It is easy to bad mouth ATT, but it is important to look at their contributions to this country for over a century...
...snip...
ATT with Bell Labs did make a lot of contributions to this country... with the transistor, cell phone technology, TDMA/GSM, fiberoptics. Their wired network after deregulation, allowed a lot of companies to free load over their network. Technology can change the dynamics of any industry and certainly changed telecom... and ATT went through changes too.
Minor threadjack...
ThatAT&T/Bell Labs doesn't even exist anymore. It's all parts of different companies, spun off and/or reacquired and combined with other non-BabyBell acquisitions. It was actually SBC (one of the Baby Bells) that took over the remainders that was AT&T and took the name because of its history.
What was Bell Labs is now mostly parts of the French company Alcatel-Lucent.
The wireless company that partnered with Apple with the iPhone was really Cingular, which was an SBC subsidiary.
So lets not give the new AT&T too much credit for what the old vertically integrated company was able to accomplish (through sheer monopoly power). You may not remember, but it was that old monopoly that spawned the phrase: "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to." Lest we remember them too fondly.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled intarwebz forum flamethrowing...
What a mealy-mouthed evasion that was. Does anyone believe that the
agreement between AT&T and Apple does not require Apple to reject
applications which direct money away from AT&T on AT&T's behalf?
I have a GV number and don't see how it takes money away from ATT - i like that one number will ring where I specify it but for long distance I used my phone minutes or icall (which makes free us calls via their app) and for international I use skype which is still in the app store. I suspect that this has something to do with Google v Apple but what is hard to see. Or it could be as something as an over zealous Apple employee pulling the plug for some reason.
Most likely, the same price as they do now, perhaps less if competition in (optional) carrier subsidies drives it lower.
Oh, yes, and I forgot to mention in my previous post that it's time to put an end to the insanity of incompatible wireless technologies. Nothing holds progress in this technology/industry back more than the money wasted on duplicating wireless assets. FCC/Congress should mandate a standard with switchover date -- just as they did with HDTV -- and carriers with the 'winning' technology (most likely GSM) should be forced to share towers with those with the 'losing' technology. Obviously, some time will be required for this switchover, but it should be written into law now so that carriers stop wasting money on incompatible technologies, and share the costs of future wireless technologies. The wireless industry in this country is a huge mess because carriers have used technology as well as contracts to lock customers to their service, and it's time for that mess to be cleaned up too.
By same price, I hope you meant the $599 and $699 unlocked prices. Otherwise, your comment is nuts.
As for government mandated standards, yes, most of the time they yield consumer benefits in the near term. But the flip side is that standards can also retard innovation and progress. In other words, if all carriers are forced to use one standard wireless technology (such as GSM), why would any carrier want to innovate and make a better one? Once you declare this portion of the business as a standard, you are forcing the carriers to compete in other ways, or you're leading them all into one big monopoly. So each industry/market should be carefully evaluated on its own merits before declaring anything standard. And btw, the government (US or even EU) doesn't have a good track record at doing this kind of stuff.
Actually, T-Mobile already does unlock. They unlocked my two phones when we were just 8 months into our contract (we were going to Toronto and wanted to put in a Canadian SIM).
I think people have told me that AT&T does unlock other phones - again, not sure if that's a one-time thing or if it's policy. Since I switched, I haven't asked them to unlock any phones yet, but will probably try on my next trip to Toronto.
Both AT&T and T-Mobile do unlock the phones they sell you after certain period of time. However, there is no written policy that they will. They can, just like AT&T is doing with the iPhone, say we are not going to unlock your phone. What the lawsuit want is a written policy to force them to unlock their phones.
Some background: At the Mossberg's D Conference in 2006, six months before iPhone was introed, Jobs derisively referred to the cell carriers as "orifices", and compared the "walled" cellular networks with the "open" wireline networks.
Apple's clear stance has been that it wants the cell networks to be dumb pipes that don't interfere with what Apple wants to do.* AT&T has allowed Apple to do plenty, but not everything. So has Apple's stance changed? I doubt it.
* And of course, Apple wants to build its own unique ecosystem and experience on top of this open network. Even an Apple fanboy can see that, but fanboy will go along as long as Apple keeps innovating and improving that experience.
Very soon Wi-Max will be rolling out to many of the larger cities. Everyone remember what Wi-Max is, right? Everyone remember that Apple has been hiring Wi-Max experts? What do you suppose happens when you combine Apple and Wi-Max? (and don't say "AppleMax", "iMax", etc.)
I understand both sides of the argument but for this one, I'm going to have to side with Apple and AT&T. Here is my reasoning. I don't think its exactly fair for you to use your "competitor's" service(s) (in this case AT&T's cellular network) to "compete" with them ESPECIALLY when what you are offering is significantly underscores the price the other guy can set. This is what got Standard Oil in trouble in the late 1800's early 1900's. Google is being a leech using AT&T's services to introduce a free way to call and text. Now if everyone gets a Google Voice or a Skype and drops their AT&T plan AT&T does not make money. If AT&T doesn't get money they can't keep supporting the iPhone (or in worse case scenario not be able to support their cellular network) in which case they will drop it. If you don't have AT&T around you can't use your iPhone period. And the same would be true for any other cell network in regards to GV. Google Voice's practices are far more monopolistic than AT&T's. If Google wants to give you free Google Voice maybe they should think about starting up a Google Mobile division of their company in which they become a carrier. You can't just yell at the top of your lungs: "This is what's good for us consumers!!!" Like the App Store has treated you bad thus far. You have to weigh in all factors before you make a decision. What may be really good for you might be very bad for someone else which in the end is bad. You have to reach a happy medium. Self-Entitlement mentalities are never beneficial in the long run
At the risk of repeating myself.... at the risk of repeating myself...
Wi-Max rollout will address some of the Google Voice users concerns, after all Google is only one of the large companies who have poured money into Clearwire/Sprint.
Hey in my smudge size town get 3g bfe on weekends I get
1.4, Sunday mornings get2.4 never without 3g and the local
store 2 miles from me treats me nice
I guess being in a small town helps me so
I have no reason to switch unless another carrier
could be substatially cheaper WITH MY IPHONE
I'm not giving up my iPhone
I love AT&T
You are one of the lucky ones, Nofeer. A relative of mine is buying an iPhone and has had major problems with at&t just GETTING a phone, much less using one! \
I'm getting sick of AT&T dictating stuff. Not being able to call on skype over 3G is annoying enough. Even more annoying is that I live in Australia so why is some stupid lame communications company in a different country dictating my iPhone experience!!! Sooo frustrating.
I live in Australia too, and we can't even get Google Voice, it's time for the UN to step in and force these companies to make it available to everyone everywhere.*
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchymitch
I'm getting sick of AT&T dictating stuff. Not being able to call on skype over 3G is annoying enough. Even more annoying is that I live in Australia so why is some stupid lame communications company in a different country dictating my iPhone experience!!! Sooo frustrating.
*Disclaimer most of or all of the above post may contain sarcasm and thus not reflect the true views of the poster
By same price, I hope you meant the $599 and $699 unlocked prices. Otherwise, your comment is nuts.
No, I mean the same price they are now. Anyone who reads these forums regularly has seen comments from iPhone users in markets where there is competition -- i.e., no exclusive deal -- who are getting iPhones for the same or lower cost -- including $0 in one market, if I recall correctly -- as US users on AT&T. The idea that competition will result in higher prices for consumers is what is nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
As for government mandated standards, yes, most of the time they yield consumer benefits in the near term. But the flip side is that standards can also retard innovation and progress. In other words, if all carriers are forced to use one standard wireless technology (such as GSM), why would any carrier want to innovate and make a better one? Once you declare this portion of the business as a standard, you are forcing the carriers to compete in other ways, or you're leading them all into one big monopoly. So each industry/market should be carefully evaluated on its own merits before declaring anything standard. And btw, the government (US or even EU) doesn't have a good track record at doing this kind of stuff.
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc. The government track record of regulating industries is just fine. What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition and deregulation, which often fails spectacularly or leads to corporate abuses.
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers. I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it. The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
I live in Australia too, and we can't even get Google Voice, it's time for the UN to step in and force these companies to make it available to everyone everywhere.*
I know. I think we should threaten nuclear action against AT&T or capture one of them hostage and torture them.
Wouldn't surprise me if the big telcos get together on this and use it to get a national franchise law passed. Bush tried to have it passed years ago but all the tiny towns fought it. It would give the telcos permission to build infrastructure anywhere without going through a local government which usually makes them waste money building a yarn museum as well
Good morning!!!! AT&T officially said 2 years ago that they will never ever unlock any iPhone you buy from Apple or them in the US, which is locked to their network. Not even after you fulfill your contract. Not even after 2 years and not even when you pay the full price of the iPhone. The said it clear and loud. Why they said it? Because there is no law in the US against it.
yes and no. they were given the exclusive rights to the iphone and so long as they have that right they won't give anyone the legit unlock code.
once they don't have that exclusive right they can't stop the unlocking so long as you have fulfilled your contract obligation. I dare say that it will be Apple you'd get the code from. but ATT won't be able to stop it. and even if they try, they will be hit with a ton of lawsuits from folks that either finished or paid to break a contract.
you are however 100% correct that in the US simlocking is totally allowed and there is no master law that says a carrier has to give you the unlock code after X time. so perhaps the solution is to fight that law. get it forced for all devices to be open to all carriers that can handle the technology. in other words, Apple has a GSM phone so any company that can service GSM can have the iphone. so ATT and T-Mobile both can have it. they can do subsidies if they want or you can buy it full price and come and go as you please. if Verizon or Sprint goes GSM they can have it also.
No, I mean the same price they are now. Anyone who reads these forums regularly has seen comments from iPhone users in markets where there is competition -- i.e., no exclusive deal -- who are getting iPhones for the same or lower cost -- including $0 in one market, if I recall correctly -- as US users on AT&T. The idea that competition will result in higher prices for consumers is what is nuts.
the retail price of the phones are $499. $599 and $699. any different price is set by the carrier according to their rules and how much they will subsidize. if an overseas market with the carrier rights to the iphone wants to subsidize the whole thing, great. ATT doesn't.
i can almost promise you that once the ATT exclusive deal is over, nothing on prices will change. Apple isn't going to suddenly drop the price $400 for the heck of it.
Comments
It is easy to bad mouth ATT, but it is important to look at their contributions to this country for over a century...
...snip...
ATT with Bell Labs did make a lot of contributions to this country... with the transistor, cell phone technology, TDMA/GSM, fiberoptics. Their wired network after deregulation, allowed a lot of companies to free load over their network. Technology can change the dynamics of any industry and certainly changed telecom... and ATT went through changes too.
Minor threadjack...
That AT&T/Bell Labs doesn't even exist anymore. It's all parts of different companies, spun off and/or reacquired and combined with other non-BabyBell acquisitions. It was actually SBC (one of the Baby Bells) that took over the remainders that was AT&T and took the name because of its history.
What was Bell Labs is now mostly parts of the French company Alcatel-Lucent.
The wireless company that partnered with Apple with the iPhone was really Cingular, which was an SBC subsidiary.
So lets not give the new AT&T too much credit for what the old vertically integrated company was able to accomplish (through sheer monopoly power). You may not remember, but it was that old monopoly that spawned the phrase: "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to." Lest we remember them too fondly.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled intarwebz forum flamethrowing...
What a mealy-mouthed evasion that was. Does anyone believe that the
agreement between AT&T and Apple does not require Apple to reject
applications which direct money away from AT&T on AT&T's behalf?
I have a GV number and don't see how it takes money away from ATT - i like that one number will ring where I specify it but for long distance I used my phone minutes or icall (which makes free us calls via their app) and for international I use skype which is still in the app store. I suspect that this has something to do with Google v Apple but what is hard to see. Or it could be as something as an over zealous Apple employee pulling the plug for some reason.
Most likely, the same price as they do now, perhaps less if competition in (optional) carrier subsidies drives it lower.
Oh, yes, and I forgot to mention in my previous post that it's time to put an end to the insanity of incompatible wireless technologies. Nothing holds progress in this technology/industry back more than the money wasted on duplicating wireless assets. FCC/Congress should mandate a standard with switchover date -- just as they did with HDTV -- and carriers with the 'winning' technology (most likely GSM) should be forced to share towers with those with the 'losing' technology. Obviously, some time will be required for this switchover, but it should be written into law now so that carriers stop wasting money on incompatible technologies, and share the costs of future wireless technologies. The wireless industry in this country is a huge mess because carriers have used technology as well as contracts to lock customers to their service, and it's time for that mess to be cleaned up too.
By same price, I hope you meant the $599 and $699 unlocked prices. Otherwise, your comment is nuts.
As for government mandated standards, yes, most of the time they yield consumer benefits in the near term. But the flip side is that standards can also retard innovation and progress. In other words, if all carriers are forced to use one standard wireless technology (such as GSM), why would any carrier want to innovate and make a better one? Once you declare this portion of the business as a standard, you are forcing the carriers to compete in other ways, or you're leading them all into one big monopoly. So each industry/market should be carefully evaluated on its own merits before declaring anything standard. And btw, the government (US or even EU) doesn't have a good track record at doing this kind of stuff.
Actually, T-Mobile already does unlock. They unlocked my two phones when we were just 8 months into our contract (we were going to Toronto and wanted to put in a Canadian SIM).
I think people have told me that AT&T does unlock other phones - again, not sure if that's a one-time thing or if it's policy. Since I switched, I haven't asked them to unlock any phones yet, but will probably try on my next trip to Toronto.
Both AT&T and T-Mobile do unlock the phones they sell you after certain period of time. However, there is no written policy that they will. They can, just like AT&T is doing with the iPhone, say we are not going to unlock your phone. What the lawsuit want is a written policy to force them to unlock their phones.
Don't become a theorist.
Yeah, but... "That's usually the problem with government intervention; it often has unpredictable and unintended outcomes."
That's not a theory. That's fact.
All I know is I get no 3G service in my small 150k person town
Put up your own tower and lease it back if you can.
Here's a good article about this: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1530...pen-the-iphone
Some background: At the Mossberg's D Conference in 2006, six months before iPhone was introed, Jobs derisively referred to the cell carriers as "orifices", and compared the "walled" cellular networks with the "open" wireline networks.
Apple's clear stance has been that it wants the cell networks to be dumb pipes that don't interfere with what Apple wants to do.* AT&T has allowed Apple to do plenty, but not everything. So has Apple's stance changed? I doubt it.
* And of course, Apple wants to build its own unique ecosystem and experience on top of this open network. Even an Apple fanboy can see that, but fanboy will go along as long as Apple keeps innovating and improving that experience.
Very soon Wi-Max will be rolling out to many of the larger cities. Everyone remember what Wi-Max is, right? Everyone remember that Apple has been hiring Wi-Max experts? What do you suppose happens when you combine Apple and Wi-Max? (and don't say "AppleMax", "iMax", etc.)
I understand both sides of the argument but for this one, I'm going to have to side with Apple and AT&T. Here is my reasoning. I don't think its exactly fair for you to use your "competitor's" service(s) (in this case AT&T's cellular network) to "compete" with them ESPECIALLY when what you are offering is significantly underscores the price the other guy can set. This is what got Standard Oil in trouble in the late 1800's early 1900's. Google is being a leech using AT&T's services to introduce a free way to call and text. Now if everyone gets a Google Voice or a Skype and drops their AT&T plan AT&T does not make money. If AT&T doesn't get money they can't keep supporting the iPhone (or in worse case scenario not be able to support their cellular network) in which case they will drop it. If you don't have AT&T around you can't use your iPhone period. And the same would be true for any other cell network in regards to GV. Google Voice's practices are far more monopolistic than AT&T's. If Google wants to give you free Google Voice maybe they should think about starting up a Google Mobile division of their company in which they become a carrier. You can't just yell at the top of your lungs: "This is what's good for us consumers!!!" Like the App Store has treated you bad thus far. You have to weigh in all factors before you make a decision. What may be really good for you might be very bad for someone else which in the end is bad. You have to reach a happy medium. Self-Entitlement mentalities are never beneficial in the long run
At the risk of repeating myself.... at the risk of repeating myself...
Wi-Max rollout will address some of the Google Voice users concerns, after all Google is only one of the large companies who have poured money into Clearwire/Sprint.
Here are two rather illuminating articles:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10300017-94.html
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/01/l...-2009-rollout/
And another note of interest:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...ext_month.html
(Full disclosure: I am a CLWR and AAPL investor)
1.4, Sunday mornings get2.4 never without 3g and the local
store 2 miles from me treats me nice
I guess being in a small town helps me so
I have no reason to switch unless another carrier
could be substatially cheaper WITH MY IPHONE
I'm not giving up my iPhone
I love AT&T
Hey in my smudge size town get 3g bfe on weekends I get
1.4, Sunday mornings get2.4 never without 3g and the local
store 2 miles from me treats me nice
I guess being in a small town helps me so
I have no reason to switch unless another carrier
could be substatially cheaper WITH MY IPHONE
I'm not giving up my iPhone
I love AT&T
You are one of the lucky ones, Nofeer. A relative of mine is buying an iPhone and has had major problems with at&t just GETTING a phone, much less using one!
I'm getting sick of AT&T dictating stuff. Not being able to call on skype over 3G is annoying enough. Even more annoying is that I live in Australia so why is some stupid lame communications company in a different country dictating my iPhone experience!!! Sooo frustrating.
*Disclaimer most of or all of the above post may contain sarcasm and thus not reflect the true views of the poster
By same price, I hope you meant the $599 and $699 unlocked prices. Otherwise, your comment is nuts.
No, I mean the same price they are now. Anyone who reads these forums regularly has seen comments from iPhone users in markets where there is competition -- i.e., no exclusive deal -- who are getting iPhones for the same or lower cost -- including $0 in one market, if I recall correctly -- as US users on AT&T. The idea that competition will result in higher prices for consumers is what is nuts.
As for government mandated standards, yes, most of the time they yield consumer benefits in the near term. But the flip side is that standards can also retard innovation and progress. In other words, if all carriers are forced to use one standard wireless technology (such as GSM), why would any carrier want to innovate and make a better one? Once you declare this portion of the business as a standard, you are forcing the carriers to compete in other ways, or you're leading them all into one big monopoly. So each industry/market should be carefully evaluated on its own merits before declaring anything standard. And btw, the government (US or even EU) doesn't have a good track record at doing this kind of stuff.
The internet has standards, and a well established standards process, and it doesn't seem to have retarded innovation. And, yes, that's exactly the point, force them to compete in other ways: on price, on service, etc. The government track record of regulating industries is just fine. What doesn't have a good track record is lack of competition and deregulation, which often fails spectacularly or leads to corporate abuses.
I fully understand that the wireless carries don't want to have to really compete against each other. I'm sure they are very happy with and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, but allowing them to do so goes against the public interest and causes continual harm to consumers. I welcome forceful government intervention in this market and we will all benefit in the long-term from it. The idea that government is not a good regulator and that government intervention typically causes more harm than good is a pernicious fiction perpetrated by people who don't believe in, or don't want, government acting for the public good.
I live in Australia too, and we can't even get Google Voice, it's time for the UN to step in and force these companies to make it available to everyone everywhere.*
I know. I think we should threaten nuclear action against AT&T or capture one of them hostage and torture them.
I know. I think we should threaten nuclear action against AT&T or capture one of them hostage and torture them.
I know. I think we should threaten nuclear action against AT&T or capture one of them hostage and torture them.
Be a dweeb somewhere else and stop having a conversation with yourself.
I'll chalk this up to sarcasm attempting to be serious and mocking the entire thread.
None of this thread is of any value as we have zero input on contracts.
Good morning!!!! AT&T officially said 2 years ago that they will never ever unlock any iPhone you buy from Apple or them in the US, which is locked to their network. Not even after you fulfill your contract. Not even after 2 years and not even when you pay the full price of the iPhone. The said it clear and loud. Why they said it? Because there is no law in the US against it.
yes and no. they were given the exclusive rights to the iphone and so long as they have that right they won't give anyone the legit unlock code.
once they don't have that exclusive right they can't stop the unlocking so long as you have fulfilled your contract obligation. I dare say that it will be Apple you'd get the code from. but ATT won't be able to stop it. and even if they try, they will be hit with a ton of lawsuits from folks that either finished or paid to break a contract.
you are however 100% correct that in the US simlocking is totally allowed and there is no master law that says a carrier has to give you the unlock code after X time. so perhaps the solution is to fight that law. get it forced for all devices to be open to all carriers that can handle the technology. in other words, Apple has a GSM phone so any company that can service GSM can have the iphone. so ATT and T-Mobile both can have it. they can do subsidies if they want or you can buy it full price and come and go as you please. if Verizon or Sprint goes GSM they can have it also.
No, I mean the same price they are now. Anyone who reads these forums regularly has seen comments from iPhone users in markets where there is competition -- i.e., no exclusive deal -- who are getting iPhones for the same or lower cost -- including $0 in one market, if I recall correctly -- as US users on AT&T. The idea that competition will result in higher prices for consumers is what is nuts.
the retail price of the phones are $499. $599 and $699. any different price is set by the carrier according to their rules and how much they will subsidize. if an overseas market with the carrier rights to the iphone wants to subsidize the whole thing, great. ATT doesn't.
i can almost promise you that once the ATT exclusive deal is over, nothing on prices will change. Apple isn't going to suddenly drop the price $400 for the heck of it.