What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
270 Comments
- ThantiK, on 04/04/2009, -1/+161This IS anti-competitive. You access the internet through the phone. If this were comcast saying you couldn't run P2P on 'their' internet, regardless of EULA, etc you'd all be up in arms screaming about net neutrality. AT&T provides access to the internet. They should not be able to determine what can/cannot run on that same internet they provide, no matter what avenue it takes to get there. Sure, throttle the service, or make it so if the network is congested it slows down the most offending users. But you can't just sell pieces and parts of the internet. It's either all or none.
- SpookyET, on 04/04/2009, -9/+163It's anti-competitive. They are afraid. They know they can't compete with VoIP with their prices. In some countries, you can buy only minutes, or you can buy only SMS, or only data. You can't do that in USA.
Or you can use a dollar value for whatever you like. AT&T are a dinosaur. They are afraid and unwilling to spend to adopt new technology. Look at their U-Verse deployment. FTTN instead of FTTH like Verizon FiOS. It's cheaper in the short term, but more expensive in the long term, especially since it can't deliver fast speeds for a HD stream in all yours rooms and a decent Internet connection speed.
I have VoIP on my iPhone, two providers. Neither is Skype since it's far more expensive than many others. I use one for International calls, five times cheaper thank Skype, and one for unlimited calls within USA and Canada with a number (I can get calls in) for $20/year. I'm using Fring and a VoIP switch.
Skype is the best looking iPhone VoIP app. It also fully emulates the iPhone dialler unlike others. You can tap numbers to talk to robots. You can access the speakerphone or mute it. None of the other VoIP apps have this capability, especially Fring. - inactive, on 04/04/2009, -2/+85lawsuit please!
Time to set some boundaries. We are paying a lot per month for 'Unlimited data'
But then they charge us extra for text message (because that's not data?)
But they charge for pandora on window mobile phones (because thats not data?)
But they won't let use use skype, (Because its not data?)
Unlock the strangle hold please! - 4NDr01D, on 04/04/2009, -0/+48why does a 140 character SMS cost 20c ?!
and an huge Email is freaking FREE
***** the phone carriers!! - inactive, on 04/04/2009, -0/+47Tough *****, phone company.
You've been squeezing my nuts for too long, I've handed you huge amounts of money in the past.
End of. - thatsoccerkid, on 04/04/2009, -1/+27Its just using the internet like any other App. Stop it! At&t.. go to hell and die
- o76923, on 04/04/2009, -4/+27Anti-competitive means that the company is hindering another company by doing something explicitly to thwart their competitor and give them an unfair advantage. It doesn't only apply to monopolies. You apple fanboys need to learn that.
Also, for good measure, vertical integration is a monopolistic practice too. But nobody loves the Sherman anti-trust act... - scootinger, on 04/04/2009, -0/+23This is NO different than if your DSL provider threatened to cut you off for using VoIP services on your DSL line, simply because they want you to be using their overpriced phone service. It's downright wrong and anticompetitive! Plus it's not like phone service is the only thing that AT&T overcharges for...text messages anyone?
AT&T's problem is that they have a very outdated business model, but are too stubborn to change in changing times. In the face of competition from VoIP providers, AT&T needs to make internet service the primary product that they sell on mobile devices...because that's what enables people to access everything else. - inactive, on 04/04/2009, -3/+25So. Which mafia has more money to pay off the FCC?
Will it be the old At&t oligarchical monopoly?
Or will it be the new Ebay (Skype) investor *****?
I guess it doesn't realy matter as the same insurance/finanace/banker ***** own it all anyway.
So which propaganda scam will prevail?
Place your bets. - mrsteveman1, on 04/04/2009, -2/+23 "They pay for that network. What some of you propose is like me owning a Bakery and tell me I have no choice but to put up a rack in my shop and am forced to allow $1 a loaf brand to put bread on my shelves and undercut me by 90% but still use MY floor space MY advertising and MY customer base."
I realize the limitations of mobile data service, but you either provide it or you don't. This is not a private network (don't start an argument over that point, i know its their own infrastructure, it doesn't matter), they are playing the ISP game. So either they provide internet access, or they don't. They don't get to decide which applications you can use especially if those applications compete with their own business model.
They may use private networks to provide access, but this network, the internet, is too important to allow companies to pull that ***** excuse out all the time. If you don't like providing full internet service, don't do it at all.
"Forcing a provider who must pay for an expensive expansive cellular network to allow a competitor to USE there network free of charge in DIRECT competition with there network but they have NONE of the costs associated with that network because I bear those costs."
Are you not paying attention? *I* pay for that network in $60 per month service fees. Do you read this ***** before posting it? No one is using the network without paying for it, if a VoIP provider has a traditional service they have to have internet access at their end, and they pay for that too. - digid, on 04/04/2009, -4/+22They can't compete because Skype doesn't pay infrastructure costs.
Skype's pricing model reflects what the market price of data is on land based networks. - mrsteveman1, on 04/04/2009, -1/+18Rock bottom prices? Do you have any idea of the profit margin they have on mobile internet service?
- chase001, on 04/04/2009, -1/+17Ma Bell has become a monopoly again and needs to be broken back up.
- peterdangit, on 04/04/2009, -0/+15@Nerys
Private data bridge?! LOL... In that case my ISP is a private data bridge too. Let's say they decide tomorrow to go into the search engine business, therefore they will block Google since...well, Google doesn't pay for the infrastructure. This practice is anti-competitive, period. - scootinger, on 04/04/2009, -0/+12Exactly, it's just like if your DSL provider told you that you can't run VoIP apps, simply because they want you to purchase more expensive phone service from them.
- ThantiK, on 04/04/2009, -0/+11I'm sorry but your completely wrong. It takes about 5 lines of code to access AT&T's data network through the iPhone API, this is a contractual agreement between att and apple to try and limit competition and data usage across their network.
3g will not be 'eventually supported' until skype is told they're allowed to. Right now it is an artificial restriction. - matdigger, on 04/04/2009, -1/+11I have doubts about this investigation getting anywhere but it is good that something is being done about this. IMHO restricting application from usage of certain services of the profider without good reason should be considered uncompetitive and unconstitutional.
- grimw, on 04/04/2009, -0/+9Ugh, you guys... it would not affect their profit margin to allow it. They could just increase the price of their data plan when everyone lowers their minutes. People will likely pay it if it's not too outrageous. That's what a competitive market is all about: the race to the bottom, eventually. AT&T prevents ALL VOIP services from being offered on their phones, which is anti-competitive and not disclosed when you buy your "unlimited data plan". Last I checked, you must have truth in advertising or suffer civil and criminal penalties.
Honestly, AT&T is kind of stupid with regards to this banning of VOIP, because people would still be paying for a data plan and may be willing to be charged a bit more if they're paying less for minutes. However, when AT&T raises its data plan rates while competitors don't and while competitors start allowing VOIP, you'll see AT&T lower its data plan again or offer something really awesome. THAT's the true nature of competition, but, ultimately, it will still lead to the race to the bottom.
I hope the FCC beats AT&T with a stick. - mrsteveman1, on 04/04/2009, -0/+9No there is not a "HUGE difference".
The funny thing is you contradicted yourself all on your own:
"The PRIVATE NETWORK of a cellular provider is not a public infrastructure. they paid for that. THEY BOUGHT access to the public airwaves."
Public airwaves. Yep. And if the government decides that companies using these airwaves must abide by certain rules, what are you going to cry about then? They are already doing this, the winners of a recent auction of frequency allocation are now required to provide non discriminatory access to devices and applications over the network. Is that unreasonable? Its a public resource, get over it.
Again, you don't seem to understand that Internet access is a utility, it is not optional at this point for the majority of the population, it is just as critical as water, power, etc. I don't care how you access it or who owns what, if your company wants to be an internet provider they are subject to regulation and should not be allowed to do certain things, just like other utility companies. The power company can't decide to start selling electric motors and declare that you aren't allowed to use their power to power anyone elses motors, that would be equally absurd.
Can you please just face reality and understand you are wrong? - absentmindedjwc, on 04/04/2009, -0/+9text messages, 'nuff said
- ChinezePanda, on 04/04/2009, -2/+10The truth ***** hurts doesnt it!!!
long live skype! - ahughes, on 04/04/2009, -0/+8At the end of the day, people are still paying that monthly fee for their mandatory contract attached to the iPhone they purchased. Whether they use a single KB of data or not doesn't matter because they have already paid for it. Whatever fees Skype charges do not cut into the carrier fees, they exist on top of the carrier fees. Your really competition Apple/AT&T is not Skype on the iPhone, but Skype on wifi only devices (ex. Nokia N810) and the wifi-ification of the globe. Stop being so greedy and narrow-minded.
- peterdangit, on 04/04/2009, -1/+9Isn't this like Microsoft not allowing us to run FireFox on Windows because it competes with something they offer (IE)?
- avaugha4, on 04/04/2009, -0/+8Skype didn't invest in the wire that brings internet to you at home either. You should uninstall skype immediately, as by your own definition it is unethical for them to gain access to any network they did not build. Also you should probably not have a digg account either, unless Kevin Rose installed your modem
- Nerys, on 04/04/2009, -17/+25I know I am going to get nailed for this but (without knowing ALL the facts) on the face of it I agree with AT&T on this.
They pay for that network. What some of you propose is like me owning a Bakery and tell me I have no choice but to put up a rack in my shop and am forced to allow $1 a loaf brand to put bread on my shelves and undercut me by 90% but still use MY floor space MY advertising and MY customer base.
I am sorry I just can't agree with that. I think its fantastic AND RIGHT that AT&T said its your device you can install it you can use the wifi but NOT our 3G connection
I do think Cellular Data should be unlimited (within reason) and I do think tethering should be OK.
I also think it should be ok for them to say no "major downloading" with the data or tethering.
Unlike the regular internet the cellular network has some VERY FINITE limits on what the tower your connecting to can handle and process. To allow user to abuse that COST THEM money in disgruntled customers who leave because of it.
I think saying OK you can use this app that REPLACES THE NEED FOR OUR SERVICE on your phone but don't use our 3g network to do it is a VERY fair compromise.
Anti Competitive is telling you what phone you can or can not use. (you listening to me sprint and verizon :-) Protecting the VERY ESSENCE of your very income from another source that has NONE of your costs is NOT anti competitive.
Stopping skype from working on your phone over wifi? yes anti competitive and theft of property (the phone is your property) but saying HEY we pay for this 3G network and its not for other phone companies to use.
thats not anti competitive that just common sense.
Primary infrastructure is different (electricity land line telephone cable) these need more competition.
but Cellular networks are bought and paid for by the companies who run them. thats there property.
Forcing a provider who must pay for an expensive expansive cellular network to allow a competitor to USE there network free of charge in DIRECT competition with there network but they have NONE of the costs associated with that network because I bear those costs.
thats not anti competitive that's just plain unfair and wrong. - Rubis1, on 04/04/2009, -2/+10Your bakery analogy doesn't work. Sure you have to put up the cheap/free bread, but you are charging out the nose to just get in the door. Not to mention the fact that it is a data plan to access the internet which inherently has no restrictions on what data is allowed. If you offer internet, but restrict what you can do with it to things which don't compete with you, that IS the very definition of anticompetitive.
- ChinaLumberjack, on 04/04/2009, -0/+7Your analogy would make sense if your bakery did not hold a national oligopoly or conspire with other bakeries in anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
As far as I am concerned, the rights of monopolies should immediately be revoked, and their business be subject to either the strictist of government regulation or cut-up to the point where they are no longer monopolies. - diggimator, on 04/04/2009, -0/+7Skype competes with AT&T, so it's probably AT&T that's forcing the restriction.
- xexx, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6lots as in 2 or 3?
- insomniacal, on 04/04/2009, -11/+17Good. I love Apple products, but their anti-competitive stances are out of hand and getting worse.
- whitenerdy92, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6Because we have to pay for the Internet. Why shouldn't we be able to use it?
- ChinaLumberjack, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6That's *****. A 140 character SMS is 140 bytes of data. A GOD DAMN 1 MINUTE PHONE CALL USES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BYTES.
- muzzy, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6VOIP works perfectly well over a 3g network.
You do realize that in essence, nearly all communication via cellular networks is digital now, right?
There is no difference between you making a call through AT&T's 3G network or through Skype's service. It's just a matter of how it's routed.
It's no longer an analog vs digital world. It's all digital now. - mrsteveman1, on 04/04/2009, -0/+6Lets get something straight, this is not a private network, the moment a company decides to provide internet service using infrastructure they rolled out, they are a utility and not a private service. That's the way it is, this is 2009, internet access is not a luxury.
If your company wants to provide access to the internet, there are certain things you are not allowed to do, period. They make ***** of money on the lines they already own, don't act like they are being unfairly prevented for profiting from their investment, that's total *****.
Also don't pretend they are being cut out of their own business, this is the INTERNET, an open and diverse network intended to provide non-discriminatory access to people, services and data. If you can't understand that, fine, but the companies who want to be ISPs need to understand it, or they need to QUIT BEING AN ISP.
By the way Nerys, that long string of one line strawman arguments was total ***** and you know it. Every single one of those little "why can't i do this...." lines are intentionally constructed to appear comparable, when in reality they aren't. Example: "Why can't I go 100mph on the highway? I pay through the nose for access to it?" Because you could kill someone, dumbass. - Rubis1, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5As I said before, your analogy doesn't work. It isn't a bakery, it is a warehouse which the customers are renting space in. They pay $60 a month to for "unlimited" use of the facilities. You just happen to have a bakery set up in the corner.
Or you can think of it like a road. ATT is the construction company that put in the toll road. Their customers pay $60 a month to drive on that road. ATT doesn't have the right to tell people what they can transport on that road, just because they also run a shipping business.
Also, it is supposed to be public infrastructure. ATT, Verizon, and a few others received billions of dollars from the US government to expand these networks, which they have not done. - darealwiggum, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5I just wish they'd release skype for the iphone in Canada.
- clone206, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5Pretty soon the cell carriers will just provide and charge for data. They should be smart and just roll with it. With all the smart phones coming out, it's only a matter of time until we think of them exclusively as specialized little computers. If the carriers can embrace this, be forward thinking, and start gearing their business plans to the new reality they could make lots of money. I wonder who'll be the first to market "data only" plans.
- xexx, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5The competitor is not using their network for nothing, the person who pays for the service is using it for skype or a number of other services. It'd be like the company who owns a toll road saying no construction businesses can use their road to get anywhere because they are a competitor - it's ***** and there are laws against it.
- Downwritemad, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5I can make VoIP calls on my E71 on AT&T's 3G network. Programs like fring make it really simple.
- l800LEMMINGS, on 04/04/2009, -3/+8Opera submitted their own app to the app store, apple said no, then the FCC deemed it as being an anticompetitive practice, I still haven't seen the opera browser or any other for that matter, I worry this will happen with skype as well
- Myztry, on 04/04/2009, -0/+5The wireless providers selling data as data. No one is sheding tears for the newspapers. The medium changes but the markets still exist. Others simply move in, or the encumbrents adapt. Cell towers will get re-provisioned at wireless access points. Life moves on.
- darkane, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4We're talking about an application that the user has to purchase and intentionally download to a device that they paid for and own. No matter what kind of subsidies you're getting for the 2-year sign up deal, you still own the phone, and the company that you're connecting to for phone service has no moral or legal standing to decide what you can do with it while it's not on their network.
Not to mention the fact that the amount of iPhone users that will drop their AT&T service altogether (because they magically have free, nationwide access to wi-fi?), is so insignificant that the company's ridiculous legal posturing has likely already cost them whatever money they were hoping to gain by stopping the Skype app. - mrsteveman1, on 04/04/2009, -1/+5Ok then, insert some other traditional VoIP provider. There are apps on the iPhone that do SIP. Those aren't allowed to use mobile data networks either.
- inactive, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4FCC asked to investigate .. A bag of money shows up on the FCC doorstep ....... FCC nothing to see here.....
- spiralspirit, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4watch people leave at+t in droves if they cancel unlimited data. Not just that but AT+T wouldnt recover their "cancellation fees" because it was due to their contract change. It would be the end of that company as a smartphone/ppc provider.
- kgerm, on 04/04/2009, -2/+6yes a bit is a bit is a bit is a bit a bit is a bit is a bit is a bit is a byte!
data is data. how is it fair, if you are paying for a data plan, they can tell you what kinda of data you can access ? it all cost the same amount no mater what the data it is. "ones and zeros"
thats like saying you know this set of one and zeros cost more and we wont let you use them
...but... but ... i paid for them didn't i?
no you paid for the other ones and zeros...
makes perfect cent$... - muzzy, on 04/04/2009, -2/+6For the record, this has nothing to do with Apple...
I like when folks comment on subjects in which they have absolutely zero knowledge of. It's evident that you both don't, if you think this is somehow linked to Apple.
Let me clear it up for you-
This is about AT&T, and in a larger sense, all cellular carriers, creating their own definitions of "Unlimited" and "Data".
There is absolutely ZERO difference between a text message, a Skype phone call, a YouTube video or an email. They are all 1s and 0s... data.
So, why then do I pay $30 a month for Unlimited Data, yet AT&T then charges me .20¢ extra for text messages, says that I can't use that data for voice communication, etc. - yunus, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4I would like to use Skype over 3g but I know what the result will be. Removal of the unlimited data plan and put in its place a monthly cap at some low level and charge you per KB over it. So as much as I want Skype over 3g I prefer the way it is now to the way it will be if they are forced to allow VOIP apps.
- avaugha4, on 04/04/2009, -0/+4I suppose you oppose network neutrality for home ISP's as well?
- muzzy, on 04/04/2009, -2/+6You know what's going to put an end to all of this, and kill all these old giants who hold back technological advances out of fear to adapt?
Imagine this company-
You pay $80/month and you get unlimited data on their cellular network.
That's it.
You don't get a phone number, you don't get voicemail, you don't get roadside assistance and picture messaging.
You just get a data pipe.
You can use that data pipe for your laptop, or even your desktop. You can use that data for your mobile devices.
You want phone? You install Skype. You want SMS? For one... why? It's be outdated, as it already is. But still... if you really want to communicate with the folks still using the old cell networks, just install an SMS app.
This company *will* come along some day, and it won't be all to far into the future. And this company *will* completely catch the current networks off guard and put themselves at the forefront of a new service that will replace all the old.
Who will it be? I don't know... it might be one of the current providers finally getting smart about things, but that's unlikely. It'll probably be a tech giant currently established, who has the funding and know-how to do it. Microsoft? Google? Apple? They all have the capability and it's in their interest to establish this type of network.
Bookmark this comment, and check back with me in 7-10 years. I'll buy you a coffee if I turned out to be wrong. -
Show 51 - 100 of 277 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is