
AT&T wants you to forget that it blocked FaceTime over cellular in 2012 - Deinos
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/att-says-it-never-blocked-apps-fails-to-mention-how-it-blocked-facetime/
======
tech2
It's not just Facetime, there's all manner of related stuff.
[https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-
vio...](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-
brief-history)

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.

~~~
danjoc
>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-l...](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/way-go-fcc-now-
manufacturers-locking-routers/)

"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
> 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
>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.

~~~
takeda
> What I mean is T-Mobile + Sprint is still third by customer count. And not
> really a close third.

I don't know where you live, but in LA County I have as good (if not better)
reception than Verizon.

I switched to T-Mobile (I think in 2013 or 2012) from Verizon and never looked
back, in additional to good coverage the bill is always the same amount (it
doesn't suspiciously grow month over month), they don't seem to make
"mistakes" with my bill that cost me more, don't charge me if I go over quota
(just slow down the access) and comes with free perks such as free texting and
data even when traveling internationally.

The T-Mobile is actually considered a shitty (as treating consumers badly)
service in Europe so I'm very glad that at least for now we do have
competition and if T-Mobile will become too big, at least there might be a
chance for Sprint to grow as well.

In my opinion Sprint right now is where T-Mobile was 5 years ago.

~~~
danjoc
>In my opinion Sprint right now is where T-Mobile was 5 years ago.

I send >30K SMS per day to the continental US and a large percentage of those
receive replies. With the replies, I get carrier info.

For the entire US last week,

'Verizon','0.48' 'AT&T','0.31' 'T-Mobile','0.10' 'Sprint','0.09'
'Other','0.02'

For the entire US one week starting 5 years ago

'Verizon','0.46' 'AT&T','0.33' 'Sprint','0.08' 'Other','0.07'
'T-Mobile','0.06'

T-Mobile hasn't hurt Sprint. Sprint is basically in the same spot it was 5
years ago. AT&T and Verizon are also largely unchanged. The only action is in
T-Mo eating up subscribers from the small carriers like cricket and metropcs.

T-Mo has eliminated all the smaller competition. The US gov did not
create/preserve competition by blocking a Sprint+T-Mobile merger. Neither
Sprint nor T-Mo alone are mounting a serious challenge to the big two.

------
basseq
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)

------
ibudiallo
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)

------
hb3b
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
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.

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

~~~
urda
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-
unli...](https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234186-t-mobiles-new-unlimited-
plan-is-a-blatant-violation-of-net-neutrality)

[2] [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-
mo...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mobile-of-
violating-net-neutrality-with-throttled-video/)

~~~
getsugablitz1
I don't think he said at any point that T-Mobile was perfect, just that they
didn't screw him over as hard as AT&T, your response seems presumptuous and
holier-than-thou.

~~~
urda
The OP said they had not forgotten AT&T violated net neutrality, and then used
that as one of the points for moving to T-Mobile _which also violated net
neutrality_.

Either OP didn't know (which is fine) or didn't care but wanted to try and
make a comment out of it (which isn't good).

~~~
getsugablitz1
The title of the article is that AT&T wants you to forget that it blocked
FaceTime. OP responded saying he did not forget the blocking of FaceTime and
that along with other reasons prompted him to move to T-Mobile. Nowhere did OP
say he had not forgotten that AT&T violated net neutrality, that is an
assumption you made.

------
userbinator
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.

------
z3ugma
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.

------
topranks
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.

------
exabrial
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.

------
egberts1
I remember. The ENTIRE Deaf community remembers.

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

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

~~~
qntty
So don't sell unlimited data plans if your networks can't handle a modest
increase in data usage?

~~~
parent5446
Real-time video transmission is perhaps the bulkiest of Internet traffic. Do
you have data showing the traffic increase was "modest"?

~~~
qntty
Yes

~~~
parent5446
So what you're saying is that your point is invalid.

~~~
qntty
Good one

