Apple and AT&T Sued, Again, Over 3G 230
Macworld is reporting that Apple and AT&T are being sued, again, for the lack of delivery on their 3G network. This follows a long line of other lawsuits in San Jose, San Diego, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and New York "The lawsuit charges the companies with Negligence, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Unjust Enrichment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Other Similar State Statutes, and Breach of Contract. Dickerson is seeking to force Apple and AT&T to correct its labeling and advertising, as well as to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages."
Yup (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yup (Score:5, Interesting)
The iPhone has absolutely destroyed AT&T's network. They were simply never built to support that amount of data traffic, and the large-quota / unlimited data plans they sell with the iPhone have crushed them.
The reason blackberrys are more attractive to networks than the iPhone is because they have compression, on-demand loading and data-chunking abilities. The iPhone has none of these things, and the result is AT&T's network speeds being ripped up.
(Anon because I know too much about this.)
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason blackberrys are more attractive to networks than the iPhone is because
I'm sorry, but I'm fairly certain that most other networks would be more than happy to get a share of the iPhone market. The customers may not be happy with the resulting performance! But the networks would have no problem adding an iPhone, and accompanying plan, to their offerings...
Re:Yup (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not suggesting that the carriers don't want the iPhone, I'm saying that they're sacrificing their Network in order to do it. AT&T is being sued because their network can't scale up. They'll have to dump a cool billion in order to upgrade.
The marketing and business people see no problem with that, but believe me, it makes the tech's lives difficult. Blackberry's footprint is significantly lower because of how they handle data traffic.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wonder what the shareholders with short time investment strategies would think of that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail so firmly and square on the head that you've driven it right through the board.
Congratulations!
Oh, and since you didn't Trademark "Wall Street is nothing but Las Vegas with nicer clothes." I'm going to start using that line.
Re: (Score:2)
To give an example - Fedex and UPS spent hundreds of millions of dollars to place orders for A380s in 2006 (the jet was not even fully designed yet) - just to save money 10-15 years from now. It is nor private business, but politicians who have an incentive to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term - the recent 'stimulus' plan is one illustratio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, opinions like that are mostly held by people with business experience who see other businesses being run by (overpaid) complete morons. I've seen many, many businesses involved in short-term thinking that screws long-term profitability. Any time I see a new CEO brought in to "fix" a company, as a general rule, that's when it's time to sell the stock. Well, maybe wait until the new executive's short-term thinking has driven it up a bit, then dump the stock before it crashes. Either way. I've seen th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it ironic... every example you list is NOT a
Re:Yup (Score:4, Insightful)
You need high speed on both ends (Score:3, Insightful)
After 30 years, perhaps you should move from your parents home so you can have better internet connectivity? :)
You have to have high speed at both last miles in order to have a high-speed connection. Even the fastest Internet connection hairyfeet can buy won't help him communicate with his parents any faster.
Re: (Score:2)
--I'm not suggesting that the carriers don't want the iPhone, I'm saying that they're sacrificing their Network in order to do it. AT&T is being sued because their network can't scale up.--
Neither can Verizon's
--They'll have to dump a cool billion in order to upgrade.--
That's where both of these companies should have put the money that taxpayers gave them to run fiber. If they didn't have to do civil engineering (burying cable) they would be fine. More data than ever can be run down old fiber. They neve
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case the root of the problem is really the unlimited plans.
Everyone will now chip in with how great their plan is. Others will reply with how crap theirs are. The first lot will tell the second lot to change, and another lot will say that's impossible because where they live there's only one supplier.
Where was I?
People round /. seem to think capped plans are the work of the devil, but as long as the providers are honest and describe it clearly as such, I don't see what the issue is.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And bandwidth capping also allows people to tailor their package to their needs. If I want more bandwidth, I can pay my ISP a one off fee of £5 or so and I get it. Even more? Pay some more.
It makes no sense that someone who only uses their internet to check their emails and read a blog or two should be paying the same as a regular DVD-torrenter. The former uses only a fraction of the provider's resources compared to the latter, so they should pay a fraction of the price.
And I say this as
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but AT&T has always been known for mediocre cell service. If you aren't known for being good at something, there's no point in being better than adequate. Everywhere I go, the AT&T network seems barely adequate (though the data bandwidth can be excellent in off-peak hours.) I wouldn't know, but I assume it takes careful management to achieve such a consistent level of mediocrity. And they know that consistent mediocrity means that any aberration from normal conditions (such as an event
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Cause the Internet sucks on a Blackberry/Windows Mobile device. The problem is, iPhone users ACTUALLY use the Internet/data other than e-mail. Why? Cause it doesn't suck.
Nice trolling. I check more than just email on my four year old non-smartphone. Can we have a bit more intelligent debate than "iPhone RuLeZ, Windoze suckS" please?
The problem is they claimed unlimited access, and failed to live up to it. Nothing to do with special IphonE powers (you were the one who said "This is not about iPhone vers
Re: (Score:2)
"They'll have to dump a cool billion in order to upgrade."
They're making lots of money from all those iPhone users, they can afford to upgrade their network.
Verizon (in my area, at least) seems able to maintain a 3G network.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since AT&T grosses $2.1 billion/month off the iphone (30M iphones * $70/month minimum), that's about two week's worth of revenue. Oh woe is them!
Re:Yup (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep they built their network for two users and now have 1000. This is not just the iPhone here. This happens with Verizon too and guess what they don't have it.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Interesting)
They knew that this was going to happen though. AT&T had their hands full with the 2G iPhone, and knew exactly the kind of demand they were going to get when it went 3G.
But instead, they chose to continue charging outrageous fees (and FORCING you to get an overpriced data plan)... without doing much to upgrade their network.
Furthermore, I believe that AT&T is deliberately throttling speeds to 3G iPhones, because I get much higher speeds using the Samsung Blackjack in the same location, both using AT&Ts service. As a matter of fact, most of the time, the Blackjack is 2X faster (400-1000kbps vs. 200-600kbps).
Now I really like my iPhone and it still does work very well, even despite the slower speeds. Within a year or two, the network will probably receive some upgrades... just like it happened when I first got the Blackjack 3 years ago. Then, I would hardly get 3G anywhere, and when I would get it, it'd never go above 400kbps. Before I got the iPhone, I'd easily get 800kbps 3G virtually everywhere, including places where I had trouble getting EDGE a couple of years ago.
Re:Yup FASCINATING +2 (Score:2)
I'd mod this FASCINATING +2 if I only had that modding ability.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the reasons behind blackberry's "network friendly" appearance has more to do with market share than technical achievement. It was the iPhone (not the blackberry) that made wireless data marketable to the tech-savvy consumer (and the rest of the masses).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that Blackberry market share is higher than that of the iPhone I wonder where you come up with this statement? Source [msn.com]
The network friendly appearance is due to the fact that it is not new and so RIM has learned a lot of hard lessons over the years that Apple is just now encountering with its partnership with AT&T.
The Blackberry is superior from a technological standpoint. The iPhone is superior from a UI standpoint. It's that simple, at least in my head.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the average BlackBerry user consumes far less bandwidth than the average iPhone user. The iPhone is a media device; if you don't want media and web browsing, there's no reason to buy it. Many people with little interest in media and web browsing own Blackberries for purely business reasons. Plus, the iPhone's slick UI means people consume more bandwidth simply because it's more convenient. The lack of friction in the UI means iPhone users will start browsing the web at the drop of the hat, just be
Re: (Score:2)
There's more than just the Iphone and Blackberry. If you're bringing in downloading media, then this became hip way back when 3G first appeared (i.e., long before the Iphone), and this was on mid-range phones too, not just smartphones. Using phones for media is commonplace now (although personally I'd rather put media on my phone directly, rather than download it on the phone at more expensive rates). And there are plenty of phones that have decent UIs out there (or at least, at least as good as a device th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst part of my iPhone is that it uses AT&T's network.
When I am connected via Wi-Fi, it works great. But here in my office in downtown Chicago, I frequently get "Could not activate cellular data network" errors and have problems with voice calls dropping as well.
Last year I was in rural Indiana, getting 3 bars of EDGE, and I was able to use the maps application to find my way through miles and miles of empty roads with rows of corn as far you could see. In fact, it was a lot more responsive than
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've hit one something here. AT&T has massively oversubscribed the major metropolitan areas. My wife gets much better 3G here in Huntsville than she does in larger cities. I'm sure that there are more towers in the larger cities, but the ratio of towers to people trying to use the device is much worse. I often find that my older Edge iPhone works better in places where her 3G is having trouble. I'm connecting to a lower subscription tower than she is (Well, we're probably connecting to th
Either that or AT&T are incompetent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was most likely AT&T's D-AMPS network, before they were bought by Cingular, and before Cingular was bought up by SBC which became AT&T. The brand names mean nothing in this case.
2 yr. ATT wireless experience (Score:2)
Yup! iPhone on ATT sucked sooo baad I could no longer understand the voice traffic over thier network on the thing. Locked into contract, they had the gall to change my contract date when I opted-out of iPhone service so I'm bound longer than I would have, had I stuck it out with the iPhone contract. In San Diego, I live next to the I-5 corridor so network availability is testable. Never,ever does ATT fail to provide ringtone. QoS degrades during calls and commute time is predictably sketchy. Dropped
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's entirely correct. My iPhone is EDGE only and has trouble connecting to the internet with 5 bars of EDGE.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
EDGE is an extension of GPRS (which is an extension of GSM) that provides higher performance packet data on GSM (in this context, the air interface).
The data traffic - inlcuding authentication - travels over either GSM/EDGE or WCDMA until it is handed off from one to the other.
You do not "need" both GSM and WCDMA coverage at the same time to use data. Many devices can be set to use WCDMA only.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
There is no "connection" between EDGE and 3G. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None, at all. Two TOTALLY separate technologies. One does not require the other and vise-versa.
Odds are your wireless device (Not an iPhone I might add because you cannot disable EDGE in the iPhone) was falling back on the EDGE data connection due to saturation or unavailability of the 3G network.
3G iPhone not all it's cracked up to be? (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds from the comments on that article that the iPhone's CPU just isn't fast enough to take advantage of 3G data rates even with a 3G radio present.
Based on those that commented on the linked article that their laptop data card was fast and my own experience with an AT&T Tilt in 3G coverage areas, it's *not* the network. The only time I have 3G speed problems is when I'm in a fringe area with only one bar of signal strength.
Re:3G iPhone not all it's cracked up to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it handles WiFi data just fine which is in most cases faster than 3G. I doubt the phone itself is the issue.
Re:3G iPhone not all it's cracked up to be? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:3G iPhone not all it's cracked up to be? (Score:5, Informative)
WiFi works well, so it's not the CPU on the phone. At least here in NYC the problem is not even the slow speed, as much as the the network is so oversubscribed that the phone can't get any response and the browser just times out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I don't know about the iPhone's architecture, but the Qualcomm MSM7200 used in the AT&T Tilt uses a separate ARM core to handle radio functions. (Leading to a misconception that it was "dual core" even though the second core is best thought of as a "radio coprocessor" and is not only a different speed from the main applications core but I believe a slightly different architecture - there are multiple slight variants of the ARM architecture).
Re: (Score:3)
on my iPhone, going to Slashdot locks up the browser temporarily while it renders. It also sometimes fails to render properly.
Re: (Score:2)
on my iPhone, going to Slashdot locks up the browser temporarily while it renders.
It's not just the iPhone. I've seen Slashdot lock the browser for several seconds on an eight-year-old Dell PC running Firefox 3 on Windows and an Asus Eee PC 900 running Firefox 3 on Ubuntu. It's even worse in Opera on Wii. And Slashdot is pretty much the only site that I visit regularly where that happens.
It also sometimes fails to render properly.
The iPhone web browser is based on the same engine used in Safari and Google Chrome. Does it also fail to render in Safari on a full-size PC?
Re: (Score:2)
Never tried Safari. I use Opera on Windows and OS X and Slashdot renders quickly & without issues.. except on the last Opera 10 build I tried.
Digg comment threads used to result in very high CPU consumption in in Opera, however.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Macworld:
"Filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Damone Dickerson claims that Apple misrepresented the speed, strength and performance of the 3G network."
There was no link to the actual suit, but it makes it sounds like the guy is blaming both Apple and AT&T because the 3G connection on his iPhone is slow. How much really is it because of the iPhone and how much is it due to the network itself. If the problem is with the network, how much of it on Apple to fix AT&T's network?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno, AT&T's 3G network seems to not be that great all around. I've got an LG CU400 that 'supports' 3G, but every time the phone connected with 3G, it'd stop working. I'd have to powercycle it and use it in the brief period between when EDGE connected and when 3G took over.
I ended up having to find the maintenance code to get into the hardware config and explicitly turn off 3G.
Phone's worked flawlessly ever since.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Page rendering is rather fast on the iPhone when supplied by WiFi which easily exceeds 3G data rates in all but the rarest of situations. It isn't a CPU issue. Now it could be a 3G chip set issue... however I bet it is primarily latency that is killing fast rendering when using 3G. 3G latency is bad in general and given how "native" the Mobile Safari accesses websites it feels the full effects of this latency (unless a pre-fetching proxy, etc. is assisting the phone pipeline things... which is what BB does
Re: (Score:2)
What would really sort out this is if someone on O2 would chip in with their USD0.02. O2 seem to be more responsive to consumer demand and a better-run company than AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really happening is similar to what's happened at the last few Macworld and WWDC gatherings- a huge mass of iPhones focused around a few towers can bring the whole network to its knees.
We're just seeing that strain all the time in metro areas, instead of at a few specific gatherings.
good (Score:4, Informative)
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this Apple's fault then, unless you count the fact that you can get iPhones in their Apple stores?
It's not Apple's fault technically, but I could see them getting the blame for false advertising.
Heck I'd settle for 1 G... (Score:3, Interesting)
You people on the coasts are so spoiled. Up here in ND, I'd settle for a choice of cell phone companies that provide coverage in most of the state. IPhones are an unkown commodity up here.
Time to break out the Bag Phone or a Brick.
Re: (Score:2)
This don't concern you, we talking American stuff here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being in the same country as California is still marginally (as in if there could be a non-zero number that was equal to 1 - .9... it would be that number) better than being in the same country as Quebec.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, as any fule kno, it's NM that isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
"3G? We had cans and a string. And sometimes we didn't even have the string. Data service? We had to shout each byte value to a neighbor, who'd shout it to another neighbor, until it got to someone who had dial-up service, who had to enter it by hand. With wooden keys."
Seriously, I loved my bag phone back in the nineties. It had 5 genuine watts of transmitting power, not the paltry .3 or .1 watts or whatever you get now. And they were better watts too! I could make a high quality call in places w
golden chariot with lame horse (Score:3, Insightful)
"Your chariot may be made of gold my friend, but your horse has a lame leg. My wooden cart and donkey aren't much to look at, but I get where I need to go every time", said the old man.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can add Los Angeles to that list (Score:3, Informative)
3G coverage is spotty at best, and as others have mentioned, sometimes full 3G bars doesn't even provide data.
Problem has gotten so bad that I have turned off 3G altogether when I'm at home as call reliability is improved and I can just use my Wi-Fi connection for data. I could have just kept my 1st gen iPhone and lived without GPS.
The AT&T Network (Score:4, Informative)
Contract (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Beware of anecdotes bearing claims (Score:4, Informative)
There's a lot of bitching about how much AT&T's network sucks. I'm not an apologist (though I have an iPhone) so let's keep objectivity in mind.
The iPhone has limited ram and a slower CPU. Websites will take a long time to render regardless of connection speed. Therefore, test a file transfer. You should get around 1.5MBps if you're on HSDPA (I think all ATT 3g is HSDPA)
I'm not arguing for a second that someplace like NYC will probably be oversubscribed. I doubt that's the problem in general (nothing like a 14.4kbps dialup for a backhaul... jeez) but it's possible if you're experiencing genuinely slow speeds.
Remember packet-radio tech will always involve latency. Over EDGE it's around 500ms, over a (good) 3g, it's about 150ms. That's something you'd be seeing if you see slow web speeds - many webpages have 50 requests, that latency adds up.
As for this lawsuit, AT&T makes no secret that 3G isn't available everywhere. It is exactly 3 obvious clicks from the homepage. If this guy expected 3g... tough. They're rolling it out pretty quick. If he didn't, or if the service is slow... perhaps he can call and tell them that he didn't contract for this level of service?
Basically, website 'speed' is not all about AT&T's oversubscription/crappyness. It's at least composed of latency, rendering speed, the page itself, and finally the speed of the network (which will fluctuate with users). Do a bulk file transfer and then talk.
And this guy probably needs to chill out. Probably
AT&T is waiting for bailout money (Score:4, Interesting)
The Economist had an interesting article last year that predicted that the US telecom companies were waiting for bailout money to invest in infrastructure. With this new stimulus package on the horizon, I'm sure some evidence to support their argument (i.e. irate iPhone users) that it's necessary would go a long way. AT&T has every incentive to get taxpayers to foot the bill, and they'd effectively be punished if they spent their own money on it (it's not like they'll get reimbursed).
Wait for Android (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait and see what happens with Android and a torrent client. :)
Let me in... (Score:2)
I want in on this lawsuit. Normally I'm a strong proponent of "you got yourself in it, get yourself out of it." But the iPhone's exclusivity on AT&T combined with AT&T requiring me to buy a 3G contract is totally anti consumer friendly.
I don't ever use the 3G network even though my phone has the capabilities. I leave it on the EDGE network because the 3G network drops too many calls.
I'd deserve to just be paying for the EDGE speeds instead of 3G speeds and be compensated for all the forced expense
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well they are forcing you to stick with them.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You see the bit in the summary/article "Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Unjust Enrichment, Negligent Misrepresentation..."? This isn't about whining that it sucks. It is about them misleading you about how bad it sucks. By then, you are already nailed to a contract. If you think this is "ok", I have some free time and an ice pick handy...
Thanks for correcting how shortsighted the GP was (if you think that's unfair, feel free to tell me why). You'll find that anytime any large organization does something that's clearly and obviously wrong, people will come out of the woodwork to defend it. Additionally, the larger and more powerful the organization, the more true this seems to be; therefore these apologists are defending entities which are well able to defend themselves. The really strange thing is that most of them have no financial ties
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this mentality comes from disenchantment with the legal system that is carefully cultivated by businesses to give themselves a legal leg up on consumers. If you convince people that the legal system is unable to decide consumer complaints justly according to their merits, then logically, there are only two choices: trust the corporations' word on everything or allow them to be torn apart by jealous parasites.
So, if you make people cynical about lawsuits by individuals, people see every consumer
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this mentality comes from disenchantment with the legal system that is carefully cultivated by businesses to give themselves a legal leg up on consumers. If you convince people that the legal system is unable to decide consumer complaints justly according to their merits, then logically, there are only two choices: trust the corporations' word on everything or allow them to be torn apart by jealous parasites.
So, if you make people cynical about lawsuits by individuals, people see every consumer complaint as a threat to the production of all the food, services, and cool stuff that we currently enjoy. That is, a threat to capitalism and all we know as good.
Companies are happy to rely the legal system to regulate relations among themselves when they can't get along, of course. Then they gang up on consumers to exclude them from the system because they don't have to rely on lawsuits to hold consumers to their word -- that's what credit reporting services are for.
Frankly, I'd love to see our ridiculous liability system restored to some kind of sanity and credibility. Then corporations will have to face more public responsibility. These days, when a company gets walloped in court for blatant fraud and dishonesty, people don't take it very seriously because business interests make sure there's a steady stream of ridiculous personal injury lawsuits in the news. I have to admit they have a point, but they don't invest billions in cultivating our cynicism just as a public service.
I believe you missed my point. Corporations have such powers as you describe because of this sort of conformity. Like most other potential adversaries, they have no power over you except for what you give to them. The demoralization you describe is part of that power. The mindlessness I described is why we, as a society, have given them so much power. They in turn use that power to exercise undue influence over the legal system and our politicians. If they first tried to do that without the allegiance
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you're either studying or have studied in University psychology with a major in social studies. If you haven't, then you probably should :P
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the fact that I was disagreeing with you in the explanation of people's behavior. People have little imagination, and for most people, almost any impulse takes them in the direction of conformity. They can find group identity and ready-made identities on the right or on the left, through worship of corporations or enmity to them. (But you know that already.)
What the corporations are doing is slightly more subtle than just offering an opportunity for conformism. Their reasoning even al
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find that anytime any large organization does something that's clearly and obviously wrong, people will come out of the woodwork to defend it. Additionally, the larger and more powerful the organization, the more true this seems to be; therefore these apologists are defending entities which are well able to defend themselves.
that quote gives me a hard-on. nothing better could describe Apple and its defenders.
Or Microsoft and its defenders. Or government when people buy into the lie that safety is more important than freedom. It applies equally to any of these. These apologists become what Lenin referred to as "useful idiots." The fanboys who unconditionally defend the decisions of i.e. Microsoft do so because they like Microsoft and Microsoft made the decision, not because the decision was sound and well-founded. That's why they defend the good and the bad with no regard for whether it's actually defensibl
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they are.
They claim it does all this wonderful stuff, you buy it and it doesn't work as promised*.
You cant switch providers or get your money back.
In that enviroment suing is the only avenue a consumer has.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's forcing you to choose Apple/AT&T, but nobody's forcing Apple/AT&T to advertise and agree to terms they can't meet.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um.. yes, AT&T _IS_ forcing one to use their service. You remember that little thing called a contract?
Granted, nobody forced me to *choose* them, but once they are chosen - I'm locked in for two years!
But what happens when after 6 months or 1 year my service begins to suck? Have I no recourse?
I have no idea if this lawsuit has merit or not, but an attitude of 'don't like it, don't use it' is likely an oversimplification of the situation.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cancel your contract. You'll pay a nice penalty, but you can cancel.
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?
In my own little world, if the other party didn't hold up their end of the agreement then the contract is already broken and I don't owe a thing. I know, I know, try convincing the carrier of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He is being forced to continue using their service while they do not uphold their part of the deal (that of providing working 3G connectivity). The reason why he made his choice of going with them was because there would be 3G. Now, some time later, there's no 3G. Why shouldn't he sue?
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid that Apple has to play by the same fraud laws that everyone else does.
Although yes, I fully agree that people shouldn't use it. Which is why it's important to publicise these issues, so that it isn't drowned out by the "Now you can copy and paste, isn't that Revolutionary?" stories.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Pull your head out of your ass about cell companies screwing American's. AT&T is GSM, verizon is Cdma of one type, sprint is CDMA of another incompatible type. This isn't Europe where everyone uses GSM. In order to switch GSM carriers in the USA you have a chploice of at&t or tmobile in some cities. Tmobile for me is as useful as using posion ivy leaves for toliet paper.
You need a whole other phone if you want to use verizon or sprint.
Unlocked? (Score:2)
Can't you get an unlocked iPhone to use on other providers like with old Palm Treos and others?
Re:WTF? Mod Parent Clueless (Score:2)
--You need a whole other phone if you want to use verizon or sprint.--
Complete BS. They want to keep it that way, charging us double for a tenth of the bandwidth you can get over there too.
Do us all a bloody favor and google CDMA and GSM. They are incompatible technologies. GSM use SIM cards while CDMA phones (in North America) are programmed for a network. The technologies are not compatible with each other.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure he meant "pay a cancellation fee and cancel the contract".
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even come close to the promised performance, or so they claim.
With lock in contracts, and the current no refund policy most places have, what other recourse does someone who has been lied to have?
If I buy a DVD player and it doesn't work, I can take it back and get my money back. So suing is clearly not needed. Unless it explodes and burns my house down.
Re:Sue-Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
If they weren't locked into a contract, they wouldn't have to sue over it.
Most purchases can be returned when the product doesn't work as advertised. Usually this is because the store has a return policy to keep their customers happy, but some of the time it's the law.
In this case, there not only isn't a policy like that, there's a contract guaranteeing that you have to -continue- paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you want to cancel the service a year later, after the network clogs up due to hordes of iPhone users? The answer is a lawsuit, and bringing one does not a whiny bitch make. I've noticed that these 2 and 3-year contracts are now seeping into cable and satellite service. It's despicable, anti-competitive, free-market destroying corporatism at its finest. They only get away with it because their insular oligarchies make them de-facto mopolies.
Bring on the lawsuits, I say. This crap has to end at
Re: (Score:2)
I attacked your whiny bitch argument from a free-market perspective, not from hierarchy of needs stand. It doesn't matter if a consumer is "forced" to buy it, that is beside the point. Free markets work when there is choice, whether its for food or cell phones. The current American system is fucked up; in order to buy your preferred phone (market choice), one must also add a bunch of contract and infrastructure commitments for an arbitrary length of time which may or may not continue a reasonable level o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another trolling Swede. What is with you people?
I have a four year old EVDO phone from Sprint that will pull down 2Mbit/sec in places so devoid of people you can't even imagine it. Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, I'll just leave it at that.