Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Consumers vs. Business (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to sound jaded, but Slashdotters know the outcome of this already.
Re:Consumers vs. Business (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering how often consumer win these thing, I don't know who is going to win.
Parent
Re:Consumers vs. Business (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T and Apple decide it's not worth the legal rigamarole and pull the plug on the Skype app entirely?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the FCC steps in, they may not be ABLE to pull it without incurring their wrath. The FCC DOES have teeth when motivated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The FCC can't regulate what apps Apple makes available in their store. However, they might be able to force Apple to open the platform to other stores. Then again, Apple is free to kill the platform to prevent that (would they? could they be forced to if AT&T's contract demands of restrictions can't be met?).
And if Apple gets off by saying a 3G network is not an Internet network but rather a digital telephony network through which the Internet can be tunneled, expect other providers like cable and DSL t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't Apple's issue, this is the cell phone carriers in general (we have the same problem with Softbank here in Japan). Also, considering there are already other free applications in place that support not only Skype, but integrated multiple IM chat (Fring), I don't think Apple minds.
Re:Consumers vs. Business (Score:4, Funny)
No no no no NO!
I will hear no more of this nonsense! Apple and AT&T know what is best and we should just respect their superior wisdom. I know there are those out there who think that they should be able to use the products and services they pay for, but not at the expense of Apple's and AT&T's profit model! How un-American are you people?! You may pay for internet service, but that doesn't mean you can use it to get around their "nickel and dime"-ing your phone bill with added services like texting and the like.
Apple provides the product and they should be able to tell you how you are allowed to use it.
AT&T provides the service and they should be able to tell you what you are allowed to use it.
Parent
Yo iPhone guys! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple provides the product and they should be able to tell you how you are allowed to use it."
Exactly. Read your EULA, or whatever the iPhone's equivalent is. You were pitched a locked-down device with a closed software stack, and you went "fine, whatever, as long as it Just Works(TM) you can do what you want."
Now they're doing what they want -- leveraging the closed platform to shut out competition. And you're bitching.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there would be no DVDs, no microwaves, and no cordless phones -- generally there's no technical reason your new cordless POTS handset couldn't work with your existing base station, other than vendor lock-in. And sometimes it might be convenient to run the microwave with the door open, but it's locked down to prevent such use.
But most people don't want to spend 20 minutes setting up the comm protocol and tuning the radio on their new handse
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if they intended to force cellphones to open up and work like the Internet, we'd only have data plans, and voip over them. One advantage is that we'd pay less for "silences" in a conversation. Mostly, you wouldn't pay more for voice, transmitted over gsm, than for voice over ip. SMS would also become MUCH cheaper...
Bandwidth an issue on 3G? (Score:5, Funny)
I...if this...orking or...an you he...ause I ca...ou...Wha...er...is...ucks.
Re:Bandwidth an issue on 3G? (Score:4, Funny)
I...if this...orking or...an you he...ause I ca...ou...Wha...er...is...ucks.
Recovering original text:
Incense massif thistlebird uncorking orangutan you hentai applause I caribou. Wharfmaster fish trucks.
Parent
is the cellular network "public internet" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:is the cellular network "public internet" (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:is the cellular network "public internet" (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the protocol what technically defines "the Internet"? Is IPv6 a new Internet?
I would think it's a matter of being able to access data which is on the Internet, regardless of protocol.
If you can normally access Internet-connected machines over their 3G network... such as accessing any website... then it's clear this is a restriction on Skype because they fear that it's competition.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I would think it's a matter of being able to access data which is on the Internet, regardless of protocol.
So I'm entitled to run live streaming video over carrier pigeons and social networks?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So I'm entitled to run live streaming video over carrier pigeons and social networks?
Do it with the twitter error page, and you can implement both protocols at the same time!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:is the cellular network "public internet" (Score:5, Interesting)
You are confusing TCP/IP with the term "public internet". The protocol is different to the concept. Public interconnected networks, no matter the protocol, seem to fall under this FCC Policy.
On top of this, if you are serving up TCP/IP packets to the user but the technology in between is not TCP/IP, well, there is no difference as far as the user's perception. Add to this that interception of traffic goes against laws (at least where I live it is), and you've got a very strong case for knocking down any interference in the service.
I've had a phone company here in Australia try to claim that internet traffic on a phone isn't internet traffic and therefore they didn't need to update the usage meter under ACMA (Australian Communications & Media Authority) regulations. After a year of the TIO (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) investigating I was advised I wasn't liable for the charges that were acrued due to their meter not updating. Their case of "it's data not internet" didn't wash. I'd like to see how a case like this goes in the US where you don't have consumer protection like we do in Australia.
And no, I didn't have to pay any legal fees, or even turn up to any court hearings. The TIO investigates and refers the matter to the ACMA for enforcement. The company that did this was not only told to fix the usage meter, they were charged a minimum of AU$1500 for the case going to a level 3 investigation (which was much more than the amount they would have received from me).
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not whether the protocol is open or not that means a node is participating in the internet. It's about whether there's a router or not that converts their local network communication to TCP/IP communication and communicates with other hosts.
You can be on an old Novell IPX/SPX network, and use pure IPX/SPX packets, if there's a machine that acts as a Proxy or Router, and converts those packets into IP packets, then you're definitely connected to the internet.
Since the sockets API is basically the
Public vs Private (Score:2)
"preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet."
Someone missed their interweb for dummies class.
3g Good enough? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:3g Good enough? (Score:5, Informative)
skype works well enough on my windows mobile phone and umts. 128 kbit/s is plenty for speech, especially if compressed (euro isdn uses an uncompressed 64 kbit/s channel for speech and it is way better than analogue landline).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:3g Good enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny you mention this because I just made a call a few hours ago with skype using the 3G from my (tethered) G1 phone and the call was crystal clear on both ends.
If you have a G1 you can tether it with http://graha.ms/androidproxy/ [graha.ms] and use it with skype's proxy option.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's really all you need. 64 kilobits of voice (upstream) and 64 kilobytes downstream.
You don't need high quality, you don't need a high bit rate for usable voice, you just need good latency characteristics.
Also, Skype may not use it (at least not for free), but, with G.729 codec and the requisite compression, 8 Kilobits per second is enough, for a usable quality audio signal.
What about tethering? (Score:5, Interesting)
an internet advocacy group has asked the FCC to investigate whether the WiFi-only restriction on the Skype for iPhone app is in violation of federal law.
If it is in violation (or rather, if AT&T's requirement that led to the software being restricted is in violation), wouldn't they already be having problems with their no-tethering rules for some data/internet plans?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it is in violation ... wouldn't they already be having problems with their no-tethering rules ...?
That comes apart into two issues:
1) Wouldn't no-tethering rules also be in violation?
IMHO: Yes.
(If it's a bandwidth issue they should cap the sustained data rate in the plan and its pricing, not distinguish between the handset with crippled apps and an attached device that is likely to impose higher loads.)
2) Wouldn't they already be having legal issues over them?
Not necessarily. The affect
T-Mobile in Germany & 1 million downloads (Score:2)
Some more links on MacRumors [macrumors.com]:
"T-Mobile in Germany, however, threatened [macrumors.com] that it may take action to prevent its customers from using Skype on the iPhone. [...] Skype [appshopper.com] has proven to be massively popular on the iPhone and iPod Touch reaching over one million downloads [macrumors.com] in the first two days of availability."
This is interesting for another reason as well... (Score:5, Insightful)
not just skype...and that would be the wireless telcos policies and various restrictions (hardware and software) and additional fees, etc., surrounding tethering and data transfer in general terms. Bits are bits are bits, they shouldn't be allowed to charge "extra" for moving bits based on what the bits are doing, or if they are traveling through an additional legal device the consumer may own and use. Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever? They are getting away with charging different fees for different things like that, when it is all just the same "bits" moving around.
Re:This is interesting for another reason as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when are there different flavor bits, like voice bits, text bits, some web page bits, or whatever?
I don't mean to defend the phone company (especially AT&T), but there are legitimate reasons to differentiate between different bits, both for the cell company and the consumer.
I want all my "voice" bits to have low latency, and high reliability. I don't mind if my web page loading pauses for a half second; but a half second pause in a conversation is less acceptable. They're both just bits. But most customers appreciate a distinction between the two.
Now, the cell network is not an unlimited pipe. There are a certain number of bits which can go through it over a specified period of time. But, people have an almost unlimited capacity to use all available bandwidth. So, you have to find some way to ration that bandwidth, while still retaining the distinctions between different "flavors" of bits.
AT&T has outright banned some activities on the iphone (tethering, 3G skype, 3G VOIP in general), as a way of rationing that limited bandwidth. They could also choose to implement price discrimination: charging customers more to tether, for example.
But, ultimately, they have to find a way to bring the "bandwidth actually used" number to at or below the "bandwidth available" number. All the while respecting the expectations of the consumers regarding different "flavors" of bits.
Now, you could just say, "To hell with it," and remove all caps and restrictions, making every bit equal. But, you'd lose customers as people get pissed at the terrible voice quality.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T provides voice service over their GSM network, they do not provide VOIP over their 3g network. I am used to seeing half second pauses when loading pages (ok, I use verizon...*multi*second pauses) over 3G and at this point it doesn't bother me too much since I am still astounded that I am getting quick internet in my pocket (although when I was testing an AT&T blackberry, the network was much more responsive).
Being familiar with my web browsing speeds,
You could also distinguish service QoS... (Score:2)
Now, you could just say, "To hell with it," and remove all caps and restrictions, making every bit equal. But, you'd lose customers as people get pissed at the terrible voice quality.
Or you could sell a plan that honors QoS tagging and includes a small (good for a VoIP connection) rate of high QoS packets - with high QoS packets exceeding the contracted rate demoted to "best effort". (And yes it's OK to rewrite the type-of-service field.)
Then the limited-but-quality-sensitive VoIP (or whatever) stream(s) c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand that there is a difference between the QOS settings for voice and data. That makes sense. I don't think anyone is saying that they have to stop differentiating between voice and data, but if I choose to use my data connection to run VoiP (assuming I'm willing to put up with the increase in skipping, if there is one) or to tether to my laptop then that should be my decision to make, not theirs. They have no business even knowing what kind of software/hardware I'm using on my end of the wirele
hypocrites (Score:3, Informative)
So AT&T/Apple get to create an effective monopoly by tabooing the use of the iPhone with other services, but their fanboys are up in arms when Skype provides a service that doesn't use 3G?
If anything, consumers should be weary of 3G lock-in. Who cares if an app only works via wifi? Why the hell would you use voip on your phone if you are already paying for the phone connection? Isn't that antithetical to any reason consumers would prefer voip to more traditional solutions?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahem. I am an iPhone user. I am not a fanboi. There are millions of other iPhone users just like me, you just don't hear from us over the high pitched whine that the minority of users put off.
Just because I like owning an iPod and I feel that the iPhone has a superior browsing experience than any other mobile device out there does not mean that I defend the devices inadequacies to the death. In fact, I think the thing fucking sucks for doing much other than surfing the web and playing media. Thankfully that's what I use it for the most and thus it's fine for me. I put it into the same bucket as using Windows. The OS works and is supported very well. It has its faults and those faults suck but it does what I need it to do easily and it works well enough. *shrug*
Please don't assume that just because a small portion of users of Foo rant and rave about its wonders that the rest of us are like that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I think the thing fucking sucks for doing much other than surfing the web and playing media.
I feel it's the other way around for my BlackBerry Curve 8330. It was a choice between the BB and iPhone. So I chose the superior business functionality that it provides. At least MP3 playback isn't so bad. :-/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I think the thing fucking sucks for doing much other than surfing the web and playing media.
/boggle
That's rather pathetic on Apple's part, then. You'd think that a device called the iPhone would be a good, y'know, phone.
Thank You (Score:3, Interesting)
My second issue isn't mentioned but seems anti-consumer. Why can't I use the GPS on my Blackberry Pearl in Google Maps? I even pay for the stupid VZ Navigator software and Google Maps still can't use the GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why can't I use the GPS on my Blackberry Pearl in Google Maps?"
Is it possible that it's Google's choice? I know that the free version of Google Maps on my desktop computer does not support a USB-based GPS, but the "Pro" version of Google Maps does. Do they have a paid version?
Re: (Score:2)
Your cellular provider distinguishes between unlimited mobile device internet and laptop grade internet ( bad term but you get my meaning). A cell phone will have a much harder time 'wasting' bandwidth versus a full on PC with a full OS. Its a dubious distinction that will absolutely need to be adressed as the lines between a full-on computer and a mobile device continue to blur.
Re: (Score:2)
The point remains: why is it called "unlimited" if it's not meant to be unlimited.
So what exactly happens if these guys win? (Score:2)
My guess is that if the FCC declares that Skype has to be allowed to work over 3G too, AT&T will force Apple to drop it from the App Store so people won't be able to use Skype even on WiFi.
So...not really a win.
Unlimited Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
I can certainly understand why AT&T doesn't want you to use Skype to circumvent using minutes if overage charges are their business model. However, they already grossly over charge on data, and many companies seem to be shifting to a $99.99 unlimited everything plan.
Frankly, I think if you asked AT&T if they'd be happy if most of their customers paid $99.99 a month, they'd be thrilled, because it is vastly more than they pay now. And at the same time, if consumers have an unlimited everything plan, they why restrict how they use it? If they want to use Skype to call, as opposed to a normal phone call, then let them.
Be the first company to have the smarts to enable your consumers, and watch consumers to flock to you.
Re:Investigate an iphone (Score:4, Funny)
Good thing I bought Apple Care.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, its a question of using the software they want with the hardware and service they are paying for.
It would be similar to your aol internet access not allowing you to use hotmail or yahoo mail unless you use their portal.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not the service, it's the product.
Re: (Score:2)