Slashdot Mirror

Something needs to be done to stop the growing trend of laundry-list TOS agreements that amount to "we can kick you off our network any time we damn well feel like it"

Agreed. These contracts sound like the megalomaniac dreams of a 3-year-old: We can do what we like. You have no power.

Steve Jobs decided to tie the iPhone to AT&T (actually SBC with a new name), and now the company is awash in bad publicity. (See the title of the AT&T web page.)

Would you buy if the Newton came back?

It depends on how Apple begins to treat the iPhone hacks going around. If they stop the cat and mouse game to please the AT&T gods with disabling and "bricking" the altered iPhones, then maybe I would consider it. Hell, I was considering an iPhone until this whole bricking deal came to be.

I'm sorry but Steve Jobs wouldn't be where he was today if it weren't for a rabid fan base and he's quickly killing off the fan base by linking up with the douchebags of the world and killing off those that love Apple's devices the most -- true fans.

This entire problem occurred because Apple partnered with AT&T. It was a sink-the-company idea for Apple, in my opinion, guaranteed to get Apple some VERY bad press.

People have a legitimate need to use other SIM cards in their phones. For example, if you travel to Europe or Asia or South America, it is common to buy a SIM card there (GSM phones only) because then you get a local number, making it much cheaper for local people to call you and for you to call them.

Locking the iPhone while charging the full price for it was an attempt to squeeze more money from buyers, most of whom don't fully understand all the ways cellular phone companies, and now Apple, can abuse them, in my opinion.

AT&T is no longer the old AT&T, because the name was sold to SBC. My understanding is that the SBC trademark was worse than useless because the company is so abusive. So, the managers decided to use another name. Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T.

SBC taking the name AT&T is, in my opinion, a kind of legal fraud, but fraud nevertheless. People are bound to be confused and misled. AT&T had a very good reputation. SBC-AT&T is a completely different company, and has no connection in its culture with the old AT&T. At the very least, the SEC should require the company to disclose in the first sentence of any prospectus for its stock that there is no connection whatsoever.

Text: $71.88
Data: $240
TOTAL: $299.88 /yr

clearly-defined objects, robust interfaces, clean documentation and the "big picture"

If they'd used such high level (not really) features as shared_ptr, references and the STL, then memory leaks are surprisingly difficult to shoehorn in.

The moment you stop thinking in C and move onto true C++ (not the C-with-classes most people produce), memory leaks become a comical memory.

See http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#memory-leaks

So they should have added the feature so it can be turned off?

Further, I think you should check out AT&T's 3G coverage. Until their network gets a MAJOR set of upgrades, having 3G on the phone isn't going to do you a lot of good.

but why is that you cannot get cell service at all without the contract?

As far as I know, AT&T, Alltel, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless offer cellular service without a contract.

The reason that Jobs announced a $100 rebate to people that bought the iPhone within 14 days is because AT&T allows people to return iPhones within 14 days for a refund minus a 10% restocking fee.

Lots of people must have started returning the phones and buying them for the discounted price (which is very expensive for Apple), so they figured that if they offer $100, and you're only going to get $540 back for a return after the 10% restocking fee, and you have to deal with the hassle of returning and buying again, you'd rather get the $100 refund from apple. It's pure economics.

Here's a quote from AT&T's site: "Apple branded equipment is covered by a 14-day return policy and must be returned to the original point of purchase. If the Apple branded equipment is returned unopened and in the original shrink wrapping, it will be refunded back to the original payment method. Opened Apple branded equipment that is returned within 14 days will be subject to a 10% open box restocking fee. All products must be packed in their original, unmarked packaging including any accessories and manuals that shipped with the product." See: http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/leg al/return-policy.jsp

Incidentally, all other phones have a 30 day return period and no restocking fee, so perhaps the price cuts were planned, or Apple was afraid the phones might have problems that would cause them to be returned.

Jobs doesn't care about the users, it's all about the benjamins. Once again he's sucked everyone into the Apple spin zone.

You fools! Great Cthulhu is the least of our problems here! Now that this thread has the attention of millions of helpless Slashdot readers, all it would take would be for some idiot to post a link to the original Sumerian text of the Nam-shub of Enki:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?tex t=c.1.8.2.3&display=Crit&charenc=j&lineid=c1823.13 4#c1823.134

and another to a popular text to speech translator:

http://www.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php

and countless minds could be permanently re-programmed! Goatse and the Shining Trapezohedron have got nothing on this!

The local cable company decided not to make service available in my neighborhood.
Therefore, in my area, broadband means SBC. I can purchase SBC's packages or I can use dial-up.
Since I often have to connect to my VPN at the office, I am forced into buying SBC's inferior services.

Please note: AT&T is no longer the AT&T which I grew up with and as such, I refuse to call SBC what the company's executives wish for the rest of us to call them. If you're interested, read their press release on the AT&T-SBC merge + name change.

TeleNav GPS Navigator
TeleNav GPS Navigator Basic: $5.99 per month per device for 10 routes*
TeleNav GPS Navigator Premium: $9.99 per month per device for unlimited routes*

*A route is determined when a user types in the address of their destination in the TeleNav GPS Navigator application. The route would be from their starting location to the address/destination they originally entered into the application. That would be considered 1 route. If you miss a turn, re-routes are automatically sent to your device and are still considered part of the original route.

TeleNav Track (Mobile Workforce Management)
TeleNav Track Basic: $12.99 a month per device
TeleNav Track Premium: $21.99 a month per device

Please note: There is a one-time set up fee of $19.99 per device and eligible data plan.

It isn't TOO bad.

At the very least, I don't think C++ as described in the following document is too complex.

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/hopl2.pdf

TTS technologies have been around a helluvalot longer than that. (check out the "voder" part!)

The thing is, TTS which is great for visually impaired users has been around for decades, and all these fancy new systems are no better, in fact they're worse.
Listen to something like AT&T Natural Voices which is diphone based, and really no good for VI users as you can't use them at any great speed and understand them well.
Compare that with some hardware synth from the late 80's or 90's, or a software synth like eloquence and hopefully you'll see why the not-so-human-like voices are much better for the people who really need them.
Of course for automated phone systems and GPS navigation, the human-like voices are good, but you need a lot less information from them, try listening to a book, or the contents of your browser window. A lot of commercial screen readers come with Eloquence, and those that don't usually come with something similar, and for a good reason.
While I'm on this point, I wish that somebody would develop a good TTS engine open source, festival is good for what it is, but it's built like the AT&T or Cepstral voices rather then a purely synthetic synth. Ah well.

Paperless billing! Especially here at Slashdot, I am sure we can all figure out http://www.wireless.att.com/my-account

Dr. Stroustrup made a great contribution by designing the C++ language. However, in recent years it seems to me that he has been taking a leisurely approach to making improvements.

Stroustrup is, unlike most programmers, an excellent writer. His FAQ is an example. Quote: "What's a good certification for C++ programmers? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a good certification program for C++ programmers. That's a pity. A good certification program would be most useful. However, C++ lacks the central organization that would produce a solid certification program, and a certification program without authority or that focused on syntax would be worse than useless."

I'm certainly not an expert in this subject. However, I get the same impression from the words "C++ lacks the central organization" in that paragraph that I get from his other recent work. Something like, "What, me be a leader?"

Note that Java and C#, which are sometimes seen as replacements for C++, are proprietary languages from companies that are routinely mismanaged. If you use those languages, you partner with those companies, and it is possible that you too will suffer from their mismanagement. For that reason, there is a big need for strong leadership in maintaining a language unencumbered by issues of proprietary behavior.

Concerning Java, Dr. Stroustrup says "Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform. Like Windows, it is a proprietary commercial platform. That is, you can write programs for Windows/Intel or Java/JVM, and in each case you are writing code for a platform owned by a single corporation and tweaked for the commercial benefit of that corporation."

Concerning C#, he says, "It will take a lot to persuade me that the world needs yet another proprietary language (YAPL). It will be especially hard to persuade me that it needs a language that is closely integrated with a specific proprietary operating system."

Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that Dr. Stroustrup tends to define his leadership narrowly and concern himself with programming constructs rather than larger issues such as extension, standardization, and certification of libraries, for example. About C++ garbage collection he says, partly: "See ... Hans-J. Boehm's site". It seems to me that there are too many areas in which the C++ answer is "You can just go there", rather than "This is the standard, certified method."

It's amazing to me, but true leaders are very rare. After all these years, we still depend on Dr. Stroustrup, even though he has been less than a complete leader in the more social aspects of developing the C++ language, in my opinion.

Dr. Stroustrup made a great contribution by designing the C++ language. However, in recent years it seems to me that he has been taking a leisurely approach to making improvements.

Stroustrup is, unlike most programmers, an excellent writer. His FAQ is an example. Quote: "What's a good certification for C++ programmers? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a good certification program for C++ programmers. That's a pity. A good certification program would be most useful. However, C++ lacks the central organization that would produce a solid certification program, and a certification program without authority or that focused on syntax would be worse than useless."

I'm certainly not an expert in this subject. However, I get the same impression from the words "C++ lacks the central organization" in that paragraph that I get from his other recent work. Something like, "What, me be a leader?"

Note that Java and C#, which are sometimes seen as replacements for C++, are proprietary languages from companies that are routinely mismanaged. If you use those languages, you partner with those companies, and it is possible that you too will suffer from their mismanagement. For that reason, there is a big need for strong leadership in maintaining a language unencumbered by issues of proprietary behavior.

Concerning Java, Dr. Stroustrup says "Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform. Like Windows, it is a proprietary commercial platform. That is, you can write programs for Windows/Intel or Java/JVM, and in each case you are writing code for a platform owned by a single corporation and tweaked for the commercial benefit of that corporation."

Concerning C#, he says, "It will take a lot to persuade me that the world needs yet another proprietary language (YAPL). It will be especially hard to persuade me that it needs a language that is closely integrated with a specific proprietary operating system."

Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that Dr. Stroustrup tends to define his leadership narrowly and concern himself with programming constructs rather than larger issues such as extension, standardization, and certification of libraries, for example. About C++ garbage collection he says, partly: "See ... Hans-J. Boehm's site". It seems to me that there are too many areas in which the C++ answer is "You can just go there", rather than "This is the standard, certified method."

It's amazing to me, but true leaders are very rare. After all these years, we still depend on Dr. Stroustrup, even though he has been less than a complete leader in the more social aspects of developing the C++ language, in my opinion.

Dr. Stroustrup made a great contribution by designing the C++ language. However, in recent years it seems to me that he has been taking a leisurely approach to making improvements.

Stroustrup is, unlike most programmers, an excellent writer. His FAQ is an example. Quote: "What's a good certification for C++ programmers? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a good certification program for C++ programmers. That's a pity. A good certification program would be most useful. However, C++ lacks the central organization that would produce a solid certification program, and a certification program without authority or that focused on syntax would be worse than useless."

I'm certainly not an expert in this subject. However, I get the same impression from the words "C++ lacks the central organization" in that paragraph that I get from his other recent work. Something like, "What, me be a leader?"

Note that Java and C#, which are sometimes seen as replacements for C++, are proprietary languages from companies that are routinely mismanaged. If you use those languages, you partner with those companies, and it is possible that you too will suffer from their mismanagement. For that reason, there is a big need for strong leadership in maintaining a language unencumbered by issues of proprietary behavior.

Concerning Java, Dr. Stroustrup says "Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform. Like Windows, it is a proprietary commercial platform. That is, you can write programs for Windows/Intel or Java/JVM, and in each case you are writing code for a platform owned by a single corporation and tweaked for the commercial benefit of that corporation."

Concerning C#, he says, "It will take a lot to persuade me that the world needs yet another proprietary language (YAPL). It will be especially hard to persuade me that it needs a language that is closely integrated with a specific proprietary operating system."

Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that Dr. Stroustrup tends to define his leadership narrowly and concern himself with programming constructs rather than larger issues such as extension, standardization, and certification of libraries, for example. About C++ garbage collection he says, partly: "See ... Hans-J. Boehm's site". It seems to me that there are too many areas in which the C++ answer is "You can just go there", rather than "This is the standard, certified method."

It's amazing to me, but true leaders are very rare. After all these years, we still depend on Dr. Stroustrup, even though he has been less than a complete leader in the more social aspects of developing the C++ language, in my opinion.

Dr. Stroustrup made a great contribution by designing the C++ language. However, in recent years it seems to me that he has been taking a leisurely approach to making improvements.

Stroustrup is, unlike most programmers, an excellent writer. His FAQ is an example. Quote: "What's a good certification for C++ programmers? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a good certification program for C++ programmers. That's a pity. A good certification program would be most useful. However, C++ lacks the central organization that would produce a solid certification program, and a certification program without authority or that focused on syntax would be worse than useless."

I'm certainly not an expert in this subject. However, I get the same impression from the words "C++ lacks the central organization" in that paragraph that I get from his other recent work. Something like, "What, me be a leader?"

Note that Java and C#, which are sometimes seen as replacements for C++, are proprietary languages from companies that are routinely mismanaged. If you use those languages, you partner with those companies, and it is possible that you too will suffer from their mismanagement. For that reason, there is a big need for strong leadership in maintaining a language unencumbered by issues of proprietary behavior.

Concerning Java, Dr. Stroustrup says "Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform. Like Windows, it is a proprietary commercial platform. That is, you can write programs for Windows/Intel or Java/JVM, and in each case you are writing code for a platform owned by a single corporation and tweaked for the commercial benefit of that corporation."

Concerning C#, he says, "It will take a lot to persuade me that the world needs yet another proprietary language (YAPL). It will be especially hard to persuade me that it needs a language that is closely integrated with a specific proprietary operating system."

Again, I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that Dr. Stroustrup tends to define his leadership narrowly and concern himself with programming constructs rather than larger issues such as extension, standardization, and certification of libraries, for example. About C++ garbage collection he says, partly: "See ... Hans-J. Boehm's site". It seems to me that there are too many areas in which the C++ answer is "You can just go there", rather than "This is the standard, certified method."

It's amazing to me, but true leaders are very rare. After all these years, we still depend on Dr. Stroustrup, even though he has been less than a complete leader in the more social aspects of developing the C++ language, in my opinion.

Or just log into your account at http://wireless.att.com/ and switch to paperless billing. That's how I did it years ago when it was Cingular. I would expect the option is still there.

Broadband is somewhat cheaper in Holland than it is here, but rest assured that it won't be cheaper than the same in the US.

Well, KPN says that they offer (at least from what this non-Dutch-speaker can pick out with the aid of Babelfish) 1.5Mb down/256Kb up for EUR 15.00/month for the first year and EUR 25.00/month after that, 3Mb down/512Kb up for EUR 20.00/EUR 30.00, 6Mb down/768 Kb up for EUR 40.00/EUR 50.00. The "packages" (Internet + TV + telephone) at those speeds go for EUR 44.90/month and EUR 52.90/month - unless I'm missing something, they don't have a 6Mb up/768 Kb down package.

Here in Amurrica, at least in California, AT&T says that they offer 768Kb down/128Kb up for USD 14.99/month, "up to" 3MB down/"up to" 512Kb down for USD 24.99/month, and "up to" 6MB down/"up to" 768Kb down for USD 34.99/month. They have an Internet + TV + long-distance (you have to get your local phone service from them to get DSL) bundle for USD 99.98/month - as the Internet part is "Internet Pro", and "Pro" for their "just DSL" offers is the 3MB down/512Kb up service, I assume that's what you get for the DSL with the bundle.

I don't know whether "up to" means that they're just being more cautious in what they state than KPN, or if KPN really does offer guarantees that AT&T doesn't. I don't see anything in the AT&T material I saw about the rate going up after the first year.

On the other hand, perhaps the Dutch and Belgians should move to France. Orange appears to offer 1Mb down/??? up for EUR 24.90/month, up to 8 Mb down/800 Kb up for EUR 29.90/month, and up to 18 Mb down/800Kb up for EUR 34.90/month - and, unless I'm misreading (which this non-French-speaker might be doing), that includes TV. It also appears that they offer an Internet+TV+telephone bundle, with an Mb down/800 Kb up, for EUR 34.90/month, with a 1-year commitment (it sounds as if the "a la carte" requires no commitment).

I didn't see anything on KPN, AT&T, or Orange about a traffic limit.

Broadband is somewhat cheaper in Holland than it is here, but rest assured that it won't be cheaper than the same in the US.

Well, KPN says that they offer (at least from what this non-Dutch-speaker can pick out with the aid of Babelfish) 1.5Mb down/256Kb up for EUR 15.00/month for the first year and EUR 25.00/month after that, 3Mb down/512Kb up for EUR 20.00/EUR 30.00, 6Mb down/768 Kb up for EUR 40.00/EUR 50.00. The "packages" (Internet + TV + telephone) at those speeds go for EUR 44.90/month and EUR 52.90/month - unless I'm missing something, they don't have a 6Mb up/768 Kb down package.

Here in Amurrica, at least in California, AT&T says that they offer 768Kb down/128Kb up for USD 14.99/month, "up to" 3MB down/"up to" 512Kb down for USD 24.99/month, and "up to" 6MB down/"up to" 768Kb down for USD 34.99/month. They have an Internet + TV + long-distance (you have to get your local phone service from them to get DSL) bundle for USD 99.98/month - as the Internet part is "Internet Pro", and "Pro" for their "just DSL" offers is the 3MB down/512Kb up service, I assume that's what you get for the DSL with the bundle.

I don't know whether "up to" means that they're just being more cautious in what they state than KPN, or if KPN really does offer guarantees that AT&T doesn't. I don't see anything in the AT&T material I saw about the rate going up after the first year.

On the other hand, perhaps the Dutch and Belgians should move to France. Orange appears to offer 1Mb down/??? up for EUR 24.90/month, up to 8 Mb down/800 Kb up for EUR 29.90/month, and up to 18 Mb down/800Kb up for EUR 34.90/month - and, unless I'm misreading (which this non-French-speaker might be doing), that includes TV. It also appears that they offer an Internet+TV+telephone bundle, with an Mb down/800 Kb up, for EUR 34.90/month, with a 1-year commitment (it sounds as if the "a la carte" requires no commitment).

I didn't see anything on KPN, AT&T, or Orange about a traffic limit.

You must be taking your information from post AT&T breakup, 1981'ish. Back when the publicly owned and traded phone "monopoly" was f'd up. HiTF a publicly traded company can be considered a monopoly I would like to know. But, anyway...

The original copper network was a private/public compromise built on private property seized by the government
No sir. The original copper was being put in place in the mid 1800's along with the railways. The land was "seized" from the native Americans.

The federal government allowed monopoly control of the copper by one company, as long as it agreed to follow certain rules
Bell was given credit for the phone making The Bell Telephone Company was the only player in the market. The government owned the copper it put in place until the, then, "American Bell Telephone Company" built enough exchanges to receive through government grants the existing copper because uncle sam didn't want to pay for upkeep not to mention it needed private phone system and couldn't do it due to patents:
Until Bell's second patent expired in 1894, only Bell Telephone and its licensees could legally operate telephone systems in the United States http://www.corp.att.com/history/history1.html

Up until the 80's the majority of old folks had their money tied up in phone stocks and government savings bonds. The industry was broken up to get that stagnant money back out in the world to pump the U.S. economy back to life.

The reason we don't have good network connectivity is the constant fighting for control of what is unarguably the biggest industry in the U.S. Everything, in one way or another, is dependent on communication. The people in the industry are the second most greedy pieces of sh't on the face of the earth. Absolutely everything they do is for their own benefit. The massive tax cuts they received to "modernize the infrastructure of our nations communications" went directly onto their bottom line. The proposals that Google et. el. are putting together are the only signs of hope the people have to break free from the same ol sh't.

I think you jumped over a few historical facts when you mentioned the Interstate Highways were unfair competition to the railroads. When the Interstate Highways were designed in the early 1950's and built in the late 50's and early 60's, they were paid for by .... long pause so you can think ....

The Department of Defense.

Of course the railroads could not compete with the Interstate Highways. But why would the DOD build the Interstate Highways? Well, to understand that, you needed to look at the first Interstate Highways built, and notice they were all very flat, and that NOTHING crossed over them, not even power lines. These new highways were built with several hundred feet of separation between the opposite direction traffic lanes. And they were incredibly straight. The few curves these highways had were all very gradual.

Any ideas yet why DOD paid for building the Interstate Highways? Here's a hint -- the Strategic Air Command.

During the late 50's and early 60's, the Strategic Air Command was a very large part of our national defense, with many long range bombers in the air at any one time. But, an enemy might attack our airfields, in particular, those with 10,000 foot runways. Such an attack could prevent many of our long range bombers from taking off, and prevent the bombers already in the air from refueling before they flew to their targets over the North Pole.

AH HA!

Our Interstate Highways were built to be used as runways -- runways for our bombers to use for refueling. By covering the countryside with runways, there was no way a potential adversary could prevent our long range bombers from refueling so they could reach their targets. But technology eventually obsoleted the Strategic Air Command as our primary defense, and we no longer needed those runways all over the countryside.

At about the same time as the Interstate Highway system was being built, a nationwide broadband network was being built by AT&T. This nationwide network, consisting of microwave relay stations and coaxial cable repeaters, carried long distance telephone calls and network television programs. About 1/2 of the capacity of this broadband network was leased to the Federal Government. The Federal Government provided guaranteed traffic for this nationwide network, insuring it would be built. Here are two links to some of the history and technical details of AT&T's broadband network.

http://www.corp.att.com/history/nethistory/milesto nes.html

http://long-lines.net/

The AT&T "Long Lines" network was built with no central control point, specifically so it would survive a nuclear war. But eventually, the AT&T microwave and coaxial cable network approached saturation, and more bandwidth was needed. Worse, many of the consulates and embassies belonging to our adversaries now had arrays of microwave antennas on their roofs.

Here is are two links to what some of the government traffic passing through the AT&T microwave and coaxial cable physical network was:

http://www.albany.edu/ltl/using/history.html

http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/histo ry.shtml

In the 1990's, AT&T sold off their microwave and coaxial cable physical network because by then AT&T had deployed a fiber mesh network with far higher bandwidth. This fiber network also offered significantly better security than the microwave network did because intercepting message traffic on a fiber network without being detected is quite difficult. AT&T's conversion to an all fiber network made those consulate and embassy roof microwave antennas largely obsolete for gathering electronic intelligence.

About our trans-oceanic te

Well... for starters, I wasn't even aware that that that was an option.

A 2 year contract... with a 2-week trial period (with which, I naively assumed I could - and follow me here - try the service).

Yes, it is my fault. I fully admit that. I didn't read the contract in detail, I stupidly assumed that when AT&T's own site said

Q. Do you have a special return policy for iPhones? A. Yes. Apple branded equipment is covered by a 14-day return policy and must be returned to the original point of purchase. If the Apple branded equipment is returned unopened and in the original shrink wrapping, it will be refunded back to the original payment method. Opened Apple branded equipment that is returned within 14 days will be subject to a 10% open box restocking fee. All products must be packed in their original, unmarked packaging including any accessories and manuals that shipped with the product.

that meant that there was a two week trial period with a 10% restocking fee so that I could try the phone and the service for two weeks and, if I didn't like it, pay Apple the restocking fee, and return the phone without paying connect fees and a for a month worth of crappy service that I couldn't really use.

I was fully aware of that going in - and (when I bought the phone), I figured that it was worth 60-bucks to try the iPhone and the service out for a week or two. Seemed like a reasonable plan considering that AT&T's coverage map said that I have "good" coverage in my area.

When it turned out that 'good' coverage in my area actually meant that I couldn't even use the phone inside, I was ready to pay the restocking fee.

Except... when I took the phone back to the Apple Store, they actually decided to waive the 10% restocking fee because I had problems with network coverage.

Unfortunately, AT&T wasn't so generous.

Apparently they honor their two week trial period by charging a startup fee and a month of service to anyone foolish enough to believe their bogus return policy.

The saddest thing about the whole situation is that it really is a great phone and in about 6 months, I'll be moving and I would have very much liked to get another one, and would have gladly handed over at least a few thousand to AT&T if it weren't for this experience.

Oh well... caveat emptor, I guess.

Well... for starters, I wasn't even aware that that that was an option.

A 2 year contract... with a 2-week trial period (with which, I naively assumed I could - and follow me here - try the service).

Yes, it is my fault. I fully admit that. I didn't read the contract in detail, I stupidly assumed that when AT&T's own site said

Q. Do you have a special return policy for iPhones? A. Yes. Apple branded equipment is covered by a 14-day return policy and must be returned to the original point of purchase. If the Apple branded equipment is returned unopened and in the original shrink wrapping, it will be refunded back to the original payment method. Opened Apple branded equipment that is returned within 14 days will be subject to a 10% open box restocking fee. All products must be packed in their original, unmarked packaging including any accessories and manuals that shipped with the product.

that meant that there was a two week trial period with a 10% restocking fee so that I could try the phone and the service for two weeks and, if I didn't like it, pay Apple the restocking fee, and return the phone without paying connect fees and a for a month worth of crappy service that I couldn't really use.

I was fully aware of that going in - and (when I bought the phone), I figured that it was worth 60-bucks to try the iPhone and the service out for a week or two. Seemed like a reasonable plan considering that AT&T's coverage map said that I have "good" coverage in my area.

When it turned out that 'good' coverage in my area actually meant that I couldn't even use the phone inside, I was ready to pay the restocking fee.

Except... when I took the phone back to the Apple Store, they actually decided to waive the 10% restocking fee because I had problems with network coverage.

Unfortunately, AT&T wasn't so generous.

Apparently they honor their two week trial period by charging a startup fee and a month of service to anyone foolish enough to believe their bogus return policy.

The saddest thing about the whole situation is that it really is a great phone and in about 6 months, I'll be moving and I would have very much liked to get another one, and would have gladly handed over at least a few thousand to AT&T if it weren't for this experience.

Oh well... caveat emptor, I guess.

Taking a look at AT&T's version of cell phone terms and conditions, they say that "These terms and conditions may be changed from time-to-time." There's a little about where to go to check for changed terms, and other stuff like that.

From a quick reading, there is no ability to cancel without penalty before the contract expires (well, except for the first 3 or 30 days), at least according to AT&T. Now, maybe AT&T would be nice, and give their customers the choice to terminate without penalty, but there's nothing in their terms that seems to require it.

But AT&T offers voip services. http://www.corp.att.com/voip/ Why would the enter a market they don't like?

You pay for your ringtones?

I purchased a USB Data Cable from eBay (about $7 including shipping) and then downloaded BitPIM ( http://www.bitpim.org/ ). The cable connects my phone to my PC. BitPIM then reads my phone's data and can upload MP3 files to it for me to use as ringtones. Since phones have a limited amount of storage and you don't need a high bitrate for ringtones, I use Audacity to reduce the bitrate of the ringtone before I upload it to my phone.

My current default ringtone is the entire Muppet Show theme. I'm thinking of using the AT&T Labs Text-To-Speech website ( http://www.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php ) to generate some spoken ringtones. (e.g. "Incoming Communication. Caller Identified As Beth.")

You don't think it's possibly because of contractual obligations to AT&T do you?

Not in the slightest. AT&T offer Blackberries and Treos, both having official third-party development tools and mature ecosystems of third-party software (much of it free and open source). Why is the iPhone an exception?

No matter any more, however. To restate my point, with the amount of effort being poured into iPhone hacking, it will only be a matter of time before people begin developing their own applications for the device, and I suspect the caliber of those applications will be substandard—a measure of the tools. Apple and AT&T have three choices: try to put the genie back in the bottle through litigation, do nothing and let hacked third-party tool chains dominate the market, or release official SDKs and at least have some influence over the market. It should be strikingly obvious, taking history into account, that option number one will fail. Of the latter two options, guess which has the best out-come for the providers involved.

The Motorola C139 is a as bare-bones phone as you can get, pretty close to the Motorola F3 in your link.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cel l-phone-details/?device=Motorola+C139+-+GoPhone%C2 %AE+(Pay+As+You+Go)+&q_sku=sku40012

This phone is only $20 after $20 mail-in rebate (att wireless online only instant discount of $100 also) if you buy it online. Also it can be used with a standard gsm plan if you wanted to convert from gophone.

Motorola has plenty: C139 for instance. $20 in the major electronic retailers with a $10 airtime credit. Small, simple, clear display, so cheap it's practically disposable. I don't think the OP has tried looking very hard.

I browsed through a few comments quickly, and many people seem to be pointing towards Motorola. I would personally highly recommend a "low end" Nokia model.

I worked for Cingular a few years ago, and I never got any complaints from older folks asking for the exact same phone features as your mother. I'm not sure what carrier you're planning to go with, but if you're looking at Cingular, this seems to be the phone closest to what you're mother wants:
The Nokia 2610 -- http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cel l-phone-details/?device=Nokia+2610&q_sku=sku980158

In my experience with Motorola, they never hold up as well, or for as long, nor are they as durable or easy to use. However, if you want an older Motorola to compare to, which you could probably pick up on EBay, check out the Motorola V180. If memory serves (and it does), that phone will also fit your mothers needs quite nicely. Picking up an older phone could also keep your mom from signing any kind of contract with a carrier, as she could simply use whatever they call their version of "pre-pay" now.

However, if you are considering the EBay route, the phone I would recommend over most others would be the old Nokia 1100. It is exactly what your mother is looking for. Durable, and believe me, other than a rudimentary flashlight, zero other features. Great battery life though. Buy five of them, and when/if one fails, just swap out the SIM card. Show her how to do it, it's very easy on the 1100. But, for whatever carrier you decide to go with, make CERTAIN the phone is either from that carrier, or it at least compatible (unlocked). For Cingular and T-Mobile, they use GSM technology, hence SIM cards. They have to be unlocked.

As for price plans, you're on your own. Good luck!

"all for the low price of $350 or more"

wtf? Every cellphone company offer free phones with a new plan. At&t / Cingular have 6 free phones that cost absolutely nothing with a 2 year agreement. And if you don't want a plan then why are you even getting a cellphone??

Why is this even on /.? The submitter is fake.

Thats a pure scam. It's not true rollover if there expiration dates.

I should be able to buy some minutes and not have to renew every month.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/cel l-phone-plans/prepaid-cell-phone-plans.jsp

I have a Morotola C139 and pay $25 a quarter with rollover minutes.

I have a prepaid cellphone from Cingular (now AT&T), since I don't actually use it very often. It's simple, easy to use, and best of all, cheap: I pay $25 every three months for it. The phone itself cost $30, but there was a free phone that you could choose with the service as well, if I recall correctly.

http://www.wireless.att.com/myaccount/prepaid

I must assume your signature referred to a104101 but it might have been a122115. The most likely possibility though: 4,8,15,16,20,3,42 doesn't seem to have an entry.

I must assume your signature referred to a104101 but it might have been a122115. The most likely possibility though: 4,8,15,16,20,3,42 doesn't seem to have an entry.

Let's ignore the fact that that code isn't either C or C++.

http://users.aber.ac.uk/auj/voidmain.shtml
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#void- main

"Couple that with people who don't live in AT&T's serviceable area"

This would be a relatively small percentage of people since AT+T covers most of the US including almost all of Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Anchorage Alaska.

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer?WT.svl= title

"I could, quite frankly, care less if I had an iPhone with a Sprint logo on it."

No, but Apple does. There are no logos other than Apple's on an iPhone. From what I understand, Apple initially approached the other providers about making a deal and was turned down by all except AT&T.

AT&T Wireless aka Cingular has been putting a lot of money into expanding their network in the last couple of years, both before and after the merger. There are cities where they're the best coverage available, and there are still cities where they suck rocks, or cities where they've got good coverage in most of the city but not at your house or office or favorite coffeeshop. Their website has a Coverage Map that shows fairly fine-grained detail about coverage.

What really sucked for a while was their treatment of AT&T Wireless customers after they bought AT&T Wireless. I'm not unbiased here - as a stockholder, I was happy that they paid far above market price for the leftovers of AT&T Wireless, but as a consumer I was annoyed that they kept getting my bills wrong (usually by forgetting how many minutes a month I had on my contract and charging me for lots of overage.) I didn't have any trouble with signal coverage, but my brother-in-law had trouble in parts of LA.

As far as network speed goes, EDGE was blazingly fast when it came out :-) 1xRTT is similar speed, maybe a bit faster, but the big difference is how heavily loaded your cell site is for either network, because the average performance of either standard is a lot lower than the peak. EVDO is faster than EDGE; HSDPA is faster than EVDO. EVDOrevA is faster than EVDO and maybe faster than HSDPA; HSUPA is faster than HSDPA and EVDOrevA, and after that each side will have yet another version, though they may not be using the "Generation" marketing propaganda names for it.

EDGE is slower than my DSL at home, but the iPhone's screen is smaller than my PC. For watching videos, that probably matters, but for most other things it doesn't. I'm not into watching videos on small screens, but then I'm not the iPhone's target customer either, so I may not be a good judge of that. (I've got an iPod with video, but basically only use it for music.)

The Nokia link you gave me states that Nokia has two brick and mortar stores, and neither is within an hour's drive of my home. Even if I feel adventurous enough to buy a phone that I've never tried, why are so many models listed in Nokia - Phones - Find products marked as "Phone only: --"? (The Motorola page didn't appear to have this problem.)

Besides, most Americans are not made aware that they have that option. And do the prepaid carriers in the United States sell SIMs separately, or do I have to buy a phone to get a SIM?

The Joint Strike Fighter C++ Coding Guidelines define maximum length of a line of code as 120 columns. That's what I use, too. Not that I'm in any way involved in the JSF, mind you.

AT&T is GSM and UMTS... and uses sim cards. UMTS is in fact CDMA, however it is not compatible the CDMA most people are familiar with.

http://www.wireless.att.com/b2b/content/downloads/ DataCapabilities_beyond.pdf

You're right, of course - Apple's not targeting me. I don't know who they are targeting, to be honest... bloody thing costs too much and doesn't do everything that my current phone does. And my phone only cost me $200. Whoever their target audience was, however, they've found at least 700K of them so far, so I'm sure they're happy.

I've actually had an iPhone in hand, and played with it for a while. I understand the appeal... Apple does interface very well. I don't see $600 worth of appeal there, however.

The battery wasn't the deal breaker - the price was - but it was certainly a nail. The replacement battery for my phone's going to cost me $20, and I don't have to ship it anywhere to replace it.

First of all, I fail to see why roaming is any more important to the iPhone than to any other phone. Especially as it's not being targeted at business users.

The iPhone most likely will require a new tariff, yes. But guessing what that tariff might be is pure speculation. The best we can do for an informed guess is to compare the packages offered by the networks at the moment, and basing that speculation on the data-only tariffs offered is ludicrous. You've also got to take into account the price differentiation between these tariffs. The prices you quoted in an earlier comment are well above the £7.50 cost of the consumer-level internet access packages offered by both Vodafone and T-mobile, and don't include voice.

Just to underline my point, the iPhone will not come with a contract that in any way resembles Vodafone's data packages, no matter what network carries it.

Actually the iPhone plans cost the exact same as their "Nation" plan for the same number of minutes plus SmartPhone Connect Unlimited, which is effectively the same thing.

iPhone plans (the image name is actually "plans_nation.gif")

Nation Plans

SmartPhone Connect Unlimated

Actually the iPhone plans cost the exact same as their "Nation" plan for the same number of minutes plus SmartPhone Connect Unlimited, which is effectively the same thing.

iPhone plans (the image name is actually "plans_nation.gif")

Nation Plans

SmartPhone Connect Unlimated