Guess I won't be worrying about upgrading and missing out on an iPhone on T-mobile this year.
Found on 9-to-5 Mac
Showing posts with label ATT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATT. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
America's FauxG Network Has Something to Say
Hey G's used to be gangstas. Ciara said it was for Girl. But telecoms, well G's are the future and they haz plenty geeez.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
It's more than just some bloggers
In the summer of 2007 when the iPhone was released; there was no wrong that could be done by Apple and by virtue of association, neither could AT&T. Like most marriages that were based on lust, the honeymoon was quickly over.
Although Apple's halo effect brought a steady stream of new subscribers to AT&T, AT&T was unable to quench their new users' thirst for more and more data.
AT&T's perceived inability to provide adequate service to their most prized subscribers was directly and unapologetically by Fake Steve Jobs aka Dan Lyons. This lead to the satire laden "Operation Chokehold" which FSJ asked his readers to bombard AT&T's network with bandwidth hungry apps this past Friday.
No word out on how many people participated but the damage has been done to AT&T and (again) by 'virtue' of association - Apple. When Saturday Night Live mocks your service (AT&T) and highly visible product (Apple); you have a huge PR problem on your hands.
The truth is both companies can't come out of this as heros together. One will have to be the villain in order for the other to come out and salvage their image. AT&T blames iPhone users for irresponsible usage; Apple has been mum on the subject. The honeymoon is over but this marriage was doomed from the start.
Full disclosure: I'm heavily biased towards Apple products. I hated iPhone on AT&T but understood why it happened; AT&T was the only carrier that allowed Apple full control over the handset they were creating. Well now the phone's out in the wild, people can no longer live without it, and AT&T wants to punish users instead of upgrading their gimped network. It's time Apple and AT&T parted ways. People care about the iPhone but would go to ANY carrier that carried it.
What Operation Chokehold, SNL, Gizmodo, FSJ, and every other blog has been trying to say is: people want choice in the carrier that provides the best user experience and they'd like to use whatever phone they want. How's about you take control of your own destiny Apple and part ways and give the people what they want. Bokay?
Although Apple's halo effect brought a steady stream of new subscribers to AT&T, AT&T was unable to quench their new users' thirst for more and more data.
AT&T's perceived inability to provide adequate service to their most prized subscribers was directly and unapologetically by Fake Steve Jobs aka Dan Lyons. This lead to the satire laden "Operation Chokehold" which FSJ asked his readers to bombard AT&T's network with bandwidth hungry apps this past Friday.
No word out on how many people participated but the damage has been done to AT&T and (again) by 'virtue' of association - Apple. When Saturday Night Live mocks your service (AT&T) and highly visible product (Apple); you have a huge PR problem on your hands.
The truth is both companies can't come out of this as heros together. One will have to be the villain in order for the other to come out and salvage their image. AT&T blames iPhone users for irresponsible usage; Apple has been mum on the subject. The honeymoon is over but this marriage was doomed from the start.
Full disclosure: I'm heavily biased towards Apple products. I hated iPhone on AT&T but understood why it happened; AT&T was the only carrier that allowed Apple full control over the handset they were creating. Well now the phone's out in the wild, people can no longer live without it, and AT&T wants to punish users instead of upgrading their gimped network. It's time Apple and AT&T parted ways. People care about the iPhone but would go to ANY carrier that carried it.
What Operation Chokehold, SNL, Gizmodo, FSJ, and every other blog has been trying to say is: people want choice in the carrier that provides the best user experience and they'd like to use whatever phone they want. How's about you take control of your own destiny Apple and part ways and give the people what they want. Bokay?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Rumor: iPhone on Verizon in 2010
So first, let's file this one under cloudy with a chance of pandering. AppleInsider reports a smaller bodied iPhone may be released by Verizon as early as Q3 2010.
The new Verizon iPhone is rumored to use a UMTS/CDMA hybrid radio that will allow it to run on Verizon's CDMA network AND still be able to use UMTS 3G networks - like AT&T. There is, as pictured, a rumored reduction in screen size from a 3.2" display to a smaller 2.8" display.
All this info comes from an overseas analyst, OTR Global, that is providing this info to AppleInsider; so I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. Some of the possible bits of recent information that may lend some credibility to these rumors are the new early termination fees that are being imposed by Verizon for "advanced devices".
We'll keep an eye on this one nonetheless.
via AppleInsider
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Net Neutrality - A Cheatsheet
It's gonna be a crazy week over at the FCC. October 22nd is the deadline for folks to voice their opinion to FCC and let them know why you'd like to keep the internet open for all. But with all the crazy talk on one particular cable network, it may not be clear what's at stake here.
First off: Net neutrality is NOT about restricting competition for your cable company, your phone company, satellite provider. Nope. Nah, not ever. How this net neutrality myth has gained steam lies really on the fact that this is a debate that's raged on longer than people considered the net to be cool.
Government regulation of the internet as Glenn "Asshat" Beck mentioned in his tirade is not about preventing a telecom from doing business; it's about making sure that said telecom continues to provide transparent services to their customers. Comcast regularly finds themselves (rightfully) as the target of many bloggers angst for their dubious regulatory practices in the name of protecting their business.
Clearly Beck must've not understand the concept of a "free market."
The proposed FCC regulations are designed to ensure that all ISPs - Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, AT&T, et al will continue to provide internet service to their customers and provide clear, concise, no tiny print restrictions on their activities on said internet. Capping data downloads or uploads without expressly notifying their customers, restricting or crippling the use of specific websites would also be in violation of the proposed regulations.
How does this affect the regular guy/gal adventuring the interwebs? Well try to imagine an internet ran by AT&T (but you can just as easily insert your own ISP for the sake of fairness). In this internet, AT&T has an exclusive contractual agreement with Yahoo! for websearches; any AT&T customer that attempts to perform a search on Google or Bing will be (1) automatically re-directed to Yahoo! (2) be met with a 404 error (3) be in violation of their terms of service with AT&T and be subject to penalty.
Now imagine that your friend, coworker, client, family member is a Verizon customer with a Verizon email account. All emails sent from your AT&T account would be "lost" by Verizon in an effort to keep AT&T out of their "version" of the internet. You will not be amused to find out that you've lost a potential client because your ISP did not "approve" of their email address.
Clearly these are all doomsday scenarios but we must keep in mind that sometimes a little regulation is critical in maintaining order. Once upon a time there huge companies that owned raw materials, production, and finally point of sale. These were the "captains of industry," your blue-blood industrialists that brought forth the Industrial Age. They were also monopolizing giants that stifled innovation and oppressed their customers (and workers). And more importantly, needed regulation.
First off: Net neutrality is NOT about restricting competition for your cable company, your phone company, satellite provider. Nope. Nah, not ever. How this net neutrality myth has gained steam lies really on the fact that this is a debate that's raged on longer than people considered the net to be cool.
Government regulation of the internet as Glenn "Asshat" Beck mentioned in his tirade is not about preventing a telecom from doing business; it's about making sure that said telecom continues to provide transparent services to their customers. Comcast regularly finds themselves (rightfully) as the target of many bloggers angst for their dubious regulatory practices in the name of protecting their business.
Clearly Beck must've not understand the concept of a "free market."
The proposed FCC regulations are designed to ensure that all ISPs - Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, AT&T, et al will continue to provide internet service to their customers and provide clear, concise, no tiny print restrictions on their activities on said internet. Capping data downloads or uploads without expressly notifying their customers, restricting or crippling the use of specific websites would also be in violation of the proposed regulations.
How does this affect the regular guy/gal adventuring the interwebs? Well try to imagine an internet ran by AT&T (but you can just as easily insert your own ISP for the sake of fairness). In this internet, AT&T has an exclusive contractual agreement with Yahoo! for websearches; any AT&T customer that attempts to perform a search on Google or Bing will be (1) automatically re-directed to Yahoo! (2) be met with a 404 error (3) be in violation of their terms of service with AT&T and be subject to penalty.
Now imagine that your friend, coworker, client, family member is a Verizon customer with a Verizon email account. All emails sent from your AT&T account would be "lost" by Verizon in an effort to keep AT&T out of their "version" of the internet. You will not be amused to find out that you've lost a potential client because your ISP did not "approve" of their email address.
Clearly these are all doomsday scenarios but we must keep in mind that sometimes a little regulation is critical in maintaining order. Once upon a time there huge companies that owned raw materials, production, and finally point of sale. These were the "captains of industry," your blue-blood industrialists that brought forth the Industrial Age. They were also monopolizing giants that stifled innovation and oppressed their customers (and workers). And more importantly, needed regulation.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
AT&T vs. Net Neutrality
Well this didn't take long at all. Lately the FCC under Chairman Julius Genachowski has begun to look into and possibly enforce regulations that keep telecoms "honest." Under the Obama Administration's push for an open internet, net neutrality is getting some attention in regular news these days.
Not to have their interests buried amongst your - the people of the interwebs - cries of free, available to everyone internet; AT&Tasshat lobbyist, Jim Cicconi sent out an email (republished here) to all AT&T employees urging them to comment on the FCC's OpenInternet.gov blog and let Genachowski know that he's a communist that's trying steal their mone... err... jobs.
Long story short, not only is the FCC trying to make you poor by ensuring that an ISP cannot play dirty games, control and monitor, or otherwise cap your usage of the internet in a non ISP approved way; they're letting Google head the death panel committee. The horror.
via Actuarial Outpost
Not to have their interests buried amongst your - the people of the interwebs - cries of free, available to everyone internet; AT&T
Long story short, not only is the FCC trying to make you poor by ensuring that an ISP cannot play dirty games, control and monitor, or otherwise cap your usage of the internet in a non ISP approved way; they're letting Google head the death panel committee. The horror.
via Actuarial Outpost
Monday, September 28, 2009
MMS on iPhone
So now you've been using MMS on your iPhone for nearly a week (assuming you downloaded the update to your phone last Friday); so the question simply is how's it been treating you? Has it been smooth and without incident or have you found yourself two seconds away from thrashing the nearest AT&T customer service rep repeatedly for wasting your f*cking time?
Well as of yesterday there were still people were still all over the Apple Discussion Forums looking for help sending/receiving MMS on MMS enabled iPhones. Are you one of the unlucky that are considering throwing your hands in the air and wondering why you spent so much and got so little?
Fret not because the good folks at CNet put together a really great article on how to fix this issue. Here's the short version just in case you're done searching:
1. Connect your iPhone to your Mac/PC
2. Launch iTunes and go straight to the iPhone under the Devices label
3. In the iPhone summary screen hit Restore
This will reset ALL of your saved settings and use the most recent back-up as it's restore point. It takes a while so don't make any plans.
4. Once the Restore is complete your iPhone will reboot.
5. Send me a message.
Well as of yesterday there were still people were still all over the Apple Discussion Forums looking for help sending/receiving MMS on MMS enabled iPhones. Are you one of the unlucky that are considering throwing your hands in the air and wondering why you spent so much and got so little?
Fret not because the good folks at CNet put together a really great article on how to fix this issue. Here's the short version just in case you're done searching:
1. Connect your iPhone to your Mac/PC
2. Launch iTunes and go straight to the iPhone under the Devices label
3. In the iPhone summary screen hit Restore
This will reset ALL of your saved settings and use the most recent back-up as it's restore point. It takes a while so don't make any plans.
4. Once the Restore is complete your iPhone will reboot.
5. Send me a message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)