Why You Should Thank AT&T
....believe it or not, for all its well-documented network and service problems, AT&T actually deserves a debt of gratitude from mobile phone users, and not just its own subscribers. It has completely changed the way the wireless industry does business in the U.S.
Why is the network so overwhelmed? Because no one, likely including AT&T, knew back then how phenomenally successful the iPhone would be. Turns out if you made it easy enough, consumers were eager to surf the web and download applications on the go. And now AT&T is paying the cost of being cutting edge. After all these years of carriers being cautious, only now we are getting a taste for why they were so reluctant to open up. Each carrier has only so much capacity, and the iPhone is pushing AT&T to the outer limit.
Today, in AT&T?s second-quarter earnings call, the carrier said traffic generated by the 9 million iPhone users on its network is overwhelming. AT&T?s CFO Rick Lindner: ?Our network handles more data traffic from integrated devices than all of our competitors.?
mocoNews
Why is the network so overwhelmed? Because no one, likely including AT&T, knew back then how phenomenally successful the iPhone would be. Turns out if you made it easy enough, consumers were eager to surf the web and download applications on the go. And now AT&T is paying the cost of being cutting edge. After all these years of carriers being cautious, only now we are getting a taste for why they were so reluctant to open up. Each carrier has only so much capacity, and the iPhone is pushing AT&T to the outer limit.
Today, in AT&T?s second-quarter earnings call, the carrier said traffic generated by the 9 million iPhone users on its network is overwhelming. AT&T?s CFO Rick Lindner: ?Our network handles more data traffic from integrated devices than all of our competitors.?
mocoNews
Comments
$70 a month is a lot of dough. Maybe they ought to figure out how to get their shit together. And stop dropping calls. I don't know much about their network but I imagine they have a lot of fiber and crap. With routers getting quicker and quicker, shouldn't that keep pace with increasing traffic? Perhaps they could have some sort of tier system where if the system gets busy, your connection slows down. Unless you pay a bit extra per month, say an extra ten bucks, and then you have a guaranteed priority on the network. That is like the whole "net neutrality" thing, which I always thought was a stupid battle. Of course people should be able to have a faster data rate, if they want to pay for it.
We also have the most tolerant tech gadgety folks, those who know the hacks, the tricks, and who will stomach the growing pains and extra cash reaching their braking point.
We see more and more articles like this and like this.
This should be labeled as pure spin. Isn't it amazing how no other network the iPhone happens to be on suffers from such terrible quality? Isn't it amazing how everyone else in the world has been able to do things like let the iPhone use MMS?
Can you elaborate on what makes the article pure spin? Most of the points are indisputable fact. The rest is widely accepted opinion.
I care nothing about MMS. When ATT turns it on, I'm turning it off.
We see more and more articles like this and like this.
The difference between our articles. The one I posted is 80% fact with 20% opinion. The two you posted are 90% opinion.
Not to minimize what the two authors have experienced. I would not be happy with two weeks of missed voicemails either.
But these types of stories are the worst scenarios. They don't typically happen to most AT&T users. People have horror stories about Verizon as well as all of the carriers.
This should be labeled as pure spin. Isn't it amazing how no other network the iPhone happens to be on suffers from such terrible quality? Isn't it amazing how everyone else in the world has been able to do things like let the iPhone use MMS?
No other carrier in the world offers 5 GB data allowance at such affordable price and still have the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the whole world.
Other carriers hype their 3G network to be 7.2 mbps, yet cripple the 3G iphone speed to 384 kbps. Other carriers offer a mere 250 MB data allowance per month.
Can you elaborate on what makes the article pure spin? Most of the points are indisputable fact. The rest is widely accepted opinion.
I care nothing about MMS. When ATT turns it on, I'm turning it off.
The difference between our articles. The one I posted is 80% fact with 20% opinion. The two you posted are 90% opinion.
Not to minimize what the two authors have experienced. I would not be happy with two weeks of missed voicemails either.
But these types of stories are the worst scenarios. They don't typically happen to most AT&T users. People have horror stories about Verizon as well as all of the carriers.
I agree. Verizon always jacks up their phones. I had a Samsung on their network and the user experience (so was the horrible WinMo experience) was terrible as they completely customize their phones. Calls took at least 30 seconds to initiate, calls were dropped just as often as ATT, and the phone selection wasn't as good which is ultimately the determining factor. I had Verizon for a year and I was willing to drop them with no remorse.
Can you elaborate on what makes the article pure spin? Most of the points are indisputable fact. The rest is widely accepted opinion.
What the hell are you talking about? Your link reads like a press release. It is full of grandiose claims supported with no numbers or data.
I care nothing about MMS. When ATT turns it on, I'm turning it off.
Thanks for sharing. In the meantime I started a thread that was not a press release posing as a story that had information from multiple surveys showing how badly AT&T stunk for network throughput and signal.
The difference between our articles. The one I posted is 80% fact with 20% opinion. The two you posted are 90% opinion.
Believing the article linked in the OP is 80% is truly a horrifying proposition. I mean as an example sourcing the claim of network traffic from their own CFO and being backed by absolutely no numbers makes it a completely unsupported claim in my view. Claiming we'd all be using Razrs is what... another fact? That whole link is nothing more than a guilt narrative to try to make users feel better about the crappy service they receive. It does not contain a single number related to network use or comparing AT&T and any other network.
Not to minimize what the two authors have experienced. I would not be happy with two weeks of missed voicemails either.
But these types of stories are the worst scenarios. They don't typically happen to most AT&T users. People have horror stories about Verizon as well as all of the carriers.
Sure there are anecdotal examples. Then there are multiple massive surveys that all show that AT&T blows. This is the most recent one and unlike the previous press release/guilt narrative, it has the low down on all the networks using a multitude of variables across a number of markets. The slowest, most unreliable was AT&T by far.
What the hell are you talking about? Your link reads like a press release. It is full of grandiose claims supported with no numbers or data.
It's a fact that AT&T gave concessions to Apple that no US carrier had previously given. It's a fact that this relationship has been highly successful and lucrative for both Apple and AT&T. That is the main point of the article.
Thanks for sharing. In the meantime I started a thread that was not a press release posing as a story that had information from multiple surveys showing how badly AT&T stunk for network throughput and signal.
In the article I posted it talks about AT&T's network problems and poor customer experience. That has nothing to do with the fact that Apple and AT&T have altered the relationship between carriers and manufacturer in the US.
Believing the article linked in the OP is 80% is truly a horrifying proposition. I mean as an example sourcing the claim of network traffic from their own CFO and being backed by absolutely no numbers makes it a completely unsupported claim in my view. Claiming we'd all be using Razrs is what... another fact? That whole link is nothing more than a guilt narrative to try to make users feel better about the crappy service they receive. It does not contain a single number related to network use or comparing AT&T and any other network.
The iPhone's web marketshare is nearly twice every other phone combined. It's roundly accepted by most everyone that AT&T data traffic is far surpasses every other US carrier.
Sure there are anecdotal examples. Then there are multiple massive surveys that all show that AT&T blows. This is the most recent one and unlike the previous press release/guilt narrative, it has the low down on all the networks using a multitude of variables across a number of markets. The slowest, most unreliable was AT&T by far.
Again the point of the article is not to defend AT&T service but to highlight AT&T and Apple's collaboration.
Gee, thanks AT&T for being so reliant on Apple for your success and so mediocre in your own contributions.
It's a fact that AT&T gave concessions to Apple that no US carrier had previously given.
This is true and since then they've all reverted back to the norm. You no longer buy your unsubsidized phone outright. It is subsidized like all the others. You no longer buy a $20 a month data plan, you buy a $30 a month data plan and it never drops back down to $20 after your subsidy is done.
It's a fact that this relationship has been highly successful and lucrative for both Apple and AT&T. That is the main point of the article.
Without AT&T and Apple (NSDQ: AAPL), we would still be using our Razr and downloading ringtones and StarTrek wallpaper. Well, that?s a little bit of an oversimplification, but here?s what I?m talking about?
That is the main contention of the article, that we should grovel at AT&T's feet lest we be stuck with crappy phones.
In the article I posted it talks about AT&T's network problems and poor customer experience. That has nothing to do with the fact that Apple and AT&T have altered the relationship between carriers and manufacturer in the US.
But Apple hasn't. It tried to do so and succumbed to and reverted back to the old model within a year. Ironically many of the vestiges of that time are still locked down on the iPhone but now open everywhere else. Sure Verizon may have initially tried to make money by locking down ringtones on their phones. However it is now the rest of the world that just transfers them over via bluetooth, saves them from MMS messages and generally does whatever they want with them while the iPhone is stuck in the past with regard to them. Apple didn't change that model, they fell right in line with it and sadly are still stuck in that line.
The iPhone's web marketshare is nearly twice every other phone combined. It's roundly accepted by most everyone that AT&T data traffic is far surpasses every other US carrier.
Yes and anyone that goes to other boards that are not Apple oriented understands that web /= data exclusively. They also understand that AT&T gets a huge out via the WIFI on the iPhone (Which is why Verizon is demanding it be on their smartphones in 2010) and that claims about data utilization are backed by absolutely nothing. Consensus on an Apple forum doesn't mean crap in reality. Give me numbers.
Again the point of the article is not to defend AT&T service but to highlight AT&T and Apple's collaboration.
The point of the article is easily understood in the title. Kiss AT&T's ass because they are the virgin Mary that gave us the Jesus phone.
This is true and since then they've all reverted back to the norm. You no longer buy your unsubsidized phone outright. It is subsidized like all the others. You no longer buy a $20 a month data plan, you buy a $30 a month data plan and it never drops back down to $20 after your subsidy is done.
That wasn't the important part of AT&T concessions.
AT&T agreed to carry the iPhone without seeing a prototype. The CEO of AT&T said he did not see the iPhone until a couple of days before it was announced at MacWorld.
AT&T agreed to not lock the iPhone into its proprietary services such as media downloads, games, and mapping. AT&T has to compete with third party developers for services that are normally locked by the carrier.
AT&T agreed that the iPhone did not have to have the carriers name printed on the body of the phone. Something that is standard for subsidized phones.
Without AT&T and Apple (NSDQ: AAPL), we would still be using our Razr and downloading ringtones and StarTrek wallpaper. Well, that’s a little bit of an oversimplification, but here’s what I’m talking about…
That is the main contention of the article, that we should grovel at AT&T's feet lest we be stuck with crappy phones.
A bit melodramatic don't you think?
But Apple hasn't. It tried to do so and succumbed to and reverted back to the old model within a year. Ironically many of the vestiges of that time are still locked down on the iPhone but now open everywhere else. Sure Verizon may have initially tried to make money by locking down ringtones on their phones. However it is now the rest of the world that just transfers them over via bluetooth, saves them from MMS messages and generally does whatever they want with them while the iPhone is stuck in the past with regard to them. Apple didn't change that model, they fell right in line with it and sadly are still stuck in that line.
Either you are missing the point or you refuse to understand. Subscription pricing is not the major change.
Verizon still largely locks down data connection, still largely locks its users to its own Mobile Web, V-Cast, and VZ Navigator.
Transferring files over bluetooth and MMS are not the big deal you are attempting to make them out to be. Email is generally a more ubiquitous and effective method of transferring information than both of those methods.
Yes and anyone that goes to other boards that are not Apple oriented understands that web /= data exclusively. They also understand that AT&T gets a huge out via the WIFI on the iPhone (Which is why Verizon is demanding it be on their smartphones in 2010) and that claims about data utilization are backed by absolutely nothing. Consensus on an Apple forum doesn't mean crap in reality. Give me numbers.
When one carrier has a phone that has 70% of the US mobile web share. 8th grade level rationalization tells you that network is getting the heaviest data load.
The point of the article is easily understood in the title. Kiss AT&T's ass because they are the virgin Mary that gave us the Jesus phone.
That's the way you choose to see it.
That wasn't the important part of AT&T concessions.
AT&T agreed to carry the iPhone without seeing a prototype. The CEO of AT&T said he did not see the iPhone until a couple of days before it was announced at MacWorld.
AT&T agreed to not lock the iPhone into its proprietary services such as media downloads, games, and mapping. AT&T has to compete with third party developers for services that are normally locked by the carrier.
AT&T agreed that the iPhone did not have to have the carriers name printed on the body of the phone. Something that is standard for subsidized phones.
How having and eating of cake can there be here? I watched the iPhone keynote. Apple was quite clear that the only true innovation that day was visual voice mail. Almost no smartphones are locked into the array of features all the carriers bring to their dumb phones. How is this some sort of concession? AT&T couldn't demand the name because the phone wasn't subsidized. You bought it at $599 from Apple. Apple tried to market the iPhone as a complete mini-computer. iPod, iPhone, internet communicator those were the three points. Those of us with memories can remember back then about how nothing other than a data plan would be necessary because there was no MMS, etc.
It was great that Apple attempted to change all of that but the reality is that today they have MMS, they have subsidized prices and they have AT&T GPS app available and who knows what else coming down the lane because they failed to change the model.
A bit melodramatic don't you think?
I guess so but considering all it was quoted from your ehem "fact-filled" press release, I considered it appropriate.
Either you are missing the point or you refuse to understand. Subscription pricing is not the major change.
No one is missing or refusing to understand anything. Don't be a jerk. I watched the damn keynote. The phone didn't roll out at $599 because it was subsidized. The talk at the time was of Apple starting their own phone company but they partnered with AT&T instead.
Verizon still largely locks down data connection, still largely locks its users to its own Mobile Web, V-Cast, and VZ Navigator.
All major carriers brand their DUMB phones or FEATURE PHONES in this way. AT&T continues to do this as well. Clearly you must be "missing the point or refuse to understand" this since you keep conflating smart and non-smartphones.
Transferring files over bluetooth and MMS are not the big deal you are attempting to make them out to be. Email is generally a more ubiquitous and effective method of transferring information than both of those methods.
I don't care if they are a big deal or not. The Verizon network services 9 million more customers than AT&T and cherry picking data like "smart phone web use" won't change the fact that there no basis NONE for claiming AT&T's network is overwhelmed. Taking a quote from their CFO trying to prop up the stock doesn't prove crap.
When one carrier has a phone that has 70% of the US mobile web share. 8th grade level rationalization tells you that network is getting the heaviest data load.
That's the way you choose to see it.
No because anyone with more than an 8th grade level of rationalization notes that data is data and that web data is only a small portion of all data. The chart also shows smartphone traffic, NOT network traffic. Conflating the two is again, completely irrational. The iPhone could make every single one of those requests via WiFi and the chart would read exactly the same. The chart proves absolutely nothing with regard to network. This is the most basic form of logical leap.
AT&T has demanded Apple limit certain apps to WiFi which means they understand this as well.
How having and eating of cake can there be here? I watched the iPhone keynote. Apple was quite clear that the only true innovation that day was visual voice mail. Almost no smartphones are locked into the array of features all the carriers bring to their dumb phones. How is this some sort of concession? AT&T couldn't demand the name because the phone wasn't subsidized. You bought it at $599 from Apple. Apple tried to market the iPhone as a complete mini-computer. iPod, iPhone, internet communicator those were the three points. Those of us with memories can remember back then about how nothing other than a data plan would be necessary because there was no MMS, etc.
I really don't understand what you are saying here. It kind of rambles.
It was great that Apple attempted to change all of that but the reality is that today they have MMS, they have subsidized prices and they have AT&T GPS app available and who knows what else coming down the lane because they failed to change the model.
The iPhone has superior alternatives to MMS, you don't have to use it.
Apple switched to subscription pricing because it works and people like it.
There are many alternatives to AT&T Navigation, you don't have to use it for navigation.
Application choice is the major change.
No one is missing or refusing to understand anything. Don't be a jerk. I watched the damn keynote. The phone didn't roll out at $599 because it was subsidized. The talk at the time was of Apple starting their own phone company but they partnered with AT&T instead.
Why do you keep bringing up subsidizing as though its a failed business model. People like subsidized phones. Apple has sold more iPhones as subsidized.
Apple never said they were starting their own phone company, that was only ever a rumor.
All major carriers brand their DUMB phones or FEATURE PHONES in this way. AT&T continues to do this as well. Clearly you must be "missing the point or refuse to understand" this since you keep conflating smart and non-smartphones.
Whose corporate logo is that on this smartphone?
I don't care if they are a big deal or not. The Verizon network services 9 million more customers than AT&T and cherry picking data like "smart phone web use" won't change the fact that there no basis NONE for claiming AT&T's network is overwhelmed. Taking a quote from their CFO trying to prop up the stock doesn't prove crap.
You do realize the CFO cannot lie during the quarterly results. A CFO lying to prop up his stock is a federal offense. Don't you think if anyone doubted him, they would be asking more questions.
No because anyone with more than an 8th grade level of rationalization notes that data is data and that web data is only a small portion of all data. The chart also shows smartphone traffic, NOT network traffic. Conflating the two is again, completely irrational. The iPhone could make every single one of those requests via WiFi and the chart would read exactly the same. The chart proves absolutely nothing with regard to network. This is the most basic form of logical leap.
AT&T has demanded Apple limit certain apps to WiFi which means they understand this as well.
They don't want bandwidth intensive apps pushing their strained network over the edge.
....believe it or not, for all its well-documented network and service problems, AT&T actually deserves a debt of gratitude from mobile phone users, and not just its own subscribers. It has completely changed the way the wireless industry does business in the U.S.
Why is the network so overwhelmed? Because no one, likely including AT&T, knew back then how phenomenally successful the iPhone would be. Turns out if you made it easy enough, consumers were eager to surf the web and download applications on the go. And now AT&T is paying the cost of being cutting edge. After all these years of carriers being cautious, only now we are getting a taste for why they were so reluctant to open up. Each carrier has only so much capacity, and the iPhone is pushing AT&T to the outer limit.
Today, in AT&T’s second-quarter earnings call, the carrier said traffic generated by the 9 million iPhone users on its network is overwhelming. AT&T’s CFO Rick Lindner: “Our network handles more data traffic from integrated devices than all of our competitors.”
mocoNews
I will never thank AT&T for anything. The only thing I can do is to hope that one day its executive board will all contract an incurable disease and die a slow and painful death.
As for what you were saying if it wasn't ATT it would be Verizon or some other carrier, big deal.
I will never thank AT&T for anything. The only thing I can do is to hope that one day its executive board will all contract an incurable disease and die a slow and painful death.
Yeah........ that really adds to the discussion.
As for what you were saying if it wasn't ATT it would be Verizon or some other carrier, big deal.
Verizon turned down the iPhone because they did not want to make these very same concessions. Verizon is slowly changing, but still does not allow any of its phones to have the same openess of the iPhone.
I will never thank AT&T for anything. The only thing I can do is to hope that one day its executive board will all contract an incurable disease and die a slow and painful death.
As for what you were saying if it wasn't ATT it would be Verizon or some other carrier, big deal.
Another of your "useful" posts. Surely there is 1 thing you can thank ATnT about?