iPhone Debut Screwed Up By AT&T

<div align="center"> </div>

 

Two years ago I bought a AT&T phone because at the time AT&T didn't mess with the Bluetooth stack as Verizon did with it's phone's and screwed it all up. Two or three weeks later Cingular bought out AT&T and I went through some hoops getting things straightened out, but all in all I was happy. A month or two ago i went into the Cingular store and purchased the Cingular 8525 (HTC Hermes) phone with all the capabilities of the iPhone just not the same UI. Then shortly after that AT&T buys out Cingular, Grrrrrrr. Still happy so far and I love the Cingular 8525 (HTC Hermes) and would recommend that as an alternative for the iPhone.

<div align="center">[attachmentid=9499]</div>

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 7 2007, 12:10 AM) [snapback]474531[/snapback]</div>

AT&T did not buy out Cingular.

Cingular was jointly owned by SBC and Bell South. SBC then bought AT&T and changed its name to at&t, a far better known brand name throughout the world. Then the new at&t bought out Bell South. Now that at&t was the sole owner of Cingular, it changed Cingular's name to Wireless by at&t for brand consistency.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 7 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]474639[/snapback]</div>

Aren't we approaching the old days when there was only one phone carrier in the U.S.? And it worked pretty darn good. It was broken up into little pieces under the justification of "monopoly". And service started to suck. And all of the rates went up.

So now all of the little pieces are buying each other and making a big piece.

And the rates are going up again.

Exactly what did this accomplish?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]474657[/snapback]</div>

Here is your answer:



Long distance rates are cheaper than ever. Long distance charges used to subsidize local service, no more. Long distance calls are free on most cellular calling plans. You can still have a choice of long distance carrier, regardless of whom you use for local service. In most places local phone service can be had through cable TV companies or VOIP service providers. For wireless service, there are four national providers and a handful of strong regional ones.

We have a lot more choices than we had prior to deregulation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]474657[/snapback]</div>

It worked great, as long as you use your Bell approved phone and nothing else. Answering machines, cheap cordless phones, and so on all came along after deregulation and the opening up of a formerly closed market.

So no, you can say it worked. But to say it worked pretty darn good is a gross overstatement.

 

I have no cell phone so I don't need wireless.

I rarely call long distance. 2-3 times a year max.

But my local rates went from $10 a month to $25.00 a month. If I had phone through my cable company it would be even more.

So in essence I'm now subsidizing those that make long distance and wireless calls.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 04:04 PM) [snapback]474800[/snapback]</div>

I could not disagree with you more. The $10 a month that you paid for your local service before deregulation did even come close to covering the cost of providing the service. Long distance users, who were paying 25 to 75 cents a minute and more depending on the day of the week and time of day, made up the difference between what it cost Ma Bell to provide your local service and what you paid for it. Once long distance competition started, AT&T had to bring down the cost of such calls to more closely correlate to what it cost to provide the service. As a result, AT&T was forced raise the price of local service to approximate what it cost to provide such service. If you were to carefully check your phone bill, you will notice that approximately $10 of that sum is for various taxes and regulatory fees.

Most users, including you, are paying for the actual service that they receive and are no longer subsidizing users of other types of phone service.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 7 2007, 06:41 PM) [snapback]474816[/snapback]</div>

Then who is paying for all those free long distance cell phone calls?

Don't tell me some of what I pay isn't going to subsidize cell phone systems and their long distance since all of the phone carriers now are also in the cell phone business. BTW you left Cingular off the Bell South/SBC/att merger chart.

I had SBC which is now at&t. So I'm subsidizing the Cingular network and long distance.

I'm not?

Explain to me why I have to pay EXTRA every month just to have an unlisted phone number. Why do I have to pay EXTRA every month so they don't print my name and number in a book they put out once a year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bmwquickspeed @ Jul 2 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]471494[/snapback]</div>

Depends on which network (EDGE vs. EV-DO) is being accessed for the web browsing. Browsing on an EDGE network is pure torture. I tried it once with a Treo650 - never again. Fast forward to the present with a Blackberry 8703 connected via USB to a notebook and I have DSL speed (~500 kbps) for web browsing on Sprint's EV-DO network and I am not tethered to a WiFi hotspot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]474657[/snapback]</div>

Ha! Doesn't this sound like what happened to the oil business? Nothing like consolidation to drive prices up....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 05:28 PM) [snapback]474831[/snapback]</div>

Cell phone users pay for their "free" long distance. It is bundled with the base service. I pay Sprint $80 a month, before taxes and a corporate discount, for 800 minutes shared by three phones.

The chart is not mine. It is Wikipedia's. It only shows the break up of Ma Bell and the re-consolidation of the Baby Bells which followed. It was not meant to show the cellular companies or the other land and long distance carriers such as GTE, MCI and Sprint, to name but a few.

As I have already explained above, no, you are not. The average cell phone bill is considerably higher than what you are paying. The cellular companies, two of them are independent of the Baby Bells, are self sustaining and profitable on their own. You should see what people pay when they go over their alloted minutes or when they roam off their network.

Both Verizon and at&t claim that there is an administrative cost to keep your name out of directory assistance. I don't buy it, but the California PUC does.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 07:04 PM) [snapback]474800[/snapback]</div>

Well, while I see your point, if I said, 'I don't have kids, never will, why am I paying taxes for schools', people would jump all over me.

(and I don't have kids, never will, and I hate paying taxes for schools)...

By not having a cell phone, and by being in the minority when it comes to long distance, I am afraid you are paying to subsidize long distance and wireless calls, to some degree.

Of course, you could get a cheap cell phone (some are even pre-paid), and you could make more then 2-3 long distance calls a year, and feel like you are gietting something for your money...

 

I got same phone and loaded pPod(iPod emulator) for it. someone might emulate iPhone's UI in the future.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 7 2007, 03:10 AM) [snapback]474531[/snapback]</div>

Wildkow
[/b][/quote]

 

In reading the following about Verizon, I'm thinking Apple didn't do so bad with at&t. There's a certain business ethics in a company. Now it's been mentioned before that Apple didn't award the iPhone contract to Verizon because Verizon wanted to be in charge of repairs and they wanted to push their own software.

This article isn't about cellphones, but it does involve some business practices by Verizon that could be considered questionable.

Verizon cutting copper.

"When Henry Powderly II ordered Verizon Communications Inc.'s FiOS fiber-optic service, he knew he was about to be connected to the future of telecommunications. He also got unplugged from its past. Which meant that while Powderly was gaining features, he was losing some telecommunications options.

Verizon's installer — without warning, Powderly says — removed the copper wires that used to carry his phone calls. For most of the world, copper still links homes and businesses, as it has for a century.

Verizon's new high-bandwidth fiber lines are fully capable of carrying not only calls but also Internet data and television with room to grow. But once the copper is pulled, it's difficult to switch back to the traditional phone system or less expensive Digital Subscriber Line service. And Verizon isn't required, in most instances, to lease fiber to rival phone companies, as it is with the copper infrastructure.

What's more, anyone who owns Powderly's house in the future will face higher bills with FiOS than another home with copper. Right now, for instance, Verizon's DSL plans cost as little as $15 a month. FiOS Internet starts at $30 a month."

"Besides limiting options down the road, the switch to FiOS can have other implications. Unlike copper-connected phone service, FiOS doesn't work during power outages once a backup battery goes out — not even for emergency calls. Home-alarms and certain other devices work best with copper."

"An example of what Rabe describes as adequate notice is the fine print on Verizon's FiOS policy, which is printed on its Web site. It says "current Verizon Online DSL customers who move to FiOS Internet service will have their Verizon Online DSL permanently disabled after their FiOS conversion."

Bill Kelm, a FiOS customer in suburban Dallas, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission last year because of Verizon's "inconspicuous" policy rules.

"It's buried within these long terms of service that people never take the time to read," he said. "It needs to be more conspicuous."

While Kelm has no quarrel with FiOS itself — he pays $145 a month for TV, Internet and phone — he would like to have been told before he signed up that Verizon would cut the copper. He was counting on Verizon's clearly advertised 30-day money back guarantee in case he didn't like the service and wanted to switch back.

"I blew a gasket," Kelm said. "The 30-day money back guarantee was worthless in my opinion."

He's also concerned that Verizon initially priced its current FiOS service lower only to jack rates up once the subscriber is reeled in.

"Then, you're stuck," Kelm said."

Bottom line, once you switch you can't go back and then they can charge you whatever they like. And they don't have to lease the fiber optic like the copper, so you can't shop around.

Given what I know now, I don't think I would choose Verizon as my carrier for whatever I was shopping for, be it home DSL or a cell phone contract.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 8 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]475089[/snapback]</div>

That is just so wrong !!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Jul 7 2007, 05:51 PM) [snapback]474791[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. I've *still* got my old dial phone hooked up...it works *great* even after having been dropped repeatedly. And I just purchased another old phone, a pushbutton Princess model...they're built like tanks and aren't disposable, like the 'cheap cordless phones' you seem to favor.

My parents' phone bill was also a significantly smaller part of my Dad's income, than our phone bills are of ours.

Also, when I was a kid, you could call an Operator and actually get assistance...something you can't even get today, reliably, from so called "customer service."

I think I'd rather have lots less functionality, done well, than an overabundance of only marginally supported features, "add ons" and "packages" that constantly scramble the same array of services.

Also, in the 'old days' you didn't need to screen calls; whenever the phone rang it was important and you picked it up. What ever happened to *that*?!?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 9 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]475656[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

Yeah, that I miss. I don't recall so many 'junk' calls when I was younger.

Seems we just sort of accept higher bills now...why is that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jul 9 2007, 02:19 PM) [snapback]475675[/snapback]</div>

I honestly don't know.

I don't "need more" and I don't "want more" and I most certainly don't want to pay more for what I didn't want or need in the first place.

I *liked* it when Bell owned the phone and we 'leased' it...they were responsible for its operation and so, of course, it was bulletproof.

Now that that responsibility has been shifted to the consumer, is it any real surprise that all the cheap disposable electronic crap that *we* have to manage, isn't nearly as reliable? Of course not.

The old phone company model encouraged durability and similarity and efficiency and continuity and repair; the new ones encourage consumerism and newness and replacement/disposal. I don't think I'm totally comfortable with that change of emphasis, is all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 7 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]474657[/snapback]</div>

The lawyers made a lot of money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 9 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]475656[/snapback]</div>

By cheap, I don't mean the $30 dollar VTech special from Target. I mean the 'relatively' cheap 100 dollar panasonic. The one you can drop, pick up, and keep on talking.

So when they were selling those old dial phones, how much did a cordless phone cost? Did anyone sell one? Hrm...