Will AT&T Charge Extra For MMS & Tethering?

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Bill Snyder questions whether AT&T's jockeying on tethering and MMS may signal coming iPhone pricing surcharges. After all, as Apple's exclusive US partner, Ma Bell should have plenty of insight into upcoming iPhone features and revenue opportunities. Yet AT&T was very conspicuous in its absence from the list of providers who will support tethering and MMS at Tuesday's launch of the new iPhone at WWDC, and by Wednesday, it was backpedaling furiously, saying it will offer both services — later in the year. Certainly, the exclusive arrangement between the companies is proving to be an ugly roadblock to Apple's iPhone vision. But Snyder thinks it may go deeper than that: 'My best guess is that we'll see horrendous pricing surcharges for tethering and MMS, on top of the already expensive data and voice charges iPhone users pay. I don't think AT&T execs wanted to stand up at WWDC and announce that.'"

Comments

By Design - US lags world in wireless features

[peterdaly]

The iPhone, with itâ(TM)s global reach and marketing may be the first phone that makes it obvious just how far the US is behind other parts of the world in wireless technology. I hope this opens the eyes of many people. Most people have no idea how we compare to the rest of the world, due to the AT&T and Verizon stranglehold. Those two companies buying up all the regional carriers, as well as having incompatible technologies, has lowered functionality and disrupted normal market forces.

Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features

[digitalunity]

My experience with both, and T-Mobile is that they do not offer reduced rates if you intend to use a phone you acquired from another source. Their rate plans are all designed with the intent that they should subsidize the purchase of a new phone for much less money based on the entering of a long duration contract. In effect, the telecoms are financing your cell phone-except that if you already have one, you dont get a reduced rate.

The entire business model for the mobile telecoms revolves around contract pricing to subsidize reduced price phones, giving them extraordinary power over mobile handset manufacturers. In my mind, this tying arrangement is horrible for consumers because in effect, the handset manufacturers serve the telecoms, not the end users. The telecoms deem which features are allowed on their network and disallow any features that would conflict with their own profitable value-add services(such as uploading ringtones to a phone).

The FTC should have stepped in 10 years ago and realized there is no real competition among handset producers-the telecoms decide who the winners and losers are. If you want REAL competition among handset producers leading to technological advancement, you have to end the tying of phone purchases to cell contracts.

Re:By Design - US lags world in wireless features

[nine-times]

If you want REAL competition among handset producers leading to technological advancement, you have to end the tying of phone purchases to cell contracts.

True, but even then you won't have REAL competition until you force them to be more open about various things. Like when you advertise "unlimited" data plans, what are the restrictions? Those plans aren't unlimited. Or why do SMS messages cost so much? What is the real status of each network's 3G rollout? Their 4G rollout? What are their real costs/profits?

I get much more upset about our wired data infrastructure, since there's pretty much zero competition in that space, but my objection is pretty much the same: If we're going to allow a private company to build out our national communications infrastructure, then that company should be forced to adhere to a higher standard of fairness and transparency. If there isn't sufficient competition (or even if the barrier to entry is too high) then they should also be heavily regulated.

Favorite Quote

[peterdaly]

"Just as the old AT&T stifled landline innovation in the 20th century, the new AT&T is stifling wireless innovation in the 21st."

Then don't buy it!

[Alzheimers]

Sheesh, if you don't like AT&T's terms, then don't buy an iPhone. It's not like there aren't alternatives out there that provide nearly the same functionality.

Want to play their games? Use their apps? Get the iPod touch.

AT&T sucks balls

[paimin]

As an IT person at an organization that uses iPhones for both phone service and Exchange support, I can state definitively that the instant it is possible to part with AT&T we would do so. They SUCK.

Don't get me wrong, we are happy enough with the iPhones that we will stay with AT&T as long as the exclusive agreement lasts, but listen up AT&T, you are expendable and we would GLADLY drop your ass. We and everyone else is fed up with your BS.

Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering

[Slashdot Parent]

I never understood the point of MMS on an iPhone considering you can bloody E-MAIL photos to people...

If your buddy doesn't have a phone that can do email, how can you get it on his phone? Most phones can do MMS.

The fact that iPhone can't do MMS is pretty sad.

Re:Maybe it doesn't make sense to allow tethering

[Jestrzcap]

Because its so hard to add 5556667777@mms.cellphone.com to a contact?

User friendly or not, it has always been incorrect to say that iPhone users cannot send pictures to MMS devices.

MMS was designed for use with camera phones with a bare bones OS. With email to MMS available, specific MMS support on smartphones is just keeping alive a technology that should die sooner rather than later.

Re:Not just AT&T, folks

[nine-times]

I'm a Verizon customer. They have HORRID billing practices (throw in lots of ambiguous "fees"

That's another little problem that I'm sure we're all familiar with: all the "taxes" and "fees" on your cell phone bill. Why are they allowed to do that?

If I were running a store and I advertised an item for $50, but when you came in to buy it I said, "Well, it's $50, plus sales tax, plus another $10 to cover various taxes associated with running my store, plus another $5 in fees," what would happen? I would guess I'd get in trouble for false advertising. Yet my $40 cell phone bill always comes out $60. Every single month.

Personally, I've always thought it was kind of silly that advertised prices don't already include sales tax, but cell phone plans definitely take it too far.