Just because they are spending less doesn't mean they aren't upgrading the infrastucture. Maybe they've become more efficient, maybe the hardware is saturated to a point and they are upgrading the software end to carry more data. I see no real data to form an opinion on one way or another.
Just because a company cuts costs and raises profits doesn't mean it's bad. That's the point of running a business in a free market. Now a socialistic economy not so much, but we don't want that now do we.
Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
They also agree in principle to net neutrality, but don't want regulation to support/ensure it. It just seems that they are trying to dodge responsibility for poor service in some areas. iPhones are not the only devices capable of using 3G services. My little LG phone has 3G and, if I wanted (and could afford) unlimited data, it would cost me 1/2 what they charge for their iPhone plan.
Loc: Hampstead, MD, USA
Originally Posted By: Reboot
Now a socialistic economy not so much, but we don't want that now do we.
Yeah, because the fact I have to pay $70 a month to a WISP to get a 2 meg connection is way better than in they have it in Europe where they pay 1/2 that and get 10x the speed in the middle of the countryside. But hey, the cable company only promised the first houses that when the street filled up they'd string cable. I really shouldn't be bitter, after all stringing a mile of cable eats into their profits. That certainly outweighs the fact they've lied to everyone on the street for the last 10 years the street has been filled with homes.
It's also way better now that my electric bill is $300 a month compared to the $50 a month when the utility was regulated. But hey they make a few bucks more in profit so it's all good.
No, what we want and should demand is that AT&T live up to what they promise. Unlimited data plan with an iPhone means I should be able to download 24/7, and they can't bitch and whine about it. What these companies need are a few good class action suits. AT&T shouldn't be selling iPhones - or any smart phone for that matter - to people who live in areas where they don't have 3G coverage, or in many cases even decent 2G coverage.
Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
My little LG phone has 3G and, if I wanted (and could afford) unlimited data, it would cost me 1/2 what they charge for their iPhone plan.
But it would also probably do half of what the iPhone is capable of data-wise. For example the Safari browser is quite feature rich, I'm also wondering how video would do on your LG whereas on the iPhone it works well. That's probably one reason they charge more, if you have an iPhone you're going to use more data because the device can suck more data down.
Also the reality of if you can afford an iPhone you'll probably pay the price for the data. It's that free market thing again. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Cheap data plans are not a God given right.
Any savvy shopper should know that cell phones have areas of weak or no coverage.
If you're trying to compare coverage for example in the UK, an area only about 50% bigger than Texas, and with a population density about 8 times the US it's apples to oranges. They have much smaller areas to cover so more profit due to the high density of users in the area that they have using their towers. In theory they have 8 times the users per tower that we do here so they have the money to put into the infrastructure.
The Great 2009 AT&T Verizon Map War, which will go down in history as a major engagement in the annals of BS, is hilarious because when AT&T counters Verizon's assertion that AT&T has piss poor G3 coverage, it shows a map of wireless coverage--all of it, including non-G3 coverage.
Here are the Verizon maps.
And here's the AT&T map.
All that orange on the AT&T map is for GSM coverage. They don't have a national map for G3 coverage. But a little sleuthing gives you this map.
I have no idea whether or not Verizon's map is accurate as far as its own G3 coverage is concerned, but what it says about AT&T coverage is confirmed by AT&T's own site.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
I can afford a refurbed iPhone, but I cannot afford the required $30/month data plan. Personally, I've never had a problem with AT&T's service or coverage, even in remote areas of Northern NY. Still, it seems a bit fishy for them to be blaming iPhone usage for their network shortcomings. What did they think would happen with the iPhone's huge success?
Even tho' I still use both -AT&T for land and Verizon for cell- in my neck 'o' woods Verizon has by far better coverage and charges less. Verizon's customer service has been tops whenever I needed it. AT&T took eight days to restore the land line when a storm disrupted service. 'Switching' just to get an iPhone is not an option and never has been for me, and I'm still puzzled as to why Apple went with AT&T. However, if the rumors of a deal between Apple and Verizon come true, I may get an iPhone. I'm also very interested in iPhone-alternatives, and those 'Droids' look very appealing...
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.