Someone else brought this fact up before, say VZ got the iphone first, user would have had the same miserable experience since the increase data usage would have brought VZ network to its knees as well.
I can tell our data usage going going from a Trio to iphone went through the roof, I was amazed, how much more we use data on the iphone than any other phone we had before.
The other thing just amazes me is that people would rather be with VZ who is known for crippling phone features and charging of everyone thing over having a phone which you can pretty much do what you want with, control over my phone is more important than the little bit of extra coverage you may get with VZ
Agreed! But if Verizon had said to Apple, 'make us a CDMA iPhone as an interim measure until we complete our infrastructure to the new world standard, GSM and we (Verizon) will pay you (Apple) a fee for each iPhone to offset the increased manufacturing costs.' Verizon would have made a ton of cash, not lost any customers and gained a boat load of customers from ATT.
A bit of hindsight there, but nevertheless Verizon knew ATT had a hit three months into the iPhone introduction and could have proposed that scenario.
Thoughts!
Well that does me no good for the iPhone I currently have. What you're saying is if I switxch toVeriizon I have to buy another phone- which is exactly my point. Who will switch under those conditions?
Wait til Verizon gets a phone that is so data intensive like the iphone and we'll see how they do. Your thoughts?
Good point...I guess I'm coming more from the position that if both the major carriers, here in the US, had the iPhone, competition would bring down the cost of the data plans/features and motivate each to increase coverage/service at an accelerated rate.
Also, back to my point, there could be less of a bandwidth load on each carrier's systems if the iphone was available through two different carriers. Although maybe demand for the iPhone would be so great that both providers would be overwhelmed as you suggest.
I understand Verizon's CDMA/GMS quandary and Apple reluctance to build/support two different phones and also ATT incurred considerable expense in changing their infrastructure to facilitate the introduction of the iPhone.
I also understand that Verizon has a reputation for 'hobbling' it's phones and charging for every conceivable service.
The best thing about ATT is the 'rollover' minutes.
Agreed! But if Verizon had said to Apple, 'make us a CDMA iPhone as an interim measure until we complete our infrastructure to the new world standard, GSM and we (Verizon) will pay you (Apple) a fee for each iPhone to offset the increased manufacturing costs.' Verizon would have made a ton of cash, not lost any customers and gained a boat load of customers from ATT.
A bit of hindsight there, but nevertheless Verizon knew ATT had a hit three months into the iPhone introduction and could have proposed that scenario.
Thoughts!
You assume that Verizon would have been just as prepared for the mountains of data used by the iPhone. According to my iPhone's stats, I have used 36mb of data for this month alone--and it's only day 9 of September. Now tell me, are you positive that Verizon, which still doesn't have a smartphone offering outside of the crummy Blackberry, could sustain this kind of data usage?
Verizon also has pretty unstable service in some areas. Verizon's strength is in the midwest. In the middle of Indiana, I had no problems with my phone, but when I moved out to the coast, I had a lot of issues with dropped calls on my Verizon phone. I even got the dreaded "No service" message--in the middle of the 2nd most populus city in the country (presumably because the tower was too busy).
Also let's not forget?it's widely speculated that Verizon actually turned Apple down because they didn't want to pay Apple's revenue sharing.
Anyway it's all in the past. The iPhone is GSM, and that's the end of it. Even if Apple were to make a 4G phone for Verizon, the first 4G phones are going to need to have a GSM radio too, since only 5-10% of the country will have 4G (just like the iPhone falls back to Edge when 3G isn't available). Verizon openly admits they won't start testing 4G until the end of 2010, and won't roll it out except to more than a dozen or so cities until late 2011.
I live in the Napa Valley in California. I get the usual dropped calls (not a whole lot though, but it is annoying! and I get spotty G3. I have no idea why I have 3G when walking outside but when I walk 4 feet inside of a coffee shop it goes to Edge or nothing at all. (No, this is not from my phone switching to a coffee shop wifi access point) Even sitting at my desk at work, next to a window, my phone almost does not work at all, but walking outside, its perfect. At work, I have to answer my phone with my face next to the glass window.
I was in Walnut Creek over the weekend and since there is an Apple Store downtown, there were a lot of iPhones being used on the streets and in the stores. The G3 was HORRIBLE! almost non existent. One would think they would ramp up the towers in Cities.
Last gripe, I wish SMS/MMS was included for no charge too! $20 unlimited plus $30 for DATA?? I just don't understand.
To end this, I would like to let AT &T know that I feel screwed by their promises and their prices and I would happily pay a $175 fee for cancellation fee to go to another carrier if it meant better customer relations, better network, less dropped calls and bundled prices.
Well that does me no good for the iPhone I currently have. What you're saying is if I switxch toVeriizon I have to buy another phone- which is exactly my point. Who will switch under those conditions?
Not really. What I'm getting at is, it seems there are those people who prefer ATT and those who prefer Verizon. And there are those who think they both are 'clumsy' companies when it comes providing good value to their customers. The way Apple does as opposed to Dell, for example.
You/we could benefit if ATT had to 'compete' with verizon and reduced their prices for their data plans and/or features.
I'm merely suggesting that one of them has to 'step up to the plate,' as it were, and start behaving more like a company like Apple providing an excellent product mix and service.
PS. I know Apple has had it's share of missteps but I'm not paying Apple $100/mo for the next 2 years as I'm doing with ATT.
You assume that Verizon would have been just as prepared for the mountains of data used by the iPhone. According to my iPhone's stats, I have used 36mb of data for this month alone--and it's only day 9 of September. Now tell me, are you positive that Verizon, which still doesn't have a smartphone offering outside of the crummy Blackberry, could sustain this kind of data usage?
Verizon also has pretty unstable service in some areas. Verizon's strength is in the midwest. In the middle of Indiana, I had no problems with my phone, but when I moved out to the coast, I had a lot of issues with dropped calls on my Verizon phone. I even got the dreaded "No service" message--in the middle of the 2nd most populus city in the country (presumably because the tower was too busy).
Also let's not forget—it's widely speculated that Verizon actually turned Apple down because they didn't want to pay Apple's revenue sharing.
Anyway it's all in the past. The iPhone is GSM, and that's the end of it. Even if Apple were to make a 4G phone for Verizon, the first 4G phones are going to need to have a GSM radio too, since only 5-10% of the country will have 4G (just like the iPhone falls back to Edge when 3G isn't available). Verizon openly admits they won't start testing 4G until the end of 2010, and won't roll it out except to more than a dozen or so cities until late 2011.
Yep...it was a hypothetical scenario and yes I am assuming Verizon could handle the increase in usage. As you and a previous poster have suggested they may very well indeed not have been able to handle it.
Sorry AT&T, i am a customer, and i feel the holes in your network each and every day. and i live in a major city... Los Angeles.
I agree.
Most people here who are defending AT&T claim that us iPhone users are unfairly complaining about the data drain we're inflicting on their network. That isn't what many of us iPhone users are complaining about.
We're complaining about AT&T's overall service, which we consider to be sub-standard. Our phone calls continue to drop in areas where there should be NO holes in the system whatsoever. Edge-based, 3G-based... it doesn't matter.
I first joined AT&T (then PacBell) in 2001 when I lived in Burbank. My cell coverage in that city--especially around the downtown area and the mall--was abysmal. Getting more than one bar was a miracle, and it was pretty typical that I would have no coverage whatsoever.
Eight years later, the lack of adequate coverage in that area of Burbank is still just as abysmal. THIS is what we iPhone users are complaining about. When AT&T talks about their network improvements, we ask... "Where... Omaha?" Certainly not Los Angeles.
There are densely-populated areas in the city and county of Los Angeles which are STILL dead zones. The intersection of Melrose and La Brea, a long stretch of Magnolia from North Hollywood to Studio City and parts of the 170 freeway in North Hollywood and Van Nuys have been dead zones for more than seven years. And these are flat urban or suburban areas with no hills!
If it weren't for the iPhone, I wouldn't be an AT&T customer. Forget the issues with data coverage--that's a bit more understandable. AT&T's problem is that they can't even provide decent phone coverage.
Not really. What I'm getting at is, it seems there are those people who prefer ATT and those who prefer Verizon. And there are those who think they both are 'clumsy' companies when it comes providing good value to their customers. The way Apple does as opposed to Dell, for example.
You/we could benefit if ATT had to 'compete' with verizon and reduced their prices for their data plans and/or features.
I'm merely suggesting that one of them has to 'step up to the plate,' as it were, and start behaving more like a company like Apple providing an excellent product mix and service.
PS. I know Apple has had it's share of missteps but I'm not paying Apple $100/mo for the next 2 years as I'm doing with ATT.
OK- got it. But a lot of others on here keep talking about leaving AT&T for Verizon as soon as Verizon gets the iPhone. Anger leaves logic behind.
Customer service is MUCH better with AT&T, however, coverage and reception is MUCH worse with AT&T.
Reception is marginal at my house and all my families homes. I complained last year when I got the iPhone. Reception has not improved anywhere. Not one bit.
When I first signed up with Sprint, their coverage was also poor, but they quickly improved it. When I left Sprint I assumed that everywhere had great coverage. I hadn't seen anywhere that was not covered by Sprint's 3G network.
AT&T is night and day. There is zero coverage in many rural areas of NC and VA. 3G coverage is limited to a few major metropolitan areas and even there, reception and coverage is poor.
Worst thing is that I have seen absolutely no improvement over the last year.
Talk is cheap. AT&T can say they spent all this money improving the network. But until I see any evidence of improvement, its just talk, and that doesn't help.
I will be very tempted to move to Verizon or even (shudder) back to Sprint... if their prices are comparable to AT&T.
I hate AT&T at this point - they've crippled the phone and I've lost dozens of text messages and voicemails have appeared on my phone a full 24 hours late! truly - they only thing that might keep me on their side is a price break - atleast then I can think I'm getting what I pay for - but currently I'm paying TOP DOLLAR!!!!!!
Good or bad it is the contract that Apple had to make in order to bring the iPhone to market.
Supposedly Verizon originally didn't want the iPhone so without AT&T we might be on T-moblie or Sprint or Metro and you would really be hating life. AT&T haters just have to wait until the contract is finished before it becomes available on another network.
I switched to AT&T from Verizon to get the iPhone. I really don't think it makes much difference now because no one knew what effect the iPhone as well as every other 3G iPhone 'want to be' would have on a network. You can't just dismiss the technical constraints of tower/software/spectrum etc. The same type of complaints would surely have been voiced about Verizon's service had they won the exclusive contract instead of AT&T.
Good or bad it is the contract that Apple had to make in order to bring the iPhone to market.
Supposedly Verizon originally didn't want the iPhone so without AT&T we might be on T-moblie or Sprint or Metro and you would really be hating life. AT&T haters just have to wait until the contract is finished before it becomes available on another network.
Uh, I have an original iPhone and I LOVE T-Mobile... so much so that when other people around UC Irvine don't have reception on AT&T, I get full bars. Or I can just use their campus-wide Wi-Fi to call on T-Mobile's network if I don't have coverage in buildings. And yes, I'm currently using EDGE, but I am only paying $7 a month for the data plan add-on! I'd love to see you AT&T people try to match that for pricing. Also, I haven't had any slowdowns whatsoever with T-Mobile wherever I go, and I save well over a thousand over the contract that iPhone users on AT&T have to put up with. So I really do feel sorry for those poor souls, because they're paying a thousand more and getting worse service with 3G.
Btw, what would happen if Apple decided to go multi-carrier in the US and had AT&T and T-Mobile? Just might be enough combined coverage to bring down the Verizon juggernaut... Besides T-Mobile's 3G service I've heard is practically unused, so speeds there should be lightning fast.
It's instructive to remember that the company currently calling itself AT&T is actually SBC Communications, a former "Baby Bell" whose own name and reputation were so tarnished by decades of poor service that they elected to rename themselves AT&T after they bought their former parent company. This is the same company whose former CEO, Ed Whitacre, thought so little of his paying customers that he either completely ignored them or simply forgot they existed when he complained that no one was paying for "my pipes" when Internet uses accessed online sites such as Google or Amazon.
This is a company with a monopoly mindset to its very core, and I think it's highly unlikely they will ever change. And I say that as someone who is actually happier with AT&T's wireless service than I was with any of the other major carriers, all of whom I've tried at one point or another.
OK- got it. But a lot of others on here keep talking about leaving AT&T for Verizon as soon as Verizon gets the iPhone. Anger leaves logic behind.
Yep, no doubt there does seems to be a lot of anger out there. But what I get from the article, and from a lot for the previous posts, is ATT's sort of half-hearted, clumsy attempts at ameliorating the ground swell of disaffection by some of it's customers.
Much of it may indeed be due to the overwhelming success of the iPhone and the growing pains of ATT attributed to having a game changer in it's product line. But as one poster aptly pointed out ATT is charging us 'premium' prices while they figure it out. Not good business.
Uh, I have an original iPhone and I LOVE T-Mobile... so much so that when other people around UC Irvine don't have reception on AT&T, I get full bars.
Fair enough but if you traveled you would see that T-mobile has very poor coverage in many parts of the country especially in rural areas. One of my associates has Android on T-Mobile and she is pretty much unreachable anywhere outside of southern cal.
Comments
I can tell our data usage going going from a Trio to iphone went through the roof, I was amazed, how much more we use data on the iphone than any other phone we had before.
The other thing just amazes me is that people would rather be with VZ who is known for crippling phone features and charging of everyone thing over having a phone which you can pretty much do what you want with, control over my phone is more important than the little bit of extra coverage you may get with VZ
Agreed! But if Verizon had said to Apple, 'make us a CDMA iPhone as an interim measure until we complete our infrastructure to the new world standard, GSM and we (Verizon) will pay you (Apple) a fee for each iPhone to offset the increased manufacturing costs.' Verizon would have made a ton of cash, not lost any customers and gained a boat load of customers from ATT.
A bit of hindsight there, but nevertheless Verizon knew ATT had a hit three months into the iPhone introduction and could have proposed that scenario.
Thoughts!
Well that does me no good for the iPhone I currently have. What you're saying is if I switxch toVeriizon I have to buy another phone- which is exactly my point. Who will switch under those conditions?
You can only use one app at a time right? Therefore you wouldn't be using any more of the network than any other phone that has MMS.
MMS on the iPhone shouldn't be any different unless they are planning on allowing video.
A laundry bag.
Wait til Verizon gets a phone that is so data intensive like the iphone and we'll see how they do. Your thoughts?
Good point...I guess I'm coming more from the position that if both the major carriers, here in the US, had the iPhone, competition would bring down the cost of the data plans/features and motivate each to increase coverage/service at an accelerated rate.
Also, back to my point, there could be less of a bandwidth load on each carrier's systems if the iphone was available through two different carriers. Although maybe demand for the iPhone would be so great that both providers would be overwhelmed as you suggest.
I understand Verizon's CDMA/GMS quandary and Apple reluctance to build/support two different phones and also ATT incurred considerable expense in changing their infrastructure to facilitate the introduction of the iPhone.
I also understand that Verizon has a reputation for 'hobbling' it's phones and charging for every conceivable service.
The best thing about ATT is the 'rollover' minutes.
Agreed! But if Verizon had said to Apple, 'make us a CDMA iPhone as an interim measure until we complete our infrastructure to the new world standard, GSM and we (Verizon) will pay you (Apple) a fee for each iPhone to offset the increased manufacturing costs.' Verizon would have made a ton of cash, not lost any customers and gained a boat load of customers from ATT.
A bit of hindsight there, but nevertheless Verizon knew ATT had a hit three months into the iPhone introduction and could have proposed that scenario.
Thoughts!
You assume that Verizon would have been just as prepared for the mountains of data used by the iPhone. According to my iPhone's stats, I have used 36mb of data for this month alone--and it's only day 9 of September. Now tell me, are you positive that Verizon, which still doesn't have a smartphone offering outside of the crummy Blackberry, could sustain this kind of data usage?
Verizon also has pretty unstable service in some areas. Verizon's strength is in the midwest. In the middle of Indiana, I had no problems with my phone, but when I moved out to the coast, I had a lot of issues with dropped calls on my Verizon phone. I even got the dreaded "No service" message--in the middle of the 2nd most populus city in the country (presumably because the tower was too busy).
Also let's not forget?it's widely speculated that Verizon actually turned Apple down because they didn't want to pay Apple's revenue sharing.
Anyway it's all in the past. The iPhone is GSM, and that's the end of it. Even if Apple were to make a 4G phone for Verizon, the first 4G phones are going to need to have a GSM radio too, since only 5-10% of the country will have 4G (just like the iPhone falls back to Edge when 3G isn't available). Verizon openly admits they won't start testing 4G until the end of 2010, and won't roll it out except to more than a dozen or so cities until late 2011.
I was in Walnut Creek over the weekend and since there is an Apple Store downtown, there were a lot of iPhones being used on the streets and in the stores. The G3 was HORRIBLE! almost non existent. One would think they would ramp up the towers in Cities.
Last gripe, I wish SMS/MMS was included for no charge too! $20 unlimited plus $30 for DATA?? I just don't understand.
To end this, I would like to let AT &T know that I feel screwed by their promises and their prices and I would happily pay a $175 fee for cancellation fee to go to another carrier if it meant better customer relations, better network, less dropped calls and bundled prices.
Well that does me no good for the iPhone I currently have. What you're saying is if I switxch toVeriizon I have to buy another phone- which is exactly my point. Who will switch under those conditions?
Not really. What I'm getting at is, it seems there are those people who prefer ATT and those who prefer Verizon. And there are those who think they both are 'clumsy' companies when it comes providing good value to their customers. The way Apple does as opposed to Dell, for example.
You/we could benefit if ATT had to 'compete' with verizon and reduced their prices for their data plans and/or features.
I'm merely suggesting that one of them has to 'step up to the plate,' as it were, and start behaving more like a company like Apple providing an excellent product mix and service.
PS. I know Apple has had it's share of missteps but I'm not paying Apple $100/mo for the next 2 years as I'm doing with ATT.
Wait til Verizon gets a phone that is so data intensive like the iphone and we'll see how they do. Your thoughts?
Yep. The grass is always greener...
You assume that Verizon would have been just as prepared for the mountains of data used by the iPhone. According to my iPhone's stats, I have used 36mb of data for this month alone--and it's only day 9 of September. Now tell me, are you positive that Verizon, which still doesn't have a smartphone offering outside of the crummy Blackberry, could sustain this kind of data usage?
Verizon also has pretty unstable service in some areas. Verizon's strength is in the midwest. In the middle of Indiana, I had no problems with my phone, but when I moved out to the coast, I had a lot of issues with dropped calls on my Verizon phone. I even got the dreaded "No service" message--in the middle of the 2nd most populus city in the country (presumably because the tower was too busy).
Also let's not forget—it's widely speculated that Verizon actually turned Apple down because they didn't want to pay Apple's revenue sharing.
Anyway it's all in the past. The iPhone is GSM, and that's the end of it. Even if Apple were to make a 4G phone for Verizon, the first 4G phones are going to need to have a GSM radio too, since only 5-10% of the country will have 4G (just like the iPhone falls back to Edge when 3G isn't available). Verizon openly admits they won't start testing 4G until the end of 2010, and won't roll it out except to more than a dozen or so cities until late 2011.
Yep...it was a hypothetical scenario and yes I am assuming Verizon could handle the increase in usage. As you and a previous poster have suggested they may very well indeed not have been able to handle it.
Sorry AT&T, i am a customer, and i feel the holes in your network each and every day. and i live in a major city... Los Angeles.
I agree.
Most people here who are defending AT&T claim that us iPhone users are unfairly complaining about the data drain we're inflicting on their network. That isn't what many of us iPhone users are complaining about.
We're complaining about AT&T's overall service, which we consider to be sub-standard. Our phone calls continue to drop in areas where there should be NO holes in the system whatsoever. Edge-based, 3G-based... it doesn't matter.
I first joined AT&T (then PacBell) in 2001 when I lived in Burbank. My cell coverage in that city--especially around the downtown area and the mall--was abysmal. Getting more than one bar was a miracle, and it was pretty typical that I would have no coverage whatsoever.
Eight years later, the lack of adequate coverage in that area of Burbank is still just as abysmal. THIS is what we iPhone users are complaining about. When AT&T talks about their network improvements, we ask... "Where... Omaha?" Certainly not Los Angeles.
There are densely-populated areas in the city and county of Los Angeles which are STILL dead zones. The intersection of Melrose and La Brea, a long stretch of Magnolia from North Hollywood to Studio City and parts of the 170 freeway in North Hollywood and Van Nuys have been dead zones for more than seven years. And these are flat urban or suburban areas with no hills!
If it weren't for the iPhone, I wouldn't be an AT&T customer. Forget the issues with data coverage--that's a bit more understandable. AT&T's problem is that they can't even provide decent phone coverage.
GTSC
Not really. What I'm getting at is, it seems there are those people who prefer ATT and those who prefer Verizon. And there are those who think they both are 'clumsy' companies when it comes providing good value to their customers. The way Apple does as opposed to Dell, for example.
You/we could benefit if ATT had to 'compete' with verizon and reduced their prices for their data plans and/or features.
I'm merely suggesting that one of them has to 'step up to the plate,' as it were, and start behaving more like a company like Apple providing an excellent product mix and service.
PS. I know Apple has had it's share of missteps but I'm not paying Apple $100/mo for the next 2 years as I'm doing with ATT.
OK- got it. But a lot of others on here keep talking about leaving AT&T for Verizon as soon as Verizon gets the iPhone. Anger leaves logic behind.
Customer service is MUCH better with AT&T, however, coverage and reception is MUCH worse with AT&T.
Reception is marginal at my house and all my families homes. I complained last year when I got the iPhone. Reception has not improved anywhere. Not one bit.
When I first signed up with Sprint, their coverage was also poor, but they quickly improved it. When I left Sprint I assumed that everywhere had great coverage. I hadn't seen anywhere that was not covered by Sprint's 3G network.
AT&T is night and day. There is zero coverage in many rural areas of NC and VA. 3G coverage is limited to a few major metropolitan areas and even there, reception and coverage is poor.
Worst thing is that I have seen absolutely no improvement over the last year.
Talk is cheap. AT&T can say they spent all this money improving the network. But until I see any evidence of improvement, its just talk, and that doesn't help.
I will be very tempted to move to Verizon or even (shudder) back to Sprint... if their prices are comparable to AT&T.
I hate AT&T at this point - they've crippled the phone and I've lost dozens of text messages and voicemails have appeared on my phone a full 24 hours late! truly - they only thing that might keep me on their side is a price break - atleast then I can think I'm getting what I pay for - but currently I'm paying TOP DOLLAR!!!!!!
Supposedly Verizon originally didn't want the iPhone so without AT&T we might be on T-moblie or Sprint or Metro and you would really be hating life. AT&T haters just have to wait until the contract is finished before it becomes available on another network.
I switched to AT&T from Verizon to get the iPhone. I really don't think it makes much difference now because no one knew what effect the iPhone as well as every other 3G iPhone 'want to be' would have on a network. You can't just dismiss the technical constraints of tower/software/spectrum etc. The same type of complaints would surely have been voiced about Verizon's service had they won the exclusive contract instead of AT&T.
Good or bad it is the contract that Apple had to make in order to bring the iPhone to market.
Supposedly Verizon originally didn't want the iPhone so without AT&T we might be on T-moblie or Sprint or Metro and you would really be hating life. AT&T haters just have to wait until the contract is finished before it becomes available on another network.
Uh, I have an original iPhone and I LOVE T-Mobile... so much so that when other people around UC Irvine don't have reception on AT&T, I get full bars. Or I can just use their campus-wide Wi-Fi to call on T-Mobile's network if I don't have coverage in buildings. And yes, I'm currently using EDGE, but I am only paying $7 a month for the data plan add-on! I'd love to see you AT&T people try to match that for pricing. Also, I haven't had any slowdowns whatsoever with T-Mobile wherever I go, and I save well over a thousand over the contract that iPhone users on AT&T have to put up with. So I really do feel sorry for those poor souls, because they're paying a thousand more and getting worse service with 3G.
Btw, what would happen if Apple decided to go multi-carrier in the US and had AT&T and T-Mobile? Just might be enough combined coverage to bring down the Verizon juggernaut... Besides T-Mobile's 3G service I've heard is practically unused, so speeds there should be lightning fast.
This is a company with a monopoly mindset to its very core, and I think it's highly unlikely they will ever change. And I say that as someone who is actually happier with AT&T's wireless service than I was with any of the other major carriers, all of whom I've tried at one point or another.
OK- got it. But a lot of others on here keep talking about leaving AT&T for Verizon as soon as Verizon gets the iPhone. Anger leaves logic behind.
Yep, no doubt there does seems to be a lot of anger out there. But what I get from the article, and from a lot for the previous posts, is ATT's sort of half-hearted, clumsy attempts at ameliorating the ground swell of disaffection by some of it's customers.
Much of it may indeed be due to the overwhelming success of the iPhone and the growing pains of ATT attributed to having a game changer in it's product line. But as one poster aptly pointed out ATT is charging us 'premium' prices while they figure it out. Not good business.
Uh, I have an original iPhone and I LOVE T-Mobile... so much so that when other people around UC Irvine don't have reception on AT&T, I get full bars.
Fair enough but if you traveled you would see that T-mobile has very poor coverage in many parts of the country especially in rural areas. One of my associates has Android on T-Mobile and she is pretty much unreachable anywhere outside of southern cal.