After the announcement, I called ATT and asked for incentives to keep me on their network. I told them about the Verizon announcement, and offered to renew my contract if they would upgrade me to the iPhone 4 at no cost, and knock $15 off my month rate. They accepted the deal. ATT know the threat Verizon poses, and are eager to stop the bloodletting. I would encourage everyone who is willing to stick around to haggle.
Sounds like AT&T customers might finally be able to try for loss and retentions style deals.
Not my area of expertise so I am just pasting this from the Verizon Q&A ...
"12. Can I use my iPhone 4 while traveling abroad?
Yes, customers can use iPhone for voice and text in over 40 countries with data service in over 20 countries. For service availability and rate information, visit International Roaming Rates and Coverage. When travelling outside of these 40 destinations, the Global Travel program is the perfect short-term solution for the occasional or infrequent global traveler who needs to stay in touch when travelling internationally."
Perhaps you didn't follow the link to the "countries" (some are actually US territories, i.e. extensions of the domestic market) where that applies.
Yemen? Check
Ukraine? Check
Guam? Check.
Anywhere at all in Europe? Not so much.
GSM is the dominant world cellular standard, and the VZ iPhone doesn't do GSM. For most potential US customers that doesn't matter, since there are CDMA networks both in our southern and northern neighbors and that will cover most of their needs.
I on the other hand appreciate that my AT&T iPhone works flawlessly, albeit expensively, in Europe.
After the announcement, I called ATT and asked for incentives to keep me on their network. I told them about the Verizon announcement, and offered to renew my contract if they would upgrade me to the iPhone 4 at no cost, and knock $15 off my month rate. They accepted the deal. ATT know the threat Verizon poses, and are eager to stop the bloodletting. I would encourage everyone who is willing to stick around to haggle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Sounds like AT&T customers might finally be able to try for loss and retentions style deals.
ATT is weird!
I have repeatedly tried to buy an iP4 for my daughter's 3GS that was destroyed (She's using an older 3G).
I just tried the Apple site and got this:
It's been this way ever since they announced the iP4.
We're on a family plan... So I'll just wait, buy an iP5, giver her the iP4...
Man I wished I lived in your neck of the woods. I would love to hear the sound of "silence" (unless they are clacking away on some POS plastic button keyboard), but the silent pitter pats of fingers having at it on their glass phone screen typing away. I'd love to hear that then actual one sided phone conversations, especially by those that increase their voice volume by a multiple of 10, that ensures I have to be exposed to that all important conversation, "Do we need eggs?" "How about milk?"..., conversations that are about nothing and only pollute the air waves!
Well with the droid phones if you get a text message while you're using it as a hot spot it doesn't really boot you off but it pauses your data streaming, its CDMA so I'm assuming it's going to be the same on the iPhone.
I can definitely see how it's an advantage for business purposes. Personally, sure checking movie times while talking with a friend would be convenient, but most likely we are texting, not talking. It could be an issue for ATT customers considering switching, but if it was important to Verizon's customers, they would have already switched to ATT.
I'll be curious to learn exactly how it works for both voice and text.
Well with the droid phones if you get a text message while you're using it as a hot spot it doesn't really boot you off but it pauses your data streaming, its CDMA so I'm assuming it's going to be the same on the iPhone.
If you look on Verizon's website, Their data packages are yet to come out for the iPhone4. I doubt they will have an unlimited data package available for it. If you know about data, then you should know that they will definitely lose money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinwhite
Since all people with iphones here have been with AT&T (in US), they are looking too much into the simultaneous voice and data issue. Most regular customers won't care. And really, if you don't want to get booted off the data connection, you can press the ignore button when a call comes through. It is not that hard. Or you can accept the call, and wait for the tethered device to update the page when you end the call. Not an ideal scenario, but considering that you get free tethering in exchange it is an insignificant issue.
AT&T - $25 for data (2GB cap on phone) + $20 for tethering (no extra data allowance; data usage counts towards 2GB cap on phone).
Verizon - $30 unlimited data on phone + free tethering (I'm assuming they will have a 'soft' cap of 5GB or so when they start issuing warnings).
How can anyone ignore the huge difference in value. If you tether, AT&T charges $45 for 2GB data while Verizon will charge $30 for unlimited data.
Not being able to use simultaneous voice and data is a compromise most people will gladly make if they are interesting in tethering.
I am on the old AT&T $30 unlimited iphone data plan and don't plan to shift to Verizon anytime soon. But I sure am jealous of the deal Verizon is giving them. I just shifted to New York from Florida, and the data speeds here on AT&T are horrible. Seems to be three times as slow as they were in Florida.
1) Is VoIP free? That depends on your choice of VoIP service provider, and in some cases, the type of remote terminal you're connecting to. For example, Skype-to-Skype calls do not incur any extra fees directly from the VoIP service provider, but Skype-to-Telco calls do incur an extra fee from the VoIP service provider.
2) Are HotSpots free? Some are, some aren't. But for some VoIP services, such as Skype, you are permitted to use your cellular data plan to access the service, bypassing the need to connect via WiFi. So the availability of WiFi might be irrelevant, depending on the VoIP service provider and your plan with your cellular network.
2a) Wanna use FaceTime instead? How about we connect our buddy's iPod touch to our iPhone using the Verizon iPhone's mobile WiFi hotspot. The iPod touch doesn't know anything about the nature of the Internet connection, just that the endpoint it's connecting to directly is WiFi based. So the iPod touch will probably be able to start a Facetime conversation -- over the iPhone's cellular connection -- without interrupting any other existing data connections. Could be QoS issues to sort out though due to the cellular data connection's potential lag.
3) Is WiFi free? Refer back to question 2. The use of WiFi, in itself, does not mean anything about whether or not you have to pay for it. That is determined by whether or not you have permission to use a nearby HotSpot, and how much money that nearby HotSpot charges to access it.
Somebody, somewhere, sometime is paying for it. Just because you may not do so directly, your buddy, his parents, you company could be. The coffee shop that offers 'free' internet is getting it out of every cup poured. The universities through tuition charges. Airports through ground services charges. And on and on.
Somebody, somewhere, sometime is paying for it. Just because you may not do so directly, your buddy, his parents, you company could be. The coffee shop that offers 'free' internet is getting it out of every cup poured. The universities through tuition charges. Airports through ground services charges. And on and on.
I know that. I knew it before I wrote the response. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that somebody was going to try to be clever and point it out. I hoped, however, that person would have a second thought, realize that the statement was simple common sense, and spare us the condescension of trying to look clever by pointing it out.
If an access point administrator (your buddy, his parents, or a commercial operation) doesn't want you to make use of his Internet, then he encrypts his access point, and doesn't give you permission to access it. If he chooses to give you permission to connect to his access point, then he has either reached an agreement with you for you to pay some of the costs up-front (which I directly acknowledged in the last paragraph of my first response), or else he agreed to absorb the costs without charging you anything.
As for the "public" sources of connectivity... The fact of the matter is, from the user's perspective, all those hidden fees are sunk costs. You've already committed to paying them by your decision to (a) buy your coffee at that establishment, (b) attend the university, (c) fly through that airport, etc.
Now, you can choose to either avail yourself of the services that come out of those fees, or you can choose to ignore the availability of those services. But even if you choose to follow the status quo by ignoring the availability of those services, the fees have already been paid. So, going the extra mile of actually using the services doesn't incur any extra incremental cost; therefore, they are effectively free.
Actually the bigger problem may be how do you tell the phone to work if you are on the Internet. I don't know how Verizon's network works, but if you are on Edge on AT&T, phone calls don't come through. This was a huge problem for me before I upgraded to the 3GS.
With 3G GSM, data and voice coexist simultaneously (you already know that).
With GSM/EDGE, data typically trumps voice, so an active data session will prevent any incoming calls from getting through (you already know that too, but I'm including it for context).
With CDMA/EV-DO, it's typically the opposite: If you're in a data session and a voice call comes in, the data session will be suspended to let the voice call through.
If presented with a choice between EDGE vs EV-DO, some people might actually prefer the EV-DO option.
I know that. I knew it before I wrote the response. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that somebody was going to try to be clever and point it out. I hoped, however, that person would have a second thought, realize that the statement was simple common sense, and spare us the condescension of trying to look clever by pointing it out.
If an access point administrator (your buddy, his parents, or a commercial operation) doesn't want you to make use of his Internet, then he encrypts his access point, and doesn't give you permission to access it. If he chooses to give you permission to connect to his access point, then he has either reached an agreement with you for you to pay some of the costs up-front (which I directly acknowledged in the last paragraph of my first response), or else he agreed to absorb the costs without charging you anything.
As for the "public" sources of connectivity... The fact of the matter is, from the user's perspective, all those hidden fees are sunk costs. You've already committed to paying them by your decision to (a) buy your coffee at that establishment, (b) attend the university, (c) fly through that airport, etc.
Now, you can choose to either avail yourself of the services that come out of those fees, or you can choose to ignore the availability of those services. But even if you choose to follow the status quo by ignoring the availability of those services, the fees have already been paid. So, going the extra mile of actually using the services doesn't incur any extra incremental cost; therefore, they are effectively free.
That lame argument always bothers me. "Nothing is free, someone pays for it." Well, of course, it is being paid for. Usually, when we say "free" for services like this, we mean "no additional costs". I don't know why some people need to try to be so 'smart' about it.
I know that. I knew it before I wrote the response. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that somebody was going to try to be clever and point it out. I hoped, however, that person would have a second thought, realize that the statement was simple common sense, and spare us the condescension of trying to look clever by pointing it out.
If an access point administrator (your buddy, his parents, or a commercial operation) doesn't want you to make use of his Internet, then he encrypts his access point, and doesn't give you permission to access it. If he chooses to give you permission to connect to his access point, then he has either reached an agreement with you for you to pay some of the costs up-front (which I directly acknowledged in the last paragraph of my first response), or else he agreed to absorb the costs without charging you anything.
As for the "public" sources of connectivity... The fact of the matter is, from the user's perspective, all those hidden fees are sunk costs. You've already committed to paying them by your decision to (a) buy your coffee at that establishment, (b) attend the university, (c) fly through that airport, etc.
Now, you can choose to either avail yourself of the services that come out of those fees, or you can choose to ignore the availability of those services. But even if you choose to follow the status quo by ignoring the availability of those services, the fees have already been paid. So, going the extra mile of actually using the services doesn't incur any extra incremental cost; therefore, they are effectively free.
Our university is looking at raising the tuition fees by 6% next year in part to help offset the $30 million needed to update the servers to the 21st Century so that the faculty and students can continue to get 'free' wireless service.
Comments
After the announcement, I called ATT and asked for incentives to keep me on their network. I told them about the Verizon announcement, and offered to renew my contract if they would upgrade me to the iPhone 4 at no cost, and knock $15 off my month rate. They accepted the deal. ATT know the threat Verizon poses, and are eager to stop the bloodletting. I would encourage everyone who is willing to stick around to haggle.
Sounds like AT&T customers might finally be able to try for loss and retentions style deals.
Not my area of expertise so I am just pasting this from the Verizon Q&A ...
"12. Can I use my iPhone 4 while traveling abroad?
Yes, customers can use iPhone for voice and text in over 40 countries with data service in over 20 countries. For service availability and rate information, visit International Roaming Rates and Coverage. When travelling outside of these 40 destinations, the Global Travel program is the perfect short-term solution for the occasional or infrequent global traveler who needs to stay in touch when travelling internationally."
Perhaps you didn't follow the link to the "countries" (some are actually US territories, i.e. extensions of the domestic market) where that applies.
Yemen? Check
Ukraine? Check
Guam? Check.
Anywhere at all in Europe? Not so much.
GSM is the dominant world cellular standard, and the VZ iPhone doesn't do GSM. For most potential US customers that doesn't matter, since there are CDMA networks both in our southern and northern neighbors and that will cover most of their needs.
I on the other hand appreciate that my AT&T iPhone works flawlessly, albeit expensively, in Europe.
After the announcement, I called ATT and asked for incentives to keep me on their network. I told them about the Verizon announcement, and offered to renew my contract if they would upgrade me to the iPhone 4 at no cost, and knock $15 off my month rate. They accepted the deal. ATT know the threat Verizon poses, and are eager to stop the bloodletting. I would encourage everyone who is willing to stick around to haggle.
Sounds like AT&T customers might finally be able to try for loss and retentions style deals.
ATT is weird!
I have repeatedly tried to buy an iP4 for my daughter's 3GS that was destroyed (She's using an older 3G).
I just tried the Apple site and got this:
It's been this way ever since they announced the iP4.
We're on a family plan... So I'll just wait, buy an iP5, giver her the iP4...
Man I wished I lived in your neck of the woods. I would love to hear the sound of "silence" (unless they are clacking away on some POS plastic button keyboard), but the silent pitter pats of fingers having at it on their glass phone screen typing away. I'd love to hear that then actual one sided phone conversations, especially by those that increase their voice volume by a multiple of 10, that ensures I have to be exposed to that all important conversation, "Do we need eggs?" "How about milk?"..., conversations that are about nothing and only pollute the air waves!
Well with the droid phones if you get a text message while you're using it as a hot spot it doesn't really boot you off but it pauses your data streaming, its CDMA so I'm assuming it's going to be the same on the iPhone.
I can definitely see how it's an advantage for business purposes. Personally, sure checking movie times while talking with a friend would be convenient, but most likely we are texting, not talking. It could be an issue for ATT customers considering switching, but if it was important to Verizon's customers, they would have already switched to ATT.
I'll be curious to learn exactly how it works for both voice and text.
Well with the droid phones if you get a text message while you're using it as a hot spot it doesn't really boot you off but it pauses your data streaming, its CDMA so I'm assuming it's going to be the same on the iPhone.
Since all people with iphones here have been with AT&T (in US), they are looking too much into the simultaneous voice and data issue. Most regular customers won't care. And really, if you don't want to get booted off the data connection, you can press the ignore button when a call comes through. It is not that hard. Or you can accept the call, and wait for the tethered device to update the page when you end the call. Not an ideal scenario, but considering that you get free tethering in exchange it is an insignificant issue.
AT&T - $25 for data (2GB cap on phone) + $20 for tethering (no extra data allowance; data usage counts towards 2GB cap on phone).
Verizon - $30 unlimited data on phone + free tethering (I'm assuming they will have a 'soft' cap of 5GB or so when they start issuing warnings).
How can anyone ignore the huge difference in value. If you tether, AT&T charges $45 for 2GB data while Verizon will charge $30 for unlimited data.
Not being able to use simultaneous voice and data is a compromise most people will gladly make if they are interesting in tethering.
I am on the old AT&T $30 unlimited iphone data plan and don't plan to shift to Verizon anytime soon. But I sure am jealous of the deal Verizon is giving them. I just shifted to New York from Florida, and the data speeds here on AT&T are horrible. Seems to be three times as slow as they were in Florida.
1) Is VoIP free? That depends on your choice of VoIP service provider, and in some cases, the type of remote terminal you're connecting to. For example, Skype-to-Skype calls do not incur any extra fees directly from the VoIP service provider, but Skype-to-Telco calls do incur an extra fee from the VoIP service provider.
2) Are HotSpots free? Some are, some aren't. But for some VoIP services, such as Skype, you are permitted to use your cellular data plan to access the service, bypassing the need to connect via WiFi. So the availability of WiFi might be irrelevant, depending on the VoIP service provider and your plan with your cellular network.
2a) Wanna use FaceTime instead? How about we connect our buddy's iPod touch to our iPhone using the Verizon iPhone's mobile WiFi hotspot. The iPod touch doesn't know anything about the nature of the Internet connection, just that the endpoint it's connecting to directly is WiFi based. So the iPod touch will probably be able to start a Facetime conversation -- over the iPhone's cellular connection -- without interrupting any other existing data connections. Could be QoS issues to sort out though due to the cellular data connection's potential lag.
3) Is WiFi free? Refer back to question 2. The use of WiFi, in itself, does not mean anything about whether or not you have to pay for it. That is determined by whether or not you have permission to use a nearby HotSpot, and how much money that nearby HotSpot charges to access it.
Somebody, somewhere, sometime is paying for it. Just because you may not do so directly, your buddy, his parents, you company could be. The coffee shop that offers 'free' internet is getting it out of every cup poured. The universities through tuition charges. Airports through ground services charges. And on and on.
Somebody, somewhere, sometime is paying for it. Just because you may not do so directly, your buddy, his parents, you company could be. The coffee shop that offers 'free' internet is getting it out of every cup poured. The universities through tuition charges. Airports through ground services charges. And on and on.
I know that. I knew it before I wrote the response. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that somebody was going to try to be clever and point it out. I hoped, however, that person would have a second thought, realize that the statement was simple common sense, and spare us the condescension of trying to look clever by pointing it out.
If an access point administrator (your buddy, his parents, or a commercial operation) doesn't want you to make use of his Internet, then he encrypts his access point, and doesn't give you permission to access it. If he chooses to give you permission to connect to his access point, then he has either reached an agreement with you for you to pay some of the costs up-front (which I directly acknowledged in the last paragraph of my first response), or else he agreed to absorb the costs without charging you anything.
As for the "public" sources of connectivity... The fact of the matter is, from the user's perspective, all those hidden fees are sunk costs. You've already committed to paying them by your decision to (a) buy your coffee at that establishment, (b) attend the university, (c) fly through that airport, etc.
Now, you can choose to either avail yourself of the services that come out of those fees, or you can choose to ignore the availability of those services. But even if you choose to follow the status quo by ignoring the availability of those services, the fees have already been paid. So, going the extra mile of actually using the services doesn't incur any extra incremental cost; therefore, they are effectively free.
Actually the bigger problem may be how do you tell the phone to work if you are on the Internet. I don't know how Verizon's network works, but if you are on Edge on AT&T, phone calls don't come through. This was a huge problem for me before I upgraded to the 3GS.
With 3G GSM, data and voice coexist simultaneously (you already know that).
With GSM/EDGE, data typically trumps voice, so an active data session will prevent any incoming calls from getting through (you already know that too, but I'm including it for context).
With CDMA/EV-DO, it's typically the opposite: If you're in a data session and a voice call comes in, the data session will be suspended to let the voice call through.
If presented with a choice between EDGE vs EV-DO, some people might actually prefer the EV-DO option.
I know that. I knew it before I wrote the response. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that somebody was going to try to be clever and point it out. I hoped, however, that person would have a second thought, realize that the statement was simple common sense, and spare us the condescension of trying to look clever by pointing it out.
If an access point administrator (your buddy, his parents, or a commercial operation) doesn't want you to make use of his Internet, then he encrypts his access point, and doesn't give you permission to access it. If he chooses to give you permission to connect to his access point, then he has either reached an agreement with you for you to pay some of the costs up-front (which I directly acknowledged in the last paragraph of my first response), or else he agreed to absorb the costs without charging you anything.
As for the "public" sources of connectivity... The fact of the matter is, from the user's perspective, all those hidden fees are sunk costs. You've already committed to paying them by your decision to (a) buy your coffee at that establishment, (b) attend the university, (c) fly through that airport, etc.
Now, you can choose to either avail yourself of the services that come out of those fees, or you can choose to ignore the availability of those services. But even if you choose to follow the status quo by ignoring the availability of those services, the fees have already been paid. So, going the extra mile of actually using the services doesn't incur any extra incremental cost; therefore, they are effectively free.
That lame argument always bothers me. "Nothing is free, someone pays for it." Well, of course, it is being paid for. Usually, when we say "free" for services like this, we mean "no additional costs". I don't know why some people need to try to be so 'smart' about it.
I know that. I knew it before I wrote the response. I had a feeling in the pit of my stomach that somebody was going to try to be clever and point it out. I hoped, however, that person would have a second thought, realize that the statement was simple common sense, and spare us the condescension of trying to look clever by pointing it out.
If an access point administrator (your buddy, his parents, or a commercial operation) doesn't want you to make use of his Internet, then he encrypts his access point, and doesn't give you permission to access it. If he chooses to give you permission to connect to his access point, then he has either reached an agreement with you for you to pay some of the costs up-front (which I directly acknowledged in the last paragraph of my first response), or else he agreed to absorb the costs without charging you anything.
As for the "public" sources of connectivity... The fact of the matter is, from the user's perspective, all those hidden fees are sunk costs. You've already committed to paying them by your decision to (a) buy your coffee at that establishment, (b) attend the university, (c) fly through that airport, etc.
Now, you can choose to either avail yourself of the services that come out of those fees, or you can choose to ignore the availability of those services. But even if you choose to follow the status quo by ignoring the availability of those services, the fees have already been paid. So, going the extra mile of actually using the services doesn't incur any extra incremental cost; therefore, they are effectively free.
Our university is looking at raising the tuition fees by 6% next year in part to help offset the $30 million needed to update the servers to the 21st Century so that the faculty and students can continue to get 'free' wireless service.
But who cares. The parents will pay for it.