Group Pushes FCC To Investigate Skype for iPhone 131
Macworld is reporting that 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. "Since its release on Tuesday, Skype for iPhone has been downloaded more than a million times — that's a rate of six downloads a second, according to the company. All this despite the fact the software only works via the iPhone's Wi-Fi connection, and not AT&T's 3G network. [...] The letter cites the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (PDF link) which states that 'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice' in order to 'preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.'"
Consumers vs. Business (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to sound jaded, but Slashdotters know the outcome of this already.
Re:And the problem is? (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: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?
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:hypocrites (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.
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.
Re:3g Good enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:hypocrites (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.
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.
Re:Yo iPhone guys! (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 handset, and don't want to risk running the microwave with the door open. To those people the "lock-down" is actually a feature, not a hinderance.
Certainly there are some people who could make use of additional functions that are technically supported by the hardware, and there are cases where "lock-down" goes too far and is a hinderance for most users, but it's disingenuous to pretend that no end users benefit for "lock-down" under any circumstance, or that people are too dumb/sheep-like/etc. to do anything about this terrible injustice.
Re:Consumers vs. Business (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.