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....
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.
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.
If you're voting for either Democrats or Republicans this November, both are guaranteed to win:
AT&T's bribes.
Microsoft's bribes.
Now, Microsoft is about 2/3 supporting Democrats and hedging 1/3 for Republicans, and AT&T is the other way around, but neither of them can really lose.
If you don't want to vote for them, you'll have to vote for a third-party candidate like Jill Stein (Green) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian).
I am officially gone from
It's FaceTime on an iPhone, so I seriously doubt AT&T had any say in its inclusion with the phone. Which means that no, you can't remove it at all, although you can download additional videochat apps if you so wish.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.