A cellular network is private, and they can allow whatever they choose on their private network. If you do not like that, you have the choice to choose a DIFFERENT private network.
There is no such thing as a public cellular network!
This is not true. All networks are operated as public services. The operator owns the equipment, but does not own the spectrum. The spectrum use is publicly controlled and regulated and it must be administered in the collective public good.
That the FCC has not tried to operate in a Public Utilities Commission manner when it comes to pricing is probably a temporary situation.
Not everyone on AT&T has an unlimited data plan--perhaps not even a majority of smartphone users--and the new throttling practice forced down their throats will surely push many customers into a tiered plan.
I'd say the expensive attempt to merge with T-Mobile was truly boneheaded... and the crying over unlimited data plan customers is an intended distraction.
Since I cried for three years in New York City about AT&T's lousy connectivity with my iPhone 3G, it's somewhat satisfying to have the CEO cry a little now too.
I can't imagine anyone in NYC going with AT&T. It's still the worst here. (In other places in the USA I've heard it's better.)
The migration of the New York multitudes to Verizon is what Stephenson should be crying about... and doing something about... by making the service better.
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.
Over-regulation, specifically government intervention in markets where the weak players should have been wiped out (I'm looking at you, banking and financial sector and the auto industry) and been allowed to be sold off or shut down according to free market principles instead of tossing billions into dying industries is the problem. There is no shortage of regulation, friend.
There is no point in complaining about AT&T not thinking of their customers and treating them like the music or motion picture industry would.
All companies understand one, and in most cases only one language: money.
If you don't like what they're doing go give your money to someone else. It will work for you short term and if enough people vote this way they'll get it and change so you may come back some day.
If you put up with it and complain you'll only get more abuse, because then they'll know you don't actually care.
Some months ago I started wondering why the VoIP calls I sometimes make from my iPhone on my current carrier here were less reliable than I remembered them. Two weeks ago I read a lovely press release from my carrier about how they were adding innovative value for their customers with their new VoIP plan for just 6€ a month. I said "uhm, wait".
And indeed I found another press release from the start of the year that they had bought a lovely new filtering software to help block and obstruct VoIP traffic on their network. I also found a lovely no-voip-clause had been added to the conditions of the monthly data package. So it turns out they decided to strip VoIP use from the data plan (without lowering the price, of course) and then allow you to add it back in for an extra 6€ a month.
I won't send them any angry emails or call them.
Instead I've requested carrier portability and tomorrow my number will switch over to another carrier which explicitly allows VoIP traffic and that's the end of the story.
Google Voice is a free app that allows free calls over data networks. Does it really need any more explaining than that?
To the cellular telcos, the baseline implementation of Google Voice as implemented on the iPhone as an App does not involve transferring any voice calls over the data component of a cellular network.
All of the actual voice information entering and exiting the cell phone for both incoming an outgoing calls are carried through normal cellular voice channels, eating up normal local voice minutes which are billed by the celular telcos accordingly.
On the outgoing side, such a system does, indeed, deny the telos the oportunity to charge extra for long distance routing - but even if the App were actually blocked from running on the cell phone, the core functionality of routing the long distance calls through a 3rd paty carrier through a proxy phone numbe would still have been accessible - the basic business model has existed in the form of 3rd party long distance calling cards for many years. The difference with Google Voice is that the routing (not the call itself) is configured using interactive web services (GV) rather than voice prompts during the call itself (long distance calling cards).
On the incoming side, the system is really immaterial, because the vast majority of incoming calls are charged at the local rate - if they are charged at all - no matter where the customer is within their native calling area. And as soon as they leave their native calling area, the customer will still continue to be charged a premium rate to receive incoming Google Voice calls whlst roaming on a foreign carrier.
Indeed, since Google Voice uses the Internet and VoIP to carry calls from the outgoing local access number to the incoming local access number, the ISPs who provide Google with wired connections to the internet backbone might potentially have a bone to pick with Google's usage of their bandwidth -- but for the wireless servce providers, these issues ought to be immaterial.
My AT&T cell phone bill, with "fees" and taxes is just under $1000 per year. The lifetime value to a phone company of a single customer at that rate is over $30,000 per customer. Why do you think they're so anxious to give away phones for family members if you get extra lines? A family with three cell phones and three cell phone lines can easily have a lifetime value of $90,000. How piggy does AT&T (or any phone company for that matter) have to be? Yes, they have capital costs, but to paraphrase from "The Godfather", "that's the business they chose to be in."
Personally, I feel my cell phone bill, even though I'm grandfathered with unlimited data use, is outrageously high.
My cable bill (cable TV + web cable modem) is only about 20% higher than my cell phone bill and as much as we all hate our cable suppliers, they have to buy tons of rights to content. They generally have to pay by the channel and frequently by the subscriber, even for subscribers who don't watch a particular channel. And they certainly have infrastructure costs with having to wire the streets and homes.
I cry no tears for AT&T. And this CEO was an idiot for publicly taking that position.
You are a cry baby Randall Stephenson. Perhaps you should have let Apple go with Sprint as the first carrier with the iPhone. This is so ungrateful of you. Don't you have enought being a millionaire? You have to start looking at the future and look for ways of innovating your service (like Steve Jobs innovated), instead of trying to stay in the past and relying on an old business model. Don't you remember what happened when millions of people didn't need land lines in their homes anymore? They canceled them and just kept their cellphones. I am one of them. Learn from that: we can't pretend to stay for so many years relying on the same kind of technology because technology always moves forward. Don't you think that cloud services are more than enought for storing SMS and MMS activity. Carrier's SMS and MMS services might be a thing of the past on the future. Imagine that and plan ahead. Also, we can't pretend to stay for so many years relying on the same kind of business models. Innovate, bring new services to customers, innovate on customer support. One more thing: stop blaming others for your business decisions. Take responsibility for your actions and don't make us, your customers, pay more on our bills because of your 'mistakes'.
Trust me, no ones hatred of AT&T surpasses mine. I suffered through two years of outright criminal service problems that they ignored every time I brought it up. Their lies kept me and I even upgraded (stupidly in hindsight) to the iPhone 4 because they swore they were bringing 3G service to my area. Call me crazy but I measured where it stopped and EDGE was available and their 3g "expansion" ended almost exactly 1/4 of a mile from my front door. I hate them more than anything in the world. They aren't above vicious ridicule and insults, but some things they are lacking on isn't as easy as everyone thinks. They do have legitimate problems and I don't fault them for what they can't fix overnight. AT&T is borderline criminal for how they treat people but they've had one hell of a time making their network upgrades in a timely manner and internet outrage over problems hits an unnecessary fever pitch sometime. Their network is crap in the cast majority of the US, but fixing it isn't as simple as just buying the boxes and plugging them in. If it were we'd have a lot more choice on carriers. (Corporate politics and lobbying aside of course.) Their plans and charges aren't up for debate, they suck and I agree 100% that they are evil in what they do.
It is essential that apple customers militate to have these devices (iphone, ipad) be configured by the manufacturer to be sold to function on a wide range of wifi and cellular networks with the in built hardware and software. That way the owner is empowered to use them as they best see fit independent of cell phone protocol of a given carrier or country.
Universal iphone and ipad accomplishes this. Customer willingness to buy or fiance unlocked phone purchase so carrier isn't subsidizing purchase helps even further. When we value the device for something closer to what it is worth and simply look to carrier to provide (some) connectivity, then we will have our natural consumer authority back.
American cell customers addiction to cell phone and tablet subsidies is what creates this unholy situation resulting in the cell phone carrier feeling a false sense of entitlement to device owner's ongoing business despite provision of low grade product both technically and in terms of customer service. iphone and ipad owners of course will and should utilize their system on multiple networks as their requirements and location (network availability) dictate.
The universal iphone and ipad with identical hardware and software throughout the world solves the problem. Then and only then will cell customers be able to have a reasonable push back against carriers when they feel the quality or value associated w what the the carrier offers doesn't meet customer's expectations.
Everyone, please tell Apple that is what you want and expect. If they deliver it as seems they might, then some of us have to pay full price for our handset and tablets so we are independent of contract from day 1. Only when that group of subscribers becomes significant will rate plans change to reflect a fair notion of value.
Also of course, it would be nice if customers not benefiting from a subsidy the carrier is still trying to recover benefited from lower rates than customers who are still "paying back" the subsidy they received in full on day 1 on which they took delivery of their device.
In the meantime, every time you speak or interact with AT&T (or Verizon) make it clear the future of your business is at stake.
The universal iphone and ipad with identical hardware and software throughout the world solves the problem. Then and only then will cell customers be able to have a reasonable push back against carriers when they feel the quality or value associated w what the the carrier offers doesn't meet customer's expectations.
Nope. Even with a fully-compatible worldwide device, we'll still be forced to buy data plans in the US even if we don't want them.
The point isn't merely that you may still (always) need a data plan. The point is that w/o a contract and with a universal phone you are free to explore alternatives w/o the current limitations that usually apply.
Would you quickly return to a restaurant that gave your spouse food poisoning when you were celebrating their bday? No you might seek out alternatives which if they pleased you more in terms of quality, value or convenience would supplant the original restaurant that served the toxic bday fare.
If it were easy to abandon your cell phone carrier, the carriers would get a lot better quickly. I feel certain.
A universal unlocked handset free of contract from day one online by high value subscribers in significant numbers would be one way to test the proposition.
The point isn't merely that you may still (always) need a data plan. The point is that w/o a contract and with a universal phone you are free to explore alternatives w/o the current limitations that usually apply.
Okay. And even with a fully unlocked universal phone, we'll still be forced to buy a contract in the US.
If the owner of a handset or tablet configured by manufacturer to work on all or most cellular networks in the world would like to pay for the privilege of connecting to a US carrier's network, there will be ways to do that w/o contract.
Such customers would be somewhat rare by comparison w today's status quo in that:
1. This type of customer would not be requesting or receiving a subsidy of their handset
2. Their handset was configured by the manufacturer to work on CDMA and GSM and all iterations of 3G and 4G. (as everyone knows, there is precedent for this w wifi apple products are compatible w 802.11 B/G/N protocols and one can assume the upcoming 802.11 ac.)
3. By virtue of 1 and 2, this category of customer would be free to leave a carrier and become a customer of an alternative carrier because they were dis-satisfied w the technical quality, customer service or value of their current carrier's offering or simply because they had relocated to another part of the country or the world.
There are month to month plans now. The main selling point of the country and justification for it is the subsidy of the initial handset at beginning of the term of the contract. Take that out of the equation, there is no reason for a contract whatsoever.
With old but still useful smart phones which are "out of contract" being widely available, this category of customer will become very large very fast. (Of course, old handsets are not currently that close to universal.)
Question is will customers buy their handset at the full unsubsidized price in order to regain their flexibility to leave an unsatisfactory service provider and to favorably adjust the power equation with their cell network.
Does everyone agree w Tallest skil that nothing can be done by customers, manufacaturers, or the market to increase the relative strength handset and tablet users enjoy vis a vis the telco giants?
You can't use an iPhone on any US carrier without a data plan and a contract. It simply isn't possible. Those that have managed to get it working before had to so a lot of legwork and pay bit by bit and those loopholes are rapidly closing. It simply isn't possible to have a smartphone like the iPhone without something you don't want, a data plan, or without signing a contract. It's a bunch of BS, but that's where we are. I think phone service should be like gasoline. Buy the car, use whatever brand of gas you want in it, from wherever you can buy it. Doesn't work that way, but I wish it did.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
A cellular network is private, and they can allow whatever they choose on their private network. If you do not like that, you have the choice to choose a DIFFERENT private network.
There is no such thing as a public cellular network!
This is not true. All networks are operated as public services. The operator owns the equipment, but does not own the spectrum. The spectrum use is publicly controlled and regulated and it must be administered in the collective public good.
That the FCC has not tried to operate in a Public Utilities Commission manner when it comes to pricing is probably a temporary situation.
How about ATT giving us a credit for dropped calls on their network?
Oh, Boo-hoo!
Not everyone on AT&T has an unlimited data plan--perhaps not even a majority of smartphone users--and the new throttling practice forced down their throats will surely push many customers into a tiered plan.
I'd say the expensive attempt to merge with T-Mobile was truly boneheaded... and the crying over unlimited data plan customers is an intended distraction.
Since I cried for three years in New York City about AT&T's lousy connectivity with my iPhone 3G, it's somewhat satisfying to have the CEO cry a little now too.
I can't imagine anyone in NYC going with AT&T. It's still the worst here. (In other places in the USA I've heard it's better.)
The migration of the New York multitudes to Verizon is what Stephenson should be crying about... and doing something about... by making the service better.
If only this man could build an illegal monopoly and more powerfully screw us. It is really a shame because I was waiting for him.
Over-regulation, specifically government intervention in markets where the weak players should have been wiped out (I'm looking at you, banking and financial sector and the auto industry) and been allowed to be sold off or shut down according to free market principles instead of tossing billions into dying industries is the problem. There is no shortage of regulation, friend.
Ok, so here is the cellular providers' nightmare! LMAO!
Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 MSM8960 mobile chip could put an end to metered cellular voice calls.
http://voxilla.com/2012/02/02/qualcomm-voip-chip-could-signal-the-end-of-metered-cell-calls/
There is no point in complaining about AT&T not thinking of their customers and treating them like the music or motion picture industry would.
All companies understand one, and in most cases only one language: money.
If you don't like what they're doing go give your money to someone else. It will work for you short term and if enough people vote this way they'll get it and change so you may come back some day.
If you put up with it and complain you'll only get more abuse, because then they'll know you don't actually care.
Forgot to mention an actual example:
Some months ago I started wondering why the VoIP calls I sometimes make from my iPhone on my current carrier here were less reliable than I remembered them. Two weeks ago I read a lovely press release from my carrier about how they were adding innovative value for their customers with their new VoIP plan for just 6€ a month. I said "uhm, wait".
And indeed I found another press release from the start of the year that they had bought a lovely new filtering software to help block and obstruct VoIP traffic on their network. I also found a lovely no-voip-clause had been added to the conditions of the monthly data package. So it turns out they decided to strip VoIP use from the data plan (without lowering the price, of course) and then allow you to add it back in for an extra 6€ a month.
I won't send them any angry emails or call them.
Instead I've requested carrier portability and tomorrow my number will switch over to another carrier which explicitly allows VoIP traffic and that's the end of the story.
To the cellular telcos, the baseline implementation of Google Voice as implemented on the iPhone as an App does not involve transferring any voice calls over the data component of a cellular network.
All of the actual voice information entering and exiting the cell phone for both incoming an outgoing calls are carried through normal cellular voice channels, eating up normal local voice minutes which are billed by the celular telcos accordingly.
On the outgoing side, such a system does, indeed, deny the telos the oportunity to charge extra for long distance routing - but even if the App were actually blocked from running on the cell phone, the core functionality of routing the long distance calls through a 3rd paty carrier through a proxy phone numbe would still have been accessible - the basic business model has existed in the form of 3rd party long distance calling cards for many years. The difference with Google Voice is that the routing (not the call itself) is configured using interactive web services (GV) rather than voice prompts during the call itself (long distance calling cards).
On the incoming side, the system is really immaterial, because the vast majority of incoming calls are charged at the local rate - if they are charged at all - no matter where the customer is within their native calling area. And as soon as they leave their native calling area, the customer will still continue to be charged a premium rate to receive incoming Google Voice calls whlst roaming on a foreign carrier.
Indeed, since Google Voice uses the Internet and VoIP to carry calls from the outgoing local access number to the incoming local access number, the ISPs who provide Google with wired connections to the internet backbone might potentially have a bone to pick with Google's usage of their bandwidth -- but for the wireless servce providers, these issues ought to be immaterial.
My AT&T cell phone bill, with "fees" and taxes is just under $1000 per year. The lifetime value to a phone company of a single customer at that rate is over $30,000 per customer. Why do you think they're so anxious to give away phones for family members if you get extra lines? A family with three cell phones and three cell phone lines can easily have a lifetime value of $90,000. How piggy does AT&T (or any phone company for that matter) have to be? Yes, they have capital costs, but to paraphrase from "The Godfather", "that's the business they chose to be in."
Personally, I feel my cell phone bill, even though I'm grandfathered with unlimited data use, is outrageously high.
My cable bill (cable TV + web cable modem) is only about 20% higher than my cell phone bill and as much as we all hate our cable suppliers, they have to buy tons of rights to content. They generally have to pay by the channel and frequently by the subscriber, even for subscribers who don't watch a particular channel. And they certainly have infrastructure costs with having to wire the streets and homes.
I cry no tears for AT&T. And this CEO was an idiot for publicly taking that position.
You have to start looking at the future and look for ways of innovating your service (like Steve Jobs innovated), instead of trying to stay in the past and relying on an old business model. Don't you remember what happened when millions of people didn't need land lines in their homes anymore? They canceled them and just kept their cellphones. I am one of them. Learn from that: we can't pretend to stay for so many years relying on the same kind of technology because technology always moves forward. Don't you think that cloud services are more than enought for storing SMS and MMS activity. Carrier's SMS and MMS services might be a thing of the past on the future. Imagine that and plan ahead. Also, we can't pretend to stay for so many years relying on the same kind of business models. Innovate, bring new services to customers, innovate on customer support.
One more thing: stop blaming others for your business decisions. Take responsibility for your actions and don't make us, your customers, pay more on our bills because of your 'mistakes'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Ooop.
Someone's in a tizzy.
Don't like having AT&T stupidity exposed...
Wear a blue badge do you?
Trust me, no ones hatred of AT&T surpasses mine. I suffered through two years of outright criminal service problems that they ignored every time I brought it up. Their lies kept me and I even upgraded (stupidly in hindsight) to the iPhone 4 because they swore they were bringing 3G service to my area. Call me crazy but I measured where it stopped and EDGE was available and their 3g "expansion" ended almost exactly 1/4 of a mile from my front door. I hate them more than anything in the world. They aren't above vicious ridicule and insults, but some things they are lacking on isn't as easy as everyone thinks. They do have legitimate problems and I don't fault them for what they can't fix overnight. AT&T is borderline criminal for how they treat people but they've had one hell of a time making their network upgrades in a timely manner and internet outrage over problems hits an unnecessary fever pitch sometime. Their network is crap in the cast majority of the US, but fixing it isn't as simple as just buying the boxes and plugging them in. If it were we'd have a lot more choice on carriers. (Corporate politics and lobbying aside of course.) Their plans and charges aren't up for debate, they suck and I agree 100% that they are evil in what they do.
It is essential that apple customers militate to have these devices (iphone, ipad) be configured by the manufacturer to be sold to function on a wide range of wifi and cellular networks with the in built hardware and software. That way the owner is empowered to use them as they best see fit independent of cell phone protocol of a given carrier or country.
Universal iphone and ipad accomplishes this. Customer willingness to buy or fiance unlocked phone purchase so carrier isn't subsidizing purchase helps even further. When we value the device for something closer to what it is worth and simply look to carrier to provide (some) connectivity, then we will have our natural consumer authority back.
American cell customers addiction to cell phone and tablet subsidies is what creates this unholy situation resulting in the cell phone carrier feeling a false sense of entitlement to device owner's ongoing business despite provision of low grade product both technically and in terms of customer service. iphone and ipad owners of course will and should utilize their system on multiple networks as their requirements and location (network availability) dictate.
The universal iphone and ipad with identical hardware and software throughout the world solves the problem. Then and only then will cell customers be able to have a reasonable push back against carriers when they feel the quality or value associated w what the the carrier offers doesn't meet customer's expectations.
Everyone, please tell Apple that is what you want and expect. If they deliver it as seems they might, then some of us have to pay full price for our handset and tablets so we are independent of contract from day 1. Only when that group of subscribers becomes significant will rate plans change to reflect a fair notion of value.
Also of course, it would be nice if customers not benefiting from a subsidy the carrier is still trying to recover benefited from lower rates than customers who are still "paying back" the subsidy they received in full on day 1 on which they took delivery of their device.
In the meantime, every time you speak or interact with AT&T (or Verizon) make it clear the future of your business is at stake.
What do you all think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATT Detractor
The universal iphone and ipad with identical hardware and software throughout the world solves the problem. Then and only then will cell customers be able to have a reasonable push back against carriers when they feel the quality or value associated w what the the carrier offers doesn't meet customer's expectations.
Nope. Even with a fully-compatible worldwide device, we'll still be forced to buy data plans in the US even if we don't want them.
The point isn't merely that you may still (always) need a data plan. The point is that w/o a contract and with a universal phone you are free to explore alternatives w/o the current limitations that usually apply.
Would you quickly return to a restaurant that gave your spouse food poisoning when you were celebrating their bday? No you might seek out alternatives which if they pleased you more in terms of quality, value or convenience would supplant the original restaurant that served the toxic bday fare.
If it were easy to abandon your cell phone carrier, the carriers would get a lot better quickly. I feel certain.
A universal unlocked handset free of contract from day one online by high value subscribers in significant numbers would be one way to test the proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATT Detractor
The point isn't merely that you may still (always) need a data plan. The point is that w/o a contract and with a universal phone you are free to explore alternatives w/o the current limitations that usually apply.
Okay. And even with a fully unlocked universal phone, we'll still be forced to buy a contract in the US.
If the owner of a handset or tablet configured by manufacturer to work on all or most cellular networks in the world would like to pay for the privilege of connecting to a US carrier's network, there will be ways to do that w/o contract.
Such customers would be somewhat rare by comparison w today's status quo in that:
1. This type of customer would not be requesting or receiving a subsidy of their handset
2. Their handset was configured by the manufacturer to work on CDMA and GSM and all iterations of 3G and 4G. (as everyone knows, there is precedent for this w wifi apple products are compatible w 802.11 B/G/N protocols and one can assume the upcoming 802.11 ac.)
3. By virtue of 1 and 2, this category of customer would be free to leave a carrier and become a customer of an alternative carrier because they were dis-satisfied w the technical quality, customer service or value of their current carrier's offering or simply because they had relocated to another part of the country or the world.
There are month to month plans now. The main selling point of the country and justification for it is the subsidy of the initial handset at beginning of the term of the contract. Take that out of the equation, there is no reason for a contract whatsoever.
With old but still useful smart phones which are "out of contract" being widely available, this category of customer will become very large very fast. (Of course, old handsets are not currently that close to universal.)
Question is will customers buy their handset at the full unsubsidized price in order to regain their flexibility to leave an unsatisfactory service provider and to favorably adjust the power equation with their cell network.
Does everyone agree w Tallest skil that nothing can be done by customers, manufacaturers, or the market to increase the relative strength handset and tablet users enjoy vis a vis the telco giants?
You can't use an iPhone on any US carrier without a data plan and a contract. It simply isn't possible. Those that have managed to get it working before had to so a lot of legwork and pay bit by bit and those loopholes are rapidly closing. It simply isn't possible to have a smartphone like the iPhone without something you don't want, a data plan, or without signing a contract. It's a bunch of BS, but that's where we are. I think phone service should be like gasoline. Buy the car, use whatever brand of gas you want in it, from wherever you can buy it. Doesn't work that way, but I wish it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
You can't use an iPhone on any US carrier without a data plan and a contract. It simply isn't possible.
Sure, you keep thinking that.
Quote:
Those that have managed to get it working before had to so a lot of legwork and pay bit by bit and those loopholes are rapidly closing.
Or they just took their iPhone to their carrier, got a SIM, and walked out.
Quote:
It simply isn't possible to have a smartphone like the iPhone without… …signing a contract.
Nope. Possible.