| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| AT&T defends FaceTime decision |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-23 08:29:31 |
| "AT&T is defending its decision to limit the use of Apple's video chat feature, FaceTime, to its Mobile Share data plans by saying that the limitation does not violate the FCC's net neutrality rules. The company wrote in a blog post on Wednesday that some groups had 'another knee-jerk reaction' to AT&T's limitation, but the company argues that its decision meets all FCC requirements." You can expect Verizon to follow suit soon. Carriers don't do things like this unless they know the competition will tag along. This also happens to explain why Apple probably can't do much about it; if both Verizon and AT&T give FaceTime the boot like this, there's little Apple can do. For what it's worth - I'm happy The Netherlands (and Chile!) has unconditional net neutrality. This would not fly here, further illustrating the need for net neutrality. |
|
| RE[4]: Who use facetime? |
| By orfanum on 2012-08-23 12:51:47 |
| Not that I am on my phone all the time! I know what you mean, there - need to be with the ones we are with, when we are with them! |
 - Score: 2 |
| Sounds familiar |
| By Drunkula on 2012-08-23 13:02:48 |
|
Reminds me of all the new fees airlines have been loading on to customers. Pillow fees, carry-on baggage fees, checked baggage fees. Unlimited means unlimited - no exceptions (unless a law is broken of course). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: net neutrality isn't neutral... |
| By marcp on 2012-08-23 15:47:31 |
|
Please take a look at philosophical concepts of positive and negative freedom. You'll get many interresting things out of it. Positive freedom is all about "I want to do this and that [no matter what, who, etc]" Negative freedom is all about "I want to be free from you doing this or that [no matter what, who, etc]". It is absolutely horrifying that people - nowadays - have absolutely no clue about the fact that their freedom is limited with the freedom of others. The hurt others until they don't get hurt themselves. Then they're suddenly shocked. This is so rediculous and just senseless. So little thinking, so much acting. Only "me, me, I want, I'm gonna do". Damn! |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: net neutrality isn't neutral... |
| By tanzam75 on 2012-08-23 18:10:42 |
|
A couple of sections down in the same Wikipedia article that you quoted (emphasis mine): > The Telecommunications Act of 1996 made extensive revisions to the "Title II" provisions regarding common carriers and repealed the judicial 1982 AT&T consent decree ... The Act gives telephone companies the option of providing video programming on a common carrier basis or as a conventional cable television operator. ... Computer networks (for example, the Internet) that are built on top of telecommunications networks are Information Services or Enhanced Services, and are generally regulated under title I of the Communications Act ... Internet Service Providers have argued against being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so ... Because ISPs are no longer prohibited from discriminating among different types of content under common carrier law, Internet providers may charge additional fees for certain kinds of services, such as Virtual Private Networks. Some network neutrality supporters advocate reclassifying all ISPs as common carriers in order to prevent content discrimination. In this case, FaceTime would operate over a packet-switched data network. It would thus be considered an ISP for regulatory purposes, and not be subject to common-carrier requirements. But note that even circuit-switched telephone voice connections are subject to fewer regulatory requirements when a mobile carrier is involved. For example, landline ILECs are required to sell their networks to CLECs at wholesale. Cellular providers are not. Most of them provide wholesale access to MVNOs anyway, but this is strictly a business decision -- they are not legally required to do so. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Who use facetime? |
| By pysiak on 2012-08-24 11:42:30 |
|
Yes, video chat has it's behavioural obstacles but I must say I've seen my colleague use FaceTime to talk to his wife and daughter, while he was away from home. I wouldn't care for video chat, except for talking to my family. That would count to me, especially if I'm away, wanted to see their faces, show them the place around, or people I'm with. Heartwarming use case. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: net neutrality isn't neutral... |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-08-24 14:50:53 |
| The whole unlimited data plan seems to be the problem. There just isn't enough spectrum around for everyone to use as much as they want, so they have to ration it. The most fair way to do that is to pay per unit consumed. Like electricity, water ( some communities just charge a flat fee), ect. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Sounds familiar |
| By Johann Chua on 2012-08-25 09:38:16 |
| I hate buying airline tickets online since the website only gives the real total when you're ready to pay. The "low" fares are always padded with surcharges, like fuel and taxes. Contrast with buying in a supermarket where tax is already figured into the sticker price. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Comment by marcp |
| By zima on 2012-08-28 03:16:47 |
|
> why I don't own a cell phone. (Well, that and cellphone plans are expensive here in Canada and Google Now is just plain creepy.) You know, owning a cellphone is just plain... prudent. (you don't even need to have a mobile plan, nor even prepaid - any old, passed down for free by somebody, GSM phone will dial 112... even without a SIM card inside, or even if its locked) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: net neutrality isn't neutral... |
| By zima on 2012-08-28 03:46:57 |
|
Well there is some ambiguity in the examples you gave... It's ultimately about the capacity of the pipe (and/or source) in all given cases. Yes, electric company effectively can (and does) limit the amount of electricity used in a "basic" plan - by specifying the maximum current and voltage that goes into the house (and electric heating is quite power-hungry), and giving you an option of more "industrial" installation (say, the 400 V one; in the future, it should be useful also for charging electric cars). And there definitely are (coming from the inherent nature of electric supply generation limits & economics - base load vs peak load) electric supply plans which, in practice, tell you when it's best to turn on that heater or laundry machine... (when it's cheapest - at night) Water similar - what when there isn't enough capacity for all & only rationing makes it somewhat usable if everybody wants to bathe? (and, really, a full-blown bath isn't required for cleanliness and hygiene - by implying so you're kinda mocking most of people, who do fine with much smaller amounts of water, and/or you are falling into "western problems" thinking... ...plus generally, for bathing or washing, a drinkable water is absolutely not required - which kinda even makes two-tier approach logical) Edited 2012-08-28 04:04 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: net neutrality isn't neutral... |
| By zima on 2012-08-28 04:47:10 |
|
Perhaps it would also help if metering didn't start for everybody from the same moment, the beginning of the month - possibly too many people jump on using the network at that time - but be more evenly spread throughout the month. (but overall, we just seem to perceive the world as if it didn't have limits... NVM http://www.osnews.com/permalink?... when there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil... or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pla... ) |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
