AT&T To Allow VoIP On iPhone 220
Toe, The writes "On Tuesday, AT&T announced it will allow Apple to enable Voice over Internet Protocol applications, such as Skype, to run on its 3G wireless data network. Apple stated, 'We will be amending our developer agreements to get VoIP apps on the App Store and in customers' hands as soon as possible.' And Skype, while happy over the move, also stated, 'the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers.'"
About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current FCC is looking into the celluar provider exclusive deals for phone. (i.e. AT&T being the carrier that can have the iPhone.) And the FCC is forumulating rules on Network Neutrality. That means treating all network traffic on their networks equally: no port blocking, no throttling. Internet connectity should be a pipline to the customer. The customer determine how they want use their bandwidth.
AT&T and other ISPs and cellular providers will fight it tooth and nail. But they realize it's a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope your right, but me thinks AT&T will just shape traffic so VOIP doesn't work well al la Comcast torrenting.
But if you can't wait... (Score:5, Informative)
It's super easy and it has saved me lots of overage $$$$
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You might want to check out my current VoIP provider, Vonage. They're offering a plan that includes unlimited calls to over 60 countries [vonage.com] when you sign up for a one year contract for $24.99 a month. I believe China is included in the 60 countries, but I can't link it since there seems to be something wrong with their website at the moment. Anyway, seems like it would be a good deal for you.
Re:But if you can't wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh sure, for just one.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh sure, for just one.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh sure, for just one.. (Score:4, Funny)
If you have 60 women friends you are probably not reading slashdot...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With the $25 a month, you get unlimited calls to the U.S and most of the rest of North America, plus a phone router, plus a real phone number with voicemail, caller ID, free incoming calls, 3-way calling, etc., etc., a bunch of stuff you don't get with Skype.
Plus he wouldn't have to budget his time on the phone, he can talk all he wants and not worry about how much it's costing him.
And like the other guy said: if he were a studly man with 60 girlfriends in 60 countries, that would save him a bundle. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the day they will allow using any sip client instead of only their configured pap2t device... progress will have been made
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I'm pretty sure citizens in China can't have Skype installed on their computers due to the encryption or some such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing because Skype is to China as Fire is to Frankenstein's Monster.
Seriously, I'm pretty sure citizens in China can't have Skype installed on their computers due to the encryption or some such thing.
Since there was a story not so long ago about Skype handing over private messages to the Chinese government, I have to assume that Skype is allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know about that one. Thanks!
But as someone who played with jailbreaking for quite a while, I'd also caution people not to necessarily delve into it, if the Skype option will work for you too, and you're just impatient to start using it on the AT&T network.....
Jailbroken iPhones are a bit like running commercial software you cracked with some "patcher" program. They might work just fine at the time you do it, but you've started on a journey of regular "cat and mouse" games of updates breaking yo
Bad deal for AT&T (Score:4, Informative)
This is a very VERY bad deal for AT&T: VoIP is less efficient than the dedicated cellphone protocols in bandwidth usage, AND AT&T makes less money on data packets over voice packets.
I think this says just how important the iPhone and iPhone users have become to AT&T that they'd even consider this.
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think expanding network neutrality arguments to cell networks is a little over-reaching.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps instead, the specifics of Network Neutrality enforcement should be amended to make more sense. As you suggest, unrestricted free VoIP over 3G might cause your web and e-mail mobile experience to suffer. However, AT&T is free to charge customers using more bandwidth more money, if this becomes a problem. Even if the FCC decides to allow AT&T to perform traffic shaping to help average users have more responsive network access, the FCC should still require AT&T to practice non-discrimina
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Insightful)
I think expanding network neutrality arguments to cell networks is a little over-reaching.
Which is exactly what AT&T and the other wireless providers want you to think. Hell, even the ISPs want you to think that for your cable/DSL.
Admittedly, I don't know the specifics completely nor do I know for sure if it extended to cellular providers, but sometime during the 90s the ISPs were provided money in some form or fashion to build up their infrastructure to support the growing userbase. They took the money but didn't use it the way they were supposed to. I'd be willing to bet most of these companies have the money now but they won't use it to do the upgrading needed.
Why should they? With heavily limited competition, they could give customers horrible service while increasing their rates and most would still use their service because there aren't any viable alternatives. Upgrading infrastructure and capacity does nothing to increase their profits as they've discovered they can simply oversell their existing capacity legally with the magic words "speeds up to". Profits go up with no extra cost to expand which makes their actual customers, the shareholders, happy.
AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash (Score:5, Informative)
More like how important it is to AT&T not to have network neutrality codified into regulation. This move is only to mollify the FCC and get them off their backs so they can still double-dip by charging companies running popular sites for "preferential" (read non-degraded) access to AT&T subscribers.
AT&T is trying to mollify the FCC so that they can maintain multiple other abusive practices that would be eliminated if the same network neutrality standard that is applied to wired connections is applied to the cell phone networks. The wireless providers don't want to become mindless providers of bandwidth.
-They want to be able to charge $0.20 for each text message.
-They want to force you to purchase a phone from them. They will justify their high rates by explaining that they are subsidizing your phone but even after you've paid off your phone after 1-2 years they will still force you to pay the same inflated rate. If you leave the network you can't take your phone with you because the phone YOU paid for is locked to their network.
-They want to be able to force you to purchase a data plan with certain WiFi phones.
-They want to continue to cripple phones that offer highly desired features unless they can charge for them (e.g. gps chips are common in cell phones but users are not allowed access to the information unless you give the wireless provider cash).
The list goes on and on. I hope that the American public and the FCC isn't fooled by this bone that AT&T tossed our way.
Re: (Score:2)
I am trying to decide what to do with my cell service as it is - its nuts that my wife and I (who brought our own phones to AT&T because we like our unlocked international phones) pay inflated monthly bills to subsidize phones we didnt get. That - in combination with the other BS charges that are on our land line for things we dont use - has my ass chapped. I hope and pray (well I would pray if I prayed) that the FCC busts AT&T and the other cell providers in the teeth for that bulls
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife just went in to an AT&T store to pick up a new phone (hers was ~5 years old, and the last time she dropped it the thing finally [mostly] died). Yes, they have text message plans. In fact, in order to get the phone she really wanted (with a qwerty keypad), she would have been required to add unlimited text messaging. Not a big deal, right? Wrong. They want $20 per month for an unlimited texting plan (or $5 per month for 200 messages). Absolute insanity.
I'd threaten to switch to another carrier, b
Re:AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash (Score:4, Informative)
I really wish the people who complain about this would at least provide the proper perspective. The $0.20 per text cost is the cost without a plan. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile (AT&T as well?) all offer unlimited plans nowadays. Nobody with a clue is actually paying $0.20 per SMS.
$20/month for unlimited SMS means that in order to "Break Even" and have them at a discount, a person would need to use 100 SMS per month. Even though there are lots of exceptionally heavy users, the last time I looked up stats for a wireless carrier on SMS usage of Unlimited SMS customers, the average was 62/month. That puts the average unlimited-SMS-for-$20 customer paying $0.32 per SMS.
Your observation that "Nobody with a clue is paying $0.20 per SMS" is wholly correct. There are a lot of clueless folks with unlimited SMS packages though that are paying a whole lot more than that.
The actual point of it though is that it costs a rediculously low amount of money to the wireless carrier to handle an SMS. Fractions of a cent. SMS handling... I forget the precise numbers, but with overhead an SMS is about 182 bytes I think. I'll round it up to 200 bytes just for calculations. If one SMS is 200 bytes, and you only paid a single penny per SMS, that would still be $500 for one megabyte of data transferred, including the header and structure overhead. That is what folks are complaining about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. As other posters point out, they'll probably traffic-shape VoIP into a useless protocol over 3G. What I care more about is VoIP over my phone's WIFI. It's my freaking phone, and my WIFI and internet connection, and AT&T doesn't even work inside my house. Yet AT&T and Apple wont let me run software that already exists for the iPhone to solve this problem.
There is some sort of new software freedom needed here. If an iPhone were a closed system, like the iPod Nano, it would be unreasonable
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do have this freedom with the iPhone. Apple does not make it easy, they don't support or sanction it. But it is possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...If an iPhone were a closed system, like the iPod Nano, it would be unreasonable for the government to force Apple to support developers. However, the iPhone is programmable. What's new here is how Apple regulates software that can run on the computers their customer's buy (an iPhone is a computer). I think companies should be barred from limiting what programs I run on any generic programmable computer I own. Any computer where programmers are encouraged to create 3rd-party software should have the ability to run such software without interference from evil companies...
I completely agree that it's silly that Apple limits customers from running what they want to run. However, it's my opinion that this should be Apple's choice. I also believe that it should be your choice to not buy Apple's iPhone. Why should it be a fundamental right for you to run any software that you want on a programmable device? Is it a grave injustice that you are forced to endure, or do you just feel that you deserve legal entitlement to using a great product any way you want at the expense of
Re: (Score:2)
More like how important it is to AT&T not to have network neutrality codified into regulation.
This is incredible true for most industries. It's a shame to see how most people miss this as being a huge point in turns in an industry. The liquor industry had an unspoken rule of not advertising directly on television for quite sometime. They didn't want any government entity jumping up and down mad and threaten regulation. It wasn't until the middle 90's that a couple of liquor companies actually tried advertisements on television. A couple of states filed objections to the FCC about the commercia
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Funny)
Or the fact that the capitalist economy does indeed self regulate.
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the fact that the capitalist economy does indeed self regulate.
If that's true, then why do we still have recessions? Capitalism is the dominant US religion, it seeems. It has its own foibles and follies that are completely invisible to its worshipers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitalism is NOT dominant in the U.S. region. Creditism is. Nobody uses capital except people at the top of the food chain. Everybody below has to use credit to buy anything of substantial worth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More like how important it is to AT&T not to have network neutrality codified into regulation. This move is only to mollify the FCC and get them off their backs so they can still double-dip by charging companies running popular sites for "preferential" (read non-degraded) access to AT&T subscribers.
I'd expect nothing less from the number one political gift donor [opensecrets.org] in America.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry they'll packet shape it into oblivion and turn around and blame google or skype for the crappy quality citing exactly what you state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its called google voice.. and yes it is a voip service, but its initiated via an analogue connection (atleast for iphones using gvoice).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, for the purpose of this conversation gv is not really a voip. The OP I responded to should have stated that GV is not a traditional voip provider, but they made a blanket statement, which is incorrect, GV is a voip service, but it still uses minutes.
Aside from that, I suspect thats not the part that scares ATT, I suspect its the SMS aspect that has ATT's panties in a bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're doing it wrong. Google Voice supports Gizmo clients.
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
Google voice is not VoIP, it is a VRU.
It handles hunt groups, caller ID data manipulation, DTMF code transforms, voice response, and DTMF tone response. It's a glorified call router (actually, its a higly SIMPLIFIED call router, barely using a fraction of the functions of a true VRU), but by itself it is NOT a VoIP service.
Yes, it CAN route a call to and from an existing VoIP service, like Gizmo, but it does not place calls via SIP itself directly, it only initiates and received calls from other existing SIP extensions and numbers, and can not be substituted in place of Gizmo. It uses your Gizmo number and requires a gizmo client.
The Google Voice App is simply an IP based system for communicating to the VRU to cause it to initiate calls, and to manage voicemail, account settings, and contacts. That's it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet uses IP. Google is on the Internet. Google Voice uses voices. Therefore, Google Voice is Voice over IP.
For a technical crowd, the folks here haven't been able to wrap their head around just what Google Voice is. Every story that comes up (especially the GV Iphone app store thing), bunches of people post how GVoice is VOIP, blah blah blah. It is just a call router and voicemail.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
for the uninitiated, and to further clarify; if packetized voice is voice over IP, then so are your landline analog calls, for the last 10 years or longer.... By the logic people are using, your landline is VOIP.
Just because the voice traffic is at some point sent across digital trunk lines does not make it an IP protocol. VoIP/SIP includes endpoint to endpoint (or at least endpoint to analog handover) communication to a SIP device that is addressed not by a phone number, but by a dotted quad. A True VOI
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not true. Here's a recent PCWorld story (too lazy to search for the /. story) [pcworld.com] It's called Google Voice [google.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect it has less to do with ATT heading off the FCC, and more to do with the recent announcement by Verizon stating they will be carrying a number of Android based phones, and explicitly stated they would permit voip over their data network (and I believe they mentioned Google Voice and Skype by name in that release).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, though I don't know if the caps apply unless you tether the phone to a laptop or desktop.
VoIP doesn't take a massive amount of data, of course, but if you use a lot of minutes it can add up. I'm sure AT&T will only allow some of the lower codecs, not the high-bandwidth ones. I've had pretty decent VoIP conversations on as little as 15 kilobits per second symmetric connections (about 2 kilobytes), or about half the available speed of your average dialup modem. The connection was a tad scratchy a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Way too many people here on Slashdot bash apple for pathetic reasons. Why all the Apple hate?
Apple is just trying to be a good corporate citizen. They have absolutely no hidden agenda, like placating the FCC, or responding to competitors... all they really want is your love. Steve Jobs is your friend. Love him, and trust his judgement. He really only cares about you, and Apple's profits are simply a blessing from Heaven that comes along as a side benefit while Steve looks out for your best interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, doesn't AT&T have download caps on its cell network? I imagine someone using Skype regularly would hit that wall pretty fast, and end up paying AT&T for the overage anyway.
Doubtful. VoIP datastream doesn't use up that much bandwidth. Ultimately It all depends on which codecs the call winds up using. But a good quality codec will using 8 kps. That's roughly 675MB per day. With AT&T's 5GB cap, that's a little over 7.5 days of VoIP talk time. By any standard, that a lot of gabbing.
AT&T sets developer guidelines? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're revising the guidelines now AT&T's approved it. Does that mean that every iPhone developer in the world is limited by the guidelines set by one American network?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the guidelines are specific to the US based App Store releases, not global. I am sure Apple has to comply with other carrier requests in their respective countries. What those are, I have no clue.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you on this one. If I remember correctly, the US only accounts for 20% (maybe less) of all iPhones in the world. And seeing that iTunes Stores vary per country/region, varying the iPhone apps for those regions should be just as easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait for even worse quality. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
While not on a phone, regular skype on a laptop with a 3G dongle is fairly poor. On a good day it will work, but it is not consistent. 3g doesn't seem to be fast enough for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Skype on a jailbroken phone over 3g (with VoIPover3g) works just fine, can even run it with backgrounder so don't think the 3g network is the problem in your case.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same pattern, Skype over Edge works as well, so on 3g it is even less of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Some prefunctory rebuttals: (Score:5, Informative)
Wait Just a Minute (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait Just a Minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Voice is NOT VOIP (Score:5, Informative)
At this point, it has been said so many times that you pretty much have to be a complete idiot not to have grasped that GOOGLE VOICE IS NOT VOIP. It's more like a switchboard, routing calls.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares about VoIP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who cares about VoIP (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can make regular calls on one of those things? Wow, whoda thunk it. I'm pretty sure I've never seen that, and I know a few people who have iPhones.
Reaction to Verizon's announcement? (Score:2)
So AT&T WAS inhibiting Apple software/features (Score:2)
When the story broke about the Google apps being pulled from the app store, AT&T made official statements that they had nothing to do with the decision. Now we have AT&Ts blessing of these types of apps and so they will be enabled?
I'm sure there are lots of ways to spin it, but hasn't AT&T been caught in a huge lie?
Re: (Score:2)
Google Voice isn't VOIP.
You can't make calls with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Google voice is VOIP, its just not initiated the same way as the traditional voip applications. You make the request via the web interface (or GVoice for jailbroken apps), Google Voice calls your phone, then connects to the individual you are contacting, it is however still a voip service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Voice would actually be good for AT&T, as it would have people using more airtime minutes (if you call from your AT&T phone to another AT&T phone using Google Voice, you BOTH use minutes - calls routed through Google Voice are not "Mobile-to-Mobile" or whatever AT&T calls it).
Google Voice does not include any VoIP capability, and actually uses almost no data. Google Voice is approved for the AT&T network - I use it all the time on my AT&T Blackberry.
The one thing Google Voice
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I doubt ATT cares about the voice aspect of google voice. What they are running scared from, is the fact that google voice eats into their SMS cash cow which provides a significant portion of their revenue. Once I get a decent app (I use gvoice via cydia at the moment) for google voice that supports realtime notifications of SMS and voicemail (right now I have to run the app periodically, and I have my gv account setup to forward sms messages sent to my gv number, to my normal cell) without usin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on AT&T, and my "decent app" for Google Voice is, surprise surprise, Google Voice. A real, honest-to-God native application with visual voicemail, integrated outbound GV dialing from my native address book, etc.
Of course, my phone isn't Apple Pie, it's Blackberry Cobbler. Google Voice is readily available in RIM's "Application World".
Why would AT&T give Google the cold shoulder on the iPhone and yet allow it on the Blackberry?
Simple - this is not AT&T's decision, and there's no logical rea
Unlimited Data Plan Not So Unlimited (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
6GB last month right here!
(Tethering "unlimited" is 5GB. I didn't pay the extra $10 to tether, I just share my internet connection using a adhoc wi-fi network, nothings tethered down by a cable!)
How does Skype handle changing to/from wi-fi? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm wondering how Skype will handle a call if you lose your 3G signal and the iPhone switches to an available wi-fi signal, or back?
That's a pretty common scenario here at my workplace, for example. We have wi-fi in the office but sometimes you might walk out to the parking lot where the wi-fi drops out, and you're back on 3G ... and vice-versa obviously happens when you go back inside.
You'd see the same thing happening at restaurants like McDonalds that have free wi-fi for iPhone owners. Are people going
Throwing stones (Score:2)
'the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers.'
At least when such openness benefits your business model and damages your competitor's.
I dislike Skype as much as I dislike AT&T. Come to think of it I dislike Apple as well. But really there aren't a lot of technology companies that I do like.
Bandwidth Allies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I wish I had mod points right now - this is VERY true. AT&T's network is painfully slow in most markets (luckily, my primary market is pretty good, but I frequent others where it is almost completely unusable). 3G data is pointless if you have zero capacity in your back-haul to the backbone...I can see this only as fodder to raise rates and cry fowl against the voip companies in a few months...
Competition is good for consumers (Score:2)
I agree... (Score:2)
Definitely agree there should be a stronger governed presence, not because Apple says, "oh its ok now because we say so..." that its ok, it is ok because the law says so, and that there should be better understanding of what constitutes fair play especially on a small phone that acts like a computer and can be used to run programs of any nature. You bought the phone it is yours, but you do not allow me to run my app on it because you say I should not....screw you Apple...suck on MY apples!
Goes without saying... (Score:2)
Do I even have to say it?
This, almost certainly, is a trap!
After all, AT&T has never been in the business of giving customers what they want. Why on earth would they start now?
VOIP is cool, but what about tethering? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm more interested in tethering -- I mean, officially-supported, I-don't-have-to-violate-my-warranty tethering. It's been promised for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to tether once every great while when traveling not replace my FiOS at home. Just say it's okay. Don't wink, nod and imply that you'll look the other way until I use too much of your precious bandwidth.
Finally. (Score:2)
I remember, over ten years ago, a computer sci professor pointing out that it's all data --web sites, voice, video are all digital now. It's really comical to me that it's taken this long for people to come to terms with this fact (and that we're paying hundreds of dollars per MB for text messages). I don't think it will be long before everything we access over any network is subject to one fee schedule.
Of course! More Government is the solution. (Score:2)
the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy
Something you don't like? The answer is more government.
Don't you ever get tired of this crap?
Re: (Score:2)
MMS uses the "voice" side of the protocol like SMS does. VoIP uses data. Completely different issues, even though the two share the same frequency and protocol, because voice should always be prioritized over data. That means VoIP might blow big steaming monkey chunks in quality, and might affect web browsing and email, but should actually take load OFF the voice network.
When MMS interferes, it does so because MMS uses the voice protocols and is competing with other voice apps, like SMS and, well, people
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it was market pressures, it was the THREAT of new government policy. Which is fine, a company acting nicey-nicey is a company acting nicey-nicey, but the threat needs to remain.