Verizon's advantage is that Verizon Wireless is a separate company that is owned by Verizon and Vodafone.
That is actually a disadvantage. Verizon Wireless has two different companies (Verizon and Vodaphone) who must mutually agree to all strategic and capital decisions....while at the same time, trying to ensure the success of their own companies. No company wants to be in that position.
Whatever, here they go trying to handle a PR disaster... I would suggest all those who are turning on other customers for using 'unlimited' bandwidth to start demanding better from their wireless provider instead of having them blame paying customers...
I emailed AT&T yesterday and basically told them to stop crying. I bought what they called an unlimited data plan, stop crying, etc. Here is the response:
"At this time, we are gather more information regarding the data limits. Once we have more information regarding the issue, all customers will be advised. I apologize for the frustration this has caused."
That is actually a disadvantage. Verizon Wireless has two different companies (Verizon and Vodaphone) who must mutually agree to all strategic and capital decisions....while at the same time, trying to ensure the success of their own companies. No company wants to be in that position.
Every other public company has a board of directors that does the same thing. It's no different...
That is actually a disadvantage. Verizon Wireless has two different companies (Verizon and Vodaphone) who must mutually agree to all strategic and capital decisions....while at the same time, trying to ensure the success of their own companies. No company wants to be in that position.
So they compete against themselves. I like it. It drives them to be better internally.
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.
I don't buy the "AT&T were duped by Apple and too ignorant to see this coming" excuse. When you get in bed with Apple, you can expect fireworks with their products. Why would they fight to continue exclusivity if they were a victim of this?
If it's such a burden for AT&T, then they should avoid renewing any future exclusive agreements, and just let the other carriers shoulder this burden on their own networks. Then everyone will be happy.
In Canada, Rogers has issues but no where near the issues that AT&T struggles with. 6GB was unlimited when the iPhone first came out in Canada. And to +90% iPhone users that is unlimited/overkill. They then now have packages like mine where I spend $80 CND a month with my "extras" (voicemail, caller ID etc) and I have a 500MB a month data plan included. I have more than I need and if you need the 6GB or more you can pay more.
AT&T needs to start charging those who use /abuse the network accordingly and those who don't less. This will allow them to gain more revenue and continue to upgrade their network.
AT&T needs to stop getting people to make excuses for them and smarten up already. You have had iPhones for how long? Why is Canada flourishing in the iPhone market (All major carriers now can have iPhones) and AT&T is killing the US market?
Rogers had the benefit of knowing what the average data consumption was after nearly a year's usage by AT&T iPhone customers. Based on that, Rogers' first published data plan was $30 for 400 MB. Only after a some screaming did Rogers offer the 6 GB limit as part of the iPhone introduction and only in the first 3 months. It should be noted that Rogers attempted to suggest that the 400 MBs was more than sufficient, but virtually only a handful would accept their reasoning because of AT&T's unlimited offering.
As such, most countries have limited data plans and basically let you use it however you wish. Want to tether. Go for it. It comes off your data plan. Go over, pay extra. Do it too many times, update your contract. AT&T however, got hit the most. They and neither did anybody else have any idea what the iPhone was capable of doing or the effect that it would eventually have on the network. Perhaps Jobs did, but nobody, accept us fanboys, would believe him.
In Canada, Rogers' competitors realized that without GSM/3G systems they could just as well forget it. However, unlike the US, their systems were easier, if possible, to change/update, and they readily did so.
Is AT&T killing the market? Well without AT&T agreeing with Jobs, i.e., significantly upgrade their network and reduce their existing data plan charges, there would be no US market to kill.
What everybody has forgotten, was that Jobs' biggest issue with cell phones in the beginning was that they didn't work well, if at all, as a viable 'telephone. Talk about dropped calls, poor connections or no connections. It was the norm.
Back in the 80's/90's and even after the turn of the century, it was easy to tell your spouse that you couldn't call to say that you were late because of a business meeting or that unfortunately you got disconnected going under a bridge. Today, of course, she can go online and see exactly where you are. And unless the name of your meeting place is 'Under the Bridge', you best stop for roses on the way home.
That isn?t true. AT&T has been upgrading their network at a rate of billions per year since before the iPhone launched.
ATT could put restrictions on the iPhone with almost no penalty to anyone but Apple. Apple can't go to Verizon nor Sprint the only US option would be TMobile. The fanbois will attack saying the iPhone can't be damaged or hurt but it certainly can be if its one of the only smartphones that comes with usage restrictions.
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.
I don't mind that you disagree, but I don't think you are correct. A lot of our fiber went dark when the providers were bitching that they spent money on it, but had too much bandwidth, and no service to use it. So they stopped rolling it out. Now that they have been neglecting the backbone too long, they are trying to catch up, and spending money. AT&T gripes about $18 billion spent to upgrade. What's to say they shouldn't have been spending $5 billion per year over 10 years to keep up with innovation?
In my reading, every other country that has surpassed the US in throughput both wired and wirelessly has legislated the separation of content from the backbone. This would mean AT&T could focus on new technology, 100Gb+ routers, Tbps links and such, and not have to worry about selling someone voice service.
Just because they decided to neglect the development dollars-wise doesn't mean they aren't spending money to fix it now, it just means they haven't spent enough on upgrades over time to keep up. Splitting them up to be a phone company separate from a cell-tower company wouldn't hurt consumers, IMO.
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.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Obviously, back then, like today, your experience is going to vary depending on location, etc. I had Cingular long before the merger with ATT, and I can assure you that Cingular's service in my area was just as crappy at ATT's reputation is today. I paid the early termination fee to get out of my contract due to their utter failure to deliver service and the outright lies from their customer service agents (I actually had one customer service agent tell me point blank that the last agent I had talked to had lied to me). Again, some locations will see better service than others.
Before the ATT merger, Cingular (wireless) and SBC (landline) were essentially the same company. Cingular was majority owned by SBC. SBC was equally, if not moreso, hated and I belive had been fined by several states for their business practices. SBC is, in my opinion, the root of the "bad" in today's ATT.
I also don't think that Cingular "agreed it would rebrand itself." I think they purchased ATT, in part, to get the name. The ATT brand, overall, still had a good reputation. SBC (hated) purchased the ATT landline business, and Cingular (hated, at least by me) purchased the ATT Wireless business. They took on the name of the companies they purchased in order to rid themselves of the stimga of their original company names.
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
ATT could put restrictions on the iPhone with almost no penalty to anyone but Apple. Apple can't go to Verizon nor Sprint the only US option would be TMobile. The fanbois will attack saying the iPhone can't be damaged or hurt but it certainly can be if its one of the only smartphones that comes with usage restrictions.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
One of the things Apple seemed to be adamant about when finding a carrier is the unlimited data plan, which was originally $20/month. This was a damn good price. AT&T has messed up quite a bit but the success of the iPhone and the inability to stay ahead of the data usage they incur on average simply isn?t one I?d scold them for. I don?t think anyone would have predicted just how good the iPhone would be at making mobile internet so easy.
If AT&T is at feualt it?s for not prepping their network years earlier and for not having a higher ETF fee for a device they are reportedly paying $300 to Apple for. I have made quite a bit of money off AT&T by buying iPhones which I then cancel, unlock and sell online. I?ve also been using tethering from AT&T for 3 seasons which I would be more than happy to pay for if they offered it as an option, but they don?t. First it was there in the Beta with no restrictions, then it was simply a carrier profile, no jailbreaking required, now it requires a jailbreak but it?s still doable.
If they offer tethering for $30/month I?ll pay for it as I understand it?s not part of the contract I signed, but if they won?t I?ll find convenient ways to get it with or without their permission. I think a lot of people are in that same boat. They really do seem to be clueless in their business methods.
This point has little to do with net neutrality (what's going over the pipe). This is just false advertising at it's worse (how much travels down the pipe).
If AT&T didn't need to concern themselves with what people were doing, just how much data was being used, there would be no issue. But they are trying to sell a services as well as provide the infrastructure for those services.
Where it does concern net neutrality is that these two things should be completely separate business-wise. Company A to roll out towers, fiber, repeaters, etc, and sell that as a service in $/Tbs or whatever pricing convention. Then Company B to sell you voice/data service while leasing throughput from Company A. Company B might then be able to lease more throughput from Company C, if Company A can't keep up. It would allow more people into the associated markets, and spur competition.
I have astronomical monthly bills from them for my family. and to be blunt. the overcharging for SMS, data and phone service.
so... when they are crying about not being able to expand their income above their current rates... when they make billions and their billions are expected to rise???
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
What about downloading the apps over wifi? There already is a limit on size, where if the app is too large it needs to come down over wifi, or to your computer first then synced. A lot of these applications don't even use cell data service thereafter. I think it is just AT&T making a mountain out of a mole hill until they can repair their years of neglect of their infrastructure.
Verizon didn't want this phone because they are trying to get to LTE before people started using a phone as capable as the iPhone on their CDMA network. Every carrier in the US is behind, and to be honest I don't think, given the circumstances, AT&T is doing that horrible of a job getting their asses in gear.
Hopefully this is the wake up call they all need to get the US up to speed. I still honestly think it requires separation, through law, but whatever. If it isn't done that way, and they do catch up, the bad PR goes away and the networks become stagnant again in 10 years. If they are separated, and true competition is the driving force of innovation, consumers should see better (read dropping) pricing and better service over time.
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.
What are you comparing our land mass and population to?
Europe has a larger area to cover. Their population is also double that of the US, which makes more sense than your explanation as to why it's expensive to roll out networks in the US.
You are right about the landline system, although I highly doubt many European cell phone customers didn't have a landline previously.
AT&T invests billions in their wireless network, but they also make billions in revenue, so I'm quite unsure about your point.
As others have stated, there are a lot more people using iPhones who don't need the data network and don't really use it and are forced to pay $30/month than there are people illicitly tethering.
Go into an at&t store and see how many phones don't require a data plan of any kind. It's like 4 phones. There are basic texting phones that require a $15/month texting plan. It's ridiculous.
AT&T wants to complain, but there prices are double that of T-Mobile for the same service, which has been investing more money in their network than anyone else lately. T-Mobile has about the same coverage as AT&T as well, which means you're pretty much retarded if you buy an iPhone over an UNLOCKED Nokia N900 on T-Mobile.
If AT&T didn't need to concern themselves with what people were doing, just how much data was being used, there would be no issue. But they are trying to sell a services as well as provide the infrastructure for those services.
Where it does concern net neutrality is that these two things should be completely separate business-wise. Company A to roll out towers, fiber, repeaters, etc, and sell that as a service in $/Tbs or whatever pricing convention. Then Company B to sell you voice/data service while leasing throughput from Company A. Company B might then be able to lease more throughput from Company C, if Company A can't keep up. It would allow more people into the associated markets, and spur competition.
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
I highly doubt any carrier would refuse the iPhone. If they demanded a cut from the app store, Apple would simply refuse. The amount of subscribers the iPhone can bring in is far too appealing for anyone to refuse, even with its now legitimate competitors.
Sprint is going to disappear or be bought out, and you shouldn't discount T-Mobile. They are a prime candidate for the iPhone. Their 3G network is new, but expanding rapidly, and they could possibly buy Sprint. They may be the smallest carrier, but they have a lot of money to invest from their German parent.
And for any of you who think Apple wouldn't be willing to produce a CDMA iPhone, I think that's just not the case.
Verizon has control issues, but they have the Droid, which has free turn-by-turn directions (competing directly with $5/month VZNavigator) and if I'm correct its own Android app store.
Comments
Verizon's advantage is that Verizon Wireless is a separate company that is owned by Verizon and Vodafone.
That is actually a disadvantage. Verizon Wireless has two different companies (Verizon and Vodaphone) who must mutually agree to all strategic and capital decisions....while at the same time, trying to ensure the success of their own companies. No company wants to be in that position.
"At this time, we are gather more information regarding the data limits. Once we have more information regarding the issue, all customers will be advised. I apologize for the frustration this has caused."
Well, there you have it...
That is actually a disadvantage. Verizon Wireless has two different companies (Verizon and Vodaphone) who must mutually agree to all strategic and capital decisions....while at the same time, trying to ensure the success of their own companies. No company wants to be in that position.
Every other public company has a board of directors that does the same thing. It's no different...
Every other public company has a board of directors that does the same thing. It's no different...
Ahh...but now you have two boards.
That is actually a disadvantage. Verizon Wireless has two different companies (Verizon and Vodaphone) who must mutually agree to all strategic and capital decisions....while at the same time, trying to ensure the success of their own companies. No company wants to be in that position.
So they compete against themselves. I like it. It drives them to be better internally.
Ahh...but now you have two boards.
Except Verizon owns 55% and Vodafone 45%. So Verizon actually controls it.
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.
I don't buy the "AT&T were duped by Apple and too ignorant to see this coming" excuse. When you get in bed with Apple, you can expect fireworks with their products. Why would they fight to continue exclusivity if they were a victim of this?
If it's such a burden for AT&T, then they should avoid renewing any future exclusive agreements, and just let the other carriers shoulder this burden on their own networks. Then everyone will be happy.
In Canada, Rogers has issues but no where near the issues that AT&T struggles with. 6GB was unlimited when the iPhone first came out in Canada. And to +90% iPhone users that is unlimited/overkill. They then now have packages like mine where I spend $80 CND a month with my "extras" (voicemail, caller ID etc) and I have a 500MB a month data plan included. I have more than I need and if you need the 6GB or more you can pay more.
AT&T needs to start charging those who use /abuse the network accordingly and those who don't less. This will allow them to gain more revenue and continue to upgrade their network.
AT&T needs to stop getting people to make excuses for them and smarten up already. You have had iPhones for how long? Why is Canada flourishing in the iPhone market (All major carriers now can have iPhones) and AT&T is killing the US market?
Rogers had the benefit of knowing what the average data consumption was after nearly a year's usage by AT&T iPhone customers. Based on that, Rogers' first published data plan was $30 for 400 MB. Only after a some screaming did Rogers offer the 6 GB limit as part of the iPhone introduction and only in the first 3 months. It should be noted that Rogers attempted to suggest that the 400 MBs was more than sufficient, but virtually only a handful would accept their reasoning because of AT&T's unlimited offering.
As such, most countries have limited data plans and basically let you use it however you wish. Want to tether. Go for it. It comes off your data plan. Go over, pay extra. Do it too many times, update your contract. AT&T however, got hit the most. They and neither did anybody else have any idea what the iPhone was capable of doing or the effect that it would eventually have on the network. Perhaps Jobs did, but nobody, accept us fanboys, would believe him.
In Canada, Rogers' competitors realized that without GSM/3G systems they could just as well forget it. However, unlike the US, their systems were easier, if possible, to change/update, and they readily did so.
Is AT&T killing the market? Well without AT&T agreeing with Jobs, i.e., significantly upgrade their network and reduce their existing data plan charges, there would be no US market to kill.
What everybody has forgotten, was that Jobs' biggest issue with cell phones in the beginning was that they didn't work well, if at all, as a viable 'telephone. Talk about dropped calls, poor connections or no connections. It was the norm.
Back in the 80's/90's and even after the turn of the century, it was easy to tell your spouse that you couldn't call to say that you were late because of a business meeting or that unfortunately you got disconnected going under a bridge. Today, of course, she can go online and see exactly where you are. And unless the name of your meeting place is 'Under the Bridge', you best stop for roses on the way home.
That isn?t true. AT&T has been upgrading their network at a rate of billions per year since before the iPhone launched.
ATT could put restrictions on the iPhone with almost no penalty to anyone but Apple. Apple can't go to Verizon nor Sprint the only US option would be TMobile. The fanbois will attack saying the iPhone can't be damaged or hurt but it certainly can be if its one of the only smartphones that comes with usage restrictions.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
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.
I don't mind that you disagree, but I don't think you are correct. A lot of our fiber went dark when the providers were bitching that they spent money on it, but had too much bandwidth, and no service to use it. So they stopped rolling it out. Now that they have been neglecting the backbone too long, they are trying to catch up, and spending money. AT&T gripes about $18 billion spent to upgrade. What's to say they shouldn't have been spending $5 billion per year over 10 years to keep up with innovation?
In my reading, every other country that has surpassed the US in throughput both wired and wirelessly has legislated the separation of content from the backbone. This would mean AT&T could focus on new technology, 100Gb+ routers, Tbps links and such, and not have to worry about selling someone voice service.
Just because they decided to neglect the development dollars-wise doesn't mean they aren't spending money to fix it now, it just means they haven't spent enough on upgrades over time to keep up. Splitting them up to be a phone company separate from a cell-tower company wouldn't hurt consumers, IMO.
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.
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Obviously, back then, like today, your experience is going to vary depending on location, etc. I had Cingular long before the merger with ATT, and I can assure you that Cingular's service in my area was just as crappy at ATT's reputation is today. I paid the early termination fee to get out of my contract due to their utter failure to deliver service and the outright lies from their customer service agents (I actually had one customer service agent tell me point blank that the last agent I had talked to had lied to me). Again, some locations will see better service than others.
Before the ATT merger, Cingular (wireless) and SBC (landline) were essentially the same company. Cingular was majority owned by SBC. SBC was equally, if not moreso, hated and I belive had been fined by several states for their business practices. SBC is, in my opinion, the root of the "bad" in today's ATT.
I also don't think that Cingular "agreed it would rebrand itself." I think they purchased ATT, in part, to get the name. The ATT brand, overall, still had a good reputation. SBC (hated) purchased the ATT landline business, and Cingular (hated, at least by me) purchased the ATT Wireless business. They took on the name of the companies they purchased in order to rid themselves of the stimga of their original company names.
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
ATT could put restrictions on the iPhone with almost no penalty to anyone but Apple. Apple can't go to Verizon nor Sprint the only US option would be TMobile. The fanbois will attack saying the iPhone can't be damaged or hurt but it certainly can be if its one of the only smartphones that comes with usage restrictions.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
One of the things Apple seemed to be adamant about when finding a carrier is the unlimited data plan, which was originally $20/month. This was a damn good price. AT&T has messed up quite a bit but the success of the iPhone and the inability to stay ahead of the data usage they incur on average simply isn?t one I?d scold them for. I don?t think anyone would have predicted just how good the iPhone would be at making mobile internet so easy.
If AT&T is at feualt it?s for not prepping their network years earlier and for not having a higher ETF fee for a device they are reportedly paying $300 to Apple for. I have made quite a bit of money off AT&T by buying iPhones which I then cancel, unlock and sell online. I?ve also been using tethering from AT&T for 3 seasons which I would be more than happy to pay for if they offered it as an option, but they don?t. First it was there in the Beta with no restrictions, then it was simply a carrier profile, no jailbreaking required, now it requires a jailbreak but it?s still doable.
If they offer tethering for $30/month I?ll pay for it as I understand it?s not part of the contract I signed, but if they won?t I?ll find convenient ways to get it with or without their permission. I think a lot of people are in that same boat. They really do seem to be clueless in their business methods.
This point has little to do with net neutrality (what's going over the pipe). This is just false advertising at it's worse (how much travels down the pipe).
If AT&T didn't need to concern themselves with what people were doing, just how much data was being used, there would be no issue. But they are trying to sell a services as well as provide the infrastructure for those services.
Where it does concern net neutrality is that these two things should be completely separate business-wise. Company A to roll out towers, fiber, repeaters, etc, and sell that as a service in $/Tbs or whatever pricing convention. Then Company B to sell you voice/data service while leasing throughput from Company A. Company B might then be able to lease more throughput from Company C, if Company A can't keep up. It would allow more people into the associated markets, and spur competition.
I have astronomical monthly bills from them for my family. and to be blunt. the overcharging for SMS, data and phone service.
so... when they are crying about not being able to expand their income above their current rates... when they make billions and their billions are expected to rise???
cmon. AT&T sucks! so do most cell carriers.
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
What about downloading the apps over wifi? There already is a limit on size, where if the app is too large it needs to come down over wifi, or to your computer first then synced. A lot of these applications don't even use cell data service thereafter. I think it is just AT&T making a mountain out of a mole hill until they can repair their years of neglect of their infrastructure.
Verizon didn't want this phone because they are trying to get to LTE before people started using a phone as capable as the iPhone on their CDMA network. Every carrier in the US is behind, and to be honest I don't think, given the circumstances, AT&T is doing that horrible of a job getting their asses in gear.
Hopefully this is the wake up call they all need to get the US up to speed. I still honestly think it requires separation, through law, but whatever. If it isn't done that way, and they do catch up, the bad PR goes away and the networks become stagnant again in 10 years. If they are separated, and true competition is the driving force of innovation, consumers should see better (read dropping) pricing and better service over time.
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.
What are you comparing our land mass and population to?
Europe has a larger area to cover. Their population is also double that of the US, which makes more sense than your explanation as to why it's expensive to roll out networks in the US.
You are right about the landline system, although I highly doubt many European cell phone customers didn't have a landline previously.
AT&T invests billions in their wireless network, but they also make billions in revenue, so I'm quite unsure about your point.
As others have stated, there are a lot more people using iPhones who don't need the data network and don't really use it and are forced to pay $30/month than there are people illicitly tethering.
Go into an at&t store and see how many phones don't require a data plan of any kind. It's like 4 phones. There are basic texting phones that require a $15/month texting plan. It's ridiculous.
AT&T wants to complain, but there prices are double that of T-Mobile for the same service, which has been investing more money in their network than anyone else lately. T-Mobile has about the same coverage as AT&T as well, which means you're pretty much retarded if you buy an iPhone over an UNLOCKED Nokia N900 on T-Mobile.
If AT&T didn't need to concern themselves with what people were doing, just how much data was being used, there would be no issue. But they are trying to sell a services as well as provide the infrastructure for those services.
Where it does concern net neutrality is that these two things should be completely separate business-wise. Company A to roll out towers, fiber, repeaters, etc, and sell that as a service in $/Tbs or whatever pricing convention. Then Company B to sell you voice/data service while leasing throughput from Company A. Company B might then be able to lease more throughput from Company C, if Company A can't keep up. It would allow more people into the associated markets, and spur competition.
Most towers are already owned by other companies
When I used to fly, there was a saying we would think to ourselves when we encountered the occasional "righteous" ATC controller and that saying was... "Am I up here because you're down there or are you down there because I'm up here?!"
AT&T needs to look at it that way... Is AT&T (or any other network carrier) here because of the iPhone (or other smart app phone) or did the iPhone come into being because the network carrier infrastructure was already here?!
If I were AT&T I wouldn't be worried about subsidizing Apple's iPhone. I would be negotiating the percentage of profit made from Apple's store of the apps that will make Apple profit for being purchased and downloaded and yet cost us, AT&T, money to meet the ever increasing demand of bandwidth requirements (which some say sucked royally ever before an app phone ever arrived but that is beside the point and is neither here nor there).
If Apple balks, where are they going to go? The smaller networks of T-Mobile or Sprint? The same headstrong control issues in going with Verizon? What if all the carriers said fine, you have an app store that WE have to accommodate in the end, you are going to pay us.
If I were AT&T, I wouldn't worry about losing the iPhone, I'd be contracting with Apple a proper deal regarding the subsequent requirements their app phone has placed on the network that in all honesty were not there prior to June 2008 with the iPhone 3G and the intro of the app store, let alone June 2009 for the iPhone 3Gs!
AT&T can say to Apple, if they don't want to fairly pay for utilization of the network, build your own or rent! One way or another...
That's what I'd say if I were AT&T and the iPhone exclusivity contract was about to end and after looking at what hooking up with an "App Phone" truly costs us to support it... but that's just me... And if roles were reversed and Steve was AT&T and AT&T was Apple, you'd know Steve would be demanding the same thing!
I highly doubt any carrier would refuse the iPhone. If they demanded a cut from the app store, Apple would simply refuse. The amount of subscribers the iPhone can bring in is far too appealing for anyone to refuse, even with its now legitimate competitors.
Sprint is going to disappear or be bought out, and you shouldn't discount T-Mobile. They are a prime candidate for the iPhone. Their 3G network is new, but expanding rapidly, and they could possibly buy Sprint. They may be the smallest carrier, but they have a lot of money to invest from their German parent.
And for any of you who think Apple wouldn't be willing to produce a CDMA iPhone, I think that's just not the case.
Verizon has control issues, but they have the Droid, which has free turn-by-turn directions (competing directly with $5/month VZNavigator) and if I'm correct its own Android app store.