Plus Verizon just started a ban on relaying email so you can no longer send email from your phone with a reply address of [email protected] they only allow verizon email addresses. Nice. Fortunately we have our imap certificate and can authenticate users with SSL so they can use our smtp from their moblie, but most ISP don't allow that.
Actions by both Verizon and AT&T will hurt smartphone sales. Similar to the AOL spam browser, who wants to be locked into Verizon's garbage software? BTW, I will never buy an iphone until the monthly cost of owning one drops by at least 50%
Maybe Skype should become a utility and cut a deal with Apple?
I find it funny how everyone has a different experience with reception.
My wife who has an iphone on AT&T travels all over the country and runs into very few problems, she even travels internationally and has similar experience with the iphone working well. Only one time did her phone not work well and that was in Yosemite Valley, the interesting part of that was our sons RAZR worked fine which it too is on AT&T. So I am not sure why the RAZR worked but the Iphone did not, I am thinking the RAZR switch to analog mode.
For those people who have problems with reception do you have one of those fancy plastic cases on the phone. We have notice that some of those cases really mess with the phones reception. So before going off and saying it is the phone or AT&T it could be something else which you failed to recognizes.
AT&T are good internationally (used their service for traveling around Asia, Africa, South America and Australia), but too many people complaining about the local USA coverage to say that everyone has different experience with reception. I would give an opinion that about 50% or more of customers are not satisfied with the coverage and have real compliant to make.
AT&T's problems are not caused by the iPhone's excessive use of bandwidth. They are caused by AT&T's failure to provide enough bandwidth to properly support the groundbreaking internet device known as the iPhone. AT&T has failed to deliver the bandwidth they undoubtedly promised to deliver, dragging their heels to maximize short-term profits as their network has become more and more inadequate. What did they think was going to happen once Apple released the most amazing mobile internet device ever seen by man? Or woman. I would strangle AT&T with my bare hands until their eyeballs pop out if I could do so without getting arrested. That's why I think of AT&T.
"The real issue for AT&T is how quickly can they alleviate the problem," he said. "It's interesting news that they're investing billions of dollars, but what does that mean for me as an AT&T customer over the next month, three months, six months?"
I know from our usage in the past few months, we have had probably double to triple the amount of dropped calls and other calling problems.
I realize cell connections will never reach the reliability of land lines, but I think there is tremendous room for improvement.
I believe that AT&T didn't properly project usage and ramp up tower construction. They're gonna have to make that $18 billion count if they want to remain exclusive.
If Apple goes open contract with multi-carriers, I'm likely to switch.
You give to much credit to bloggers. The negative view is due to the high bar and expectations set by Apple's phone, and the inverse bar level set by at&t's business as usual attitude.
This I don't get. I have used AT&T (SBC/PacBell) for all of my business phone services, well since forever, and their customer support is fantastic. I have not ever needed any customer support on my iPhone but nevertheless I don't agree with the implication that the bar is set low. They have been superb to work with, at least for me. Sure they are expensive but worth it in my opinion.
That's unfortunate that your area has such horrible service. My service is as good maybe even better than Verizon's, at least compared to the time when I used their service. Signal quality apparently varies quite a bit across the country.
Your comment made me think about how conditions affect cell coverage, and different cell coverage strategies the carriers use, and even design strengths and weaknesses of different standards.
Personally I would like to see it mandatory for a major carrier to cover all Interstates in order to have a license to do business. There should be some requirement for them to complete coverage on Interstates by a certain date or be fined.
Why? Cell phones are not mission critical support services. They are a convenience. So you think every single cell company should be required to service every single inch of every single interstate? Who's going to pay for that? The subscribers? The shareholders? Or maybe the government should nationalize the cell industry and tax payers can pay for it.
Public opinion is not usually based on anything rational. A bunch of bloggers who are very vocal in their complaints can actually skew the public perception. I have average people tell me "Oh I heard the iPhone is not very good because of this or that they heard somewhere..." when actually they know nothing about it, but they have formed an opinion.
The whiners are for the most part pissed about the $100 a month charge. If it were half that price we wouldn't be hearing any complaints at all. It's all about the perceived value not the network. The network complaint is just a smoke screen for the real reason. They love the iPhone, hate the monthly fee.
All carriers have dropped calls and dead zones. I had Verizon before I got the iPhone and it did have better signal compared to AT&T at that time but AT&T is much better now that 3G has been implemented.
I hear a lot about dropped calls on AT&T. But throughout New England and now in the south on Verizon I have had.... One or two dropped calls. In seven years.
Count me as one of the AT&T haters. It will be a cold day in Hell before I ever use them again. Of course, they probably wouldn't sell me service anyway. The last time, they pissed me off so much, I ditched them without paying the early termination fee. I don't care how good the iPhone gets. If it's tied to AT&T, I'm not buying. Ever.
i'm with you. about the time bush stole the presidency the first time around, i'd had enough of texas. at&t's lousy service was the nail in the coffin.
This I don't get. I have used AT&T (SBC/PacBell) for all of my business phone services, well since forever, and their customer support is fantastic. I have not ever needed any customer support on my iPhone but nevertheless I don't agree with the implication that the bar is set low. They have been superb to work with, at least for me. Sure they are expensive but worth it in my opinion.
I suppose you've been lucky or had good people you've interacted with, from my side not one person I know has had a kind word for at&t.
Yeah I dont think Verizon will get the Iphone anytime soon but I kind of wish they did to see all these people jump to them, my ATT network would become awesome and I will laugh when Verizon network crumbles and comes to a standstill in cities because their network is older technology and will not be able to support the data demands of the Iphone at all and will be worse than ATT at that point!!!
I suppose you've been lucky or had good people you've interacted with, from my side not one person I know has had a kind word for at&t.
I have not had anything but great service with ATT as well. I have been with them since cingular and have had every Iphone released with no issues at all and I live in the Bay area where people seem to be complaining, maybe they screw with the people who jumped over for the Iphone!!! HA HA!!!
But don't all major carriers in the US suck in some deal-breaking way?
Sadly, you are correct.
Which is why use a Motorola dumbphone on T-Mobile's Pay As You Go prepaid service. Ten cents a minute, minutes won't expire for a whole year and they roll over anyhow if I stick more money in. T-Mobile unlocked this quad-band GSM phone, so I can go pretty much anywhere in this world and pop in a local SIM with zero hassle.
So yes, I pay for suckage, but I average only $3 per month and I'm not locked into any contract. I could pay much more for suckage, but I don't feel that the price-performance return is particularly attractive.
I've been an AT&T Wireless customer since 2002, first with Sony Ericksson phones and Motorola phones after that.
Coverage has always been very good and general network performance has been good until the last couple of years; RF performance and network congestion has gotten steadily worse.
In store customer service has always been mediocre at best, with many in-store personnel clueless about the products and services they offer. Online customer service was good until the conversion from AT&T Wireless to Cingular. Dealing with incompetent clerks and dishonest supervisors over the phone was very frustrating.
In its current incarnation as AT&T wireless, I've seen the in-store personnel get more knowledgeable about their products, but I've sensed a definite corporate shift that has gotten less customer friendly. Perhaps they feel that they're the only game in town and that we should feel privileged that they allow us to pay them for their products and services. They may be no better or worse than any other large company nowadays, but I can see why people might feel uncomfortable with this cold corporate attitude.
In my opinion, AT&T took advantage of the iPhone users. They knew they didn't have to improve their service because customers were both locked in a 2 year contract with AT&T as well as locked into the love of the iPhone.
and you are so sure that Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint wouldn't be just as nasty if they had gotten the iphone
Quote:
I signed another 2 year contract to get the 3Gs, but I will GLADLY pay the cancelation fee to go to Verizon or Sprint.
given that Apple rejected supporting CDMA when the phone was first released, there is no guarantee that they would spend the time to change things. which means for the timing being there will be no iphone on Verizon or Sprint.
I had one of the very first cell phones in NYC back in 1984 but before that we had mobile radios on a shared channel. At times you'd hear interference from people a thousand miles away. But today, since even the lowest paid people in the country can own a cell phone, everyone seems to have a sense of entitlement. "My calls are very important. The nerve of these phone companies dropping my call'. Get over it. As much as you might think that cell phones should be a complete replacement for having a land line in your home, I don't think that the reliability is there yet.
How wonderful that you had a cellphone back in 1984, not sure what that has to do with anything except that you want to brag about having had one back then...
A sense of entitlement?! You mean that when you pay for something you shouldn't expect to get what you pay for?!
An what does the fact that "the lowest paid people in the country can afford a cell phone" have to do with anything?!
When did I ever say they should be a complete replacement of a landline?! I got zero reception with Verizon in my apartment.
I have an iPhone for 2 months and have been getting all the bars. Occasionally I get dropped calls, much better than Sprint though. Data rate is good. However, the iPhone experience is superb. I got phone, data, etc everything integrated. Very productive. This is not a regular cell phone... a whole new class of product that is 3 years old. Quite good performance. It is hard to tell how the VZN network would perform with the same data load.
People need to be so critical... if they do not like it, they can always go using Windows Mobile, somewhere else.
How wonderful that you had a cellphone back in 1984, not sure what that has to do with anything except that you want to brag about having had one back then...
A sense of entitlement?! You mean that when you pay for something you shouldn't expect to get what you pay for?!
An what does the fact that "the lowest paid people in the country can afford a cell phone" have to do with anything?!
When did I ever say they should be a complete replacement of a landline?! I got zero reception with Verizon in my apartment.
Well all I'm saying is despite the technological advancements, after all this time we are still dealing with radio waves and they are still unpredictable.
As far as entitlement I'm just amazed that people think that it is completely unaccepstable for a trivial chit chat conversation to be dropped while roaming around a city filled with skyscrappers, billions of eletromagnetic fields, radio waves in every spectum as well as 100k other people trying to access the same network. And it's 'hey I'm talking here' give me a break. That's kind of how it works - It's not a perfect world sorry.
Comments
Plus Verizon just started a ban on relaying email so you can no longer send email from your phone with a reply address of [email protected] they only allow verizon email addresses. Nice. Fortunately we have our imap certificate and can authenticate users with SSL so they can use our smtp from their moblie, but most ISP don't allow that.
Actions by both Verizon and AT&T will hurt smartphone sales. Similar to the AOL spam browser, who wants to be locked into Verizon's garbage software? BTW, I will never buy an iphone until the monthly cost of owning one drops by at least 50%
Maybe Skype should become a utility and cut a deal with Apple?
I find it funny how everyone has a different experience with reception.
My wife who has an iphone on AT&T travels all over the country and runs into very few problems, she even travels internationally and has similar experience with the iphone working well. Only one time did her phone not work well and that was in Yosemite Valley, the interesting part of that was our sons RAZR worked fine which it too is on AT&T. So I am not sure why the RAZR worked but the Iphone did not, I am thinking the RAZR switch to analog mode.
For those people who have problems with reception do you have one of those fancy plastic cases on the phone. We have notice that some of those cases really mess with the phones reception. So before going off and saying it is the phone or AT&T it could be something else which you failed to recognizes.
AT&T are good internationally (used their service for traveling around Asia, Africa, South America and Australia), but too many people complaining about the local USA coverage to say that everyone has different experience with reception. I would give an opinion that about 50% or more of customers are not satisfied with the coverage and have real compliant to make.
"The real issue for AT&T is how quickly can they alleviate the problem," he said. "It's interesting news that they're investing billions of dollars, but what does that mean for me as an AT&T customer over the next month, three months, six months?"
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I know from our usage in the past few months, we have had probably double to triple the amount of dropped calls and other calling problems.
I realize cell connections will never reach the reliability of land lines, but I think there is tremendous room for improvement.
I believe that AT&T didn't properly project usage and ramp up tower construction. They're gonna have to make that $18 billion count if they want to remain exclusive.
If Apple goes open contract with multi-carriers, I'm likely to switch.
You give to much credit to bloggers. The negative view is due to the high bar and expectations set by Apple's phone, and the inverse bar level set by at&t's business as usual attitude.
This I don't get. I have used AT&T (SBC/PacBell) for all of my business phone services, well since forever, and their customer support is fantastic. I have not ever needed any customer support on my iPhone but nevertheless I don't agree with the implication that the bar is set low. They have been superb to work with, at least for me. Sure they are expensive but worth it in my opinion.
That's unfortunate that your area has such horrible service. My service is as good maybe even better than Verizon's, at least compared to the time when I used their service. Signal quality apparently varies quite a bit across the country.
Your comment made me think about how conditions affect cell coverage, and different cell coverage strategies the carriers use, and even design strengths and weaknesses of different standards.
Personally I would like to see it mandatory for a major carrier to cover all Interstates in order to have a license to do business. There should be some requirement for them to complete coverage on Interstates by a certain date or be fined.
Why? Cell phones are not mission critical support services. They are a convenience. So you think every single cell company should be required to service every single inch of every single interstate? Who's going to pay for that? The subscribers? The shareholders? Or maybe the government should nationalize the cell industry and tax payers can pay for it.
Public opinion is not usually based on anything rational. A bunch of bloggers who are very vocal in their complaints can actually skew the public perception. I have average people tell me "Oh I heard the iPhone is not very good because of this or that they heard somewhere..." when actually they know nothing about it, but they have formed an opinion.
The whiners are for the most part pissed about the $100 a month charge. If it were half that price we wouldn't be hearing any complaints at all. It's all about the perceived value not the network. The network complaint is just a smoke screen for the real reason. They love the iPhone, hate the monthly fee.
All carriers have dropped calls and dead zones. I had Verizon before I got the iPhone and it did have better signal compared to AT&T at that time but AT&T is much better now that 3G has been implemented.
I hear a lot about dropped calls on AT&T. But throughout New England and now in the south on Verizon I have had.... One or two dropped calls. In seven years.
This I don't get. I have used AT&T (SBC/PacBell) for all of my business phone services, well since forever, and their customer support is fantastic. I have not ever needed any customer support on my iPhone but nevertheless I don't agree with the implication that the bar is set low. They have been superb to work with, at least for me. Sure they are expensive but worth it in my opinion.
I suppose you've been lucky or had good people you've interacted with, from my side not one person I know has had a kind word for at&t.
Why? Cell phones are not mission critical support services. They are a convenience.
It's a wonder I managed to survive into my late 20's without a cell phone
I suppose you've been lucky or had good people you've interacted with, from my side not one person I know has had a kind word for at&t.
I have not had anything but great service with ATT as well. I have been with them since cingular and have had every Iphone released with no issues at all and I live in the Bay area where people seem to be complaining, maybe they screw with the people who jumped over for the Iphone!!! HA HA!!!
But don't all major carriers in the US suck in some deal-breaking way?
Sadly, you are correct.
Which is why use a Motorola dumbphone on T-Mobile's Pay As You Go prepaid service. Ten cents a minute, minutes won't expire for a whole year and they roll over anyhow if I stick more money in. T-Mobile unlocked this quad-band GSM phone, so I can go pretty much anywhere in this world and pop in a local SIM with zero hassle.
So yes, I pay for suckage, but I average only $3 per month and I'm not locked into any contract. I could pay much more for suckage, but I don't feel that the price-performance return is particularly attractive.
Coverage has always been very good and general network performance has been good until the last couple of years; RF performance and network congestion has gotten steadily worse.
In store customer service has always been mediocre at best, with many in-store personnel clueless about the products and services they offer. Online customer service was good until the conversion from AT&T Wireless to Cingular. Dealing with incompetent clerks and dishonest supervisors over the phone was very frustrating.
In its current incarnation as AT&T wireless, I've seen the in-store personnel get more knowledgeable about their products, but I've sensed a definite corporate shift that has gotten less customer friendly. Perhaps they feel that they're the only game in town and that we should feel privileged that they allow us to pay them for their products and services. They may be no better or worse than any other large company nowadays, but I can see why people might feel uncomfortable with this cold corporate attitude.
In my opinion, AT&T took advantage of the iPhone users. They knew they didn't have to improve their service because customers were both locked in a 2 year contract with AT&T as well as locked into the love of the iPhone.
and you are so sure that Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint wouldn't be just as nasty if they had gotten the iphone
I signed another 2 year contract to get the 3Gs, but I will GLADLY pay the cancelation fee to go to Verizon or Sprint.
given that Apple rejected supporting CDMA when the phone was first released, there is no guarantee that they would spend the time to change things. which means for the timing being there will be no iphone on Verizon or Sprint.
I had one of the very first cell phones in NYC back in 1984 but before that we had mobile radios on a shared channel. At times you'd hear interference from people a thousand miles away. But today, since even the lowest paid people in the country can own a cell phone, everyone seems to have a sense of entitlement. "My calls are very important. The nerve of these phone companies dropping my call'. Get over it. As much as you might think that cell phones should be a complete replacement for having a land line in your home, I don't think that the reliability is there yet.
How wonderful that you had a cellphone back in 1984, not sure what that has to do with anything except that you want to brag about having had one back then...
A sense of entitlement?! You mean that when you pay for something you shouldn't expect to get what you pay for?!
An what does the fact that "the lowest paid people in the country can afford a cell phone" have to do with anything?!
When did I ever say they should be a complete replacement of a landline?! I got zero reception with Verizon in my apartment.
People need to be so critical... if they do not like it, they can always go using Windows Mobile, somewhere else.
How wonderful that you had a cellphone back in 1984, not sure what that has to do with anything except that you want to brag about having had one back then...
A sense of entitlement?! You mean that when you pay for something you shouldn't expect to get what you pay for?!
An what does the fact that "the lowest paid people in the country can afford a cell phone" have to do with anything?!
When did I ever say they should be a complete replacement of a landline?! I got zero reception with Verizon in my apartment.
Well all I'm saying is despite the technological advancements, after all this time we are still dealing with radio waves and they are still unpredictable.
As far as entitlement I'm just amazed that people think that it is completely unaccepstable for a trivial chit chat conversation to be dropped while roaming around a city filled with skyscrappers, billions of eletromagnetic fields, radio waves in every spectum as well as 100k other people trying to access the same network. And it's 'hey I'm talking here' give me a break. That's kind of how it works - It's not a perfect world sorry.