Corporate greed is insatiable. We have 4 iphones. I have thrown $300/mo at AT&T since the original iPhone came out. My parents use a trickle of data and txt (on 2 of the phones). AT&T now has the audacity to play the poor mouth after all these years of fat profits. Nonetheless, they have neglected to use these funds to adequately prepare for the LTE rollout.
I am SICK of these CLOWNS. Feel like dumping cellular data altogether.
By the way, in many foreign countries, there is no charge for incoming txt messages.
Corporate greed is insatiable. We have 4 iphones. I have thrown $300/mo at AT&T since the original iPhone came out. My parents use a trickle of data and txt (on 2 of the phones). AT&T now has the audacity to play the poor mouth after all these years of fat profits. Nonetheless, they have neglected to use these funds to adequately prepare for the LTE rollout.
I am SICK of these CLOWNS. Feel like dumping cellular data altogether.
By the way, in many foreign countries, there is no charge for incoming txt messages.
Agreed. I wonder if this ass clown realizes his business would be nothing close to what it is today without the iPhone. AT&T has done nothing but bitch and moan about the iPhone and its users (their own customers) since day 1. Their network has improved since my first iPhone in 2008, bug it still SUCKS compared to Verizon. This man should get down on his knees and thank a life size portrait of Steve Jobs every day.
The carriers cannot approve and disapprove anything they want. They can certainly try, but the US is a nation of laws and the carriers have to abide by those laws.
Except they can. Because they do. Because no one cares enough to stop them, and the people in charge of stopping them are being paid off by the people doing the un-stopping.
Hey, I pay my $30/month for my unlimited plan yet never use more than 2GB [B]AND[/B] I pay $30/month for unlimited family plan texting (which also gives me unlimited mobile-to-mobile regardless of network) yet most of my texting is to other iOS users [B]SO[/B], the way I see, AT&T is ahead and this douche-nozzle should shut up and stop complaining.
This just in: "sending email takes away from the money we could be making on texts." I really don't think the alleged losses flies because AT&T got rid of their $5 and $10 text plans in favor of $20/mo plan or paying dearly for each trivial text.
AT&T and Apple have a contract. Last I heard, Apple gets a very considerable amount of money per device, including a monthly fee. AT&T then has some say in what they allow Apple to enable in exchange for the subsidy.
And that is why I proposed Apple should not renew the contract. They would no longer be bound by those conditions.
The business fact is what does ATT, Verizon etc…innovate? They are pipes that's all - cellular pipes at that. They make their neywork faster - 4G - that's it.
Stephenson what are YOU innovating? Apple, Google, Skype (Microsoft) etc… are actually making your company irrelevant in the very near future. But Mr. Stephenson you're great at bemoaning that many other CEO's make you look like a fool. You have zero vision of a future for ATT. Jobs and now Cook HAVE a grand vision of their future and technology. They innovate - you are in whoa is me mode.
Apple could buy ATT in a heartbeat - but why would they? Even the value of your pipes are not worth the purchase. I'm very interested where and ATT or Verizon will even be in say 10 years? Even here? But IMO if you are a very much smaller company - unless you CREATE something. Fat chance.
What law is AT&T violating by disallowing 3G FaceTime use?
Not that I like it, but to imply that it's illegal, I think that claim needs to be supported. A concept such as net neutrality doesn't apply to wireless carriers.
I didn't say a law was being violated. Nor did I imply that anything illegal was currently taking place. I said if the subsidies were terminated (and here I insinuated by legal means), then should Apple enable FaceTime over 3G, LTE, etc., AT&T would have trouble blocking that attempt, just like AT&T would have a hard time trying to block Skype (which they don't, and so far as I can see, have made no attempt to do so). As it currently stands, Apple will not enable FaceTime on cellular data since it is likely prohibited in the contract they have with AT&T. Be more careful to what is said and in what context going forward.
Except they can. Because they do. Because no one cares enough to stop them, and the people in charge of stopping them are being paid off by the people doing the un-stopping.
If that were true how would you explain what happened with Google Voice? They were being blocked, and yet, mysteriously, as soon as they filed a FTC complaint they magically were granted access to the App Store and iOS environment. The FTC would not have bothered investigating if Google didn't have a legitimate concern.
AT&T and Apple have a contract. Last I heard, Apple gets a very considerable amount of money per device, including a monthly fee. AT&T then has some say in what they allow Apple to enable in exchange for the subsidy.
They do indeed have a contract, one that does not include money being sent from AT&T to Apple every month for device sales. That ended years ago with the iPhone 3G.
If that were true how would you explain what happened with Google Voice? They were being blocked, and yet, mysteriously, as soon as they filed a FTC complaint they magically were granted access to the App Store and iOS environment. The FTC would not have bothered investigating if Google didn't have a legitimate concern.
Yes. What does it have to do with the telecoms? Were the telecoms blocking Google Voice on their networks?
Well the suspicion that that was the case is precisely what lead to the investigation. Google wrote to the FTC and the FTC demanded disclosure from both AT&T and Apple regarding their policies surrounding Google. If the telecoms had nothing to do with it the FTC would only have written a letter to Apple. Clearly the FTC thought something was weird and inappropriate. Once the AT&T and Apple both responded they were not blocking Google Voice, it magically was now approved in the App store. Funny coincidence. Well, the investigation was dropped at that point.
Well the suspicion that that was the case is precisely what lead to the investigation. Google wrote to the FTC and the FTC demanded disclosure from both AT&T and Apple regarding their policies surrounding Google. If the telecoms had nothing to do with it the FTC would only have written a letter to Apple. Clearly the FTC thought something was weird and inappropriate. Once the AT&T and Apple both responded they were not blocking Google Voice, it magically was now approved in the App store. Funny coincidence. Well, the investigation was dropped at that point.
So you have no proof of telecom involvement, then. So why bring it up? It seems more like a problem between Apple and Google than anything else.
If Google Voice had been blocked from use on Android devices or Windows Phone 7 devices, you'd have a talking point. As it stands, there's no evidence that says the telecoms had anything to do with that, and there's not much evidence of anything else happening, either.
If I remember correctly (*snort*), Google Voice's approval in the App Store was simply taking an inordinate amount of time. One could say it was someone at Apple lashing out against Google for their theft and betrayal, but if there's no evidence of that, you can't say it and expect it to be taken seriously. Wasn't it also rejected (for improper API use) the first time they submitted? If so, you have to have other considerations than 'petty bickering'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
You can't seriously be that dense.
If you can provide me with some information that states AT&T (or any other telecoms) would have had a problem with the service as a whole (on all platforms that would use their services), I'll reconsider the idea.
The business fact is what does ATT, Verizon etc…innovate? They are pipes that's all - cellular pipes at that. They make their neywork faster - 4G - that's it.
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(226,225,225);">Stephenson what are YOU innovating? Apple, Google, Skype (Microsoft) etc… are actually making your company irrelevant in the very near </span> <span style="line-height:normal;">future. But Mr. </span> <span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">Stephenson you're great at bemoaning that many other CEO's make you look like a fool. You have zero vision of a future for ATT. Jobs and now Cook HAVE a grand vision of their future and technology. They innovate - you are in whoa is me mode.</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">Apple could buy ATT in a heartbeat - but why would they? Even the value of your pipes are not worth the purchase. </span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">I'm very interested where and ATT or Verizon will even be in say 10 years? Even here? But IMO if you are a very much smaller company - unless you CREATE something. Fat chance.</span>
Sell your ATT stock people.
Those so called "pipes" are the life's blood to our devices and its akin to saying our veins are just pipes but without them we'd die. Regardless of what you think ATT would've done just as fine if the iPhone never existed, we'd all still have some type of phone on their network.
Is Apple the only one allowed to nickel and dime us? Is Apple the only one allowed to make money? One can make an app to circumvent ATTs network but god forbid anyone makes an app that circumvents Apple in any way.
Think about it, we did not get unlimited speed. We only get up to 1 Mb per second, so you multiple the bandwidth to the number of seconds in a month, that is your cost. Chances are that none of us are downloading all the time. Basically we are paying the bandwidth whether we use it or not. The consumers are the losers here.
Comments
Corporate greed is insatiable. We have 4 iphones. I have thrown $300/mo at AT&T since the original iPhone came out. My parents use a trickle of data and txt (on 2 of the phones). AT&T now has the audacity to play the poor mouth after all these years of fat profits. Nonetheless, they have neglected to use these funds to adequately prepare for the LTE rollout.
I am SICK of these CLOWNS. Feel like dumping cellular data altogether.
By the way, in many foreign countries, there is no charge for incoming txt messages.
unethical corporate greed!!!!!
Agreed. I wonder if this ass clown realizes his business would be nothing close to what it is today without the iPhone. AT&T has done nothing but bitch and moan about the iPhone and its users (their own customers) since day 1. Their network has improved since my first iPhone in 2008, bug it still SUCKS compared to Verizon. This man should get down on his knees and thank a life size portrait of Steve Jobs every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
The carriers cannot approve and disapprove anything they want. They can certainly try, but the US is a nation of laws and the carriers have to abide by those laws.
Except they can. Because they do. Because no one cares enough to stop them, and the people in charge of stopping them are being paid off by the people doing the un-stopping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
You want the government that no one can or should trust to get even MORE involved? What?
If anything, regulations need to be eliminated so competition can become more fierce between these companies.
Uh, yes.
De-regulation is the cause of most of this country's problems. We literally would not be in this mess were it not for de-regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
This just in: "sending email takes away from the money we could be making on texts." I really don't think the alleged losses flies because AT&T got rid of their $5 and $10 text plans in favor of $20/mo plan or paying dearly for each trivial text.
AT&T and Apple have a contract. Last I heard, Apple gets a very considerable amount of money per device, including a monthly fee. AT&T then has some say in what they allow Apple to enable in exchange for the subsidy.
And that is why I proposed Apple should not renew the contract. They would no longer be bound by those conditions.
The business fact is what does ATT, Verizon etc…innovate? They are pipes that's all - cellular pipes at that. They make their neywork faster - 4G - that's it.
Stephenson what are YOU innovating? Apple, Google, Skype (Microsoft) etc… are actually making your company irrelevant in the very near future. But Mr. Stephenson you're great at bemoaning that many other CEO's make you look like a fool. You have zero vision of a future for ATT. Jobs and now Cook HAVE a grand vision of their future and technology. They innovate - you are in whoa is me mode.
Apple could buy ATT in a heartbeat - but why would they? Even the value of your pipes are not worth the purchase. I'm very interested where and ATT or Verizon will even be in say 10 years? Even here? But IMO if you are a very much smaller company - unless you CREATE something. Fat chance.
Sell your ATT stock people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
What law is AT&T violating by disallowing 3G FaceTime use?
Not that I like it, but to imply that it's illegal, I think that claim needs to be supported. A concept such as net neutrality doesn't apply to wireless carriers.
I didn't say a law was being violated. Nor did I imply that anything illegal was currently taking place. I said if the subsidies were terminated (and here I insinuated by legal means), then should Apple enable FaceTime over 3G, LTE, etc., AT&T would have trouble blocking that attempt, just like AT&T would have a hard time trying to block Skype (which they don't, and so far as I can see, have made no attempt to do so). As it currently stands, Apple will not enable FaceTime on cellular data since it is likely prohibited in the contract they have with AT&T. Be more careful to what is said and in what context going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except they can. Because they do. Because no one cares enough to stop them, and the people in charge of stopping them are being paid off by the people doing the un-stopping.
If that were true how would you explain what happened with Google Voice? They were being blocked, and yet, mysteriously, as soon as they filed a FTC complaint they magically were granted access to the App Store and iOS environment. The FTC would not have bothered investigating if Google didn't have a legitimate concern.
I've had the iPhone with AT&T since almost the beginning but this is the kind of attitude that will certainly hasten the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
AT&T and Apple have a contract. Last I heard, Apple gets a very considerable amount of money per device, including a monthly fee. AT&T then has some say in what they allow Apple to enable in exchange for the subsidy.
They do indeed have a contract, one that does not include money being sent from AT&T to Apple every month for device sales. That ended years ago with the iPhone 3G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
If that were true how would you explain what happened with Google Voice? They were being blocked, and yet, mysteriously, as soon as they filed a FTC complaint they magically were granted access to the App Store and iOS environment. The FTC would not have bothered investigating if Google didn't have a legitimate concern.
What does… that have to do with the telecoms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What does… that have to do with the telecoms?
Google Voice is a free app that allows free calls over data networks. Does it really need any more explaining than that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
Google Voice is a free app that allows free calls over data networks. Does it really need any more explaining than that?
Yes. What does it have to do with the telecoms? Were the telecoms blocking Google Voice on their networks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes. What does it have to do with the telecoms? Were the telecoms blocking Google Voice on their networks?
Well the suspicion that that was the case is precisely what lead to the investigation. Google wrote to the FTC and the FTC demanded disclosure from both AT&T and Apple regarding their policies surrounding Google. If the telecoms had nothing to do with it the FTC would only have written a letter to Apple. Clearly the FTC thought something was weird and inappropriate. Once the AT&T and Apple both responded they were not blocking Google Voice, it magically was now approved in the App store. Funny coincidence. Well, the investigation was dropped at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes. What does it have to do with the telecoms? Were the telecoms blocking Google Voice on their networks?
You can't seriously be that dense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Well the suspicion that that was the case is precisely what lead to the investigation. Google wrote to the FTC and the FTC demanded disclosure from both AT&T and Apple regarding their policies surrounding Google. If the telecoms had nothing to do with it the FTC would only have written a letter to Apple. Clearly the FTC thought something was weird and inappropriate. Once the AT&T and Apple both responded they were not blocking Google Voice, it magically was now approved in the App store. Funny coincidence. Well, the investigation was dropped at that point.
So you have no proof of telecom involvement, then. So why bring it up? It seems more like a problem between Apple and Google than anything else.
If Google Voice had been blocked from use on Android devices or Windows Phone 7 devices, you'd have a talking point. As it stands, there's no evidence that says the telecoms had anything to do with that, and there's not much evidence of anything else happening, either.
If I remember correctly (*snort*), Google Voice's approval in the App Store was simply taking an inordinate amount of time. One could say it was someone at Apple lashing out against Google for their theft and betrayal, but if there's no evidence of that, you can't say it and expect it to be taken seriously. Wasn't it also rejected (for improper API use) the first time they submitted? If so, you have to have other considerations than 'petty bickering'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
You can't seriously be that dense.
If you can provide me with some information that states AT&T (or any other telecoms) would have had a problem with the service as a whole (on all platforms that would use their services), I'll reconsider the idea.
Those so called "pipes" are the life's blood to our devices and its akin to saying our veins are just pipes but without them we'd die. Regardless of what you think ATT would've done just as fine if the iPhone never existed, we'd all still have some type of phone on their network.
Is Apple the only one allowed to nickel and dime us? Is Apple the only one allowed to make money? One can make an app to circumvent ATTs network but god forbid anyone makes an app that circumvents Apple in any way.
Stupid argument. Not True At All!
Think about it, we did not get unlimited speed. We only get up to 1 Mb per second, so you multiple the bandwidth to the number of seconds in a month, that is your cost. Chances are that none of us are downloading all the time. Basically we are paying the bandwidth whether we use it or not. The consumers are the losers here.