According to Dan Frommer at the Business Insider, AT&T and Verizon Wireless have agreed to end their legal tussle over the Verizon ads that slam AT&T’s 3G coverage. Good for Verizon. And good for AT&T, too–as far as I can see, the suit it filed against Verizon did absolutely nothing to improve anyone’s perceptions of AT&T. Actually, it mostly gave lots and lots of people a new excuse to grumble even more about AT&T–and gave more publicity to Verizon’s (accurate) map showing that it has far more 3G coverage than AT&T does than the Verizon ads could have gotten on their own.
Tag Archives | AT&T
Apple Fights Back Against Verizon Ads
Nobody likes being compared to a misfit toy. So it’s not surprising that a couple of new iPhone ads feel like indirect responses to Verizon’s recent iPhone/AT&T attack ads (here they are in a John Paczkowski post at All Things Digital).
Unlike Verizon and AT&T’s own salvos so far, Apple’s are snark-free. (I’m not sure if there’s any secret explanation, but Apple’s Mac ads are about 90% snark and its iPhone ones are relentlessly upbeat.) The new iPhone spots just point out an excellent feature of the AT&T network that’s easy to miss unless you know it’s there: You can make a call and use the Internet at the same time. Which I do frequently, and which I’d miss if I switched to Verizon…
2 comments
iPhone Tethering on AT&T: One Year and Counting
Exactly one year ago, on November 6th, 2008, I was siting in the audience at the Web 2.0 Summit when AT&T Mobility President Ralph De La Vega shared good news from the stage: The company would “soon” be permitting iPhone users to tether their phones for use. I assumed he was a reliable source and blogged the glad tidings.
I also assumed that “soon” meant a matter of weeks or a month or two, so it was startling when Apple announced that iPhone OS 3.0 would support tethering seven months later and named 22 carriers who would be ready on day of launch–and AT&T was not among them. The carrier merely said that it would support tethering at some unspecified date–which turned out not to be early August. Most recently it’s said that it needs to upgrade its network and that “We expect to offer tethering in the future,” which falls short of a promise that it will ever do so.
All along, of course, some folks have tethered their iPhones via hacks, software that runs only on jailbroken iPhones, and even a program that was very briefly available on Apple’s App Store. But they’ve risked the wrath of AT&T, since tethering violates the carrier’s current terms of service.
As far as I know, nobody at AT&T has publicly explained what its president was doing whipping up excitement for tethering when allowing it without time-consuming infrastructure improvements would have been imprudent. But it seems likely that it now wants to go to extreme measures not to get anyone’s hopes up until it’s absolutely, positively sure that tethering is ready to go. I hope that day comes soon.
But I also keep asking myself an ugly question: If the company still seems to be having trouble dealing with the quantity of data being consumed by iPhone users who can’t tether, what does that say about the chances that it’ll allow them to hog even more bandwidth via their laptops anytime soon?
12 comments
AT&T Sues Verizon Over “There’s a Map for That”
Verizon Wireless has been bashing AT&T and its products lately, in both its “There’s a map for that” ads snarking about AT&Ts 3G coverage and the “Droid does” campaign that says the iPhone is a bag of limitations. Now AT&T is bashing back–in court.
As Engadget is reporting, the company is saying that “There’s a map for that” misleads consumers with coverage maps that show what seems to be great swaths of the U.S. with no AT&T coverage, when in fact most of those areas have 2G coverage, but no 3G.
It’s not an irrational point, although I’m not sure if Verizon’s spot is any more deceptive than all those AT&T ads that say the company has the nation’s fastest 3G network. It does, but that 3G network is nowhere near as widely deployed as Verizon’s, so slow connectivity is far more of an issue for AT&T customers than for Verizon ones. (I wonder if Verizon’s ever flirted with suing over those spots?)
As Engadget notes, there’s an easy fix here: If Verizon tweaks its maps to show AT&T’s zones of 2G-only coverage, its ad will be just as compelling as the current version–and it’ll be tough for AT&T to claim that there’s anything inaccurate or confusing about the claim. Here’s hoping that this happens quickly, and that everyone involved goes back to spending money on improving their networks rather than legal wrangling.
7 comments
AT&T: Our Network is Fine, Thank You
Speculation over the causes of AT&T’s network issues moved back to the forefront this week when a researcher speculated that the way the carrier had configured its network was the cause of its troubles. In other words, it ain’t the iPhone’s fault.
The research and idea was first presented by Brough Turner, a 25-year veteran of the communications industry. Turner’s work was republished by several media outlets (including us), and again put AT&T in the now familiar position of damage control.
Well, the carrier is none too happy about having to defend itself again. “The AT&T wireless network is designed and engineered to deliver the highest possible levels of capacity and performance. Our standing as the nation’s fastest 3G network is validated by multiple third-party testing organizations on the basis of millions of drive tests annually,” the carrier said in a statement to Technologizer.
What about Turner’s accusations of configuration issues? AT&T says there is no basis in fact for his research. “We believe that recent online speculation regarding AT&T wireless network configuration settings is without foundation. Allegations in these posts regarding packet loss network settings are incorrect,” spokesperson Seth Bloom said.
Back to the drawing board for those trying to figure out what’s going on with the “nation’s fastest 3G network” I guess.
8 comments
AT&T’s Wireless Data Issues May Be No Fault of iPhone
AT&T’s favorite scapegoat when talking about data issues is the ever increasing number of iPhone users on its network. While no doubt these folks can be bandwidth hogs, there may be another reason why there are issues: network configuration.
Brough Turner, a 25-year plus veteran of the telecommunications industry, took to his blog on Sunday to discuss AT&T’s data network problems. In his estimation based on his own research and that of others, it appears as if the carrier may not have its configuration settings correct.
(Reader beware: the above link has quite a bit of technical jargon. It may be a bit difficult to understand for most.)
AT&T’s ping times can vary widely, from a fairly normal 200 milliseconds to an absolutely horrendous 8 seconds or more. This is likely caused by an issue with the buffers in place to normalize Internet traffic.
For the less technical among us, Internet buffers help to smooth out traffic and prevent bottlenecking when the amount of traffic exceeds the bandwidth. Thus to prevent long wait times, sometimes packets are dropped.
But here’s the problem. Turner hypothesizes that AT&T has its network set to have no packet loss at all. This is practically unheard of in wireless data, and is causing slower loading times for users.
If he’s right, this is very embarrassing for the carrier. Did they really screw up in configuring their network? Hopefully Turner’s research compels AT&T to take a second look just to be sure.
2 comments
5Words: AT&T Warms to VoIP
Apple tablet rumor (they’re mandatory!).
EU and Microsoft: friends again!
Google’s Cloudboard clipboard sounds neat.
Toshiba tests fuel-cell phone.
Gartner says Android’ll beat iPhone.
________________________
Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.
3 comments
AT&T’s A-List Leaves Out Its A-List Customers
Expanding unlimited calling to off-network phone numbers is one of the wireless industry’s newest ways to attract customers. Alltel was one of the first major carriers with its My Circle (which now has been rolled over to Verizon Wireless with the merger, called “Friends & Family”), then T-Mobile followed with myFaves. Sprint’s also doing something with “Any Mobile, Anytime” on select plans.
Now AT&T is getting into the game with a service called A-List. Like its competitors, the gist is the same: customers add their five most frequently called numbers. These are then treated like mobile-to-mobile calls, which are typically unlimited.
I will give kudos though. AT&T does not mess with the rest of the plan when you use the service. Neither your normal mobile to mobile or rollover minutes will be affected.
There is a catch. Like Verizon Wireless, you must have a $59.99/mo. or greater voice plan in order to use the service. This is somewhat troubling to me, as a large segment of AT&T’s growing iPhone population is from the get go excluded from the service.
Almost all of my iPhone-equipped friends are on the $39.99 monthly voice plan. The reasoning for this is simple: on top of that, a $39.99 $30 monthly data plan is required, already pushing the bill to nearly $70 a month. Add the fact most of us are texters, so we’re already now pushing that bill to near $90 a month even before taxes and fees, or any other service we might be inclined to add.
If we’d bump up to the next plan, there’s a good chance our monthly wireless bill would exceed $110, which in most cases is just too much to justify for. But through AT&T’s policies, none of us would qualify for A-List.
This seems rotten to me. I’m willing to place money on the fact that the average iPhone users bill is probably on the order of 50% or so higher than that of a non iPhone user. Look at AT&T’s ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) for the second quarter: $60. That is already about $10 below the base cost of owning an iPhone, without texting or anything else added.
Yes, iPhone users put a strain on the AT&T network. But at the same time, they are the basis of the company’s bottom line. The least the company could do here was include its “A-List” customers in on the deal.
Hopefully, the carrier reconsiders the requirements and allows for iPhone users who are already paying a lot every month to benefit from this new feature.
Update: I had the data plan cost wrong here, as well as T-Mobile putting back M2M with myFaves now (it wasn’t at first) so I’ve tweaked our math and wording here. Thanks to commenters for catching this.
5 comments
AT&T Manages a Successful iPhone MMS Launch
I will eat my words, somewhat at least. After launching MMS for the iPhone on Friday, it appears AT&T has managed to launch the functionality without much of a problem after all. Yes, there were some hiccups and glitches, but nothing widespread from what we can gather.
My own personal experience with MMS has been positive. Friday was bumpy from time to time, including one or two messages that seemed to take minutes to send. But none of them failed, and to my knowledge every one of them made it to their destination. I could complain about Apple’s implementation of MMS, but hey that isn’t AT&T’s fault.
I’ve received some reports from my Twitter followers (shameless plug: @edoswald) which reported some problems early on:
User @CanonThom:
“An MMS message sent to a non-updated iPhone disappears. Sent to a non-iPhone but still AT&T seems to work. Non MMS texts work fine”
User @walter_theman:
“my signal is fading in and out, mms will send on occations and others get the red !”
AT&T’s Facebook page is also abuzz with some problem reports, but nothing that seems overly serious, here’s a roundup of the most common issues:
– Problems with receiving MMS from Verizon
– Problems sending MMS to Verizon (I have received/sent fine here)
– Intermittent failure to receive or send MMS
– Slowness in sending (I’ve seen this)
In the interest of fairness, AT&T contacted us shortly after my initial post asking to be able to respond. I have been in contact, however I haven’t received any official response as of yet. When it comes I’ll be sure to update this post.
I’ve also asked for some idea on the added strain on the network, which was apparently one of AT&T’s chief concerns when MMS was first announced for the iPhone earlier this summer.
Are you having problems at all? Have they been resolved? Let us know in the comments.
2 comments
AT&T and Google at Odds Over Google Voice–This Time For Realz
AT&T may have played no part in Apple’s rejection infinite pondering of Google’s Google Voice app for iPhone, but that doesn’t mean that the phone carrier is a Google Voice fan. Far from it, apparently–the company has written a letter to the FTC complaining about Google Voice’s blocking of certain phone numbers operated by rural carriers (including adult services) for which it would otherwise have to pay unusually high fees to the rural phone companies. As a common carrier, AT&T is required to put these calls through even though they cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Here’s AT&T’s letter in its entirety:
AT&T argues that (A) Google Voice is essentially similar to traditional phone service and so should play by the same rules; (B) even if you consider it to be an application rather than phone service, FCC policy says that consumers are entitled to competition among networks, applications and services, and it’s not fair competition if Google Voice has an advantage; and (C) by blocking certain calls that would cost it a lot of money to connect, Google is violating the philosophy of net neutrality which it’s famous for enthusiastically supporting.
Google has speedily published a blog post responding to AT&T’s complaints. The gist: (A) Google Voice is a free application and therefore not required to follow common-carrier rules or basically listen to the FCC at all; (B) it’s not a replacement for a traditional phone service such as that offered by AT&T; and (C) it’s still in private beta.
I’m no expert on telecommunications policy. But to my layman’s ears, neither company’s argument is instantly compelling. AT&T’s letter is dripping with needless, grating snark (it’s not often that you see one large company accuse another of being “noisome” in a public venue). It doesn’t explain why it thinks its services and Google Voice are largely similar given that Google Voice is a sort of overlay for traditional phone service rather than a replacement for it. And wasn’t AT&T just insisting that net neutrality policy shouldn’t apply to wireless service, thereby undercutting its new stance that if there’s going to be net neutrality, it must be observed uniformly?
Google, meanwhile, doesn’t actually explain why it’s reasonable that Google Voice should play by different rules than AT&T–it just says that it does. Nor does it spell out why it thinks that the fact that Google Voice is free and (currently) only available in a limited fashion are germane to the discussion at hand.
Google does extend an olive branch of sorts by stating that it thinks the FCC rules that leave AT&T and other common carriers paying through the nose for these rural phone company services should be reformed. Maybe that’s the ultimate solution here: Prevent the little phone companies from gouging the big ones for porn calls. As a customer of AT&T who uses Google Voice, I know where my self-interest lies: I want the two companies’ services to work well together, and for Google Voice to retain its attractive current price ($0.00 a month).
Are you taking sides in this squabble?