Could be the basis for a nice class-action lawsuit.....
First you'd have to find someone who is harmed by the policy. Someone who can prove they were harmed, and put a value on that harm. And then find a LOT more. I don't see how that could be possible.
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
Yeah... a "new trend" for a business to dump unprofitable customers.
If they price the data for phone use only, which is what they do, then it’s not priced for tethering, too. Data does cost money and if you want a tethered device the average rate is $60, either from a USB or EC/34 wireless card or through the additional cost over and above the regular unlimited data.
If you don’t want them to care if you are connecting your 7.2Mbps phone to a router and then connecting several machines doing 100s of GBs per month (my record for AT&T is 45GB with tethering and >1TB with Comcast cable) then expect to have a much high base rate for data.
I recall that least one carrier had unlimited data but when you paid extra for the tethering they capped it at 5GB. This tells me that they advertise unlimited for phones because it wasn’t remotely possible to get close to 5GB per month. The iPhone and subsequent phones with modern mobile OSes, browsers and apps seems to have changed that so I dont’ see why a business shouldn’t be allowed to change the way to do business.
SMS is data is the strictest sense, but so is voice from a call or voicemail. From the carriers’ PoV neither is data as it’s not using an IP address like we think of data for a phone or computer. SMS uses the always on control channel that your phone uses to constantly talk to the tower so it’s not even costing the carrier any actual data usage, but it does cost them for the SMSC for the server to store these short messages. My argument is that it can’t possibly be close enough to incur such a high fee that is increasing.
I see what you are saying. The SMSC cost, if they were to be upgraded/replaced due to such a ridiculous increase in SMS/MMS traffic of the last two years is somewhat understandable then. Any idea how much one of those costs?
If they could move the SMS traffic to IP traffic, and treat it all as data, the cost of the SMSC is non-existent. Do you think that is feasible?
Edit: Nevermind, it is possible with this thing: IMCS.
Apparently, that is what 4G will bring? Maybe then we can stop having to pay separately for SMS and data.
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.
QFT and absolutely perfect first post.
Mobile providers, quit whining, fix your *** network and people will use your services. It's that simple. So-and-so is hogging this or that is no excuse. As long as your network is good, has wide coverage, and appropriately allocates bandwidth to multiple users, people will come.
ATT's stanglehold on the iPhone for a few years now is not good enough for them? Now they're complaining "Oh the iPhone has set us up the bomb"
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.
Well put! Fact is, these dumbass carriers are in business to make money- that's it! It amazes me that they almost seem like they are trying to get pity from consumers. Shut up and deal with it ATT! All I care about is the iPhone experience. If someone offers a better one then yours, my money will go to them. That's it.
"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."
This makes it sound like AT&T's hands are tied and they aren't. Sacrificing their shared (with Apple I mean) customers' experience in order to get a bigger slice of what is really Apple's pie is not going to help AT&T in the long run. If it were a nimble and adaptable corporate animal AT&T could simply decide on having the best network and invest far more heavily into it. Maybe run less TV ads spinning what their network is and instead simply make it the best network. It's the same with their claimed alternative to FIOS: U-Verse. They want to sell us the same slow DSL by pointing out that the signal is over fiber for most of the distance to your house.
Geographic monopolies are to their land-based services what contracts and specific-phone-model lock-ins are to their wireless business model. A way to make up for being too greedy, cheap or lazy to earn customer loyalty the best way: with the best product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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.
This is pure spin. Instead of pointing out that they're lucky so few of their subscribers are using what they're actually paying for, they have to make it out like those are the bad subscribers that are ruining everyone's network. If AT&T had an ounce of foresight for every pound of finger-pointing arrogance and hubris they carry around, their network would tower so far above the rest of the competition's that nobody would buy another phone that wasn't on AT&T. I know that the network upgrades necessary aren't cheap but this is a company that makes billions in profits every quarter.
AT&T's response is why webers net nuetrality. They are bothered that others are making money off of their government granted monopoly. They would like to make more and would like to block those who can.
Before the iPhone you could only get applications from the phone company and they were non-existant. Now you can and the whole ecosystem is flourishing. Just fix your network. If you build a great app then fine, release it just like everyone else. But stop complaining about your customers using what they paid for.
Note, the price for the dataplan went UP with the second release of the iPhone. Invest it in your network before you lose customers to other providers.
They can kiss my business goodbye if they institute data usage charges. I have 5-iphones on my plan and pay over $300/month in service charges. I'd rather give up network access on my phones and save the $3600 annually I dish out than pay for that. AT&T is quickly becoming a second rate service you'd expect to find in a third world country between the unavailability of service, outdated bandwidth, and the plethora of dropped calls. Oh, and another thing, try and add that to my existing contract, go ahead, make my day!
It's my understanding that At&t and Apple had an agreement that Apple would update the iPhone once a year or atleast provide a significant software update for the existing hardware. So even if At&t underestimated the 2g, they had to have recognized the impact it was going to have by the 3g and without a doubt by the 3gs. I think they had more than enough time to improve the network to handle the data usage. I've had an iPhone since the day it came out and still use it to this day and have never had any issue with hardware, software or the network. Regardless, reports like this make me want to run away from AT&T as fast as possible.
(1) If what these guys are saying is true (questionable), then ATT would have a solid reason to get out of its contract with Apple. With business friends like Apple, who needs business enemies like Verizon? Wish Apple on Verizon. But I think there's little truth in this. What's more
(2) Real blame belongs to a substantial degree on the FCC which 'sells' capacity to these companies for outrageous amounts (tens of billions). Sounds good until you realize the money doesn't go into infrastructure but politicians' pet projects or anything else, leaving cell companies with tens of billions less to invest in upgrades. Neither of these companies have stellar returns to investors. The money is being taken by politicians...it's out of the field of investment as pertains to cell upgrades. The mob never had it so good.
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.
These people are not forced to pay that money - they could just as easily have picked another device that was more suitable to their needs. It's not as if the data rate was a big surprise to them since they know they have to pay for it right from the beginning. If they don't want to pay it, they don't get an iPhone. Simple really.
AT&T! That is called Profiling! I can't wait for 2010, when they lose the contract with Apple. I seriously doubt that it will be renewed. ATT is a drag on Apple's Iphone technology. If ATT can't handle it, get out of the game! Let another carrier prove it can be done!
AT&T! That is called Profiling! I can't wait for 2010, when they lose the contract with Apple. I seriously doubt that it will be renewed. ATT is a drag on Apple's Iphone technology. If ATT can't handle it, get out of the game! Let another carrier prove it can be done!
I agree that the contract will end this summer but it seems like you are implying that AT&T will no longer carry the iPhone in favour of another carrier having exclusive rights. I don?t think that will happen. I think AT&T will continue to sell the iPhone without exclusivity and I think T-Mobile is the most likely candidate for the next carrier addition in the US.
AT&T! That is called Profiling! I can't wait for 2010, when they lose the contract with Apple. I seriously doubt that it will be renewed. ATT is a drag on Apple's Iphone technology. If ATT can't handle it, get out of the game! Let another carrier prove it can be done!
Give yourself a break.... Even if AT&T had a current excellent user experience, they still would not have the exclusivity of the iPhone.
I personally think that Apple planned to break the agreement to better it's overall sales of the device and to give the user CHOICE, since thats what Apple believes in, giving it's users CHOICE.
It only makes sense for a 4g chip iPhone to become available to all USA networks.
I don't mind that you disagree, but I don't think you are correct. A lot of our fiber went dark when the providers were bitching that they spent money on it, but had too much bandwidth, and no service to use it. So they stopped rolling it out. Now that they have been neglecting the backbone too long, they are trying to catch up, and spending money. AT&T gripes about $18 billion spent to upgrade. What's to say they shouldn't have been spending $5 billion per year over 10 years to keep up with innovation?
And you have no idea why the fiber went dark. My brother worked for a company that produced fiber until about 2003. The reason was demand. His one company was producing more fiber in 2001 than the entire world demand in 2003. They can't be expected to roll out new network capacity when demand is down or not expanding quickly.
Quote:
In my reading, every other country that has surpassed the US in throughput both wired and wirelessly has legislated the separation of content from the backbone. This would mean AT&T could focus on new technology, 100Gb+ routers, Tbps links and such, and not have to worry about selling someone voice service.
It doesn't mean they would focus on getting those new technologies out there. You don't know.
Quote:
Just because they decided to neglect the development dollars-wise doesn't mean they aren't spending money to fix it now, it just means they haven't spent enough on upgrades over time to keep up. Splitting them up to be a phone company separate from a cell-tower company wouldn't hurt consumers, IMO.
They didn't neglect, per se. They're spending what...18 billion dollars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Obviously, back then, like today, your experience is going to vary depending on location, etc. I had Cingular long before the merger with ATT, and I can assure you that Cingular's service in my area was just as crappy at ATT's reputation is today. I paid the early termination fee to get out of my contract due to their utter failure to deliver service and the outright lies from their customer service agents (I actually had one customer service agent tell me point blank that the last agent I had talked to had lied to me). Again, some locations will see better service than others.
Before the ATT merger, Cingular (wireless) and SBC (landline) were essentially the same company. Cingular was majority owned by SBC. SBC was equally, if not moreso, hated and I belive had been fined by several states for their business practices. SBC is, in my opinion, the root of the "bad" in today's ATT.
I also don't think that Cingular "agreed it would rebrand itself." I think they purchased ATT, in part, to get the name. The ATT brand, overall, still had a good reputation. SBC (hated) purchased the ATT landline business, and Cingular (hated, at least by me) purchased the ATT Wireless business. They took on the name of the companies they purchased in order to rid themselves of the stimga of their original company names.
1. With what? I'm not stating an opinion. Look it up on wiki. If you mean quality of service, then I agree this can vary by area.
2. Disagree. You're forgetting the old AT&T Mobility was probably the worst service in the country. Perhaps SBC was also no good.
3. I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here. I'm sure they did purchase AT&T to get the name. How does that contradict what I said?
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
It only makes sense for a 4g chip iPhone to become available to all USA networks.
I know of no ?4G? chips for LTE that are currently available for phones, especially for a phone as small as the iPhone. On top of that, Verizon isn?t likely to have any phones on the market with LTE chips in 2010. Japan?s NTT DoCoMo, who is ahead of Verizon stated that they?ll have notebook cards with LTE in 2010 and phone with LTE in 2011.
Sprint?s ?4G? WiMAX is a no go for many reasons.
Remember that even with ?3G? coverage over all the major cities the first iPhone for AT&T did not have ?3G? so I don?t think we should expect Apple to be jumping on a HW bandwagon. Especially with HSPA having a such a long way to go before moving to ?4G' is a requirement, like it is with Verizon and Sprint.
I expect no more than an upgrade to HSUPA to increase the upload rate. I am not even sure we can expect the 7.2Mbps in the 3GS to be upped to 14.4Mbps.
On another note I hope that when LTE comes around that it also brings a trend where there will be bandwidth saving in areas where you don't need to use as much, such as downloading email in the background or running an IM client. That would make people's data usage go much farther right>
Comments
Could be the basis for a nice class-action lawsuit.....
First you'd have to find someone who is harmed by the policy. Someone who can prove they were harmed, and put a value on that harm. And then find a LOT more. I don't see how that could be possible.
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
Yeah... a "new trend" for a business to dump unprofitable customers.
I disagree with you areas…
I see what you are saying. The SMSC cost, if they were to be upgraded/replaced due to such a ridiculous increase in SMS/MMS traffic of the last two years is somewhat understandable then. Any idea how much one of those costs?
If they could move the SMS traffic to IP traffic, and treat it all as data, the cost of the SMSC is non-existent. Do you think that is feasible?
Edit: Nevermind, it is possible with this thing: IMCS.
Apparently, that is what 4G will bring? Maybe then we can stop having to pay separately for SMS and data.
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.
QFT and absolutely perfect first post.
Mobile providers, quit whining, fix your *** network and people will use your services. It's that simple. So-and-so is hogging this or that is no excuse. As long as your network is good, has wide coverage, and appropriately allocates bandwidth to multiple users, people will come.
ATT's stanglehold on the iPhone for a few years now is not good enough for them? Now they're complaining "Oh the iPhone has set us up the bomb"
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.
Well put! Fact is, these dumbass carriers are in business to make money- that's it! It amazes me that they almost seem like they are trying to get pity from consumers. Shut up and deal with it ATT! All I care about is the iPhone experience. If someone offers a better one then yours, my money will go to them. That's it.
"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."
This makes it sound like AT&T's hands are tied and they aren't. Sacrificing their shared (with Apple I mean) customers' experience in order to get a bigger slice of what is really Apple's pie is not going to help AT&T in the long run. If it were a nimble and adaptable corporate animal AT&T could simply decide on having the best network and invest far more heavily into it. Maybe run less TV ads spinning what their network is and instead simply make it the best network. It's the same with their claimed alternative to FIOS: U-Verse. They want to sell us the same slow DSL by pointing out that the signal is over fiber for most of the distance to your house.
Geographic monopolies are to their land-based services what contracts and specific-phone-model lock-ins are to their wireless business model. A way to make up for being too greedy, cheap or lazy to earn customer loyalty the best way: with the best product.
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.
This is pure spin. Instead of pointing out that they're lucky so few of their subscribers are using what they're actually paying for, they have to make it out like those are the bad subscribers that are ruining everyone's network. If AT&T had an ounce of foresight for every pound of finger-pointing arrogance and hubris they carry around, their network would tower so far above the rest of the competition's that nobody would buy another phone that wasn't on AT&T. I know that the network upgrades necessary aren't cheap but this is a company that makes billions in profits every quarter.
Before the iPhone you could only get applications from the phone company and they were non-existant. Now you can and the whole ecosystem is flourishing. Just fix your network. If you build a great app then fine, release it just like everyone else. But stop complaining about your customers using what they paid for.
Note, the price for the dataplan went UP with the second release of the iPhone. Invest it in your network before you lose customers to other providers.
Posted from my iPhone to make my point.
AT&T's response is why we need to support Net Neutrality.
(2) Real blame belongs to a substantial degree on the FCC which 'sells' capacity to these companies for outrageous amounts (tens of billions). Sounds good until you realize the money doesn't go into infrastructure but politicians' pet projects or anything else, leaving cell companies with tens of billions less to invest in upgrades. Neither of these companies have stellar returns to investors. The money is being taken by politicians...it's out of the field of investment as pertains to cell upgrades. The mob never had it so good.
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.
These people are not forced to pay that money - they could just as easily have picked another device that was more suitable to their needs. It's not as if the data rate was a big surprise to them since they know they have to pay for it right from the beginning. If they don't want to pay it, they don't get an iPhone. Simple really.
AT&T! That is called Profiling! I can't wait for 2010, when they lose the contract with Apple. I seriously doubt that it will be renewed. ATT is a drag on Apple's Iphone technology. If ATT can't handle it, get out of the game! Let another carrier prove it can be done!
I agree that the contract will end this summer but it seems like you are implying that AT&T will no longer carry the iPhone in favour of another carrier having exclusive rights. I don?t think that will happen. I think AT&T will continue to sell the iPhone without exclusivity and I think T-Mobile is the most likely candidate for the next carrier addition in the US.
AT&T! That is called Profiling! I can't wait for 2010, when they lose the contract with Apple. I seriously doubt that it will be renewed. ATT is a drag on Apple's Iphone technology. If ATT can't handle it, get out of the game! Let another carrier prove it can be done!
Give yourself a break.... Even if AT&T had a current excellent user experience, they still would not have the exclusivity of the iPhone.
I personally think that Apple planned to break the agreement to better it's overall sales of the device and to give the user CHOICE, since thats what Apple believes in, giving it's users CHOICE.
It only makes sense for a 4g chip iPhone to become available to all USA networks.
I don't mind that you disagree, but I don't think you are correct. A lot of our fiber went dark when the providers were bitching that they spent money on it, but had too much bandwidth, and no service to use it. So they stopped rolling it out. Now that they have been neglecting the backbone too long, they are trying to catch up, and spending money. AT&T gripes about $18 billion spent to upgrade. What's to say they shouldn't have been spending $5 billion per year over 10 years to keep up with innovation?
And you have no idea why the fiber went dark. My brother worked for a company that produced fiber until about 2003. The reason was demand. His one company was producing more fiber in 2001 than the entire world demand in 2003. They can't be expected to roll out new network capacity when demand is down or not expanding quickly.
In my reading, every other country that has surpassed the US in throughput both wired and wirelessly has legislated the separation of content from the backbone. This would mean AT&T could focus on new technology, 100Gb+ routers, Tbps links and such, and not have to worry about selling someone voice service.
It doesn't mean they would focus on getting those new technologies out there. You don't know.
Just because they decided to neglect the development dollars-wise doesn't mean they aren't spending money to fix it now, it just means they haven't spent enough on upgrades over time to keep up. Splitting them up to be a phone company separate from a cell-tower company wouldn't hurt consumers, IMO.
They didn't neglect, per se. They're spending what...18 billion dollars?
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Obviously, back then, like today, your experience is going to vary depending on location, etc. I had Cingular long before the merger with ATT, and I can assure you that Cingular's service in my area was just as crappy at ATT's reputation is today. I paid the early termination fee to get out of my contract due to their utter failure to deliver service and the outright lies from their customer service agents (I actually had one customer service agent tell me point blank that the last agent I had talked to had lied to me). Again, some locations will see better service than others.
Before the ATT merger, Cingular (wireless) and SBC (landline) were essentially the same company. Cingular was majority owned by SBC. SBC was equally, if not moreso, hated and I belive had been fined by several states for their business practices. SBC is, in my opinion, the root of the "bad" in today's ATT.
I also don't think that Cingular "agreed it would rebrand itself." I think they purchased ATT, in part, to get the name. The ATT brand, overall, still had a good reputation. SBC (hated) purchased the ATT landline business, and Cingular (hated, at least by me) purchased the ATT Wireless business. They took on the name of the companies they purchased in order to rid themselves of the stimga of their original company names.
1. With what? I'm not stating an opinion. Look it up on wiki. If you mean quality of service, then I agree this can vary by area.
2. Disagree. You're forgetting the old AT&T Mobility was probably the worst service in the country. Perhaps SBC was also no good.
3. I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here. I'm sure they did purchase AT&T to get the name. How does that contradict what I said?
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
No, this is what Steve Jobs should say to AT&T: http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/12/a-n...on-of-att.html
There is a lot of hyperbole and abuse in the rant but it is all deserved by AT&T and its brown nosing sycophants.
p.s. It isn't AT&T but actually a company that bought AT&T's name so they could besmirch it.
It only makes sense for a 4g chip iPhone to become available to all USA networks.
I know of no ?4G? chips for LTE that are currently available for phones, especially for a phone as small as the iPhone. On top of that, Verizon isn?t likely to have any phones on the market with LTE chips in 2010. Japan?s NTT DoCoMo, who is ahead of Verizon stated that they?ll have notebook cards with LTE in 2010 and phone with LTE in 2011.
Sprint?s ?4G? WiMAX is a no go for many reasons.
Remember that even with ?3G? coverage over all the major cities the first iPhone for AT&T did not have ?3G? so I don?t think we should expect Apple to be jumping on a HW bandwagon. Especially with HSPA having a such a long way to go before moving to ?4G' is a requirement, like it is with Verizon and Sprint.
I expect no more than an upgrade to HSUPA to increase the upload rate. I am not even sure we can expect the 7.2Mbps in the 3GS to be upped to 14.4Mbps.
On another note I hope that when LTE comes around that it also brings a trend where there will be bandwidth saving in areas where you don't need to use as much, such as downloading email in the background or running an IM client. That would make people's data usage go much farther right>