT&T institutes a policy that is so terrible, it has created a perception in the public that it might even be illegal. So instead of coming up with better ways to satisfy your customers, AT&T decides to defend their terrible policies by insisting "yes, this is legal!"? It's like the entire point went right over your heads. Where on Earth is your PR team?
Your customers all know that "data is data" and there's no technical reason to disallow FaceTime on all your old plans (you know those plans all of your long-time LOYAL customers are on). Your customers know that you are simply placing arbitrary restrictions on those data plans to creating a differentiating factor in your shared data plans. We are not stupid.
I switched to AT&T when the first iPhone was released, and I have stayed on board even after Apple has added new carriers, despite the fact that over time AT&T has gotten worse and worse about my unlimited data plan. Apple and the extremely Apple loyal fanbase has helped AT&T in creating the near-duopoly mobile carrier market we have today. Apple hit it big with the iPhone because, like all of their products, they go above and beyond to make elegant products, take care of their customers in any way they can, and foster the greatest experiences possible for their platform. If you provided the same experience as a carrier, you would have the iPhone market completely cornered. But instead you sacrifice all that potential just to squeeze more money out of the people who remain on your network. That's poor planning and, simply put, you're all stupid for it.
Scorta futuere amo!
This whole post smells of controversy where there isn't one. AT&T was worried their network couldn't handle the load if the future suddenly arrived and everyone was video calling each other. So years ago they blocked 2-way video apps over their network (but not over wifi cause who cares). They've since realized this isn't the Jetsons so they're going to slowly allow that traffic through to see if it bites them in the ass. Assuming the novelty wears off pretty quickly for most users and their network doesn't take a dump in the mean time, they'll likely open it up entirely. It's not menacing and he isn't "sneering" - it's an issue of conservation. They have a limited number of resources that they've planned for and sudden disruptions to that plan can ruin their business. He's just a businessman - apply Hanlon's razor if you must but don't put your negative shit on him. AT&T isn't violating your rights, they don't care what software you use, and we aren't heading down any "bad road." Well, at least not from this. Go fear-monger elsewhere.
--
-1 karma, +1 righteousness
This is why I stick with Verizon wireless. My company only blocks real bandwidth hogs like IRC... wait...
Quite right! Telling users what they can and can't run on a platform is Apple's job!
Their thinking simply doesn't make any sense.
- Androids are outselling iPhones (globally, maybe not AT&T specifically)
- iPhones currently don't have real 4G, which is over 3x faster than 3G on AT&T's network
- Android users now consume more data, faster, and put more strain on the wireless network at any given time, compared to iPhone users
- Skype is available on all major platforms and works over even 3G; quality is surely better on 4G/LTE.
And yet, they're blocking Facetime "out of an overriding concern for the impact this expansion may have on our network and the overall customer experience"??
Logic fail, AT&T. Just admit you're being greedy bastards and think iPhone users are more easily ripped off, that way you'll just be extortionists without also being liars.
All you people bitching and crying like little girls is pathetic.
If you dont like this policy or like at&t then shut up and use someone else. There are plenty of other options.
Youre all on here putting on your literary caps and using a lot of fancy speech, phrases, comparrisons, your armchair legal adivce and so on but you all still look and sound like immature kids trying to lash out and complain just for the sake of complaining instead of acting like mature adults. A mature adult would either say "Well I dont like that so I wont use it", or "Im switching to someone else because I dont like that" or "It doesnt effect me so who cares Ill just go on about my business" but no you cant do that can? WAH WAH WAH thats all I see on here.
Grow up already you babies.
AT&T's share price has greatly improved over the past year and is almost back to where it was 5 years ago. I can only assume this means a great increase in revenue. Why can't they afford to increase infrastructure to provide better service? Where is all the money going?
We'll make great pets
So you are saying your customers will have to pay more because your network sucks and cant handle the real world usage? Ya, thats a great thing to advertise....
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
"AT&T is wasting no time hitting back at critics of its decision to limit the use of popular video chat app FaceTime
..and no real people were affected
The controversy is that this is the latest in a long line of examples of AT&T bitching about people overburdening their poor network with their evil data-hogging ways instead of spending a goddamn dime to upgrade it from its current twine-and-tin-can infrastructure into something that can handle the needs of a 21st-century world superpower.
The exact same thing happened here in the Netherlands last year. Local telecom provider KPN claimed people had to pay extra if they wanted to use Whatsapp, a popular SMS replacement app.
If blew up in their face: it became a scandall, which led to us now having net neutrality.
It's like the parable of the boiling frog: if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring that water to a boil, it won't jump out. But turn the heat up suddenly, and it will. Over here we jumped out. It'll be interesting to see what happened in the US now.
The FCC is flexing its muscles lately and a cavalier attitude just might end up costing AT&T money in terms of punitive fines then just allowing facetime over the cellular network without restrictions. AT&T was pretty cavalier about a merger with T-Mobile and see how well it worked out for them.
Bob Quinn sneered at criticisms that restricting FaceTime...
I think the company as a whole does that a lot. Especially to its customers.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I read the response to the question of whether AT&T's action violates net neutrality requirements... and any shyster lawyer would be proud of the crazy hair-splitting Quinn uses to justify his position that it does not.
His argument basically boils down to a claim that it's not a violation of net neutrality for AT&T to block the FaceTime traffic because -- get this -- the app comes pre-installed. He states that if the app were installed from the app store and AT&T were then to block it, that would be a violation of net neutrality. He even points out that there are other video chat apps available on the app store which can be used over AT&T's cellular network (though he refuses to mention Google+ Hangouts directly).
What makes it all really obnoxious is that he then tries to paint this lawyerly hair-splitting as a reasonable position. It is perhaps possible that he's actually right that AT&T's actions satisfy the letter of the FTC net neutrality regulation. But nobody with a brain can believe that it actually makes sense.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Hasn't anyone heard of Jailbreaking? I've been using Facetime on my legacy unlimited AT&T account for years! Screw the Carriers (and Apple, for that matter).
Are you completely out of your frigging mind??? Say, douchey, by any chance do you happen to know the majority owner of AT&T? Did you know that once they were "broken up" but are now back together again, only much bigger and stronger? Did you know that it was Sen. Rockefeller from West Virginia who led the support for the legislation in congress granting immunity to AT&T (and the other telecoms) for their involvement in warrantless wiretapping? (Sorry if I offended, but if you don't know the backgrounds of the FCC members, or the FDA members or the SEC senior management, or that FBI director Mueller is the grandnephew of Richard Bissell, and his wife the granddaughter of Gen. Cabell, if if you don't know those where two of the top three CIA guys fired by President Kennedy prior to his assassination, and that Mueller is a Rockefeller blueblood [his family derives their wealth from their close affiliation with John D. Rockefeller, etc.] then you really don't know Jack.....).
By any chance, does anyone know the majority owner of AT&T????? (Didn't think so.)
That this may be a preemptive policy change that is related to the release of iPhone 5 (or whatever they are going to call it)? Maybe they know something we don't regarding a new feature, HD face time, or whatever, and they are trying to put this in place ahead of time.
I'm probably being dense, but as I read it, there seems to be a disconnect here. Perhaps this is intentionally so on the part of Bob Quinn. In TFA, he says (emphasis mine),
With the introduction of iOS6, we will extend the availability of the preloaded FaceTime to our mobile broadband network for our Mobile Share data plans which were designed to make more data available to consumers. [...] We are broadening our customers’ ability to use the preloaded version of FaceTime but limiting it in this manner to our newly developed AT&T Mobile Share data plans out of an overriding concern for the impact this expansion may have on our network and the overall customer experience.
Since the quoted network neutrality regulations contain, in part, "a no-blocking requirement under which they are prohibited, subject to reasonable network management, from blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services," why couldn't a user uninstall AT&T's preloaded version of FaceTime, and then install the latest-and-greatest directly from the iOS App Store? Even if it's the exact same version, it now becomes user-installed, rather than pre-loaded, and as such should (as I understand it) be covered by the aforementioned no-blocking requirement.
In other words, since AT&T is willing to go through these kinds of semantic gymnastics, why would users not do the same?
I'm probably being dense here, but can someone explain how I've misunderstood this?
--CF
Everyone is echoing the "limiting FaceTime to shared plans" phrasing. What does "limit... to" mean? It's only available to shared plans, or there is a limit on shared plan usage?
Expecting an "unlimited" plan that's also neutral is impossible. It's like an all-you-can-eat supermarket. Americans should give up the "unlimited" expectation, like Europeans and Australians already have.
You can still demand:
* marginal cost should go down, not up, as you use more data. no playing blackjack.
* tools that can guarantee no outages or surprise bills, like daily caps or throttling, instead of blowing through your whole monthly quota in 10 minutes (vzw LTE) or getting a $1000 bill for 1 month (ATT).
* phone software that can account for what's using the data
* a cost per byte that's not higher than what people currently pay for the unlimited bytes they actually use
I think there's not actually a problem with paying per byte, but a problem with exposing yourself to deceptive jackmoves from these companies. People think unlimited protects them from getting screwed over by sneaky practices, but in fact it's a backdoor excuse to avoid neutrality regulation: you make all the plans that aren't unlimited a ripoff, and now you've got an excuse that you have to approve (or punitively delay in "approval", if the phone's manufacturer doesn't play ball) every hardware release and software update, to blacklist apps from the market, to kill TCP circuits after 5min to keep "push" inside the walled garden, etc. If you want control, well then now you're special so you deserve to pay more. Unlimited is what lets this crap fly with regulators. It's not just tampering with packets that's un-neutral, and none of these sneaky tricks are new.
Resisting metered use isn't the right move. The right move is to make sure the unlimited plan is *gone entirely*, so the metered plan isn't an upsell with higher margin like "tethering" plans were Once it's gone, end this pseudo-DRM and get carriers' sticky fingers out of the device market forever, like the europeans did from the beginning by requiring SIM's and radio standards.
Don't forget, AT&T is still giving their customers more tomorrow than they have today. Today they have FaceTime over WIFi, and a variety of other apps that do the same thing. Going forward, customers will have access to not only that, but the same great app over 3G service if they have purchased one of the new service plans. This gives folks an incentive to change to the new plan if they are on an older single device data plan that could very well have a more conservative cap than they would have with the share plan, and they are getting additional value added services. Getting more tomorrow than I have today sure sounds like a good deal to me.
(currently)
Where on Earth is your PR team?
Where they have been for the last few years, doing lines off hookers.
I craftily have run out my AT&T contract, so that I have the option of switching to Verizon... I've given AT&T many years to improve signal quality where I live but it's still as crappy as it's ever been.
Time to jump out of the frying pan and into the other frying pan.
You are totally right that AT&T missed a golden opportunity to be a phone carrier so awesome you'd put up with the AT&T network just to support them. Since they insist on being bastards (not just around this Facetime thing) I feel no sadness in dropping them.
One thing I will say about AT&T, in the last year they were very good about unlocking my current iPhone and an older one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If such a simple option existed on Android handsets, I would suspect they would go after that too.
There is... Google Talk has supported Video Chat for quite some time. But some carriers may have got there already... it's not always enabled for 3G/4G use.
At present (in an unhacked, iOS 5 iPhone), FaceTime is and always has been limited by Apple to WiFi only. Apple announced for iOS 6 that FaceTime will be enabled for 3G/4G as well.. and that's not just for the iPhone 5, but iPhone 4 and iPad users who upgrade to iOS 6. Apparently, they didn't discuss this in depth with AT&T, or maybe they just didn't come to an agreement about it after discussions.
Anyway, the thing to understand is that, hacks aside, this is the first time FaceTime runs over 3G/4G. So it's not AT&T trying to cut down on existing traffic, it's AT&T worrying about crazy amounts of additional traffic (crazy, one presumes, because Apple, if they stick to their usual M.O, will offer the iOS 6 update to everyone at about the same time the iPhone 5 goes on sale).
-Dave Haynie
I am not sure I understand your approach. You pay for a service and then that service is restricted even though you already paid for the service. Now, if you do not think it is important to get what you pay for, then you can lie down and take whatever att ceo throws at you. I do not care that much. But when I pay for something, I expect the terms of the contract to be delivered on, not arbitrarily changed when it tickles the ceo's fancy.
Contrary to what you seem to tell us, there is a controversy and it has been going on for a while. Company overbooks and oversells and can't deliver on its promises to the buyers. From a huge ass company like att, this is unacceptable. If it helps comprehend, this is my contractual right. It is because of a person like you that they are able to do so, ie. whatever they want. Stop that.
Do not dismiss it just because it is just a 'business decision'. We are the customers. Without us, there is no business. If you piss us off just enough, we will walk.
Does it seem a little clearer now?
Remember this ruling that prevents Verizon from doing the same thing? Someone at the FCC needs to be patted on the back for forcing Network Neutrality in the original contract for the 4G spectrum. Now, if only we could force the other carriers to do the same thing.
We need a two-tier cell phone service system in the US.
Tier I would be the tower infrastructure, run the same way that many electrical utilities are run -- as a state-sanctioned but highly regulated monopoly given a fixed profit margin with strict public oversight. This would be coupled with FCC regulation requiring a common radio standard for all cell phones.
Tier II would be the retail providers who sell cellular services to end users. Tier II providers would buy cellular service in bulk from Tier I (the only provider) and sell them via whatever scheme they decide is most competitive, including value-added services such as voicemail.
Tier I, through regulation, would be required to limit the money it can spend on operations not related to infrastructure operations (ie, no outrageous executive salaries and bonuses). It should, through volume buying, be able to get competitive deals on backhaul from existing wireline carriers and possibly granted the ability to build its own fiber networks where it makes sense -- the idea isn't to take over the wireline/fiber data industry. Regulations should also be in place mandating cellular service levels meet some basic level for data and signal quality.
Since all Tier II vendors would be buying the same network access from the same vendor at regulated prices, Tier II vendors would have to compete on customer service and innovative add-ons versus coming up with new ways to charge 3 or 4 times for the same MB of data. Consumers would be able to easily switch vendors because all phones would support the common radio standards. Since Tier II vendors merely buy access, there's no limit to entry of the cellular retail business, meaning slothful or greedy vendors would never last.
It doesn't make practical or economic sense for there to be four major cellular carriers building four overlapping cellular networks with only minor technology variations; it's no wonder two carriers can barely compete and the two others occasionally struggle to keep up with demand.
None of the carriers are really technology innovators; LTE, GSM and all the networking technologies aren't really carrier "innovations" at all, so arguments about "lack of innovation" due to a fixed-margin monopoly at Tier I wouldn't make any sense, and the regulation of Tier I would ensure that new technology standards could be implemented over time, vs. the foot-dragging we endure now.
This is why I dumped you years ago, and the more time passes, the less sane I would have to be to go back.
What is that fable about the snake biting the person and saying, "Of course I bit you, I'm a snake!"
The problem isn't AT&T, the problem is with the law. It needs to be fixed. Until then, we'll just see more an more of this.
Here's the loophole AT&T found...
Net neutrality laws don't dictate any software that must be preloaded onto a phone. FaceTime for example, an Apple app, has a software patch that is downloaded and owned by AT&T which allows FaceTime to work over 3G. You get this patch with the new more expensive plans. While technically you could get around this by patching the FaceTime app yourself, you'd be violating software piracy laws, and AT&T could check to see if you were doing FaceTime over 3G and on a phone that did not have the more expensive plan... and then charge you for this.
Complain all you want about FaceTime over 3G, but the larger issue is that AT&T, and everyone else is free to do this with anything.
Tethering obviously comes to mind, but so does any other service.
All a carrier has to do make it so that your device would only work with a software patch that is only given if you pay for it.
Want to use YouTube? Great, AT&T doesn't block YouTube, but they could make it so that the YouTube app only works over 3G when you pay for the plan that includes the YouTube over 3G patch. The same goes for NetFlix or any other service.
In some cases, AT&T would either need participation of the platform or the service, but apparently this hasn't been an issue for them yet, as Apple, as strong as they are, is willing to cave on this.
You're trying to get the efficiency and stability of a public utility, but preserve the competition between companies that fosters innovation and progress.
My question is "Why don't you trust the engineers?"
People like Vint Cerf don't need the competition to drive them forward. People like Vint Cerf and Linus Torvalds will give us progress because that, to their very bones, is who they are. Engineers don't need clueless MBAs and PMPs to drive them forward. In fact, get the managers out of the way and you get things like the Internet and Linux and powered flight.
Singers sing because they can't shut up. Put a singer on a stage, and they'll sing because they can't help themselves, whether they get paid or not (I strongly believe they should be paid). Writers scribble because they can't stop. They'll write in crayon on grocery bags if they have to. Painters will paint even if it means they have to use their own blood as ink. Scientists experiment, even when they have to pay for it out of their own pocket, even if they have to use their own bodies as a testing ground.
Engineers tinker. We build. We make things even if it means we have to pay membership fees to the Tech Shop. Every. Single. Project I have ever been involved with, the corporate structure just got in the way and made worse, less cost-effective decisions that could only make sense to the most clueless of PHBs. I smile, I nod, I get along, I file my TPS reports, I've even worn a suit, but Dear God, I just finished a project where my guys didn't get what they needed to get it done because the business side wouldn't shut up for two seconds and let them work. I had one of my guys come in complaining -- and I didn't believe him until I saw the proof he brought me -- that one of the business side guys called a dozen (12) meetings after hours, stopping all work to bring all the people to a central conference room to discuss why progress wasn't occurring. They literally spent six out of twelve hours talking about why they were talking. I had a chat with the offender and he actually believes the constant meetings spurred progress along?! He literally thinks he was digging in the spurs when he was actually yanking on the reins.
Ever notice how when we NEED something to get done, we bring in a group of engineers and let them just work? We didn't set up competing companies for the Manhattan Project, we don't set up competing companies for the Moon Shot, the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment didn't come from the Innovations fostered by the Corporations. Indeed, if not for the actions of the East India Company, Britain might still be an empire.
How about we try something that has worked so brilliantly before? How about we go and find a bunch of smart engineers and technicians and we ask them to design and build a telecom infrastructure? How about we try the same trick we used to get a national power grid, a national highway system, a working nuclear bomb, footprints on the moon and the damned Higgs Boson we should have had a decade ago? How about we quit listening to the guys who gave us the Space Shuttle Challenger, the Deepwater Horizon and the Titanic?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Yeah, it's called Europe. Remeber the EU sued Apple because of this new strange idea of locked phones? Speaking of which, I pay $8 a month for my phone service here, with unlimited in-network calls and 1GB of data, which of course I can tether and use face time. In fact, every network in this country has unlimited in-network calling, so they mainly compete on data plans. A new service provider just opened up shop (Tal), who offers 10GB of data for $4 a month (!), and guess what? I am considering switching...isn't real competition nice? The country, by the way, is Iceland, a large place with very low population density yet superb 3G service around the country (4G nation wide at the end of this year).
Anyone sympathetic for the oligopoly in telecom in the US deserves the BS service, and let's not get started on internet service!
Their network sucks, is slow, charges you out the wazoo, and continues to find new ways to penalize you for actually USING their network... Why would you give them your money? Let the free market rule - at least till Obama steps in and bails them out with your tax-dollars for being inept and completely clueless on how to actually run a business...
AT&T feels that Apple has too much power over them and this is a tactic targeted specifically to damage Apple. It's been documented in the press how AT&T feels they are too reliant on Apple nowadays. They want to be the big dogs calling the shots, the way it used to be, but that ain't happening lately. They are on a mission to do everything they can to push people away from the iPhone and toward stuff like Windows phones.
Facetime??? You guys shoudl use Skype or Viber. It's even available without the iPhone. Here AT&T can't block you easily (without packet filtering).
The FaceTime was just an easy target, because they can't do it easily on Android.