AT&T's 'Blogger Guy' Faces Public Backlash - Customers apparently not accepting AT&T's apology
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

AT&T's 'Blogger Guy' Faces Public Backlash
Customers apparently not accepting AT&T's apology
05:56PM Friday Sep 04 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: competition · business · wireless · alternatives · trouble · networking · consumers · Cingular Wireless
AT&T's new self-proclaimed "blogger guy" Seth Bloom has been tasked with damage control in the face of AT&T's recent wireless network congestion PR problems. While Bloom put a welcome human face on a company that's traditionally seen as anything but during the iPhone 3GS launch, he's now being asked to play PR point guard on what's becoming an increasingly volatile public relations problem for AT&T. It's a problem fueled by high prices, poor connectivity, missing functionality, and slow speeds.

As we noted yesterday, AT&T's finally given a September 25 launch date for bringing belated (an understatement) MMS functionality to the iPhone. To accompany AT&T's announcement, the carrier posted a new YouTube video featuring Bloom that insists the carrier is listening to your complaints, with Bloom repeating the company's now familiar statement that they're busy upgrading both backhaul and tower capacity. Judging from the YouTube comments, people aren't exactly buying the "apology:"
Click for full size
The iPhone has been out for more than two years now, and I STILL can't tether my iPhone. If I bought a Blackberry today, I can use AT&T to send MMS and tether it to my computer, so why am I penalized for buying the iPhone. If AT&T can't keep up with the traffic, then you should let Apple market the iPhone to other carriers who can. What's the point of upgrading your network for future customers if when that time comes you don't have any customers left?
Says another annoyed user:
AT&T has gained millions of new customers since the introduction of the iPhone, saved billions of advertising and marketing dollars because Apple does their own iPhone ads an promotions, and AT&T has failed to use those profits to provide their customers with services available to every other customer not using an iPhone. You can't use SlingPlayer (available on Blackberry and Windows Mobile phones), Skype, or Google Voice on their network because of their failures.
Says a somewhat less elegant commenter:
Hey AT&T, $#@! YOU, I'm not paying you over $140/month to hear your bullshit excuses for not upgrading your shitty network!
AT&T could have done what most organizations or individuals who don't like criticism do: disable comments or remain mute. Other than that, there's only a few things AT&T can do to mitigate what's becoming an increasingly large PR stink: get the network upgraded as quickly as possible (which they say they're doing), and allow users to start tethering (which they say is coming, though they refuse to say when).

Most of our users clearly understand that upgrading a network is both hard and expensive, but with the kind of quarterly data and SMS revenues AT&T generates, that excuse was always a little thin. It's growing increasingly so for iPhone customers who can't complete calls on major U.S. interstates, or can't retain solid 3G connectivity while walking down fifth avenue.

Related:
  1. Product Spotlight: EV-DO Showdown - Verizon vs. Sprint
  2. Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
  3. AT&T Talks To Us About iPhone Hiccups, Extends Olive Branch
  4. Zer01 Mobile: $70 Unlimited Voice, SMS Data
  5. Nobody's Complaining About Comcast's New Throttling
  6. Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
  7. DSL Vs. Carrier Pigeon
  8. Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
TKJunkMail @ 4th Sep 06:19PM:
Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

And don't forget time consuming. But I don't agree that most customers understand that at all. Most think big network changes can be accomplished in months if not quicker. Few realize that the kind of upgrades being discussed here take years to accomplish.

A legitimate complaint would be that AT&T probably didn't listen to their strategic planning group which I have no doubt foresaw all this growth occurring several years ago. But most corporations don't listen to their strategic planning groups. They listen much more closely to their financial planners.

From AT&T a number they should have designed for and didn't:»www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=1574
Wireless use on our network has grown an average of 350 percent year-over-year for the past two years, and is projected to continue at a rapid pace in 2009 and beyond.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
en102 @ 4th Sep 06:27PM:
That's because...

He's a PR fanboy.
His PR message about being a lot of work doesn't cut it.
Many areas have had 3G 1900 for a while.. AT&T could have saved itself a LOT of work (and most likely cost) by having installed enough capacity at the start. 3G 1900 in L.A. was horribly overloaded from day 1, and literally blew up when 3g iPhone was deployed. 1 year afterward inital 3G deployment, 3G 850 came into existance.
In other markets, such as S.F., NYC, where 3G was deployed at least 2 years earlier, they're just getting around to adding more capacity now.
To add insult to injury, they felt that it was 'ok' to B.S. most users and request that they replace SIM cards, phone exchange. During the first 3 months after iPhone 3G went live in my location, I had my 3G Samsung exchanged under warranty 3x, as I could not hold calls for more than 1 minute. The nearest cell site is less than 1/3 mile. It wouldn't matter if I was standing in front of the cell site, with -36dBm signal...no capacity = dropped calls.
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
en102 @ 4th Sep 06:28PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by TKJunkMail :

But most corporations don't listen to their strategic planning groups. They listen much more closely to their financial planners.
I agree 100%.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
Glenn_Davis @ 4th Sep 07:14PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

Isn't the point that iPhone users are paying for services they do not have? That would make me angry, for sure.
reply
AVonGauss @ 4th Sep 07:32PM:
Silliness...

Its more of a political and corporate disaster than an issue of capacity management. Unless the iPhone is using some new nifty method of doing MMS, which I doubt, AT&T should have just enabled it along with all the other carriers on day one and saved themselves a lot of headache. If there was a "MMS armageddon" during the first couple of days after release of the iPhone 3.0 software, AT&T might have gotten a spanking or two about capacity and then the event would have been over and for the most part forgotten. However, by arbitrarily delaying the availability of MMS they opened the door wide open for intense scrutiny and potential consumer backlash on a variety of fronts that has lasted for several months already and with this much momentum may be very hard to turn around.
reply
Hpower @ 4th Sep 07:32PM:
Can't wait to see video

haha I have to watch this funny video when I get home from work. Can't watch it at work of course. This guy's face is funny in the picture.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually.

reply
MRCUR @ 4th Sep 07:33PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

I think that's the much bigger issues (especially for me). I've had the original iPhone, tried the 3G but returned it because it didn't work at my house (the 3G reliability sucks here, speeds are just OK), had a BB Bold, and now have an iPhone 3GS.

I paid $20/month for unlimited EDGE data and 200 SMS on the original iPhone. I thought that was a very reasonable price. I was then asked to pay $30/month for data-only with the 3G, and both phones thereafter. I understand this - it was in line with most carriers data pricing. I already had unlimited texting by then anyways, so I didn't care.

But, here's the sticking point for me: Those same $30 got me fantastic push email, cellular video access, 3G, and TETHERING on my Bold. Of course MMS also worked... Why the hell as AT&T not gotten their crap together at least with pricing?
reply
MRCUR @ 4th Sep 07:40PM:
Re: Silliness...

Actually, I'm pretty happy AT&T decided to wait and add capacity for MMS before they launched it. It's very easy to get around no MMS on the iPhone through email, which certainly isn't a solution or excuse for AT&T, but it helps.

What I'm not ok with is still paying the same price as everyone else for messaging when I can't get access to MMS. Just like I'm not ok with paying the same data price and getting crappy service and no tethering (I realize the latter isn't supposed to be included but works on BBs).
reply
TKJunkMail @ 4th Sep 07:53PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by MRCUR :

But, here's the sticking point for me: Those same $30 got me fantastic push email, cellular video access, 3G, and TETHERING on my Bold. Of course MMS also worked...Why the hell has AT&T not gotten their crap together at least with pricing?
How about because AT&T made such a lousy deal with what they pay to Apple that they have to charge more for iPhones than what they do with other 3G phones.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
Radardan @ 4th Sep 08:13PM:
Pres. Obama killed AT&T here in AZ

When the President and his entourage stayed near Scottsdale recently, iPhone cell service was essentially broken for several days and then suddenly cleared up when the visit was over.

One AT&T rep admitted there was a problem. All the others I spoke to could not find any issue in their network other than my intermittent "Call Failed" messages.

But I still remember vividly at least 10 years ago when some AT&T rep was claiming in a radio program that customers did not want number portability.

AT&T has a long history of denying reality.
reply
joako @ 4th Sep 08:26PM:
Re: Pres. Obama killed AT&T here in AZ

Oh, of course. Tell the customers "you can't port your number" and then log the number of customers that call regarding portability. "Last quarter 0.3% of calls handled by our call center were related to number portability. 20% of those were customers requesting we allow it" Thus by statistics "customers do not want number portability"

These numbers are totally made up, but you get the idea....
--
PRescott7-2097

reply
BOGBS @ 4th Sep 10:18PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by TKJunkMail :

A legitimate complaint would be that AT&T probably didn't listen to their strategic planning group which I have no doubt foresaw all this growth occurring several years ago. But most corporations don't listen to their strategic planning groups. They listen much more closely to their financial planners.
Thanks for saying this. I wish more people would realize this. I can 100% identify, working in telecommunications myself. There is rarely a balance struck in cost/capacity for future upgrades.

said by MRCUR :

But, here's the sticking point for me: Those same $30 got me fantastic push email, cellular video access, 3G, and TETHERING on my Bold. Of course MMS also worked... Why the hell as AT&T not gotten their crap together at least with pricing?
That $30 did not buy you tethering, as defined by the plan. Tethering isn't technically included on the $30 BIS plan... You have to implement a workaround, or buy a 3rd party application as TetherBerry. If you really paid for tethering, you'd have the BIS+Tethering plan, with a 5GB cap @$60/mo.

This comes from a BlackBerry Bold user, that relies service for Business. I can't chance tethering on a plan that isn't designed for it, that's for sure. Other than that, using workarounds and 3rd party applications is fine for those who use their phones for non-critical, low use, personal customers :)
reply
KrK @ 5th Sep 12:03AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by TKJunkMail :

Few realize that the kind of upgrades being discussed here take years to accomplish.
In my experience, I've always found it's a question of priorities. I've noticed that if the priority is there, then the money is available, and things can happen AMAZINGLY FAST. It's all about the choice and then allocating the resources. Now I'm not saying AT&T should spend the extra to make crews work 24/7 etc but they should have been working on this as a high priority from day one. 2 years on, wow.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply
patcat88 @ 5th Sep 12:17AM:
Re: That's because...

said by en102 :

During the first 3 months after iPhone 3G went live in my location, I had my 3G Samsung exchanged under warranty 3x, as I could not hold calls for more than 1 minute. The nearest cell site is less than 1/3 mile. It wouldn't matter if I was standing in front of the cell site, with -36dBm signal...no capacity = dropped calls.
Canada = Hollywood North
A person who uses the field test screen, I know I'm not the only one.
reply
jhboricua @ 5th Sep 12:43AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

Um, what does that has to do with the lack of functionality on the data plan?
reply
en102 @ 5th Sep 12:54AM:
Re: That's because...

Yup - I've used it on many phones..
Samsung x426/e316 (AT&T Wireless)
NEC 525 (AT&T Wireless)
Siemens S46 (AT&T Wireless)
Motorola V505 (AT&T Wireless)
Samsung ZX-20 (Cingular/AT&T Wireless)
HTC Tilt (AT&T Mobility)

Best I've captured is -17dBm
»members.dslextreme.com/users/scv···t008.jpg
»members.dslextreme.com/users/scv···0-3g.jpg
»members.dslextreme.com/users/can···25_b.jpg
»members.dslextreme.com/users/can···1906.JPG
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
bsoft @ 5th Sep 01:25AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

I'm sick and tired of telcos complaining about capacity issues. Guess what? Building capacity for their customers is part of doing business.

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. The iPhone 3G has been out for over a year, and other 3G phones have been out for far longer. AT&T knew that the iPhone 2G drove higher data usage; they should have had the foresight to realize that the 3G would drive higher data usage as well.

The iPhone is sold all over the world, and yet it only seems to be AT&T that has these massive capacity issues. AT&T has the resources to get it fixed.

We don't have to put up with crappy service just because AT&T is unwilling or unable to provide high quality service.
reply
watice @ 5th Sep 01:58AM:
CNN Story

Anyone see the CNN story this morning about AT&T's network & the iphone? They actually called iphone users "network hogs" and blamed them for AT&T users dropped calls. I was shocked, appalled, and pissed that CNN would get the story twisted like that.

»www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2···call.cnn
reply
cameronsfx @ 5th Sep 02:32AM:
LOL!

I'm AT&T

I'm a MAC. Uhh, what happened to PC?

Oh, I'm the AT&T guy just like you.

No you're not. iTunes doesn't crash on the iPhone.

Well, you see we have capacity issues...

Not prepared huh? You had two years.

You're a jerk like all iPhone users. Data ho..........(lost call)

I can't hear you. WHAT? Oh, I lost another call.

WE'RE FREEING THE IPHONE!

Ding-Ding!

Apple
reply
papi4baby @ 5th Sep 06:24AM:
ATT please, please get it together

First off, yes ATT f up real bad. They should have had this issue fix a long time ago. Is all about money.
I will say the iphone does use a lot of bandwidth, why??? i dunno an apple thing i guess.

I read i think here or somewhere else, the problem was the iphone not compressing down the image/file to send over MMS and that's where the capacity issue came up.

I am willing to bet, that if the iphone goes to Sprint and Verizon and ATT let people get out of their contract most would leave in a heartbeat, i know i would.

Yes ATT, read the above and get your act together.
reply
WhatNow @ 5th Sep 07:50AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

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.
reply
elbm @ 5th Sep 09:00AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

And they are still just listening to the financial guys. VZW is upgrading their transport to the towers by putting in new protected sonet rings, using Fujitsu FW4100s with gigE optical hand offs at all of their towers. ATT has opted to put Transparent Lan Service (TLS) to their towers which is basically ethernet over fiber. No protection, just two fibers vs four, no ability to switch paths, TLS is unregulated, sonet has FCC mandated response times, hits on a sonet ring are transparent to the user, hits on TLS take time to recover...... But tls is far cheaper the ethernet over sonet.
reply
WhatNow @ 5th Sep 09:01AM:
Re: ATT please, please get it together

If enough customers leave that will help solve their problem. When it hits the top management bonus plan they will then blame everybody below them for doing what they were told to do.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 5th Sep 09:37AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by jhboricua :

Um, what does that has to do with the lack of functionality on the data plan?
Nothing. BUt I was answering a pricing question. Can you read?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
jniamehr @ 5th Sep 10:15AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by en102 :

said by TKJunkMail :

But most corporations don't listen to their strategic planning groups. They listen much more closely to their financial planners.
I agree 100%.
Now all of a sudden being fiscally responsible is out of style???? Come on people... A Corporation incorporates many facets.... AT&T is a FOR PROFIT company with THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, and CUSTOMERS. They need to be able to pay the employee the paycheck, the shareholders their dividends, but in regards to the consumer, the power is in their favor, they have the ability to consume or to forgo consumption. I chose to consume an iPhone. I agreed to the TOS and pay my bill. If you don't like it don't buy it.
reply
anon @ 5th Sep 10:44AM:
Network Planning

I worked in SMR network planning and budgeting for both metro back haul and site to MSO - I worked with the planners and modeling folks.

When the previous data revolution started in SMR, the network planners came to my group and said, "how much to support mobile data from 20,000 users North of Boston, at 9.6kbps, 19, etc.?"

We worked on it and gave a figure for time and materials, labor - then they came back with a memo that said, (from network VP), "nahhhhh....the metro PW departments will never use that much data!"

Cut the upgrades budget by 75%, it will take Motorola a long time to upgrade the mobiles. Wrong!

We spent the next 3 years upgrading antenna sites with faster RF data modems and NIU's.

Same thing happened with ATT -
reply
nunya @ 5th Sep 12:48PM:
I don't get it.

Maybe I live in a better area. I love my iPhone and don't have any service problems. The only problem I have with AT&T (and any other wireless company) is their contracts and outrageous prices. BTW, I knew about the contract length and outrageous prices before I signed on - so who's fault is that?

Quite honestly, the productivity increase from having an iPhone probably saves me money compared to doing without.
--
Looks like Reverend Wright got his wish - God Damn America.

reply
JAXx @ 5th Sep 02:23PM:
We're due compensation

I think its time ATT gave every customer a free month of service.
reply
antonine @ 5th Sep 03:15PM:
AT&T Backlash

If AT&T wants to pick a spot to start improving their wireless service, it should be San Francisco. The tech pundits writing and posting from there, such as for CNET, PC Mag, and Revision 3 (Tekzilla, etc.) regularly rag on AT&T's service. At least on a recent Tekzilla broadcast, they thought some AT&T upgrades had allowed them to keep a signal on local highway stretches infamous for dropped iPhone calls.
reply
en102 @ 5th Sep 03:40PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

This is about AT&T's response on why they're having issues... and some of us calling them out on it.

I don't use an iPhone, but did have a 'normal' 3G phone, and when AT&T deployed 3G 2 years ago, the service went to hell. It took more than a year afterwards for them to fix it where I am... and still another year later other markets are still having the issue. I don't blame a company for being fiscally responsible, however, they will potentially lose customers in the near future if they don't attempt to patronize their customers.
Adding fuel to the fire by now making dataplans mandatory on media enhanced and PDA phones will just add to the issue that they covered.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
moonpuppy @ 5th Sep 03:49PM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by TKJunkMail :

said by jhboricua :

Um, what does that has to do with the lack of functionality on the data plan?
Nothing. BUt I was answering a pricing question. Can you read?
And you are completely wrong about pricing too.

ATT is charging what they know they can get away with because THEY HAVE THE IPHONE.

ATT charges $30/month for a data plan that you MUST have to use an iPhone on their network (forget jail breaking and using it on other networks.) An additional $20/month gets you unlimited text messaging.

In comparison, T-mobile charges $35/month for data, visual voicemail and unlimited text messaging on their G1 and MyTouch phones. Verizon charges $20/month for 5000 text messages with unlimited mobile to mobile plus an addition $29.99/month for the basic data plan on their PDA (not Blackberry) phones (and add an additional $2.99 for visual voicemail.) Sprint charges $99/month for everything so take out $40/month for typical voice plans and that equals about $60/month.

So Verizon and ATT charges about the same for PDA type phones ($50/month.) So that means that IF Verizon did get the iPhone, it might have been more expensive on their network just because it is an iPhone. Lets not forget how Verizon loves to disable features on some phones.

ATT is practicing a basic rule of capitalism; charge what the market will bear. Even Sprint is advertising how much a Palm Pre will save someone over the cost of a plan with an iPhone. But everyone wants the iPhone.

Another issue is no one is really sure that Verizon's network could handle the traffic of the iPhone. Face it, that many new subscribers will tax any system. Who is to say any other provider wouldn't have the same issues?
reply
anon @ 5th Sep 03:57PM:
Blackberry

I wanted an iPhone but I will NEVER go to that CRAP AT$T Contract...so I got a Blackberry from Verizon and am extremely pleased with it so much that I might not even get an iPhone when it gets on Verizon. AT$T is the worst thing to EVER happen to Apple.
reply
lets @ 5th Sep 05:25PM:
Remember At&T is really spelled SBC

And they are a predator corporation. At lease that the label I put on them
reply
Nerdtalker @ 5th Sep 05:51PM:
Re: Pres. Obama killed AT&T here in AZ

Oh so you think you've got it bad? Ha!

Down here in Tucson at the U the service stops, on the dime, at 11:30 every single day until about 1:30. For about that long, perhaps longer some days, any attempt to make a call results in "Call Failed" messages, sending texts results in "message send error," and data slows to around 120 kilobits/s. I did a test last week and found that during that period over 70% of my SMSes failed at least once to send, most required mashing try again at least 4 times.

I generally switch to EDGE if I'm planning on doing anything, and I just give up if it involves calling anyone who also happens to have an iPhone since they're oblivious to the obvious congestion since the whole time it still happily shows max bars.

I've been tweeting heavily about the issue and one of their reps finally got a hold of me and created a network ticket, but I haven't heard anything since about it. They called back once two days later and asked if "everything was fixed" to which I laughed, because their call went right to voicemail since I couldn't even answer it. I think they've given up on me. Whatever, F*%k 'em. I guess that $130/month goes right into making Ralph De la Vega another corporate bathroom or something.

AT&T has some serious serious load issues if they can't handle people moving around so much that any small flux in phones brings a local network to it's knees. It tells me their deployment was clearly designed before these things became ubiquitous, since they can't achieve the density needed to deliver the kind of bandwidth 35K students need to schedule lunch every day. Fail, AT&T, Fail.
--
"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
Maggs @ 5th Sep 06:15PM:
This is the reason I don't own an iPhone yet!

Really how incompetent do you have to be to not realize that the iPhone brings you millions of customers. AT&T should have had their head pulled out of their ass, and recognize this for what this is, a massive cash cow there for the taking. They should have been planing build-outs when the 1st iPhone was a huge success. Plan ahead folks, the shareholders would shit their pants with huge profits if they worked it right.

Really no CEO of a major telcom out there has the balls to spend money to build out properly, they listen to accounting and the shareholders, mind you half the shareholders of a company are idiots that don't even watch your companies' performance, they are looking for the quick buck.

If I had the capital and cash I'd start my own telcom, and buildout in stages over time. ATT lets their network rot while they buildout. That's really bad business.
--
Hello, is anyone out there.

reply
w4ncr @ 6th Sep 12:12AM:
Re: This is the reason I don't own an iPhone yet!

Only if they would get the same prices and Services packages in The southeast for DSL what they are in Texas ! IM Glad I did not Buy a I phone.
»www.att.com/gen/general?pid=6431 for all the southeast!

»www.bellsouth.com/consumer/inets···dex.html out date Services packages and old price from the bellsouth .
reply
anon @ 6th Sep 12:52AM:
Re: CNN Story

CNN got "the story twisted"? You are kidding right? If not, you really need to start looking at other news sources beside CNN. These folks slant just about everything. Don't get me wrong, as I'm not to sure there is any news source that you can believe outright, but CNN has such a narrow view on the world it is mind boggling. If nothing else, just call up any of the generic news links on your web browser and you will be amazed at what is going on in the real world outside of CNNland.
reply
HappyBunny @ 6th Sep 01:26AM:
Take your iPhone to T-Mobile

And you have MMS! And a more stable network. No it doesnt use T-Mobile's 3G network (the spectrum is different) but few if any dropped calls and yes, MMS has been working for me since the 3.0 software came out.
reply
cameronsfx @ 6th Sep 08:05AM:
Re: Customers understand upgrading a network is hard & expensive

said by jniamehr :

said by en102 :

said by TKJunkMail :

But most corporations don't listen to their strategic planning groups. They listen much more closely to their financial planners.
I agree 100%.
Now all of a sudden being fiscally responsible is out of style???? Come on people... A Corporation incorporates many facets.... AT&T is a FOR PROFIT company with THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, and CUSTOMERS. They need to be able to pay the employee the paycheck, the shareholders their dividends, but in regards to the consumer, the power is in their favor, they have the ability to consume or to forgo consumption. I chose to consume an iPhone. I agreed to the TOS and pay my bill. If you don't like it don't buy it.
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

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC