T-Mobile Sues Starbucks Over Free Wi-Fi Deal

Glenn Fleishman writes "T-Mobile sent me the text of a lawsuit they filed yesterday against Starbucks. The telecom firm alleges that Starbucks didn't involve it in any discussions to launch their free loyalty program Wi-Fi service this week with AT&T. AT&T is gradually taking over hot-spot operation from T-Mobile, market by market over the course of 2008. T-Mobile told me Starbucks is essentially giving away something that isn't theirs. T-Mobile has sued to halt the two-hours-a-day of free service, and is asking for money to cover losses. This might sound like sour grapes, but T-Mobile still operates most of the network, and says that the terms to which they agreed with Starbucks and AT&T for the transition and with AT&T for bilateral roaming don't cover this situation at all. Maybe free access in exchange for buying a cup of joe every 30 days was too good to be true (this soon)."

Comments

Free wifi should be universal

[teslatug]

I still don't get why every coffe place doesn't have free, unencumbered wifi access to everyone. It's a great way to get more customers. I always check if there is a free wifi before getting coffee some place. It won't cost them more than a few cents per coffee, which they could easily hide in their 3,4,5 dollar beverages. It boggles the mind.

Re:Free wifi should be universal

[falcon5768]

a lot of coffee places I know DO give it away free, both local shops and some larger chains like Panara Bread and Atlanta Bread Comp. The whole reason I DONT go to Starsucks is because the coffee is not that great and having to PAY for crappy coffee and wifi service is too much for me when I can go down the street to someplace with a decent cup and free wifi.

Re:Free wifi should be universal

[klapaucjusz]

I still don't get why every coffe place doesn't have free, unencumbered wifi access to everyone. It's a great way to get more customers. I always check if there is a free wifi before getting coffee some place.

You're assuming that they have their own ADSL link to every shop. They don't. They decided to let T-Mobile and AT&T control their networking infrastructure, and the operators are understandably less than thrilled by the free competition.

In other words, they decided to give control of their network to a potentially hostile company, and they're getting what they bargained for.

Re:Free wifi should be universal

[Anonymous Coward]

how about entering the 20th century and getting a web browser for your pda?

Cripes most people gave up their crappy early 90's PDA a long time ago. and all current pdas have a web browser.

Or do you not know how to use your pda?

Re:Free wifi should be universal

[newsdee]

I live in a city where every coffee house offers free open wifi to everybody. You don't even need to buy to get on it. And my town's neighborhood management council offers free wifi in the largest public areas (where most of the shops are). And they still manage to make money. If you're outside using the net and get thirsty, you're most likely to get into the coffeehouse and get a cup of something.

The thing is that once most places offer free wifi, not having it is a disadvantage.

Re:hmm

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Because AT&T threw money at them. The iPhone and Starbucks target demographics overlap heavily.

Huh?

[JustNiz]

How is it comapnies can sue for _NOT_ doing buisness with them?

Maybe I'm missing something but this sounds like the equivalent of getting a lawsuit from Dominos because I ordered a pizza from Papa Johns instead.

Re:Huh?

[maxume]

The original agreement with T-Mobile is probably exclusive in some way. It isn't like Domino's suing you because you ordered from Papa John's, It's like Domino's suing you because you let Papa John's use the pizza booth in your living room, when you had agreed to only allow Domino's to use the booth.