AT&T Plays Dumb as iPhone Romance Hits Rocks
AT&T can't decide whether it loves or hates the iPhone. But for many iPhone users there's little doubt: They hate AT&T.
The upcoming release of the new iPhone comes with some nasty strings attached. While Apple upgraded the device to deliver innovative features -- like multimedia messaging and "tethering," which allows you to connect computers to the Internet via the device -- AT&T has blocked customers from using them.
And many of the more than 5 million iPhone's devotees in the U.S. aren't happy.
This anger became palpable Tuesday and Wednesday as it spilled over onto Twitter, driving the issue to the top of the social network's trending topics.
A Slap in the Face
"[I] cannot believe how AT&T is shafting current iPhone and future iPhone customers," wrote Javs42. "First with the upgrade pricing, then the [multimedia messaging] & tether support."
Many blamed AT&T's exclusive contract with Apple. "Apple please don't extend the contract w/ AT&T," DanMcneely pleaded.
 The Old Ball and Chain |
"AT&T sucks, period," a commenter named Dan said on the iPhone Blog.
Exclusivity Sucks
Multimedia messaging has taken off among users in Europe and Asia, who can send pictures and videos using a variety of smart phones available on the market. The new European iPhone, which will be made available via overseas carriers, will have the new features built in.
But in America, the iPhone is offered exclusively by AT&T, and for many that's the real problem.
An AT&T spokesperson told the New York Times that "the delay has nothing to do with network issues," but declined to say why AT&T is slow to embrace cell phone innovation in the United States.
Ma Bell Nostalgia
Some clues might come from the company's long and turbulent relationship with any new technology that threatens its control. For decades, the old AT&T telephone monopoly controlled every phone on its grid and banned other companies from connecting innovative devices -- including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones and early computer modems.
A groundbreaking 1968 policy change, known among tech wonks as "Carterfone," pried open the device marketplace so that numerous new phone products could be introduced. This in turn spawned a flood of innovation in services that greatly benefited customers.
That old monopoly was broken up. But the new AT&T has suffered a relapse, unilaterally deciding which applications make it onto the iPhone, and which don't.
Both Skype and SlingPlayer won't work over AT&T's 3G network, not because the technology doesn't function, but because the AT&T media empire is threatened by services that may strain its already shaky networks and compete with its other products. AT&T's lead lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, told USA Today, "We absolutely expect our vendors not to facilitate the services of our competitors."
Garden Walls Must Fall
Applying Carterfone rules to the wireless marketplace would spark a revolution in gadgets while freeing up users to bring their handheld Internet devices with them from one carrier to another.
But don't expect AT&T (and its many lawyers) to stand idly by as policymakers, public interest advocates and angry consumers try to free the iPhone from its walled garden.
"Consumers are tired of wireless carriers impeding innovation instead of promoting it. Congress should unlock the mobile marketplace by putting an end to these exclusive deals," said Chris Riley, policy counsel of Free Press
"Cutting-edge wireless devices and applications have the potential to launch new industries and revolutionize everyday life," Riley said. "In this challenging economy, we cannot afford to allow AT&T or any other company to stand in the way of progress."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yeah, I'd love to get the Iphone but only if it should come to Verizon. In the meantime I'll get the BB Tour in July when it comes out. To satisfy the Iphone craving, I'll get the Ipod Touch.
Oh, look! Another case of American technology lagging behind that of Europe and Asia because of the reactionary stupidity and megalomaniacal greed of an American corporation.
SHOCKING!
Buy an iTouch. Keep whatever phone service you have with whatever phone you have. It was my only solution when gifted with an iPhone.
I realized the gift would really cost me a lot more in the ETF and monthly increase in fees. Also, I got so frustrated getting all kinds of contradictory info from AT&T. They wouldn't be subsidizing anything, but still insisted on the two year contract. So, I sold the phone, a 2G, to a T-Mobile person, kept my perfectly fine phone with low fees at Verizon and get to have free wifi on my iTouch w/o needing a data plan. Sold the phone on Craigslist for the price of an iTouch. Given that it was my first iPod, imagine my delight. A real gift, after all.
Whatever the coming LTD standard is that someone mentioned above, might make all this annoyance moot , sane, and inevitable.
There is no way I can see AT&T as holding on like this. With new phones coming out every day, e.g. Palm Pre, upgraded Blackberrys; the "cool" of the iphone is rapidly diminishing. I understand why everyone rushed out initially to get the iphone and switch over to AT&T, but now, it's not worth it. Maybe Apple will realize this?
I had Verizon for years. Every change I made of any type restarted my 2-year Verizon contract, having to find someone to reset it back, but not true at AT&T. Charged exhorbitant fees for extra minutes and so on, AT&T uses my rolled over minutes - WOW!
I've had multiple cell phones with Verizon (in LA and Durham) over the years and paid for my employees to have them. Verizon always penalized for early upgrade. Verizon invented the "two" slogan to get a new phone (meaning you served your two years).
The original iPhone was NOT subsidized. The 3G was. And like all carriers, people got a free ride for 2/3 of cost in exchange for 2 years with no free upgrades. But not on the original = no subsidy meant an early upgrade was fine.
What is so hard to understand about this policy that is universal in the industry? People are complaining like whining victims over something they should know better about.
As far as having a phone not tied to a network - this is fine - but just realize the low price won't be there! Who would subsidize your phone for hundreds of dollars if they knew you could leave next month? Now what I do think would be fair would be to drop the penalty monthly as the subsidy gets paid off. I think there is some of that, but all the phone carriers to my understanding have the better of us on this.
From a business standpoint, the higher price makes sense, but AT&T set a precedent and should stick to it.
As an iPhone user and an ATT subscriber for dsl, et al, I am very disappointed that ATT has not lived up to its side of the equation.
That's what happens when the newest technology partners with the oldest legacy systems. Whitacre must not have known anything about Apple (just like he now knows nothing about cars while chairing the GM board) and thought the power of the ATT brand would see them thru. One word:
FAIL!
Let's go back aways folks, the iPhone was supposed to be available on ALL networks. When it was time to come out we were all duped by Apple, the phone as you know it was exclusive to AT&T. So many people left their carriers just for a phone on a crappy network and now regret it. Apple may be coming to it's senses and are seeing the bigger market.
Yep, Apple (read Jobs) shares some blame here. Wonder what wonder inticements were made to Apple to convince them that going with one of the oldest, legacy technology icons was going to be the "killer app."
Actually, Apple approached Verizon first with the iPhone only to be turned down. Verizon was Apple's first choice due to them having the most cellular customers. AT&T, then CIngular at the time, was the only carrier to allow Apple full control, which is how Apple can uphold and maintain the user experience they want their customers to enjoy. Read below:
"While Cingular (er, AT&T, but you know what we mean) couldn't seem prouder of its iPhone exclusivity, apparently Apple's first choice was Verizon, but the two companies couldn't agree on a deal that worked for both companies. ...Talks began as far back as two years ago, but Apple's demands were steep. ...Apple wanted a percentage of monthly service fees, control over distribution that would limit iPhone sales to Apple and Verizon stores, and even some control over service and support for iPhone customers.
And no, it wasn't suppose to be available on all networks. Apple would have had to build two different iPhone models, one for GSM and one for CDMA, due to the two carrier formats currently in use right now. Until everything gets standardized to the LTE standard coming out in 2009-2010 on all carriers, it would have been cost prohibitive to do so for Apple.
i'm dying to get an iPhone but I refuse to do so until they change carriers. I got totally screwed by Cingular--too long a story to go into, but it convinced me that they were mud-sucking sleazeballs. Can ATT be any better?
I like Verizon well enough. Open up my options and i'll be in line for my new iPhone.
I really do dislike ATT pretty much across the board. They overcharge (by at least 20 bucks) relative to Tmobile, who uses the same tech. They have pretty poor 3G service. My calls drop constantly in my first floor apartment in a downtown urban area...ove
If the iphone was offered on any other network I would switch over in a second. I think ATT knows that which is why they pay through the nose for exclusivity. I would pay a few hundred extra for the phone easily just to not have to deal with ATT anymore, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.
Apple doesn't have to make a deal with another company, just offer a reasonably priced (399ish) unlocked phone and support its use on other networks fully (I mean visual voicemail and the like on TMobile). Is that too much to ask?
You can get a blackberry on every cell phone network and they still get subsidized, so why the hell can't apple get the iphone out there for all 4 major carriers?
I love the features of my iPhone, but will probably switch to the new Palm Pre to avoid AT&T. In ND last year, at a family reunion, my kid brother had a cheapie phone with a local Alaska carrier. He could get service in ND, with my shiny new expensive iPhone I could not. AT&T won't even allow roaming.
Would have love to get a new iPhone, but AT&T makes it not worth the price or the hassle.
I wouldn't go so far as to accept an inferior phone to avoid ATT, its not THAT bad. Plus when it comes to being a bad cell phone company Sprint is a VERY close second. That's like saying "I'm done being a Clippers fan!" and then picking the Golden State Warriors as your team instead.
Also the Pre has been universally lauded as kind of almost as good as the iphone but without the Apps, the solid build quality, the big 16-32GB flash drive, the video capture, the expansive home screen, the bigger screen ect.
The iphone is a 10, the Pre maybe a 7 then ATT is like a 2 and Spring a 3. 10+2 is still better then 7+3 in my book.
Now if the Pre was on a worthwhile carrier like Verizon it might actually be worth getting, but I hold out hope that the iphone will be on Verizon soon enough so that will never be an issue.
i never like at&t that's why i was never interested in the iphone
Actually, there is an app being beta tested now for July or August release that will let you use your Iphone to listen to all of Sirius' content. No need for a separate device, just pay the subscription fee. I live in Pittsburgh, and the IPHONE is great. Would I love the new one? Sure. I agree with the upgrade fees though. These devices are subsidized, so why give away the shop?
Ha! Great to be in the UK where the IPhone will no longer be tethered to O2.
I just wish they had unlimited mobile broadband over here, like I used to get in the US.
So, cards on the table: I work for (and am a HUGE FAN of) T-Mobile, so I will lose no sleep over an article that puts AT&T in a less than flattering light.
However, I think there's a certain amount of ignorance (no offense, Tim) in the article that leads to an unfair bias. First off, carrier subsidies of phone prices are nothing new, to be more honest, the phrasing should be something like "The $400 phone will be offered at $100 for new customers signing a 2 year contract. Existing customers who haven't received a discounted phone in 2 years will also be eligible for a discount." Then feel free to discuss how some existing customers may feel slighted, that's fine, but this has been standard operating procedure in the wireless business for nearly a decade now.
Also, AT&T didn't so much as block MMS as they mismanaged the way the original iPhone launched on their network. For details, please see this article: http://www
All that said, for anyone who still feels a (legitimate I'm sure) beef with AT&T, please head over to your local T-Mobile store and grab a G1 (the Google phone). It's way better than iPhone. And if you don't like the G1, there will be a LOT more handsets running the Google Android operating system soon!
Way better in what way? It seems to have far less features, worse build quailty, worse OS, worse touch screen ect. Every review I've read for the G1 (other then yours) has said "its no iphone". It is way behind the Pre in that regard which is the only iphone copy thus far to really get pretty good reviews.
Is there even one reason to say the G1 is better other then it is native to Tmobile (to be fair, if you wait on your contract or pay the cancelation fee the iphone works fine on Tmobile too).
I think you're statement summed it up perfectly: "It's no iPhone". And I will cop to a hasty "It's way better than iPhone" statement, so let me qualify a bit.
Top priority should always be the overall customer experience, and a great customer experience starts with the product being a right fit to the customer's individual needs. If you're looking for a media player first, the iPhone will likely win. But for many users, there is a lot more to their mobile experience than media, and I think in those regards, the Android platform has a great answer to a lot of those needs.
And, as much as I love T-Mobile, I recognize that another carrier may be the right fit, and Android is not an exclusive-by-design product. T-Mobile happened to get on the early adopter bandwagon, but there are Android phones on the 3 month horizon for AT&T and Sprint.
So it's no iPhone, it's a different product that overlaps some of the same space, but can fit different needs (and ones that the iPhone can't).
Android is in it's early stages still, but it's growing amazingly fast. More hardware is coming, and is has an open development environment that allows for rapid and dynamic growth. That might make it a viable option for all those folks out there who jumped to AT&T and iPhone only to not get the mobile experience that fit their needs (for carrier or hardware reasons).
I was just talking with my students about this tonight. It is time for the government to reverse the Bush policies of a blind eye to anti-competitive behavior.
Oddly enough, the Republicans - the party of capitalism-has destroyed competition. I know, I know, it is because of lobbying and donations. But, the contradictions are remarkable.
Don't even get me started on Comcast.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
