Slashdot Mirror
Apple and AT&T Sued, Again, Over 3G
Macworld is reporting that Apple and AT&T are being sued, again, for the lack of delivery on their 3G network. This follows a long line of other lawsuits in San Jose, San Diego, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and New York "The lawsuit charges the companies with Negligence, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Unjust Enrichment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Other Similar State Statutes, and Breach of Contract. Dickerson is seeking to force Apple and AT&T to correct its labeling and advertising, as well as to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages."
The problem with AT&T's 3G is that the connection from your phone to their tower is fast but their tower's connection to the internet is 14k baud dial-up or something. Some towers don't even have internet connectivity, I was on a mountain with 5 bars of 3G, parked, and had no internet connectivity whatsoever. I drove down a small town nearby and it worked fine, except of course for that slow page loading issue.
Well they are forcing you to stick with them.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Good...it's high time somebody smack them around in court for their bullshit data service. Although the connection to the tower is fine, it's slow as balls from the tower out. I mean christ, I experience lag when typing via an ssh session, something I haven't experienced since the dark ages of dialup.
You see the bit in the summary/article "Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Unjust Enrichment, Negligent Misrepresentation..."? This isn't about whining that it sucks. It is about them misleading you about how bad it sucks. By then, you are already nailed to a contract. If you think this is "ok", I have some free time and an ice pick handy...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Except they are.
They claim it does all this wonderful stuff, you buy it and it doesn't work as promised*.
You cant switch providers or get your money back.
In that enviroment suing is the only avenue a consumer has.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Um.. yes, AT&T _IS_ forcing one to use their service. You remember that little thing called a contract?
Granted, nobody forced me to *choose* them, but once they are chosen - I'm locked in for two years!
But what happens when after 6 months or 1 year my service begins to suck? Have I no recourse?
I have no idea if this lawsuit has merit or not, but an attitude of 'don't like it, don't use it' is likely an oversimplification of the situation.
You people on the coasts are so spoiled. Up here in ND, I'd settle for a choice of cell phone companies that provide coverage in most of the state. IPhones are an unkown commodity up here.
Time to break out the Bag Phone or a Brick.
> > >We don't need no steeekin'.....oh wait, my wife says we do.
If they weren't locked into a contract, they wouldn't have to sue over it.
Most purchases can be returned when the product doesn't work as advertised. Usually this is because the store has a return policy to keep their customers happy, but some of the time it's the law.
In this case, there not only isn't a policy like that, there's a contract guaranteeing that you have to -continue- paying for it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
But it handles WiFi data just fine which is in most cases faster than 3G. I doubt the phone itself is the issue.
Listen, new guy, a word of advice: don't be so quick to jump to a corporate giant's defense here on Slashdot. You'll thank me later. Just toss out a "lame" and be done with it.
Pull your head out of your ass about cell companies screwing American's. AT&T is GSM, verizon is Cdma of one type, sprint is CDMA of another incompatible type. This isn't Europe where everyone uses GSM. In order to switch GSM carriers in the USA you have a chploice of at&t or tmobile in some cities. Tmobile for me is as useful as using posion ivy leaves for toliet paper.
You need a whole other phone if you want to use verizon or sprint.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
WiFi works well, so it's not the CPU on the phone. At least here in NYC the problem is not even the slow speed, as much as the the network is so oversubscribed that the phone can't get any response and the browser just times out.
The problem is network dimensioning and issues of the backhaul connection between the NodeB and the RNC. There are multiple configuration of the NodeB which provides for different Data Rates. There is 384 kbs, 1.8 mbps, 3.6 mbps and 7.2 mbps. AT&T was not interested in 7.2 Mbps until late 2007. In order to support these data rates, there must be a significant connection to the backhaul based for the most part on a number of T1 Lines. AT&T is attempting to dimension their networks based on current data usage so they will always be behind. This is due to cost and many other reasons. There is no reason to equip Nut New Mexico with a 7.2 Mb capable cells. Even on the device side, It is cheaper toi buy a device based on HSDPA only rather than HSUPA/HSDPA.
There's a lot of bitching about how much AT&T's network sucks. I'm not an apologist (though I have an iPhone) so let's keep objectivity in mind.
The iPhone has limited ram and a slower CPU. Websites will take a long time to render regardless of connection speed. Therefore, test a file transfer. You should get around 1.5MBps if you're on HSDPA (I think all ATT 3g is HSDPA)
I'm not arguing for a second that someplace like NYC will probably be oversubscribed. I doubt that's the problem in general (nothing like a 14.4kbps dialup for a backhaul... jeez) but it's possible if you're experiencing genuinely slow speeds.
Remember packet-radio tech will always involve latency. Over EDGE it's around 500ms, over a (good) 3g, it's about 150ms. That's something you'd be seeing if you see slow web speeds - many webpages have 50 requests, that latency adds up.
As for this lawsuit, AT&T makes no secret that 3G isn't available everywhere. It is exactly 3 obvious clicks from the homepage. If this guy expected 3g... tough. They're rolling it out pretty quick. If he didn't, or if the service is slow... perhaps he can call and tell them that he didn't contract for this level of service?
Basically, website 'speed' is not all about AT&T's oversubscription/crappyness. It's at least composed of latency, rendering speed, the page itself, and finally the speed of the network (which will fluctuate with users). Do a bulk file transfer and then talk.
And this guy probably needs to chill out. Probably
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The Economist had an interesting article last year that predicted that the US telecom companies were waiting for bailout money to invest in infrastructure. With this new stimulus package on the horizon, I'm sure some evidence to support their argument (i.e. irate iPhone users) that it's necessary would go a long way. AT&T has every incentive to get taxpayers to foot the bill, and they'd effectively be punished if they spent their own money on it (it's not like they'll get reimbursed).
You can cancel your contract. You'll pay a nice penalty, but you can cancel.
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?