var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Yankees368
January 3, 2009 11:58 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Another slap in the face for iPhone beta users

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
January 4, 2009 8:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: AMEN. There is nothing wrong with my original iPhone. This is the third one I've had so it's practically new!

What the hell, Apple and AT&T? When my contract is up I'm going back to Verizon and I will tell you why when I do it. YOUR SERVICE SUCKS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
January 5, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@baristabrawl: I wonder if this is one of those \"get out of contract free\" moments. You know, like when they've changed the TOS you can bail without a fee.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
outinthedark
January 4, 2009 12:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Was wondering when this would make it's way to Consumerist.

I got a BB Pearl for Christmas...too bad I only use Wifi for net connection. I was thinking about upgrading to a data only plan but not if ATT decides to degrade the service I'm sure many businesses rely on.

I really don't think ATT needs to push their lackluster 3G network considering Gizmodo's 3G card test a week or so ago. They need to expand 3G reception without filtering out 2G when so many users have no need to upgrade [let alone the means].

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ryan Duff
January 4, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

decreased quality indoors and in rural areas

Most rural areas only have EDGE service. 3G is usually in more urban areas so what good does it do for AT&T to downgrade EDGE service where that's all that's available? I can see if the changes were only made in urban settings, but where there's poor or no 3G available, the phone will drop back to EDGE or even GSM...

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
MrBlastotron
January 5, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ryan Duff: I was thinking the same thing. Given that I have a 3G iPhone I'd love nothing more than to use the upgraded service of AT&T's 3G... except that there's no 3G to be found in Peoria, IL. Rumors constantly float around that \"it's coming,\" like some sort of revered awakening, but I've yet to hear any dates or even much word of it since that rumor started about a year ago (pre-iPhone owning.) The weirdest part is that, south of the suburbs, Peoria is up there with the largest cities in the state. It's beyond me...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mary.Westmacott says I-L-L
January 5, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrBlastotron: I have a 3G iPhone and I travel to Champaign frequently. From Kankakee on down, there is no 3G and it stinks. I would also like to be able to take advantage of 3G service wherever I am, but I have no idea (and haven't heard any rumors) as to when it will reach East Central Illinois.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Adam Grow
January 4, 2009 11:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ryan Duff: Not to mention there are still plenty of \"urban\" areas that AT&T apparently considers \"rural\". I live in a city of ~190,000 people, 520,000 including suburbs and we're still EDGE-eriffic, with no sign of 3G yet. So does this mean that every single AT&T customer in the second-largest city in the state will have degraded service? Could this be considered a \"material change\" in service, ala SMS pricing changes? You're paying the same for worse service. YellowSn0w is starting to look intriguing...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KMan13 still wants a Pontiac G8
January 4, 2009 12:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ryan Duff:
possible that these areas will now get 3G ... but unlikely.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jason Asylum
January 4, 2009 12:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Honestly, I don't see it as being much different than any other old technology being phased out. It sucks for those still on Edge, but if that's what they have to do to move forward, then so be it.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
January 4, 2009 4:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Asylum: Truly moving forward would have been sticking to a 3G frequency band used by non-North America countries.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scoobydoo
January 4, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Asylum: Old technology? 12 months ago it was the ONLY technology for their most popular smartphone, as well as the only technology for the millions of Blackberry users on their network.

Sorry, but EDGE is not old for AT&T, and phasing out 850 EDGE support is just plain mean, then again, it IS AT&T we are talking about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Asylum
January 4, 2009 6:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scoobydoo:

12 month old technology *is* old technology! Is it usable? Sure, very much so... but in technology measurements, 1 year old, is as good as ancient unfortunately.

Like I said in my other post... the iPhone and devices like that are becoming increasingly common. ALL providers have to do what they need to do to meet the demands of their new devices.

It's a crappy transition, but it has to happen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outinthedark
January 4, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Asylum: Increasing their size and speed of their 3G customers at the cost of their 2G customers.

Read the source article and you can see the only \"solution\" is for the author is to upgrade his phones at his cost and commitment. 2 iPhones and a RAZR would have to be upgraded and his contract extended. The only offer was a $200 credit in exchange what what he calculated to be a $907 annually increase [not including the price of new phones].

Phasing it out yes will be necessary but over half of ATT's phones are 2G/EDGE. They should stop selling 2G phones as of this \"announcement\" [they have not officially I do not believe] but they cannot because the only BB they have that is 3G is the Bold. All of the RAZR's are 2G I think I read in the article. Everyone in rural areas depend on that signal. Why not extend their coverage first then phase 2G out.

How long did it take for VHS to get phased out. It still lived on in VHS/DVD combos forever. I have a hard time believing forcing customers to eat the cost is the way to go about bringing in new technology only newer more expensive phones will be able to take advantage of. I personally would rather use my phone to make calls rather than get online and surf horribly slow internet but that's what phones are for now right?

[Text is very hard to read with emotion. Do not imply I have a sarcastic chip on my shoulder. I have a very real issue with ATT so drastically switching the spectrum in which a majority of it's customers use.]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Asylum
January 4, 2009 6:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outinthedark:

All very good points, outinthedark, but I have to say... those in Rural areas are already depending on partner deals that AT&T has from what I understand. Unless you are just talking about suburban areas, then we are looking at 3G expansion into those areas, most likely.

Also keep in mind, they will be rolling out \"4G\" in the next couple year or two as well.

---

Please understand, I don't necessarily *like* that AT&T is doing this, but its all the nature of the beast. I have to assume the company analyzed the reaction to this, before making the decision... this isn't an easy one. More and more customers are looking for mobile devices that do more than make calls and send txts. More and more customers are requiring data plans. The smart phone and smart-dumb phone market is ever increasing, while the entry bare bones market is decreasing... they need to have the capability to match the trends in their sales.

It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

If they sat on 2G resources instead of reprioritizing, with the ever increasing multi media demands by customers, do you think that would have went well?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Asylum
January 4, 2009 6:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Asylum:

Should read \"...in the next year or two\"

I need to learn to proof before I post. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
West Coast Secessionist
January 4, 2009 3:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outinthedark: \"I personally would rather use my phone to make calls rather than get online and surf horribly slow internet\"

WTF. You just said it right there. This isn't crippling Joe Sixpack's RAZR or LG or whatever. They will continue to \"just make calls.\" People with RAZRs, for example, have no need for 2G, 3G, 4G, etc. because these phones for all intents and purposes DO NOT HAVE THE INTERNET. Have you ever browsed the web from a RAZR? I have and it is beyond painful at any speed. Seriously, I think this is a non-issue for most people.

Rural BlackBerry users? OK, maybe...even though most BB users and iphone2G users live in the urban 3G coverage area... You do realize that most higher-end users do upgrade their phones every couple years, right? I mean, these devices wear out etc. When they get new devices in the normal course of replacement, they will have 3G capability on their next phone.

\"Why not extend their coverage first then phase 2G out[?]\" Because it takes spectrum to do that, which doesn't grow on trees.

/I'm no AT&T apologist. But they're not being evil here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
January 4, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@West Coast Secessionist: Um... everyone kinda needs 2G. 1G would be analog, which is already gone.
And spectrum? How about only focusing on making one band 3G instead of using both 1900 and 850? 850 3G is also used outside North America; AT&T should use that one and make 1900 solely GSM.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
January 4, 2009 4:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outinthedark: And the Bold costs even more than an iPhone. The vast majority of customers who either own or are purchasing a Blackberry, at least that I see on a day to day basis, go with the Curve or the Pearl. These aren't just teeny-boppers looking for a texting phone, either. I think AT&T's going to start seeing a rash of really angry Blackberry business users when this plan starts to really hit the fan- and speaking as someone who sells this stuff, I'm certainly not going to hesitate to show my customers this article when the subject of which phone/carrier they should go with comes up.

None of the major carriers are angels, and most treat their customers like dirt, but this one is really beyond the pale. In a lot of AT&T stores, the salespeople will outright refuse to sell someone a Blackberry- *any* Blackberry- unless they agree to opt into the $30/month data plan. I'm sure they're \"forgetting\" to mention that these phones could become next to useless for data in the next few months.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KMan13 still wants a Pontiac G8
January 4, 2009 12:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Asylum:
Yes, but I don't see how it can possibly COST them money to leave it in place ... except maybe in electricity ... so why not just leave it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Asylum
January 4, 2009 12:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kman13: Huh? From what I understand this isn't about cost, its about increasing the speed and size of their 3G network. In order for them to do so (apparently), they need to free up resources... in this case moving 2G to a different band.

If I'm wrong, please correct me... as I'm no expert on the matter. But if that's the way it is, it seems logical to me. Not a whole lot different than the transition from analog television signals to digital, a little smoother even.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nocar
January 4, 2009 12:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would think the average cell phone user does not know the difference between 2G and 3G. If they have poor coverage they usually just blame it on their current company, complain to their friends, and then choose a different company when their contract is up.

Downgrading 2G service is a bad move for AT&T.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Teapotfox
January 5, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nocar: I can assure you that you are correct on most consumers not knowing the difference between 2G and 3G... I would venture that most iPhone buyers I've encountered don't even know what 3G is in the first place. A surprising amount of people have told me they want or already own the \"3 gigabyte\" iPhone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jeffbone
January 5, 2009 1:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nocar: Exactly. I got tired of the poor AT&T coverage in my area long before this latest change. Therefore, I upgraded to VZW and am pleased with the results so far.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
UniKyrn
January 4, 2009 12:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

AT&T not caring about their customers once they've locked them into a contract is a surprise, why?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jayrom Acorda
January 4, 2009 12:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only problem I see with this is that ATT still sells a ton of 2G phones. I could understand if they sold pretty much exclusively 3G phones. At least if they do this, they should offer 3G phones for free with contract for upgrade. Right now all the phones I see that are free are 2G only and the cheapest 3G phones showing for me are all at least 50$.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
January 5, 2009 4:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jayrom Acorda: \"Only a couple\"? They only sell three Blackberries, and *two* of them are 2G. The two most popular sellers, incidentally- there are relatively few people prepared to spring for the $300 Bold (and that's with a new contract or upgrade). And if they're not prepared to shell out three hundred, they're really not going to be impressed at the idea of trading the Curve they just bought with an upgrade in order to pay the full $600 for the Bold.

AT&T is really going to shoot themselves in the foot with this. There are a heck of a lot of Curve and Pearl owners out there, and a good percentage of them have months to go until their next upgrade. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know that the data for which they're paying good money (data that costs the same $30 as a Bold, 3G data plan, incidentally) will soon be next to useless.

Incidentally, I wonder how they're going to justify the mandatory data plan for the 2G iPhone if the coverage no longer supports it. I can't help but think that some MBA did a pretty poor job of thinking this one through.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Abbott
January 4, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jayrom Acorda:

uhhh AT&T doesn't sell the 2G iPhone anymore, and hasn't since June

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jrlcopy
January 4, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jayrom Acorda: Agreeded, however like 10 of the free phones are all 3g, i think only a couple of the BB are still 2g, most phones now are 3g.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outinthedark
January 4, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jrlcopy: I see two NEW phones that are 3G and free on contract.

The LG CU515 and the Samsung A737 [though the refurb price for both is free also...weird] the Nokia 6555 is only free if it is refurb as well as the Samsung A727.

The only BB that is 3G is the Bold.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jrlcopy
January 4, 2009 6:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outinthedark: They don't all advertise it in the copy look at the network mhz that they use.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
William C Bonner
January 4, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does voice traffic go over edge or 3g? For some reason, I'd thought it was only data traffic that went over those networks.

As to rural being primarily served by edge instead of 3g, this simply means that the current frequencies in those rural areas will be transitioned to running 3g. It would be good if you've got a phone capable of 3g, but bad if your phone is not capable of 3g and you don't want to buy another phone soon. (or are stuck without getting another phone subsidized for 18 months)

That brings up another question. If you recently bought a phone, and AT&T changes your network coverage, does that provide reason to break contract without paying penalties?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
January 4, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@William C Bonner: Voice+data over 3G, data only over EDGE.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
January 4, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another material change in service?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
January 4, 2009 4:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: Sounds like it to me. And I think most companies have to let you out of your contract if you can demonstrate that you don't have a signal in your home (or primary place of use)- that's why they won't let people whose primary address is in a roaming area sign a contract. It'll be a good laugh if AT&T suddenly sees a mass exodus of customers to other companies, sans early termination fees, because of their own idiocy. Whoops!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lulfas
January 4, 2009 5:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FaustianSlip: Much easier material justification is the fact they are raising unlimited data and texting costs by a total of 15 a month as of a few days ago.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 4, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

At the very least they should offer free 3G phones to the affected customers. Other than that what are they supposed to do? We want faster networks, but only if they keep the old one? 2G is close to 20 years old now, about time it went.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ryaninc
January 4, 2009 12:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My in-laws have AT&T in a very rural area. They currently only get two or maybe three bars inside their house. So now they'll likely get even worse service. And being the tech person in the family, I'm going to have to explain why their existing phones suddenly stopped getting a good signal. Joy.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rich Merritt
January 4, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I throw my shoes in the general direction of AT&T.
I don't want to upgrade to a 3G iPhone, I don't want to be locked in another 2 year contract, and I don't want to pay more for data than I do already. Thanks for nothing. If T-Mo's 2G service is decent and they make any kind of official promise to support 2G for a while longer consider me a lost customer.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
easy2panic
January 4, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am thinking about suing them in small claims court. That should cover my bills for about a year.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Chris Stone
January 4, 2009 1:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apple releases a $600 phone with EDGE. Then they brought the price down, and now they're bringing the speed down. And this is why I will never be an Apple early adopter.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
West Coast Secessionist
January 4, 2009 3:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Stone: Yeah! That'll teach them a lesson, to keep the prices high forever like an honorable company should! Woooooohooo!

As for the speeds, do you really think one handset manufacturer, or any handset mfg's for that matter, dictate issues of spectrum usage at AT&T? I know it's hip to hate Apple at Consumerist, but do you really believe what you're saying or are you just trolling?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Quatre707
January 4, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time to finally hack my 2G iPhone and go to T-Mobile

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mr_D
January 4, 2009 1:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Quatre707: Sorry to burst your bubble, but T-Mobile's 3G implementation is on a totally different frequency than AT&T's and a second generation iPhone won't work with 3G.

Unless you mean a first generation iPhone, with EDGE. In which case it would be fine. In fact, that's what I'm doing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Quatre707
January 4, 2009 2:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr_D: 2G means second generation wireless, not second generation iPhone.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
oldtaku
January 4, 2009 1:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well honestly, if you're an Apple user you should already have upgraded to the next version, and if you haven't this is just another little nudge along the way.

How long has anyone been an Apple customer and not realized you 'must' upgrade at least every two years or you become second class scum? The only people with any excuse are the ones who got sucked in by the iPhone and had never owned a Mac.

The fun bit here is figuring whether AT&T learned this from Apple or would have done it anyhow. Makes it hard to tell who's the sith lord and who's the padawan.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mr_D
January 4, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oldtaku: I'll give you credit for trying to troll, but just trying doesn't cut it. The first generation iPhone didn't even come out until June 2007.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oldtaku
January 4, 2009 2:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr_D: I am totally serious here. As a Mac user, and an Apple ][ and IIgs owner before that I am well aware of how Apple treats its users. Do not assume that everyone who disagrees with you is trolling. I am just realistic about it and don't drink the kool-aid.

No you do not have to update, and old Macs can still work quite well, but Apple itself has disowned them and doesn't care if new updates break them horribly.

So in this case AT&T is just accelerating the schedule.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outinthedark
January 4, 2009 2:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oldtaku: That's funny! Didn't the iPhone 3G come out less than a year after the original? Or at least quite close to a year.

I own a mac. A Powermac G5 that has never had an OS update because I cannot find a reason to pay $80 for widgets and a search bar. I also have owned 2 iPods over the past 4 years. My trusty 30gb 4th gen and a new nano for running with.

If you believe you must get sucked into every new product expect to get screwed around every corner. I wait and advise others to wait on new tech. I know a few that dropped a ton on the iPhone when it was released...just laughed and laughed when they got those giftcards.

Sigh...good times.../sarcasm

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
January 4, 2009 7:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outinthedark:

You must not do much product research. The OS updates had more to offer than \"widgets and a search bar\". Your G5 has a 64 bit processor that is being squandered by your choice to remain on a 32 bit OS. Since you've allowed yourself to totally miss the boat on Leopard, you'll really be out in the cold in Snow Leopard releases this year. Happy days for you! As for the people who bought the iPhone from the start... That was their choice. Everyone who has been a long time Mac user knows that the price of everything that Apple makes drops over time. I was working at an Apple retail store when the first iPhone released. We sold over 2000 of them -- most were the 8GB model. There's nothing wrong with being an early adopter. Don't feel like you're so high and mighty because you insist on using an aging OS and aging iPods. That was your choice just as much as it has been my choice to upgrade my Mac roughly every 2 years. If I followed your example, I would be on a 1.5GHz 12 inch PowerBook right now. I loved that little laptop but, I needed something with a lot more power.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
discounteggroll
January 4, 2009 2:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kreatre2009:

very well put with the exception of one thing...prices of apple products remain constant for almost everything (it's the technology inside that get increased).

with the introduction of completely revamped models (i.e. ABS macbooks vs. aluminum) that's where you see a change in price (sometimes higher, sometimes lower)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
January 4, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@discounteggroll:

Well... One could argue that the price of a MacBook Pro has came down since they are more powerful now than the one that is on my desk. Apple often starts out with a higher price on a newly revamped model. I won't defend them for it but, I will say that the reason why they do this is to garner the highest possible profit margin. They don't sell in huge volume quantities like Dell and HP do. Therefore, they have to have a larger profit margin. I have setup a lot of purchases of Macs for many of my customers. One sale included 50 iMacs. The Apple enterprise sales rep knocked a lot off of each machine. That's when you see a lower price. They're willing to have a smaller profit margin on large orders. I keep buying Macs for the ease of use, stability and, fantastic industrial design. That's a choice that I make so, I don't really gripe about the price. I get a discount anyway since I'm an Apple Consultant :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
discounteggroll
January 4, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kreatre2009:

yeah, I see what you're saying. From a consumer's perspective, a macbook from 3 years ago when they were first introduced at $1049 MSRP was until a few months ago the same $1049, just with beefier specs. (same goes to all the other model macbooks and MBP's.

Apple is like a car dealership if I had to analogize. Sure, they make some profit on the \"car\" itself, but would prefer to sell you the \"whole experience\" if at all possible (I used to work at an ARS as well).

.Mac and two buddies (now three I believe) were quite a handful. When it comes to bulk purchases, you really need to buy a lot in order to see any worthwhile discount. we ordered lab-fulls of the aluminum iMacs and ended up just getting the edu pricing.

as far as ease of use, stability, and design...absolutely. carbon copy cloner made my life so much easier if a system went down, or a hard drive died. since powerPC is at an end of life and hauling emacs around has become almost extinct, the final transition to intel is going to be great

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TrueBlue63
January 4, 2009 2:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone fill me in, when did cell service get good. Crappy service, with crappy contracts, marginal hardware. I figure this is what it was like to own a car the first 30-50 years of car mfg.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
treythalomew
January 4, 2009 3:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What does this mean for areas without 3G and only edge? Will they be experiencing the same kind of downgrade? I'm in a city with over a 100,000 people and have no 3G or even hint of 3G coming anytime soon.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnva
January 4, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treythalomew: Exact same situation here. I have a 3G phone, but my area has no 3G service (also in an area of over 100,000 people). Why are people talking about EDGE like it's mainly only an issue for people in \"rural\" areas?

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dukerayburn
January 4, 2009 4:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The link to the Gizmodo article isn't working. Was it disproven and pulled or what's the story here?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
January 4, 2009 6:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Depends on what kind of a deal they're giving, if you recall when AT&T switched to GSM you could get $99/mo unlimited everything on 2 year contract, sacrificing coverage however. But when GSM became prevelent that $99/mo went away, but people who locked into contracts still got to keep it. Of course now most wireless companies have unlimited plans, but it took several years to get to that point.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ezra Ekman
January 4, 2009 7:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This seems to me to be a pretty clear reduction of service, and thus, a get-out-of-contract-free action. You signed up for one service, and they dropped it for a lesser one. Either they honor their original agreement (and original claimed speeds of whatever bit rate it used to be), or they're in breach and must let you out of the contract.

If a normal rep gives you flack about it, remain calm and ask to speak with a supervisor. If they say no, ask for their manager. If they say no, ask for them to create an \"urgent case\", which is AT&T-speak for a customer service-oriented trouble ticket. and to refer the issue to the Office of the President. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kreatre2009
January 4, 2009 7:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

They don't give a crap about their customers. Let's all email the CEO of AT&T wireless and complain. His name is Ralph de la Vega. He can be emailed at ralph.delavega@att.com. Be careful though. You might get a letter from an attorney at AT&T just like I did.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Possinator
January 4, 2009 7:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess I have a legitimate reason to upgrade to a 3G iPhone.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
robdew2
January 4, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

link rot.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
emtkopan
January 4, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Voice traffic does not travel over the same 3G network. EDGE and 3G are data only, not voice. If they increase 3G reception and decrease 2G reception, the only people who are out anything are those with older phones that do not support 3G. Just about all phones out there support 3G now. AT&T is not slowing down the network speed, just phasing out the slower network for the newer network. In other words, those towers that only supply 2G will be supplying 3G. Rural areas will getting 3G and network coverage will increase as AT&T moves further out. If they did not have coverage in an area where you live, they would have to let you out of contract for failure to render their services: even if you just moved to an area with no service from an area with service. Just wait until 4G rolls out. The same will happen to 3G. Networks are so fast in Japan that they can watch TV and in interact with live game shows to win money all on their cell phones during a commute to work on the train. The possibilities would be awesome. Areas without internet could at least get connnection speeds faster than dial up on their phone but not through their dial up service. They could then get a modem as a phone plan and use their phone to get 3G internet on their computers instead of dealing with dial up.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
aguacarbonica
January 4, 2009 3:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

AT&T can kiss my ass. I just got a Blackberry Curve for Christmas using my dad's upgrade for his phone, and now I find out that the thing is going to be a piece of crap in a few months.

My next 2 year contract upgrade is in March, and when that comes around I am switching...or leveraging my business for a cheaper Blackberry Bold.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
EGBTMagus
January 4, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This will not decrease a customers voice service, I think this is where you all are not getting it. The only PDA that At&t sells without 3G now is the Curve and Pearl which most users of the device don't even use to browse the web, they mainly use it for emails and even then they wont notice a difference (kind of like 3G Iphone email only users switching to Edge to conserve battery life).


If you own a razr or any other old 2G device you will still be able to to make and recieve calls just fine. It will not affect your service at all for the most part since older devices rarely ever use the interenet. EDGE is only used for DATA. If you get 3 bars in your house now you will continue to get the same 3 bars.


What this change will do though is that it will bring 3G to areas that did not have 3G. Upgrading to a new device is not difficult and many wont care, especially when many of our good 3G devices can be had for free.


Again...


IT IS NOT AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF YOUR VOICE SERVICE AT ALL.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
dsevil
January 4, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EGBTMagus: You write \"The only PDA that At&t sells without 3G now is the Curve and Pearl\". They also sell the Palm Centro, the GSM version of which doesn't do 3G (the Sprint/Verizon versions has 3G.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pselig
January 4, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EGBTMagus:

The link on Gizmodo seems to have disappeared, so I'm using the technical details from my memory of their article.

I believe the opposite is true in regards to the EDGE data service not being affected. While it is true that voice services will not be affected in the least, they are moving the EDGE data traffic to the 1900Mhz GSM band from the 850 Mhz GSM band. Any multi-band GSM phone that at&t sells will automatically be able to switch bands to accommodate the new requirements of the network.

Moving to the higher frequency band will have some significant effects on your data service. The higher frequency is less able to pass through buildings and other obstructions, so you may not be able to get data service indoors when you were able to in the past. The range of the radio signal will be less (assuming the same transmit power), so you will lose coverage areas since you will need to be closer to a cell tower than was needed before the switch.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
January 4, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EGBTMagus:

...Yes, I am aware that it won't affect my voice service. Believe it or not, I figure that since I pay to use my phone to check my email and use the internet, the quality of that service is also of importance to my money and me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
January 5, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: Agreed. And frankly, given that the $20 data plan remains mandatory for all 2G iPhone owners, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to... y'know... work. If they think I'm going to quietly continue to shell out $20 a month when I'm only able to use data in half the places I did before, they've got another think coming. I doubt I'm alone in this, either. There are still a pretty good number of people out there sticking with their 2G iPhones (if you're in an area without 3G, there's virtually no reason to change, anyway- or there *was* no reason to change). If the data plan they're paying for no longer provides coverage, I think AT&T is going to have a tough time continuing to force people to pay that $20 a month.

I predict a flood of people moving to T-Mobile or Verizon, getting out without termination fees because this is a change in service and possibly a class action suit. How many lawyers own Blackberry Curves, I wonder?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Andrew Briscoe
January 4, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am for anything that improves my iPhone 3G reception and coverage. It sucks for the people still on EDGE buy you can probably upgrade to a cheap 3G phone.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnva
January 4, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Many of us are not \"still on EDGE\" by choice, but because AT&T doesn't offer an alternative in our areas.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
BillyShears
January 4, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Man, that's weak. I have an EDGE phone specifically because 3G sucks so much battery power. (I also don't need or have the desire to do much web surfing on it.) I just got it, and really don't plan on ditching it anytime soon. (Although, hey, maybe T-Mobile would like a new customer...)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 4, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What everyone should understand is that UMTS and EDGE are channelized cellular networks. AT&T only has a limited amount of RF spectrum to divide into pie slices that serve both technologies. As more UMTS / 3G users are added, the need for expanded bandwidth and a cleaner reuse of channels becomes more necessary. Your signal displayed on the mobile phone is actually a measure of Signal to Noise ration, not just your received power. When AT&T adds channels to UMTS / 3G they make their channel reuse cleaner. Thus this improves the noise side of the ratio. This increases perceived reception and data through-put. If you want faster more reliable 3G, EDGE and GSM will have to sacrifice some of it's spectrum. That's the bottom line physics behind it.

Now if AT&T were really nice (HA!) they would offer an upgrade package for 2G iPhone users (or any other users) that doesn't require a bend over and grab of the ankles.

Just so you know I am not full of it. I have been working in Cellular Telecom for over 10 years as a Radio Frequency Engineer. BTW, I don't currently work for AT&T but I have experience engineering their platform.

~RF Dude~

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dsevil
January 4, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This appears to be the original article:

[www.ofb.biz]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
stockyg
January 4, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dsevil:

As much as people bash AT&T, my service with my Iphone has gotten alot better since I bought it back in July. I live in the D.C area and the 3G service has expanded alot since then. I have noticed that the 3G service has expanded to my house and I have a lot stronger signal compared to a few months ago. Alot of people I know swear by Verizon only, but to me I am very happy with my AT&T service. I'm glad I switched from Verizon because otherwise I would not have know how good the AT&T service is.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 5, 2009 1:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is strange, because I can;t find this mentioned on Gizmodo at all! Has anyone confirmed this? If it is true, tome to write to the FCC folks! But for some reason, it does not appear at the source that is mentioned. Odd...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
FaustianSlip
January 5, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GabriellaGanado: I read it on Gizmodo before I saw it here. Haven't looked for it in the last 24 hours or so, but it was definitely there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bobcatred
January 5, 2009 1:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

frankly I was shocked we got any EDGE coverage at all at my cousin's farm. Somehow I'm not surprised they'd kill it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dsevil
January 5, 2009 2:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks by the way for reminding me of how AT&T basically forced me to upgrade to a GSM phone by degrading their CDMA network 3 years ago. I feel like such a tool. :(

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 5, 2009 3:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

AT&T cannot expand one kind of coverage without consuming the other. The FCC only allows each wireless company so much spectrum in each service area. As a result, when doing a soft launch of a new over the air interface, any wireless carrier has to flip flop from one to the other. They try to do this in sync with customer usage - not ahead of it. If they do it too fast, the FCC eats them for lunch with mega fines.

Please do not be paranoid.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
January 5, 2009 6:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why mobile Internet is so not ready for prime time yet. Data plans + phones are too expensive. User experience is less than stellar (and I'm being very kind). The screens are small. The CPUs are under powered. The browsers won't render all internet sites (ie. Flash). I'm amazed at the number of people willing to part with their money to purchase phones that deliver an amazingly poor experience. Hey, I blame the consumers here, not AT&T. AT&T knows most of you are going to complain, but will pay more for less... a lot less.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 5, 2009 9:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's the original story

http://www.ofb.biz/safari/article/512.html

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Adam Minort
January 5, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keep focking around AT&T! T-Mobile just dropped in the RTP area, giving us all another choice. No way am I paying 29.99 for internet not much faster than 14.99 Edge.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DustinFinn
January 5, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why isnt this link on Gizmodo anymore ?

I am still trying to see where this was sourced, but I don't even see it on Gizmodo...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dukerayburn
January 5, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've never seen a story vanish from Gizmodo like this before. There may have been a lapse in fact-checking on the OFB article. A commenter here seems to have already debunked this as having no effect on voice traffic itself, which is the claim of the original article.

Seems like a vote of no-confidence from Gizmodo in removing the article, I just don't know why the Consumerist hasn't followed suit.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
plim
January 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

forget the iphone. the biggest impact will be all the 2G Blackberries in corporate offices across the country.


this is actually a genius plan by AT&T...you're going to have senior executives (not to mention the entire government, er, minus the president) clamming AT&T for BlackBerry Bold upgrades.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
January 5, 2009 10:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am sure that it won't affect 2G only areas, they will be reallocating bandwidth to the different service, but the different service would have to be there.

As fewer people use the 2G network this will be important or the 3G network will fail. Since they mention in building service it seems they might be moving 3G into the 900mhz band and 2G into the 1900mhz band. It will suck for 2G users in that case, but spectrum is finite and users like I demand the best performance out of our 3G devices.

Reply
");