So you're saying that I HAVE to pay $30 a month for Data for my iPhone, and yet I can't use my data the way I want?!? News in a nutshell- the iPhone Slingplayer app won't work over your 3G data plan, just over wifi when connected to a wireless access point. Link AT&T issues official statement on SlingPlayer's 3G blackout for iPhone by Chris Ziegler, posted May 12th 2009 at 7:20PM Sweating bullets over network saturation, are we? AT&T's obviously taking a good helping of heat today over Sling's rock-and-a-hard-place decision to remove 3G streaming capability from its SlingPlayer Mobile build for the iPhone -- a decision that gets at the very heart of several hot-button issues plaguing AT&T and Apple alike -- and the carrier understandably felt the need to release an official statement to address the situation. Unfortunately, it prompts as many questions as it offers answers. It starts off simply enough, stating that apps like SlingPlayer could create congestion on the network that denies services to others -- and while a truly trivial number of users own Slingboxes, we understand what they're getting at; no amount of tweaking or fudging of a modern HSPA network can withstand the traffic onslaught generated by wildly popular streaming video services. Here's where we start to lose our way, though. AT&T cites a portion of its wireless terms and conditions -- "Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service" -- and says that it considers "smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs." Sure, guys, but a RAZR shares 85 percent of its DNA with a PC and an iPhone shares 87 percent, so we're splitting hairs here -- never mind the fact that you've inexplicably labeled the S60-powered Nokia 6650 (which can run SlingPlayer, by the by) a dumbphone simply because it lacks a QWERTY keyboard. Furthermore, AT&T specifically points out that it doesn't restrict users from downloading streaming videos, which is the very problem SlingPlayer generates -- the upload from the user's TV on the far end is the ISP's concern, not AT&T's, and we figure that the network pressure generated by the download is roughly equivalent to watching a whole bunch of YouTube videos. It doesn't add up. Next, the carrier uses the opportunity to pimp its extensive WiFi network and says that you're welcome to use SlingPlayer there; that's all well and good, and yes, it's cool that AT&T gives iPhone users free access to the hotspots, but it's no substitute for the mobility of streaming Sling over the WWAN, which works really freaking well -- just ask countless BlackBerry, S60, WinMo, and Palm users who are using SlingPlayer as you read this. The only material difference is that they can't be touched -- not as easily, at least, as iPhone users who are bound to the whim of Apple's singular, all-powerful clearinghouse. Look, AT&T, just tell it like it is: you're saying your 3G network would fold like a cheap suit if these apps took off. Thing is, it already has in some places -- trust us, we've experienced it firsthand -- so let's make sure the blame gets distributed appropriately here. "Slingbox, which would use large amounts of wireless network capacity, could create congestion and potentially prevent other customers from using the network. The application does not run on our 3G wireless network. Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service. We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs. That said, we don't restrict users from going to a Web site that lets them view videos. But what our terms and conditions prohibit is the transferring, or slinging, of a TV signal to their personal computer or smartphone. The Slingbox application for the iPhone runs on WiFi. That's good news for AT&T's iPhone 3G customers, who get free WiFi access at our 20,000 owned and operated hot spots in the U.S., including Starbucks, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, hotels, and airports. AT&T is the industry leader in WiFi."
Typical.. man typical. I'm actually mad at the $30.. that's a complete rip off. I wasn't planning on getting the app anyway, but the 3G part doesn't sting me. I'm always around WiFi, so it's not really a big deal for me.
Now that it's hobbled, the price will determine if I get it or not. Above $10, forget it. What really gets me is that I stream the hell out of youtube, and I've been using slingplayer for years on my Tilt on the same network. If there's a class-action suit I'll certainly pile on.
Its unrealistic to expect to stream slingbox stuff to your phone over 3G.... I side with ATT on this one
How is any different than sending video's from your phone? ATT sucks. They have always been about image and perception than actually delivering a quality product.
Uh, so what about the AT&T WinMo and Blackberry users who are allowed to use Slingbox over 3G today? Do they just not count or something? I use Orb on my iPhone, and it allows you to watch TV over 3G.
So what is their reasoning then? I think it sucks that you can't purchase iTunes songs over 3G. This doesn't make sense otherwise. Unless iPhone ATT users outnumber the others or something. Or iPhone bandwidth consumption for its vid player would be larger than a BB or other phone user. Otherwise something doesn't add up.
ahh the iphone. for adults that never quite grew up and teenagers that just want to "cool". seriously. buy yourself a middle of the line phone and if you want to have 5000 apps on your damn phone, go get a pocket pc/pda. it's not that hard, lol.
But it's Apple. Having an Apple product means you're hip, cool, and modern. It also comes with an aura of smugness. On topic, streaming constant TV would be a bit taxing on the bandwidth issue, but it's not like everybody has a Slingbox. High price, low target audience, yet some suckers will still pay the fee and service providers win.
That is true. I haven't had the money to buy an iphone, ipod, or macbook yet. It saddens me very much.
Is that so? I was considering a netbook this summer, preferably one of the 8.9" ones. I was looking at a few Asus netbooks offhand as I didn't wanna break the bank for them, but $400 seems like a reasonable cutoff.
The mini isn't a laptop, its a micro computer that you need a monitor and keyboard for. Still, it's a mac. I bought one as a media PC last weekend in my quest to kill Pay Tv. Pretty nice for the price.
Another Article Apple and AT&T playing favorites with the App Store? by Erica Ogg and Marguerite Reardon Correction at 7:20 a.m. PDT: Mark Siegel is a spokesman for AT&T mobility. Just under a year since first announced, the SlingPlayer Mobile application is finally available for the iPhone. But compared with the capabilities of the same application available on other smartphone platforms, the iPhone version of SlingPlayer is curiously handicapped. The version set to arrive Wednesday costs $30, and can stream a TV signal from a set connected to a Slingbox to the iPhone. But this version is available using Wi-Fi only. It's notable because the beta version of the application was demonstrated at CES using the iPhone's 3G connection. So why is it turned off in the official release? Recent changes in the terms of service that comes with AT&T's iPhone wireless service may offer some clues. Apple rejected the original version of the application Sling submitted to the App Store that required use of the phone's 3G service, according to Sling. It was subsequently approved when it was modified so that it will just use local Wi-Fi hot spots. Apple's exact reason for rejecting it isn't clear. There are plenty of video- and audio-streaming applications available today in Apple's App Store, from smaller streaming services like Orb and Last.fm (owned by CNET News publisher CBS Interactive), and heavyweights like MLB.com's At Bat, CBS' TV.com, and YouTube. While Apple has certainly not been shy about exercising its veto power over App Store applications--just ask Trent Reznor, for example--it's unclear why Sling's streaming video service is being treated differently from, say, the YouTube app (owned by Apple-friendly Google), which has been available on the iPhone since the device's launch. Apple did not respond to requests for comment about why only the Wi-Fi version of SlingPlayer was approved. But it appears the rejection also could have been at AT&T's behest. Early in April, AT&T changed its terms of service for wireless customers, saying that redirecting TV video or audio signals--as the SlingPlayer does--was no longer allowed on its network. After a public outcry, AT&T quickly reversed its decision, citing "a mistake." But then last week the company reinstated the ban in its TOS. Then on Friday, AT&T mobility spokesman Mark Siegel went on the Clark Howard radio show and very clearly said that "Slinging"--the process of accessing a TV signal from a Slingbox from a remote computer--was banned on the company's network. Siegel compared using Sling's service over a wireless connection to sending bulk e-mail and spam, activities that he said eat up too much of the network's bandwidth. "You can't use a service called 'Slinging,' where you redirect a wireless TV signal to your phone. We do not allow that type of application on our phones," he said. "It's absolutely cool (technology), but if we allowed these kinds of services, the highway would quickly become clogged." SlingPlayer iPhone SlingPlayer for iPhone (Credit: Screenshot by Erica Ogg/CNET) He confirmed again to CNET News on Tuesday that AT&T believes the SlingPlayer app would take up more bandwidth than it should. To be fair AT&T does have a valid point. Streaming video eats up a lot of bandwidth. Because cellular networks are divided into cells, users in a particular cell share the available bandwidth in that cell or region. So users streaming a lot of high-quality video over the network could potentially eat up all the available bandwidth and degrade service for other subscribers in that cell. But there's a slight disconnect in what AT&T is saying and what it is doing: Other 3G smartphones that operate on AT&T's network can use the SlingPlayer. For example, the SlingPlayer works on several BlackBerry devices, the BlackBerry Bold, BlackBerry Pearl 8120, BlackBerry Curve 8320, and the BlackBerry 8820. Users are able to download the mobile SlingPlayer application directly from the Sling Media Web site onto their phones. Siegel says that AT&T's terms of use are clear when it comes to the SlingPlayer and he suggests that anyone downloading these applications onto a smartphone for use over its 3G network is in violation of the company's terms of use. Bandwidth usage is a legitimate concern when it comes to SlingPlayer. The software is designed to provide the best quality video experience based on how much bandwidth is available. But Dave Eyler, product manager for mobile at Sling Media, said that the latest version of the SlingPlayer submitted to Apple for the App Store capped the bit rate to ensure it was below Apple's and AT&T's threshold. He said that the application actually uses a little less bandwidth than TV.com's application. "Our latest application, which was submitted for App Store, is under the bit rate that Apple has set for these kinds of applications," he said. "And we are below some of the apps that have already been approved for the App Store." So why won't Apple allow the SlingPlayer for the iPhone to be used over AT&T's network if it doesn't eat up any more bandwidth than other video applications that have already been approved by Apple? That's a good question. Eyler said the explanation given to his team was that AT&T doesn't allow video services that redirect TV signals onto their network. But interestingly, OrbLive, which is offered on the App Store, also redirects TV signals onto the iPhone. The application is designed to allow people to stream media from a PC to the iPhone wirelessly. And the company's web site explicitly states that live TV can be streamed over 3G, Wi-Fi, or the slower 2.5G EDGE network, if someone is using a TV tuner card in their PC. This essentially "turns your iPhone or iPod touch into an on-demand media center," the site says. OrbLive's application sounds very similar to what the SlingPlayer does. Eyler admits the situation is confusing and a bit frustrating. But he says the company isn't getting too bent out of shape about things. "We think our app is awesome," he said. "There is a lot of Wi-Fi out there. Of course, we'd like it to be available on a 3G network, and that's ultimately our goal. But we don't have any more details about the decision making process." Update 11:02 a.m. PDT: This still leaves the question of why. Sling was bought by EchoStar, owners of Dish Network, in 2007. Sling sells standalone Slingboxes, but Dish Network now also offers integrated Slingbox capabilities in its combination satellite TV/DVR boxes. That means AT&T and Echostar both sell TV subscription services with DVR capabilities. But Dish's product could be considered by some consumers to be superior given the Sling capability. Handicapping that capability on the iPhone would cut into that perceived superiority. It's unclear if there's a direct connection there, but it is worth noting.
http://gizmodo.com/5253135/network-use-not-the-only-reason-for-att-to-hate-3g-iphone-slingplayer Everyone may think that AT&T threw their fat around and made Apple lock down the SlingPlayer iPhone app because of AT&T's lousy network, but a tipster tells us there's a more nefarious reason at play. While it is true that AT&T's already clogged 3G pipes would burst into unusability if tons of people were watching Sling on their iPhones, that's only half the picture. The other half comes from the fact that AT&T's working on their OWN application code-named i-Verse, one that performs a similar task as SlingPlayer Mobile. AT&T's "i-Verse" app works with their U-Verse TV solution that can either load DVR'ed shows from your U-Verse recorder into your iPhone at home, or stream shows across the net over their 3G network. The app was demoed last year behind closed doors and based on the reception then, prompted AT&T to go into full-time development on it. We understand that AT&T doesn't want to lose man-hours sunk into development into the app (and that it's their network), but using their position to strong-arm the shut-down of another app just so it doesn't have the competition? That's some lousy, lousy sauce that's more similar than not to net neutrality issues—that is, if our tipster is right.
