What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- MyquiH, on 10/11/2007, -10/+80It's worth noting that most of those data (Internet/WiFi) and email restrictions are verbiage required by RIM/Blackberry. You'll find that all providers that sell Blackberry service have the same stipulations on any data device (Blackberry, Windows Mobile, and AT&T w/ the iPhone). While AT&T is more evil than most providers, the real evil here is RIM attempting to squash communications technology to strong arm users into using RIM's infrastructure.
Also, supposedly AT&T is not currently enforcing many of these policies -- they are reserved for "abusers". However, it's completely unclear as to how you become an "abuser", at which time you'll get hammered with a weepable cell phone bill with little recourse to fight back.- oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Your right that blackberry's do have the same billing "features" but they are business implements, the iPhone was supposed to be a consumer product not something your boss gives you. Why in the name of zombie jesus did apple choose AT&T?
- MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Why in the name of zombie jesus did apple choose AT&T?
Thats already well known. Apple went shopping around for a carrier who would upgrade their service for the visual voicemail feature. Everyone other major carrier refused the offer. Cingular was the only one interested, AT&T bought Cingular and thus the Apple contract. Every other carrier is now crying itself to sleep.- hightower77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, no, no! at&t did not buy Cingular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cingular- SirBotchness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2AT&T splits, SBC and BellSouth are part of that. They form making cingular, cingular buys AT&T for the name, and now you've got AT&T back at the top of the game. regardless of how you spin it, AT&T is becoming a monopoly again.
- hightower77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I fail to see how this constitutes a monopoly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_telephone_companies
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I really doubt that every other carrier is 'crying themselves to sleep'. It's not like other carriers didn't have the foresight to see that the iphone was going to be a huge success. But considering that potential they still were unhappy with apple's offering. In a few years the iphone will undoubtably be on all major carriers. The iphone is a short term cash in for AT&T but in the long run I really doubt it will make or break any of the other carriers. Besides any customer that will change phone plans just for a cool phone is not likely to be a long term steady customer anyway. Most people that want an iphone and are not excited apple fans can wait until the phone is available for them.
- hightower77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, no, no! at&t did not buy Cingular.
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5oxdeltaxo, AT&T (formally Ma Bell or Big Brother) hasn't changed it's business model limiting use and the utilization of strong-arm tactics since it's inception almost 100 years ago. With the exception of the temporary breakup AT&T has been very successful so why change. Apple, while having a better image, follow the same model of success. It wouldn't surprise me if due to the success of the iPhone, AT&T will change it's name again to Apple Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T)
- hightower77, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4You are talking about two completely separate AT&Ts. The company today is just AT&T in name, nothing else. Read up a bit...the big bad evil AT&T from the 70's and 80's is no longer. SBC/The New at&t has a much better history than the old AT&T. For example:
Company of the Year
(Forbes magazine, 2006)
World's Most Admired Telecommunications Company (Fortune magazine, 1997 – 2000, 2002 – 2004, 2006)
America's Most Admired Telecommunications Company (Fortune magazine, 1996 – 1998, 2000 – 2004, 2006)
And your history lesson for today...again repeat, the at&t today, isn't the AT&T from the 80's.
AT&T Inc. was founded in 1983 as Southwestern Bell Corporation, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It was one of the seven original Regional Bell Operating Companies, or "Baby Bells." The company — a holding company for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company — was created as a result of U.S. antitrust action against American Telephone & Telegraph in 1983. It took full control of Southwestern Bell Telephone on January 1, 1984.
In 1993, Southwestern Bell Corp. moved its headquarters to San Antonio, Texas, and, during its annual meeting of stockholders in 1995, the company announced that its name would be changed to SBC Communications, Inc. The name change was an effort to reinforce the company's national and global reach and the company not only stated that "SBC" wasn't an acronym for Southwestern Bell Corporation, but that it did not stand for anything at all.
SBC then proceeded (as permitted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) to acquire fellow Baby Bell Pacific Telesis, the Regional Bell operating company serving Nevada and California, in 1997 and the former independent Bell System franchise SNET (Southern New England Telephone).
SBC then announced plans to acquire Ameritech, the Regional Bell operating company serving Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and told the FCC that it would allow competitors access to local markets where it had had a monopoly if the FCC would allow them to acquire Ameritech. The FCC agreed and in May 1998, SBC and Ameritech announced the merger would move forward. After making several organizational changes (such as the sale of Ameritech Wireless to GTE) to satisfy state and Federal regulators, the two merged on October 8, 1999. The FCC later fined SBC Communications $6 million for failure to comply with agreements made in order to secure approval of the merger.
In 2002, SBC ended marketing its operating companies under different names, and simply opted to give its companies different doing business as names based on the state (a practice already in use by Ameritech since 1993), and it gave the holding companies it had purchased d/b/a names based on their general region.
On January 31, 2005, SBC announced that it would purchase AT&T for more than $16 billion. The announcement came almost 8 years after SBC and AT&T called off their first merger talks and nearly a year after initial merger talks between AT&T and BellSouth fell apart. AT&T stockholders, meeting in Denver, approved the merger on June 30, 2005. The U.S. Department of Justice cleared the merger on October 27, 2005, and the Federal Communications Commission approved it on October 31, 2005. The merger was finalized on November 18, 2005 [4]. SBC changed its corporate name to AT&T Inc., and it adopted an updated logo.
On December 1, 2005 the combined company began trading under the historic "T" stock ticker symbol on the NYSE. To differentiate from the preceding company, AT&T is formally known as "AT&T Inc.", while the preceding company was "AT&T Corp."
- hightower77, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4You are talking about two completely separate AT&Ts. The company today is just AT&T in name, nothing else. Read up a bit...the big bad evil AT&T from the 70's and 80's is no longer. SBC/The New at&t has a much better history than the old AT&T. For example:
- NerdyNinja, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Because Apple could push them around into letting them use their own interface, messing with their servers in ways never seen before, selling their phones in the mac stores. =
I thought AT&T was bought by cingular? Shouldn't they be at least a little bit better, now?- jollyroger814, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2at&t bought cingular...and now cellular one for any dobson customers. so they pretty much own over half of the major players now.
- MindStalker, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7Why in the name of zombie jesus did apple choose AT&T?
- shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -22/+20This is some seriously shameless blogspam. What a crock, ALL providers have pretty much the same T&C's.
#1. A 2-year contract is nothing new, we can agrue over whether it's subsidized or not, but this is not a "revelation"
2. Wow, that's tired. Why don't we add the service fees to all phones when we talk about cost? We get it, iphone ain't cheap.
3. EVERYBODY has this
4. see above
5. vague, vague, vague. I don't even know what that means.
6. sucky, but what exactly do they mean? You mean if you go to voicemail? Of course you pay. You mean if you just hang up? I really doubt that.
7. Again, EVERYONE in the US has to pay this BS "tax."
8. $175 early termination fee!? How is this unique to iphone?! GRASPING AT STRAWS here
9. He compares sending files over the internet via PC with using your cellphone. YAH, it costs more. Nothing unique to iphone.
10. Getting gouged for going over your minutes is a "revelation?" We all have this crap already, since the beginning of cell phones.
But enough comment abuse. I don't understand why the apple-haters out there get so freaked out when apple has a major product. Will I be geting an iphone? ***** NO. But this FUD spewing is ridiculous, and this article is the worst I've seen. buried as innacurate blogspam.- DangerMouse9, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5You know, instead of bitching about it being blogspam and then giving your retort to what was on there, it would have been far better for you to copy the list and then respond to it to save others from having to visit a *****-factory of a blog.
- shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4you're right, no need to send more traffic to this crap. Good thing I didn't though, cause I guess digg doesn't like line breaks anymore. Sorry about the mess above...
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Is this honestly how it works in the US? For once its clear that the UK and the rest of Europe leave the US in the dust.
The idea of both sides getting charged to make a phone call is crazy. OK we do get charged like that if I am in another country, but in your home country never.
We have per second billing over here. If my call lasts 15 sec I am charged for 15 sec. Data is data it doesn't matter where I am sending it to. It seems America needs more competiton between its Mobile carriers. In the UK we have 5 Major carriers and a large number of second tier carriers. All of which have 3G national coverage.- gwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Our bought and paid for legislators let them do this to us in the U.S.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Genuine question: is #3 (double billing) something that happens on all US carriers?
No wonder, then, that the cell phone usage differs so wildly between the US and the rest of the world O_o - dude187, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You act like because everyone (in America) does it, it must be the way it should be. Our cell phone service here SUCKS, and just because every carrier sucks doesn't mean that you shouldn't complain about it.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5You know, instead of bitching about it being blogspam and then giving your retort to what was on there, it would have been far better for you to copy the list and then respond to it to save others from having to visit a *****-factory of a blog.
- shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7So it appears if you have a long comment your linebreaks get "redacted?"
- rarson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I've noticed that too. And I hate it.
- scooterMX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Actually I notice it happening whenever I try to edit something I've written. Otherwise
line
breaks
work?
- EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6After reading that article, the only thing I can say is that Americans are dumber than a brick!
Why are you accepting this as normal? You are being scammed and the advertising is fraudulent. I don't know any other 1st world country were any of this would have been legal. If any telecom had tried this were I come from, they would have lost their license, been dragged in front of a court and never been able to do business again. This is nothing but criminal behavior by AT&T and Apple.- adrianblack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yeah... compared to Europe and Canada, we have MUCH cheaper wireless rates than you guys. Rollover minutes, unlimited nights and weekend, free mobile-to-mobile calls and 450 peak minutes to be used anywhere in the country for $40/mos? That is like £20/mos in England. That much money there gets you squat. In Canada you are suckered into a 3-year contract, with similar draconian contracts. No nationwide long distance. Expensive plans with small amounts of minutes. It just sucks.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3As a point of comparison, my current (Swedish) mobile contract costs ~$50/month; it gives me 3000 free minutes to all landlines and cell phones; 3000 free SMS; and 3000 free MMS...
- Snake2582, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Technically your minutes, SMS', and MMS' aren't free because you're still paying a monthly :)
- thespacepope, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Why are you accepting this as normal?"
Because it is normal here in the US. I don't like the lock in and the hidden fees and the weird restrictions... but I really like having a mobile phone. The terms are all pretty much the same from AT&T, Verizon, T-mobile, and Sprint.
Maybe you think it should be illegal... and I think I tend to agree, but the simple answer is that we accept it because it's ether that or not have a mobile.- Mutzak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0What's not normal is the ads made for the iPhone promissing 1000+ features, but when it comes to the bottom line you find out all those shiny almost unreadable-statements showing you that it's too good to be true.
- adrianblack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yeah... compared to Europe and Canada, we have MUCH cheaper wireless rates than you guys. Rollover minutes, unlimited nights and weekend, free mobile-to-mobile calls and 450 peak minutes to be used anywhere in the country for $40/mos? That is like £20/mos in England. That much money there gets you squat. In Canada you are suckered into a 3-year contract, with similar draconian contracts. No nationwide long distance. Expensive plans with small amounts of minutes. It just sucks.
- VSLOATHE, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I have gotten a bill for 1,200$ before from Verizon and was able to get it wiped. I had requested unlimited service but somehow, someone didn't get the memo. It took me calling the corporate headquarters though and leaving a message with the CEO's secretary.
- kcmedic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"unlimited plans cannot be used for uploading, downloading or streaming of video content"
So does that mean we're violating the tos when we use the built in youtube app?- scooterMX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6that's the one that caught my attention too. I can't tell if it's attempting to lock you into youtube, or trying to scare people away from fat streams, but in any case, it sucks.
It's like 'here's the keys to your new Ferrari. We've limited the speed to 65 mph, for your driving pleasure.. enjoy'
- scooterMX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6that's the one that caught my attention too. I can't tell if it's attempting to lock you into youtube, or trying to scare people away from fat streams, but in any case, it sucks.
- oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Your right that blackberry's do have the same billing "features" but they are business implements, the iPhone was supposed to be a consumer product not something your boss gives you. Why in the name of zombie jesus did apple choose AT&T?
- qw3r7yju4n, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6what qualifies as an abuser? an avid internet user? thats what i would get the iphone for i mean comon att get with the program. you think this one device is going to pull you out of certain death, please...
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I was trying to work out how to get bittorrent working on an iPhone. I think I could get my moneys worth out of the unlimited data plan with a torrent client working 24/7
- dfeifer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Unfortunatly, by thier eula, they would probably consider this "tethering" and cancel your account. heh. and probably charge you the 175$ fee as well
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I was trying to work out how to get bittorrent working on an iPhone. I think I could get my moneys worth out of the unlimited data plan with a torrent client working 24/7
- alefox, on 10/11/2007, -31/+69ok, no iphone for me, openmoko, here i come!!!
- flamingmb, on 10/11/2007, -34/+10thats it, pander to the linux/opensource crowd.....
face it people the openmoko is ugly. It reminds me of an oversized firefly cell phone.- adinu79, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18yeah, and that's what a phone is actually about, looking pretty ... geez *rolleyes*
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3what would the other kids say if your phone didn't look cool?
- dcmjzero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i care?
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3what would the other kids say if your phone didn't look cool?
- KielKilla, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Why is it that everyone that dislikes the openmoko only has that one arguement. "It's ugly". Ugly is more of an opinion. I don't think the apple phone design is anything extraordinary and definitely not worth $600. As far as I'm concerned the openmoko's gui can be completely redesigned by your standards. I think the openmoko looks fine and by fine I mean like any other cell phone so I'm down with that. SUCK IT.
- kenok, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5The case is ugly, but not the feature set.
- gadgetlust, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Remember - OpenMoko is the software platform, not the phone itself. The handset that the angry fashion nerds keep slamming for being ugly is the Neo1973, made by FIC. Regardless of whether we like the look of this phone, we should support this project, because the only thing that will motivate the carriers to give us the features we want is our demand for phones that aren't missing critical features for the sake of next year's model, or crippled in order to force us to use more overpriced data services. (I'm looking at you, iphone, with your lack of GPS and online-only third party app support)
- ronin691, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Mr. Flamingmb, OpenMoko's Neo phone is an ENGINEERING MODEL solely for the purposes of development. The consumer version, available in October of this year, will be similar to handsets you see from the major carriers. Please consult the openmoko website for details.
- adinu79, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18yeah, and that's what a phone is actually about, looking pretty ... geez *rolleyes*
- fullstop102, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20this is a network item really and not linked to the iphone.. so what you really need to say is no AT&T for you!
- trekkie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8AT&T isn't the only carrier in the US that does this. Get some tin cans and string if you don't want to have this type of restriction, it's on all the user agreements from Sprint, AT&T, Alltell, Cellular One, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.
- netbear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You'll still need a wireless carrier and they all have such CYA terms in their contracts.
- ilgaz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4So called iPhone "fans" managed to keep OpenMoko release announcement (for developers) on GADGETS topic down to 1 digg. That is plain sick and alone the reason not to buy iPhone even while you enjoy Apple products such as Desktops. Any product with "fans" like that will be torture to use and get support.
- flamingmb, on 10/11/2007, -34/+10thats it, pander to the linux/opensource crowd.....
- mitts2010, on 10/11/2007, -9/+77Those are "surprising revelations"?
- ejdmoo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32This spam if I've ever seen it. Very useless article. Those are mostly things true of any cell phone contract, or any unlimited data plan, or any data-capable phone.
- mooatr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Double billing on most contracts? I'm glad I'm on pay-as-you-go. Seems that being in Europe helps, according to comments lower down.
- kazamx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Most Americans don't seem to have any idea how bad their mobile networks are. They are at least as far behind Europe as Europe is behind Japan.
- redwards, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well, that happens when you have 10 times as much area to cover.
- SteveMax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This double billing is illegal even in Brazil. I was quite surprised when I bought a prepaid SIM card in the US and discovered (the hard way) that I'd be charged to receive calls and SMSs.
However, in absolute values, we pay here ~50 dollars for 320 monthly minutes, 60 SMSs, 60 MMSs and 250 data (this is a new plan with VERY good bang for the buck). I guess we're all screwed in different ways by our telcos...
- mooatr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Double billing on most contracts? I'm glad I'm on pay-as-you-go. Seems that being in Europe helps, according to comments lower down.
- alexmuller, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16Limit of "150 Wi-Fi uses per month" - i don't know what that means, but it sounds pretty surprising
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18The contract specifies AT&T's WiFi networks. They don't limit it if it's in your own home. It's not that surprising.
- virtualball, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"3) Double Billing. You and the Caller Both Get Charged for the Same Call."
Isn't that normal, or am I missing something?
And alexmuller, that really shouldn't be an issue, unless you reconnect five times a day for a month... - AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1" "The Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge is a charge assessed by AT&T and is not a tax or government-mandated charge. This charge is subject to change from time to time as the cost of compliance changes.... The purpose of the charge is to defray AT&T's costs associated with payment of fees and compliance with various initiatives imposed by the government. Please note that costs may be incurred and charged prior to initiation of any of the respective services.""
What IS surprising is that many places, not only AT&T, have a fee "associated with payment of fees." Basically they are charging you to make payments.
What this really is is a way to promote plans at lower prices, then "taxes and other fees extra." If cell companies were instead required to include in their marketing price all the fees that ALL users MUST pay, then there'd be a different number following the $-sign. "Taxes and optional services extra" is all that should be allowed, and charging a fee to make a payment should be outright illegal.
- ejdmoo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32This spam if I've ever seen it. Very useless article. Those are mostly things true of any cell phone contract, or any unlimited data plan, or any data-capable phone.
- yoadrian, on 10/11/2007, -11/+84"this device will self-destruct in 3 seconds"
- MrPotato, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6A "self-destruct" fee of $175 will be charged to your account. Thank you for using AT&T!
- Tolo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6I'm pretty sure at least the "international messages" thing is tosh, or at least obvious. International e-mail being free is mentioned, as though relevant, but really "messages" deals with SMS messages (as it says quite clearly). And these do cost money to send internationally, as they must fiddle and finagle through different cell networks and such.
This all seems hyperbole, anyway.- heavygravity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Sending SMS messages in most of the rest of the world don't cost extra to send internationally.
- undetected, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know where you send messages to or who sends messages to you. I, and most of my friends, send SMS messages internationally and it costs us around 15c to 20c depending on the provider (I think TMobile is at 15c). Our family and friends from overseas also send us SMS messages instead of calling because its costs (it ain't free) are lower than voice calls.
- heavygravity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Sending SMS messages in most of the rest of the world don't cost extra to send internationally.
- EricVKX, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3Welcome to four weeks ago. None of this is new news.
- daxsymbiont, on 10/11/2007, -33/+28***** iphone. and its fine print.
- ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think it's much better to just get a Japanese phone. America is still eons away from matching Japanese technology. You can do almost anything with a Japanese phone. I'm looking forward to one that has a laser gun to it.
- MrKrinkleDude, on 10/11/2007, -13/+92Point 1: Incorrect. A contract is NOT required.
Point 8: Incorrect. No termination fee is required since a contract is not required. Selling your soul to the devil is in fact, optional and is your choice alone.
Point 11: This ticks me off Apple. No secure email or IM clients. This is a must have if you're going to be running around dipping your toe into whatever public wifi is available.
Point 15: I'm scratching my head over this. I've been on nothing but wifi since I bought the thing on June 30th.
Other than that, it's the NSAT&T people. Don't be surprised if they storm your house and point guns at you while you're in the shower.- fullstop102, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Point 15 means the AT&T hotspots not wifi in general. It means the ones they provide in coffee shops and such for free to users who are on their network. In England T-Mobile do the same and host all starbucks coffee shops.
- MrKrinkleDude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Thanks for the clarification. The "blogger" was very vague in his "story".
- willtwilson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2In England, T-mobile run the service but still make you pay for your time connected, and I have their unlimited mobile data plan
- kellymahan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1In the Us with T-Mobile you can pay a $30 a month fee for unlimited data (which includes unlimited messaging) and also allows for unlimited T-Mobile hotspots. As far as carriers in the US goes, the plans they offer are what they say they are, not what the fine print says their not.
One month there was some issue with the cable that took forever to get comcast to even admit there was a problem. During that time I used the edge network on my computer using my MDA as a bluetooth modem to work from home. I never got charged extra or even a complaint that I was using the service too much. - trunkster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thanks, apparently the blogger wants to bring down the iPhone. Especially with points that effect EVERYONE and not just iPhone users. It makes sense though that AT&T limits how often you use one of their hot spots. Though, it should be more by data then number of times connected. But I bet they don't really enforce it that much.
- superrcat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8There is not an IM client, so the security of such a client does not apply. There is support for a secure connection to both IMAP and SMTP servers of your provider. If your provider does not have SSL connections supported, that is a limitation of your provider and not the iPhone.
- jp3550, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Doesnt Meebo work?
- psyjoniz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4far as i understood it, a contract was required. there are ways around it, yes, but they are technically illegal. mind divulging how you got yours working, without a contract, legally?
- madformadness, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4A contract is required dumass..
- changoleon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5No, dumbass, it's been shown that when you sign up with AT&T via iTunes, if you fail the credit check, or just type 999-99-9999 for your SN, you can get the pay-as-you-go plan, which requires no contract and can be cancelled at any time.
- Desolite, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2you forgot...
17) Plan Goobly-gook - i believe the correct terminology is "Gobbelly guk" - gmoney2003, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Point 9...incorrect? mine doesn't even have picture messaging? so how could i get charged for it?
- AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28) You signed a two-year contract, which IS required, and the termination fee is to get you off the hook.
- captmorgan555, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ISn't 4 wrong? I think all plans offered with a new iPhone are Unlimited Data. So rounding up a KB doesnt matter.
Also this friggin statement is just wrong "9) International Messages Are Charged Additional Fees as Are Files Over 300Kbps." So if your connection is really good you get charged? Probably a typo but still stupid. I dugg this article down.
- fullstop102, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Point 15 means the AT&T hotspots not wifi in general. It means the ones they provide in coffee shops and such for free to users who are on their network. In England T-Mobile do the same and host all starbucks coffee shops.
- mlawrence, on 10/11/2007, -45/+99what's an iphone?
- oldjoke, on 10/11/2007, -26/+12Shut the ***** up. You keep posting the same comment in every iPhone story. Don't you?
- setec, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27Did you register oldjoke as a digg username just to point out mlawrence's old joke? :)
- mlawrence, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What I've commented on is public information. Have at it buddy!
- an0nym0us, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4A cookie.
- ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5It's a $3000 telephone.
- oldjoke, on 10/11/2007, -26/+12Shut the ***** up. You keep posting the same comment in every iPhone story. Don't you?
- cyberdork, on 10/11/2007, -7/+145You have to pay for incoming calls??? Is that normal in the US?
Ridiculous!- MrZeebo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Well, that isn't *completely* true. Here, you pay some monthly fee, and get a big bucket of minutes for the month (generally between 400 and 1000 minutes). Then, both your outgoing and incoming calls deduct from that bucket. And then there's periods of time that are unlimited and don't deduct from that bucket, such as nights & weekends. So you aren't paying for each incoming call, just a bunch of minutes that you can use for any type of call during the non-unlimited periods.
- JackHererUK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16In the UK and as far as i know the rest of Europe you never pay for incoming calls nor are they deducted from your monthly inclusive minutes. For example it is perfectly possible to get a non contract pay as you go phone, never load it up with any credit and receive incoming only cell phone service without paying anything at all other than the initial cost of the phone and maybe a few pounds for the SIM card.
- subterfu9e, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Plus, here in Malaysia, one of the mobile providers actually give you points for every minute you yak on an incoming call which you can exchange for minutes. Rewarded for not forking out a cent. Hmmm =)
- Aremith, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Sorry for the Doublepost. Digg went wonky on me.
- Aremith, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0In Romania, they do the points thing too on Vodafone. It's really great. Also, they have a service where you can ask someone to call you for free. You dial a * number, then enter their phone number and they will get a Call Broadcast telling them you want to talk to them. Really handy.
- HolyChimp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Most UK pay as you go deals require you to top up with at least £5 every 3-6 months, but that still beats paying to be phoned :D
- cyberdork, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Mr Zeebo:
That makes much more sense. 400-1000minutes is enormous.
I have a Vodafone contract here in the Netherlands where I get 150min (or 150 SMS) for free each month and I pay €7,50 (thats $10). Although that's a special offer, I think you usually pay around $20 per months to have 150 free minutes.- P5ycHo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1He said 400-1000 for both incoming AND outgoing messages.
- rufus359, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's a little late but:
We Americans also continue to be amazed by Americas retarded mobile phone services.
- JackHererUK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16In the UK and as far as i know the rest of Europe you never pay for incoming calls nor are they deducted from your monthly inclusive minutes. For example it is perfectly possible to get a non contract pay as you go phone, never load it up with any credit and receive incoming only cell phone service without paying anything at all other than the initial cost of the phone and maybe a few pounds for the SIM card.
- chewy5000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11In Australia the rates are nice, just don't touch data plans or you'll be broke by the second webpage.
- Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Sadly, it's also the same in Canada. Any call you make or receive during peak times widdles down your monthly minutes... most carriers will let you make and receive unlimited calls after a certain hour (usually after 6-9pm) and on weekends.
Our cellular services are also fairly old and out-dated... most areas in Canada are still using CDMA or GSM... and downloading on those networks is far slower than 7Mbps... it's slower than 56k.- moltar2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Fido has unlimited incoming plans for a long time and they are reasonably priced. I am paying $30 CAD plan only (~ $45 CAD total) for the following: unlimited incoming; 200 day minutes; 1000 night (after 7pm) and weekends minutes; 200 SMS (count both ways tho); extended call display (shows name even if person not in my pb); voice mail; "who called" service (when you don't have signal and receive a call, it will send you a text msg when you get signal with numbers that you missed).
- nogami, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Uh, the only two digital cell services that exist (at least for everywhere but Asia) are CDMA and GSM (with GSM being the worldwide leader by a large margin).
- ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7in Asia you don't have to pay for incoming calls, so if you are popular and people call you all the time, your cell phone service doesn't cost a dime
- trunkster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10We worry more about monopolies in the US and then 20 years later let them merge back together.
- Pixelpaws, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, in the US, you pay for incoming cell phone calls. The only exception is if the network provides "unlimited" calling between members of its network, in which case no credit is deducted from either person's account. Credit, in this case, is either your monthly bucket of minutes or your prepaid account balance.
- winstonc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It's true. Europeans often think this is terrible, but it's not, because cell phone minutes are far cheaper here (at least compared to Germany), around $0.08 to $0.10 per minute, and nights and weekends are generally free. When I was in Germany, people were always thinking about which phone they were calling -- first the work phone, then the home phone, then finally the cell phone -- so that they wouldn't have to pay something like €0.18 per minute to call someone's mobile phone. In the U.S., you don't have to worry about which phone you're calling. You just call a person's cell phone. This also makes it easier to get rid of your land line.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's changing, and it varies enormously from country to country.
The standard rate in Sweden atm seems to be ~$0.10 a minute to all numbers (cell and landline), unless you have a package deal that gives you free calls.
On my (admittedly expensive and crappy) carrier, you they have a $20 deal where all calls, SMS and MMS cost ~$0.1 each, period - no charge per minutes used. The deal I'm on (at ~$50) gives me 3000 free minutes, 3000 free SMS and 3000 free MMS a month, and if I somehow manage to go above that, it's back to the standard $0.1/minute cost.
The data plans are a bit more convoluted, but it's still not prohibitively expensive.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's changing, and it varies enormously from country to country.
- sirmasterboy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I'm in the USA paying $30 a month for my cellphone and i get 1000 anytime minutes and free incoming calls... US Cellular is great!
- ccfccp420, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1yeah i have u.s. cellular and i got the plan for free incoming calls, and free calls to other u.s. cellular's so my bill is minimal
- scooterMX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Way back in the 90's Cingular had incoming calls for free, but they killed that real quick.
- CLShortFuse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1AT&T Wireless (not AT&T Mobility) ahd free unlimitted Incoming text messages. How I miss that.
- IlJaanevits, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Europeans think Americans pay huge amount of money for their cellphone use, Americans think Europeans think like that but they don't agree because calls are cheaper in USA.
Okay...here's how it works in Finland(at least for me):
Unlimited incoming calls/unlimited calls €1 per day if calling from city area(€0,039-€0,069 outside city depending what time of day it is)...if you don't call for €1, you pay less.
Unlimited data plan €10/month including HSDPA/3G connections(speed now limited to 3,6Mbps...7,2 this fall...14,4 next year). ..I use this as my main internet connection, I know not as fast as normal Broadband but soon it is and besides..I can take my laptop anywhere and plug in - USB or bluetooth - my N95 and start surfing...and yeah, I use p2p a LOT(check the last part of this message).
Text messages €0,06.
This line is from my cell phone bill's data plan(for the month of June):
Duration(hr) 117:19:21 Tranferred(kB) 8707554...that's 8,7GB
So..straight forward pricing, no surprises and if you low on budget you don't need to worry about somebody calling you, instead you can avoid calingl whole month and pay €0.- IlJaanevits, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Sorry I meant July fot that data thing.
- cyberdork, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2After reading all the replies to my comment I have to conclude that Americans most likely pay LESS than we Europeans. But how is it for someone like me who very rarely uses his phone, around 5mins per months and 30 SMS. For that reason I am only interested in (sim-only) plans which are less than $10 per months. Are those cheap plans available in the US?
- MrZeebo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Well, that isn't *completely* true. Here, you pay some monthly fee, and get a big bucket of minutes for the month (generally between 400 and 1000 minutes). Then, both your outgoing and incoming calls deduct from that bucket. And then there's periods of time that are unlimited and don't deduct from that bucket, such as nights & weekends. So you aren't paying for each incoming call, just a bunch of minutes that you can use for any type of call during the non-unlimited periods.
- svenjick, on 10/11/2007, -10/+113Double Billing. You and the Caller Both Get Charged for the Same Call. --> WTF? Is this true?
- dukrous, on 10/11/2007, -3/+53Yes, and it's always been that way in the US. Standard operating procedure.
- toomanyhandles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17What he said; in the US cell phones have always charged (used minutes) of both parties. Hence the "free family plan" where members of a family call each other "free".
With landlines in the US, only the originating party pays, usually.
Kind of a weird list of things for a telecom "expert" to get upset about. One weird thing was the WiFi conection limit, but someone else said that was only for ATT paid hotspots (?)- dvsbastard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Don't you also get charged per minute on ALL landline calls (irrespective whether they are local or interstate)?
- InferiorWang, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Plus Sprint has a plan with free PCS to PCS if you know a bunch of people on Sprint.
My mom picked up a family plan about two years ago. It only costs about 2/3 of what the three of us were seperate for a large pool of minutes. If we go over on minutes, we get another chunck of 200 at $5. Plus we have PCS to PCS and nights starting at 8. I used to have my nights start at 7, and that was real convenient for saving minutes.
- Evolve, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11.... Both parties get charged in US ? Thats insane.
Here its just the initiator of the call that gets charged, not the receiver. - haynil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Sprint did start offering that "all incoming calls free" plan a while back. I haven't seen it advertised in a while, though, so I don't know if they still do.
- sirmasterboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ive had a cell phone in the US for 6 years now and have never been charged for an incoming call... Maybe you need to get a better provider like US Cellular
Like if my parents call from their landline to my cell phone since my cell is in the same area code its completely free on both ends no mater where i am with my cell.
- toomanyhandles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17What he said; in the US cell phones have always charged (used minutes) of both parties. Hence the "free family plan" where members of a family call each other "free".
- oldjoke, on 10/11/2007, -18/+0Only if both of you are on iPhones.
- LoopyChew, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This as far as I know only applies when the receiver is on a cell phone, as in the US there are no seperate area code designations for portables (unlike where I live, where generally you can even tell what network they're on from their area code). Since there is no way to immediately tell a cell phone from a landline phone from its phone number, I guess telecoms companies decided it'd be better if the cell phone owner split the difference, thus ensuring they still turn a profit.
- neoknight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6That was like in India 6 years ago! There is technology available to not charge two ways for this kind of stuff in so called "third world countries" but apparently the U.S still think they're advanced!
- cliffr39, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it's not about "advanced" or not, it's about greedy companies wanting to make larger profits - and lazy people excepting that and not saying "no" or boycotting service.
- trekkie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah for a long time a 'selling point' of plans was the first incoming minute was free.
- tomesnyder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know if the iPhone is being treated differently but otherwise calls between AT&T wireless customers are not billed to either.
- akhomerun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Cell phone have almost always been this way in the US. However, the US also has good rates and most carriers include unlimited night and weekend minutes, and calls between people on the same network are almost always free. It's a good tradeoff, and family plans are excellent values. You can get 3-5 phones for under $100 a month with unlimited calling in between. T-Mobile and Alltel offer a service where you can call 5 or 10 favorite numbers infinitely.
And at neoknight, yeah, the US is advanced, but someone doesn't understand the free market. In Canada, for example, data rates are in the hundreds of dollars per month because of a more monopolistic market there. In the US, there is an oligopoly of around 3-5 companies that fiercely compete to lock people into contracts, so the prices are decent (although getting out of the contract is costly). It's not hard to get an unlimited data plan for 20-30 dollars a month. And obviously, some markets like Japan have vastly superior networks, but hey, we're a big country. - M4v3R, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2In Poland, some carriers even will give You free minutes if you are called. For e.g. 1 minute free for 2 minutes of incoming calls. Now that's a bargain.
- dukrous, on 10/11/2007, -3/+53Yes, and it's always been that way in the US. Standard operating procedure.
- mannaran, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10iPhone is dead! So are the people reading its fine print. Here comes iPod killer http://openmoko.org/ and http://openmoko.com/
- Zzone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3you couldnt pay me to lug that thing around.
- orph3us, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... yes im drunk
- a1532b, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Congratulations. Now you just need to grow up so you can join the rest of us in an intelligent conversation...
- EXreaction, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Drunk people should be banned from the internet.
- jeffiel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+42The supposed telecom expert who read the fine print doesn't seem to understand a lot about telecom. Most importantly, the 150 connection WiFi limit refers to using AT&T's paid WiFi hotspots, not WiFi at your home or anywhere else. It's not even part of the iPhone's wireless plan, and is totally irrelevant.
- mantismag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0agreed. many of his points are inaccurate and everything that isn't is standard practice for US telecoms. it's hard to believe this came from a telecom analyst.
btw link to original article: http://www.newnetworks.com/attwirelessfineprint.htm
since the blog just piles more ***** onto this load of crap. - egb116, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'm glad to read your clarification. I'm no telecom expert either, and hearing about the supposed 150-connection limit was the biggest "WTF?" point of the article for me.
- mantismag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0agreed. many of his points are inaccurate and everything that isn't is standard practice for US telecoms. it's hard to believe this came from a telecom analyst.
- LeeSoong, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6Apple should buy that 700 MHz spectrum and start it's own Coast-2-Coast Apple WiFi Network.
Apple is taking over Hollywood, the Music Industry, the Desktop, the Notebook, TV, and now Cell Phones,
so a 'Skype' like Apple Network is a logical next step for this fast growing successful company.
The Apple National WiFi Network could use Apple Stores as 'Free Hot Spots' and expand from there.
Integrate ISP and WiFi services with .Mac - to add more value to .Mac account holders.
Apple's next great product: iGlobal iVoIP !- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Apple could no more afford to do it than Google could; the only real people who have a chance are the major telephone carriers, unless there's some change in the way the spectrum's going to be auctioned to make it more difficult for the telecos and easier for new, innovative uses.
- ronin691, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1With a market cap of $168,000,000,000.00 Google has more than enough money to purchase the 700 spectrum. The carrier's are spread too thin to be able to out bid Google.
- ronin691, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1With a market cap of $168,000,000,000.00 Google has more than enough money to purchase the 700 spectrum. The carrier's are spread too thin to be able to out bid Google.
- LethalAmbition, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4... And then you woke up.
- dvsbastard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Apple is taking over what now?!
- JackHererUK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Not to be a pedant but there is no WiFi protocol that operates in the 700Mhz spectrum. Whatever wireless service you might offer at that frequency it would not be WiFi.
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Apple could no more afford to do it than Google could; the only real people who have a chance are the major telephone carriers, unless there's some change in the way the spectrum's going to be auctioned to make it more difficult for the telecos and easier for new, innovative uses.
- MattInChicago, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Same as my ATT data and phone contract.
- potp, on 10/11/2007, -7/+34Hhahahahaa. oh god how do you americans even put up with these ***** companies. we got better mobile companies in india both CDMA and GSM. Country wide roaming is free and not monthly fee charged, No incoming charges if you are getting local calls, Even on CDMA you can easily disconnect with no crappy disconnection fee, Charges are probably one of the lowest in the world, international Messages cost 30 cents a pop, there are no hidden charges, You basically get charged fixed monthly rental and nothing more nothing less and even the phones sold along with the service is not crippled and are full featured. God Americans, how do you even put up with this *****.
- neondiet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10
Amazes me too. I'm from the UK and while we've still not got it as good as you, we aren't shafted anywhere near as much as our US cousins. If companies over here tried Double Billing, Ofcom (the UK telco regulator) would slap them with a fine so fast it would make their heads spin.- capecodcarl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1What do you mean by "double billing"? In the US you pay for the airtime you use, period. If you're calling you pay for the airtime you use. If you're receiving a call, you pay for the airtime you use. It's that simple. If you forced the caller to pay the charges then landline phones (which are almost always unmetered in the USA) would be getting a bill from people's wireless carriers anytime they called a mobile phone. That's ridiculous. Or are incoming calls somehow "free" in Europe? What stops someone from abusing this by just having people call from a landline phone all the time instead of calling from another cell phone? You could get a cell phone and use it as a business phone 24/7 and receive all the calls you want and abuse the system.
- LoopyChew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Where I live, there is a special set of area codes specifically for cell phones. This way, the caller knows exactly what he's getting into when he dials a number, and gets charged by his carrier (landline or otherwise) accordingly.
So, yeah, incoming calls are free. Calls to other mobile networks are generally charged more, but landlines and calls in your own network are cheaper. (Still more expensive than the US in general, but cheaper.) - potp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5oh god you are an idiot. not only are you taking up your ass from big telecom companies but you are actually defending them. i wish my business had customers like you.
- LoopyChew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Where I live, there is a special set of area codes specifically for cell phones. This way, the caller knows exactly what he's getting into when he dials a number, and gets charged by his carrier (landline or otherwise) accordingly.
- felyduw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I have a simple plan for my mobile. Calls are 12 eurocents a minute for every national call, charged by the second, SMS is 5 eurocents each. Never got charged while receiving anything while on national soil.
What were you ranting about again?
- capecodcarl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1What do you mean by "double billing"? In the US you pay for the airtime you use, period. If you're calling you pay for the airtime you use. If you're receiving a call, you pay for the airtime you use. It's that simple. If you forced the caller to pay the charges then landline phones (which are almost always unmetered in the USA) would be getting a bill from people's wireless carriers anytime they called a mobile phone. That's ridiculous. Or are incoming calls somehow "free" in Europe? What stops someone from abusing this by just having people call from a landline phone all the time instead of calling from another cell phone? You could get a cell phone and use it as a business phone 24/7 and receive all the calls you want and abuse the system.
- an0nym0us, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Your Mobile service is better than basic amenities? Oh, lawd, what the world has become?!
- undetected, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's cause the government has a monopoly on basic amenities and doesn't earn a profit while providing them. Mobile services, on the other hand, are made better due to competition.
Except, yknow, here in the US, where it's common for corporations to have lawmakers in their pockets, enacting laws that protect the employers of the lobbyists.
- undetected, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's cause the government has a monopoly on basic amenities and doesn't earn a profit while providing them. Mobile services, on the other hand, are made better due to competition.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6The US is much, much larger than most other countries. If you look at the geographically large countries (like the US and Canada for example) you typically see that services like cell phones and broadband are more expensive and more limited because of the expense involved in rolling out over such a large area. In a place like Japan, which is small and fairly population dense throughout, the infrastructure expense is smaller and so they can offer more for less. It's pretty simple, really.
- EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -1/+380% of the population live in densely populated areas, so the argument is more or less *****.
Same hoes with internet speed and prices, New York area is one of the densest areas in USA, but you can still not get 100Mb for $20/month. So your argument is nothing but *****. - HolyChimp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Small geographical locations like Europe?
- teradome, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes. Yes, that's exactly the excuse we get.
The truth is if the networks agreed on standards in order to reduce infrastructure costs and overall performance, then that wouldn't be the case, but US telcoms hate working together, *especially* when there is a new medium "to own." - gabogab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, India is pretty big, wouldn't you say?
- IEatHamburgers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's half the size of the US but it has three times the population.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The problem with that old argument is that a recent US.gov report (which I can't find the link to atm, sorry) debunked it a while ago, but in the context of broadband coverage. Their conclusion was that population density in the US was consistently 2-3 times higher than the equivalent area in Europe.
The only thing that, on paper, made it look like the argument might work were the southwest deserts and the mountain ranges, which brought the national average down something fierce, and skewed the results.
- EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -1/+380% of the population live in densely populated areas, so the argument is more or less *****.
- madformadness, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6People have cell phone in india?
- bhattsan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yes
- potp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Typing this on ym O2Atom which kicks the iPhones ass in terms of what it can do (But the interface sucks on it :()
- Modano, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Enjoying your iPhone then? ;)
- akhomerun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5yeah but we don't have to live in india
- neondiet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10
- Sphonix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19Wait up. Can someone from America explain this to me? What is with this 'being charged to ANSWER a call' concept? Is this a standard practice? I'd never heard of the concept before a few months ago and never have understood it. In Australia, it is just a standard, you pay when you call... I really don't get this thing. Someone please do elaborate.
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -4/+5If you look up, Americans have confirmed this. To be honest, this sounds like the stupidist idea on the planet (you pay for someone talking to you).
- xornor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You can actually talk back to the person when they call you.
- capecodcarl, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12You pay per minute for airtime whether you are sending or receiving a call. Someone has to pay for the airtime... how do wireless carriers in Australia make money when a land line phone calls you for instance? Do they just eat the cost? Not likely to happen anytime soon in the USA.
- raphec, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3In australia, if you make a call to a mobile from a landline, you pay a chatge based on the length of the call, generally in 30 second increments. Telcos here all have standardised interconnect fees so they know what they are going to be charged and can therefore setup a billing regimen. Noone pays to receive a phone call. You only pay for the calls you make. The very idea of me having to pay if someone rings me is ridiculous. What if a telemarketer calls? Should i be out of pocket for that?
- Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a telemarketer to call a cell phone in the States. I've never had it happen to me either.
- HolyChimp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What a great idea. No more "I believe your contract is up soon, how much are you currently spending a month?" calls. I would rather deal with them every now and then than pay to receive calls though.
- psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's illegal for telemarketers to call your cell phone, but it still happens pretty consistently anyways.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a telemarketer to call a cell phone in the States. I've never had it happen to me either.
- Croaton, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Here's how it works in Scandinavia... and this is independent of calling from a cellphone or landline. Reciving a call is free. Someone is making an consious atempt to contact you. They want to speak to you so logically they (the caller) takes the cost. This cost is maybe around $0.15 for cellphone/landline to cellphone and about $0.05 landline to landline... Calls cellphone to cellphone or landline to landline within the same carrier is usually free. For both the caller and reciver. Callers pay (most of the time)... reciviers don´t. Someone dails the wrong number... and it cost you a start up fee just to answer?
- JackHererUK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wireless carriers make money from call termination charges, e.g. if the wired carrier routes calls to a mobile number over the wireless carriers network the wireless carrier charges the wired carrier a per minute fee to route the call to the mobile phone and the wired carrier the passes this cost onto the caller. Thus the caller pays to make the call and the called party does not pay anything.
- raphec, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3In australia, if you make a call to a mobile from a landline, you pay a chatge based on the length of the call, generally in 30 second increments. Telcos here all have standardised interconnect fees so they know what they are going to be charged and can therefore setup a billing regimen. Noone pays to receive a phone call. You only pay for the calls you make. The very idea of me having to pay if someone rings me is ridiculous. What if a telemarketer calls? Should i be out of pocket for that?
- dvsbastard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Correct me if I am wrong, but they also get charged per minute on ALL landline calls (irrespective whether they are local or interstate)...
- capecodcarl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The vast majority of Americans have unmetered land-line service so local calls are not charged per minute, we just pay long distance unless we have an unmetered long distance plan (AT&T charges an extra $25 a month for that for instance). Metered service is available where you pay per minute for local calls, but it usually only saves about $5 a month for the basic rate compared to the unmetered plan.
- JaceFuse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's also worth mentioning that our unmetered landlines may call mobile numbers and still not generate any fees.
So a call between a land line to a cell phone generates only airtime charges for the cell phone.
For those with free off-peak minutes, a cell phone to cell phone call at night or on the weekend costs nothing.
- JaceFuse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's also worth mentioning that our unmetered landlines may call mobile numbers and still not generate any fees.
- capecodcarl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The vast majority of Americans have unmetered land-line service so local calls are not charged per minute, we just pay long distance unless we have an unmetered long distance plan (AT&T charges an extra $25 a month for that for instance). Metered service is available where you pay per minute for local calls, but it usually only saves about $5 a month for the basic rate compared to the unmetered plan.
- rusticdog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's crazy huh....there's no way any of us Aussie or New Zealanders would tolerate garbage like that.
- chewy5000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You havnt tried Telstra's data plans
- mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yes you would. If that's how cell service was billed in Australia and it was pay for usage in and out then or not have a cell, you'd pay and you know it. Besides, it looks like you guys pay WAY more per minute than we do - about 2x as much. I checked the Telstra plans and best I can make out (your plans are structured quite different from ours) you get less than 230 minutes (outgoing, unlimited incoming), assumin you make more than one long call, because you pay a per call connect fee, for $60AUD (about $50USD). Any text messages or data use would either up the price or drop your minutes quite a bit ($.25AUD per text! That's THREE times what we pay WITHOUT any text messaging plan). I can get 2x the minutes, unlimited texting, and we get free calls (in and out) from ~8pm to 8am weekdays, and all day on weekends (which I didn't see any mention of on Telstras site).
My point is that we get billed for different things, and we pay more for some things but less for others, and it works out roughly the same for both of us.- Nyukin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Pwned.
- yabos, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3It's no big revelation, and in fact the majority is like this not the minority. It's just FUD to try and make the iPhone look bad when this happens with ALL US (and Canada) cell phones.
- bergerdml, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I feel qualified to answer this question as someone who has lived in both the US and Australia. The US rates I find to actually be much better. It is true, that in the US, we pay both to make and receive calls where as in Australia (and most of the world) we only pay to make calls. However, one of the BIG differences is that there are no surcharges to call a mobile phone. All of you Americans may not realize that it is damn expensive to call a mobile phone in Australia, much more expensive than calling a land line. In the US, calling a mobile costs the same as calling a land line. Also, the per minute charges are MUCH lower in the US. For $40 US (AU$50) per month, I get 1000 minutes a month plus unlimited talk time during nights and weekends. For me, that's more than enough time. I can't use all of those minutes, especially when its the weekends when I talk for hours. In fact, on weekends, I'll sometimes go grocery shopping in Los Angeles while friends go grocery shopping in Washington. We will call each other and go shopping together. And never worry about the bill. It never was like that in Australia (I had telstra and Virgin.)
Additionally, I do not have a land line in the US. There is no need for one. In Australia, because its so expensive to call a mobile, I know people wouldn't call me as much, or wouldn't talk as long, because they know they have to watch the clock while talking.
Another indication of the differences between pricing has to do with the texting culture. In Australia, my mobile (like many other peoples) were mainly used for texting and not actual voice phone calls. This is because the actual voice phone calls were relatively expensive. Here in the US, most people have plenty of talk time that they don't think twice about using minutes and calling people. As a result, SMS didn't seem so appealing. It is slowly catching on here. But I remember when I lived in Australia and wanted to text my friends in America, very few used texting. When I asked why, the reply I got was always "why would I want to spend my time trying to type on a numeric keypad when its easier just to call some one and then you actually get to speak to that person."
- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -4/+5If you look up, Americans have confirmed this. To be honest, this sounds like the stupidist idea on the planet (you pay for someone talking to you).
- VirtualRichard, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14Openmoko can be found at www.openmoko.org and it strikes me as really odd that this completely open sourced Linux-based phone isn't making bigger splashes. Also, potp, with Indian calls: This is why my Indian friend is bringing me back a SIM from his trip to India. I will be able to use it here in the UK and call anywhere cheaper than UK plans because - international roaming is FLAT RATE. And in rupees as well. So, openmoko plus an Indian SIM and I have incredibly versatile low-cost mobile phone tech in my pocket. Screw Apple. And screw AT&T.
- potp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2its funny cause i use a UK sim cause using it for international roaming (mostly) in east Asia and Europe is cheaper.
- akkdio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2thanks for the openmoko link. I signed up.
- tokyoturnip, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6#3. Don't pick up that call from your iPhone buddy.
- childermass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's free in network calling though, so it doesn't count against your minutes
- ibeetle, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33I love how the iPhone critics act like contract requirements, and paying for cell phone service are unique to the iPhone and in someway the consumer is being ripped off.
I have had Verizon, Cingular, and (currently) T-Mobile. I have had a cell phone for 10 years and every company required a service contract of some length of time and monthly payments for that service.
So, note to iPhone critics you look like fools when you say how dare AT&T and Apple require a contract or monthly service payments. What? Your current cell phone carrier lets you use their service for free?- edzilla, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11So, it's just not iphone users who are getting ripped off, it's all americans with a cell phone...
Now THAT makes me feel a lot better about living in Europe.- Wartyboskfapped, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1LOL! And they don't even get it. :D
- unmarked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah -- that's pretty much the case. So while some of the terms suck, you won't find much better terms with any other carrier. I switched from Verizon to AT&T and the cost of service is pretty much the same.
- Quix, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3"Now THAT makes me feel a lot better about living in Europe."
I'll gladly keep our ridiculous cell phone plans and you can keep your outrageous taxes and retail prices. :)- shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7those 'outrageous' taxes give you free healthcare. I'd rather have free healthcare than cheap ***** pickles at Walmart.
- SoundScape, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well put.
- shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7those 'outrageous' taxes give you free healthcare. I'd rather have free healthcare than cheap ***** pickles at Walmart.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I think the big complaint is that when you sign up for those long term contracts you generally get a couple hundred dollars or more off of a phone/mobile device. That would make the iPhone pretty palatable, imo... $499 regular price, $250 if you sign a 2 year cell contract. That's long been the justification phone carriers used for the long contracts - they give you a phone, but you have to stay a customer long enough to pay for the device.
ATT/Apple wants it both ways now. You pay full price for the hardware AND sign a contract. No thanks!- unmarked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it's already been shown that you can do a no-contract goPhone, but the service (like all pay as to you go) is more expensive.
Apple didn't want to turn the iPhone into a commodity on day 1. It's a good branding/business move on their part. Apple doesn't play the heavy discount game on their products, ever. That's why they have minimum advertised prices and only the refurbished units are sold at a discount. You never see Apple offer a blow out sale to clear inventory. It's all part of keeping the Apple brand a premium. Other examples of this are Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Bentley. They never have a end-of-year clearance sale, as it would hurt the brand long term.
- unmarked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1it's already been shown that you can do a no-contract goPhone, but the service (like all pay as to you go) is more expensive.
- hometoast, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You don't have to have a contract. You need a contract to get the discount on the equipment. If you want to pay $200 more for your phone you can go without an agreement.
- edzilla, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11So, it's just not iphone users who are getting ripped off, it's all americans with a cell phone...
- monkzero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6we just need to demand more and better. and buying their stuff by the masses wont push the point =P so uh.. plz stop buying the iphone and just use what they give u for so many dollars more a month. demand more!
- spaceball5000, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Competition is sure to make things "slightly" better. Does anyone know of any other phones in the works with a similar interface? I saw Microsoft has a crazy expensive tablet style table - and it's Microsoft *sigh*.
- openthinker, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2What a *****. Most his points are invalid or spun. What makes me smile is my iphone! I will stick to my iphone thanks. Whenever I see other people using their "smart-phones" especially the micro$oft ones, that start malfunctioning when the battery gets low, and displays messages like, "not enough battery to perform that operation" HAHAHAHAHAH.... I laugh. The iphone makes the rest look like fisher-price toys. Seriously. Snob-I-Am!
- hetathia, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6You've confused the word 'snob' with the word '*****'.
- efontana, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3#3 doesnt make sense, isn't it free to call other AT&T cell numbers, and since it's AT&T exclusive, whats the point?
- YonicSouth, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Quite a few of these comments are saying that these practices are pretty common.
That doesn't mean that I'm not appalled by AT&T's lack of respect for its own customers and disregard for public trust.
Oh yeah, and shutup iPhone fanboys, at least read the damn article.- gabogab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Read the comments, FUD boy, this is a standard contract, that means all carriers, not just AT&T. The article, in fact, has nothing to do with the iPhone, it is about AT&T's contract. Did you read the article?
- addictedd, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5it doesnt surprise me that this iPhone crap is as restricted as that. There are tons of other phones that have the exact same features, and have had them for over a year. It's just because it's apple and everyone loves it's publicity.
- yabos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7News flash: it's the same for all US cell phones.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You don't have a phone with the same features. No phone has the same features as the iPhone. The multi-touch screen, visual voicemail, (true, unlimited) iTMS compatibilitym and a few others really are iPhone firsts. Now, is it worth $500 + an expensive contract? Not for me, but don't try to claim that your phone does all the things the iPhone does. It may do enough to satisfy YOU, but it's not the same.
- rmeddy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10Don't blend we will not replace it.
- antoniojvr, on 10/11/2007, -10/+915) Wi-Fi Service is Limited - "To ensure that the Wi-Fi Service is not being used fraudulently, AT&T limits your usage of the Wi-Fi Service to 150 uses per month"
In the words of Lewis Black - THAT'S..... ***** up!- mrgreen4242, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's for AT&T owned WiFi hotspots. Your own/other free WiFi is unlimited in use. They are just trying to make sure people who can get signal to one of their hotspots aren't using them constantly hogging bandwidth for a shared service.
- danpat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8OMG, you guys are over a barrel. I thought our telcos were crooks but no telco would get away with that here in Aus. And double billing? How on earth can they justify that?
- unmarked, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What is ultimately needed is some regulation by the FCC. Unfortunately, they have all been bought for the most part -- although I did see some rumblings that the new 700Mhz space will not allow vendor lock-in by cellular companies when it's leased out, so maybe there is hope (but I'm not holding my breath)
- akhomerun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2our cell minutes are cheap. being double billed doesn't bother us. i don't know how it is in australia but calling within the network is always free. night and weekends are typically free. double billing is justified simply because the market is willing to pay and we live in a mixed mostly free market economy. it has been standard practice since cell phones were released here. i don't know how much it costs in australia but the minutes themselves seem pretty cheap to me, so even if they are double billed it's okay.
family plans are popular as well. the in network calling can really save cash. some providers let you pick 5-10 numbers to call unlimitedly for free. t-mobile now offers unlimited calling at home (with a wifi network) for $10 a month extra.
There is competition in America, it isn't a monopoly, but it is not regulated a lot and it would be nice if the changes mentioned were implemented. but the market hasn't demanded it yet, unfortunately.
- bluedig, on 10/11/2007, -8/+315) Wi-Fi Service is Limited - "To ensure that the Wi-Fi Service is not being used fraudulently, AT&T limits your usage of the Wi-Fi Service to 150 uses per month"
This just killed my appetite for the iPhone- spazzcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I used wifi more then 150 times already with my iphone....I have feeling this means att wifi spots...
- superrcat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I think this is a generic ToS that was retrofitted for the iPhone, since the actual features that were demonstrated are not allowed in this ToS:
"E-mail attachments can not be sent, downloaded, read, or forwarded on the mobile device. Only a paper clip icon appears indicating an attachment. You must view attachments from your PC. "
Obviously a big feature is the ability to view Word, Excel, PDF and image attachments in email messages. Someone should contact AT&T and let them know there is a conflict between the ToS and the features advertised with the iPhone. - donelson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12
- edzilla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That is also a great way to get out of your contract while still paying the contract fees for two years.
- SoundScape, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Your Capital Letters Hurt My Head.
- HarveyBar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29Americans getting screwed over by large corporate companies....yeah that's new.
- polumrak, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Why is he writing Like This? Does that make him feel Big And Significant?
- camintmier, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Damn. If companies keep bending us over and screwing us like this, we're all gonna end up looking like goatse!
- redwallhp, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5They limit your *wi-fi* usage? Is that legal? They're telling you you can't use your own LAN card.
WTH? AT&T has got to be the most idiotic company ever! They've basically ensured that the iPhone's target audience (mega internet users) will not buy it.- cotaskmemalloc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No, they limit AT&T's wireless service. I've used Wi-Fi well over that limit since I got my iPhone (just walking in and out of range of my wireless router within my apartment).
- jdblueaudis4, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20First, this Telcom expert fails to understand or fails to communicate properly.
I manage wireless accounts for several of my clients and over the past 5 years I have managed Verizon, T-mobile, Cingular/AT&T, and Sprint/Nextel contracts. What you would be surprised to hear is a good 90% of those provisions are in ever contract. In the US you get charged on your cell phone if you are sending or receiving calls. Fact of life with the exception of limited plans on Sprint/Nextel incoming calls are not free like a land line. This is probably the next big shift we will see in Telcom in the US. Also AT&T is not the type of company to drop someone for over use. In fact I know people who have severely violated their ToU and their contract was never dropped. AT&T is being made out as the "Evil Carrier", but it would have been the same thing on Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint. Also it was Apples choice not to offer 3G on the phone. I personally use a Blackberry with EDGE and a 3G wireless card both from AT&T. Both are very fast. In fact the 3G card when I am in a good signal area my 3G card is faster then my cable modem.
Also most of these Telcom experts are paid advertisers for different companies. Also I agree with the arguments that the features of the iPhone in some instances tend to contradict the ToU of AT&T. This is probably just an oversight and not the "evil carrier" trying to rip you off. - DDDoc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14This is not inherently locked with the iPhone. This seems to be AT&T's normal contract.
- inter274, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Im with Fido in Canada and its the only mobile company with to the second billing and most of there plans offer free incoming calls , while there parent company Rogers has only to the minute .
- JeremyBanks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Second-to-second billing only applies to their montly plans, something they neglected to mention in the ads for a long time after they began doing it, and only in the fine print for a time after that.
- Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10All these things have nothing to do with the iPhone and everything to do with AT&T.
- IlJaanevits, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0All these things have everything to do with iPhone letting AT&T be their provider and sucking all the money out of it they can.
Or is there other phones around with similar monthly plans?
Anyway...Apple knows how to do iBusiness!
- IlJaanevits, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0All these things have everything to do with iPhone letting AT&T be their provider and sucking all the money out of it they can.
- cloudyprison, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3I 'JUST' learned about openMoko yesterday and already it is looking way way more appealing then the iPhone.
- morcheeba, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What do you like about it most?
- gabogab, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think it is time to coin the phrase "iPhone FUD fanboys" These are people who are gleeful whenever they hear anything bad about the iPhone, no matter how absurd or misguided. This is getting old in a hurry...
- drewman77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, and what network would you be using with your opensource phone? Oh yes, AT&T or T-Mobile in the U.S. and under the same provisions as an iPhone. The open source phone is a neat concept, but not the answer to the problems this article points out.
- Paranoidmarvin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3So a good phone, ruined by the network.
I hope they aren't as bad in the UK.... - Eihcet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Dugg down because this is applicable to all cellphones on AT&T and, imo, pretty common for all cellular contract plans.
- cotaskmemalloc, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12@mannaran
"iPhone is dead! So are the people reading its fine print. Here comes iPod killer http://openmoko.org/ and http://openmoko.com/"
Right, and this is also the year of the Linux desktop. *rolls eyes*- drewman77, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And what network do you use with your open source phone? AT&T or T-Mobile with the same contract provisions.
- GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They can't even make a user friendly website and you think they are going to make a user friendly fone? Don't count on it.
- aphex, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7OpenMoko - in the U.S. at least, a phone with no carrier support is going to be a hard sell to the general public (yes, I'm aware that every digg user will have one but thats 0.000001% of cell users). Don't get me wrong, I think its a great device but its no 'iPhone Killer' unless it gets some real corporate support behind it. Like it or not its hard to compete on a marketing level with Apple and AT&T.
- sremick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No carrier support? How do you figure? Pop in a GSM SIM card and go.
- deviouster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2he means that it'll be hrad to get a lot of sponsorship and support for it, to get the word out and sell. sure you can buy it and set it up, but without carrier support, the word wont get out and not everyone will know aobut it
- haylcron, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Every Digg user will have one? No thanks, I'm sticking with my iPhone.
- gadgetlust, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I bet you're really popular at parties. C'mon big boy -- whip it out.
- sremick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No carrier support? How do you figure? Pop in a GSM SIM card and go.
- MavRevMatt, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Without reading the article I will just state: DUPED!
- changoleon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0As someone else stated, this is purely AT&A contract rules, not iPhone rules- these apply to every AT&T plan and phone.
So duped maybe, but duped for signing up with AT&T, not for buying an iPhone.
- changoleon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0As someone else stated, this is purely AT&A contract rules, not iPhone rules- these apply to every AT&T plan and phone.
- WolfDog, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1dugg for the fact that stupid ppl just want the latest gadget and cant be bothered to read the fine print, but that will all change when they unlocked the phone from at&t
- seraph82, on 10/11/2007, -8/+41) iPhone Requires a 2-Year Contract with AT&T.
2) Expensive: Requires $2,280, Over $1,730 in Wireless Costs.
3) Double Billing. You and the Caller Both Get Charged for the Same Call.
4) All Use of the Networks Are Always Rounded Up to the Nearest Kilobyte or Minute.
...This practice is now standard and is anti-competitive. In the 1990’s, phone companies, to be competitive, created “6 second billing”, where the call was rounded to the nearest 1/10th of a minute. This change adds 15+% to the average bill. Moreover, the companies now have all gone to full minute billing, full kilobyte billing, so that they can make an extra minute on almost every transaction...
5) Customers Are Billed for “Network Errors” and “Network Overhead".
6) Billed Even Though the Call Doesn't Go Through.
7) Bogus Fees Added to the Bill: Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge
The “Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge” is a made-up charge that should have been included in the cost of service instead of a separate line item. Most carriers are charging this fee, even though it is not government mandated or a legitimate tax. By making it a separate line item, the phone company gets more money and doesn’t have to include this line item in the advertised cost of service. According to AT&T:
"The Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge is a charge assessed by AT&T and is not a tax or government-mandated charge. This charge is subject to change from time to time as the cost of compliance changes.... The purpose of the charge is to defray AT&T's costs associated with payment of fees and compliance with various initiatives imposed by the government. Please note that costs may be incurred and charged prior to initiation of any of the respective services."
8) $175.00 Termination Fee.
9) International Messages Are Charged Additional Fees as Are Files Over 300Kbps.
...While it cost[s] nothing extra to send an email overseas using the Internet, AT&T has decided that all messages outside the US or larger than 300 K should cost extra:
“International messages not included. Charges for international messages sent from the U.S. are 20¢ for Text Messages and 50¢ for Picture/Video Messages. Additional charges for premium messages and content apply. Messages over 300 KBs billed an additional 50¢/message.”
10) Over Your Quota: Get Gouged: 40¢ Per Minute and 69¢ Roaming Offnet.
11) The Services Are Not Secure and Can't Block Your Phone Number.
12) The Current Mobile Email Service Doesn't Support Attachments.
13) Prohibited Uses and “Unlimited” Sales Hype.
Even though the service is called "unlimited" they are simply using that word as a marketing concept, not an actual service description. You can't use the service for VOIP and worse "unlimited plans cannot be used for uploading, downloading or streaming of video content (e.g. movies, tv), music or games." Here are just some of the restrictions [prohibited services]:
* With server devices or with host computer applications, including, without limitation, web camera posts or broadcasts, continuous jpeg file transfers, automatic data feeds, telemetry applications, peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing, automated functions or any other machine-to-machine applications...
* for voice over ip...
* in conjunction with wwan or other applications or devices which aggregate usage from multiple sources prior to transmission...
* Except for content formatted in accordance with at&t's content standards, unlimited plans cannot be used for uploading, downloading or streaming of video content (e.g. movies, tv), music or games. Furthermore, unlimited plans (except for dataconnect and blackberry tethered) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device
14) Service Is Not Intended to Provide Full-Time Connections: Unlimited is Hype - Don’t use the service too much or the phone company can terminate your service.
15) Wi-Fi Service is Limited - "To ensure that the Wi-Fi Service is not being used fraudulently, AT&T limits your usage of the Wi-Fi Service to 150 uses per month" ...Does that mean that if you lose signal a few times during one session, or you are traveling and go between ‘hot spots’ you can rack up lots of ‘uses’?
16) “Offnet” Restrictions - If you have a service and you happen to call other ‘offnet’ services, including wireline phones, or non-AT&T subscribers, you have to ‘limit’ your use, be charged or be terminated.
17) Plan Goobly-gook - ...There are plan fees, taxes and surcharges, roaming fees, text fees, Night and Weekend Minutes, Mobile to Mobile Minutes, Anytime Minutes and Rollover Minutes, EDGE/GPRS and BroadbandConnect, offnet, AT&T Video clips, Data Connect Unlimited, WI-FI CONNECT, constraints on ‘unlimited plans including “20% of 6 Megabits offnet”, “150 uses of Wi-Fi”, and other restrictions...
18) Comparing US and Other Broadband Countries: America Is being Laughed At.
Why did iPhone get deployed on a slow, closed network? That answer may not be known, but it is clear that iPhone is being deployed on an old-technology network, and is neither state-of-the-art nor fast. Here’s some info about the [wired] networks... "The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second — a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan ... Other speedy countries include South Korea (median 45 megabits), France (17 megabits) and Canada (7 megabits)."
19) The Upcoming Wireless Spectrum Auctions - The upcoming 700 MHz wireless spectrum auctions are underway [and] the bottom-line is [that] America needs open wireless networks, and it should be clear to anyone who is considering buying an iPhone that the AT&T networks should not be the only network for this innovative product. -
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
