AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract

AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
Updated 3d 5h ago

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software
application from any maker -- think smartphones, e-mail and music
downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
"You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la
Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even
police it."

AT&T's push to give consumers maximum control of their wireless worlds
is being driven, in part, by Google. The tech giant is a monster in
the Internet search business for personal computers, and is hoping to
replicate that success in the wireless market.

Google (GOOG) recently announced plans to link arms with more than two
dozen wireless companies, including Sprint (S), with the goal of
developing an operating system that lets consumers use any application
on mobile devices, much as they now do on PCs. Other partners include
Japanese cellphone giant DoCoMo and handset maker Samsung.

Everything that Google has promised to bring to the wireless market a
year from now AT&T is doing today, de la Vega says. "We are the most
open wireless company in the industry."

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | AT | AT | Verizon | Ralph de la Vega
AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
option of using devices and applications other than those offered by
AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.

The AT&T wireless chief won't say whether AT&T plans to launch a
marketing campaign to push "open" platforms, but allows that might be
a possibility.

Despite its bear hug of "open" standards, one AT&T device, for now,
will remain tightly closed: the Apple iPhone.

AT&T has a deal with Apple to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for
the next five years. To get the device, consumers must sign a two-year
contract.

AT&T has no plans to change that arrangement, de la Vega says. "The
iPhone is a very special, innovative case."

Google's siren call for openness has stuck a finger in the eye of the
U.S. cellphone industry, which for years has kept consumers on a short
leash. Until recently, contracts were standard, and applications were
largely limited to those endorsed (sold) by carriers.

That's changing. Verizon (VZ), regarded as one of the most restrictive
carriers in terms of devices and applications, recently announced
plans to let customers use any device and application they want. [As
long as they sign a two year contract with Verizon and pay $1.99 per
MB data or add a high dollar unlimited data plan.]

The mobile Web is still considered an open -- and largely untapped --
frontier. That's one reason companies such as Google, which has little
traction there, are so nervous about getting left behind.

--

That is a bummer about the iPhone being the only exception to no
contract required. At least AT&T will prorate the early termination
fee. You could always set the iPhone up as a GO phone on AT&T which
would be no contract.

The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have
to live with them for 24 months!

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-
b656-7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had
the
> option of using devices and applications other than those
offered by
> AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure
that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final
purchase.
>

Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....

Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than
one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
years about.

Larry
--
It's the standing in front of them KNOWING he's lying through his
teeth to you that pisses me off.

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.

It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular
network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was,
at least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have
that engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or
you'll be begging the farmers to use their telephones.

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

* Larry wrote:
> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.
>
> It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular
> network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was,
> at least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have
> that engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or
> you'll be begging the farmers to use their telephones.
>
> Larry

1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From
Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead.

2) I used a non-AT&T unlocked Nokia 6260 on their network for 3 years
without difficulty, but was told that I could only have one sim card,
therefore only one operational phone at a time -- of course, the sims
could be transferred to another phone without difficulty -- as I did a
few times when the 6260 was down.

3) Finally gave up with AT&T last July because they did not have a
vacation leave policy. I traveled out of the States about 4 months
this year and why should I waste $50/mo. Since my contract had expired a
year prior and I hadn't ever asked for a phone from them, simply
cancelled. Upon return calculated cost and discovered for the small
number of monthly minutes, it cost 20 cents/minute. So bought a sim
from T-Mobile and paid $50 for prepaid card and now the cost is 10
cents/minute. Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west
of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major
arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't
afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card
cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from the
cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T.
Miles

In article <Xns9A01603541E57noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....

Do you actually own, pay for, and use a device that allows you to have
voice communication over one of the established cellular telephone
networks?

4phun wrote:
> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> Updated 3d 5h ago

Old news (in interent time). It was out last week

> NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
> AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device

Totally misleading as it gives clear impression that a Sprint or Verizon
CDMA phone can be used on a AT&T's GSM network.

> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
> option of using devices and applications other than those offered

Its been no secrete that you could use your own technology compatible
(GSM and TDMA) phone on AT&T's network.

> But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.

And loose a commission on a sale? Riiiight....

> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
> how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
> must feel right now

Where is the need for a compelling switch? The love (and hate) for a
particular carrier is pretty much even across the board for all the
carriers.

Miles wrote:
> * Larry wrote:
>> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
>> 7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T.
>>
>> It all means nothing because their network is the same ol' Cingular
>> network with poor coverage and spotty service on PCS it always was, at
>> least where I live. Once outside the city, you'd better have that
>> engine trouble within 2 miles of the major interstates or you'll be
>> begging the farmers to use their telephones.
>>
>> Larry
>
> 1) AT&T is the only one that works in West Marin County, CA. From
> Fairfax on west through several villages everyone else is dead.

Nope, I've used Verizon extensively in those areas, from Fairfax out to
Point Reyes, along Lucas Valley Road, etc. However I'm sure some of that
coverage was on AMPS.

Also, if you go north on the coast towards Mendocino and up to Crescent
City, there are long stretches where the only coverage is AMPS, so
you're s.o.l. unless you a tri-mode phone on Sprint or Verizon.

<snip>

> Only problem is that their coverage is non-existent west
> of here and almost everywhere else except a narrow strip along the major
> arteries. Guess that's how it works with smaller companies that can't
> afford millions of antennas! Also discovered that with a prepaid card
> cannot have internet coverage; therefore I cannot call overseas from the
> cell phone. This is almost sufficient to force me back to AT&T.

You can always go onto a prepaid plan that uses the AT&T network, such
as 7-11 SpeakOut. It's 15¢/minute not 10¢/minute like T-Mobile, but the
coverage is much better. All airtime purchases last 365 days, just like
T-Mobile "Gold". For light use, the better network outweighs the higher
per-minute cost.

However for your area, you might want to look into PagePlus, which uses
Verizon's network, which is much better than the AT&T network in your area.

The real question is what's going to happen to all the coastal AMPS
coverage in 2008. Will the carriers turn it off and leave vast stretches
of 1 with no coverage, believing (probably correctly) that the limited
number of tri-mode phones is now small enough that the roaming revenue
is not worth maintaining the network.

4phun wrote:
> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> Updated 3d 5h ago
>
> By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
>
> NEW YORK -- Starting immediately, AT&T (T) customers can ditch their
> AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software
> application from any maker -- think smartphones, e-mail and music
> downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
> "You can use any handset on our network you want," says Ralph de la
> Vega, CEO of AT&T's wireless business. "We don't prohibit it, or even
> police it."
>
> AT&T's push to give consumers maximum control of their wireless worlds
> is being driven, in part, by Google. The tech giant is a monster in
> the Internet search business for personal computers, and is hoping to
> replicate that success in the wireless market.
>
> Google (GOOG) recently announced plans to link arms with more than two
> dozen wireless companies, including Sprint (S), with the goal of
> developing an operating system that lets consumers use any application
> on mobile devices, much as they now do on PCs. Other partners include
> Japanese cellphone giant DoCoMo and handset maker Samsung.
>
> Everything that Google has promised to bring to the wireless market a
> year from now AT&T is doing today, de la Vega says. "We are the most
> open wireless company in the industry."
>
> FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | AT | AT | Verizon | Ralph de la Vega
> AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the
> option of using devices and applications other than those offered by
> AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that
> consumers "know all their options" before making a final purchase.
>
> The AT&T wireless chief won't say whether AT&T plans to launch a
> marketing campaign to push "open" platforms, but allows that might be
> a possibility.
>
> Despite its bear hug of "open" standards, one AT&T device, for now,
> will remain tightly closed: the Apple iPhone.
>
> AT&T has a deal with Apple to be the exclusive U.S. distributor for
> the next five years. To get the device, consumers must sign a two-year
> contract.
>
> AT&T has no plans to change that arrangement, de la Vega says. "The
> iPhone is a very special, innovative case."
>
> Google's siren call for openness has stuck a finger in the eye of the
> U.S. cellphone industry, which for years has kept consumers on a short
> leash. Until recently, contracts were standard, and applications were
> largely limited to those endorsed (sold) by carriers.
>
> That's changing. Verizon (VZ), regarded as one of the most restrictive
> carriers in terms of devices and applications, recently announced
> plans to let customers use any device and application they want. [As
> long as they sign a two year contract with Verizon and pay $1.99 per
> MB data or add a high dollar unlimited data plan.]
>
> The mobile Web is still considered an open -- and largely untapped --
> frontier. That's one reason companies such as Google, which has little
> traction there, are so nervous about getting left behind.
>
> --
>
> That is a bummer about the iPhone being the only exception to no
> contract required. At least AT&T will prorate the early termination
> fee. You could always set the iPhone up as a GO phone on AT&T which
> would be no contract.
>
> The rest is neat and compelling to finally switch to AT&T. I wonder
> how those who just signed a two year contract with SPRINT, VZN or T-MO
> must feel right now, mostly crap crippled phones and they still have
> to live with them for 24 months!
>
Lol AT&T is behind verizon again!

4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:7dda8346-c22c-4500-b656-
7dc4a864129a@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

> AT&T flings cellphone network wide open
> Updated 3d 5h ago
>

So what happens to existing contracts?

bdog

Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> 4phun wrote:
>> downloading. And they don't have to sign a contract.
>
> Lol AT&T is behind verizon again!

I don't quite see how. AT&T has always allowed you to bring your
own phone to their network (I bought a plan without buying a phone
several years ago); Verizon says they'll allow the same thing sometime
next year.

What is new here is that if you bring your own phone to AT&T they
won't make you agree to a contract (and they're doing it now, so
it isn't just at the press-release-ware stage). Verizon hasn't said
anything about this yet, that I've noticed, so at this point we can only
hope that Verizon follows AT&T.

In fact, for Verizon to match AT&T's flexibility with equipment they'd
also need to move to phones with a SIM (okay, R-UIM) slot. I assume
they'll eventually want to do this anyway if they're going to deploy
LTE; maybe they'll follow AT&T on this sooner rather than later.

I'm actually quite happy to see the carriers getting all competitive
about this particular topic. I really hope they keep it up.

Dennis Ferguson