[olePigeon]

So cell phone companies screw over customers by advertising "unlimited data," but unlimited in the different types of data you can download, not by how much. Yeah. Data is just 1s and 0s, so I guess with an unlimited data plan, you get both the 1s and the 0s. Otherwise you'll only receive 1s.

Anyway, so AT&T is going to start charging extra money for people who download movies or stream music on their phones.

Since they'll be differentiating between different types of data, it's no longer unlimited data since it excludes music and videos.

I guess they'll call it "unlimited interwebs," or lobby the Congress to change the definition of "unlimited."

[imitchellg5]

How can they distinguish between the two?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

How can they distinguish between the two?

Why do they have to? They just look at the data usage and just assume the person is downloading video and streaming audio.

This is AT&T. Like Comcast, they claim that less than 3% of their users are screwing up the network for everyone else. Somehow they didn't realize that overselling an infrastructure that can't even support 3% of their userbase would pose a problem.

[stevesnj]

So if data is reduced than the price in my data plan will go down too....right?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

So if data is reduced than the price in my data plan will go down too....right?

Of course. *Snicker*

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

So if data is reduced than the price in my data plan will go down too....right?

If the data is reduced that means they're providing you with superior service, so obviously that means you should be charged even more.

[SpaceMonkey]

To clarify things, they should declare "short tube" and "long tube" rates. I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that using longer tubes is more expensive.

[olePigeon]

It's not just the length, but the diameter of the tubes. Bigger tubes are more expensive, too.

[Chuckit]

Fake Steve Jobs had a great piece on AT&T. Choice quote from his "conversation" with the AT&T CEO:

And when I say that “we” have a hit on our hands, I’m really giving you way too much credit, because let’s be honest, the success of iPhone has nothing to do with you. In fact, iPhone is a smash hit in spite of your network, not because of it. That’s how good we are here at Apple — we’re so good that even you and your team of Bell System frigtards can’t stop us. You know what it’s like being your business partner? It’s like trying to swim the English Channel with a boat anchor tied to my legs. And yes, in case you’re not following me, in that analogy, you, my friend, are the ****ing boat anchor.

[olePigeon]

It's funny because it's true.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Fake Steve Jobs had a great piece on AT&T. Choice quote from his "conversation" with the AT&T CEO:

OMG ROFLMAO

[mduell]

They'll just redefine unlimited to apply to connection time instead of data transfer, like some broadband companies have.

Although from the bleating of iPhone users it sounds like AT&T can't even deliver that.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Fake Steve Jobs had a great piece on AT&T. Choice quote from his "conversation" with the AT&T CEO:

And when I say that “we” have a hit on our hands, I’m really giving you way too much credit, because let’s be honest, the success of iPhone has nothing to do with you. In fact, iPhone is a smash hit in spite of your network, not because of it. That’s how good we are here at Apple — we’re so good that even you and your team of Bell System frigtards can’t stop us. You know what it’s like being your business partner? It’s like trying to swim the English Channel with a boat anchor tied to my legs. And yes, in case you’re not following me, in that analogy, you, my friend, are the ****ing boat anchor.

Unfortunately, it turns out that AT&T has a much better network than Verizon, and the only thing that f*cks it up is the iPhone and its mediocre “air interface".

Originally Posted by NYT

Despite the well-publicized problems in New York and San Francisco, AT&T seems to have the superior network nationwide.

And the iPhone itself may not be so great after all. Its design is contributing to performance problems.

Roger Entner, senior vice president for telecommunications research at Nielsen, said the iPhone’s “air interface,” the electronics in the phone that connect it to the cell towers, had shortcomings that “affect both voice and data.” He said that in the eyes of the consumer, “the iPhone has the nimbus of infallibility, ergo, it’s AT&T’s fault.” AT&T does not publicly defend itself because it will not criticize Apple under any circumstances, he said.

-t

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Unfortunately, it turns out that AT&T has a much better network than Verizon, and the only thing that f*cks it up is the iPhone and its mediocre “air interface".

Claim that crappy iPhone service is Apple's fault is bunkum (Updated)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Unfortunately, it turns out that AT&T has a much better network than Verizon, and the only thing that f*cks it up is the iPhone and its mediocre “air interface".



-t

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13digi.html

If it were the iPhone limiting iPhone users' ability to use their phones, AT&T wouldn't have to keep adding on more restrictions to make it harder, would they? Do you really think they're so dedicated to pretending that their network is crap and they're a lousy company that they'll antagonize their customers to prove it?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Claim that crappy iPhone service is Apple's fault is bunkum (Updated)

NOT.

Did you read the update from Ars ?

UPDATE: We have had a number of readers comment on the forums and directly via e-mail that the problems experienced by AT&T customers in the US aren't experienced elsewhere, including the UK. However, a reader pointed us to this CNET UK editorial complaining about dropped calls and lousy service in dense areas of the UK.

An source—who requested we not reveal his identity—told Ars that the problem isn't the cell radio hardware, nor the network infrustructure, but an issue with the way that the iPhone OS conserves power. All iPhone apps, including Phone.app, cause the radio to switch from "active" to "idle" mode when accessing the network far more often than traditional phones do. This causes the signaling channel, responsible for such functions as SMS messaging, initiating, maintaining, or ending a phone call, voicemail notifications, and DHCP requests, to become overloaded.

"This can lead to odd effects," the source told Ars. "For example, you could be in an area with perfect 5-bar reception, but because the signalling channel is overloaded your phone won't ring and calls go into voicemail." Our source also said that the iPhone was the first phone to cause this particular problem, but that Android and webOS phones have had a similar effect.

The original Ars article is really shallow and bad. They have no arguments against those brought by the NYT other than "consumer survey".

Well, guess what: most 3G users on AT&T use iPhones, so any consumer survey will show issues; however, this doesn't tell you jack abut the root of the problem.

-t

[Chuckit]

I think the point that nobody on other carriers notices the same problems is pretty freakin' compelling. Or is Apple's hardware flawed in a way that — magically — is only exercised on AT&T?

All the NYT has to accuse Apple is one guy from Nielsen, a group that is barely competent to count TV viewership. Otherwise, all evidence, logic and reason suggest that while the iPhone isn't perfect, AT&T's network is a bigger problem.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Otherwise, all evidence, logic and reason suggest that while the iPhone isn't perfect, AT&T's network is a bigger problem.

What evidence ?

Again, the only "evidence" is consumer surveys. They don't mean sh!t, because they can't eliminate the iPhone as a problem.

-t

[Rumor]

Nor can they prove the iPhone as the problem, right?

IIRC, it isn't only iPhone users that suffer issues with the network.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Nor can they prove the iPhone as the problem, right?

Did you read the article ?

They used other equipment than iPhones and found that AT&T's network is better than Verizon's.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What evidence ?

Again, the only "evidence" is consumer surveys. They don't mean sh!t, because they can't eliminate the iPhone as a problem.

-t

Saying that the iPhone is the problem — but only when it's in the US connected to AT&T's network — is like saying that pants are clearly dangerous because if you stab yourself in the throat with a knife while wearing them, you'll probably die.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Saying that the iPhone is the problem — but only when it's in the US connected to AT&T's network — is like saying that pants are clearly dangerous because if you stab yourself in the throat with a knife while wearing them, you'll probably die.

You guys are killing me. Did you read the update ?

Yes, I give you that this is all very preliminary and anecdotal, but it seems like there is more at play than just AT&T's network.

-t

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Did you read the article ?

They used other equipment than iPhones and found that AT&T's network is better than Verizon's.

-t

Did you read your own article quote?

[turtle777]

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You guys are killing me. Did you read the update ?

Yes, the update said that, while the iPhone has a few technical niggles shared by smartphones on other carriers, those other carriers — and iPhone carriers in other countries — don't appear to have as big of a problem as AT&T. Which is, y'know, what I said.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, the update said that, while the iPhone has a few technical niggles shared by smartphones on other carriers, those other carriers — and iPhone carriers in other countries — don't appear to have as big of a problem as AT&T. Which is, y'know, what I said.

The last conclusion, is - again - just something Ars made up.

It's not based on facts other than consumer surveys. Hardly "facts" if hardware issues in the devices are at play.

-t

[Rumor]

Then you admit that your opinion is based on speculation and not fact? Which is fine.

[Rumor]

Ug, I misread a few post. Excuse me. Been doing a little bit of drinking tonight.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Then you admit that your opinion is based on speculation and not fact? Which is fine.

Yes, I admit that at this point, we don't have enough facts to arrive at a final conclusion.

However, the fact "consumer survey" seems to be useless because it can't determine at all if the problem is with the network, or the device, or both.

The other "facts" at least try to separate the network from the device, and find out how issues in either one could cause the problems.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The last conclusion, is - again - just something Ars made up.

It's not based on facts other than consumer surveys. Hardly "facts" if hardware issues in the devices are at play.

-t

You're going to have to spell out that reasoning. Because right now it looks like "The phone isn't 100% perfect, so just about every survey ever done has somehow magically come out making AT&T — but not other carriers — look bad even though that isn't the case." Which is what we in the logicking field call a non sequitur. Even if there are problems with the phone, we should be able to factor out those problems when considering complaints about AT&T vs. iPhone carriers in other countries, as well as AT&T vs. other carriers whose smartphones are afflicted with the same problem.

In other words, there's no reason these defects should make AT&T look bad in comparison to other iPhone carriers. There's even less reason why these defects should lead AT&T to talk about choking people's bandwidth if AT&T's network is actually totally fine.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Even if there are problems with the phone, we should be able to factor out those problems when considering complaints about AT&T vs. iPhone carriers in other countries, as well as AT&T vs. other carriers whose smartphones are afflicted with the same problem.

Which, as Ars said, are starting to trickle in. But I admit, it's way too early to come to a final conclusion.

-t

[Eriamjh]

For example, you could be in an area with perfect 5-bar reception, but because the signalling channel is overloaded your phone won't ring and calls go into voicemail.

I've experienced this problem. No idea if the phone was the root cause, but I live in an area with great reception, decent 3G throughput, but every now and then my phone doesn't ring and I get the voicemail 5 hours later. WTF!

It's still a great phone.

AT&T needs to be careful. If they try to tell all current iPhone subscribers that their unlimited plan has a cap, that would be a terms of service change and then they could leave without an ETF, taking their subsidized phones with them. Bad idea. Not to mention that if they tried it, there would be a class action lawsuit over the term "unlimited" and how it isn't.

AT&T just needs to shut up for a while and work on improving its network or how the iPhone works with it. Smartphones and mobile data are here to stay and it is only going to get worse. You can't unscramble eggs, AT&T. You can't put a cap on an unlimited plan without getting sued.

Steve's blood must be boiling. I hope he's chilled out a little.

[shifuimam]

Does anyone have a link to the original article about AT&T charging more for certain kinds of data?

Nevermind, here's one:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...ata-usage.html

It's not all that surprising. How exactly is AT&T supposed to deal with the inordinate amount of traffic coming from users who are convinced their iPhone is a replacement for a notebook computer?

[starman]

This has been getting a lot of buzz. I don't completely agree with it:

The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs : Operation Chokehold

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not all that surprising. How exactly is AT&T supposed to deal with the inordinate amount of traffic coming from users who are convinced their iPhone is a replacement for a notebook computer?

You say that as though the fact that many people are successfully using their iPhones as replacements for notebooks means they're wrong to think it's possible...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not all that surprising. How exactly is AT&T supposed to deal with the inordinate amount of traffic coming from users who are convinced their iPhone is a replacement for a notebook computer?

Isn't that like Linux having to deal with people who are convinced it would make a decent server? THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.

[The Final Dakar]

As its been noted on this forum several times before, they differentiate between SMS and data, s why not video and music too, eh?

[starman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

How exactly is AT&T supposed to deal with the inordinate amount of traffic coming from users who are convinced their iPhone is a replacement for a notebook computer?

Silly users....using their tools for what they were designed to do.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not all that surprising. How exactly is AT&T supposed to deal with the inordinate amount of traffic coming from users who are convinced their iPhone is a replacement for a notebook computer?

I think a good start would be to not oversell their network and offer services they can't deliver for even 3% of their userbase.

AT&T sells their product to be used with actual laptops. Now AT&T complains that when people actually use their product, they can't support it.

Comcast does the exact same thing. They oversell their already saturated network, then when people actually use the service they paid for, Comcast deals with it by limiting users' bandwidth. If you actually use 70% of the total bandwidth that you already paid for for 15 minutes, Comcast will throttle your connection down to 25% of your total bandwidth until you stop.

It's a freakin' scam.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think the point that nobody on other carriers notices the same problems is pretty freakin' compelling. Or is Apple's hardware flawed in a way that — magically — is only exercised on AT&T?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Saying that the iPhone is the problem — but only when it's in the US connected to AT&T's network

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, the update said that, while the iPhone has a few technical niggles shared by smartphones on other carriers, those other carriers — and iPhone carriers in other countries — don't appear to have as big of a problem as AT&T. Which is, y'know, what I said.

I guess you missed: However, a reader pointed us to this CNET UK editorial complaining about dropped calls and lousy service in dense areas of the UK.

What network other than AT&T has the same density or absolute number of iPhones?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think a good start would be to not oversell their network and offer services they can't deliver for even 3% of their userbase.

AT&T sells their product to be used with actual laptops. Now AT&T complains that when people actually use their product, they can't support it.

Comcast does the exact same thing. They oversell their already saturated network, then when people actually use the service they paid for, Comcast deals with it by limiting users' bandwidth. If you actually use 70% of the total bandwidth that you already paid for for 15 minutes, Comcast will throttle your connection down to 25% of your total bandwidth until you stop.

It's a freakin' scam.

Without oversubscription you'd be paying $1000/mo. Or getting EDGE speeds on 3G connections.

[Arty50]

It's not the phone, it's the network.

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

I've experienced this problem. No idea if the phone was the root cause, but I live in an area with great reception, decent 3G throughput, but every now and then my phone doesn't ring and I get the voicemail 5 hours later. WTF!

I've been with Cingular/AT&T for the past 8 years or so. I started out on a Nokia, moved to a Motorola, and then had a Sony Ericcson phone before I got my iPhone. I've used the phones extensively throughout the western US in that time period. On all of the phones I've had voicemail come in a day or two after the message was left. Once involving a very important message, which led to some very unnecessary drama.

I've experienced dropped calls and lack of service in major areas on all of the phones. The problems have never been terrible though, and I've always just accepted it as part of having a cell phone. My iPhone is no worse than any of the phones I had from the other manufacturers. In fact, I'd say it's a little better.

I'd also like to add that whenever these article come up, there are always Verizon users who chime in to say that they have dropped calls also. A lot of it just depends on what city you're in and which carrier has invested more in building out their network there.

What I do take issue with is the fact that I'm paying $10 more a month than 2G users for a 3G network that isn't being built out. At this point, I'd rather have the option of paying $20 for EDGE since that's what I get a good chunk of the time.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Without oversubscription you'd be paying $1000/mo. Or getting EDGE speeds on 3G connections.

No, it wouldn't. AT&T is incompetent, greedy, and lazy. We (as in the tax payers) paid them the money to upgrade their infrastructure to fiber. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. took that money, but the Congress was too retarded to put any restrictions on the telecommunications act. So instead of being required to lay down fiber like they were supposed to, all of them laid down the cheapest crap they could find (which was most often unshielded copper pairs) then pocketed the rest. Cisco Systems even approached the major telecoms at that time and argued with them; if they're going to lay down copper, might as well do ethernet as it can carry any combination of data, analog, even power. They all said no.

Meanwhile in other developing industries, they're laying down fiber as the groundwork for their telecommunications system. Something AT&T was supposed to do, but didn't. Thailand, Japan, even China are starting to offer 100+ Mbit synchronous internet access at around US $20/month.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

We (as in the tax payers) paid them the money to upgrade their infrastructure to fiber. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. took that money, but the Congress was too retarded to put any restrictions on the telecommunications act. So instead of being required to lay down fiber like they were supposed to, all of them laid down the cheapest crap they could find (which was most often unshielded copper pairs) then pocketed the rest.

That's exactly what happened. Try offering free wireless and they sue to stop you saying it's anti-competitive.

I recently read that a city was going to convert to fiber then the phone company suddenly came in and installed it themselves so as not to lose the customers. I need to do that.

Want 50Mbps Internet in your town? Threaten to roll out your own

[olePigeon]

In a few cities (I think one was a suburb in New York), they attempted to roll out municipal fiber internet. They were going to get 250 channels, 10Mbit synchronous internet (which would eventually be upgraded to 100Mbit), and digital voice for $45/month.

AT&T came charging in and sued the city, claiming the government is not allowed to compete with private industry. AT&T won, and the project was canceled. Now they get to enjoy overpriced, sh*tty ADSL and cable. Oh joy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

AT&T came charging in and sued the city, claiming the government is not allowed to compete with private industry. AT&T won, and the project was canceled. Now they get to enjoy overpriced, sh*tty ADSL and cable. Oh joy.

Probably rightfully so.

Just because a city is providing it doesn't mean it's free. It's tax payer funded, and nobody knows what the real cost of this would be.
Even more, nobody knows what kind of pork financed this project. For all we know, the cost to the tax payer could have been much more than what it cost AT&T to provide the service.

And ultimately: why the FARK does the government need to provide this kind of stuff ? Haven't we learned the lesson yet that government mingling *ALWAYS* distorts the markets, and *NEVER* makes them more efficient.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Thailand, Japan, even China are starting to offer 100+ Mbit synchronous internet access at around US $20/month.

How is this cheap / affordable for China and Thailand, where $20 is more than a blue collar worker's DAILY wages ?

-t

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And ultimately: why the FARK does the government need to provide this kind of stuff ? Haven't we learned the lesson yet that government mingling *ALWAYS* distorts the markets, and *NEVER* makes them more efficient.

Because telecom service is NOT a market. Normally, there's only one provider to your home. Cable has stepped up to the plate with phone service in recent years, but cable companies are hardly known for their customer service. Many Americans have access to one or two companies at the most. Also remember that cable companies and telcos have essential monopolies due to the infrastructure that's required to get cable/copper/fiber to your house. That's not a market. A true market would be filled with many players all competing on price and service.

Please don't ever call local phone, internet, and pay TV a market. It's not. That's a friggen' joke.

[turtle777]

Huh ? Not a market ?

Count in VoIP, and you can get "local" phone from tons of providers.
Plus, cell phones have become a real option, many people are dropping land lines for cell phones.

So yeah, "communication" is a friggin market, and there are tons of options.

No need for the government to fix anything.

-t

[Rumor]

VoIP doesn't count since it requires internet access, which is usually provided by two companies.

Ex: We have Comcast and AT&T here. Other DSL companies aren't primary providers but actually buy bandwidth at wholesale from AT&T. Same shitty package, different wrapping.

Now, I am not saying the government should become an ISP of sorts, but I sure would love more options than I have now. It is either horrid speed for cheap or decent speed for expensive.

Though it does look like the Feds may become involved, and hopefully for the better, and not become a cluster **** of ISP companies quitting areas because they can't rip people off the way they usually do.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

VoIP doesn't count since it requires internet access, which is usually provided by two companies.

DSL, cable, 3G, satellite. The options are plentiful.

And if not, move somewhere else.

It's not the governments fault / job to fix your own choices of living in bumf*ck nowhere.

-t