or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 'Fake Steve Jobs' vs. AT&T's real-life phone service
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Fake Steve Jobs' vs. AT&T's real-life phone service

post #1 of 92
Thread Starter 
AT&T continues to aggressively defend and promote its network, as the nation's second-largest wireless carrier has come under fire once again, this time from a satirical source.

As recently as this week, AT&T has been sending marketing text messages to its customers, notifying them when new cellular towers are installed in an area to boost reception. The company has been attempting to combat months of bad publicity that has centered on criticism of its network's performance since the launch of the iPhone 3GS.

But as AT&T has touted itself as having the fastest 3G network in America, executives with the company have also warned that mobile data hogs could have a higher monthly bill at some point in the future. The carrier has said that 40 percent of its network capacity is used by just 3 percent of smartphone users.

AT&T's perceived "threats" towards bandwidth-heavy users inspired Dan Lyons, under the guise of his comedic Fake Steve Jobs persona, to promote an "attack" on the AT&T network this week. Dubbed "Operation Chokehold," the coordinated effort suggested by Lyons asked users to run bandwidth intensive applications on their phone at a specific time, in order to "overwhelm the AT&T data network and bring it to its knees."

The story gained some traction this week, and resurfaced once again days later after AT&T officials publicly commented on Lyons' satirical blog post. In an official comment to Cult of Mac, an AT&T spokesperson said:

"We understand that fakesteve.net is primarily a satirical forum, but there is nothing amusing about advocating that customers attempt to deliberately degrade service on a network that provides critical communications services for more than 80 million customers. We know that the vast majority of customers will see this action for what it is: an irresponsible and pointless scheme to draw attention to a blog."

Since AT&T made its public response, the number of Facebook fans for "Operation Chokehold" has grown significantly, from about 300 on Tuesday to more than 1,700 Wednesday afternoon.

The episode is another example of an item of bad publicity for AT&T steadily gaining traction. The wireless carrier has fought back in recent months with its own aggressive public relations campaign to convince its customers that it is working to improve its network. As Verizon eventually began lampooning AT&T with its "There's a map for that" ads, AT&T hired actor Luke Wilson to "set the record straight" on its network coverage.

This year AT&T said it will have invested between $17 billion and $18 billion in its wired and wireless networks. Among those upgrades are new cell towers intended to boost reception. Further down the road, the carrier expects to have its high-speed HSPA 7.2 upgrade completed in 2011.



One noteworthy exception to the bad publicity came on Saturday, when an article in The New York Times attempted to state that the iPhone hardware itself is the cause of dropped calls and spotty reception. AT&T is afraid to criticize Apple, author Randall Stross argued, so the company remains silent. However, the article was widely criticized for quoting the president of a network testing service that is a client of AT&T.

AT&T's recent tough talk on bandwidth use was portrayed last week as an attempt by the carrier to regain control of its wireless customers. iSuppli Corp said that services like iTunes and the App Store and their connectivity with the iPhone have made customers more tied to Apple than AT&T. Wireless carriers would like to regain that control from their subscribers, the analysis said.
post #2 of 92
Anybody using their cell phone on AT&T's network during that hour will be declared a domestic terrorist and prosecuted as such...
post #3 of 92
Won't this be an inconvenience to others who just doesn't care?
80 million iPhones by 2012. That's only 15% of the market.

http://www.iphonethailand.net
Reply
80 million iPhones by 2012. That's only 15% of the market.

http://www.iphonethailand.net
Reply
post #4 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

...the number of Facebook fans for "Operation Chokehold" has grown significantly, from about 300 on Tuesday to more than 1,700 Wednesday afternoon.
...

Yeah, but people who want to post to call the effort juvenile and selfish ALSO have to join the facebook page and are counted among that 1700.

I think there are more mature users in our community than the handful who do stunts like this (it reminds me of college students at a small school in ohio who thought it was funny to flush their toilets in sync, and did great damage to the community's sewer system; fakesteve's written some funny stuff, sometimes even insightful stuff, but this idea belongs in the crapper)

Besides--relative to ATT's plan to "incentivate" users to moderate their usage--why SHOULD i care if 3% of users, who are responsible for 40% of network traffic, pay a premium? If i watch six movies today at the local cineplex i pay more than someone who goes in and watches just one: If several dozen like-minded people tie up all the seats in those six theaters they prevent hundreds of others from enjoying a single movie. If i drive 750 miles around my town I pay more than the person who cruises only once to the convenience store, and if dozens of others are putting on miles like I am, we congest the city's streets and maybe prevent you, and you, from even getting to the convenience store. If i print 400 pages out of my all-in-one my paper and ink costs will exceed the costs of someone who prints a single sheet; it costs me more to build a 4000 sf home than a 2100 sf one; I pay more if I want to cool my house to 55 degrees F in the summer than someone who's happy at 72 degrees, and if thousands of others utilize that resource in the greedy, 55 degree way, they contribute to brownouts that could end up with some people not being able to use their a/c at all. Should someone be allowed to book 95% of the rooms in a hotel at a city i want to visit--and pay the same as i'd pay for a single room? AND in the process prevent me and hundreds of other people from enjoying accommodations at our destination? If there are 40 cabanas on the beach in st pete, should two people be allowed to occupy all of them for the price of a single cabana, and keep 38 people from also enjoying that amenity? Or in all these instances should those consuming more pay more?

I could go on too long (ok, maybe i already did). But i don't get it. If i'm lucky enough to have business or personal needs that i meet by using ATTs service so extensively that i join that 3% of over-consumers, I should be happy to pay for that privilege. And I shouldn't talk about knocking down everyone else's cabanas and unplugging their printers, just because I'm unhappy because i can't everything i want for the price i want. Fakesteve and his cohorts deserve a bums rush on this one.
post #5 of 92
Honestly, with any statistical analysis, the top X% are always going to use more bandwidth than the other (100-X)% since not everyone uses the same amount, which means you can fiddle the numbers all you want to get what you need. Might I remind you that if everyone were to cut their bandwidth usage in 1/2, the statement would STILL be true, showing how stupid it is entirely. Rather, they want to selectively punish those at the top while not affecting those at the bottom (since they use far less than their fair share but pay the same).
post #6 of 92
I only have anecdotal evidence, but it does seem everytime I'm at a large gathering (concert, football game, etc), my iPhone, running on AT&T 3G, has a really hard time maintaining a data connection, while my friends' AT&T Blackberry's pull up Facebook, and email photos, etc just fine.
post #7 of 92
Wasn't there a planned MMS attack when MMS was finally enabled? That was supposed to bring down the network....I didn't really hear anything after the "attack". This will probably fail too.
post #8 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post

I could go on too long (ok, maybe i already did).

Yes.

Fake steve has a point tho... they sold people 'unlimited data' , those people can feel free to take advantage of that! They should not re-neg and say that now you have to pay because AT&T underestimated that people might actually use their cool new iphones. Your analogy is broken because if you paid for unlimited movies or whatever you were on about, you wouldnt want someone to stop you after a set amount.

A better publicity move for AT&T in this era of crowd-participation, is to say "Please proceed with Operation Chokehold as it will be a good test of our network readiness" That would probably diffuse the bomb and make people have less animosity towards AT&T. But because they called it irresponsible and pointless, now I want to join in!
post #9 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Honestly, with any statistical analysis, the top X% are always going to use more bandwidth than the other (100-X)% since not everyone uses the same amount, which means you can fiddle the numbers all you want to get what you need. Might I remind you that if everyone were to cut their bandwidth usage in 1/2, the statement would STILL be true, showing how stupid it is entirely. Rather, they want to selectively punish those at the top while not affecting those at the bottom (since they use far less than their fair share but pay the same).

I'm not sure whether you agree or disagree with me. With the exception of the subjective "punish" in your final sentence, you seem to be agreeing those at the bottom "use far less than their fair share but pay the same." (substitute "charge more" for "punish" and see how it reads; and note that this change WOULD affect those at the bottom, IF it reduces consumption by the top 3% resulting in better network availability for the other 97%.

maybe it's one of those cases where two people look at an elephant and describe it it quite different terms, depending on which end they're viewing from!

peace
terry
post #10 of 92
Lemme get this straight. The network is choked to death with too much bandwidth use, and it's resulted in poor service.

Dan's solution is to deliberately increase that effect? Yeah....Smart.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 6 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #11 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Honestly, with any statistical analysis, the top X% are always going to use more bandwidth than the other (100-X)% since not everyone uses the same amount, which means you can fiddle the numbers all you want to get what you need. Might I remind you that if everyone were to cut their bandwidth usage in 1/2, the statement would STILL be true, showing how stupid it is entirely. Rather, they want to selectively punish those at the top while not affecting those at the bottom (since they use far less than their fair share but pay the same).

But what would be a more effective and efficient way to cut network usage by 40%, kicking out the top 3% of users or getting _everyone_ to cut back their usage by 40%? If it costs AT&T billions of dollars to build out the network to support the total bandwidth needed, it absolutely makes sense that those few people who are way, way, way beyond the typical user bear a fair share of the cost. I.e., they should pay 40% of the cost, not 3% as they are now. Also it's users like that who use their phones for crazy stuff that cause us all to pay so much more to get features like tethering.
post #12 of 92
I'll be watching YouTube videos the entire hour for Choke Hold. I quite frankly get furious at AT&T routinely here in the Puget Sound area because they can't manage to provide adequate coverage and I have dropped calls all the time. Sure they are spending billions on their network. I don't believe them. Their service here sucks. I use AT&T simply because I am forced to use it if I want to use my iPhone unjailbroken.

Call it juvenile all you want. Anything that forces that POS company to actually improve their network is something I'll support. We've asked, and asked, and asked again. Just how long do we have to "ask" before we start taking steps to publicly humiliate them? Something has to be done because they suck as a cell provider, and having gaps in coverage in metropolitan areas is something expected in the 1980's when things were just getting started (watch Lethal Weapon 1 for a chuckle when Mel Gibson has to stand on a freeway overpass to get reception), but here it is nearly 2010 and they can't manage to have decent cell coverage. Then there's the whole "Five Bars" thing. What a BS thing that is. Sure, you'll have five bars, and yet your conversation fade in and out, it gets choppy, and you wonder to yourself how they can say they have great coverage and five bars and still provide horrible service that sounds horrible. Sure they've invested billions. They are a bunch of liars, and they spent all that money giving their top idiots huge bonuses.

I don't care what they say. The actual real-world results speak far louder than any words their marketing department has to say.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #13 of 92
why do all the at&t apologists always declare the amount of billions that the company invests in the network but never mention the Billions -- 12-13 a *year* -- that the company takes home in *net income*?

"if you're looking for sympathy it's in the dictionary, between shit and suicide" (i know, i know).
post #14 of 92
For those of us that need to make legitimate and important calls (possibly life saving calls), your little juvenile experiment will only cause harm for the rest of us. All I can say to you is get a good lawyer.

Hey, I have an idea, let's get back at.....

Dept of Transportation by all driving to work at the exact same time! Aren't we fed up with traffic jams! This will get them!

Dept of Water & Sanitation by all flushing the toilet at the same time! Aren't we fed up with low water pressure? Yeah...this will work!

Department Stores by shopping at the same time! Aren't we fed up with long lines! Hooray!

What a joke.
post #15 of 92
Charging extra fees to people who use YouTube or VOIP on their iPhones a lot sounds harsh. So does capping their unlimited usage and cutting them off the net when they use too much. But AT&T NEEDS to "regain control of its wireless customers. Apple has been bringing in tons of AT&T customers, and AT&T simply NEEDS to have the power to drive those customers away again. Its how AT&T does business
post #16 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

For those of us that need to make legitimate and important calls (possibly life saving calls), your little juvenile experiment will only cause harm for the rest of us. All I can say to you is get a good lawyer.

And with your proceeds, how about you put up some cell towers that improve coverage. It's obvious AT&T isn't doing anything to improve things.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #17 of 92
Maybe he should do the same thing with other networks like Verizon and see what happens. We are all aware of AT&T network issues.
post #18 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayparry View Post

Fake steve has a point tho... they sold people 'unlimited data'

Faux Steve doesn't have much of a point tho, because other carriers including Verizon impose the same restrictions and/or retain the right to terminate users who overuse their services. The FCC and/or the FTC should uniformly crack down on all of them for deceptive advertising... and so should Faux Steve. Merely dogpiling on AT&T doesn't win Faux Steve any brownie points for intelligence, but I'm sure it will win him lots of browser clicks and we know that's what Faux Steve values most because that's all he's good for.
post #19 of 92
The thing I find most interesting is that it evidently only takes 3% of all AT&T smart phone users to purportedly have a marked impact on their quality of service. Naturally, AT&T would want to spin this as "not their problem" but it inescapably is (their problem).

As a network provider, what would one expect to be the minimum threshold for service reliability? Like in construction, structures are rated for various loads and they are generally a multiple of a very high assumed maximum load. e.g. a floor might be rated at 3000 pounds although for a typical situation it might really only be expected to 1000 pounds. It just seems that AT&T should easily be able to handle 30-50% of their customers using their phones at maximum bandwidth without breaking a sweat. AT&T isn't even close, obviously.

I hope Verizon is on the ball.

bloop
post #20 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

All I can say to you is get a good lawyer.

You'd have to prove that everyone that happened to be using a lot of data during that hour was aware of the stunt and participating in it. How are you going to do that? With a whole lot of work scouring Facebook and message boards like this you might, just might, be able to stick it to what? 100, 200?
post #21 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayparry View Post

Fake steve has a point tho... they sold people 'unlimited data' , those people can feel free to take advantage of that! They should not re-neg and say that now you have to pay because AT&T underestimated that people might actually use their cool new iphones. Your analogy is broken because if you paid for unlimited movies or whatever you were on about, you wouldnt want someone to stop you after a set amount.

They advertised unlimited, but had fine print, further reinforced in a fairly wordy contract. Not really fair, but that's what happened. Marketing is often about oversimplifying things to the extreme. It's a lot easier and faster to say unlimited than it is to say 5GB and have to tell you how many billion emails, million pictures & web pages, thousands of videos & all that it really gets you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Charging extra fees to people who use YouTube or VOIP on their iPhones a lot sounds harsh. So does capping their “unlimited” usage and cutting them off the ‘net when they use too much. But AT&T NEEDS to "regain control of its wireless customers.” Apple has been bringing in tons of AT&T customers, and AT&T simply NEEDS to have the power to drive those customers away again. It’s how AT&T does business

I think it's a question of what they're really doing with the data to be considered a heavy user. If you just do YouTube, you probably have to watch a couple thousand videos to exceed your contractual limit.

I do think a lot of the fuss about heavy users by ISPs is really about the ISPs wanting to traffic shape anything that's competing with services said ISP provides.
post #22 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

So does capping their unlimited usage and cutting them off the net when they use too much.

Give one instance where this has happened. While you're at it, tell us how many people use more than 5 GB data on their iPhone in one month.

Quote:
But AT&T NEEDS to "regain control of its wireless customers. Apple has been bringing in tons of AT&T customers, and AT&T simply NEEDS to have the power to drive those customers away again. Its how AT&T does business

This is how the public goes loony.
post #23 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Give one instance where this has happened. While you're at it, tell us how many people use more than 5 GB data on their iPhone in one month.



This is how the public goes loony.

First off, it's really hard to even reach that limit, since youtube videos on 3G are cut rate on quality and thus bandwidth. Most are around 15MB on normal quality, and you can't get HD level videos because it would have no effect on an iphone.

If you really do 5GB on a consistent basis, either you are using p2p crap or bt via tethering, and both are reasons for terminating your service, ON ANY PROVIDER.
post #24 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by blurpbleepbloop View Post

I hope Verizon is on the ball.

Is that because you're a Verizon customer (biased)?
post #25 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post

I could go on too long (ok, maybe i already did). But i don't get it. If i'm lucky enough to have business or personal needs that i meet by using ATTs service so extensively that i join that 3% of over-consumers, I should be happy to pay for that privilege. And I shouldn't talk about knocking down everyone else's cabanas and unplugging their printers, just because I'm unhappy because i can't everything i want for the price i want. Fakesteve and his cohorts deserve a bums rush on this one.

I understand that "unlimited" should mean just that. This is reminiscent of the debacle that Comcast High Speed Internet had as well back in 2007-08 I think. Unfortunately, regardless of the true meaning of "unlimited", there are those folks that simply abuse that service to the max. Far more than any wireless provider could have anticipated. For those that constantly stream you-tube, media, whatever... yes, they should pay an increased price. Or better yet, those that use the service at a minimum should pay a lesser data plan. I suppose a tiered system would be more appropriate.

Whiners will complain (as usual) that "unlimited" should mean they should be allowed to download literally gigabytes of data on a handheld device with no concern for how their actions affect other people. It is after all, a shared-bandwidth medium but the whiners don't think of it that way. It is all about them.

That kind of usage is wrong. If they have a desire (and no life) to download that much data for a handheld device (or illegal tethering), then let them pay more. They are abusers. Simple as that.

No wireless network can support that kind of usage. I'm not apologizing for AT&T but I think that even if Verizon was the first choice, they would be in the exact same position as AT&T is right now. I'm sure the Verizon executives are wiping their foreheads for dodging the iPhone bullet in the big picture due to the bandwidth issues.

In the end, it will end up being that the small percentage of users will screw it up for the ones that played it safe.
post #26 of 92
FSJ is looking a little sheepish on this. His most recent post is not in full FSJ character, sounding a little more like Lyons trying to cover his butt in case there are ramifications like, oh, emergency calls not being able to go through.
It is kinda childish, particularly since his first post on the FSJ/Randall Stephenson conversation was nothing short of brilliant.
post #27 of 92
Guys,

FSJ is a joke, hence the name: FAKE Steve Jobs. It's a blog with one premise: a joke. Operation Chokehold is a joke. Get it? Why get so pissed off? If someone can't clearly see that the whole blog is a joke, they have something very seriously wrong with them and should seek counseling of some sort.

Take a deep breath. Relax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

FSJ is looking a little sheepish on this. His most recent post is not in full FSJ character, sounding a little more like Lyons trying to cover his butt in case there are ramifications like, oh, emergency calls not being able to go through.
It is kinda childish, particularly since his first post on the FSJ/Randall Stephenson conversation was nothing short of brilliant.
post #28 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by driver8 View Post

Guys,

FSJ is a joke, hence the name: FAKE Steve Jobs. It's a blog with one premise: a joke. Operation Chokehold is a joke. Get it? Why get so pissed off? If someone can't clearly see that the whole blog is a joke, they have something very seriously wrong with them and should seek counseling of some sort.

Take a deep breath. Relax.

Um, yeah, we know.
The 1700+ signups for the protest, however, may be quite real.
Lyons doesn't sound like he's totally comfortable with the ball he's started rolling.
post #29 of 92
I understand user's are frustrated, but if they truly want to punish AT&T and "bring them to their knees," the only real way is to simply not continue the service. Vote with your wallet. That's how capitalism works.
post #30 of 92
I'm actually fine with AT&T's plan. The top 3%'ers can continue to pay the current rate for the unlimited data they are consuming and I can pay a subset of that rate based on my lesser data usage. Seems to me that is the only way they can reasonably move forward from a fixed rate.
post #31 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayparry View Post


Yes.

Fake steve has a point tho... they sold people 'unlimited data' , those people can feel free to take advantage of that! They should not re-neg and say that now you have to pay because AT&T underestimated that people might actually use their cool new iphones. Your analogy is broken because if you paid for unlimited movies or whatever you were on about, you wouldnt want someone to stop you after a set amount.

A better publicity move for AT&T in this era of crowd-participation, is to say "Please proceed with Operation Chokehold as it will be a good test of our network readiness" That would probably diffuse the bomb and make people have less animosity towards AT&T. But because they called it irresponsible and pointless, now I want to join in!

some valid points. (including the "yes")
post #32 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

For those of us that need to make legitimate and important calls (possibly life saving calls), your little juvenile experiment will only cause harm for the rest of us. All I can say to you is get a good lawyer.

Hey, I have an idea, let's get back at.....

Dept of Transportation by all driving to work at the exact same time! Aren't we fed up with traffic jams! This will get them!

Dept of Water & Sanitation by all flushing the toilet at the same time! Aren't we fed up with low water pressure? Yeah...this will work!

Department Stores by shopping at the same time! Aren't we fed up with long lines! Hooray!
.

i bow to your wisdom.
post #33 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

And with your proceeds, how about you put up some cell towers that improve coverage. It's obvious AT&T isn't doing anything to improve things.

brian, I think you underestimate the obligations ATT has to report its infrastructure investments REASONABLY accurately, what with SEC regulation and all. A multiblllion dollar corporation can't blithely tell investors it's spending $18B to expand its network, and then do nothing. There are far more checks and balances on the corporation than on your understandable expressions of frustration. Even if the investments aren't enough to provide full and perfect service for everyone all the time, i'd not be so quick to assume the reported investments are simply lies, or that ATT "isn't doing anything" to improve its coverage. Discourse is usually disserved when people resort to extremes.
post #34 of 92
i have owned an iphone from day 1, and yes the service has gotten better for the most part, but so has the phone.

don't cry about the service provider, it was your decision to buy the iphone and you knew who the provider was to be before you bought it.

as with everything in this world, nothing is perfect.

NO ONE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TALK JUNK ABOUT AT&T, EVERY PROVIDER HAS DRAW BACKS AND I HAVE HAD PHONES OVER THE PAST 12 YEARS ON JUST ABOUT ALL OF THEM.

THAT BEING SAID AT&T HAS DONE A GREAT JOB COMPARATIVELY TO THE REST.

SO STOP THE WHINING A FIND SOMETHING TO DO WITH ALL THIS EXTRA TIME YOU HAVE.

GO HELP THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOTHING, ESPECIALLY AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR.
post #35 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Is that because you're a Verizon customer (biased)?

Ha! Actually, I've never been a Verizon customer...I was on Sprint for several years until the iPhone came out at which time I switched. I get appalling service at home (bay area, CA). I'm hoping that there is a better alternative out there when the iPhone opens up to more (another) carrier.

blurp
post #36 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho View Post

You'd have to prove that everyone that happened to be using a lot of data during that hour was aware of the stunt and participating in it. How are you going to do that? With a whole lot of work scouring Facebook and message boards like this you might, just might, be able to stick it to what? 100, 200?

After 9/11, the Federal Government mandated and defined the Telecommunications Systems as Critical Assets because they are required to be used in the event of any national emergency. As such, any person, group, external entity, or terrorist that attempts to disrupt or destroy this infrastructure has committed a felony crime against the US Government.

I'm no lawyer, but from here it looks like Dan Lyons has organized a National DoS (Denial of Service) Attack against part of our Telecommunications Systems. This is no different than cyber-terrorists who attempt to attack our network infrastructure from abroad using similar DoS attacks.

Like I said, if I were Dan Lyons, I would get a good lawyer. The public participants who want to blindly follow Dan's lead, will probably have nothing to worry about.....no one can prove that that were part of this plan.
post #37 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayparry View Post

Fake steve has a point tho... they sold people 'unlimited data' , those people can feel free to take advantage of that!

Your limiting your use of the term unlimited. They stated unlimited but didnt qualify what that term meant in the general marketing. They let you utilize their network in two unlimited ways, the amount of time per day and per month is unlimited (no blackout times or total time limit use) and you have unlimited access to any AT&T location in the US.

These werent always the case. AOL uses to give yo unlimited data caps but limited your usage to $15/month for 3 hours and then $3 per hour thereafter. And I think MetroPCS charges extra for using cell service outside of your calling region. even though its free nationwide calling from your state or region.

Even now there are cell plans that advertise unlimited nights and weekends, but you are still limited to their start and stop timeframes.

The contract you sign is to lock you in, not them. They then had customers sign a contract that clearly stated, albeit in fine print, that they have a right to cap you at 5GB, alter or cancel your account at any time. They also stipulated what you can and cant do with the device. For example, tethering.
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 #38 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post

"if you're looking for sympathy it's in the dictionary, between shit and suicide" (i know, i know).

Dude...you need a new dictionary!
post #39 of 92
lol att and the ppl that claim they may need to make an emergency call are morons. everyone knows a cell phone is not an emergency tool because even in this day and age you CANT count on technology in an emergency. even if ppl were not blasting the network, theres still NEVER a guaranty that you will get a call through. thats why your not suppose to have just a cell phone at home. use your heads ppl, cells are a luxury not a right. and to the ppl upset with the top 3 percent, really? if i buy something no matter what it is, i should be able to use it as intended. if they say unlimted, where is the limit in that statement? att needs to get their act together, i went to vzw cuz att couldnt get me a call with out dropping it. then i went to tmobile cuz vzw nickle and dimes me for EVERYTHING. pretty soon other carriers are going to get the iphone and att wont have a leg to stand on. all these corporations need to stop filling their own pockets and treat us like customers. if i spend my hard earned money with your company i expect nothing but the best and no excuses. at least when i have an issue with tmobile they take ownership of the problem and get it resolved immidately. that alone makes up for their ho hum service. but one last thing, tmobile has wifi calling. if your like me and your under wifi 95% of the day, lousy cell coverage doesnt matter since i have top notch wifi coverage. in the end, my phone gets a great call long before anyone elses does.
post #40 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

After 9/11, the Federal Government mandated and defined the Telecommunications Systems as Critical Assets because they are required to be used in the event of any national emergency. As such, any person, group, external entity, or terrorist that attempts to disrupt or destroy this infrastructure has committed a felony crime against the US Government.

I'm no lawyer, but from here it looks like Dan Lyons has organized a National DoS (Denial of Service) Attack against part of our Telecommunications Systems. This is no different than cyber-terrorists who attempt to attack our network infrastructure from abroad using similar DoS attacks.

Like I said, if I were Dan Lyons, I would get a good lawyer. The public participants who want to blindly follow Dan's lead, will probably have nothing to worry about.....no one can prove that that were part of this plan.

dood youre wrong! in the event of an emergency, cell towers are giving the highest priority to emergency personel. try making a call from any carrier when there is a state of emergency.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 'Fake Steve Jobs' vs. AT&T's real-life phone service