17 ms·

AT&T wants you to forget that it blocked FaceTime over cellular in 2012

410 points by Deinos 9y ago

basseq 9y ago
I'd forgotten this! The dark ages of iPhone on AT&T. Seems... quant, now, doesn't it? We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us. https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184 https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184
tech2 9y ago
It's not just Facetime, there's all manner of related stuff. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... Each time I see a NN post I'm generally too late and it's been run rampant with defenders of "light touch" regulation... no, just no. If the companies had competition, then, maybe. Sadly they're entrenched monopolies (and more are merging each day, further limiting choice). NN is the way to go.
- bentruyman 9y ago
  Except in this case (cellular service), there is at least some competition. And FaceTime isn't particularly a good example, as AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place. Competition, at least in this one example, worked.
  - dsp1234 9y ago
    AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place After official complaints lodged with the FCC. Also, this was during the time period of the 2010 open internet order[0] and the 2014 court case[1], where ISPs and the FCC thought that the FCC had the authority to enforce "no blocking" violations. So, saying "without Net Neutrality rules in place" is incorrect. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
    - bentruyman 9y ago
      Sure. And the "no blocking" rule was eventually struck down. My point is there were no existing laws that would have forced AT&T to reverse their decision.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Not necessarily. They faced regulatory issues with some states. The carriers deployed proxy infrastructure to inspect and control traffic and were definately experimenting with limiting apps deemed disruptive in the 2013-2014 timeframe. If you had an app that generated lots of small packets in a short period of time, you’d run into it on some networks.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Payed shills more like. America is a big country and surprisingly isolated and intellectually lazy so most folks won't even notice what net neutrality is like beyond their borders. Enjoy your Verizon net.
  - strictnein 9y ago
    > "Payed shills more like" > "America is ... intellectually lazy" The "people who disagree with me are payed to" viewpoint is one of the most intellectually lazy viewpoints, second only to the idea that those who disagree with you are evil.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  But that's the bigger issue isnt it? That is we keep using bandaids when the root problem is lack of competition. Has anyone heard if Google is considering restarting Fiber? I was always under the impression that they hope the implied competition was enough. It had seemed to be working. But then it was squashed.
  - veidr 9y ago
    > But that's the bigger issue isnt it? Yes, but so what? There is no chance we're going to get meaningful competition among Internet providers in the USA. So you can choose an imperfect but helpful solution that exists today, or a perfect theoretical solution that doesn't and won't.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      But it's not a solution to a problem. It's a solution to a symptom. We do this all the time and then wonder why we waste so much time revisiting things. Or. You can "accept" NN in the short term knowing it's going to cause a negative reaction in the market. That tension will build, the market will become more aware, and then demand the problem be addressed and solved. The point is, the current solution being proposed by so many actual keep the powerful status quo intact. They win either way. Is that a win for the rest of us? I think not.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. oh and $66 for the base package cable internet package (for me), way too much.
    - jrnichols 9y ago
      > It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. Having lived in an area that had Pacific Gas & Electric, who has infrastructure so old and decrepit that it literally exploded and destroyed part of a town, i'm not so sure that I want my internet access being treated like a utility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion also, their amazingly out of control prices, rolling blackouts, etc. Seeing people say that they want the internet treated like a utility kind of scare me.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Citing market power as a reason for special regulations in cellular, where in almost every major city there are 3-4 completely fungible carriers, makes no sense. Verizon and AT&T have about 1/3 of the market, T-Mobile and Sprint have a little under 1/3, and in any given market there are smaller players like Boost Mobile. That's an entirely normal level of competition for the economy at large. In smart phones, in contrast, Android has 82% of the market, Apple has 18% of the market, and Windows is well under 0.5%. In search engines, Google has about 2/3 of the market, Microsoft has about 1/4, and Yahoo has a bit over 10% (but they use Microsoft's back-end). In soft drinks, Coca Cola has 42%, Pepsi has 27%, and Dr. Pepper Snapple has 17%. In parcel service, UPS has about half the market, FedEx about 30%, and the Postal Service about 15%.
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    1. AT&T claimed it has NEVER blocked third party apps when that concern was raised in relation to Net Neutrality. 2. AT&T DID block Facetime, and wanted to allow access only on special plans. 3. The magic of the free market and competition did not step them 4. Special regulations about not blocking third party apps could have stopped them. This issue is always framed as some lofty philosophical debate about "free market vs. regulation!!!" by companies. In reality its perfectly clear that neither extreme works or even exists currently, just a precarious balance we as consumers have to protect that companies are always trying to erode.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      It's fine if you think the government should intervene aggressively for consumer protection. But it's inaccurate to suggest that cellular is somehow unusual in the level of market concentration as the reason for such regulations.
      - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
        Market power/concentration can be both common/usual relative to some context (eg the US) and yet too high to maximize consumer welfare, or too high relative to another context.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >Sadly they're entrenched monopolies Let's not forget, the monopoly exists because the FCC auctioned off the available frequency bands to these companies. Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. We could have had a spread spectrum solution with open airwaves. We have with unlicensed WiFi frequency bands, and there's plenty of competition in that space. Well, at least until the FCC tries to meddle in that too. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/ https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-l... "Light touch"? Yes. How about "no touch" or just "get out". Everything the FCC touches turns to a pile of ash and ruin. Where's my fiber optics? It's almost 2018. I live in a metro area with more than 1M people. Where's my fiber optics? This is ridiculous.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. Not sure what you mean here. T-Mobile's efforts in the last few years (the "uncarrier" marketing push, among other things), has cemented their position as the "third competitor" already (in part due to the failed AT&T buyout), and AT&T and Verizon have been forced to offer better plans to compete with T-Mo's offerings. I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time.
    - danjoc 9y ago
      >Not sure what you mean here. What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not really a close third. If competition is a problem, then ideally, the government would either allow a real third competitor, or in absence of that, break up the bigger two. They blocked the former and did not pursue the latter. >I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time. Spectrum. Combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
mikestew 9y ago
Oh, I haven't forgotten. It's one of the multitude of reasons I left for T-Mobile.
- urda 9y ago
  Interesting, you swapped one telecom who violates net neutrality for yet another telecom who violates net neutrality. [1] [2] I wouldn't be tooting that horn too loudly. We need legal protections, not good feelings from these carriers in their positions of power. [1] https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unlimited-plan-is-a-blatant-violation-of-net-neutrality https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unli... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mobile-of-violating-net-neutrality-with-throttled-video/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mo...
  - nderzero 9y ago
    Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now when they could have left T-mobile before your precious footnotes occurred. Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse.
    - urda 9y ago
      > Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now Crazy thought, but perhaps I based it on their comment that simply said: > It's one of the multitude of reasons I left for T-Mobile. Which, in most educated circles, means they are still with T-Mobile. If they weren't I would have expected another note that they moved on to another carrier. But guess what, all the other carriers play the same game so I'm still on the right side here. > Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse. Drop the snark, you know exactly what both comments were going after.
      - nderzero 9y ago
        Likewise, you knew what he meant. They did something unpleasant and he left and your response was "they're all that bad" as if technically minded people aren't aware of that? What were you contributing exactly?
exabrial 9y ago
I think that should be grounds to terminate a contract with the carrier. No doubt if they instantly started bleeding customers because of a stupid decision like this their minds would quickly change.
jjtheblunt 9y ago
only because their network wasn't ready for the traffic?
- qntty 9y ago
  So don't sell unlimited data plans if your networks can't handle a modest increase in data usage?
  - parent5446 9y ago
    Real-time video transmission is perhaps the bulkiest of Internet traffic. Do you have data showing the traffic increase was "modest"?
    - qntty 9y ago
      Yes
      - parent5446 9y ago
        So what you're saying is that your point is invalid.
        qntty 9y ago
        Good one
- ajross 9y ago
  That was the excuse. Their network, absent any major upgrades, was carrying real time video from all sorts of sources within a year. This was a naked money grab to force users into a metered data plan.
- scarface74 9y ago
  At the time you could use third party video calling apps so it wasn't about video traffic. I used Yahoo Chat at the time.
hb3b 9y ago
And no one blamed Apple for giving in to AT&T’s demands for this and for ensuring customers paid extra for a personal hotspot charge.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I sure as hell did...the same people who would bemoan Google failing to stop carriers from handicapping their Android phones in various ways were suspiciously mum about Apple _explicitly_ doing so in a way that IMO was among the worst offenders. The hypocrisy certainly didn't escape me.
ibudiallo 9y ago
3 years ago, timewarner was doing the same thing[1]. They throttled YouTube and then makes the page that explains it disappears from THEIR internet. It doesn't matter what they say about their position, they are in the business of making more money and Net Neutrality means not more money. [1]:http://idiallo.com/blog/timewarner-you-suck http://idiallo.com/blog/timewarner-you-suck
z3ugma 9y ago
We now need to focus on lobbying the FTC, since the FCC has made up its mind. It's clear that with the effective monopolies they have, large telecoms need trade regulations.
userbinator 9y ago
Whenever discussion of this form comes up, I wonder how they can even block "applications" when their traffic is encrypted (never used FaceTime, but I'd hope that one is). They can block destinations, but I suspect this whole net neutrality thing is just going to spur more development in VPNs/tunneling/proxies/steganography/P2P. A lot of ISPs block low ports like 80, 25, and 21, which is arguably in violation of net neutrality, but everyone didn't seem to care... they just used a different port.
topranks 9y ago
They didn't do it via a network-level block though. The function was disabled on the end-device as AT&T had the ability to control the device to that level. So they'll argue it's different thing. Which in fairness it is.
diogenescynic 9y ago
AT&T has been throttling the life out of my internet since Trump was elected. It’s not a coincidence.
egberts1 9y ago
I remember. The ENTIRE Deaf community remembers.

410 points by Deinos 9y ago

I'd forgotten this! The dark ages of iPhone on AT&T. Seems... quant, now, doesn't it? We never will, but it’s very important that we be able to. But we won’t. So let us do it. Because we won’t do it. Which is why we’re spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won’t. But let us. https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184 https://twitter.com/loresjoberg/status/933784794713821184

tech2 9y ago

It's not just Facetime, there's all manner of related stuff. https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio... Each time I see a NN post I'm generally too late and it's been run rampant with defenders of "light touch" regulation... no, just no. If the companies had competition, then, maybe. Sadly they're entrenched monopolies (and more are merging each day, further limiting choice). NN is the way to go.

bentruyman 9y ago
Except in this case (cellular service), there is at least some competition. And FaceTime isn't particularly a good example, as AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place. Competition, at least in this one example, worked.
- dsp1234 9y ago
  AT&T reversed their policy without Net Neutrality rules in place After official complaints lodged with the FCC. Also, this was during the time period of the 2010 open internet order[0] and the 2014 court case[1], where ISPs and the FCC thought that the FCC had the authority to enforce "no blocking" violations. So, saying "without Net Neutrality rules in place" is incorrect. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
  - bentruyman 9y ago
    Sure. And the "no blocking" rule was eventually struck down. My point is there were no existing laws that would have forced AT&T to reverse their decision.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Not necessarily. They faced regulatory issues with some states. The carriers deployed proxy infrastructure to inspect and control traffic and were definately experimenting with limiting apps deemed disruptive in the 2013-2014 timeframe. If you had an app that generated lots of small packets in a short period of time, you’d run into it on some networks.
Feniks 9y ago
Payed shills more like. America is a big country and surprisingly isolated and intellectually lazy so most folks won't even notice what net neutrality is like beyond their borders. Enjoy your Verizon net.
- strictnein 9y ago
  > "Payed shills more like" > "America is ... intellectually lazy" The "people who disagree with me are payed to" viewpoint is one of the most intellectually lazy viewpoints, second only to the idea that those who disagree with you are evil.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
But that's the bigger issue isnt it? That is we keep using bandaids when the root problem is lack of competition. Has anyone heard if Google is considering restarting Fiber? I was always under the impression that they hope the implied competition was enough. It had seemed to be working. But then it was squashed.
- veidr 9y ago
  > But that's the bigger issue isnt it? Yes, but so what? There is no chance we're going to get meaningful competition among Internet providers in the USA. So you can choose an imperfect but helpful solution that exists today, or a perfect theoretical solution that doesn't and won't.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    But it's not a solution to a problem. It's a solution to a symptom. We do this all the time and then wonder why we waste so much time revisiting things. Or. You can "accept" NN in the short term knowing it's going to cause a negative reaction in the market. That tension will build, the market will become more aware, and then demand the problem be addressed and solved. The point is, the current solution being proposed by so many actual keep the powerful status quo intact. They win either way. Is that a win for the rest of us? I think not.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. oh and $66 for the base package cable internet package (for me), way too much.
  - jrnichols 9y ago
    > It is time it is treated as a utility and price regulated like one. Having lived in an area that had Pacific Gas & Electric, who has infrastructure so old and decrepit that it literally exploded and destroyed part of a town, i'm not so sure that I want my internet access being treated like a utility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion also, their amazingly out of control prices, rolling blackouts, etc. Seeing people say that they want the internet treated like a utility kind of scare me.
rayiner 9y ago
Citing market power as a reason for special regulations in cellular, where in almost every major city there are 3-4 completely fungible carriers, makes no sense. Verizon and AT&T have about 1/3 of the market, T-Mobile and Sprint have a little under 1/3, and in any given market there are smaller players like Boost Mobile. That's an entirely normal level of competition for the economy at large. In smart phones, in contrast, Android has 82% of the market, Apple has 18% of the market, and Windows is well under 0.5%. In search engines, Google has about 2/3 of the market, Microsoft has about 1/4, and Yahoo has a bit over 10% (but they use Microsoft's back-end). In soft drinks, Coca Cola has 42%, Pepsi has 27%, and Dr. Pepper Snapple has 17%. In parcel service, UPS has about half the market, FedEx about 30%, and the Postal Service about 15%.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  1. AT&T claimed it has NEVER blocked third party apps when that concern was raised in relation to Net Neutrality. 2. AT&T DID block Facetime, and wanted to allow access only on special plans. 3. The magic of the free market and competition did not step them 4. Special regulations about not blocking third party apps could have stopped them. This issue is always framed as some lofty philosophical debate about "free market vs. regulation!!!" by companies. In reality its perfectly clear that neither extreme works or even exists currently, just a precarious balance we as consumers have to protect that companies are always trying to erode.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It's fine if you think the government should intervene aggressively for consumer protection. But it's inaccurate to suggest that cellular is somehow unusual in the level of market concentration as the reason for such regulations.
    - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
      Market power/concentration can be both common/usual relative to some context (eg the US) and yet too high to maximize consumer welfare, or too high relative to another context.
danjoc 9y ago
>Sadly they're entrenched monopolies Let's not forget, the monopoly exists because the FCC auctioned off the available frequency bands to these companies. Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. We could have had a spread spectrum solution with open airwaves. We have with unlicensed WiFi frequency bands, and there's plenty of competition in that space. Well, at least until the FCC tries to meddle in that too. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-locking-routers/ https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-manufacturers-l... "Light touch"? Yes. How about "no touch" or just "get out". Everything the FCC touches turns to a pile of ash and ruin. Where's my fiber optics? It's almost 2018. I live in a metro area with more than 1M people. Where's my fiber optics? This is ridiculous.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > Let's not forget the US Govt blocked an attempted Sprint + T-Mobile merger to produce a viable third competitor in the space, ironically, in the name of competition. Not sure what you mean here. T-Mobile's efforts in the last few years (the "uncarrier" marketing push, among other things), has cemented their position as the "third competitor" already (in part due to the failed AT&T buyout), and AT&T and Verizon have been forced to offer better plans to compete with T-Mo's offerings. I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >Not sure what you mean here. What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not really a close third. If competition is a problem, then ideally, the government would either allow a real third competitor, or in absence of that, break up the bigger two. They blocked the former and did not pursue the latter. >I don't see how a Sprint merger is necessary or useful to the competitive landscape at this time. Spectrum. Combined, they would be a force to be reckoned with.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

mikestew 9y ago

Oh, I haven't forgotten. It's one of the multitude of reasons I left for T-Mobile.

urda 9y ago
Interesting, you swapped one telecom who violates net neutrality for yet another telecom who violates net neutrality. [1] [2] I wouldn't be tooting that horn too loudly. We need legal protections, not good feelings from these carriers in their positions of power. [1] https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unlimited-plan-is-a-blatant-violation-of-net-neutrality https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unli... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mobile-of-violating-net-neutrality-with-throttled-video/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mo...
- nderzero 9y ago
  Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now when they could have left T-mobile before your precious footnotes occurred. Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse.
  - urda 9y ago
    > Interesting, you presume to know what network they are using now Crazy thought, but perhaps I based it on their comment that simply said: > It's one of the multitude of reasons I left for T-Mobile. Which, in most educated circles, means they are still with T-Mobile. If they weren't I would have expected another note that they moved on to another carrier. But guess what, all the other carriers play the same game so I'm still on the right side here. > Good try at a gotcha though, really raising the discourse. Drop the snark, you know exactly what both comments were going after.
    - nderzero 9y ago
      Likewise, you knew what he meant. They did something unpleasant and he left and your response was "they're all that bad" as if technically minded people aren't aware of that? What were you contributing exactly?

exabrial 9y ago

I think that should be grounds to terminate a contract with the carrier. No doubt if they instantly started bleeding customers because of a stupid decision like this their minds would quickly change.

jjtheblunt 9y ago

only because their network wasn't ready for the traffic?

qntty 9y ago
So don't sell unlimited data plans if your networks can't handle a modest increase in data usage?
- parent5446 9y ago
  Real-time video transmission is perhaps the bulkiest of Internet traffic. Do you have data showing the traffic increase was "modest"?
  - qntty 9y ago
    Yes
    - parent5446 9y ago
      So what you're saying is that your point is invalid.
      - qntty 9y ago
        Good one
ajross 9y ago
That was the excuse. Their network, absent any major upgrades, was carrying real time video from all sorts of sources within a year. This was a naked money grab to force users into a metered data plan.
scarface74 9y ago
At the time you could use third party video calling apps so it wasn't about video traffic. I used Yahoo Chat at the time.

hb3b 9y ago

And no one blamed Apple for giving in to AT&T’s demands for this and for ensuring customers paid extra for a personal hotspot charge.

wutbrodo 9y ago
I sure as hell did...the same people who would bemoan Google failing to stop carriers from handicapping their Android phones in various ways were suspiciously mum about Apple _explicitly_ doing so in a way that IMO was among the worst offenders. The hypocrisy certainly didn't escape me.

ibudiallo 9y ago

3 years ago, timewarner was doing the same thing[1]. They throttled YouTube and then makes the page that explains it disappears from THEIR internet. It doesn't matter what they say about their position, they are in the business of making more money and Net Neutrality means not more money. [1]:http://idiallo.com/blog/timewarner-you-suck http://idiallo.com/blog/timewarner-you-suck

z3ugma 9y ago

We now need to focus on lobbying the FTC, since the FCC has made up its mind. It's clear that with the effective monopolies they have, large telecoms need trade regulations.

userbinator 9y ago

Whenever discussion of this form comes up, I wonder how they can even block "applications" when their traffic is encrypted (never used FaceTime, but I'd hope that one is). They can block destinations, but I suspect this whole net neutrality thing is just going to spur more development in VPNs/tunneling/proxies/steganography/P2P. A lot of ISPs block low ports like 80, 25, and 21, which is arguably in violation of net neutrality, but everyone didn't seem to care... they just used a different port.

topranks 9y ago

They didn't do it via a network-level block though. The function was disabled on the end-device as AT&T had the ability to control the device to that level. So they'll argue it's different thing. Which in fairness it is.

diogenescynic 9y ago

AT&T has been throttling the life out of my internet since Trump was elected. It’s not a coincidence.

egberts1 9y ago

I remember. The ENTIRE Deaf community remembers.