Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Wireless Phone "Upgrades" Aren't
An anonymous reader writes "AT&T Wireless is requiring customers in parts of California and New York and elsewhere to "upgrade" their phones and offering free replacements. The catch? In most cases the upgrades have worse features than the phones they're replacing."
Anybody see that the N-Gage phone is on the list. Didn't this pseudo phone just come out like 4 months ago?
-Dipster
Downgrades are upgrades.
(On a more serious note-- hey, if Microsoft can define 'repackaging old Apple, Xerox and Unix tech for the masses' as 'innovation', then sure, a downgrade can be an 'upgrade'. Businesses lying is nothing new.)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I live in the UK. GSM has been pretty much all there is for years now, which is great, as it works pretty well. A new provider, 3 has come along and setup a new network offering football highlights and video conferencing and next to zero coverage. However, all their phones are backwards compatible with GSM. Why can't AT&T offer you a GSM phone that falls back to TDMA (whatever that is?). To everyone out there who's being forced into geting a new phone, get a Nokia 7250i. They're great (but no bluetooth - not that I can think of a use for it anyway).
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
I may be ignorant, but don't you own the phone your provider gives you? If you take out a contract and get Phone A free, then a year later they give you Phone B as an 'upgrade' aren't Phones A and B both your property meaning that you can use the SIM card in Phone A and just eBay Phone B?
On topic, DUH. They aren't saying you HAVE to switch, they are just strongly suggesting it because it will improve your reception. And you forked out all that extra cash for a smart phone, you should be prepared to do it again. If AT&T was going to disable your phone, then it would be reasonable to make them replace it with the same thing. But as it is they are just offering you one of their standard phones free. If you still want all those extra features, you can pay again.
It's not extra nice, but it makes perfect sense to me. I don't think you can really falt AT&T for this. Sorry.
The OT part: I am seroiusly thinking about switching carries for my phone (I don't care about my current number, so that hassle doesn't factor in), and I'm seriously looking at AT&T. I was thinking of getting a Sony-Ericsson T610 (or T616, whatever they want to sell me) for it's bluetooth and java (and looks).
Is AT&T a very nice provider? How hard is it to use a bluetooth phone as a modem (you know, connect to the internet through it)? Where can I find directions on that?
But overall, how are people's expiriances with it?
PS: I'm in eastern Kansas if you know what the reception is like there
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I'll keep using my T68i, and when they cut my service off, I'll demand a refund for my original phone. Then I'll take my business elsewhere.
AT&T shouldn't be forcing their customers to "upgrade" to anything. I smell a class-action lawsuit coming.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
"You own your phone, but in this case AT&T is telling these customers that if they don't trade in the phone, it won't work with AT&T anymore because the customer has a non-GSM phone, and AT&T is switching to GSM-only in their area."
True. Now just try to get the unlock codes for the phone you "own" to move to another network, and you'll find out the truth.
Place the blame on the correct group. You mean the FCC, right? After all it could have thought of a transition path that will move US to use the same frequencies as the rest of the world, but did not. I would not be amused if there was some Qualcom money behind this as well.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
So you're the guy who almost hit me today!
> Because TDMA is so much older, it has longer range
> and better sound quality. Switching from a TDMA
> phone to a GSM phone is OF COURSE A DOWNGRADE.
After all, you just can't trust anything designed in part by the French, is successfully used in more countries than McDonalds, included cross-carrier roaming and card portability in its original design, uses a combination of TDMA and FDMA technologies to support more users than either, and made the lives of phone manufacturers so much easier.
Its just so unfortunate that most of the rest of the world already uses this nasty, nasty technology to support calls even in areas where the last time western civilisation peeked in, it was to comment about a chap called Livingstone.
The phone for which I paid extra money to AT&T has now been shown to have substandard reception due to the way they have built their network. This rather extraordinary step of offering a free phone pretty much acknowledges that they screwed up by selling me a 68i since it is now obsolete viz-a-vis their network.
The only reason I chose AT&T as a provider was because at the time I got my phone and plan they were the only company in my area offering a bluetooth-capable phone.
In fact, when I was dropping my old provider (Verizon) a rep called me to entice me to stay with them, offering a number of new phones with all the bells and whistles. "Do any of them have Bluetooth?" I asked. The rep didn't even know what Bluetooth was.
AT&T could easily check their records and know who bought "premium" phones with their plans. It is idiotic to offer someone a new phone that lacks key features of their old phone. It's a great strategy, however, to alienate customers.
The problem is that AT&T sold defective phones. And there's any surprise that the fix eliminates features people paid money for?
How would you like it if Ford sold Mustangs that performed much worse than expected, and as a fix, gave you a Pinto as a replacement?
>> and in the proccess I loose about 60% of my home coverage
HOW MANY Slashdotters can't spell "lose"?
Please return to 2nd grade immediately.