tehehe...apple makes a product that increases usability (e.g. - the browser is finally usable) and somehow that makes iphone the bad guy...they've had phones out for years that had browsers on'em...they've just sucked...so AT&T have had plenty of time to predict and upgrade their systems.
tehehe...apple makes a product that increases usability (e.g. - the browser is finally usable) and somehow that makes iphone the bad guy...they've had phones out for years that had browsers on'em...they've just sucked...so AT&T have had plenty of time to predict and upgrade their systems.
Neither. It's the users fault now - always on their iPhones , all day, on AppleInsider!
So why doesn't AT&T offer a voice-only plan yet? I don't want to pay for data (Wifi is fine for my specific needs) so I wouldn't be using up their precious bandwidth.
It would be nice, but they are subsidizing the device by a reported $400. That will not cover the cost of just a voice-only plan. If they did have a less subsidized model and/or sell the device at cost they could do that, but there are also business reasons for them not to engage in such a maneuver. Starting Sunday, all AT&T phones under the category of smartphone will be required to have a $30/month data plan. Note that AT&T is not the first or the least to require data plans for a smartphone. This is becoming a more common event in this category and I don?t expect it to change anytime soon.
O2 have always had a poor network for data but since the iPhone 3G was released, its performance has nose-dived.
They simply don't have enough capacity in major urban areas. With my last carrier, I didn't witness a single network outage in 18 months. With O2, I've experienced a dozen in the space of a month. Add that to non-existent 3G coverage, even in London, and it makes me wonder what's the point of having such a powerful device in my pocket when I can rarely use it?
I can't wait for O2's exclusivity to end.
(Currently, I'm having problems receiving SMS and using data, despite having allegedly full EDGE signal strength.)
Note that AT&T is not the first or the least to require data plans for a smartphone. This is becoming a more common event in this category and I don’t expect it to change anytime soon.
Really- how would you know Verizon will be changing their policy or Sprint with their Blackberries? AT&T keeps ading insult to injury by piling up more and more crap smartphones on the network and then blaming it on the iPhone. AT&T needs to look right into their own mirror.
It would be nice, but they are subsidizing the device by a reported $400. That will not cover the cost of just a voice-only plan. If they did have a less subsidized model and/or sell the device at cost they could do that, but there are also business reasons for them not to engage in such a maneuver.
Currently they are complaining about too much data usage from iPhone customers. Either they make money with the data plan, or they lose money with the data plan. If they make money, they are obligated to build out their network so that the customer gets their money's worth (which seems debatable these days). If they lose money, they will have to raise the price, find some other way to offset the loss, or offer service without the plan.
I'm willing to pay a little more up front to offset the $720 I wouldn't be paying for a data plan (which is more like $900 after fees and taxes), but that's not even an option at this point.
So why doesn't AT&T offer a voice-only plan yet? I don't want to pay for data (Wifi is fine for my specific needs) so I wouldn't be using up their precious bandwidth.
If you pay the no commitment price ($500 for the 3G) you can.
I think a Formula 1 race car would be a more appropriate analogy if you want to discuss bandwidth usage. iPhones use up a lot of bandwidth (just like a F1 car uses up tons of gas per mile), but you also get magnificent performance, speed, handling, ergonomics, telemetry, and precision.
Better than the Hummer analogy for sure. But its a bit like saying your laptop is a real bandwidth hog. It all the depends on the services you choose to access and use. The iPhone allows users to access lots of services and as such it facilitates the usage, but to call it a Hummer? Hrmph... At least an F1 car is a thing of beauty and efficiency (if you wanna do 500 laps fast!, that is.
For the world to move forward and a telco to stay relevant these networks will need to be capable of many times more capacity still. Quit whining and get building!
I just placed a call to AT&T asking them where my MMS and tethering services were. Three rungs up the ladder and no one has an answer.
I urge all iPhone users to call them and demand to know where these promised services are. Their lame "we are working to be able to provide the best experience" means nothing.
Not sure how the iPhone is like a Hummer. Hummers do use more gas, but only because they are huge honkin' pieces of metal that are bigger as a whole, and wider than your regular sedan. And people pay the premium for the perceived 'safety'. All to deplete those precious fossil fuels that fund the world. And they still only get you from A to B.
iPhones might use more bandwidth, but not to use it simply because they can waste it. Applications, downloads, music, telephony are all functional features of why you would use it. AT&T and others better beef up their network quick before Apple goes exclusive with one who can handle the future. The other cell phone clients might whine, but wouldn't they much rather be upgraded to an iPhone and get what everyone else already has? Maybe they're just jealous.
I just placed a call to AT&T asking them where my MMS and tethering services were. Three rungs up the ladder and no one has an answer.
I urge all iPhone users to call them and demand to know where these promised services are. Their lame "we are working to be able to provide the best experience" means nothing.
I work across the street from their store, I'll go in there at lunch and demand to know!
The demand for iPhones is rididculously high. It's another iPod phenomenon. It's up to the carriers to clean up their act.
The good news is that here in Canada, we'll be getting some competition over the next six months. Although there is a possibility of a Bell-Telus merger (reliable source I have at Rogers), the CRTC is perfectly fine with that due to the impending rise in competition. There will be other providers coming into the game with what would appear to be a fresh perspective on the challenges the big carriers face today.
Really- how would you know Verizon will be changing their policy or Sprint with their Blackberries?
I say “becoming more common” and you somehow infer Blackberries on Sprint. Way to be a comprehensive reader! The Pre on Sprint requires a data plan. The Storm on Verizon requires a data plan. Each new phone that has been designated an “iPhone-killer” by the media has typically been required to have a data plan. This is becoming a more common event in this category and I don’t expect it to change anytime soon.
Why are such a nasty person to everyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
If you pay the no commitment price ($500 for the 3G) you can.
I would love to have bought mine outright, but I do use data (10GB to 40GB a month since I tether). and there would be no cost benefit to paying for it outright from AT&T, Apple or eBay. If they offer legal tethering I will pay for it since it is a service beyond what I agreed to pay for with my contract, but since they don’t I will continue to tethering my iPhone until they offer it.
They are charging me $40 a month for "DATA", the same as I pay for my comcast cable modem. The cable modem runs circles around the marginal 3G service I get from AT&T.
18 million times $40 is....well, a lot. It's not like it was a surprise that iPhones can use the data network. AT&T was just banking on the fact that nobody would want to (based on old shitty smartphone designs). That's their own mistake.
"Fix your network with the HUGE F'ing pile of cash you have from the iPhone subscriber base!", is the only advise I have.
Sheldon
I don't know of any wireless service that can outperform cable.
It was a surprise. Nobody and that includes a lot of guys here that never in their wildest imaginations ever thought that the iPhone would be so successful. In particular, Apple and every service provider, especially those that turned Apple down in the first place.
AT&T has spent billions of dollars installing and upgrading its infrastructure. Keep in mind all those European countries that were originally owned by the government and/or were built and many still are with tax payers monies.
Comments
manhattan...alabama........manhattan....alabama... hmm....lol
lol
tehehe...apple makes a product that increases usability (e.g. - the browser is finally usable) and somehow that makes iphone the bad guy...they've had phones out for years that had browsers on'em...they've just sucked...so AT&T have had plenty of time to predict and upgrade their systems.
Neither. It's the users fault now - always on their iPhones , all day, on AppleInsider!
iPhones are used more, so they use more...
So why doesn't AT&T offer a voice-only plan yet? I don't want to pay for data (Wifi is fine for my specific needs) so I wouldn't be using up their precious bandwidth.
It would be nice, but they are subsidizing the device by a reported $400. That will not cover the cost of just a voice-only plan. If they did have a less subsidized model and/or sell the device at cost they could do that, but there are also business reasons for them not to engage in such a maneuver. Starting Sunday, all AT&T phones under the category of smartphone will be required to have a $30/month data plan. Note that AT&T is not the first or the least to require data plans for a smartphone. This is becoming a more common event in this category and I don?t expect it to change anytime soon.
O2 have always had a poor network for data but since the iPhone 3G was released, its performance has nose-dived.
They simply don't have enough capacity in major urban areas. With my last carrier, I didn't witness a single network outage in 18 months. With O2, I've experienced a dozen in the space of a month. Add that to non-existent 3G coverage, even in London, and it makes me wonder what's the point of having such a powerful device in my pocket when I can rarely use it?
I can't wait for O2's exclusivity to end.
(Currently, I'm having problems receiving SMS and using data, despite having allegedly full EDGE signal strength.)
Note that AT&T is not the first or the least to require data plans for a smartphone. This is becoming a more common event in this category and I don’t expect it to change anytime soon.
Really- how would you know Verizon will be changing their policy or Sprint with their Blackberries? AT&T keeps ading insult to injury by piling up more and more crap smartphones on the network and then blaming it on the iPhone. AT&T needs to look right into their own mirror.
Are you an AT&T rep?
It would be nice, but they are subsidizing the device by a reported $400. That will not cover the cost of just a voice-only plan. If they did have a less subsidized model and/or sell the device at cost they could do that, but there are also business reasons for them not to engage in such a maneuver.
Currently they are complaining about too much data usage from iPhone customers. Either they make money with the data plan, or they lose money with the data plan. If they make money, they are obligated to build out their network so that the customer gets their money's worth (which seems debatable these days). If they lose money, they will have to raise the price, find some other way to offset the loss, or offer service without the plan.
I'm willing to pay a little more up front to offset the $720 I wouldn't be paying for a data plan (which is more like $900 after fees and taxes), but that's not even an option at this point.
So why doesn't AT&T offer a voice-only plan yet? I don't want to pay for data (Wifi is fine for my specific needs) so I wouldn't be using up their precious bandwidth.
If you pay the no commitment price ($500 for the 3G) you can.
I think a Formula 1 race car would be a more appropriate analogy if you want to discuss bandwidth usage. iPhones use up a lot of bandwidth (just like a F1 car uses up tons of gas per mile), but you also get magnificent performance, speed, handling, ergonomics, telemetry, and precision.
Better than the Hummer analogy for sure. But its a bit like saying your laptop is a real bandwidth hog. It all the depends on the services you choose to access and use. The iPhone allows users to access lots of services and as such it facilitates the usage, but to call it a Hummer? Hrmph... At least an F1 car is a thing of beauty and efficiency (if you wanna do 500 laps fast!, that is.
I urge all iPhone users to call them and demand to know where these promised services are. Their lame "we are working to be able to provide the best experience" means nothing.
If you pay the no commitment price ($500 for the 3G) you can.
Is that for the 16 Gb? How much is 32 Gb - $600?
If you pay the no commitment price ($500 for the 3G) you can.
If they offered the 3GS for that I would jump, but not the 3G. I want it primarily for the hardware improvements.
iPhones might use more bandwidth, but not to use it simply because they can waste it. Applications, downloads, music, telephony are all functional features of why you would use it. AT&T and others better beef up their network quick before Apple goes exclusive with one who can handle the future. The other cell phone clients might whine, but wouldn't they much rather be upgraded to an iPhone and get what everyone else already has? Maybe they're just jealous.
I just placed a call to AT&T asking them where my MMS and tethering services were. Three rungs up the ladder and no one has an answer.
I urge all iPhone users to call them and demand to know where these promised services are. Their lame "we are working to be able to provide the best experience" means nothing.
I work across the street from their store, I'll go in there at lunch and demand to know!
The demand for iPhones is rididculously high. It's another iPod phenomenon. It's up to the carriers to clean up their act.
The good news is that here in Canada, we'll be getting some competition over the next six months. Although there is a possibility of a Bell-Telus merger (reliable source I have at Rogers), the CRTC is perfectly fine with that due to the impending rise in competition. There will be other providers coming into the game with what would appear to be a fresh perspective on the challenges the big carriers face today.
Their lame "we are working to be able to provide the best experience" means nothing.
I prefer "We have changed all the phone-tree menus to serve you better".
Any time a large corporation says "...to serve you better", I think they are mispronouncing 'the CEO's golden parachute package' as 'you'.
Really- how would you know Verizon will be changing their policy or Sprint with their Blackberries?
I say “becoming more common” and you somehow infer Blackberries on Sprint. Way to be a comprehensive reader! The Pre on Sprint requires a data plan. The Storm on Verizon requires a data plan. Each new phone that has been designated an “iPhone-killer” by the media has typically been required to have a data plan. This is becoming a more common event in this category and I don’t expect it to change anytime soon.
Why are such a nasty person to everyone?
If you pay the no commitment price ($500 for the 3G) you can.
I would love to have bought mine outright, but I do use data (10GB to 40GB a month since I tether). and there would be no cost benefit to paying for it outright from AT&T, Apple or eBay. If they offer legal tethering I will pay for it since it is a service beyond what I agreed to pay for with my contract, but since they don’t I will continue to tethering my iPhone until they offer it.
They are charging me $40 a month for "DATA", the same as I pay for my comcast cable modem. The cable modem runs circles around the marginal 3G service I get from AT&T.
18 million times $40 is....well, a lot. It's not like it was a surprise that iPhones can use the data network. AT&T was just banking on the fact that nobody would want to (based on old shitty smartphone designs). That's their own mistake.
"Fix your network with the HUGE F'ing pile of cash you have from the iPhone subscriber base!", is the only advise I have.
Sheldon
I don't know of any wireless service that can outperform cable.
It was a surprise. Nobody and that includes a lot of guys here that never in their wildest imaginations ever thought that the iPhone would be so successful. In particular, Apple and every service provider, especially those that turned Apple down in the first place.
AT&T has spent billions of dollars installing and upgrading its infrastructure. Keep in mind all those European countries that were originally owned by the government and/or were built and many still are with tax payers monies.