Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Cellphones Apple

AT&T To Allow VoIP On iPhone 220

Posted by Soulskill
from the writing-on-the-wall dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T To Allow VoIP On iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • About time. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by base3 (539820) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @08:48AM (#29668631)
    Nice to see the robber barons on the run from the administration and the public instead of on the run for once.
    • Re:About time. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aicrules (819392) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:40AM (#29669091)
      I do not understand
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by urulokion (597607)

        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)

      by y86 (111726)

      I hope your right, but me thinks AT&T will just shape traffic so VOIP doesn't work well al la Comcast torrenting.

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @08:49AM (#29668639) Homepage Journal
    Just jailbreak your phone and use Voipover3G [thebigboss.org]

    It's super easy and it has saved me lots of overage $$$$
    • by jgtg32a (1173373)
      My GF is in China it costs $0.021/min to call her, I've spent $20 over the last 4 months on Skype minutes. I don't even what to know how much that would have cost me if i went through AT&T
    • by muffen (321442)
      Don't forget backgrounder if you have a jailbroken phone and want to run Skype over 3g. Works quite well although you get the occasional crashes.
    • by King_TJ (85913)

      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)

    by nweaver (113078) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @08:51AM (#29668653) Homepage

    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.

    • by base3 (539820) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @08:53AM (#29668673)
      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.
      • by iamhigh (1252742)
        I am on board for Network Neutrality, but I have a hard time blaming the company whose network takes over a minute to email a 1.3mp image. I really don't see how it would handle VOIP and if my emails start taking 10 minutes to go through, I am gonna be pissed and switch carriers.

        I think expanding network neutrality arguments to cell networks is a little over-reaching.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by WaywardGeek (1480513)

          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

        • by Dotren (1449427) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @11:44AM (#29670577)

          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.

      • by Michael G. Kaplan (1517611) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:47AM (#29669173)

        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.

        • by Zantac69 (1331461)
          Amen to this!

          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)

          by iron-kurton (891451)
          I already get charged $0.20 per text message, both incoming and outgoing. So that means, when I text my wife -- we share the same plan -- it costs us $0.40 to send one text message. I would love to see an anti-double billing practice put into legislation.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WaywardGeek (1480513)

        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)

          by Dog-Cow (21281)

          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)

          by j-turkey (187775)

          ...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

      • 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

      • by jellomizer (103300) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @10:00AM (#29669335)

        Or the fact that the capitalist economy does indeed self regulate.

        • by Carewolf (581105) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @10:18AM (#29669545) Homepage

          Or the fact that the capitalist economy does indeed self regulate.

          .. when threatened with government intervention.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          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)

            by Danathar (267989)

            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)

        by cjb658 (1235986)

        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)

      by MistrBlank (1183469)

      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.

      • by vxvxvxvx (745287)
        Google doesn't have a VOIP service.
        • 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)

            by Wireless Joe (604314)
            For the purposes of this discussion, Google Voice is not VOIP [techcrunch.com]. It uses regular cellular minutes, not your data connection.
            • 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.

            • Then you're doing it wrong. Google Voice supports Gizmo clients.

              • Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Informative)

                by Sandbags (964742) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @10:39AM (#29669787) Journal

                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.

                • by whoop (194)

                  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)

                    by Sandbags (964742)

                    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)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      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. Combine that with the fact that they will probably ultimately figure out a way to override the FCC's recent stance [nytimes.com] on net neutrality (allowing them to degrade VoIP calls with packet shaping), and it seems that they might not lose anything with this move after all. It's likely more of a PR move to placate the FCC and get
      • Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:5, Informative)

        by bleh-of-the-huns (17740) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:30AM (#29668989)

        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).

        • After work today, I'll be passing out sweaters in hell, as I never thought I'd say this. Thanks Verizon!
      • by natehoy (1608657)

        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)

        by WaywardGeek (1480513)

        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.

      • Not sure about Skype, but SIP at GSM quality uses around 5MB per hour of calling. If you're using it 24/7, then you're going to be using 3.5GB/month, but I doubt many people will use anything like that much. At two hours a day, it works out at 300MB/month, which is well below any reasonable cap. Hitting the front page of /. ten times uses more bandwidth than an hour of VoIP traffic.
      • by urulokion (597607)

        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.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @08:58AM (#29668709)

    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?

    • 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.

      • by Necroman (61604)

        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.

    • by yabos (719499)
      AT&T seems to dictate whether or not some apps are on the store. Skype could have made 2 versions of the app, one for AT&T, one for the rest of the world but for some reason they didn't. Blocking 3G Skype on AT&T meant no iPhone can use Skype over 3G except when jail broken. Same can be said about the tethering app that was out for about a day and then got pulled.
  • Cell phone voice quality is horrible. Sometimes it is pretty hard to get through a thirty minute phone call and keep the 'excuse me, what?' count under 10. I can't even imagine what trying to do skype over a 3g connection is going to be like.
    • by Deag (250823)

      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)

        by muffen (321442)

        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.

        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.

    • by vxvxvxvx (745287)
      I use skype at home because of voice quality. I can't get through a 3 minute cell phone call without asking the other person to repeat less than 10 times, much less a 30 minute phone call. Most people don't even realize they're talking over VOIP when I use skype. My guess would be skype over 3g will be just as bad as regular cell conversations. Though, it will be interesting to see - perhaps VOIP providers will use different failure methods when packets don't get through in such a way audio is delayed befor
  • by Wireless Joe (604314) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:01AM (#29668729) Homepage
    1. No, this doesn't have anything to do with Google voice, as Google Voice isn't VOIP. 2. No, won't hurt the voice network, as the voice network and the 3G data network are not the same. If anything it will help the 2G voice network by offloading some traffic to the data network, which has more capacity and is receiving the preferred 850mhz spectrum. 3. This was inevitable as AT&T is switching to LTE, which will easily support VOIP; you cellular calls in general will probably be handled by VOIP. It's too early to think of anything else, but these are the most often misunderstood aspects of the announcement.
  • Wait Just a Minute (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sonicmerlin (1505111) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:08AM (#29668781)
    Is there any doubt AT&T is doing this in a feeble attempt to argue to the FCC that net neutrality laws aren`t needed? I have none.
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:14AM (#29668831)
      There's absolutely no doubt that this is what AT&T is trying to do. This is par for the course for nearly any industry. As soon as the government starts looking into corporate practices and begins putting together something that will regulate an industry, that industry suddenly perks up, changes their behavior a little bit and says "No, see, we can self-regulate. No need to tell us what to do. The market is working." When in fact, if the market were working, the government wouldn't need to begin investigating those practices in the first place.
  • Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:09AM (#29668795)
    I thought AT&T denied [cnet.com] having any involvement in pulling VoIP apps from the app store in the first place.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:42AM (#29669125)

      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)

      by crmarvin42 (652893)
      They played a role in the writing the EULA to prohibit the use of VoIP, but the decision to pull apps that shouldn't have been approved in the first place based on the EULA was Apples decision. At least that's how I understand the situation. While I think most posters are being a little hypocritical "AT&T is evil for prohiting VoIP and evil for allowing it". I do agree that this is probably an effort to avoid regulation and stay competetive with Verizon.
  • by WebMasterJoe (253077) <[joe] [at] [joestoner.com]> on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @09:18AM (#29668863) Homepage Journal
    I'm waiting for AT&T to allow regular calls on iPhone!
  • I wonder if this is related to Verizon's announcement [technewsworld.com] that they will soon be releasing phones running Android?
  • 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?

    • by tgd (2822)

      Google Voice isn't VOIP.

      You can't make calls with it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vxvxvxvx (745287)
        Which brings up an interesting question - how will this affect Google Voice? Since it's not VOIP and this is about VOIP, google voice could remain blocked from the app store for the "duplication of functionality" or whatever argument Apple is using.
      • 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.

        • by imamac (1083405)
          It uses a normal phone network switch. Therefore, it does not use IP. Therefore, it isn't VOIP.
    • by natehoy (1608657)

      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

      • 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

        • by natehoy (1608657)

          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

  • Soon all those that flock to the VOIP will find out how unlimited the AT&T unlimited plan really is. I am sure they will find a way to make money.
    • by Vegeta99 (219501)

      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!)

    • 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

  • '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.

  • I wonder if AT&T is doing this so they can then go to those VoIP companies and say "Hey, you guys are killing our bandwidth...give us money to help upgrade out network". Of course, we already knew they were bitching about MMS and other data already bringing their network to its knees (but don't worry AT&T, we won't tell Vonage or Skype ).
    • 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...

  • AT&T did this because consumers have alternatives to the IPhone. The AT&T IPhone regime must remain friendly to consumers to win their $ in this free and open marketplace. Capitalism is working for the little guy. This is a good example of that.
  • 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!

  • 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?

  • by Anonymusing (1450747) on Wednesday October 07, 2009 @10:09AM (#29669441)

    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.

    • by twmcneil (942300)
      Agreed. I was just reading the fine print to learn if I could legitimately tether on my ATT Unlimited Data Plan. Guess what? I could find no definitive answer, just a bunch of hedges, maybes and ifs.

      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.
  • 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.

  • 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?

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...