AT&T Admits It Wasn't Ready For The iPhone

[Cousin_IT]

"our network capacity is sub-par" seems more a justification for ending their iPhone monopoly than increasing their network one.

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

This entire thread on how terrible AT&T's service has been, and their low rate of customer satisfaction is ironic for me, as in Canada this would be excellent in terms of both quality and price. We enjoy the wonderful pleasure of having to buy our phones and internet from companies that manage to rewire an entire neighborhood so badly that our landline cable was switched with our neighbors, and the companies didn't notice for a month, or three visits to find out why nothing worked. Even after the 'fix' half of the plugs in the house route to somewhere else. However, the bills come just fine.

 

[RelexCryo]

Demanding to be given an even larger percentage of the market share, on the grounds they were not competent enough to properly estimate the load their system would have to carry, is not logical. Made even less logical by the fact that T-mobile, as far as I can tell, is a superior system.

 

[ewhac]

A smartphone generates 24 times the mobile data traffic of a conventional wireless phone, and the explosively popular iPad and similar tablet devices can generate traffic comparable to or even greater than a smartphone. AT&T's mobile data volumes surged by a staggering 8,000% from 2007 to 2010, and as a result, AT&T faces network capacity constraints more severe than those of any other wireless provider.

Apparently, AT&T expects the problem to get worse in the future: The company stated that it believes its network will have to carry more data in the first five-to-seven weeks of 2015 than it did in all of 2010. Accordingly, the T-Mobile deal will [strong]supposedly[/strong] benefit consumers by "reducing the number of dropped and blocked calls, increasing data speeds, improving in-building coverage, and dramatically expanding deployment of next-generation mobile technology." [emphasis mine]

Absolute, complete fucking horseshit.

This pathetic whining would be vaguely plausible if it wasn't for one salient fact: In the United States, [em]the cell carriers have absolute control over availability and distribution of the devices.[/em]

What does this mean? It means that, as the carrier, you can control the population and, to a lesser extent, the network usage of the devices. Available techniques include controlling handset availability, handset pricing, usage pricing, or just plain throttling the damned things.

But the biggest lever the carriers have is [em]device approval[/em]. If you want to sell a wireless device into AT&T's network, then you must go through AT&T's testing and approval process. If you don't get through, then you don't get to sell in the US, and only the most dedicated phone hackers will seek out unlocked handsets and attempt to use them anyway.

So: If you're AT&T, and you're looking at your network usage, and you're thinking to yourself, "Wow, this smartphone thing is really flooding our network. We need time to build out more capacity before we allow in more devices," you'd probably then turn to the guy running your device approval department and say, "Don't take any new applications for a while. The network can't handle it."

[em]But AT&T didn't do that.[/em]

Instead, not only do we have smartphones and "superphones" showing up, but now wireless tablets, and even the bloody Amazon Kindle and B&N Nook have 3G versions.

Approving so many new devices is not the behavior of an organization that is truthfully concerned about its network capacity. Therefore, AT&T is feeding horseshit to the FCC and FTC.

(Incidentally, for those of you who may be too young to remember, this is not the first time The Phone Company has bitched about the "excessive network usage" of digital devices. They did it back in the late 1990's / early 2000's when broadband was starting to take off, and they were inventing reasons to deny the CLECs access to their central offices. And before that, they went whining to the government asking for permission to levy a special fee/tariff for all those nasty modem users who were tying up their lines for hours at a time. Same old story...)

 

[weirdee]

Automated response:

if you can't stand the heat, GET THE HELL OUTTA MAH KITCHEN

on a related note, at&t still hasn't pulled those t-mobile ads which make "we're not at&t" the main selling point of the entire ad campaign

talk about slow response times

 

[high_castle]

I tried AT&T at one point when my Sprint contract expired. I got no service in my house unless I went up to the attic, and even then it was spotty. Since I didn't have a landline, I kind of needed the cell service. I ended up bringing the damn thing back and switching to Verizon. When that company finally released the iPhone, I was first in line at my local store. I've had it since release and somehow Verizon managed to figure out how to keep your cell service intact without overloading towers.

 

[JDKJ]

2 company monopoly

The word you are looking for is Oligopoly.

Not necessarily -- and perhaps not likely given the context. Two distinct companies can be monopolistic. For example: vertical integration. If Company A owns the only product of its kind and Company B owns the exclusive means of distributing that product and they are stacked on top of each (i.e., vertically integrated), that can result in a monopolized market for the product. Either one acting alone can't but acting together they can.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Only ones I feel sorry for are the customers and the IT/infrastructure people who were no doubt told "Yeah, we're going to be boosting traffic eightyfold, here's a $0 increase to your budget to get that done. Get on that while I go on the company-paid vacation that landing the iPhone contract got me."

 

[Xeorm]

2 company monopoly

The word you are looking for is Oligopoly.

Not necessarily -- and perhaps not likely given the context. Two distinct companies can be monopolistic. For example: vertical integration. If Company A owns the only product of its kind and Company B owns the exclusive means of distributing that product and they are stacked on top of each (i.e., vertically integrated), that can result in a monopolized market for the product. Either one acting alone can't but acting together they can.

I'm fairly sure that oligopoly is the correct term here. Vertical integration is when one company buys another on the same line of production. What you're talking here is more colluding with another company.

 

[JDKJ]

2 company monopoly

The word you are looking for is Oligopoly.

Not necessarily -- and perhaps not likely given the context. Two distinct companies can be monopolistic. For example: vertical integration. If Company A owns the only product of its kind and Company B owns the exclusive means of distributing that product and they are stacked on top of each (i.e., vertically integrated), that can result in a monopolized market for the product. Either one acting alone can't but acting together they can.

I'm fairly sure that oligopoly is the correct term here. Vertical integration is when one company buys another on the same line of production. What you're talking here is more colluding with another company.

No. Collusion usually occurs between two producers of the same product. For example, price fixing. Oligopoly (i.e., a market dominated by a small number of sellers) is what makes monopolistic collusion have a greater chance of being successful because there are few alternative sellers. Vertical integration, on the other hand, usually occurs when the production and distribution of a product are controlled by a single decision-maker using two distinct companies (usually in the form of a parent and a subsidiary).

Here, Apple and AT&T aren't sellers of the same product. Apple provides the iPhone. AT&T provides the telephony service for the iPhone. They can't be oligopolists simply because they aren't sellers of the same product. A clear-cut example of an oligopoly is the market for game console and Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Those three companies control 99.9% of the market for game consoles. That's an oligopoly.

A clear-cut example of vertical integration is George Steinbrenner, the New York Yankees, and YES Network. Steinbrenner own the Yankees (and by extension the games that the Yankees play) and YES Network (the company that sells Yankee games to cable service providers for them to televise in the New York City area). He's vertically integrated the two companies (i.e., New York Yankees and YES Network). One company creates the product, the other company distributes the product, both under the control of Steinbrenner. That's vertical integration.

 

[Baldr]

I love how people sit around and complain about crappy network services and then don't allow cell phone companies to build towers near them.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

Long time Sprint user here. I've been a truck driver for about 5 years now, been to every state in the continental US and really never experienced "bad" call service. Mostly always on network (even though roaming is free) internet always decent speeds blah blah blah.

Cheap data/voice plans, no caps (I love that part) and bulk discounts for everything.

Nicer than all of that? Their customer service is amazing. Americans work in their call centers, hold times are non existent, and they will always work with you.

I've never paid a bill above 70 dollars. Not to mention free mobile to mobile.

I don't know. If you like dealing with a smaller company that has as good or better service quality than AT&T, customer service that beats AT&T (allegedly) and costs significantly less then Sprint is a good fit. Big isn't always better. And their handsets are getting pretty sweet. I like my EVO.

 

[RayB]

It's all about MONEY... cold CA$H... and screw the customer.

If you buy that mobile device for retail or off eBay or Craigslist, AT&T determines what you pay (minimum) by the model. YES... the "model". If you want to use that fancy iPhone you bought off of eBay as a voice-only device and an iPod just for your music... YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

From the most current T&C, section 6.3: "An eligible tiered pricing data plan is required for certain Devices, including iPhones and other designated Smartphones. Eligible voice and tiered pricing data plans cover voice and data usage in the U.S. and do not cover International voice and data usage and charges. If it is determined that you are using a voice-capable Device without a voice plan, or that you are using an iPhone or designated Smartphone without an eligible voice and tiered data plan, AT&T reserves the right to switch you to the required plan or plans and bill you the appropriate monthly fees."

I'm now with T-Mobile because I am retired and at home all day with my WiFi but AT&T demanded that I pay them $15 per month for data that I cannot use and did not want. And believe me, this fish stinks from the head, I have the emails.

FCC is worthless, where the heck is the FTC? Screwing customers by phone model should be as illegal as Ford telling you that you must use BP gasoline. It's wrong... it's unAmerican... but it's legal because the Feds believe there is ample competition in the market... and AT&T intends on taking the largest 2nd GSM competition away. Anyone know where one can buy a case of K-Y on the cheap?

(Unless quoted, the above is my personal opinion. You should research and form your own opinion based on facts.)

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

When all the other phone companies give me reception out at my farm in bumfuck I'll try them out, but when I have to fly back to OK to work the land I like to be able to stream my porn in the middle of the field.

 

[VanityGirl]

I'm still bitter that the company had over $30 billion sitting around that they DIDN'T use to shore up their network.

Wouldn't making more towers solve the problem?
If they have all that moolah, why not put it towards helping their customers? -_-

 

[DTWolfwood]

AT&T in NYC is completely ASS, seriously they are so bad!

If it wasnt for their roll over minutes no1 would use them. T-Mobile was better than them, hell even Sprint.

 

[JDKJ]

I love how people sit around and complain about crappy network services and then don't allow cell phone companies to build towers near them.

There's no clear evidence either way, but it is claimed by some that living close to cell towers increases the risk of cancer.

 

[JDKJ]

AT&T in NYC is completely ASS, seriously they are so bad!

If it wasnt for their roll over minutes no1 would use them. T-Mobile was better than them, hell even Sprint.

That has a lot to do with the cost of erecting transmitters in the City. There's nowhere to put 'em but on roofs of skyscrapers and the rent on that is an arm and leg. It's cheaper to wire the NYC subway system for cell and wi-fi because the MTA is willing to work with them on the cheap. There may come a day when your cell phone works better in a subway tunnel than it does on the street above the tunnel.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

As a T-mobile user I couldn't be less enthusiastic about this.


I'll probably bail to Verizon or something if/when this goes through.