4 ms·

Skype will break its freemium promise to Skype users in three months. Skype for iPhone will require a subscription to make Skype-to-Skype calls over 3G/Edge sta

Skype will break its freemium promise to Skype users in three months. Skype for iPhone will require a subscription to make Skype-to-Skype calls over 3G/Edge starting in September 2010 according to Skype. This changes things from "Skype-to-Skype calls are free", which they've been saying since launch, to "Skype-to-Skype calls are free over landlines and Wi-Fi unless your Verizon or Three mobile operator subsidizes your service." Skype has no marginal cost if I make that iPhone 3G call. Why are they charging separately? Presumably subscriptions will apply to future use of Skype-to-Skype on Blackberry, Nokia, and Android phones.

stcredzero 16y ago
Skype has no marginal cost if I make that iPhone 3G call. If I were AT&T and I could start charging Skype for 3G calls, I would do it.
- ericz 16y ago
  Shouldn't net neutrality prevent AT&T from charging more just because Skype uses a certain part of the internet?
  - kgermino 16y ago
    'Net Neutrality' doesn't exist yet. A least not officially. However if/when (probably when) it does pass it would probably prevent ATT from charging skype more to route phone calls over thier network.
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    This isn't a net neutrality issue. This is a 'people are circumventing our system through our system and we need to stop them', as well as a "our networks are HEAVY LADEN with traffic because of all these smart phones we didn't quite have the infrastructure to support. We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine)
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > This isn't a net neutrality issue. Of course it is. Packets should be packets, if you don't have the network to handle the packets, lower caps or raise prices, don't start making people pay based on the kind of packets they send or receive. It is precisely a NN issue. > " We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine) "Clamping down a little" is not a problem, "clamping down on (VOIP|Gaming|long-lived downloads|P2P streams)" is
      - sukuriant 16y ago
        > if you don't have the network to handle the packets, lower caps or raise prices, don't start making people pay based on the kind of packets they send or receive. > "clamping down on (VOIP|Gaming|long-lived downloads|P2P streams)" is P2P streams and long-lived downloads have two major things in common: heavy bandwidth over long periods of time. Those activities, in particular, are considerably heavier on the network than, say, downloading a single, or even a series of webpages. One way the major carriers can do this is by disallowing certain kinds of activities. For example, as seen on the iPhone, users are not allowed to download files more than 10MB in size. That isn't a case of "what" a person can download, but instead an issue of "how much" a person can download in a small period of time. Is that still 'net neutrality'? And, if not, then how is VOIP any different? (This is under the presupposition that the price increase was ATT's doing, and they're not doing it because it's taking away from their profits; but instead they're fearing that VOIP will cause an even greater tax on their already strained network.)
        masklinn 16y ago
        > One way the major carriers can do this is by disallowing certain kinds of activities. > Is that still 'net neutrality'? If you disallow specific network activities, yes it's a network neutrality issue. > users are not allowed to download files more than 10MB in size I do not believe that is correct. The AppStore application is configured to not download applications over 20MB (up from 10MB since February) over 3G, and the iTunes application does the same thing for music or podcasts, but that's a setting at the application level. I don't think e.g. Safari refuses to download files more than 10 (or 20) MB, or that the connection cuts off with a corrupted file. > That isn't a case of "what" a person can download, but instead an issue of "how much" a person can download in a small period of time. No, because again you're disallowing specific activities (e.g. VOIP, P2P) not certain network behaviors (data streams of over 1MB for over 10mn for instance). Therefore your network management is about activities (traffic shaping) not resources (resources management) which makes it an NN issue. Because you're arbitrarily preventing the users of the network from performing specific activities even though the network itself can handle them. > This is under the presupposition that the price increase was ATT's doing, and they're not doing it because it's taking away from their profits; but instead they're fearing that VOIP will cause an even greater tax on their already strained network. I don't believe that for a second, but again if the issue is resources, then write policies in terms of resources, not activities.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  this is EXACTLY why I am not all a-fluster about this.

stcredzero 16y ago

Skype has no marginal cost if I make that iPhone 3G call. If I were AT&T and I could start charging Skype for 3G calls, I would do it.

ericz 16y ago
Shouldn't net neutrality prevent AT&T from charging more just because Skype uses a certain part of the internet?
- kgermino 16y ago
  'Net Neutrality' doesn't exist yet. A least not officially. However if/when (probably when) it does pass it would probably prevent ATT from charging skype more to route phone calls over thier network.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  This isn't a net neutrality issue. This is a 'people are circumventing our system through our system and we need to stop them', as well as a "our networks are HEAVY LADEN with traffic because of all these smart phones we didn't quite have the infrastructure to support. We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine)
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > This isn't a net neutrality issue. Of course it is. Packets should be packets, if you don't have the network to handle the packets, lower caps or raise prices, don't start making people pay based on the kind of packets they send or receive. It is precisely a NN issue. > " We need to start clamping down a little" issue (I imagine) "Clamping down a little" is not a problem, "clamping down on (VOIP|Gaming|long-lived downloads|P2P streams)" is
    - sukuriant 16y ago
      > if you don't have the network to handle the packets, lower caps or raise prices, don't start making people pay based on the kind of packets they send or receive. > "clamping down on (VOIP|Gaming|long-lived downloads|P2P streams)" is P2P streams and long-lived downloads have two major things in common: heavy bandwidth over long periods of time. Those activities, in particular, are considerably heavier on the network than, say, downloading a single, or even a series of webpages. One way the major carriers can do this is by disallowing certain kinds of activities. For example, as seen on the iPhone, users are not allowed to download files more than 10MB in size. That isn't a case of "what" a person can download, but instead an issue of "how much" a person can download in a small period of time. Is that still 'net neutrality'? And, if not, then how is VOIP any different? (This is under the presupposition that the price increase was ATT's doing, and they're not doing it because it's taking away from their profits; but instead they're fearing that VOIP will cause an even greater tax on their already strained network.)
      - masklinn 16y ago
        > One way the major carriers can do this is by disallowing certain kinds of activities. > Is that still 'net neutrality'? If you disallow specific network activities, yes it's a network neutrality issue. > users are not allowed to download files more than 10MB in size I do not believe that is correct. The AppStore application is configured to not download applications over 20MB (up from 10MB since February) over 3G, and the iTunes application does the same thing for music or podcasts, but that's a setting at the application level. I don't think e.g. Safari refuses to download files more than 10 (or 20) MB, or that the connection cuts off with a corrupted file. > That isn't a case of "what" a person can download, but instead an issue of "how much" a person can download in a small period of time. No, because again you're disallowing specific activities (e.g. VOIP, P2P) not certain network behaviors (data streams of over 1MB for over 10mn for instance). Therefore your network management is about activities (traffic shaping) not resources (resources management) which makes it an NN issue. Because you're arbitrarily preventing the users of the network from performing specific activities even though the network itself can handle them. > This is under the presupposition that the price increase was ATT's doing, and they're not doing it because it's taking away from their profits; but instead they're fearing that VOIP will cause an even greater tax on their already strained network. I don't believe that for a second, but again if the issue is resources, then write policies in terms of resources, not activities.
sliverstorm 16y ago
this is EXACTLY why I am not all a-fluster about this.