Angry AT&T Customers May Disrupt Service

g0dsp33d writes "Fake Steve Jobs, the alter-alias of Newsweek's Dan Lyons, is calling disgruntled AT&T users to protest comments from AT&T’s Ralph de la Vega that smart phone (specifically iPhone) usage is responsible for their network issues and his plan to end unlimited data plans. The post, dubbed 'Operation Chokehold,' wants AT&T customers to use as much data service as they can on Friday, December 18th at noon. While Fake Steve Jobs is notable for its satire, many Twitter and Facebook users seem to be rallying to its cry. It is unclear if there will be enough support to cause a DDOS."

Comments

I read this as

[Anonymous Coward]

"Internet braces for even higher levels of smug Apple douchebags"

Re:I read this as

[Lumpy]

Um no, I use the unlimited data plan to afford it. it's $15.00 a month on my Nokia 5800 I use it for 90% email and 10% other. If they drop the unlimited plan then they will lose me as a customer.

The douchebags are the AT&T executives. I'm tired of them trying like hell to screw the customer.

Re:I read this as

[bsDaemon]

You forgot to note that he said "join their clause", rather than "join their cause", thus making himself just as guilty of typo's as the submitter of the article. And at any rate, the 19th was a Friday last year. Close enough for Zune timestamps.

Re:I read this as

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Except the iPhone get blamed for the wrong things. Does it have problems, sure, but don't blame the phone for problems on the network. I'm on an iphone in Europe and 99% of the criticism out there doesn't apply to me because I'm on a decent network. Most of the "problems" are pretty minor though so why do people feel the need to talk thrash about the iPhone instead of just accepting they don't like some aspects of it and getting another damn phone ?

Re:I read this as

[jitterman]

I actually do have an iPhone, purchased about 6 months ago (and while I like it, it's far from perfect - overall I dislike Apple as a company). Before that, my service was still AT&T using a Motorola handset. They both drop(ped) calls at about the same rate. I'm all for AT&T users demanding that the company provide service for ALL of its customers via a reliable, properly scaled network. If they're willing to sell the hardware that consumes the services, they need to buck up and provide the infrastructure to support those customers.

I really don't care WHICH phone Mr. Asshat Bossman of AT&T thinks is the main cause of his company's illness. Point is, they constantly rate dead last for reliability AND customer service among all national carriers. I can tell you this - ATT doesn't fix their problems in a fair (to the consumer) manner, when my contract is up I'll sell this little bugger to a "fanboi" and get a Droid phone, or even just a fucking regular handset, to get away from these clowns.

Re:I read this as

[Albanach]

If they drop the unlimited plan then they will lose me as a customer.

Really? What if the new plan offers more data than you currently still use in a month?

If you do leave, where will you go to? You realise other networks are likely to follow suit?

The problem in the US isn't the proposal to cap data. It's the complete and utter lack of affordable data in the sort of quantities the mass market needs to encourage mobile internet use to take off.

Should be

[Yvan256]

This thing isn't only for iPhone users. It's for every user of the AT&T network with a 3G device. And if AT&T had trouble with casual usage, wait until a lot of users try to bring the network down.

Can't wait to hear how the whole thing went for both sides of this story.

At least you guys have a choice of providers. Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.

Re:Should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry we have cable companies for that.

Re:Should be

[NotBornYesterday]

Great. If this guy goes and speaks truth to power with a "digital flash mob", I can picture two outcomes. One: AT&T's digital network is brought to its knees, normal customers who are not part of the flash mob are pissed off, and AT&T issues a press release saying that unlimited data plans are obviously having a negative impact on the network and will therefore be terminated. Two: AT&T's network sees little or no disruption, and therefore they realize they have nothing to fear from angry customers. Unlimited data plans are terminated anyway.

Re:Should be

[Yvan256]

If they change the terms of the contract then those contracts are no longer valid, allowing customers to cancel them prematurely.

Given that those contracts are used to subsidize the cost of the phones, I don't think it's going to happen.

Re:Should be

[Shakrai]

At least you guys have a choice of providers. Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.

What do you think we have here in the US? Three of the four big providers have very little difference between them. They all have the exact same price plan for minutes. The only difference is the extra features offered. T-Mobile is the only one that actually offers more minutes/cheaper plans.

They are all government-backed too. Think you or I could start a cell phone plan? Think again. The spectrum is auctioned off the highest bidder. For a few billion dollars the entrenched interests can just gobble it all up regardless of whether or not they need it or intend to deploy on it.

Re:Should be

[Mister Whirly]

I thought Time Warner was bad until they were bought up by Comcast in my area. Comcast reduced the amount of channels I get, raised the price of cable by about 30%, and raised the cost of internet services by about 40%. I would kill to have Time Warner again.

Re:Should be

[bmearns]

I really want to reiterate the point of your first case, because I haven't heard enough people catching on to this: AT&T is blaming network issues on what they consider to be the high bandwidth that smart phones use. To protest this, smart phone users are going to try to bring down the network by hogging as much bandwidth as possible. With their smart phones.

Just wanted to make sure everyone understood exactly what's going on here...

Re:Should be

[canajin56]

Are you kidding? It's not like we're limited to the big 3 (Rogers, Telus, Bell), we have all sorts of other providers! There's KOODO, their ads lead me to believe they don't do all that nasty hidden fee stuff. Oh, rebranded TELUS to seem less evil? Oh, well, there's always FIDO, they make the same claims about being not as evil as Rogers in all their ads! Oh...they're owned by Rogers, to rebrand and seem less evil, too? Well, there's always Solo Mobile. Oh...same deal with Bell? Virgin Mobile? Oh, Bell again? Why do they need TWO sham fronts? My favorite customer gouging one was the guy who ran up the $60,000 monthly bill, because they sold him an "Unlimited* Data** Plan!" that didn't cover any data usage other than the phones built in browser, so all that smartphone shit that also used data was billed at dollars on the kilobyte. The best part of that was the way Telus or whoever it was was unrepentant "It's not our fault he did not fully read the contract, but out of sheer generosity we will reduce the bill to a mere 6 grand!" A close runner up is KOODO/Telus's promise of "No activation fee", while there is a cancellation fee that is due in advanced when you sign up! Sort of like Blockbusters "No late fee *cough*but-there's-a-restocking-fee-if-you-return-it-late*cough*"

Re:Should be

[Sylver Dragon]

The spectrum is auctioned off the highest bidder. For a few billion dollars the entrenched interests can just gobble it all up regardless of whether or not they need it or intend to deploy on it.

This has always been one of my biggest complaints about the FCC's wireless spectrum auctions. There really needs to be a use requirement attached to the sale. For example, anytime a company/individual purchases a chunk of spectrum, there are required to put it to use. If they don't utilize it or under-utilize* it it gets taken back from them (no refunds) and then re-auctioned.

* - Under utilization would cover buying a chunk of spectrum which can carry far more information on it than a company does regularly. In which case, that chunk should be stripped from them and a less valuable one given for their current use. This is to avoid the purchase of a valuable chunk and then using it to send control messages or the like to avoid it appearing unused.

Counter-Productive

[Akido37]

And if they can, AT&T will just say "I Told you So", and continue their plans to gouge iPhone users anyways.

The only way this can go well for AT&T customers is if a large, well-documented group gets together, attempts a DDOS, and fails. Then what can AT&T say? "Well it's not THOSE iPhone users, it's the ones who live in their parents' basements..."

Re:Friday, December 19?

[jasonwc]

The article says the 18th. The summary is incorrect - or the article has been edited:

"Subject: Operation Chokehold
On Friday, December 18, at noon Pacific time, we will attempt to overwhelm the AT&T data network and bring it to its knees. The goal is to have every iPhone user (or as many as we can) turn on a data intensive app and run that app for one solid hour. Send the message to AT&T that we are sick of their substandard network and sick of their abusive comments. THe idea is we’ll create a digital flash mob. We’re calling it in Operation Chokehold. Join us and speak truth to power!"

Clogging the bandwidth

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Don't fall for the crap that network bandwidth is somehow limited because of usage problems. That's never been the issue with AT&T's network. The problem is simply that they don't have enough cell tower capacity to handle that many simultaneous users. This is why your phone service cuts out in very crowded areas.

So if a bunch of people simultaneously try to use the network, the cells will max out and a lot of people will be out of coverage, but the network as a whole will continue to run just fine.

Getting AT&T to increase cell density is a nice goal, but so is getting cells to remote areas. It's a matter of priorities, but a covered area that has insufficient capacity is better than an uncovered area with zero capacity.

Re:Clogging the bandwidth

[0100010001010011]

I just got back from a trip to India. In terms of mobiles, the US is lightyears behind them.

I went out to Sikkim for the first week, closer in geography to Colorado than NYC (or the rest of India). I don't think I ever lost cell reception once. We're talking about an area that is about as densely populated as farm towns in the Midwest. I was standing on top of a mountain and could get 4 networks. 4. Vodaphone, Airtel, Aircel and some other local one. I got better reception at the top of the mountain that I can get at my own house in a subdivision (I don't live in the sticks).

Not only that EVERYONE had a cell phone. Some of the monks, every farm we were on, etc. Everything was prepaid and the SIM cards 'never' expired (They had an expiration sometime in 2025). Meaning I could add $1-2 and it would never expire. Compare that to the US where if I want to get the cheap $10 prepaid plan I have 30 days to use that before it expires. Calls were around $.01/minute anywhere.

Then they had the 'data' plans. Stuff for $10-20 a month with unlimited 3G. I had an 'unlimited' GPRS plan that cost me $0.20 a day. Not only that I could turn it on and off at will. Going to not need it: *567#, going to use it: *567#. No locked in plans, no monthly fees, nothing.

It's depressing coming back to the US and realize how much we're getting screwed by the phone companies compared to else where.

Re:Clogging the bandwidth

[g0dsp33d]

I was standing on top of a mountain and could get 4 networks.

That is not necessarily a meaningful metric. Mountains tend to be the highest point in the area so you get bonus distance due to a clear line of sight.

Not the best idea

[ezberry]

How could anyone really think this is a good idea? AT&T has effectively admitted that the data usage growth for smartphones is above the rate that their data network will be able to grow. Using more data intensive applications will only show them how correct they are ("Look how much data will be used in the future when more people are streaming data")

In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?

Sorry that this might not be anti-corporate enough, but Operation Chokehold really isn't a great idea.

Re:Not the best idea

[PKFC]

If emergency calls cannot go through under "100%" usage of the tower, something is seriously wrong. There needs to be bandwidth provisioned and reserved for emergency calls for every tower and trunk.

If this does affect emergency calls, AT&T really does need to get their shit together. I assume there are laws in place to enforce the transmission of emergency calls. Hell AT&T gets a free stress test of their network which is something they should be doing anyway. Real world data of extreme usage. Study, learn and yes: build a better network because of it.

Angry Slashdotters May Disrupt Service

[Yvan256]

www.fakesteve.net

Error 500 - Internal server error

An internal server error has occured!
Please try again later.

some of the usage is ridiculous

[alen]

i have an iphone 3gs and i max out at 2GB per month if i stream pandora almost all day for a month. the 3% AT&T is talking about use 20GB or more and reading some forums people brag how they did it by jailbreaking and tethering or using some banned apps.

the unlimited data plan is if you follow the TOS. jailbreaking and tethering is against the TOS so expect almost everyone not to care when AT&T implements a 5GB or 10GB max data per month and charges you a lot of money for anything above that. my wife uses less than 100MB per month on her iphone and most people are less than 500MB per month

the only people the new charges will hurt are a small minority who aren't playing by the contract anyway

Re:some of the usage is ridiculous

[Just Some Guy]

i have an iphone 3gs and i max out at 2GB per month if i stream pandora almost all day for a month.

2*1024*1024*1024/(8*3600*30)*8 = 20Kbps. That's some darn good compression they're using.

So...

[awyeah]

So I can go ahead and expect to stop receiving e-mails on my BlackBerry on Friday? Great, yeah, sweet. Thanks guys!

Uh oh!

[Ambiguous Coward]

Pretend-inciting a virtual cyber riot? Why, that hypothetically violates some possible public safety laws! This guy had better watch out, he might go to meta-jail for his semi-crimes!

But seriously, AT&T is going to try to sue him. :(

Bait and swtich?

[nurb432]

Selling us all unlimited *contracts* that they know they cant deliver, then later switching it to limited while we are still stuck with the contract should be something the FCC should look into.

DDoS......

[Shakrai]

.... there's an app for that ;)

Re:Liability for missed 911 call?

[Amouth]

if AT&T's tower switches fail to prioritize a 911 call ahead of generic data traffic then AT&T should be liable for not providing the required 911 service.

some funny things happen with cell phones when you dial 911 - they are not treated as a general phone call.

I just want to make sure I understand.

[buelba]

They are protesting AT&T's announcement that smartphones are disrupting its network. By using smartphones. To disrupt AT&T's network?

Legality?

[thedbp]

Is it legal to publicly co-ordinate a DDOS attack on a major US telecom?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion