Judge Says 'There's An Ad For That...' And It's Ok For Now

from the let-it-play dept

Recently, AT&T sued Verizon over its "There's A Map For That" ad, that mocked AT&T's 3G network coverage, while playing on the Apple iPhone slogan of "there's an app for that." It seemed like an odd thing for AT&T to do, as it really just called more attention to the ad and the differences in 3G networks. Now, to make matters even worse, a judge has refused to issue an injunction stopping the ad. That doesn't stop the lawsuit, though, and the ad might still get taken down if AT&T wins, but it's unlikely Verizon's ad campaign is going to last until the lawsuit is finally decided, anyway. So for now, all it's done is driven a lot more attention to the ad, in which Verizon comes out favorably.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's A Map For That' Ad Campaign

from the doesn't-like-the-maps dept

Recently, Verizon came up with a rather clever ad campaign, mocking the iPhone ads that claim "there's an app for that" with ads that showcase Verizon's wider 3G footprint, claiming "there's a map for that," and showing the two services' 3G coverage maps side by side:

It does a nice job poking fun at one of AT&T's weaker points: its mobile network infrastructure. But apparently, AT&T is not happy with the ad campaign and has sued Verizon over those ads, claiming that it uses an unfair comparison. That's because the maps only show 3G coverage, and Verizon has significantly greater 3G coverage. However, AT&T feels that the map showing its coverage implies, falsely, that AT&T has no coverage outside of its 3G coverage areas. While you can see why AT&T would make this complaint, it does make you wonder if it's really worth the effort to sue. All it's really doing is attracting a lot more attention to the original ad, which does accurately state that it's talking about 3G coverage, not overall coverage, though you can see why some people might not realize that AT&T's network also includes non-3G areas.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins

from the whoops dept

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If AT&T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?

from the net-neutrality? dept

Earlier this year, we covered AT&T's back and forth over its terms of service, concerning whether or not services like SlingMedia's place shifting (streaming from your TV to a phone or laptop) was allowed. Some had noticed that AT&T's terms of service appeared to forbid it -- but then AT&T said it was a mistake and took it out, only to change its position a little later, and reinsert the language. Because of that, Sling had to disable its own player from working when an iPhone is connected via the 3G cellular network, rather than a WiFi connection.

Yet, recently, Major League Baseball's digital arm, MLB.com announced that it was going to start streaming video of games to its iPhone app, even on 3G connections -- and AT&T seemed fine with it. However, this differential treatment is leading to charges of favoritism and discrimination, even bringing out the dreaded charges that "net neutrality has been broken." The specific question is why AT&T gets to choose which streaming video apps are allowed, and which are not. If your regular ISP told you that you could watch Hulu, but not YouTube, there would be quite an outrage.

AT&T's response is disingenuous, at best, claiming:

AT&T said the MLB app streams video from MLB's website, while SlingPlayer streams from the TV set-top box Slingbox. AT&T also said the company is only trying to ensure all users on its network get the best possible service.

"We're certainly not crippling any apps," an AT&T spokesman said. "This is an issue of fairness.... While we would like to support all video services across our network, the reality is that wireless networks simply lack the capacity to support customers streaming hours of cable, satellite or IPTV video programming to individual users."

While this -- once again -- highlights the point that mobile cellular services are nowhere near legitimate competitors for real broadband services, note that the AT&T person never actually answers the question. The fact that Sling streams from a settop box and MLB streams from MLB's website is functionally meaningless to the iPhone. To the iPhone user it's the same thing. It doesn't care where the server is placed -- it's just receiving a video stream. So AT&T is not being honest or upfront about this at all. If the network is a problem, then it shouldn't allow video at all. Picking and choosing who gets to run video certainly smacks of discrimination and favoritism -- exactly the sort of thing the FCC claims is not allowed.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mythbusters' Adam Savage Discovers Insane Roaming Fees: $11,000 iPhone Bill For A Few Hours Surfing

from the BUSTED dept

Every few months or so there's an article somewhere about an insane phone bill that someone gets because they took their phone out of the country without recognizing the insanity that is international roaming rates. This time, it appears to be Mythbusters co-host Adam Savage, who's been doing a bit of traveling lately. He was recently up in Canada, and used his iPhone to do a little web surfing. And now he got the bill. Apparently AT&T wants somewhere around $11,000 for Adam's surfing and have turned off his phone until he pays. Now there will be some who say that he should have read the fine print, but considering just how often these sorts of stories pop up, at some point it's worth noting that the fine print isn't working. And... even if you grant the "fine print" premise, it's hard for anyone to figure out how these international roaming rates make any sense whatsoever. They're so far off the charts as to be unbelievable.

Anyway... next week on Mythbusters... the insanity of mobile phone bills? Can we see Jamie and Adam try to decipher hidden fees, while Grant, Tory and Kari search for the elusive accurate mobile phone coverage map? Maybe Buster can figure out what the real limits are on unlimited data plans? Hmm... maybe not.

94 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T CEO Says Wireless Networks Aren't Prepared For Data Traffic -- Frankly, He Should Know

from the got-some-knowledge-about-this-stuff dept

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said this week that US mobile networks can't keep up with all the data traffic being spawned by smartphone users. This is something Stephenson's got a lot of first-hand knowledge about. Earlier this month, AT&T blocked the SlingPlayer app for the iPhone, saying it didn't have the capacity to support it, while the company annoyed lots of geeks with blogs when its network in Austin couldn't keep up with the influx of iPhone users during the SXSW conference in March. Stephenson says the company is taking steps to address the problem by upgrading its 3G network to HSPA+ technology that will double its throughput. The logic here isn't completely clear, though: the new technology will require new device hardware, and furthermore, the real issue is capacity not speed. And capacity doesn't just apply to the mobile network -- each individual cell site's backhaul connection needs to be beefed up, too. But the real solution AT&T and other operators employ to fix this issue may not be a technological one. Stephenson hints that flat-rate data plans could be on their way out, with variable-use pricing on its way back in. By bringing back per-unit pricing, operators will hope to increase their revenues from data-hungry users, but all they'll really do is end up stifling mobile data use -- just like they did before they went to flat-rate plans.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Technology Again Causes American Idol Controversy, Fingers Pointed At AT&T

from the newsworthy dept

Apparently the outcome of the latest season of American Idol caused some controversy when the contestant generally regarded as the underdog of the two finalists was crowned the winner, provoking an angry backlash from his rival's fans. Now, they're pointing the finger at AT&T, alleging it helped skew the vote. This isn't the first time telecommunications have caught this sort of flak, as it's been a regular occurrence during the show's run that people have faced jammed phone lines when they've tried to vote. But this time, it's a little different. Apparently AT&T reps were at a couple of viewing parties organized by fans of the winning contestant, Kris Allen, and brought along a bunch of phones with them -- since, of course, only people on AT&T's wireless network can vote for the show's winner via text message. Then, the reps supposedly showed people at the parties how to "power text", or send in several votes at once. It seems unlikely that the votes spawned from the two parties were enough to tip the balance in Allen's favor, but the appearance of impropriety on the part of one of the show's major sponsors may be a bit more damaging.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Won't Give Up On Mobile TV, Now Wants To Sell You $1300 Gear To Watch Cartoons In Your Car

from the that's-a-lot-for-some-cartoons dept

Despite a ton of hype from its backers over the years, there's been very little interest in mobile TV services -- especially with the current subscription-based model. AT&T launched its mobile TV offering using Qualcomm's MediaFLO service last year, and given the lack of news about it, it doesn't seem to have set the world on fire. But AT&T doesn't seem to have learned too much from that experience and adapted its business model to a new satellite-based mobile TV offering that's made for in-car use, preferring instead to trod the same path with a sizable monthly service fee and expensive equipment. For just $1299 for the equipment (not including professional installation) and $28 per month, its CruiseCast service will deliver customers 22 channels of TV and 20 audio channels. Even if these weren't trying economic times, the pricing seems pretty prohibitive, and it's hard to imagine this service will find much more success than other similar efforts. Further, it's really difficult to see a future for any sort of mobile TV service that's built around the subscription model, especially when it tries to force customers back into linear programming schedules, and give up the control that their DVRs and other on-demand technologies offer.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Says Its Network Can't Keep Up With All The Cool Stuff You Can Do With The Smartphones It Sells

from the nice-touch dept

AT&T caught a lot of flak at the beginning of April, when it updated the terms of service for its mobile data network, banning all sorts of activities on it. AT&T later said the changes had been made in "error" and removed the new language, though it later reinserted language banning "redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers" -- a ban apparently aimed directly at the forthcoming SlingPlayer application for the iPhone, which lets users watch TV from their Slingbox at home on their mobile device. The app has now been released, but it only works over WiFi, not the 3G mobile connection, because AT&T says, in a nutshell, that its mobile network doesn't have enough capacity to support streaming-video services if they take off. So all those cool data applications Apple and AT&T tout for the iPhone or other smartphones sold by the operator? Just remember they exist only at the behest of the carrier; if they threaten to expose its network's shortcomings, they'll get blocked.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Bans Video Streaming, Tethering, Fun From Its Mobile Data Network

from the no-soup-for-you dept

AT&T has modified the terms of service for its mobile data network, banning "downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, web broadcasting, and... any applications that tether the device... to Personal Computers or other equipment." So in addition to banning illegal movie downloads, AT&T's banned things like SlingPlayer that consumers can use to legally view content, services like Qik that let them show live video on the web from their phones. Why would it do such a thing? Well, either it's looking to protect its commercial interests by banning services for which it hopes to charge its customers, or its network isn't up to snuff and can't support all the things its customers would like to do with it. This sort of stuff, sadly, is par for the course for the mobile industry, home of the "unlimited" plan that's actually got lots of limits. In the end, the only ones who end up getting hurt by these things are the operators themselves. By seeking to limit what their customers can do with their phones, they're limiting how valuable they are to their users -- which means at some point, they won't be willing to pay as much for them.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Text Spams Customers Promoting American Idol; Insists It's Not Spam

from the redefining-spam dept

For the most part, mobile operators have been good about trying to prevent SMS text spam, but it appears that AT&T has gone in the other direction. It's actually spamming people. Apparently it sent a text message promoting the TV show American Idol to anyone who had voted in past American Idol contests or anyone that AT&T considered to be a "heavy texter." I can almost (but not quite) understand contacting former voters. But randomly targeting other "heavy texters" is simply pure spam.

But that's not the way AT&T sees it. In a statement that entirely redefines spam, a spokesperson said that it wasn't spam because they didn't charge people to receive the message. He also claimed it was no problem because people could opt-out of future messages. This shows an incredible (but all too typical for AT&T) tone deafness to the issue. Email spam is already quite annoying. But text messaging spam takes it to an entirely more ridiculous level by proactively interrupting what a person is doing, no matter where they are. At least email spam can be compartmentalized to when you're actually checking your email (and, these days, can be pretty effectively filtered). Text messaging is a lot more intrusive, and for AT&T to claim that this is somehow "okay" because the TV show is "built on texting," is simply ridiculous.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Subsidized Laptops With Locked In Wireless Broadband Contracts

from the good-or-bad? dept

A few years back, after noting the trend of laptop companies to start building in cellular data modems into their laptops, we wondered when it would reach the stage where mobile operators would subsidize the cost of a laptop, just as they subsidize the cost of mobile phones in many cases. In early 2006, we started to see such subsidized laptops go on sale in Europe, with the mobile operators selling the laptops directly for well below list price, as long as you bought into a long term data plan. The whole idea seemed a bit strange, as mobile operators have long ranted long and hard about how much they hate, hate, hate subsidies, and how they wish they could do away with them. So, why add them to laptops?

However, the idea has now traveled over to the US as well, in a deal between Acer, Radio Shack and AT&T allowing people to buy an Acer netbook for just $100, so long as they agree to a 2 year $60/month contract for an AT&T mobile data plan. It's still a little confusing as to why the mobile operators are agreeing to this, following so many vehement arguments against mobile phone subsidies, but perhaps they're finally realizing that those subsidies aren't such a bad thing when they get people using their services. Still, how long will it be until buyers start complaining about early termination fees for laptops like they do for mobile phones?

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T And T-Mobile Pay Up For Not Being Truthful About Voicemail Hackability

from the caller-id-spoofing dept

Many mobile phones' voicemail systems have worked on the basis of checking the caller ID of the incoming caller -- and if it matched the number of the voicemail box, it would automatically push the caller through to the admin interface. The idea was that if the owner of the box was calling, he or she shouldn't have to put in the passcode to get to the messages. The only problem with this was that, if anyone could spoof your caller ID, they could access your voicemail. After a few high profile such voicemail attacks, many mobile operators urged customers to change their voicemail preferences to require a passcode, no matter what. Still, there were some operations out there, that went under names like SpoofCard, Love Detect and Liar Card, that would spoof a caller ID to get access to a voicemail box. The company behind them has been fined, but what may be more interesting is that T-Mobile and AT&T were also both fined for apparently being misleading about their susceptibility to the hack.

That seems a bit strange, and the article is woefully short on details, unfortunately. Pretty much anything is hackable given certain circumstances, and it always seems a bit odd to totally blame a hacking victim for being hacked. So it would be good to know why T-Mobile and AT&T, in particular, were fined in this case. Did they not even allow passcodes to be enabled for those who wanted to avoid this potential hack?

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC Just Couldn't Stop Voting

from the election-day-festivities dept

Well, it's election day and apparently the FCC commissioners liked voting so much they took votes on just about everything. Amazingly, it looks like they even made some good decisions. The big one, of course, and the one that will get the most press, is the unanimous vote to free up television "white space" spectrum. While the NAB made a last ditch effort to stop this, the FCC made the right call here. This spectrum can be put to much better use, which can have a huge impact on increasing innovation and wireless technologies. This is a big win. The FCC also approved Sprint and Clearwire's deal to set up a joint venture for their WiMax operations, as well as allowing Verizon to buy Alltel. Both of those deals make sense as well, so it's good to see them approved.

Other than that, the FCC said that it's going to start looking into the pricing policies of cable companies... and Verizon. Who's missing? FCC boss Kevin Martin's best friends over at AT&T. To be honest, while it's quite likely that the cable companies and the telcos (yes, including AT&T) are abusing their oligopoly position, the answer shouldn't be having the FCC act as a watchdog over pricing policies, but for a better system to be set up that encourages real competition. In the meantime, though, can someone explain why AT&T was left out of the bunch?

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Has Anyone At AT&T Ever Called AT&T Tech Support?

from the welcome-to-the-soviet-ministries dept

While the FCC and certain broadband companies like to insist that there's real competition in the broadband market, right here in the heart of Silicon Valley, there's little evidence that this is true. If there were real competition, they might take customer service seriously. In the past few days I've had two separate issues with AT&T that suggests that the company treats customer service as not just an after thought, but something to effectively be shunned. Given my long history in killing off broadband providers who give me service, perhaps it's only fair that they do their best not to serve me, but these two experiences seemed worth shining some light on.

First, a quick history. That link above goes through all the broadband providers I went through (and killed off) in the 2001 time frame. After that, I ended up with Comcast cable modem service until 2004. In October of 2004, Comcast turned the cable modem service to my house off every day at 10am for no clear reason. Every day I would call, and the response would be: "Oh, this is scheduled maintenance. Service will be back by 4pm." I would ask if I should expect the service to go down the next day as well, and be told that they had no idea. Apparently, the "schedule" for scheduled maintenance was a tightly held secret -- but it went on, every single day, for at least the month of October. I moved in November of that year, and swore off Comcast after that experience. My only other option was AT&T. I ordered AT&T DSL and was promised it would be installed within a week. A week came and went, and I called AT&T. They told me the order had been canceled because (despite what the first person told me) DSL wasn't actually available at my location (right in the middle of Silicon Valley). Why they didn't call to let me know of the cancellation was not explained.

I asked why the first person had told me service was available, and the woman told me to hold one while she checked her other computer. That computer told her that DSL was available at my location, despite what the first computer said. Apparently, AT&T does not have a single map of DSL availability, preferring to load a series of different local availability maps on every computer.

A year ago I moved again, and DSL has been working more or less okay at the new location. However, last Thursday it died in the afternoon and was down until around midnight. When it came back it was super slow -- maxing out around 64 kbps. I waited until Friday afternoon and decided I should call to ask what's up. That's when I discovered that AT&T makes it damn near impossible to find a phone number. The AT&T website has no phone numbers listed at all. When I clicked on the "contact" link, I was given a one-line form to discuss what my problem was. When I hit submit, I received a blank page. No matter how many times I tried, I always got the blank page. Eventually, and I don't remember how, I got to an error page that listed a bunch of phone numbers. I called the one listed with "Residential: 1-877-737-2478" since this is a residential account.

Thus began a rather insane process. After waiting on hold, the call proceeded as follows:

• Automated system demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• AT&T Rep asks me for my account number (despite having punched it in already). She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). She tells me she needs to put me on hold.
• Rather than putting me on hold, she actually transfers me. I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• The woman asks me (again!) for my account number. Then she asks why I've called her. She works in sales. Tells me she needs to transfer me, but tells me in the future to call 888.321.2375 for tech support. She transfers me.
• I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• The next woman asks me (again!) for my account number. She tells me she cannot find my account. Then she asks where I'm located (which, I would think would be obvious from the area code of the account number). I say California, and she says she doesn't serve California, only a region of 9 southern states (hasn't it been more than a year since AT&T & BellSouth merged?). She transfers me -- after personally promising me the next person I speak to will be the correct person. She also tells me that, contrary to the earlier person (and the AT&T website) the real number to call is: 800.310.2355.
• I get an automated system that demands I enter in my account number and asks me to describe my problem. It doesn't recognize "slow internet" service, so I just say "can I speak to an operator?" It asks me more questions instead. Eventually (after a long hold) it sends me to a live human being.
• By the way, at this point, I've had the "hold voice" repeatedly pitch me on upgrading my service, mentioning that if I do, I can get access to "AT&T's award-winning customer service." I am getting curious as to exactly what "award" this is.
• Before the next woman can say much beyond hello, I explain the saga, and mention that she is the 4th person I'm speaking to and ask her please, if she is the right person to help me fix my slow DSL in California. She says she will try, and (again!) asks for my account number. She does some searches and then admits: she really wants to help, but she's in billing, not tech support. She promises to transfer me (and kindly gives me a small credit on my account). She also tells me that the proper phone number to call in the future is none of the above, but 877.722.3755.
• Unlike the last few people, she actually says on the line and answers the same exact questions in the automated system for me. This is something of a consolation, though I've gotten good at entering the info.
• Finally, tech support! I give the guy my account info (again!) and he logs into my modem and he diagnoses: your connection is slow. I could have told him that. Wait, actually, I did tell him that. He doesn't know what to do, but says that tech support will call me back later. I thought he was tech support, but whatever.
• An hour later, I get an automated call from AT&T tech support, telling me to call them back at (yes, a different number): 888.312.2450.
• I call back, and amazingly am put in contact with a competent tech, who doesn't treat me like an idiot, who even gets me logged into the DSL modem myself, explains the different system readings, and notes that my modem seems to have capped itself at 64kbps. He says it could be a few different things, but the most likely is a broken phone cable from the jack to the modem. I switch the cables, and voila, it's working again.

Total elapsed time since the first phone call, about 3 hours, but only about 1.5 hours total on the phone. It was definitely a bit of a hassle, but eventually I found someone smart and competent, and I figured that maybe I just had a bad experience with AT&T. Little did I know. By Monday evening, my Friday experience would seem fast and simple.

I have some travel coming up, and was realizing that I may not be in EVDO coverage for some of it. So I thought it might be good to make use of the AT&T WiFi that's included as a part of my account. It's supposed to work at McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble and some other places as well. While I had signed up and used the WiFi service a few years ago, it's probably been at least two years since I last tried. On Monday, I figured I'd hit up a McDonalds at lunch and test it out, to work out any "kinks" if there were any. I honestly figured it would be fine.

I got my chicken sandwich (sans mayo) and sat down to login. Yippee. I even was sitting next to an outlet, but quickly discovered that the outlet had been turned off (boo). Okay, so I get the (extremely slow) proxy server that asks me to login. I type in my login info, and it gives me a message: "We're Sorry - Your Login Has Been Rejected." Then it tells me to call: 888.888.7520 "for further assistance." So here's how that call went:

• Dial the number from my mobile phone. It rings for a while and then says "I see you're calling from..." and repeats back a phone number I don't recognize, starting with a 512 area code (which is Austin, Texas). I'm in California on a California mobile phone, so I have no idea where that comes from. I say no.
• It asks for my account number. I'm not at home, so I don't have my bill to read off the account number. I don't have internet access so I can't log in to get my account number. The system tells me my only options are to say my account number or to say I'm trying to sign up for service. I say "neither" a few times, and the system gets impatient with me, and then demands I answer from a specific list of problems what my issue is. All of the issues have to do with home DSL, not WiFi hotspots -- which seems odd, given that this is supposedly the WiFi hotspot support number.
• Finally, it transfers me to a human who again asks my account info. I give it to her. She cannot find my account. She puts me on "hold" which again is actually a transfer. I again go through the dance with the automated call system -- which demands I choose between giving my account number or signing up for service, followed by a list of service options that have nothing to do with WiFi hotspots.
• After a while on hold, I get another person, who also insists my account does not exist. She transfers me to tech support (or so she says).
• I go through the same pointless questions, and speak to another person. I explain the situation, noting that she's the 3rd person I spoke to. She explains that she's not in tech support, but in customer retention.
• I have now come to the conclusion that AT&T's "call transfer" system is actually a big roulette wheel that will dump you on any random person with a phone. I doubt most of them even work for AT&T.
• I am transferred again. The fourth person I speak to, after going back and forth, tells me that she does not handle California customers (this sounds familiar).
• I am transferred again. More messing with the annoying automated system, and I eventually get a guy who tells me that he cannot help me unless I can tell him my account number. He insists that when he looks up my user name, he gets a different account owner and a different address than the one I tell him. That's comforting.
• Rather than transferring me, he says he can only give me the phone number to call for billing, where I should see if they can actually tell me my account info over the phone. Phone number: 800.288.2020. I ask him what number I should call after that to get back to him once I have the account number. He says to just ask to be transferred to DSL tech support.
• I call the billing number, and speak to my 6th person of the day. After a great deal of effort, she finally reveals to me what my account number is (thank you!). She then, as requested, transfers me to DSL tech support.
• My seventh customer support person of the day, after I've been on hold and have entered the proper account number, asks me for my account number anyway -- and then explains to me that DSL tech support has nothing to do with WiFi hotspots, but he will transfer me.
• My eighth customer support person tells me that the WiFi access on my account was canceled twice. Once last September and once in January. Why twice when I don't think I ever canceled it even once? He has no clue.
• Well, can I sign up to have the service included on my account? No. That's not his department. He needs to transfer me to customer support instead of tech support.
• Transferred again. On hold again. Enter my info again. Now speaking to my 9th AT&T rep. After explaining the situation, I am told that it is impossible for them to add WiFi hotspots to my account over the phone. Instead, I need to (get this) sign up via the web at home.
• I hang up, and notice another open WiFi network -- so I login, and go to the website he pointed me to: FreedomLink.com to sign up. Once there, I am directed to a page where I am told: "AT&T Wi-Fi Basic service is FREE and already included if you subscribe to AT&T High Speed Internet.... No ordering required! Simply use your AT&T high-speed Internet membership ID and password at any AT&T Wi-Fi Basic hot spot."
• That seems to conflict with what the last few folks told me, so I pick up the phone again and call. After the same old process of entering info and being put on hold, I explain my situation to the 10th representative I am speaking to. She says she will get everything solved and puts me on hold. Every five or 10 minutes she comes back and says she's "getting the info I need" and will be back soon.
• I begin to notice the batteries on both my laptop and my cell phone are on their last legs.
• After nearly half an hour on hold, the woman comes back and tells me that she has found the phone number I really need to call. It's 877.722.3755 (the second time I've heard this number!) but that when I reach it, I need to ask for "Tier 2 support." She promises that she will take care of this part for me and will get me to the right person.
• I mention to her that my batteries are almost dead anyway, and she says "Isn't that always how it is?" to which I respond: "No. Normally, it does not take 2.5 hours and 10 people to get me the info to log into my account."
• Eventually, she gets me on the line with another woman, and tells her I need Tier 2 support and then hangs up. This new representative (the 11th I'm speaking to) asks me to repeat the whole situation to see if I really need Tier 2 support. I tell her my batteries are dying, and I really need Tier 2 support, and I need it as fast as possible.
• She puts me on hold for 25 minutes -- where the hold message is pure silence, punctuated ever 10 seconds by the most annoying voice in the world commanding: "PLEASE WAIT."
• She finally comes back, says: "I have connected you to tier 2 support" and hangs up. Except she hasn't connected me to Tier 2 support. She has transferred the call, so I'm in another hold queue.
• Ten more minutes go by and someone finally picks up. As he finishes saying hello, the battery in my mobile phone dies and the call is over.
This is now 4:10pm. I had arrived at the restaurant at 1pm.
• I drive home. I pick up my home phone and call one more time. After waiting on hold and inputting my information, I speak to my 13th customer rep of the day. He insists that the information is wrong on my account, and that I have the wrong username, though it's the same username that I had used to log into my AT&T account as I was speaking to him (now that I'm on my home WiFi, which since Friday, has been working fine).
• He says that my username is actually different, but he refuses to tell me what my actual username is. Apparently, that's not allowed. Instead, he has me dig out my last AT&T bill, and buried on page 4 there is a username which is different from my regular username. He insists that this username will allow me to log into the WiFi hotspots
• I'm no longer at McDonalds so I cannot test it, but perhaps I can now log into WiFi. I will have to go back to McDonalds later this week to try.

This is AT&T customer and tech support at work. I am left wondering if anyone who works at AT&T has ever called its "award winning" customer service line to get actual support. If there were actual competition in the broadband market here in the heart of Silicon Valley, I would switch providers. But my choice now is to go back to Comcast, who might kill service every day for a month for unscheduled scheduled maintenance or deal with AT&T's roulette wheel of customer and tech support.

131 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Says It Will Cut Off P2P Wireless Users; But What About Pandora Users?

from the be-careful-on-that-iPhone dept

While those who like to claim that the US broadband market is more competitive than it really is like to point to the rise of 3G wireless networks as proof, they almost always ignore the fact that those 3G networks come with insanely restrictive terms of service, that allow the providers to cut users off for almost any activity outside of email or web browsing. For example, using such a service for video and music has been prohibited in some terms of service. Sprint was the most open with their 3G wireless until recently.

Now AT&T is admitting that if it discovers users of its wireless broadband 3G service are making use of P2P apps, it will cut them off completely, and claims that it makes this clear in the terms of service. It hasn't happened yet, but this bit of data will supposedly be used by a dissenting FCC commissioner this week to show that Comcast's traffic shaping is pretty tame compared to other "rules" out there on network usage (ignoring the very different nature of the networks in question, of course).

This raises a number of questions: If AT&T's biggest concern about P2P file sharing apps is clogging its 3G wireless network, why does it allow streaming apps to run on the iPhone? For example, one of the most popular apps on the iPhone is Pandora, whose customized streaming radio offering is super popular (and appears to work quite well). So is AT&T going to cut off users of one of the most popular apps on the iPhone? And how will AT&T respond when someone (inevitably, if they haven't already done so) develops an iPhone app for P2P file sharing as well? This really just seems like AT&T slipping an excuse into the terms of service to cut off anyone they don't like -- but in the long run it may backfire as people get pissed off at AT&T for limiting what new devices like the iPhone can do.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Wants To Throw Some FCC Roadblocks Into Sprint, Clearwire Joint Venture

from the good-luck-with-that dept

In a move that is clearly designed to just piss off and waste the resources of a competitor, AT&T has filed papers with the FCC opposing Sprint and Clearwire's plan to merge their WiMax divisions, which was announced a few months ago (found via Broadband Reports. Of course, AT&T has a chummy relationship with the FCC, who has allowed it to merge with telco after telco without many real conditions (and even telling it that it can ignore some of the conditions it agreed to to get those mergers approved).

In this case, AT&T claims that it isn't really opposed to the merger, but it's filing opposition papers because it feels that Sprint and Clearwire aren't receiving the same level of scrutiny that AT&T received in its mergers, specifically with regards to it spectrum holdings. This seems like grasping at straws by AT&T just to throw some sort of extra paperwork roadblock in the path of the new Clearwire, which is an obvious competitor.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iPhone 3G Illustrates What A Real Contract Looks Like

from the legally-binding dept

I spent most of my day last Friday acquiring an iPhone 3G. It was a long and tedious process involving several hours of waiting, a visit to the Apple Store, and two visits to AT&T. Part of the reason it took so long is that Apple wasn't willing to let me have the phone until I'd signed up for a 2-year contract with AT&T. Mike has previously discussed the pros and cons of cell phone subsidies, and the associated carrier lock-in. Whatever you think of that debate, the iPhone story is a good example of what a real contract looks like. I was required to sign up for an AT&T service plan and sign an AT&T service agreement before I was allowed to leave the Apple Store with my iPhone. I knew exactly what I was getting into, and had the option to decline before completing the transaction. I think there's little doubt that the courts would enforce the contract's terms if I tried to renege on my commitment.

Now compare that to the shrink-wrap "contracts" that retail software developers keep trying to foist on people who buy their products. When you buy a software product at Best Buy, the cashier almost never informs you about the license agreement, much less require you to read and sign it. In many cases, it's not even possible to open the box and read the agreement until after you've completed the transaction. One of the key differences here is that Apple spent valuable employee time informing me of the contract, giving me time to read it, and requiring me to sign it. This is annoying for Apple, but enforcing some minimum requirements for contract formation also serves an important function: ensuring that firms only resort to using formal contracts when they have a pretty good reason. Forming, complying with, and enforcing contracts consumes resources, so we don't want people forming contracts too lightly. It also ensures that the contracts actually get read, something Apple has had trouble with in the past. The software industry, in contrast, tries to get all the benefits of legally-enforceable contracts without shouldering any of the costs. That approach isn't fair to consumers or to taxpayers.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Real Price Of The iPhone: $599

from the hey,-that-sounds-familiar dept

As was widely expected, it turns out that all the hype and fuss about the iPhone costing $199 was really hiding the key facts: it's only that price if you're buying it in the US, along with a long term contract with high service fees. At first it actually appeared as though the only possible way you could buy the phone was with one of those contracts. However, AT&T has now admitted that it will indeed sell the phone without a contract, but the price will be $599. While some unlockers may find that worthwhile, it's probably a bit much for most. Still, this once again highlights how Apple's predictions that it was going to change the economics of the mobile phone industry haven't actually been true. There are plenty of mobile phones out there that you can buy subsidized under a contract, which cost 3x as much without a contract. So, rather than changing the economics of mobile phones, Apple has now completely bought into them. Update: Of course, as some are realizing it's actually cheaper to buy the subsidized version and break the contract. The early termination fee is less than the difference here, so you end up doing better that way.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Before Getting Bought By Verizon Wireless, Alltel Tried To Buy Sprint, T-Mobile And AT&T Wireless

from the merger-mania dept

After being rumored for years, Verizon Wireless finally bought Alltel earlier this month. However, Alltel's CEO has now admitted that the company wasn't just looking to be acquired these past few years. It had, itself, aggressively looked into buying Sprint, T-Mobile or even AT&T Wireless at times. In fact, it tried to buy Sprint three separate times. The other two certainly seem like longshots. Deutsche Telekom appears to have no real interest in getting rid of T-Mobile, and depending on which version of AT&T Wireless you're talking about, it would have been difficult to convince the various parent companies involved that a sale to Alltel made sense. And that, of course, ignores the fact that T-Mobile and AT&T Wireless were from the GSM camp, rather than the CDMA camp. Still, it is interesting to see that the smaller Alltel was looking at buying its way up the food chain.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..