“AT&T has done itself no favors with its fudged response to rumors of an extra fee in order to use FaceTime over 3G connections on devices running iOS 6,” Chris Davies writes for SlashGear. “Talk that the carrier would levy extra data charges if users wanted to take advantage of Apple’s increased FaceTime flexibility – so far limited to WiFi connections – prompted an uproar of pre-emptive complaints that AT&T might put a financial block in the way of iPhone and iPad functionality. But are we really on the precipice of a groundswell of video calling, or are we simply taking this opportunity to be angry at a carrier for daring to charge us money?”
“Going by the error messages popping up on devices already running the iOS 6 beta, it’s looking very likely that AT&T will be demanding another tithe for those wanting to use the data they’ve already paid for to make FaceTime 3G calls – on top of mandatory data package fees and, if required, tethering add-ons,” Davies writes. “Exactly how much that will cost – if, indeed, it happens at all – remains to be seen. AT&T could go for a pay-per-use fee, either on a per-call basis (say, $0.50 per FaceTime 3G call you make, regardless of length) or based on data consumption. Or, it could opt for a set fee each month for blanket FaceTime 3G calling; say, $10 more on top of your existing data package. Is $10 too much to ask for the convenience of not using, say, Skype and instead relying on Apple’s streamlined alternative? Would $5 be acceptable?”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: “Demanding another tithe for those wanting to use the data they’ve already paid.” That is the problem. Data is data. Place a monetary figure on each bit we try to pump through your generally ill-placed and sparsely-located cell towers, AT&T, and we’ll weigh it against your competitions’ prices and make our decision.
These predatory extra fees are one a the main reasons we chose to go with Verizon for our iPad 4G units: Verizon charges no extra feee for tethering, which makes sense since we already pay for the data.
We don’t resent paying for things, we resent paying for things for which we’ve already paid. AT&T needs to get a clue. Stop double charging people, you bloodsucking leeches!
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Edward Weber” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
AT&T Mobility unveils new shared data plans; ‘Mobile Share’ coming in August– July 18, 2012
Verizon Wireless kills voice minutes, makes data shareable among devices – June 12, 2012
I do want FaceTime over 3G. But, I also hate paying for things twice.
With FaceTime 3G you are not paying for the same thing, since FT 3G data packets has much higher real-time priorities comparing to regular internet packets — AT&T and Apple worked for two years to make this possible. You will be able to compare how bad Skype videocalls over 3G are comparing to FaceTime 3G.
However, AT&T has to set fair price for this service, not overcharge.
This actually makes sense. And yes, let’s hope reasonable rates are charged.
But seriously, it’s not that hard to count phone calls and texts as DATA!
What you are talking about is network QOS. There is no evidence apple and AT&T worked on a STANDARD networking method to shape traffic to prioritize FaceTime network packets over any other network packets. AT&T would deserve no credit for such a network policy. Second, AT&T can’t afford to have such network policies when their network can barely serve consistent network connectivity, much less charge on top of it.
Stop being an ill informed corporate door mat, patsy boy.
They never promised any “standard” method, but Apple said that they will work on a method.
Jobs said in 2010 that users will have to wait until carriers will update their systems; and now carriers — a limited list of them — finally updated their systems. Other carriers will not have FT over 3G until they implement those special measures and meet the requirements.
So stop being an ignorant corporate door mat, patsy boy.
hahahaha… hahahaa… fukn knee slapper man.
the system update is nothing more than capacity you dolt.
ROFL.
You have a footprint on your face shaped like AT&T.
hahahaha… hahahaa… fukn knee slapper man.
the system update is not capacity you dolt, FT currently takes much less traffic than regular 3G internet usage on iPhones. It is data packets priority support that should be implemented in software on all cellular base stations equipment and internal net communications and should be perfectly synced. This is why only limited number of carriers are certified to support FT 3G.
ROFL.
You have a footprint on your face shaped like AT&T.
Oh rly?
Before making shit up and blasting gas out your assmouth- learn something- http://www.packetstan.com/2010/07/special-look-face-time-part-1.html
And also- come up with some original material. squawking like an ATT parrot might be what you do best… but it’s more than laughable that’s the extent of your intellect.
Oh rly?
Before making shit up and blasting gas out your assmouth- learn something: the link you provided has nothing to do with the setting data packets priorities that is now managed by cellular networks software. FT 3G authorises in a cell networks and this is how the packets gets recognized among any other packets and get their priorities higher comparing to others, for example, of Skype videocalls.
And also- come up with some original material. squawking like an ATT parrot might be what you do best… but it’s more than laughable that’s the extent of your intellect.
yes.. QOS.
awww poor little baby. doesn’t have a clue.
go on and blab .. copy copy.
it’s painfully.. painfully obvious you have no clue about what you are talking about.
copy paste away pee wee 😀
yes.. QOS, you pay for special treatment of your FT 3G packets, so that your videocalls would be as responsive as possible. Anyone will be able to compare the quality of Skype and FT over 3G.
awww poor little baby. doesn’t have a clue.
go on and blab .. copy copy.
it’s painfully.. painfully obvious you have no clue about what you are talking about.
copy paste away pee wee 😀
100% agree. Data is data. Give it to us after we pay for it ONCE.
Also, fix texting. Texting should ONLY charge the sender of the text.
And that is why I jailbreak my phone.
You tell them MacDailyNews. ATT have to be absolutely made of greed to want to charge for FaceTime over 3G, especially when people are tightening their belts.
Skype works better over 3G than FaceTime on wifi in my experience.
WELL SAID, MDN! It is rare when we agree 100%, (we generally agree 70% of the time) but you have my full support on this issue!
ATT is already stealing monthly from customers the money for the data they dont use in their plans.
These jerks have absolutely no shame.
AT&T should stop being disingenuous with this pricing scheme. What they’re really saying is that FaceTime will consume extra bandwidth, therefore this is really a data cap charge. It won’t make their decision to charge ‘extra’ any better, but at least they will be labelling this charge correctly.
I could not agree more with MDN on this financial gouging from the telecoms. They have been relegated to dumb pipes and they know it. Now they are going to give loyal customers the shaft because of Apple’s FaceTime on iPhone. Disgraceful. Welcome to America and the land of unethical corporate greed.
AT&T:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgcXaXaLsm-8-Cg2cdXGJA5RuQM1DRk08stmrOYo5RxxxOPxn8
The data charge is already included, they shouldn’t charge extra for something that we already pay for. That’s what everyone is upset about. It’s just like charging for texting, same thing, it’s data and that shouldn’t be an extra charge either!
I used to jailbreak for FaceTime on 3G but now I have the ios6 beta and am using FaceTime on 3G with Verizon, no jailbreak either, FaceTime never worked this good! XD
“Data is data.” Yes, they is!
Let’s see.
You agreed to pay AT&T so you could talk. You agreed to pay AT&T so you could surf the web. You agreed to pay AT&T so you could send text messages. In doing so, you agreed that; voice is voice; data (the web) is data; and text is text.
Yet, for reasons unknown, you are claiming video is not video, but rather data? Do I have this right? Given the facts, your reasoning would not stand up in a court of law.
You should have spoken with your wallets in the beginning when you had the opportunity. It’s way too late to bitch and complain now gang! You set the precedent. AT&T simply appears to be following it.
Um no.
NEXT!
I could see charging if they still offered unlimted data, but they dont. If people use FT over 3G a few times a month, they may go over their data limit pretty quick. ATT will raking in the big bucks in data overages. I think ATT wants a more constant stream of money than the hope of overages.
shinolashow has it EXACTLY right.
Quality of Service (or QoS) is what you are paying extra for, NOT bandwidth. AT&T is not inventing any kind of new charge here, nor are they doing anything unusual. Compare it to a scenario we use on a daily basis, First Class Airline transport.
For years if you wanted more personal service, better food, more room and to most importantly, be at the front of the plane so you could be the first on / first off, you paid extra, it’s called FIRST CLASS. This “Quality of Service” enhancement means that you are treated a bit better than the average person using the standard coach class.
Things are no different here. AT&T could let your data run at normal network speeds, if Apple would let them, but then you would have broken transmission, dropped packets, etc. And you could complain that AT&T’s network is crap. This is exactly why Network QoS exists. It priorities the packets needed to keep the conversation smooth, upgrading them to First Class if you will. Without QoS, the quality of your video would be degraded by someone’s file sharing, email and Internet Backup services. Things that for the most part are not time sensitive.
Would you expect to get First Class service at the same price as coach on an airplane? I think not. And airlines are not the only place you see this. When was the last time you went to a sporting event? A concert? At many places you get to experience the same thing at many different price points, the difference being your proximity to the action, or the level of service you get during the event. This is no different.