iPhone: AT&T deal under scrutiny by government, Verizon

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 124
    Steve Jobs went to Verizon and asked them if they wanted to be a part of this before he went to Cingular, Verizon turned it down.



    Besides, in order for Visual Voicemail to work, Cingular (AT&T) had to make changes on how their equipment handled voicemail. So you couldn't use visual voicemail on any other network currently.



    Give it time, I'm sure the iPhone will make its way to other providers just as the RAZR eventually did.



    Also, comparing how the US is so different than everyone else is kinda silly. Remember the US has a lot more infrastructure to upgrade when new stuff comes out, so regulations have to be a little different. I get so tired of how people complain that Japan and Europe has so much more options with cell phones, it is more than just the device, the infrastucture has to be there too. Japan is smaller than the state of California.
  • Reply 102 of 124
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    ZING! Nicely done.



    .



    ZING indeed!



    Assuming that:



    1) Solipsism knows my real name



    2) Solipsism has access to my credit history



    3) My credit was poor



    Touche?
  • Reply 103 of 124
    For those of us with ATT coverage, the Apple and ATT monopoly that Ed Markey and, of course, all ATT's competitors would like to investigate, might well be a possibility. It is in the area of no coverage where ATT, and derivatively, that Apple might face law-suits.



    For those people living in areas where there is NO ATT coverage, ATT is still telling people to go ahead and buy the iPhone. A friend who lives in a wealthy rural area of the US was told that two days ago. The ATT store manager even said that hundreds of people in this region had come in and bought the iPhone, and that was confirmed by the folks in the Apple "store" a couple of doors down the street. But the "Apple" folks warned that there might not be ATT coverage but that it was up to the purchaser of the phone to get a "deal" out of ATT.





    Now, the ATT store manager did not mention this, but my friend, on returning to the ATT store, which actually had a couple of 8G phones-- the store selling Apple gear, did not-- brought this up and one of the other employers, said it was true and that the user would have to "roam." He then said that that could become a huge problem for ALL the people who had bought the iPhone in that area, since after more than 40% roaming, ATT would turn off service and the iPhone would be a DEAD phone.



    The manager finally agreed then said it was up to the customers to deal with ATT and get some sort of special deal. My friend asked if this store would help and the manager said, NO, he could not.



    My friend then called Apple and got up to a fairly high level, where he learned that SJ understood that this would happen but it was nothing Apple could do anything about since Apple just sold the phone and did not have any mechanism to get ATT to make variances in its contracts.



    This may be true, but ATT simply cannot allow the unwary users to begin a field day of roaming, then shut off the service because they have now violated their contracts.



    By not informing them in the first palce is not ethical at worst and stupid at least.

    For starters, why is ATT NOT in that geographical area-- the store manager said the other carriers-- by the way, little carriers that I have not even heard of-- would not allow ATT to operate there. That sounds like rubbish. It smacks more of more like a deal with ATT for some reason that ATT has agreed to. Monopolistic practices???



    Apple DOES have a vested interest in this but perhaps is taking a step back to let ATT take the blast as there is surely going to be some very angry rich people with the most expensive iPods on the planet-- and they are not going to sit still about this.



    Perhaps, then, Apple can apply its enormous weight on ATT. Simply, ATT should allow people in certain areas like this to be able to roam and NOT turn them off. This is an incredible catch 22 for these people and it is solvable.



    Otherwise a very real class action suit- with MERIT for a change-- is likely to come about. This is not good for Apple-- I could care less about ATT, as the store manager's attitude seems to suggest that NOTHING has changed with our (ATT) carriers. I have to assume that this was the sort of thing that caused Apple some angst about getting into this market in the first place-- they have not got full control of the dog.



    C'mon Steve, have a fit about this and look like you care for your customers. We think you do...
  • Reply 104 of 124
    I like the European model.



    I only buy unlocked GSM phones.



    I put my out-of-contract T-Mobile SIM card in them. When I travel out of the States, I can use my T-Mobile SIM or a prepaid local SIM without issues.



    If T-Mobile were ever to annoy me so much that I thought AT&T would be better (!), I would sign the shortest possible contract with the Evil One, then repeat the process. At that time I might actually consider an iPhone because of the contract, and the fact that it will be completely hacked inside of those two years.



    Vendor-crippled phones, locking--all that stuff is just an excuse for having crappy service and draconian contracts.
  • Reply 105 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjwill246 View Post


    For those people living in areas where there is NO ATT coverage, ATT is still telling people to go ahead and buy the iPhone. A friend who lives in a wealthy rural area of the US was told that two days ago. The ATT store manager even said that hundreds of people in this region had come in and bought the iPhone, and that was confirmed by the folks in the Apple "store" a couple of doors down the street. But the "Apple" folks warned that there might not be ATT coverage but that it was up to the purchaser of the phone to get a "deal" out of ATT.



    You cannot assume the people that were buying the phone there were actually from that area. With the iPhone activation being handled through iTunes, you can actually purchase the phone anywhere and activate it whenever or whereever you want. Apple cannot help that coverage isn't everywhere.



    And it is true that AT&T are not allowed into areas by other carriers (especially small carriers), simply because AT&T likes to piggyback on existing towers, if the owners of those towers don't want them in, they only have the option of putting up their own towers which requires permits and what not, so AT&T simply doesn't go in there.
  • Reply 106 of 124
    I have never heard such bull. Verizon is upset that they are losing customers to AT&T, thats all this about.

    Verizon never complained about the exclusive deals that Palm/Trio, Blackberry and Motorola has made in the past.

    All you need to know about this is that Verizon is nervous!!!



    Other wise please explain why has it taken them six years for Verizon to get upset about this issue?

    The iPhone is a huge hit and Verizon is worried now. Thats all this about plain and simple.



    To some of the people who posted about it being unfair that Apple and AT&T have this exclusive. This deal is no

    different to consumers than the deals Motorola struck when the Razor first came out, or the deals Trio or RIm has made.

    I have a Blackberry from AT&T and I can't take it to Verizon. Verizon has a Blackberry model that won't run on AT&T.
  • Reply 107 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post


    You cannot assume the people that were buying the phone there were actually from that area. With the iPhone activation being handled through iTunes, you can actually purchase the phone anywhere and activate it whenever or whereever you want. Apple cannot help that coverage isn't everywhere.



    And it is true that AT&T are not allowed into areas by other carriers (especially small carriers), simply because AT&T likes to piggyback on existing towers, if the owners of those towers don't want them in, they only have the option of putting up their own towers which requires permits and what not, so AT&T simply doesn't go in there.



    I have no idea what you mean-- I was quite clear-- these are local people who bought the phone, not travelers. And of course, I realize that ATT might not be able to get permits- yeah, right! And, they cannot demand to piggy-back. That was not the point I was making. ATT has an obligation to tell you what the consequences of FORCED roaming are.

    I spoke to Congressman Markey's office a while ago and they are going to pursue this.



    In the example of not being able to use a particular Blackberry (or any other phone) on another network, that ought to be explained at the time of purchase.
  • Reply 108 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Judgegavel View Post


    Actually I can, with regards to judging the presidency or the state of the country under him, the war is an entirely over-blown issue



    Sorry, but that's a bit... well, wrong. And Bush's presidency will definitely be judged on the basis of Iraq, far more than any other issue. Even most conservatives I know acknowledge that (and then sigh, and mumble stuff under their breath).



    Aside from that, I think you make some credible points, even if I disagree with many of them. Let's hope we have some better choices in '08.



    .
  • Reply 109 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post




    Touche?





    Not so much. But at least your sig is nice revenge.



    .
  • Reply 110 of 124
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    I firmly believe all phones should be unlocked. It's only fair. Think about it, you're like "OMG I LUV MY IPHONE IT'S TEH SEXY, SO I SIGNED DA 2 YEAR CONTRACT."



    But it's not a 2 year contract, it's a 5 year contract, your if you stay loyal for 2 years then wanna change companies, your iphone is now dead.



    It's not just iphone it's all phones, that do that and ass rape consumers. Imagine you were like "I LUV ESSO SERVICE FOR MAH CAR, I'LL ONLY USE THEIR GAS!" then after 2 years you change and you go "NAH THAT'S NOT FOR ME, I WANT TO USE TEH SUNOCO!" and then your car was rendered useless.



    That'd but fucked up and eveyone would be up in arms about it.



    The itunes thing doesn't count because you don't have to pay for itunes, I've been using it for years and I've only every downloaded, the weekly free song from them sometimes. And now Steve pushing for drm free music, even further lifts the barely existent itunes stranglehold.



    People should be picking their contracts based on which carriers offer what they percive to be the best value to them for their voice, data, etc. Not because whichever phone they choose will become a brick once the contract is done.
  • Reply 111 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjwill246 View Post


    This may be true, but ATT simply cannot allow the unwary users to begin a field day of roaming, then shut off the service because they have now violated their contracts.



    I agree completely. But, unfortunately, some sales reps (and even entire stores) are 100% about the commission, and will gloss over or even fail to mention completely any potential problems. Reps like these exist at all carriers, its an industry-wide problem.



    I think a good way to combat it would be to simply retroactively yank their commission for the sale if the user either cancels the contract due to bad service or is cancelled by the carrier for excessive roaming within a few months of the sale. Hey, you shoulda done the legwork, rep.



    Quote:

    Perhaps, then, Apple can apply its enormous weight on ATT. Simply, ATT should allow people in certain areas like this to be able to roam and NOT turn them off. This is an incredible catch 22 for these people and it is solvable.



    I... don't think that's going to happen. The problem, as it often is, is money.



    When you roam on another carrier's network, your carrier has to pay fees to the carrier your roaming on... that's what roaming agreements are all about. And of course, your carrier doesn't LIKE paying a lot of money out to other carriers, so most carriers have rules against excessive roaming. I know for a fact that Sprint will terminate your contract if over 50% of your minutes are roaming on another network, even if your usage was like that only for a month or two.



    ATT probably isn't going to let users 'roam freely' for all the minutes they want, simply because it'll end up costing them a lot of money. And Apple sure isn't going to pay for it either.



    The main thing is for reps and stores to be honest and not sell iPhones (or any phones, period) to folks who live in areas where they're obviously going to be roaming excessively. But that then goes back to the 'dishonest rep' problem I stated above. \





    .
  • Reply 112 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    Sorry, but that's a bit... well, wrong. And Bush's presidency will definitely be judged on the basis of Iraq, far more than any other issue.



    Well by the media yes, but thats very ignorant, and simply buying into everything you watch on the news. Thats not to say he's doing a good job in any way shape or form, because he's not. It's just saying that to point out he's the worst president since HH simply because he's done a horrible job with the War is simply stupid, and just wrong. The more logical thing would be to address the state of the country at the end of his presidency. That being said the economy is fairly strong, unemployment is not bad. I don't see any gas lines, we are not in a depression, or even a recession. Education has improved. Taxes have gone down. And as bad as Iraq is its nowhere near a Vietnam ( appx. 3,600 US Armed Forces casualties vs. 58,000 US Armed Forces casualties, to be specific). When all is said and done, down the road after the Iraq mess blows over GW will wind up having done a better job than Ford, Carter, and even his father for that matter. Despite what the media or popular current opinion will have you believe. Bare in mind I dont think the President is solely responsible for either the good or bad that happens under his regime.



    Worst president, not even close, I will give you stupidest president though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    Let's hope we have some better choices in '08.



    .



    Aside from Hillary we will
  • Reply 113 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Judgegavel View Post


    Well by the media yes,



    Nope. By the people as well. And its entirely fair to do so, its a huge issue. Not that his record outside of the war is much better.



    The media has not made me believe so either, though they always do make a reliable scapegoat for any politician in times of trouble. And I have a pretty good filter against both left- and right-wing media.





    Quote:

    Thats not to say he's doing a good job in any way shape or form, because he's not. It's just saying that to point out he's the worst president since HH simply because he's done a horrible job with the War is simply stupid, and just wrong.



    Its not just the war, though, he's screwed up many other things, as has been listed elsewhere. Katrina, anyone? Universal health care (or lack thereof)? Immigration? Civil liberties? The environment and global warming? Deficits? Energy policy? Over-politicization and cronyism in, well, everything? Blanket incompetence? Destruction of American soft power, reputation, and influence worldwide? Kowtowing to the religious right on most everything?



    The list of suckage just goes on and on and on with these guys... it's tragic.



    Quote:

    That being said the economy is fairly strong, unemployment is not bad. I don't see any gas lines, we are not in a depression, or even a recession.



    As Republicans were so fond of pointing out during the Clinton years, the President can only take a small amount of credit for the economy, at best. Additionally, growth is slumping, and we have big problems in the housing sector as well as the trade deficit (especially with China).



    Quote:

    Education has improved.



    You mean the No Funds Left Behind Act? Yeah, laying down mandates without providing much in the way of money to achieve them isn't that helpful. Every teacher I know simply rolls their eyes at this.



    Quote:

    Taxes have gone down.



    Sure, with the lion's share going to the rich. And the deficit has exploded as a result. Look to see the Bush tax cuts either not being renewed by Congress, or being heavily modified and tilted more towards the middle class (as they should've been to begin with).



    Quote:

    And as bad as Iraq is its nowhere near a Vietnam ( appx. 3,600 US Armed Forces casualties vs. 58,000 US Armed Forces casualties, to be specific).



    The numbers are different, but the effect is the same. The US has been 'Vietnamized' once again, and will be significantly more hesitant to go to war in the future, even when it may be very necessary. Privately, military commanders acknowledge this to be a disaster.



    And the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died may differ with you on the human toll of the current war.



    Quote:

    When all is said and done, down the road after the Iraq mess blows over GW will wind up having done a better job than Ford, Carter, and even his father for that matter. Despite what the media or popular current opinion will have you believe.



    Nope. Dubya's approval ratings are plumbing depths not seen since the 'Nixon during Watergate' era. We're talking subterranean here.



    But its always nice to pretend that history will vindicate one's record, isn't it? I'm sure that's what Dubya and all his top cronies are telling themselves, over and over. Must be a mantra behind closed White House doors by now, I'd think.



    Quote:

    I will give you stupidest president though.



    On that one thing, we can agree.





    Quote:

    Aside from Hillary we will



    And yet, she may well win. Though I prefer others.



    If she does, she can thank Dubya for having set the bar so low. She'll look good in comparison, almost no matter what she does.



    .
  • Reply 114 of 124
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    It's not quite accurate to call it "the U.S. government," but foreigners don't understand that we have divided branches of government, and even Americans don't seem to get it.



    Since when does a US Citizen, born and raised and educated in California no less, who lived more than the first 24 years of his life in the US, suddenly become a "foreigner" when he decides to live outside the Land of the Free for a number of years? It's the same mentality as those who love to label us "X-Pats." As in "X-Patriots." As in "You once were a Patriot, but now you are not." Or more simply put, "You are disloyal to your country by living outside its borders." I'm sorry, but I am still a US tax payer, support the US economy with my money, vote on a regular basis, and participate in quite nearly every way as most Americans, even to the extent of making my voice known online in forums like this one! If I was disloyal or hated my country, I would take another's country's citizenship. I am still a US Citizen because, despite its flaws, I still have a love for my country. So I am by no means an "X-Pat" or "foreigner," regardless of my current country of residence.



    Getting back to the heart of the matter, I do "get it" about branches of government. But a detailed analysis of the American form of government has nothing to do with the point I was making, which you yourself partly admit was correct by stating, "It's not quite accurate to call it 'the U.S. government.'" No it is not! It's a CNN.com-style viewer grab, plain and simple. I don't like headlines like that.



    But above and beyond the headline, the thrust of my previous post was about keeping "representatives of our government" out of the free market as much as possible. If Congressmen from Massachusetts want to use an iPhone on a non-AT&T carrier, they should pound on the FCC. If anything has held back cellular technology and limited choice, it's the FCC -- part of our fine US Government! That's right. Ed Markey, a representative of our Government is in fact indirectly complaining about the dirty deeds of another part of our government! But rather than admitting that it's the FCC, Markey is blaming the free market -- that's the part I take issue with.
  • Reply 115 of 124
    dwmdwm Posts: 1member
    Come on Sheepeople. baaa baaaa. We should not have all these restrictions on cellular contracts. The fee model is outdated when home phones now have unlimited calling no long distance etc. really any any time minutes. We should have one fee for using the phone when we want to period. We should also not put up w/ the termination fees when paying FULL price for a phone!! I can understand where there are incentives, but come on people are you people or sheepeople? baaa baaaa. We need one network in the US also and we need to be able to take our handsets where ever we please!
  • Reply 116 of 124
    I wouldn't be surprised if cell phones start shipping with an EULA this is similar to what is commonly used by software companies. Which basically give you the right to use the product but not own it.
  • Reply 117 of 124
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    The environment and global warming?



    Lol, global warming, go look at weather patterns over the last 1000 year instead of the last 100 you'll realize that there is no such thing.

    Al Gore = Chicken Little

    The sky is not falling.



    You obviously buy in to most of the medias hype, and we can argue these points all day. I can point out how Clinton mishandled the majority of your criticisms of Bush just as poorly (i.e. healthcare, immigration), or how his mishandling of foreign policy (i.e. USS Cole, Somalia), and budgeting directly contributed to 9/11.



    With regards to Iraq, I could simply point out how people fail to recognize we were dealing with the next Hitler here, and far fewer Germans would have died if we didn't get into WWII, did FDR make the wrong decision there.



    But listen we agree for the most part that Bush sucks. But sorry I just cant jump on the band wagon and say he's even close to the worst president ever (well he is in the top five definitely). The War is not the defining issue for me, nor is his poor handling of a catastrophic hurricane. What is is the state of the country, to me its certainly better than it was in 1979, 1976, or even 1993 (hell I could even argue 2000), and to me thats the bottom line.



    Stupidest president ever is fine with me, after all Carter was probably the smartest (but still the worst hands down) and they both suck.
  • Reply 118 of 124
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Judgegavel View Post


    Lol, global warming, go look at weather patterns over the last 1000 year instead of the last 100 you'll realize that there is no such thing.

    Al Gore = Chicken Little

    The sky is not falling.




    I was going to stay out of this one because it is a tangent on a tangent and not being discussed at a very high level. But this is too bone head to let slide.



    If you don't like Gore, fine.

    If your repertoire of literary allusions peaks at children's books, fine.



    But just saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. Sure, no one can prove global warming. Just like no one can prove smoking causes cancer. But for decades people deluded themselves into thinking "I smoke two packs a day and I feel fine." And there were plenty of scientists who would take $$ or publicity to say "well, maybe people who are predisposed to get lung cancer are just more likely to smoke."



    For human induced climate change, there is plenty of evidence. The general mechanisms are understood. There are real measurements. Of course, prediction is far, far, far from exact and there are plenty of factors that are not understood. But to take that uncertainty and to say "meh" about the whole thing is some kind of delusion. Be skeptical, but don't be an idiot.



    If you want an intelegent review of the actual science, check out the August 2007 issue of Scientific American, page 64, 'The Physical Science Behind Climate Change."
  • Reply 119 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Sry, double post.
  • Reply 120 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Judgegavel View Post


    Lol, global warming, go look at weather patterns over the last 1000 year instead of the last 100 you'll realize that there is no such thing.

    Al Gore = Chicken Little

    The sky is not falling.



    LOL. Well someone has to be a climate-change denier, I guess. Its kind of refreshing that there's still a few of you around. Thought you'd died out, like the dinosaurs.



    In any case, the next 50 years are gonna be pretty painful for you, as nearly everyone else rolls up their sleeves and tackles the problem. Including even most of the Republican presidential candidates, from their public statements.



    Quote:

    You obviously buy in to most of the medias hype, and we can argue these points all day.



    Well, from my point of view, you're a victim of the right-wing media. Probably believe most everything FOX News spews, and/or listen to too much Limbaugh or Michael Savage. It's coo, takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.



    Quote:

    I can point out how Clinton mishandled the majority of your criticisms of Bush just as poorly (i.e. healthcare, immigration), or how his mishandling of foreign policy (i.e. USS Cole, Somalia), and budgeting directly contributed to 9/11.



    With the benefit of hindsight, we can agree that Clinton's responses to Al-Qaeda were half-hearted, at best. However, Bush was in office for eight months before 9/11, and I didn't hear word one out of his mouth about how serious a threat Al-Qaeda was. He got caught by surprise, and then reacted. \



    Far as health care goes, you gotta be kidding. Clinton tried to do something about it very early on, then got shot down mainly by the Republicans in Congress, who are in the back pocket of the health insurance industry and the big pharmaceutical companies. Don't even go there, it's ludicrous.



    Immigration, I'll give you, Clinton didn't really advance the agenda there. NAFTA was supposed to help a lot, allegedly by making Mexico much more prosperous, but it really hasn't. But again, the GOP just loved NAFTA, they thought it would help too.





    Quote:

    With regards to Iraq, I could simply point out how people fail to recognize we were dealing with the next Hitler here, and far fewer Germans would have died if we didn't get into WWII, did FDR make the wrong decision there.



    Oh, that's old, stale, Bush administration sound bites.



    There's over 200 nations on the planet, and several dozen of them are brutal dictatorships. So what makes Iraq so special that we single them out, and sacrifice American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars? There weren't any WMDs over there, and its been established that there were no real links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.



    It couldn't be the OIL, now could it? Several TRILLION dollars worth, sitting there in the ground, just waiting to be exploited. Oh, and Bush and Cheney being former oil men doesn't factor in, does it?



    There's a lot of 'Hitlers' out there, and many have done far worse than Saddam ever did (Rwanda's rulers, to name one). Our reasons for being in Iraq aren't moral ones, and its silly to pretend so.



    Quote:

    The War is not the defining issue for me, nor is his poor handling of a catastrophic hurricane. What is is the state of the country, to me its certainly better than it was in 1979, 1976, or even 1993 (hell I could even argue 2000), and to me thats the bottom line.



    We're going to have to agree to disagree then, because that just doesn't seem like the reality of the situation to me. The nation is on the wrong track, badly so. And most people seem to agree.



    Quote:

    Stupidest president ever is fine with me, after all Carter was probably the smartest (but still the worst hands down) and they both suck.



    They both do suck, I'll give you that. Btw, our discussion has inspired a change in my sig, check it out below.



    .
Sign In or Register to comment.