"This is making it difficult for AT&T to make the required investments to upgrade its network to support greater bandwidth. The net result is a deterioration in the mobile broadband user experience."
A deterioration in the mobile broadband experience? Are you kidding me? How does this result in deterioration of service? I am fed up with this type of BS with AT&T. Enough, get your towers to work right before you pull this crap. BLAMING the consumer backfired for the record companies, but I am afraid that the majority of cell users are not as savvy to be able to resist this in the long run. What a bunch of cock-a-mame.
Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.
There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.
all they have to do is limit it to say 10GB per month and that takes care of most people. of course some will complain, but a new trend this decade is to get rid of the customers you don't want, instead of trying to retain every last one
2 year subsidies with data plans can't get you enough coin to run a 3G network?
Please.
Relationship? You move data. You're not Starbucks, Cell phone service is a "par" product - there's no significant difference between one tier-1 carrier and another. You supply no user experience other than bill paying.
So please, just do those basics right and stop trying to be a lifestyle. If you're reliable and cheap you'll have all the loyalty you need.
I'm sorry, but the term unlimited is pretty unambiguous to the reasonable person. AT&T shouldn't be limiting the terms of service and the ability of the iPhone just so they use up their bandwidth. How about they build their network to handle demand and cover more area, instead of whining about Verizon commercials and iPhone users.
This exactly what I have thought when AT&T acquired exclusivity of the iPhone. They're not ready, they never been ready and they will not be ready. I don't know if any other carrier can handle it, but for what I know, AT&T can't handle it.
Many customers are upset with AT&T, so by limiting data, will make them even furious. AT&T forced customer to pay $30 regardless their data usage if they sign up for iPhone. Now, you're trying to take back your contract for unlimited data?
Please understand something. AT&T acquired exclusivity with Apple for the iPhone, now, if their network suck, or whatever they limit, will anger the customers since they can't go to a different carrier with their iphone. This is why, phone exclusivity should be eliminated. Then customer be able to choose and use any carrier they like.
AT&T, do not blame Apple for this. You, AT&T, came to Apple to acquire the exclusivity of the device, not the other way around. They made a breakthrough handset and you, AT&T would like to have a piece of the pie. Now you got big piece of the pie and you can't finish it. AT&T should have studied the iPhone. You bit what you can't chew!
If they're going to sell devices for use on their network, then their network better be able to handle the traffic. When I had the iPhone, I only used average 5M/month which may not be typical for a mobile user. However, I used it for its primary function (voice) and to access my contacts/calendar info. It was hard justifying the monthly service charge that I barely used. So, I'm back to my Sony Ericsson T637 with just plain voice service. Getting a touch as soon as it has a GPS/compass and video capabilities.
2 year subsidies with data plans can't get you enough coin to run a 3G network?
Please.
Relationship? You move data. You're not Starbucks, Cell phone service is a "par" product - there's no significant difference between one tier-1 carrier and another. You supply no user experience other than bill paying.
So please, just do those basics right and stop trying to be a lifestyle. If you're reliable and cheap you'll have all the loyalty you need.
AT&T, do not blame Apple for this. You, AT&T, came to Apple to acquire the exclusivity of the device, not the other way around.
Read your history books. Apple came to AT&T after Verizon (cowards) said no. All AT&T did was say "yes". AT&T did not demand exclusive rights....Apple wanted that in order to get higher subsidies from their carriers. When AT&T said yes, all that Apple told them was "here was a new smartphone that can surf the net and get email". The App Store wasn't even part of the negotiations....it wasn't even on Apple's radar. So, all those 100,000 Apps that demand more and more bandwidth were a surprise to AT&T. How much warning did Apple give AT&T regarding those Apps? Probably not enough as it takes years to raise capital, design, engineer, get local building permits, and install new wireless capacity. The App store is only 1.5 years old.
the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone
Well this whole thing is a con job. It's obvious they can't control teethering and they want to get the rumors going now so when legit teethering people teethering, on top of paying a monthly sevive fee, they can penalize you. Or rather maybe penalize those that teethering and have no plan. Either way, I would like to see a classs action law suit for those many ninths of laying $30. It should be refunded.
If AT&T does adjust to a tiered type pricing plan instead of this "unlimited", does that mean there has been a change to our contract and we have the ability to leave AT&T without an ETF ?
Also, How come we are not hearing about the percentage of people that don't use hardly any data on their iPhone each month, even though they are forced to pay $20/$30 for it. I know several people that use it for telephone and iPod purposes only and don't have a clue about email or how to get on the internet. There has to be a fair amount of these type of subscribers and wouldn't that seem to offset the 3% that are "hogging" the bandwith as AT&T is claiming. I'd like to see that number as well.
What's true is that the iphone has little to no affect to the AT&T network, want proof? in the last 10 years when has the AT&T network not suck? when!? They even change their name to get rid of the bad rep that they always had.
What's true is that as much as I can't stand AT&T, you're totally wrong.
1. The iPhone has impacted their network tremendously. So have smartphones in general. They have millions of new customers using 100x the data they were two years ago. What you seem to be arguing is that the network sucked before, and sucks now. Well, it may have sucked before, but it still sucks now because they cannot keep up with the number of new devices as they upgrade. Saying the iPhone hasn't affected the network is like saying gas prices last year didn't affect families. It's absurdly false.
2. You clearly don't understand what happened, business-wise. AT&T/AT&T Mobility (the "old" AT&T) was purchased by competitor Cingular in 2004. Granted, AT&T Mobility's network was HORRIBLE prior to this. But Cingular was a different story. Everyone I knew that had them liked them. They had a generally good reputation. It was only after the acquisition that Cingular agreed it would rebrand itself as the "new AT&T." This transition took a good deal of time, and was carefully planned. Unfortunately, it would seem the merging the networks didn't go so well, because the service sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
In my mind, this is what net neutrality means. I have written Congress asking them to legislate separation of the content from the pipes. That would be true neutrality. A company like Comcast wouldn't then care what data was being passed around on their cable, they would just have to worry abut enough lanes to get it from A to B.
That's what it should mean, but it really doesn't. The concern is that government will end up regulating content instead of providers, which is far worse a situation than we have today. I frankly don't agree with net neutrality anyway. Why shouldn't network providers be allowed to discriminate in terms of content? Obviously there need to be pro-competitive measures in place that prevent say, Comcast from blocking Verizon.com. But that's not what is being proposed.
Quote:
For the wise backbone provider, this is the beginning of an opportunity to roll out the best networks in the country. Whomever puts the money in now, will be assured a majority of the subscribers in the future. For the most part, our networks are behind other countries for this sole reason.
I don't know the reason, but I don't think that is it. I'm sure part of it is the sheer size of the country.
Quote:
AT&T should be focused on their network, not what's being transferred over it. If they could, say, have DSL like speeds next year, they wouldn't need to worry about App Stores and iTunes. They would get the subscribers based on their network integrity. No drops, full speed all over. That's the focus of a network provider, wireless or otherwise. The US sucks for this and it needs to change. The only way to get the Bells to change is through law, unfortunately.
Totally disagree. First, the US is behind in wireless because our landline system was so much better than the rest of the world's landline system. We also have a much larger area and greater population to cover.
You also have to understand that they have been investing billions per year in making their wireless network better, without laws to make them do so. That's not a defense of AT&T---just a fact.
If AT&T does adjust to a tiered type pricing plan instead of this "unlimited", does that mean there has been a change to our contract and we have the ability to leave AT&T without an ETF ?
I don't think AT&T (or any other carrier) would ever change a current contract.....too risky...and that would be a breach (where you can get out without an ETF). They will probably have new pricing plans (tiered) for new contracts.
I, myself, do not use a lot of 3G Bandwidth. So, I would be willing to sign up for a 10GB or 20GB plan for less money per month.
Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.
There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.
Exactly. This isn't an AT&T issue. If the numbers they presented are accurate, a tiny percentage of users are using a substantial portion of the available bandwidth. "Fire" those customers (or charge them an appropriate fee to change their behavior and/or pay their fair share) and everyone else is much better off. If Apple owned their own network or the iPhone were on Verizon instead, we would be seeing exactly the same thing.
AT&T is too BIG and wants to carry all markets (i.e., land line, t.v. <uVerse>, cell phones, network cards...yaa yaa yaa). Jack of all trades master of NONE
You could say the same thing about Verizon. Land line, FiOS tv, FiOS and DSL internet, cell phones, network cards, MiFi, etc. The difference is that Verizon's services are actually better than their competition. Their cell network is better than AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, their FiOS service is better than DirecTV, Comcast, etc. Verizon is just as big if not bigger than AT&T, yet manages to provide quality services across the board. Size is not AT&T's excuse. It's incompetence and laziness.
The problem is NOT the contract itself. It is the advertising of the terms in every flier and TV spot except the contract itself. I'm not arguing against the 5GB cap. I'm arguing against the claim that they offer "unlimited" bandwidth then the contract clearly states otherwise. That's 100% false advertising.
Do they say unlimited bandwidth or merely unlimited without specifying what is unlimited?
I clearly abuse their service and have broken my contract from AT&T and voided my warranty with Apple. I haven?t seen AT&T break any laws or lie. Surely they have been unclear, but that is allowed in US marketing.
I would love to see a full discloser of the minimum TCO that some countries require for subsidized items with contracts, but we need laws in place to do that which means we?ll need some rampant abuse to the extreme to get people to see where the problem is, which is usually how these things work. Reactive, not proactive measures seems to be the naturel of government.
I wonder how many millions Apple's slow worldwide iPhone rollout has cost AT&T directly over the years. For all the iPhones that were bought, jailbroken, ETF'ed, and sold on eBay to users in other countries, AT&T has paid upfront subsidies to Apple that far exceed the ETFs, and then never received revenues from data contracts that were cancelled. All the while, Apple and the eBay sellers enjoyed their profits, while current AT&T users paid the difference.
Also, I wonder how much of AT&T iPhone revenues have been spent to upgrade the landline side of the business? In my area, AT&T has recently rolled out a new fiber-based service, which IMHO is a dud. Same TV channels and internet speeds, for the same price as what I'm paying now for sat and DSL. No FIOS speeds, and no real reason to upgrade other than a teaser introductory rate. Supposedly the landline/DSL business has been hurting for years, so I don't see how it could have paid for fiber rollouts by itself.
I'm not defending AT&T. I do question the competency of their management. It seems like most of the time they are merely holding on for the ride, and don't have a clear plan or sense of direction.
You could say the same thing about Verizon. Land line, FiOS tv, FiOS and DSL internet, cell phones, network cards, MiFi, etc. The difference is that Verizon's services are actually better than their competition. Their cell network is better than AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, their FiOS service is better than DirecTV, Comcast, etc. Verizon is just as big if not bigger than AT&T, yet manages to provide quality services across the board. Size is not AT&T's excuse. It's incompetence and laziness.
Verizon's advantage is that Verizon Wireless is a separate company that is owned by Verizon and Vodafone.
So while Verizon Wireless ultimately reports to Verizon, they are an entirely separate company with their own team of people focused specifically on the wireless business.
Likewise, Verizon can focus on the landline side of the business because the Wireless company takes care of itself.
Comments
"This is making it difficult for AT&T to make the required investments to upgrade its network to support greater bandwidth. The net result is a deterioration in the mobile broadband user experience."
A deterioration in the mobile broadband experience? Are you kidding me? How does this result in deterioration of service? I am fed up with this type of BS with AT&T. Enough, get your towers to work right before you pull this crap. BLAMING the consumer backfired for the record companies, but I am afraid that the majority of cell users are not as savvy to be able to resist this in the long run. What a bunch of cock-a-mame.
Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.
There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.
all they have to do is limit it to say 10GB per month and that takes care of most people. of course some will complain, but a new trend this decade is to get rid of the customers you don't want, instead of trying to retain every last one
Please.
Relationship? You move data. You're not Starbucks, Cell phone service is a "par" product - there's no significant difference between one tier-1 carrier and another. You supply no user experience other than bill paying.
So please, just do those basics right and stop trying to be a lifestyle. If you're reliable and cheap you'll have all the loyalty you need.
all they have to do is limit it to say 10GB per month and that takes care of most people.
Who's to say that AT&T can even support that level of data use?
(even if only the small percentage of 'data hogs' continue to use that now-capped amount)
Apple should just buy them and fix it.
This exactly what I have thought when AT&T acquired exclusivity of the iPhone. They're not ready, they never been ready and they will not be ready. I don't know if any other carrier can handle it, but for what I know, AT&T can't handle it.
Many customers are upset with AT&T, so by limiting data, will make them even furious. AT&T forced customer to pay $30 regardless their data usage if they sign up for iPhone. Now, you're trying to take back your contract for unlimited data?
Please understand something. AT&T acquired exclusivity with Apple for the iPhone, now, if their network suck, or whatever they limit, will anger the customers since they can't go to a different carrier with their iphone. This is why, phone exclusivity should be eliminated. Then customer be able to choose and use any carrier they like.
AT&T, do not blame Apple for this. You, AT&T, came to Apple to acquire the exclusivity of the device, not the other way around. They made a breakthrough handset and you, AT&T would like to have a piece of the pie. Now you got big piece of the pie and you can't finish it. AT&T should have studied the iPhone. You bit what you can't chew!
Who's to say that AT&T can even support that level of data use?
(even if only the small percentage of 'data hogs' continue to use that now-capped amount)
why can't they?
the way the service is in NYC, if they got rid of a small percentage of people it would improve a lot. even if you stream pandora all day
2 year subsidies with data plans can't get you enough coin to run a 3G network?
Please.
Relationship? You move data. You're not Starbucks, Cell phone service is a "par" product - there's no significant difference between one tier-1 carrier and another. You supply no user experience other than bill paying.
So please, just do those basics right and stop trying to be a lifestyle. If you're reliable and cheap you'll have all the loyalty you need.
My sentiments exactly...
Apple should just buy Sprint.
AT&T, do not blame Apple for this. You, AT&T, came to Apple to acquire the exclusivity of the device, not the other way around.
Read your history books. Apple came to AT&T after Verizon (cowards) said no. All AT&T did was say "yes". AT&T did not demand exclusive rights....Apple wanted that in order to get higher subsidies from their carriers. When AT&T said yes, all that Apple told them was "here was a new smartphone that can surf the net and get email". The App Store wasn't even part of the negotiations....it wasn't even on Apple's radar. So, all those 100,000 Apps that demand more and more bandwidth were a surprise to AT&T. How much warning did Apple give AT&T regarding those Apps? Probably not enough as it takes years to raise capital, design, engineer, get local building permits, and install new wireless capacity. The App store is only 1.5 years old.
iSuppli are morons
the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone
Well this whole thing is a con job. It's obvious they can't control teethering and they want to get the rumors going now so when legit teethering people teethering, on top of paying a monthly sevive fee, they can penalize you. Or rather maybe penalize those that teethering and have no plan. Either way, I would like to see a classs action law suit for those many ninths of laying $30. It should be refunded.
Also, How come we are not hearing about the percentage of people that don't use hardly any data on their iPhone each month, even though they are forced to pay $20/$30 for it. I know several people that use it for telephone and iPod purposes only and don't have a clue about email or how to get on the internet. There has to be a fair amount of these type of subscribers and wouldn't that seem to offset the 3% that are "hogging" the bandwith as AT&T is claiming. I'd like to see that number as well.
What's true is that the iphone has little to no affect to the AT&T network, want proof? in the last 10 years when has the AT&T network not suck? when!? They even change their name to get rid of the bad rep that they always had.
What's true is that as much as I can't stand AT&T, you're totally wrong.
1. The iPhone has impacted their network tremendously. So have smartphones in general. They have millions of new customers using 100x the data they were two years ago. What you seem to be arguing is that the network sucked before, and sucks now. Well, it may have sucked before, but it still sucks now because they cannot keep up with the number of new devices as they upgrade. Saying the iPhone hasn't affected the network is like saying gas prices last year didn't affect families. It's absurdly false.
2. You clearly don't understand what happened, business-wise. AT&T/AT&T Mobility (the "old" AT&T) was purchased by competitor Cingular in 2004. Granted, AT&T Mobility's network was HORRIBLE prior to this. But Cingular was a different story. Everyone I knew that had them liked them. They had a generally good reputation. It was only after the acquisition that Cingular agreed it would rebrand itself as the "new AT&T." This transition took a good deal of time, and was carefully planned. Unfortunately, it would seem the merging the networks didn't go so well, because the service sucks.
In my mind, this is what net neutrality means. I have written Congress asking them to legislate separation of the content from the pipes. That would be true neutrality. A company like Comcast wouldn't then care what data was being passed around on their cable, they would just have to worry abut enough lanes to get it from A to B.
That's what it should mean, but it really doesn't. The concern is that government will end up regulating content instead of providers, which is far worse a situation than we have today. I frankly don't agree with net neutrality anyway. Why shouldn't network providers be allowed to discriminate in terms of content? Obviously there need to be pro-competitive measures in place that prevent say, Comcast from blocking Verizon.com. But that's not what is being proposed.
For the wise backbone provider, this is the beginning of an opportunity to roll out the best networks in the country. Whomever puts the money in now, will be assured a majority of the subscribers in the future. For the most part, our networks are behind other countries for this sole reason.
I don't know the reason, but I don't think that is it. I'm sure part of it is the sheer size of the country.
AT&T should be focused on their network, not what's being transferred over it. If they could, say, have DSL like speeds next year, they wouldn't need to worry about App Stores and iTunes. They would get the subscribers based on their network integrity. No drops, full speed all over. That's the focus of a network provider, wireless or otherwise. The US sucks for this and it needs to change. The only way to get the Bells to change is through law, unfortunately.
Totally disagree. First, the US is behind in wireless because our landline system was so much better than the rest of the world's landline system. We also have a much larger area and greater population to cover.
You also have to understand that they have been investing billions per year in making their wireless network better, without laws to make them do so. That's not a defense of AT&T---just a fact.
If AT&T does adjust to a tiered type pricing plan instead of this "unlimited", does that mean there has been a change to our contract and we have the ability to leave AT&T without an ETF ?
I don't think AT&T (or any other carrier) would ever change a current contract.....too risky...and that would be a breach (where you can get out without an ETF). They will probably have new pricing plans (tiered) for new contracts.
I, myself, do not use a lot of 3G Bandwidth. So, I would be willing to sign up for a 10GB or 20GB plan for less money per month.
Agreed. So, as a result of these jail breakers who have to watch their "Glee" throughout the entire day (while they drive!), the Wireless Carriers will be forced to offer Data Plans with tiered bandwidth usage options on future contracts.
There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth....there is not enough bandwidth to go around when these jail breakers tether all day. They are breaking the rules of their contract and hurting the rest of us. Yes, our current data contract is 'unlimited'....but it also says no tethering.
Exactly. This isn't an AT&T issue. If the numbers they presented are accurate, a tiny percentage of users are using a substantial portion of the available bandwidth. "Fire" those customers (or charge them an appropriate fee to change their behavior and/or pay their fair share) and everyone else is much better off. If Apple owned their own network or the iPhone were on Verizon instead, we would be seeing exactly the same thing.
AT&T is too BIG and wants to carry all markets (i.e., land line, t.v. <uVerse>, cell phones, network cards...yaa yaa yaa). Jack of all trades master of NONE
You could say the same thing about Verizon. Land line, FiOS tv, FiOS and DSL internet, cell phones, network cards, MiFi, etc. The difference is that Verizon's services are actually better than their competition. Their cell network is better than AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, their FiOS service is better than DirecTV, Comcast, etc. Verizon is just as big if not bigger than AT&T, yet manages to provide quality services across the board. Size is not AT&T's excuse. It's incompetence and laziness.
The problem is NOT the contract itself. It is the advertising of the terms in every flier and TV spot except the contract itself. I'm not arguing against the 5GB cap. I'm arguing against the claim that they offer "unlimited" bandwidth then the contract clearly states otherwise. That's 100% false advertising.
Do they say unlimited bandwidth or merely unlimited without specifying what is unlimited?
I clearly abuse their service and have broken my contract from AT&T and voided my warranty with Apple. I haven?t seen AT&T break any laws or lie. Surely they have been unclear, but that is allowed in US marketing.
I would love to see a full discloser of the minimum TCO that some countries require for subsidized items with contracts, but we need laws in place to do that which means we?ll need some rampant abuse to the extreme to get people to see where the problem is, which is usually how these things work. Reactive, not proactive measures seems to be the naturel of government.
I wonder how many millions Apple's slow worldwide iPhone rollout has cost AT&T directly over the years. For all the iPhones that were bought, jailbroken, ETF'ed, and sold on eBay to users in other countries, AT&T has paid upfront subsidies to Apple that far exceed the ETFs, and then never received revenues from data contracts that were cancelled. All the while, Apple and the eBay sellers enjoyed their profits, while current AT&T users paid the difference.
Also, I wonder how much of AT&T iPhone revenues have been spent to upgrade the landline side of the business? In my area, AT&T has recently rolled out a new fiber-based service, which IMHO is a dud. Same TV channels and internet speeds, for the same price as what I'm paying now for sat and DSL. No FIOS speeds, and no real reason to upgrade other than a teaser introductory rate. Supposedly the landline/DSL business has been hurting for years, so I don't see how it could have paid for fiber rollouts by itself.
I'm not defending AT&T. I do question the competency of their management. It seems like most of the time they are merely holding on for the ride, and don't have a clear plan or sense of direction.
You could say the same thing about Verizon. Land line, FiOS tv, FiOS and DSL internet, cell phones, network cards, MiFi, etc. The difference is that Verizon's services are actually better than their competition. Their cell network is better than AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, their FiOS service is better than DirecTV, Comcast, etc. Verizon is just as big if not bigger than AT&T, yet manages to provide quality services across the board. Size is not AT&T's excuse. It's incompetence and laziness.
Verizon's advantage is that Verizon Wireless is a separate company that is owned by Verizon and Vodafone.
So while Verizon Wireless ultimately reports to Verizon, they are an entirely separate company with their own team of people focused specifically on the wireless business.
Likewise, Verizon can focus on the landline side of the business because the Wireless company takes care of itself.