Apple, AT&T sued for over-saturating 3G network with iPhones

[AppleInsider]

A San Diego-based lawsuit filed late last week alleges that Apple and its carrier partner AT&T have knowingly oversold iPhone 3G, promising fast speeds only to see a glut of customers bog down the network with devices that themselves are flawed.

The 18-page complaint from customer William Gillis primarily relies on Internet reports of problems as the foundation of its argument and asserts that leaked information contradicts public statements by either of the defendant companies regarding 3G network performance.

Gillis particularly criticizes AT&T. Although company new media representative Brad Mays has gone on record as saying the iPhone 3G has been "performing great" on its 3G network, the plaintiff counters by pointing to claims that the handset has required too much power. In tandem with the "high volume" of iPhones sold, the sheer signal demand has bombarded AT&T and in many cases kicks users down to the EDGE-based 2G network even when 3G coverage is guaranteed, according to the lawsuit.

Apple and AT&T also misled customers about the practical speed of EDGE with the first iPhone, Gillis also claims, though here he points to ads exaggerating the speed rather than technical issues.

And while Apple chief Steve Jobs is believed to have sent a direct e-mail to one iPhone 3G user confirming a bug fix for the software end of the problem sometime in September, Gillis adds that none of Apple's packaging warns buyers of the current iPhone that its performance might not match customers' expectations.

A disclaimer "points out to them to ask questions, to futher investigate, or [for companies] to simply disclose complete and accurate information about the product," the lawsuit reads. "This is especially true in the case of the speed and performance of an expensive [device]; an important feature in any electronics device purchase."

Since many customers are potentially affected by the alleged flaws in AT&T's network and its interaction with Apple's phone, Gillis is seeking class action status so that every AT&T subscriber in California plagued by slow or intermittent performance -- which could measure into the "thousands" -- can earn compensation if they've suffered through a sub-par 3G experience.

The complaint would have Apple and AT&T pay this restitution as well as punitive damages. Both firms would also be stopped from pursuing the same marketing and public relations tactics that triggered the filing, which demands a jury trial.

Neither Apple nor AT&T has publicly commented on the lawsuit, which is the second lawsuit in as many weeks concerning the same performance hiccups.

Word of the suit was first reported by San Diego journalist Justin McLachlan.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[bigmc6000]

..."even when 3G coverage is guaranteed"
Umm - when the heck did either Apple or AT&T ever guarantee 3G coverage? Are they going to file a class action suit for every other phone on the planet that doens't hold a signal 100% of the time? If anything he might have a case against AT&T but not Apple.

[Takeo]

I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!

[TheBum]

I kind of get the point to including AT&T in the lawsuit, but Apple? So should Apple have created a product fewer people wanted so that the demand on the 3G network was lower? I'm not sure I can even blame AT&T for anything but bad planning. Plus, infrastructure takes time and money and you make money by selling products and services. Apparently, this guy flunked out of Economics 101.

[Samnuva]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Although company new media representative Brad Mays has gone on record as saying the iPhone 3G has been "performing great" on its 3G network, the plaintiff counters by pointing to claims that the handset has required too much power.

Well, then, how bout doing what I did and KEEP THE BRIGHTNESS DOWN

[gearhunter]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The 18-page complaint from pillock William Gillis.

[bigmc6000]

Originally Posted by Samnuva

Well, then, how bout doing what I did and KEEP THE BRIGHTNESS DOWN

I'd say that's the worse claim out of all of them. Apple clearly discloses the expected battery life right on the iPhone page. If you don't like it 1) don't buy it 2) don't b!tch about it or 3) just keep an iPod/iPhone cable with you (as if that's that hard)

[mknopp]

Originally Posted by Takeo

I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!

I thought the exact same thing.

This is like someone suing GM because they promote a car as being fast, but the purchaser gets caught in rush hour traffic and thus cannot drive the car at the speed advertised.

This is one of the most idiotic suits that I have ever heard of. Suing just AT&T could be somewhat logical, but suing Apple because of AT&T's network problems? Give me a break.

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by TheBum

]Apparently, this guy flunked out of Economics 101.

Don't you know? Economics is no longer the law of the land. Welcome to socialism.... Lawsuits and politics make sure there is a chicken in every pot, forget about supply and demand.

[crees!]

That sounds like California. Sue the free market.

[papiti]

Well, lets see, what are my options, return the phone because the service and the phone do not exceed my expectations, oooor, sue AT&T and Apple and keep the phone because I like it so much and its the best phone out there.

Wow, i remember when I bought a set of new tires for my Ferrari, and of course they were the best tires, but damn, I was not pleased with the tires because every time I put the pedal to the metal my tires were spinning and smoking all over the place. I'm going to sue the tire manufacturer because they cannot handle the cars power, oh and I'm going to sue Ferrari because the car is too much for any tire.

WAAAAAAAAA!!!! What a moron. Get a life. Go get another phone if you don't like the phone. Go to another wireless company, AT&T is not the only one out there.

Yeah, and by the way, if you call AT&T and Apple they would have probably canceled your contract, and Apple would have certainly refunded for your phone. Try that with any other wireless company and with any other cell phone/computer company.

One thing if for sure, not all, but some attorneys are just bored with life and greedy for money. Why don't you guys go and sue Iran and Siria for not supplying enough oil, that sure is a big problem, but noooo, you guys have to sue AT&T and Apple. What a bunch of crapp!!!

[Marc OSX]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

primarily relies on Internet reports of problems as the foundation of its argument

Priceless Now I know why you call America the land of opportunity, or is that opportunists?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by papiti

Yeah, and by the way, if you call AT&T and Apple they would have probably canceled your contract, and Apple would have certainly refunded for your phone.

They had 30 days just like everybody else.

Originally Posted by Marc OSX

Now I know why you call America the land of opportunity, or is that opportunists?

[Booga]

It's nitwits like this that are the reason that every product you buy in America is peppered with disclaimers and why companies are forced to include EULA's that basically say "we can't promise anything at all because no matter what we say someone will sue us."

"Severe misuse may cause injury or death" -- warning on a logic probe from my 18-240 class in the early 90's...

[antiorario]

Originally Posted by cameronj

Welcome to socialism....

Huh?

Originally Posted by crees!

That sounds like California.

Again: huh?

[jamesf303]

Originally Posted by Takeo

I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!

How about the part where they claim the iphone 3g is the cause of issue due to the power demands it makes on the UMTS cell towers?

As you might have read, apparantly the iphone 3g baseband unit requests more radio power than it actually needs resulting in a lower quality connection for all phones on that cell.

If is the case, then surely this is Apple's (or maybe (UMTS chipset supplier) Infineon's) fault, not just AT&T (even if they fixed it in 2.0.2?)

More info here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+ATT+...ticle12797.htm

[anantksundaram]

What is "over"saturating?

[Eideard]

Shoot the fracking lawyers! Several times.

[Techboy]

First generation iPhone should have been a warning to end users regarding AT&T's network. 3G is new experience for AT&T as well as all end users. I don't understand why people are acting as if they are surprised by glitches.

This lawsuit is priceless. I hope this guy is not a rocket scientist or a leader of anything. Surely a lawsuit based on internet "leaked" info must be 100% true and confirms the conspiracy that Apple and AT&T is out to rip off his iPhone 3G experience.

[gregrochedc]

now can we also sue the internet service providers for oversubscribing and reducing my upload/download speeds? and mobile phone companies for oversubscribing and causing dropped calls and busy signals? and local gyms for oversubscribing because i have to wait in line to use the treadmill? etc. etc. etc.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

So return the phone.

[Boogerman2000]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

Exactly.

[dizzy13]

I don't really understand how you can sue in these cases. I mean if it's "broken" and you have an option to cancel your contract and return the device how can you sue? That's why competition in the market is good because it gives companies a reason to do better to gain markets hare, not because they are afraid of getting sued...I just don't get it

[cwoloszynski]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

Ok, sue Ford because the toll road you are driving on is congested!!!

So I can see an argument for involving AT&T, but how does this guy justify suing Apple?

[ohmaha]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

No one "forces" you to do anything when it comes to cellphones. You can return it if you are unhappy with your service. Why do so many people act like spoiled brats when it comes to things like this? If your an adult act like one and be responsible for yourself and don't just sit there and whine! I guess you want the Government or someone else to come make it all better? Maybe kiss your bobo?

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

Actually you are paying for the road. Part of your state taxes goes to your states department of transportation

[DGNR8]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

Morons?

Thats funny...

So how do you use a road or highway or road for free?

I want in on that racket.

Last I checked I have to pay for tag's on my truck and car with emission testing fee's that goes right back to TXDOT which pay's for roads and highway's.

Then on top of that Toll-way's in Houston that being built now that were once major arteries with in the city as roads.

i.e. Westpark (Tollway) Hardy Road (Tollway) Beltway 8 (Tollway) SH249 (Future Tollway according to the state posted signs)

So a monthly fee your right, no monthly fee.
However a fee all the same is charged on roadways and highways at a yearly rate and per use.

Just need to think it thru next time before you start throwing around the "Morons" statement.

Does all that make since, Moron.

[SpinDrift]

Oh for goodness sake. Who are these losers?!

[dasein]

California has what's called an "implied warranty" law. It means that a product should perform either as advertised or expected (a toaster, for example, should toast). Apple has no bearing here, but ATT should. If you're advertising a product to a certain performance level, you should fairly well deliver there. The road/Ford analogy lags in that Ford, like Apple, is only making the product, not the service (and good luck suing any government body). I don't have an iPhone, I do live in San Diego, and I have noticed my ATT service, which used to stay regularly with a 3G connection, drop down more than half the time to EDGE. I can understand when you get locked into a promise by them to deliver a 3G experience but keep you on the hook with a 2 year contract why people would be angry (I'm not a lawyer and I do try to avoid them). If nothing else, it'll hold ATT's sensitive parts to the fire and make them speed up deployment of sufficient 3G coverage. If they don't, the problem is only going to get worse as this is just the beginning of these devices and the demands they make. I think the publicity angle is better than a lawsuit, but ATT needs to clean up its act.

[cygnusstar]

Originally Posted by dizzy13

I don't really understand how you can sue in these cases. I mean if it's "broken" and you have an option to cancel your contract and return the device how can you sue? That's why competition in the market is good because it gives companies a reason to do better to gain markets hare, not because they are afraid of getting sued...I just don't get it

Here's to your argument :

Microsoft is paying $750M to settle the lawsuit in the EU because it was bundling the OS with IE. Doesn't this sound similar? I like the iPhone but I don't like AT&T Service. 3G Service should be guaranteed if you are charging a premium of $10 per month. How about Verizon selling the FiOS service for a premium but without a guarantee for the speed?

[bypass]

Suing Apple over this latency issue is ridiculous! Although, something should be done about AT&T. They suck at executing. The infrastructure should have been in place before the launch of the 3G iPhone to absorb a precipitous increase in customers utilizing the 3G network. They should not be able to charge a premium over the original iPhone data package if the 3G network is unable to properly handle the load.

[rbonner]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

No it's not the same you morons because you're not paying a monthly fee to use the road.

AT&T forces users to pay an extra $10 a month to use the 3G service which I'm not able to access 90% of the time.

It really dilutes your argument when you have to include a personal attack.

[cygnusstar]

Originally Posted by bypass

Suing Apple over this latency issue is ridiculous! Although, something should be done about AT&T. They suck at executing. The infrastructure should have been in place before the launch of the 3G iPhone to absorb a precipitous increase in customers utilizing the 3G network. They should not be able to charge a premium over the original iPhone data package if the 3G network is unable to properly handle the load.

I couldn't agree more. Apple has no bearing on AT&T service. Like I said above, I like the iPhone but not AT&T's service.

[jameskatt2]

There needs to be a law which gives the death penalty for lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits like this.

This is suing for suing's sake.
This gives an extremely bad taste to the thought of a lawyer's existence.

This is why so many jokes are about how much better lawyers are dead.

[papiti]

Originally Posted by gregrochedc

now can we also sue the internet service providers for oversubscribing and reducing my upload/download speeds? and mobile phone companies for oversubscribing and causing dropped calls and busy signals? and local gyms for oversubscribing because i have to wait in line to use the treadmill? etc. etc. etc.

And don't forget the Airlines, sue them for making me wait in line to get into the airplane, WAAAAA!!!

[jragosta]

Originally Posted by Eideard

Shoot the fracking lawyers! Several times.

Warning--that only works if you shoot ALL of them.

If you kill ALL the lawyers, then you can't be convicted of a crime because there's no way to get adequate representation.

[jragosta]

Originally Posted by DGNR8

Morons?

Thats funny...

So how do you use a road or highway or road for free?

I want in on that racket.

Last I checked I have to pay for tag's on my truck and car with emission testing fee's that goes right back to TXDOT which pay's for roads and highway's.

Then on top of that Toll-way's in Houston that being built now that were once major arteries with in the city as roads.

i.e. Westpark (Tollway) Hardy Road (Tollway) Beltway 8 (Tollway) SH249 (Future Tollway according to the state posted signs)

So a monthly fee your right, no monthly fee.
However a fee all the same is charged on roadways and highways at a yearly rate and per use.

Just need to think it thru next time before you start throwing around the "Morons" statement.

Does all that make since, Moron.

You forgot the biggest payment you make - gasoline taxes. I pay far more in gas taxes than I pay in either tolls or registration fees.

Originally Posted by papiti

And don't forget the Airlines, sue them for making me wait in line to get into the airplane, WAAAAA!!!

Waiting in line to get into the plane is the least of it. How about all the other delays?

[lukevaxhacker]

Originally Posted by bypass

Suing Apple over this latency issue is ridiculous! Although, something should be done about AT&T. They suck at executing. The infrastructure should have been in place before the launch of the 3G iPhone to absorb a precipitous increase in customers utilizing the 3G network. They should not be able to charge a premium over the original iPhone data package if the 3G network is unable to properly handle the load.

Some of the *execution* is blocked by courts and *other* lawsuits. Apple and AT&T should add all the NGOs, individuals, and their lawyers blocking cell tower construction. At my daughter's elementary school a few years ago, the school and parents (as in The Laurel School in their official newsletters) tried to stop AT&T from installing cell towers on their own building (which is within half a block of the school). A doctor spoke up about their fears at a PTA-equivalent meeting and got shot down (should have defended her). I don't think she ever spoke up again and might have left the school after that treatment.

Good thing I'm using an alias account name, otherwise they may toss out my daughter for my opinions...

[papiti]

Originally Posted by jragosta

You forgot the biggest payment you make - gasoline taxes. I pay far more in gas taxes than I pay in either tolls or registration fees.



Waiting in line to get into the plane is the least of it. How about all the other delays?

Yup, agreed. That is my point exactly. I'm sure if you wait a little, you will get your 3G signal and everything will be fine, just like taking off in the airplane to your destination after a long wait.

[TheBum]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

What is "over"saturating?

I was driving by a cell tower and digital bits were spilling out of it, all over the ground and onto the road. Do you have any idea how hard it is to clean bits off your windshield? The zeros are especially sticky.