Apple's iPhone "wrecking" the cell industry - Page 3

The US wireless and Broadband markets are notoriously overpriced for what the consumer gets. They could have easily had MMS and tethering up and running without an issue. They don't want to lower costs to consumers nor do they want to improve the service or technology unless they have to. All of this keeps us overpaying for a mediocre product/service. I had the same opinion of Verizon when I was with them, who wanted everything on your phone purchased over their network at a fee. Kudos to Apple for redefining the product, user experience, and business model. Go ahead, complain, US wireless companies. Please, do tempt Apple to buy your asses or their own network in a second.

Reading all of these messages about how bad ATT is just gets me ticked. Why? Because I've felt the same way about ATT for a long time. Personally, I think the govt should be investigating their business practices along with Apple.

Has there ever been a situation where the product you purchased was absolutely stuck to one service provider? I can't think of one. On top of it, ATT's service is average at best. Dropped calls, high rates. It's ridiculous. They have iPhone lovers trapped and stuck with them, while there are other networks out there that are not as saturated.

ATT and Apple both get the blame as far as I'm concerned. They want to control every single aspect. Apple should just sell their iPhone and let customers use it on whatever network they want. I feel like I am imprisoned by Apple and ATT. It's the best phone, but if I don't want to use ATT''s service, then I'm stuck. I have no options. That's anti-competitive.

Sure, other service providers have lower prices, but I want the best handset...which I am willing to pay a premium for, and I want the lowest price, which is a choice I am not given.

Antitrust, anticompetitive, and I see a class action in the future.

Shoot...I pay a crazy rate per month for my service, but I don't get any credits for dropped calls and spotty service.

It still amazes me how we made such an easy transition from land lines with virtually perfect service, to mobile lines with terrible service at a price waaaayyyyyyy higher.

It's jut not right.

I love this. Up until the 3.0 software announcement, almost every time someone criticized AT&T it was met with "I've had AT&T for years and never dropped a call" or "There supposed to gouge customers and make a profit for their stock holders."

Ever since the announcement that there would be no MMS or Tethering in the US the posters here have sung a decidedly different tune. AT&T must have really pissed you off. Hardly anyone defends them here anymore.

Good for you. It's about time.

Just one more thought. Of all the things AT&T have done the last two years (dropped calls, poor coverage, tethering, charge extra for texting, 200 penalty to upgrade to 3GS) I think it was the MMS that really pushed people over the edge! And this was the one feature that half of the posters here thought shouldn't be on the iPhone!

Verizon, if you are reading this, you are out of your minds if you don't figure a way to get on the iPhone. There must be a way it can be done.

I'm surprised about the money AT&T charges you guys.

In Sweden with the carrier exclusive to Apple, you pay around 70-80 dollars a month. Unlimited everything. Calls, data, sms, mms, tethering...
And you pay 200 something dollars upfront for the phone..

I'm on Rogers in Canada. I signed up with Rogers because I had to, to get get an iphone. I used to hate Rogers, but my opinion has somewhat mellowed. The speed and reliability is good, and they have even given in a little on data plans, and have been gracious to iphone 3G users wanting to upgrade to the iphone 3GS 1 year into the 3 year contract.

I have also read that Rogers only two competitors Telus and Bell are switching/upgrading their network to 3G GSM from CDMA so that they can also carry the iphone, and other GSM devices.

It seems that the iphone is actually sparking competition in a market that has been very non-competitive and stagnant for far too long.

This is just my perspective, I'm sure other people have different feelings on this.

Networks have too much control over handsets. There needs to be separation. I think I should be able to use a phone on any network I like, provided the phone's features are supported technically. Imagine if ISPs starting dictating the brand of computer you were allowed to connect to the internet with.

This really is anti-competitive and I hope the US government rules in favor of opening up competition.

Some broadband companies do just that. When you order Comcast, they provide you with virus protection and spyware protection. This is only available for Windows computers. While Apple computers work on Comcast networks, they are not 100% supported.

Any phone CAN be used on any network assuming that the network technology supports the phone.

An example of technology that other carriers do not support would be Visual Voice Mail. Now Apple, like all of their other products just wants its product to work. It does this very well in the OS market by limiting the hardware its OS has to support. While OSX might work on other hardware such as CPUs provided by AMD, Apple limits its hardware to Intel CPUs and chipsets unlike windows which has to support EVERY CPU, chipset, video card, sound card, ect. Then you have manufactures writing buggy drivers that cause the computer to crash.

The same thing applies to the iPhone. Apple simple wants it to "just work" as advertised and the solution to that problem is to limit its carriers to those that have deployed the necessary infrastructure to support the phone.

Hmm, well MMS works on unlocked phones on T-Mobile, despite T-Mobile's proprietary pseudo-3G being completely incompatible with the iPhone.

I never said it did. Go back and read what I wrote and stop embellishing.

I scratch your back and you scratch mine. The carriers need the handset makers and the handset makers need to sell their products to consumers and the consumer is not welling to pay more than X dollars. The solution is what is happening now. The carriers buys the handset from the manufacturers and sell it back to the consumer at lower price hoping to make up the loss within the 2 years contract period. For the manufacturers, the customer is the carrier. It might not be obvious from the consumer point of view but if you think about it this is how it actually works and it sucks because someone else is dictating what you want in term of service and features and this someone is the carrier. When the iPhone first released it broke this rule but I am worried that Apple will cave in to the carriers due to long term exclusive agreements.

I agree with you and I think the FCC should force carriers to offer unlocked version of the phones they sell and I think they will. AT&T will unlock any phone they sell after 90 days EXCEPT for the iPhone. What worse? AT&T will never unlock your iPhone even after your contract expires and even if you pay the no commitment price of $600 for new iPhone it will still be locked to AT&T! I've even read that Apple stores in the US will not honor the warranty of your officially unlocked iPhone you bought overseas!!!

PS. I am talking about the US market here

Exactly right! You have to wonder what the cell phone industry should look like if it wasn't 'wrecked' in the author's view?

How about this... buy an iPhone, and tell Apple that you do not want to use 3G internet service, so you tell them to cancel the $30/month data plan.

Prepare to bend over, spread your cheeks, and take one like Apple fanbois tend to love to do.

I would say the US phone industry might be wrecked. The rest of the world is not deathly afraid of competition like AT&T and the rest of the US carriers. Many countries, especially in Europe encourage data plans with unlimited capacity. AT&T bit off more than they can chew, got caught short and are hip deep in shit trying to dig out.

I have an original iPhone. Let me tell you that it is the best thing I have ever bought, with my new MacBook Pro a close second. That being said, 8-9/10 calls are dropped and every single call is staticky. I rarely have more than 2-3 bars. I am paying nearly $100 for this. While Verizon may have the worst customer service on the planet, their phone coverage is the best I have ever experienced.
When I talk to AT&T or email them, I am either ignored or I get, "Oh, there is a temporary outage in your area." I live between Trenton and Philadelphia. Please.

The only reason I have not upgraded to the 3GS is that it pains me to be contracted (to anyone) but especially to AT&T, which does not even provide me with adequate service.

Well from someone who doesn't have an iPhone Verizon kinda sucks!

I'm here in rural Maine (not really, but they treat us like we are), and I can and do, turn my phone off, when I go past 3 certain points in Maine, as I get NO reception. These points are all within a 30 - 50 mile radius of Central Maine area. I also turn it off, when heading to NH either of the 2 ways I can get there, as both areas have major dead zones.

Verizon say's "No one goes there, and it is not profitable to have service there sorry", so sorry if you have to drive there, and let's hope you never need to call a tow truck, cop or ambulance, because, well - you can't! Well you can, they just won't "Hear you".

So iPhone, uPhone, wePhone, NicePhone, CheapPhone, ExpensivePhone, anyPhone, coverage isn't what we'd like, and it will be sometime before it is.

The phones are changing WAY faster then the carriers can keep up with. If we all sit back, use what we have for a year or so, and give them a change to catch up, it might not be so bad, but then again, we CAN'T wait, so we get just what we are deserving of folks, sorry, we ARE as much to blame as Apple, ATT, Verizon, Sprint,

Skip

I didn't imply it, that is clearly what I stated. I have not seen anything to the contrary. If you have then link away. I personally don't care as it would still be conjecture as we don't have the contracts and I don't think Apple would come out and say one way or the other, although I know that's is what you are trying to say.

But again to say Apple has no say in how this thing gets priced whether at the register or in the monthly bills is just buffoonery! An example being, although it was only reported in the media, is that Apple was unhappy with Rogers(Canada) data prices and largely limited the volume of 1st generation iPhones it received until it worked its pricing a bit.

But ultimately Apple has made this about the phone. For years it has been about the minutes. Pricing and lack of dropped calls means it is telcos competing between each other. Since it is about the device it is about Apple. Exactly what happened with the iPod, the music industry never saw it coming due to its myopic nature. And it is exactly what the movie industry is afraid of, in spite of plummeting after-theatre movie sales.

My opinion is that Apple tends to fix the industry it goes into. It at least changes the dynamic so much that that industry never looks the same again. And, again IMO, it tends to ultimately work out best for the consumer.

Your complaint makes no sense. Are you sure AT&T any better in those same areas? For all you know, they're even worse. Face it, they're right. Some areas are so hard to wire and towers are so expensive that no company wants to spend the money for little return. So you can't call anyone in the boonies. Whatever did people do in those days of yore before cell phones, all of 20 years ago? In New York City -- not some fleaspeck town in the middle of nowhere -- AT&T is notorious for dropping calls and having dead zones. Verizon's network is strong in the same city.

It is important to keep in mind the physics of the WCDMA/UMTS/3G asynch tech that ATT uses. Voice and data are transmitted via coded packets. The voice packets are coded for time sensitive QoS... ie optimize for time to avoid lag. Data is coded so that there are no missing info but can have lag. Data is a much bigger capacity hog that voice.

Regardless, when data usage increases dramatically, as with the iPhone, the capacity for voice transmission can decrease. So calls may not be placed or even dropped. Equally bad is that during the hi usage, the size of the cell coverage decreases. Suddenly at the edge of the network, there will be dropped calls. When traveling, there will be gaps in coverage... so hand-offs from one cell to another do not take place and calls get dropped. Not to mention that the asynch tech makes hand-offs difficult. Power usage may go up as the cell becomes crowded.

The VZ network uses a more efficient version of 3G. Voice is generally kept separate in 1.25 MHz channels that used to be called 1X... it can handle data but that is avoided. Data goes in a different channel called EVDO. So hi data usage are unlikely to affect voice quality. Frequencies used can affect wave propagation, but that I do not think that is a major problem.

Why do we have this crazy system? Simple... money. The Europeans - Nokia and Ericsson - controlled the GSM tech and royalties... which is ok for voice but not that good for data. Then QCOM developed practical Code Division Multiple Access. They charge 5.5% royalties for every phone and are able to dominate the chip biz. The Europeans did not like it... so they came up with a variation called WCDMA that was not as efficient. Added their own crummy IPRs and tried to bypass QCOM but got their head handed over in a Texas court and settled. Still QCOM royalties were diluted. Since the Europeans controlled the GSM market they were able to push WCDMA/UMTS. The US CDMA still dominates in the US and a few other places, but is only about 20% of the market.

Ironically, the LTE has also dominant IPRs from QCOM. Uses orthogonal wave transmission. Looks great on paper. However, to implement it, will take a long time. Take a long time to develop the handset chips, then test them and get approved by the FCC. Then the phones have to designed, tested and approved. It will have to be a total new network with hi capacity fiber back bone, routers, etc. Tower spacing itself will change. Nope... it is not like bringing a new flavor at Taco Bell.

Meanwhile, the current 3G has not been optimized. Data rates could be increased 4x in the air interface and the backbone too. The iPhone could be optimized too. All this is cheaper and quicker than jumping too early into LTE.

The Iphone is righly a watershed device and a "game changer" for the networks. Notice how Verizon has changed its tune over the past two years while it has watched ATT pull hundreds of thousands (millions?) of prime customers off its network...remember Verizon was the network whose management prided itself on turnind down the original Iphone!

While ATT rightly deserves criticism in some areas...notably terrible customer service (long delays, limited hours, inconsistent responses and solutions vis a vis Verizon), the network is fine in my opinion. Just switched from Verizon and have had no dropped calls so far in Atlanta and call quality is excellent. Download speeds on the 3G network are averaging 2MB/sec and hopefully should double sometime later this year. This is much higher than my prior Verizon data speed on EVDO. Remember that Verizon will have to go through the same learning process that ATT did on this device.

Because at this point in time, I've had no complaints about AT&T. In fact I love the fact I have over 2,000 roll-over minutes accumulated. I wouldn't get that from Verizon. The only dropped calls I've had with AT&T was when I'm in the basement of the parking garage and in the middle of the Smoky Mountain National Park. But really, is that odd?

+1 for Rogers.

Been with them since 2005, have all their services except RogersHD.

Their services aren't the cheapest (at all), but so far I've had no complaints.

I've got MMS on my iPhone 3G, full tethering (included in my data plan), and so far so good.

There is an Urban Maine? The entire state has half the population of Metro Cincinnati.

although i too would like to see the iphone available on other networks, and would like to see an end to the 2 year contract requirement, i'm not sure if exclusivity is actually "non-competitive". it could be argued that other carriers have phones that are similar and there are phones that can be used with no contract. this one might be a hard case to win.

also, just wanted to put in a good word for AT&T. i've had sprint and t-mobile before and where i live in the inland empire my reception is better on AT&T. it might be the iphone, though, since it is a better phone than the previous flip phones i had before.

now if i could just get my earthlink DSL line to stop dropping every day or two...

your numbers are a little high, CDMA only makes up 10% of the world market...

That might have been one reason, though I can remember reading back at the time that it was a question of maturity of the necessary chipsets. In fact, not having 3G in the orginal iPhone may have helped get the phone to market on time and give people a reason to want to upgrade.

At the same time it would appear that Apple tailored some of its features specifically to AT&T, though as the market for the iPhone has grown it has become apparent that AT&T is just a small percentage of the global market that Apple has access to.

The iPhone is in many ways is a game changer, but one that the service providers should have seen coming. On the other hand ther service providers were probably used to being in control, and didn't realise that a phone manufacturer could actually have enough clought to force them to evolve.

The expectation for data on the move is something that the telecom companies need to adjust to. The next thing that they need to adjust to is reasonable data roaming charges, though with the increasing availability of wi-fi hotspots, customers may finally realise they can wait a little and until they are in range of affordable data access.

I echo the sentiment that the only people hurting the telcos are the telcos. In France we saw another disruptive force in terrestial telecom in the form of free.fr (ISP provider). If the outsider knows what people really want, offers it and gets a chance to get a foot hold, then they have a chance of taking the lead.

Thank god. The carriers had far too much control, and were busy strangling the life out of any innovation in the market. All they cared about was the number of checkbox features and the concessions they could get on the price. So it didn't matter if it actually worked or you could use it... "has camera? check!"

Consider this: once everyone goes to LTE on 4G, what will be the difference between carriers? Nothing. At the same time, what will be the difference between the handsets? Everything. The fact that the non-important player in the market has all of the control is the problem.

Maury

Without the 2-year contract there would be no subsidy, which most people want. Without the subsidy you would not be able to purchase an iPhone for less than $399. Probably more like $499/$599!

Exclusivity is hardly non-competitive. No one needs an iPhone. If our government put half as much energy into healthcare as it does into consumer products our country would be such a better place.

In this deal, Apple succeeded through innovation, and att failed by doing nothing.

No further analysis needed.

...between disruption and wrecking.

Disruption means churning things up. Changing the pecking order. When disruption happens, there are winners and losers.

Wrecking means making it worse for everyone. There are only losers.

My guess: the analyst is a loser.

C.

If anything, Apple should be faulted for not wrecking the wireless industry MORE. A computer company making hardware for a phone company was a chance to change all the rules. Choosing a wireless phone service should be no different than choosing an Internet service. Instead consumers are being lured down a path where phones can increasingly replace Internet-connected PCs but with much less freedom and much higher cost.

The wireless industry is trying to monetize services that could not be monetized on the Internet and Apple is happy to play along as long as it gets a piece of it. Email is free, text messaging is expensive. Why? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? And paying for ringtones and limiting what can become a ringtone? How is that different than making your computer play the sounds you want? Why should anybody make money from that? (Yes I know how to get around paying for ringtones but the fact anyone pays is absurd.) Every function that is free on a PC should be free on a phone.

Meanwhile, Apple has made its OS a closed platform. Imagine a PC that required you to buy all software from one store. Even the similarly closed ecosystems of game consoles have more freedom than the App Store, in that you can buy used games at lower prices than new.

The reason these types of examples hold no merit is because US carriers have to cover the third largest country in the world. Which is far more difficult and expensive than covering any one European country. Sweden is the size of one medium sized US state. For carriers to only use their resources to cover that much area would not cost nearly as much.

My point is you cannot make a credible comparison from what Finnish carriers do to what US carriers do. In the US we can freely roam the entire US without additional fee, unlike Europe.

Wrong, my friend- the proof is in the dropped calls,
And I should know, as a proud owner of a new 3Gs.

Statements from AT&T and Apple on the matter are easy to find if you look. We don't need to see all of the contracts, Apple nor AT&T are allowed to simply lie about their dealings. You are free to choose to not believe what they've said, simply because you don't believe does not make it untrue.


That was because Rogers was using the iPhone to gouge it's subscriber. Apple had no direct power to force Rogers to change. Limiting phone shipments was an incentive to change. I would say Apple was doing this to advocate for the consumer and not take more money from the consumer.

You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.

Yes maturity of 3G chipsets was also apart of the problem. I agree delaying 3G helped increase upgrade sales.


AT&T accounts for roughly half of the iPhone world sales.

And your point? Is it cool for AT&T to act like a slum lord then? Glut the network, let it crap out, and overcharge at the same time?

Dropped calla isn't proof that AT&T hasn't upgraded it's network. With the number of iPhones in New York if AT&T had not upgraded it's network you likely would not be getting any calls at all.

Actually no that's not the answer...

I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.

I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.

Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.

Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.

So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.

@TenoBell

I point you to my comment #119. Your theory fails, especially with your other note that AT&T is half the world sales, well Australia must be piss-ant (mind you it is selling in volumes from my observations, still piss-ant).

Didn't take an iPhone round these parts to get a decent network rolling, or should I say creeping out... perhaps glacial or geological might be better descriptors