You are my favorite AT&T Wireless iPhone customer! You are eligible for an upgrade to a newer iPhone. Just sign a new 24 month contract and you are set. Oh, $499 for the iPhone. Call 1-900-UR-SCRWD. Yes, a 900 number. Congrats on being #1!
Randall
AT&T CEO
reply
pizmo pete @ 6th Sep 09:53AM:
Flash *Corp Board Meeting* a few years ago
;) Boys, we got this sweetheart deal with Apple, to sell this phone/music/internet toy all the kids will want. We'll sell millions....wouldn't that tax our network, sir? Na we'll wait and see we will make more profit with using the net we have now.
Fast foward to today.... Boys, we got a problem, our network is overloaded. We need more cell towers and more repeaters. PANIC....they are deployng hundreds of T-1s to meet the demand....Yet these Million dollar EXECS who should of had enough of an MBA degree, to see this coming? Why do we compensate these people in the millions, remind me what are they paid to do? I pay you EXECS,as a shareholder and as a customer, to have VISION of the future, in new trends and FORSIGHT to take RISKS and INVEST in the Corporate FUTURE. Not make a quick buck for the Dividend and hide your stupidity with blame on ignorance of demand and the high cost of the employees. We all should dump the IPHONE and get the same capability's on our phones as we have on our home computers. "Nickle and Dime the customers" has been replaced with "What the market will bear". We can't be treated like stupid consumers.
reply
tango65536 @ 6th Sep 11:55AM:
Off topic
Do any of you users have an iPhone as there only phone on a plan by itself? I am wondering what the ballpark on cost is for a 700 or so minute plan with unlimited text and the iPhone data plan.
I am wondering this because I recently upgraded (if that's what you want to call it) my girlfriend's phone on my ATT plan to an iPhone. I think that my bill should only change for the $30 amount of the data plan since nothing else has changed. My bill seemed a tad bit high over the last two months so I think ATT has something wrong on my plan.
It's a cool phone but I told her I'm not getting an iPhone until at least MMS works with a non-jailbroken phone. I will stick to my Blackjack 2 for the time being. It tethers and does everything else and I've been using it for two years now.
--
Team Discovery
reply
burrzoo @ 6th Sep 12:51PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive
said by WhatNow :
The engineers at the bottom design a good network for an area that would be flexible and easy to upgrade but the spreadsheet managers nickel and dime it to death. The final design ends up being obsolete by the time it is turned up at a single tower. Then they don't want spend any more money because they have already blown their budget for that area.
Their game plan is penny wise and pound foolish.
Oh boy, you hit the nail on the head! Welcome to Project Management 101 for the Corporate world! Typical scenario in my experience.
reply
psx_defector @ 6th Sep 12:56PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by watice :
They actually called iphone users "network hogs" and blamed them for AT&T users dropped calls.
Call a spade a spade.
They ARE network hogs. When you got people streaming audio over the cell network 24x7, that's hoggish. When you got people streaming VIDEO over the cell network 24x7, that's plain hoggish.
The real reason why AT&T doesn't want to open the gates to MMS, tethering and the like is because they KNOW iPhone users are hogs. They waste bandwidth on the stupidest things, slowing everyone else down. The reason why Blackberries and the like have these features is because the target demo is of people who will control themselves on the network.
This doesn't absolve AT&T of their part for upgrading the network, but don't just have them shoulder the entire problem. The user is a large part of this puzzle. Until users control themselves, AT&T won't go nuts upgrading.
reply
Mike00 @ 6th Sep 01:21PM:
Re: Off topic
said by tango65536 :
Do any of you users have an iPhone as there only phone on a plan by itself? I am wondering what the ballpark on cost is for a 700 or so minute plan with unlimited text and the iPhone data plan.
I am wondering this because I recently upgraded (if that's what you want to call it) my girlfriend's phone on my ATT plan to an iPhone. I think that my bill should only change for the $30 amount of the data plan since nothing else has changed. My bill seemed a tad bit high over the last two months so I think ATT has something wrong on my plan.
It's a cool phone but I told her I'm not getting an iPhone until at least MMS works with a non-jailbroken phone. I will stick to my Blackjack 2 for the time being. It tethers and does everything else and I've been using it for two years now.
I have an iPhone 3GS as my only phone on a plan by itself. I think I get a 15% discount from work or school but with the 450 minute plan and 200 text messages my bill comes out to about $85/mo after taxes and if I don't go over on text messages which are an additional .10/each. With my original iPhone at&t only charged me .05 for each additional text message.
For you, If you wanted 900 minutes which is $60, and unlimited texting for $20, then the $30 for the unlimited data plan, add roughly 15% for taxes and all the other fees they throw on there, I'm guessing your bill would be around $125/mo assuming you don't get any discounts and don't go over on minutes.
reply
Mike00 @ 6th Sep 01:29PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expen
So, when at&t finally allows us to have MMS on our iPhones, I wonder if they are going to require Apple to severely compress our pictures and videos before we send it via MMS to conserve bandwidth. If they do that, I wonder how many people would roll their iPhone firmware back to 3.0 and just replace their carrier ipcc file to enable the full functionality of MMS as Apple originally intended. Should be interesting I think.
reply
HappyBunny @ 6th Sep 02:53PM:
Re: CNN Story
Funny, we aren't "network hogs" on T-Mobile. And we dont get dropped calls, either. AT&T was crap when it was Cingular and has been crap before the iPhone ever came out. Just more Apple haters spewing their ignorance.
reply
SLD @ 6th Sep 05:12PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive
Looking for your daily fight?
BTW, the "Bush/Cheney '04" sticker on the back of your Cherokee faded awhile back. You should remove it. Tell your friends, too.
reply
bn1221 @ 6th Sep 05:21PM:
Re: CNN Story
Since ATT caps ur data at 5GB like everyone else why would they care if we are hogging it? At some point we'll get throttled back anyway.
reply
captobie @ 6th Sep 07:38PM:
Re: ATT please, please get it together
Oh please!!! All us non-iPhone AT&T customers can't wait for the day all the iPhone users jump ship.
reply
Z80 @ 6th Sep 09:56PM:
Also, problems aren't everywhere
While certainly some localities have problems, others don't. I always get 1Mb+ and usually 1.5Mb from my 3G iPhone and Sierra Wireless USB 3G modem.
IOW, it isn't a "nationwide, everyone is suffering" problem. It's a cable HSI-esque problem.
reply
anon @ 7th Sep 05:26AM:
Class Action...
So when will a hungry attorney get involved in a class action lawsuit. All they need to do is contact anyone who has ever purchased an iPhone OR is currently an iPhone IMEI customer on the AT&T network. i'm sure they can get millions of dollars into the attorney's pockets and all the iPhone users can get like 2 free iTunes songs :P hehehe.
But seriously... Hit AT&T in the pocket book and they will straighten up.
Everyone should unlock+jailbreak their phones. (If you ever need to go back to the locked/unbroken state... just use itunes to restore your iphone and you are done! No one would ever know.
As for me... i just got the iPhone at the subsidy price, but never used it. I am planning on selling it unlocked and jailbroken on eBay. I've already blocked texting, MMS, Data, and international dialing on my phone (all it is now... is a basic voice phone). But guess what.... I can still drop my sim in an iphone if i like and use it without any worries or fees.
Now if only we can get a grass roots group to form their own dumb pipe ISP or a mobile data ISP and the big carrier's would have a problem (better then a lobbiest would be independant competition backed by the people here at DSLR) :)
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 7th Sep 09:28AM:
Re: CNN Story
said by bn1221 :
Since ATT caps ur data at 5GB like everyone else why would they care if we are hogging it? At some point we'll get throttled back anyway.
Untrue - they only limit laptop connect and tethering at 5GB. Data on handsets is unlimited, period.
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 7th Sep 09:38AM:
Re: CNN Story
said by HappyBunny :
Funny, we aren't "network hogs" on T-Mobile. And we dont get dropped calls, either. AT&T was crap when it was Cingular and has been crap before the iPhone ever came out. Just more Apple haters spewing their ignorance.
Think about that statement -
How many people do you think are iPhone user's on T-Mobile's network? 1? 100? 1000? I can say without any statistics that:
# of iPhone users on T-Mobile # of iPhone users on AT&T's network.
Armed with that equation, your statement really doesn't hold any ground saying that iPhone user's are "network hogs" on T-Mobile's network because I am sure a large percentage are still on AT&T's network. Thus, T-Mobile's network won't be affected (much?) by iPhone users because there isn't enough iPhone users on the network.
If I had to make a guess, I would say the number of iPhone users are less than their total number of smartphone user's. Again concluding that iPhone users really wont make an impact.
reply
Radardan @ 7th Sep 11:39AM:
Re: Pres. Obama killed AT&T here in AZ
Hey
I feel for ya!
The only thing which comes close in my life is the dead zone in my kitchen. How many times have I walked into the kitchen for a drink or snack while on the phone and lost the call.
I guess I can say AT&T is leading to fewer calories, putting a positive face on it.
:{)
reply
axus @ 7th Sep 12:35PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive
Heh, you dug up the truth behind the "most reliable network" claims, eh?
reply
psx_defector @ 7th Sep 03:14PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :said by bn1221 :
Since ATT caps ur data at 5GB like everyone else why would they care if we are hogging it? At some point we'll get throttled back anyway.
Untrue - they only limit laptop connect and tethering at 5GB. Data on handsets is unlimited, period.
Which goes to the point of the hoggish nature of the iPhone users. AT&T didn't envision that someone would be so stupid as to STREAM audio 24x7 on the damn thing, easily sucking down more than 5GB on the network.
Maybe if they implemented a 5GB soft cap on the handset, people would think twice about what they are doing. No more retarded streaming just because they can. And in some people's minds, if they can, that means they have to.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Business users, the target demo of tethering and aircards, know how to control themselves on the network. And if they don't, people like me smite them and back to no connection for them.
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 7th Sep 05:04PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by psx_defector :said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :said by bn1221 :
Since ATT caps ur data at 5GB like everyone else why would they care if we are hogging it? At some point we'll get throttled back anyway.
Untrue - they only limit laptop connect and tethering at 5GB. Data on handsets is unlimited, period.
Which goes to the point of the hoggish nature of the iPhone users. AT&T didn't envision that someone would be so stupid as to STREAM audio 24x7 on the damn thing, easily sucking down more than 5GB on the network.
Maybe if they implemented a 5GB soft cap on the handset, people would think twice about what they are doing. No more retarded streaming just because they can. And in some people's minds, if they can, that means they have to.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Business users, the target demo of tethering and aircards, know how to control themselves on the network. And if they don't, people like me smite them and back to no connection for them.
I think a 5GB "softcap" is a good idea with QOS. If QOS is implemented correct, then everyone can get an equal share of the pie I like to call the network. A CSR claimed QOS was not possible, but I call bullshit on her. Any network that uses TCP/IP can be throttled with QOS.
But, then again, AT&T is greedy and would screw up the QOS implementation and you would get speeds ranging from 100kb/s to 1kb/s.
reply
Nerdtalker @ 7th Sep 05:14PM:
Re: Pres. Obama killed AT&T here in AZ
That's really really annoying. Hopefully things will change when the AT&T femtocell starts hitting shelves.
I'm really lucky in that my primary residence has maximum bars throughout and generally speedtests really well (1.6 megabits/s).
Every time I head up to Phoenix (seems like Tempe and Scottsdale in particular) I notice that the speedtests slow to barely over 300 kilobits/s, perhaps 500 in some places, and just stays there. Sky harbor is particularly awful; just a huge glaring omission on AT&T's part to not bring frequency reuse to the max for one of the US's busiest airports.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.
reply
psx_defector @ 7th Sep 09:13PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :
A CSR claimed QOS was not possible, but I call bullshit on her. Any network that uses TCP/IP can be throttled with QOS.
The problem isn't with the network out, there's plenty o' bandwidth there. It's the handset to the tower. There is only so many times you can multiplex the signal before you start booting people off. There isn't really a QoS for specturm except das boot.
QoS is fine on the IP side, but it's not the actual issue here.
reply
flipicaneze @ 8th Sep 02:19AM:
Please change rates!
I haven't had problems with AT&T. My wife is finishing her first year with the iPhone and I just got mine a month ago. I also have 2 razr phones on for my father and daughter.
I just wish they had better plans. All of my friends (I mean ALL) are on TMobile just chugging away. They don't want to pay the rates of AT&T.
I would love to see a family data plan that includes unlimited texting. I pay $30 for each iPhone on top of the $30 fee for unlimited texting. That's $90 for data alone. Also forgot to mention that I have AT&T Uverse at home which should bring in another discount. (I have no complaints whatsoever with this part of AT&T, however)
reply
Nightfall @ 8th Sep 08:29AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive
said by bsoft :
AT&T made over 12 BILLION dollars in profit last year. And they have the audacity to say that they can't get network upgrades done.
Link? Source?
--
My domain - Nightfall.net
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 8th Sep 12:37PM:
Re: CNN Story
I wonder how much AT&T paid them to air a story with a slant like that.
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 8th Sep 12:59PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by psx_defector :
Call a spade a spade.
They ARE network hogs. When you got people streaming audio over the cell network 24x7, that's hoggish. When you got people streaming VIDEO over the cell network 24x7, that's plain hoggish.
Why is it hoggish to use what you've paid for? That's silly nonsense. What next-- are you going to call people who buy venti lattes at Starbucks hoggish because they drink the whole thing?
said by psx_defector :
The real reason why AT&T doesn't want to open the gates to MMS, tethering and the like is because they KNOW iPhone users are hogs.
Hmmm... And I thought it was because they knew their puny network couldn't handle the load... Or because they were in the process of upgrading their network... Or because they lacked the technology to implement something or other... Is this something to be construed as the latest excuse-of-the-week to be offered by them?
said by psx_defector :
The reason why Blackberries and the like have these features is because the target demo is of people who will control themselves on the network.
And I would have argued that the reason you see some features (like audio streaming and video streaming) on Blackberries and the like is because RIM is trying to compete with the offerings on the iPhone. At least that's what RIM seems to think to be the case.
said by psx_defector :
This doesn't absolve AT&T of their part for upgrading the network, but don't just have them shoulder the entire problem.
It's their network. They had research showing that there would be capacity problems, and chose to ignore it. They decided to enter an exclusive agreement with Apple to sell iPhones. They chose to sell iPhones at the price point they did, and to sell data plans at the price point they did.
If they needed more time to upgrade, they should have sat out on the exclusive deal with Apple... at least for the first round. If they needed more money to upgrade their network, they could have added an extra $50 to each iPhone sold, or an extra $5-$10/month for data plans-- most iPhone owners would have complained about the extra cost but shelled it out anyway in the end.
I don't see how this isn't solely AT&T's fault and problem. They had all the signs, yet chose to ignore them. They had the ability to plan for adequate upgrades, yet chose not to. They had the ability to say "pass" on a deal that their network was clearly incapable of handling, yet they didn't.
You talk about user control quite a bit in your post. How about corporate control? At what point should AT&T not have let their greed for raking in more money while providing substandard service to their users blind their judgment?
Yes, let's call a spade, a spade. AT&T's network has been inadequate for the needs/demands of iPhone users from Day One, yet they have refused to do much of anything about it. They certainly haven't upgraded their network with any zeal, and haven't directed enough resources toward the task.
The only reason AT&T is upgrading their network now is because they fear of losing customers to their competitors next year, when Apple's exclusive deal with them appears to be going away. They realize that without having a stranglehold on the iPhone market they will need to compete with other carriers for the large iPhone market... and they realize that at present they are ill-equipped to do so.
In the end this is less about iPhone users acting hoggish with streaming YouTube videos and listening to Pandora, and more about a dinosaur of a company refusing to spend some of the billions of dollars in profits to upgrade its woeful network. It is less about individual users' expectations, and more about users getting the service (MMS) that's included with just about every other phone on the market. It has less to do with pricing plans, and more to do with not being able to make a phone call at lunch.
AT&T has not just failed, they have failed miserably. Let's not get confused and turn the issue around to make the consumer the bad guy. Let's keep the attention squarely focused where it should be-- on AT&T and the substandard service they have provided to their customers.
--
ObamaCare encourages euthanization of the old, pays for abortions of the almost-new, and rations care for all those in between while raising your taxes to pay for it. Government rationed, government controlled health cartels screw the middle class.
reply
psx_defector @ 8th Sep 02:57PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by NOVA_Guy :
Why is it hoggish to use what you've paid for? That's silly nonsense. What next-- are you going to call people who buy venti lattes at Starbucks hoggish because they drink the whole thing?
If you want to go with that analogy, let's say Starbucks offers three all you can drink coffee cups.
Coffee one is generally bought by individuals who only drink Starbucks every once in a while. Although not the best deal for some individuals, the consumer thinks its good because they can get "all they can drink" at any time.
Coffee two is generally bought by business users. They definitely drink more than the individual, but don't drink a lot after 5:00.
Coffee three is like the iPhone user. They stop at every Starbucks they see from here to Timbuktu, making sure to get a cup, even if they ain't gonna drink it. And, as they queue up with the rest of the iDrink users, they hold up the line for people who also wanted to get a cup of coffee.
The iPhone users are getting what they paid for, yes, but at the cost of others. That's selfish, hoggish, and plain rude.
Hmmm... And I thought it was because they knew their puny network couldn't handle the load... Or because they were in the process of upgrading their network... Or because they lacked the technology to implement something or other... Is this something to be construed as the latest excuse-of-the-week to be offered by them?
By iPhone users, yes, the network cannot handle the load. Reprojected usage by the engineers show that iPhone users are disproportionate on their phones than other users. A RAZR user might take one or two MMS pics, a Blackberry a few more, but I can guarantee you iPhone users will send 100s a day. And they will justify it by saying, "Its all I can use! Screw them!"
And I would have argued that the reason you see some features (like audio streaming and video streaming) on Blackberries and the like is because RIM is trying to compete with the offerings on the iPhone. At least that's what RIM seems to think to be the case.
RIM doesn't compete with the iPhone. RIM doesn't HAVE to compete with the iPhone, it's a different product. If AT&T wished it, they could block those apps. But they don't. They are reasonably assured they won't go nuts on the network.
If suddenly the tweens and the hipsters started buying Blackberries, flooding the network with garbage, you bet they will start restricting them.
It's their network. They had research showing that there would be capacity problems, and chose to ignore it. They decided to enter an exclusive agreement with Apple to sell iPhones. They chose to sell iPhones at the price point they did, and to sell data plans at the price point they did.
The capacity of the network is easily overwhelmed by a small subset of users. No one could have expected users to start streaming data non-stop. If AT&T had their druthers, they would boot every single one of those network leeches for TOS breech.
You talk about user control quite a bit in your post. How about corporate control? At what point should AT&T not have let their greed for raking in more money while providing substandard service to their users blind their judgment?
I fail to see how it's greed that is the driving factor here. Less than 20/20 crystal ball reading perhaps. But I don't think anyone would have expected iPhone users to do such stupid amount of data over the network. They made their decisions on reasonable and prudent usage. The reality turned out to be 24/7/365 full boar.
Yes, let's call a spade, a spade. AT&T's network has been inadequate for the needs/demands of iPhone users from Day One, yet they have refused to do much of anything about it. They certainly haven't upgraded their network with any zeal, and haven't directed enough resources toward the task.
The network is more than adequate for reasonable and prudent users.
The only reason AT&T is upgrading their network now is because they fear of losing customers to their competitors next year, when Apple's exclusive deal with them appears to be going away. They realize that without having a stranglehold on the iPhone market they will need to compete with other carriers for the large iPhone market... and they realize that at present they are ill-equipped to do so.
You say AT&T cannot support their users and think Sprint/Verizon/T-Mobile could? Ha!
Sprint is practically insolvent. T-Mobile has about 1/5th the resources AT&T has in GSM. Verizon might, but they are just as cheap and stingy as AT&T. Don't count on others to suddenly do everything you demand.
In the end this is less about iPhone users acting hoggish with streaming YouTube videos and listening to Pandora, and more about a dinosaur of a company refusing to spend some of the billions of dollars in profits to upgrade its woeful network. It is less about individual users' expectations, and more about users getting the service (MMS) that's included with just about every other phone on the market. It has less to do with pricing plans, and more to do with not being able to make a phone call at lunch.
AT&T has not just failed, they have failed miserably. Let's not get confused and turn the issue around to make the consumer the bad guy. Let's keep the attention squarely focused where it should be-- on AT&T and the substandard service they have provided to their customers.
The user is the end all, be all of this equation. If we were JUST talking about calls, there wouldn't be a problem here. The cell network has enough capacity to handle virtually every call a handset would make within the tower's scope.
There is a physical limit to the tower though. You can only multiplex a signal so much before there is no room. 3G alleviates this some by using another frequency, but it's more susceptible to building issues. So, when that happens, they failover to EDGE. And what does EDGE ride on class? That's right, the standard GSM frequencies. And what happens when someone else is using that frequency? No calls go through!!!!!
Most stuff is user inflicted.
"Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, AT&T dropped my call, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. They suck, wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh."
"Perhaps you need to get out of the old stucco building that is acting like a Farraday cage."
"Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I have to make my calls wherever I am, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh."
There are some things AT&T could be doing to beef up the network, yes, but if people were not such fools with their damn phone, this wouldn't be a problem.
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 8th Sep 05:01PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by psx_defector :
If you want to go with that analogy, let's say Starbucks offers three all you can drink coffee cups.
Coffee one is generally bought by individuals who only drink Starbucks every once in a while. Although not the best deal for some individuals, the consumer thinks its good because they can get "all they can drink" at any time.
Coffee two is generally bought by business users. They definitely drink more than the individual, but don't drink a lot after 5:00.
Coffee three is like the iPhone user. They stop at every Starbucks they see from here to Timbuktu, making sure to get a cup, even if they ain't gonna drink it. And, as they queue up with the rest of the iDrink users, they hold up the line for people who also wanted to get a cup of coffee.
But as long as they are consuming coffee within the agreed upon terms of service they are doing nothing wrong. It is only your opinion that these people are hogs. From others' perspectives (including my own) they are just using what they have paid for.
To further your version of the analogy, it's like Starbucks charging a considerable premium for the right to take as much coffee as one wants. In that situation, there's nothing wrong with a person stopping at every Starbucks on every street corner and getting a large cup.
Starbucks would obviously be selling coffee at a loss to some individuals, and making one heck of a profit off of others. That's the nature of the all-you-can-eat/all-you-can-use pricing model. You see it every day at places like the Golden Corral, right? Everybody goes in, pays one prices, sits down, and eats. Some people have only one plate; others have six.
The business knows that there will be varying usage/consumption when they sell the product/service. It is up to them to price it accordingly and enforce appropriate usage restrictions that are clearly stated to consumers prior to accepting the business.
In this case, AT&T has either (1) failed to properly determine the amount of usage; (2) failed to price things appropriately; or (3) failed to build their network adequately. Note that it could (and in my opinion is) a combination of all of these.
said by psx_defector :
The iPhone users are getting what they paid for, yes, but at the cost of others. That's selfish, hoggish, and plain rude.
So you admit that iPhone users are getting what they paid for. I'm glad you realize that. To me, the argument is over-- case closed-- right here.
Nobody ever said that a cell phone user must take your ability to use your phone into account before using theirs. To think that some have an obligation to not get what they paid for by using their phone to a lesser extent than they care to is incredibly selfish on your part.
It's not iPhone users you should be angry with; it's AT&T. They are the ones that have failed you, and every other network user out there. You should be ashamed of targeting iPhone users as a class for your anger-- that's nothing less than phone bigotry. :D
said by psx_defector :
RIM doesn't compete with the iPhone. RIM doesn't HAVE to compete with the iPhone, it's a different product.
So that would be why RIM released an incredibly iPhone-like product, the Bold? Because they're not competing with the iPhone? RIM is competing with the iPhone, Windows Mobile devices, and a number of other items out there for business, plain and simple.
said by psx_defector :
If AT&T wished it, they could block those apps. But they don't. They are reasonably assured they won't go nuts on the network.
How would you suggest that AT&T block installing those apps on a Windows Mobile device, where users can download and install whatever app they choose from whatever source they choose? The simple answer is that AT&T can't. The only reason they're taking issue with apps like the Slingbox player on the iPhone platform is because they can because most users will only get apps through Apple's App Store.
If AT&T could prevent Blackberry users and Windows Mobile users from taking full advantage of their phone's capabilities, you can bet they would be doing it in a New York minute.
The only easy way to prevent audio/video streaming on those platforms would be to block data on certain ports on their network, causing a ever-escalating cat-and-mouse game between the app developers, consumers, and the wireless company.
said by psx_defector :
If AT&T had their druthers, they would boot every single one of those network leeches for TOS breech.
But you don't see them doing that. Which means that either (1) you're wrong on this issue, or (2) the users are not violating the terms of service. Simply because you don't like something and want to believe a company line doesn't make it true.
said by psx_defector :
I fail to see how it's greed that is the driving factor here.
If you don't see how a company reporting billions of dollars in profits during an all-out recession and blaming poor service on their users (instead of their shabby network) is greed, I'm not sure there's much else I can say to convince you.
Some of the profits they made could have gone into making necessary upgrades to their network to support the increased demand. Instead they went into executives' pockets. And I'd be willing to bet that AT&T wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in network upgrades now if it wasn't for the likelihood that they will lose many of their new subscribers next year, when contracts expire and the iPhone perhaps becomes available elsewhere.
said by psx_defector :
The network is more than adequate for reasonable and prudent users.
If your definition of prudent is not using what one has paid for. AT&T charges $30/month for a data connection. Why should they expect that users will not try to use what they've paid for?
Sure, much of the usage is "because I can" and "because it's convenient". But what else should they expect? Why is it that when people go to do what they're entitled to do with the service they've purchased that suddenly they are villified?
I use my iPhone to stream audio to/from work every day (about a 90 minute commute each way), and also while I'm at work. At lunch I'll sometimes take a break and use Orb Live to stream some video to myself from one of my boxes at home. I've also played around with VoIP apps on my iPhone (SIAX, IIRC). And if AT&T's 3G network had more coverage I would have been streaming DirecTV to myself via Orb on my drive between Washington, DC and St. Louis, MO this summer.
I see nothing wrong with doing any of the above, and more. Consumers are paying these companies for service. I tend to think that iPhone users are a little more tech savvy than the average cell phone user and are used to being "connected" more than others... hence the increased data usage. These people are merely using what they've paid for; don't fault them and drag them down simply because such actions weren't the norm prior to the introduction of the device.
--
ObamaCare encourages euthanization of the old, pays for abortions of the almost-new, and rations care for all those in between while raising your taxes to pay for it. Government rationed, government controlled health cartels screw the middle class.
reply
psx_defector @ 8th Sep 09:36PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by NOVA_Guy :
]That's the nature of the all-you-can-eat/all-you-can-use pricing model. You see it every day at places like the Golden Corral, right? Everybody goes in, pays one prices, sits down, and eats. Some people have only one plate; others have six.
Then you got the fat fucks who grab steamer trays of shrimp, take three bites of 20 different steaks, then eat only the claw in the snow crab cluster.
This is your typical iPhone user. Retarded usage compared to the rest of the world. Notice you don't see this kind of crap by Vodaphone, Orange, O2, Proxim, Belgacom, KPN, or any of the numerous European vendors.
So you admit that iPhone users are getting what they paid for. I'm glad you realize that. To me, the argument is over-- case closed-- right here.
Doesn't make it right, and it IS against the TOS to stream data.
Nobody ever said that a cell phone user must take your ability to use your phone into account before using theirs. To think that some have an obligation to not get what they paid for by using their phone to a lesser extent than they care to is incredibly selfish on your part.
To quote most Republicans in almost everything. "Fuck you, I got mine. Pull yourself up/take as much as you can, because I'll make sure to fuck you over to get mine."
It's not iPhone users you should be angry with; it's AT&T. They are the ones that have failed you, and every other network user out there. You should be ashamed of targeting iPhone users as a class for your anger-- that's nothing less than phone bigotry. :D
AT&T's network works just fine for me. I use a Tilt and a RAZR, I don't expect to stream data 24x7 on my phone. I have proper expectations.
So that would be why RIM released an incredibly iPhone-like product, the Bold? Because they're not competing with the iPhone? RIM is competing with the iPhone, Windows Mobile devices, and a number of other items out there for business, plain and simple.
And if you spent any time working with "business" iPhones versus Blackberries, you would know that's crap. The Bold is a one off to appease stockholders. It's never going to get anywhere with the serious bunch. The iPhone sucks as a business phone.
How would you suggest that AT&T block installing those apps on a Windows Mobile device, where users can download and install whatever app they choose from whatever source they choose?
Custom firmware to prevent 3rd party apps to be installed. Easy as pie.
But you don't see them doing that. Which means that either (1) you're wrong on this issue, or (2) the users are not violating the terms of service. Simply because you don't like something and want to believe a company line doesn't make it true.
I can login to a tower and see tons of handset chatter. Guess what the IMEI of most of them phones are?
If your definition of prudent is not using what one has paid for. AT&T charges $30/month for a data connection. Why should they expect that users will not try to use what they've paid for?
Because that's just absolutely asinine. "Fuck you, I'm getting mine" is not a way of life. Using it full boar is not "trying" to use what they paid for. It's leeching.
Sure, much of the usage is "because I can" and "because it's convenient". But what else should they expect? Why is it that when people go to do what they're entitled to do with the service they've purchased that suddenly they are villified?
I would like you to meet a friend, Bernie Madoff. He thought he should get as much money as he could because he could. Screw everyone else.
These people are merely using what they've paid for
To the detriment of others.
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 9th Sep 05:34PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by psx_defector :said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :
A CSR claimed QOS was not possible, but I call bullshit on her. Any network that uses TCP/IP can be throttled with QOS.
The problem isn't with the network out, there's plenty o' bandwidth there. It's the handset to the tower. There is only so many times you can multiplex the signal before you start booting people off. There isn't really a QoS for specturm except das boot.
QoS is fine on the IP side, but it's not the actual issue here.
I guess I am not understanding the problem. My handset has a gateway set to a specific server and a private IP, which AT&T should have a table of IP->Customer relations. With that one could tally bandwidth used by a specific IP addresses and QOS the IP address if it hits a specific bandwidth limit. But, I suspect that AT&T isn't keeping track of who has what IP.
I guess I can see that only X handsets can connect to a tower, BUT if QOS was implemented it would be a deterant to get people off the celluar network. Would you be pounding away at the network at 1KB/s? I wouldn't, I would switch to wifi thus freeing up a connection for a non hogging user. Would you not agree?
reply
psx_defector @ 9th Sep 10:58PM:
Re: CNN Story
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :
I guess I am not understanding the problem. My handset has a gateway set to a specific server and a private IP, which AT&T should have a table of IP->Customer relations. With that one could tally bandwidth used by a specific IP addresses and QOS the IP address if it hits a specific bandwidth limit. But, I suspect that AT&T isn't keeping track of who has what IP.
AT&T knows who has what IP. You can QoS layer 3 till the cows come home. It's the layer 1/2 that is the problem. Finite pipe is finite.
I guess I can see that only X handsets can connect to a tower, BUT if QOS was implemented it would be a deterant to get people off the celluar network. Would you be pounding away at the network at 1KB/s? I wouldn't, I would switch to wifi thus freeing up a connection for a non hogging user. Would you not agree?
Think of it like QAM. A set of frequencies are dedicated to internet traffic. As more people get on, the signal is split up more and more for more users. But the frequency is finite.
QoS would make it unbearable for the user, but wouldn't stop the frequency from being saturated. Instead, most would probably just keep hammering it.
reply