or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T's tough talk on data use seen as part of struggle with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T's tough talk on data use seen as part of struggle with Apple

post #1 of 138
Thread Starter 
As AT&T this week said it may charge more to bandwidth-heavy iPhone users, one firm believes the wireless carrier has been stung by Apple's new found control of its subscribers through the App Store and iTunes.

iSuppli Corp views the comments from Ralph de la Vega, head of consumer services for AT&T, as part of an industry-wide behind-the-scenes struggle between wireless providers and hardware makers. As growth opportunities in voice service revenue have disappeared, cell phone carriers must turn to revenue from data.

But services like iTunes and the App Store, the firm said, have allowed Apple to usurp control of subscribers from AT&T. In other words, customers are now more tied to their phone than they are their carrier, which results in lost revenue for AT&T.

"Apple has generated major revenue and margin growth based on its iPhone business -- while AT&T largely has been unable to cash in on the growth in data services beyond monthly access fees," said Jagdish Rebello, PhD, senior director and principal analyst for iSuppli. "This is making it difficult for AT&T to make the required investments to upgrade its network to support greater bandwidth. The net result is a deterioration in the mobile broadband user experience."

So much of the iPhone experience is tied to transactions made between the consumer and Apple on the App Store that have no relationship with AT&T. iSuppli believes that the issue of subscriber control is a battle that will be waged across the entire wireless industry.

In addition to Apple, Google, Nokia, Research in Motion and Microsoft have created their own comparable software download destinations. Each of them are attempting to "muscle in" on wireless carriers through offering premium content, service and applications, the firm said.

"Regardless of who wins, this battle will alter the balance of power in the mobile value chain," Rebello said.

Huge sums of money are at stake. The firm has forecast wireless data services, excluding messaging, to grow by 26.2 percent and amount to $87.7 billion in 2009. Into the future, iSuppli has forecast it to be a $188 billion revenue generator by 2013.

Apple has found tremendous success with the iPhone App Store, achieving the milestone of 100,000 applications available for download less than a year and a half after its debut. In September, the company revealed that over two billion applications had been downloaded from the store.

This summer, the iPhone was referred to as the "Hummer of cellphones" after AT&T's network struggled following the launch of the bandwidth-heavy iPhone 3GS. The average iPhone user is said to use 10 times the bandwidth of a typical smartphone user.

De la Vega revealed this week that 40 percent of the network data capacity for AT&T is used by just 3 percent of smartphone users, with most of that going to activities like streaming audio and video. Those types of services are made possible through software available for download on the iPhone App Store.
post #2 of 138
In my mind, this is what net neutrality means. I have written Congress asking them to legislate separation of the content from the pipes. That would be true neutrality. A company like Comcast wouldn't then care what data was being passed around on their cable, they would just have to worry abut enough lanes to get it from A to B.

For the wise backbone provider, this is the beginning of an opportunity to roll out the best networks in the country. Whomever puts the money in now, will be assured a majority of the subscribers in the future. For the most part, our networks are behind other countries for this sole reason.

AT&T should be focused on their network, not what's being transferred over it. If they could, say, have DSL like speeds next year, they wouldn't need to worry about App Stores and iTunes. They would get the subscribers based on their network integrity. No drops, full speed all over. That's the focus of a network provider, wireless or otherwise. The US sucks for this and it needs to change. The only way to get the Bells to change is through law, unfortunately.
post #3 of 138
iSuppli are morons

the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone
post #4 of 138
As I've posted elsewhere, the use of the word 'unlimited' in marketing material is a dangerous practice. Like 'unique', it cannot be modified; something is either unlimited or it is not.

When customers take the meaning literally some will of course push to consume as much as they are technically within their rights to consume. The same thing happened with dial-up internet access; at a time when established providers charged by the minute, newcomers showed up and advertised 'unlimited' connection times. Most people could not stay online indefinitely, but when people started getting second phone lines exclusively for modem use they had no reason to disconnect. The ISP's modem pools became oversubscribed, and companies like AOL suffered the black eye of competitor's ads showing them to always have busy signals.

Now we're reliving this same lesson with the prospects of 'unlimited' data use on mobile devices. Something has to give...


EDIT: Replaced 'bandwidth' with 'data' for clarity
post #5 of 138
What BS! AT&T has made a ton of money from all the new subscribers the iPhone has bought in and is part of the reason AT&T is still afloat. They decided to sit back and pocket the cash for two years and only decided recently to really upgrade their network.

I'd never trust the telcos with anything. Didn't the gov't give them $15 billion earlier this decade to build out their networks? From what I understand try did nothing and pocketed the cash. Let them be the dumb pipes they were meant to be. I hope that Comcast/NBC deal never goes through.
post #6 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

As I've posted elsewhere, the use of the word 'unlimited' in marketing material is a dangerous practice. Like 'unique', it cannot be modified; something is either unlimited or it is not.

When customers take the meaning literally some will of course push to consume as much as they are technically within their rights to consume. The same thing happened with dial-up internet access; at a time when established providers charged by the minute, newcomers showed up and advertised 'unlimited' connection times. Most people could not stay online indefinitely, but when people started getting second phone lines exclusively for modem use they had no reason to disconnect. The ISP's modem pools became oversubscribed, and companies like AOL suffered the black eye of competitor's ads showing them to always have busy signals.

Now we're reliving this same lesson with the prospects of 'unlimited' bandwidth use on mobile devices. Something has to give...

the ISP's started to automatically disconnect people after a few hours. AT&T does the same thing
post #7 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

They decided to sit back and pocket the cash for two years and only decided recently to really upgrade their network.

That isnt true. AT&T has been upgrading their network at a rate of billions per year since before the iPhone launched.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #8 of 138
Newsflash telecom service providers: you offer a utility. Utilities don't get high margins. The reason there has been so much industry consolidation is that when you have low margins, the only way to make more money is through volume. If the iPhone increased your number of users, you won; if you want more, you need to provide extraordinary value, not a service that is mediocre at best and abysmal at worst.

And of course users are more tied to their hardware. Who cares what the brand of the carrier so long as it is available in all desired locations and it is cheap?

Ehhh...I take that last bit back...I much prefer that cute Cingular logo to AT&T's...
post #9 of 138
What's true is that the iphone has little to no affect to the AT&T network, want proof? in the last 10 years when has the AT&T network not suck? when!? They even change their name to get rid of the bad rep that they always had.
post #10 of 138
I pay those people $250 a month for unlimited service and a wifi card for my mac. I tried to buy the AT&T network to Internet dongle to improve myservice at home but they refused to sell it outside of their "test group"

for what I pay a month I don't wan to hear them cry about bandwidth. Someone's making money and for that Monthly bill rest assured Apple got paid off long ago.

All iPhone users pay extra every month to AT&T just cause it's an iPhone. In my opinion they can just deal with it. Unlimited is unlimited. If they wanna offerlower prices for limited accounts that's fine but don't charge me for unlimited then send me an overage bill.
post #11 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

....AT&T should be focused on their network, not what's being transferred over it...

Exactly. But the carriers still entertain the possibility of creating services people will actually pay for over services from the likes of Apple's App Store and Google. Delusional. Until they get over that we'll see more and more of this paranoid frantic behavior.

AT&T and all their formidable labs didn't come up with half the features Grand Central and Google Voice have - even with their massive head start. Instead they sat back and collected money on the same tired voice features.

Not surprising with an anti-technology dinosaur like Whitacre in charge for far too long.
post #12 of 138
I honestly have been reading about AT&T for the last year and I can not believe AT&T with their prices. Now people are making excuses for them?

This is stupid to suggest that Apple is imposing on AT&T's income. There are lots of apps that doesn't even need a network to run on your iPhone. Put the phone in Airplane mode and see what you can't do with your phone. Alot of the revenue made on the App Store goes to developers as well.

In Canada, Rogers has issues but no where near the issues that AT&T struggles with. 6GB was unlimited when the iPhone first came out in Canada. And to +90% iPhone users that is unlimited/overkill. They then now have packages like mine where I spend $80 CND a month with my "extras" (voicemail, caller ID etc) and I have a 500MB a month data plan included. I have more than I need and if you need the 6GB or more you can pay more.

AT&T needs to start charging those who use /abuse the network accordingly and those who don't less. This will allow them to gain more revenue and continue to upgrade their network.

AT&T needs to stop getting people to make excuses for them and smarten up already. You have had iPhones for how long? Why is Canada flourishing in the iPhone market (All major carriers now can have iPhones) and AT&T is killing the US market?
post #13 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

iSuppli are morons

the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone

This gets to a separate but VERY real issue about advertising that the FTC needs to squash right now. None of the wireless carriers 3G network has an unlimited cap on it. None of them. But they NEVER advertise it that way. I mean, I don't get it; if you are complaining about people using too much data but it's advertised as "unlimited", what do you EXPECT people to do?

This point has little to do with net neutrality (what's going over the pipe). This is just false advertising at it's worse (how much travels down the pipe).

Either AT&T should state that you have a 5GB cap and aren't allowed to go over it, OR make it unlimited. And if it is unlimited, you shouldn't complain that people are using too much bandwidth. It's like saying someone is eating too much food at a buffet. If you can't serve that much, DON'T CALL IT A BUFFET!
post #14 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

iSuppli are morons

the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone

Im usually in the 20-30GB range per month. Been tethering since the 3.0 Betas back in March or around then. Never had a call or notice from AT&T.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Either AT&T should state that you have a 5GB cap and aren't allowed to go over it, OR make it unlimited. And if it is unlimited, you shouldn't complain that people are using too much bandwidth. It's like saying someone is eating too much food at a buffet. If you can't serve that much, DON'T CALL IT A BUFFET!

They do state it in the contract. The contract is to protect them, not you.

PS: Simply calling it unlimited is descriptive enough since there are at least two area that the service can be unlimited. Even if they do cap the data throughput to a specific number of GB they can still call it unlimited if they dont limit the timeframe in which you can use it within a billing cycle. Dial up ISPs used to cap your time but not care about how much data you consumed within a set time frame.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #15 of 138
Sorry, but ATT underestimated the iPhone because they still seem to operate with (early) 20th century brains. ATT has been in the communication business longer than almost anyone. They were fully aware of the Apple's ability to deliver a wildly popular product and was fully versed with what the device was able to do.

I waited for for the third generation iPhone knowing that ATT was working to deliver 3G in my area. They had been telling me it would be available (next spring, in a few months, by end of summer, blah, blah, blah). I actually called them numerous times over the last three years. They finally would not commit to saying anything.

Now the excuse is they are waiting for government approval to deploy 3G on cell towers that they acquired when they acquired Centennial Wireless in November 2008. Yet more delay ... and 4G is being deployed by some competitors. It's not like I'm in the boonies ATT ...

I complained to the Presidents office at ATT. They responded to my query of why am I paying $30 a month for mostly nothing (EDGE is useless even for checking email) with ... oh yeah, they didn't really respond.

I fault Apple some for partnering with ATT exclusively to start, and not delivering an iPhone with an alternate carrier, but ATT is the primary culprit here. They were lucky to land the agreement with Apple, and now they are scrambling to satisfy a lot of unhappy customers (especially those who live and work between the coasts.
post #16 of 138
ATT is averaging $30 to $50 on just data and text usage per iphone per month ...? What are they complaining about? This is not including $40 plus voice costs! There is enough revenue there alone for them to upgrade and for their executives to own a house and the rivera! Stop whinning and build infrastructure.
post #17 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I’m usually in the 20-30GB range per month. Been tethering since the 3.0 Betas back in March or around then. Never had a call or notice from AT&T.



They do state it in the contract. The contract is to protect them, not you.

PS: Simply calling it unlimited is descriptive enough since there are at least two area that the service can be unlimited. Even if they do cap the data throughput to a specific number of GB they can still call it unlimited if they don’t limit the timeframe in which you can use it within a billing cycle. Dial up ISPs used to cap your time but not care about how much data you consumed within a set time frame.

The problem is NOT the contract itself. It is the advertising of the terms in every flier and TV spot except the contract itself. I'm not arguing against the 5GB cap. I'm arguing against the claim that they offer "unlimited" bandwidth then the contract clearly states otherwise. That's 100% false advertising.
post #18 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

The problem is NOT the contract itself. It is the advertising of the terms in every flier and TV spot except the contract itself. I'm not arguing against the 5GB cap. I'm arguing against the claim that they offer "unlimited" bandwidth then the contract clearly states otherwise. That's 100% false advertising.

Could be the basis for a nice class-action lawsuit.....
post #19 of 138
Please! AT&T should have been prepared for this, now they want to gouge/blame iPhone users, I'm already getting charged a fee for a lifetime for usage, ++on the service.....what's the difference in having a network card for a laptop? Problem is the same old problem.....AT&T is too BIG and wants to carry all markets (i.e., land line, t.v. <uVerse>, cell phones, network cards...yaa yaa yaa). Jack of all trades master of NONE.....they will lose the iPhone exclusivity soon and so the massive profits.....if they had re-invested and were able to turn the ship a little faster in growing the network, they wouldn't be in this "poor me" state....I'm sick of it.....the service is halfassed just like the company!

Brasso
post #20 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

The problem is NOT the contract itself. It is the advertising of the terms in every flier and TV spot except the contract itself. I'm not arguing against the 5GB cap. I'm arguing against the claim that they offer "unlimited" bandwidth then the contract clearly states otherwise. That's 100% false advertising.

i've studied my usage and if you abide by the contract and don't JB or tether than hitting 5GB per month is very hard unless you stream porn all day long.

the unlimited is for people who use the service in accordance with the TOS. the people who will be affected and will complain are the usual spoiled children whiners

if they sue then AT&T has enough electronic gizmos monitoring their network that they will bring enough evidence to court to embarrass them

i've hit 2GB per month using pandora almost all working day for most of the month. anyone using 10GB or more is outside the norms of use for most people.
post #21 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

iSuppli are morons

the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone

Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.

There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.
post #22 of 138
Quote:
"This is making it difficult for AT&T to make the required investments to upgrade its network to support greater bandwidth. The net result is a deterioration in the mobile broadband user experience."

A deterioration in the mobile broadband experience? Are you kidding me? How does this result in deterioration of service? I am fed up with this type of BS with AT&T. Enough, get your towers to work right before you pull this crap. BLAMING the consumer backfired for the record companies, but I am afraid that the majority of cell users are not as savvy to be able to resist this in the long run. What a bunch of cock-a-mame.
post #23 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.

There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.

all they have to do is limit it to say 10GB per month and that takes care of most people. of course some will complain, but a new trend this decade is to get rid of the customers you don't want, instead of trying to retain every last one
post #24 of 138
2 year subsidies with data plans can't get you enough coin to run a 3G network?

Please.

Relationship? You move data. You're not Starbucks, Cell phone service is a "par" product - there's no significant difference between one tier-1 carrier and another. You supply no user experience other than bill paying.

So please, just do those basics right and stop trying to be a lifestyle. If you're reliable and cheap you'll have all the loyalty you need.
post #25 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

all they have to do is limit it to say 10GB per month and that takes care of most people.

Who's to say that AT&T can even support that level of data use?

(even if only the small percentage of 'data hogs' continue to use that now-capped amount)
post #26 of 138
I'm sorry, but the term unlimited is pretty unambiguous to the reasonable person. AT&T shouldn't be limiting the terms of service and the ability of the iPhone just so they use up their bandwidth. How about they build their network to handle demand and cover more area, instead of whining about Verizon commercials and iPhone users.

Apple should just buy them and fix it.
post #27 of 138
L O L

This exactly what I have thought when AT&T acquired exclusivity of the iPhone. They're not ready, they never been ready and they will not be ready. I don't know if any other carrier can handle it, but for what I know, AT&T can't handle it.

Many customers are upset with AT&T, so by limiting data, will make them even furious. AT&T forced customer to pay $30 regardless their data usage if they sign up for iPhone. Now, you're trying to take back your contract for unlimited data?
Please understand something. AT&T acquired exclusivity with Apple for the iPhone, now, if their network suck, or whatever they limit, will anger the customers since they can't go to a different carrier with their iphone. This is why, phone exclusivity should be eliminated. Then customer be able to choose and use any carrier they like.

AT&T, do not blame Apple for this. You, AT&T, came to Apple to acquire the exclusivity of the device, not the other way around. They made a breakthrough handset and you, AT&T would like to have a piece of the pie. Now you got big piece of the pie and you can't finish it. AT&T should have studied the iPhone. You bit what you can't chew!
post #28 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Who's to say that AT&T can even support that level of data use?

(even if only the small percentage of 'data hogs' continue to use that now-capped amount)

why can't they?

the way the service is in NYC, if they got rid of a small percentage of people it would improve a lot. even if you stream pandora all day
post #29 of 138
If they're going to sell devices for use on their network, then their network better be able to handle the traffic. When I had the iPhone, I only used average 5M/month which may not be typical for a mobile user. However, I used it for its primary function (voice) and to access my contacts/calendar info. It was hard justifying the monthly service charge that I barely used. So, I'm back to my Sony Ericsson T637 with just plain voice service. Getting a touch as soon as it has a GPS/compass and video capabilities.
post #30 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

2 year subsidies with data plans can't get you enough coin to run a 3G network?

Please.

Relationship? You move data. You're not Starbucks, Cell phone service is a "par" product - there's no significant difference between one tier-1 carrier and another. You supply no user experience other than bill paying.

So please, just do those basics right and stop trying to be a lifestyle. If you're reliable and cheap you'll have all the loyalty you need.

My sentiments exactly...

Apple should just buy Sprint.
post #31 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by nexgenmax View Post

AT&T, do not blame Apple for this. You, AT&T, came to Apple to acquire the exclusivity of the device, not the other way around.

Read your history books. Apple came to AT&T after Verizon (cowards) said no. All AT&T did was say "yes". AT&T did not demand exclusive rights....Apple wanted that in order to get higher subsidies from their carriers. When AT&T said yes, all that Apple told them was "here was a new smartphone that can surf the net and get email". The App Store wasn't even part of the negotiations....it wasn't even on Apple's radar. So, all those 100,000 Apps that demand more and more bandwidth were a surprise to AT&T. How much warning did Apple give AT&T regarding those Apps? Probably not enough as it takes years to raise capital, design, engineer, get local building permits, and install new wireless capacity. The App store is only 1.5 years old.
post #32 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

iSuppli are morons

the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone

Well this whole thing is a con job. It's obvious they can't control teethering and they want to get the rumors going now so when legit teethering people teethering, on top of paying a monthly sevive fee, they can penalize you. Or rather maybe penalize those that teethering and have no plan. Either way, I would like to see a classs action law suit for those many ninths of laying $30. It should be refunded.
post #33 of 138
If AT&T does adjust to a tiered type pricing plan instead of this "unlimited", does that mean there has been a change to our contract and we have the ability to leave AT&T without an ETF ?

Also, How come we are not hearing about the percentage of people that don't use hardly any data on their iPhone each month, even though they are forced to pay $20/$30 for it. I know several people that use it for telephone and iPod purposes only and don't have a clue about email or how to get on the internet. There has to be a fair amount of these type of subscribers and wouldn't that seem to offset the 3% that are "hogging" the bandwith as AT&T is claiming. I'd like to see that number as well.
post #34 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

What's true is that the iphone has little to no affect to the AT&T network, want proof? in the last 10 years when has the AT&T network not suck? when!? They even change their name to get rid of the bad rep that they always had.

What's true is that as much as I can't stand AT&T, you're totally wrong.

1. The iPhone has impacted their network tremendously. So have smartphones in general. They have millions of new customers using 100x the data they were two years ago. What you seem to be arguing is that the network sucked before, and sucks now. Well, it may have sucked before, but it still sucks now because they cannot keep up with the number of new devices as they upgrade. Saying the iPhone hasn't affected the network is like saying gas prices last year didn't affect families. It's absurdly false.

2. You clearly don't understand what happened, business-wise. AT&T/AT&T Mobility (the "old" AT&T) was purchased by competitor Cingular in 2004. Granted, AT&T Mobility's network was HORRIBLE prior to this. But Cingular was a different story. Everyone I knew that had them liked them. They had a generally good reputation. It was only after the acquisition that Cingular agreed it would rebrand itself as the "new AT&T." This transition took a good deal of time, and was carefully planned. Unfortunately, it would seem the merging the networks didn't go so well, because the service sucks.





Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

In my mind, this is what net neutrality means. I have written Congress asking them to legislate separation of the content from the pipes. That would be true neutrality. A company like Comcast wouldn't then care what data was being passed around on their cable, they would just have to worry abut enough lanes to get it from A to B.

That's what it should mean, but it really doesn't. The concern is that government will end up regulating content instead of providers, which is far worse a situation than we have today. I frankly don't agree with net neutrality anyway. Why shouldn't network providers be allowed to discriminate in terms of content? Obviously there need to be pro-competitive measures in place that prevent say, Comcast from blocking Verizon.com. But that's not what is being proposed.

Quote:

For the wise backbone provider, this is the beginning of an opportunity to roll out the best networks in the country. Whomever puts the money in now, will be assured a majority of the subscribers in the future. For the most part, our networks are behind other countries for this sole reason.

I don't know the reason, but I don't think that is it. I'm sure part of it is the sheer size of the country.

Quote:

AT&T should be focused on their network, not what's being transferred over it. If they could, say, have DSL like speeds next year, they wouldn't need to worry about App Stores and iTunes. They would get the subscribers based on their network integrity. No drops, full speed all over. That's the focus of a network provider, wireless or otherwise. The US sucks for this and it needs to change. The only way to get the Bells to change is through law, unfortunately.

Totally disagree. First, the US is behind in wireless because our landline system was so much better than the rest of the world's landline system. We also have a much larger area and greater population to cover.

You also have to understand that they have been investing billions per year in making their wireless network better, without laws to make them do so. That's not a defense of AT&T---just a fact.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrelcop View Post

If AT&T does adjust to a tiered type pricing plan instead of this "unlimited", does that mean there has been a change to our contract and we have the ability to leave AT&T without an ETF ?

I don't think AT&T (or any other carrier) would ever change a current contract.....too risky...and that would be a breach (where you can get out without an ETF). They will probably have new pricing plans (tiered) for new contracts.

I, myself, do not use a lot of 3G Bandwidth. So, I would be willing to sign up for a 10GB or 20GB plan for less money per month.
post #36 of 138
AT&T = Thieves and Liars
post #37 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.

There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.

Exactly. This isn't an AT&T issue. If the numbers they presented are accurate, a tiny percentage of users are using a substantial portion of the available bandwidth. "Fire" those customers (or charge them an appropriate fee to change their behavior and/or pay their fair share) and everyone else is much better off. If Apple owned their own network or the iPhone were on Verizon instead, we would be seeing exactly the same thing.
post #38 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by brasso View Post

AT&T is too BIG and wants to carry all markets (i.e., land line, t.v. <uVerse>, cell phones, network cards...yaa yaa yaa). Jack of all trades master of NONE

You could say the same thing about Verizon. Land line, FiOS tv, FiOS and DSL internet, cell phones, network cards, MiFi, etc. The difference is that Verizon's services are actually better than their competition. Their cell network is better than AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, their FiOS service is better than DirecTV, Comcast, etc. Verizon is just as big if not bigger than AT&T, yet manages to provide quality services across the board. Size is not AT&T's excuse. It's incompetence and laziness.
post #39 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

The problem is NOT the contract itself. It is the advertising of the terms in every flier and TV spot except the contract itself. I'm not arguing against the 5GB cap. I'm arguing against the claim that they offer "unlimited" bandwidth then the contract clearly states otherwise. That's 100% false advertising.

Do they say unlimited bandwidth or merely unlimited without specifying what is unlimited?

I clearly abuse their service and have broken my contract from AT&T and voided my warranty with Apple. I havent seen AT&T break any laws or lie. Surely they have been unclear, but that is allowed in US marketing.

I would love to see a full discloser of the minimum TCO that some countries require for subsidized items with contracts, but we need laws in place to do that which means well need some rampant abuse to the extreme to get people to see where the problem is, which is usually how these things work. Reactive, not proactive measures seems to be the naturel of government.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #40 of 138
Two questions:

I wonder how many millions Apple's slow worldwide iPhone rollout has cost AT&T directly over the years. For all the iPhones that were bought, jailbroken, ETF'ed, and sold on eBay to users in other countries, AT&T has paid upfront subsidies to Apple that far exceed the ETFs, and then never received revenues from data contracts that were cancelled. All the while, Apple and the eBay sellers enjoyed their profits, while current AT&T users paid the difference.

Also, I wonder how much of AT&T iPhone revenues have been spent to upgrade the landline side of the business? In my area, AT&T has recently rolled out a new fiber-based service, which IMHO is a dud. Same TV channels and internet speeds, for the same price as what I'm paying now for sat and DSL. No FIOS speeds, and no real reason to upgrade other than a teaser introductory rate. Supposedly the landline/DSL business has been hurting for years, so I don't see how it could have paid for fiber rollouts by itself.

I'm not defending AT&T. I do question the competency of their management. It seems like most of the time they are merely holding on for the ride, and don't have a clear plan or sense of direction.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T's tough talk on data use seen as part of struggle with Apple