republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
Apple's FaceTime: The Beginning Of The Dumb Pipe Revolution
Your phone company is becoming less important, and that's a good thing.
by Karl Bode Friday 25-Jun-2010 tags: Video · competition · coverage · business · wireless · bandwidth · Op/Ed · telco · VoIP · content · networking · net-neutrality · consumers · caps · AT&T · Verizon · Google · wireless · cellular
Like many people, we spent a good chunk of time this week playing with an iPhone 4, and specifically with Apple FaceTime -- given that poor AT&T coverage meant we were unable to make calls from the area we were in -- about an hour outside of New York City. The video calling feature, which currently only operates over Wi-Fi and not AT&T's 3G network, works as advertised -- and may finally herald the arrival of video chat -- something that's been promised since AT&T hyped the concept at the 1964 world's fair. FaceTime won't change the world, but along with products like Google Voice -- it is signaling a signficant change in the communications ecosystem.

Click for full size
As it stands now the service allows you to initiate a cellular call, then switch to Wi-Fi for FaceTime -- after which AT&T isn't involved in the communications process whatsoever. Of course an iPhone experience that doesn't involve AT&T excites many, like John Gruber -- who groks that voice and video are just data -- and someday, your phone carrier's only real job will be to build networks that don't stink while leaving the calling mechanism itself to others. Notes Gruber:

But surely, someday, there will be a non-phone-carrier wireless networking technology with far greater range than Wi-Fi. FaceTime, I think, is a first step in the direction of a mobile "phone" with no mobile carrier. If and when FaceTime is supported over 3G in addition to Wi-Fi, it’ll be data, not voice — megabytes, not minutes. And immediately, starting today, it’s a step away from tying your iPhone’s “calls” to your carrier’s network.

People are only just starting to see a future where all communications is just data, the concept of a voice minute is completely irrelevant, and carriers themselves face life as little more than a dumb pipe. It's a future that for some reason is difficult for many people to get their head around (note how many people don't understand how Google Voice changes things) -- so familiar we are with the idea that your phone company must also be in control of your choice of network connection device, the apps you run, and the voicemail and calling mechanisms you use.

This future should (and does) terrify mobile carriers, given that under a truly open network model they not only lose revenue from the death of voice minutes and SMS -- but since generations living as pampered, government-protected monopolies have left them incapable of substantive innovation or competition -- they very likely won't be the ones making money from content and services, either. Carriers therefore believe that the only recourse if they want to please investors and remain even remotely as powerful as they are today -- is to artificially constrict the pipe and begin charging ridiculous premiums for wireless data.

So while bandwidth gets progressively cheaper and technology like LTE drastically expands available capacity -- that's why AT&T and Verizon have decided to start pricing each wireless byte as if they were bottles of water during the apocalypse. In reality, their only real choice will be to run a top notch network because (despite the dreams of ISP executives of being everything to everyone) that will be their only real purpose, and half-assing network builds to placate myopic investors will no longer be an option.

Products like FaceTime and Google Voice are only the very beginning of a future where your phone company has to stop trying to be everything to everyone -- and start doing its one and only job.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:
glinc

join:2009-04-07
New York, NY

mmmm

"People are only just starting to see a future where all communications is just data, the concept of a voice minute is completely irrelevant"

Perhaps, people should've taken a tour around Asia about 3+yrs ago when they were using video chat and txt msg more than calling.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: mmmm

We're slow learners on this side of the pond.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
said by glinc:

"People are only just starting to see a future where all communications is just data, the concept of a voice minute is completely irrelevant"

Perhaps, people should've taken a tour around Asia about 3+yrs ago when they were using video chat and txt msg more than calling.
Or the AT&T website 3 years ago when they released Video Share?

»www.wireless.att.com/learn/messa···hare.jsp
--
-M
glinc

join:2009-04-07
New York, NY

Re: mmmm

I meant the time when dual camera phones were released in Asia. That video share only uses the front camera.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1

Re: mmmm

Video Share is a service, not a phone, just like Facetime is a service, not a phone.
--
-M
glinc

join:2009-04-07
New York, NY

Re: mmmm

Read my quote and my post again. It was about video chat and txt messaging replacing voice in Asia years ago. You post about at&t video share service, how is that even considered video chat?

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1

Re: mmmm

said by glinc:

Read my quote and my post again. It was about video chat and txt messaging replacing voice in Asia years ago. You post about at&t video share service, how is that even considered video chat?
Because you can chat and send live video? I thought it was pretty obvious.
--
-M

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by glinc:

Perhaps, people should've taken a tour around Asia about 3+yrs ago when they were using video chat and txt msg more than calling.
Exactly!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
And how is it that FaceTime won't change the world, but "note how many people don't understand how Google Voice changes things." ... seems to me they BOTH have and are changing things in their own ways.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Re: mmmm

Skype was the original, IMHO, allowing cheap or free voip, and at least from a pc, allowing free video conferencing.
dlewis23

join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
said by glinc:

"People are only just starting to see a future where all communications is just data, the concept of a voice minute is completely irrelevant"

Perhaps, people should've taken a tour around Asia about 3+yrs ago when they were using video chat and txt msg more than calling.
Yes the Asian phones have had video chat for a while. Those asian phones have had a lot of features before the US and even european phones.

Thats partly because a good amount of people in countries like Japan only use a cell phone so they needed features like video chat and other things in there phone.

But those Japanese phones are so overly complex so many people didn't really like using them. And it really shows how much people in Japan want a easy to use phone with how popular the iPhone is in Japan.

It doesn't really matter now that some phones have had the feature before. It matters now that a phone that everyone can use that has video chat is going to be everywhere. And since Apple says they are going to make FaceTime a standard hopefully other phones will start to use it so anyone no matter what phone you have can do video chat.

jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN

Re: mmmm

The iPhone is popular in Japan? I remember reading an article that indicated the total opposite. It stated sales in the Japan market were not performing as expected because the phone lacks a lot of features that Japanese have grown accustomed to like paying items with their phones, etc.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Engineer * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *
iSEPIC

join:2001-04-17
Las Vegas, NV

Re: mmmm

I think It was, then wasn't, then was again as of early 2010 (if I remember right).

Some info: »www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0···e3-.html

I think it really started to hit off in Feb 2010-present. I'm not sure how unhappy those who bought the 3gs earlier in the year are now that the 4 just came out - but there were a lot of people buying them up then, not sure about the June #s. But anyway, sometimes you don't need or want a swiss army knife type of phone to filet a fish, sometimes a simple knife will work. I mean, my analogy doesn't always stand for all the possible examples here, of course, there are TONS of other phones they will keep and not ever change, but there will always be some that do want a change.

Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
said by glinc:

"People are only just starting to see a future where all communications is just data, the concept of a voice minute is completely irrelevant"

Perhaps, people should've taken a tour around Asia about 3+yrs ago when they were using video chat and txt msg more than calling.
damn beat me too it.. I came in here to post the same.. in Japan NTT DoCoMo has been doing video calling over the cell network for YEARS....
--
It's NOT Ni-kon It's NE-KON!




LG is NOT Lifes Good It's Lucky Goldstar!


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by glinc:

"People are only just starting to see a future where all communications is just data, the concept of a voice minute is completely irrelevant"

Perhaps, people should've taken a tour around Asia about 3+yrs ago when they were using video chat and txt msg more than calling.
Yeah my Nokia N80 supposed video calling 4 years ago. It's about time the US manufactures (that manufacture in China) catch up.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.

milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1

Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

So how long will it be before the feature is heavily used for video sex calls?

Anyone have an egg timer?

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

So how long will it be before the feature is heavily used for video sex calls?
Exactly -1 days.

Paolo
Mr. Wireless

join:2004-05-29
canada

Re: Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

ASIA? Come to Canada, just north of the USA Border, we had Video telephony for atleast 3-4 years over cellular. Video Calls over Wifi? thats a step backwards.

dAapssmt2

@cox.net

Re: Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

can you please post a video of just ONE of your calls you did 3 years ago? Or one of your calls you did this year? I hear everyone saying they have been making calls for years, but have yet to get a video of how it works, I'm not trolling you, but I've seen the facetime videos all over now, but can't seem to find any for all the tons of other people who have been doing it for years.
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
I'm waiting for the 3D video phone with haptic feedback on the image

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

Someday your teledildonic dream will come true.

C_Chipperson
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2009-01-17
00000
kudos:3
said by Karl Bode:

So how long will it be before the feature is heavily used for video sex calls?
Exactly -1 days.
LOL

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1
The internet is for porn. PORN PORN PORN.....

verolom

join:2002-03-23
Reston, VA

Re: Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

Hey! that's my line

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1

Re: Face Time? Or Crotch Time?

LOL!

martissimo

join:2001-12-01
Las Vegas, NV
said by milnoc:

So how long will it be before the feature is heavily used for video sex calls?

Anyone have an egg timer?
»www.businessinsider.com/iphone-4···p-2010-6

about that long

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

No problem for carriers

They'll just go the AT&T route of caps and overage fees. Make no mistake...they'll get their money and then some.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: No problem for carriers

So what happens when standards like Wi-Fi evolve to cover huge areas?

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: No problem for carriers

They'll make money on the backhaul, run the hot spots and/or go to the State legislature and get a laws passed that protect their revenues.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

1 edit

Re: No problem for carriers

Sure, but their job will be to provide bandwidth. Not home security systems, awful content, lame Hulu-clone video portals, etc.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: No problem for carriers

said by Karl Bode:

Sure, but their job will be to provide bandwidth. Not home security systems, awful content, lame Hulu-clone video portals, etc.
Checked out how much a T1 costs today? it hasn't changed in 20 years. And consumer tiers have to run over that 1.5mbps. And oversubscription....

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: No problem for carriers

LOL, T1 prices have certainly not stayed the same for more than 10 years.

djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse

Re: No problem for carriers

said by Z80A:

LOL, T1 prices have certainly not stayed the same for more than 10 years.
No, but prices haven't gone down a lot in the last 3-4 years, and the service is looking more and more dated by the second. People are posting speed tests from iPhones with 3+mbps down and over 1.5mbps up. For $300+ per month, businesses ought to be able to move data around much faster than I can on my cell phone. SLA or no SLA.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: No problem for carriers

It isn't always about SLA or no SLA. It's about availability. It's great if you can get cable HSI or fiber, or even DSL, but if you are at 20K cu FT, you are at take it or leave it. And for many small businesses 1.5/1.5 is plenty.
--
"Our goal (was to make) a billion phones Flash-enabled by 2010...We're actually going to get 1 billion Flash-enabled phones by 2009." -Adobe Chief Technology Officer Kevin Lynch in Nov 2008.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Yeah, and instead of being $50 for the pipe plus portal they'll go to $100 for just the pipe and when one goes, like airlines they will all go.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: No problem for carriers

And we'll bail them out because they're tied to our intelligence gathering operations...that part I agree with.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by Karl Bode:

Sure, but their job will be to provide bandwidth. Not home security systems, awful content, lame Hulu-clone video portals, etc.
SAYS WHO... you...?

I'm not sure where these pipe dream attitudes are coming from, but seriously, who exactly is anyone to say WHAT the ISPs job's are? You like so many people forget that they were in the business of content LONG before they provided internet.

The only thing that will dictate what ISPs will eventually be are the consumers. As it stands now, the ISPs will certainly prove themselves un-innovative as its clear. BUT, to say their job will be to provide bandwidth and basically nothing more, as you imply, is not true... never will be.

And to be clear on this, I don't get any of my content FROM my ISP either.. but my point is still valid.

To use the term "awful" is an individual opinion as clearly there are people that DO use that "awful" content..

See 21 replies to this post
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
said by Karl Bode:

So what happens when standards like Wi-Fi evolve to cover huge areas?
Is that before or after we finally get our flying cars?

The progression towards "convergence" continues, and that's a good thing. But what will the FCC have to say about all this? Anyone really think that after decades of control (and massive regulation) over the telecommunications industry, they'll just reliquish their grasp in favor of a lightly regulated wireless VoIP?

That's a lot of FCC bureaucrats that would be facing obsolescence, and I doubt they'd go quietly.
pabster

join:2001-12-09
Waterloo, IA
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

DOH!

I've been saying this for the past year or better now. ALL carriers will be relegated to "dumb pipes" as everything passing their network is just bits -- doesn't matter if it is a voice cellular call, a text message, or data.

AT&T knows this. They're not particularly bright or particularly fast to respond to market changes but the suits are listening on this one. Why do you think the recent switch to a lousy 2GB? At the end of the day, it won't matter. You'll still be forking out $100 or more a month to AT&T or whatever poison you choose -- you don't think they'll accept LESS revenue do you?
Cloneman

join:2002-08-29
Montreal
kudos:2

1 edit

AT&T

I'm so tired of hearing complaints about AT&T.

If you can't make calls, why not switch to 2G/edge for a bit?

Dckarl

@comcast.net

Re: AT&T

Um because I pay a premium relative to tmobile for 3G.

oh_really

@uk.net

(mobile) Video calling? How revolutionary!

Because it wasn't available at all in Europe until the early 2000s, and no doubt Asia was before or alongside that.

I'm waiting for the first fanboys to declare how innovative Apple is for doing something that is quite literally in every (European) 3G phone, and doesn't need WiFi at that.

At least this Facetime thing uses SIP and not some weird Apple proprietary protocol.

RiseAbove
Premium
join:2004-01-30

Re: (mobile) Video calling? How revolutionary!

said by oh_really :

Because it wasn't available at all in Europe until the early 2000s, and no doubt Asia was before or alongside that.

I'm waiting for the first fanboys to declare how innovative Apple is for doing something that is quite literally in every (European) 3G phone, and doesn't need WiFi at that.

At least this Facetime thing uses SIP and not some weird Apple proprietary protocol.
I imagine they are using SIP because Ichat on OS X uses that for video conferencing so they just probably ripped the code and ported it to the iphone.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable

I used the AT&T PicturePhone at the 1964 World's Fair

I was there about 11am one morning and when the demonstrator asked for volunteers I jumped up there. I talked to some woman at Disneyland in California. (The World's Fair was in Flushing, NY, where Shea Stadium now sits.)

The image was maybe 2x3 inches at most, but the quality wasn't bad. It was kind of cool.

Here's a link that shows the picturephone at the World's Fair (scroll down a bit).
zolcos

join:2010-05-19
Houghton, MI

1 edit

Privacy

When voice calls become nothing more than data handled by third party software, it will open the door to widespread end-to-end strong encryption, making our communications wiretap-proof.
The problem, of course, is that without an open standard, this only works if everyone uses the same call-handling service -- after all, once your conversation touches POTS, you're screwed. And any legislated standard would include a backdoor.
macman4hire

join:2009-03-30
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Re: Privacy

And that my friend is why open source projects exist.

DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
i couldnt imagine doing voip even over the air without vpn, or ssl.

e_dub
franknbeans
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-12
kickin ass
kudos:2

EVO does it...

on the Sprint 3g/4g network, why doesn't/can't at&t? Is it because they have more users or a really bad network?
iSEPIC

join:2001-04-17
Las Vegas, NV

not exactly true

"...the service allows you to initiate a cellular call, then switch to Wi-Fi for FaceTime -- after which AT&T isn't involved in the communications process whatsoever..."

This isn't exactly true. You can initiate a FacteTime call w/o even using the cellular network at all. Just go into the contact list, find the person's entry, and click on FaceTime button. The only connection needed (on both ends) is wifi. I also tested with both parties on the same wifi network, and turned off the mobem - calls still were going - so they only need the connectivity to the internet to setup the call, not after (if you're on the same wifi). Hopefully they will include all of this in the iPod Touch, then all we'll need is a mifi and make voip calls and get rid of the voice part of the bill altogether except for emergencies.
NetKrazy

join:2007-11-29
Littleton, CO

Is it the begining or just another step that leads somewhere

Personally, I've always found that the notion of video calling and video conferencing was a good idea. Allowing for better and stronger interaction in a persons communications either personal or business. But still there has always been something that's missing that takes the service from being a revolution to being just another 'program'. What's the the thing that holds it back?

Universal standards....
That's the one thing that always seems to get in the way of video conferencing and video chatting and video conversations in general. AIM, MSN, YAHOO, Google, Skype, and this all can do great for audio and video conferencing but the applications are never universally linked. You need another application that might speak 1 or more protocol, coupled with accounts on each protocol. What's facetimes compatibility today with other video conference programs on the computer (I'm not saying mac or PC but anything)?

Imagine what the internet would be hell even your phone service if on Verizon you couldn't call ATT. If each ISP followed a different standard for email, When video converges to a standard agreed protocol and methodology and everyone speaks the same language and I can talk to skype, and or google and or make a video call to a videophone at a persons house that's when the revolution begins. Today it's another niche toy and people will have to maintain multiple applications to video conference on $service which is what make this revolution more of a lovers quarrel than revolution. When the application is just that the application and the protocol is standard we'll have a revolution.

I realise this post was well severely off topic from the article albeit related I just had nothing better to do at the time so felt like writing an opinion.
duranr

join:2006-10-14
Leonia, NJ

Assuming the Telco's don't do something drastic.

I, for one, welcome this change with open arms. I want a dumb/fast pipe, I don't care about Voice Minutes or the number of SMS messages/month.

And one important distinction, I'd prefer that it not be tied to a single device. Just give me high speed access.

And I don't mind being metered, provided that it's a it's a reasonable flat rate. Hint: $10/GB is *NOT* reasonable. And caps should not exist under this model as I am paying for what I use.
chronoss2009
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

G20/G8

they need these things so they aren't face palming into more bazillion dollar spending

cant wait to see the next countries spending and that will be harpers DEAD WEIGHT

nothing will get done and we just wasted 1.49billion kraft dinner purchases for the poor

WHAT is going on is canada fared very well so we cant have that lets make our puppet there over spend
bladec59

join:2007-09-24
Alpharetta, GA

Clearly

This isn't news, but merely a blog...expressing one person's opinion. I'm afraid I'll have to stop visiting this site since it seems all there is anymore is ranting/raving about the lousy state of American free-enterprise and evil big business/big government. Nothing but a pity party for those who want more for less and have not a clue about running a business of any size. This used to be a place where reasonably unbiased information could be found....but alas, no more. Karl has consumed a bit too much of his own KoolAid.
Teamrep

join:2003-01-11
Seattle, WA

The future is smart pipes.. not dumb

"The airwaves will be free when hell freezes over"

However open IP broadband will become,, almost all of the spectrum used around the world is licensed to operators who have exclusive rights to exploit it. Unlicensed spectrum has limits: it is shared with other idiots, therefore, it is limited in power so that there is less interference, and there is only a small amount of it. That makes using unlicensed over longer ranges counter-productive: the longer the range, the more interference there is. Take the 40 MHz of 802.11g/n WiFi spectrum - if the power limits were lifted then every home/business and mobile device would reach into the others space and use up the limited bandwidth.

Licensed operators pay billion$ for a reason: so they can use it over large areas due to the higher power, larger antennas, and sophisticated WWAN technology. WiMAX, CDMA/HSPA, or LTE provide fatter pipes in terms of bandwidth but the licensed operators still hold the rights to the use of the spectrum.

Access is becoming more open but the revolution is more that of the 'smart pipe'... smarter use technology = smarter use of spectrum and smarter use of applications and content. Quality of service, QoS, is smart, not dumb. Its not being used much yet even though its built into WiMAX and LTE because networks have been dumb.

The trend is for networks to become smart, not dumb.. only dummies think that the future is 'dumb pipes'.

Wednesday, 22-May 13:55:00 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.