Tag Archives: att

AT&T ends 20-month early upgrades, forces customers to wait two years

AT&T yesterday announced that customers must now wait 24 months before becoming eligible to buy new phones at subsidized prices. Previously, customers could upgrade at reduced rates with the signing of a new contract 20 months after their previous phone purchase. Verizon recently switched from 20 to 24 months as well.

The new 24-month policy will take effect at AT&T for contracts expiring in March 2014 or later. There is still an early upgrade option, of a sort. “Once you’ve completed six months or more of your Service Commitment, you qualify for partial discount off the full retail price when you sign a new two-year wireless agreement,” AT&T said.

AT&T today also announced that it is bringing push-to-talk capabilities to the iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S for corporate customers, saying it’s “the first time a US carrier is offering push-to-talk capabilities on iPhone.” The push-to-talk capability will work over cellular or Wi-Fi and will be sold as an app directly to business customers. AT&T’s push-to-talk was already available on a variety of devices including the Samsung Galaxy S III, other Samsung phones, some BlackBerrys, and a few ruggedized phones.

Read 1 remaining paragraphs | Comments

AT&T decides to take another $0.61 per month from customers

The Verge and other sites are reporting that AT&T wireless customers will be seeing an additional charge on their bills this month in the form of an “administrative fee” of $0.61.

The fee affects post-paid individual customers (i.e., people who receive a monthly wireless bill) and also corporate IRU customers (IRU stands for “Individual Responsibility User” and refers to a corporate account paid by the phone’s user instead of the user’s employer). According to some back-of-the-napkin math by The Verge, this new little fee could net AT&T several hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

AT&T has said that the fee will go to “certain expenses,” including “interconnection and cell site rents and maintenance.” The addition of an “administrative fee” sounds disturbingly shady (rather like the infamous “shipping and handling” fees on “AS SEEN ON TV!”-style products), but AT&T isn’t the only one playing the shady fee game: 9to5Mac notes that Verizon Wireless charges a $0.91 admin fee, and Sprint’s admin fee is a whopping $1.99.

The fee is already appearing on wireless bills, and there isn’t really a recourse for consumers who don’t want to beef up AT&T’s administrative coffers—or is there? TheTechBlock has a short piece explaining that the AT&T wireless customer agreement contains language that AT&T might have overlooked. Specifically, the agreement notes that AT&T will disclose billing changes to customers at least one cycle in advance, and if it fails to do so, the customer can cancel their contract without paying an early termination fee.

Read 1 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Samsung Galaxy S 4 now officially available at Verizon Wireless

Verizon Wireless customers can purchase the Samsung Galaxy S 4 handset today online or from a Verizon retail store. The carrier is offering the handset for $199.99 with a new two-year contract, or you can stick with the “month to month” service and get the device for the full $649.99.

The handset features a 1080p Super AMOLED screen, Android 4.2.2, a Quad-core 1.9GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 SoC, and 2GB of RAM. It will be sold at Verizon with 16GB of memory, though the phone does support up to a 64GB microSD card.

Hat tip to Android Police for this one: AT&T today also teased its “aurora red” version, which can be purchased for the subsidized price of $199.99. It’s $639.99 for those who want to go contract-free. The preorders for the red handset begin tomorrow, but it isn’t slated to arrive until June 14th. It will feature 16GB of storage and it is apparently exclusive to AT&T.

Read 1 remaining paragraphs | Comments

FaceTime redux: AT&T nixes video chat on Google’s updated Hangouts

Yesterday, Google announced its new, beefier Hangouts app for Android phones. The newest iteration integrates video chatting, Gmail, and Google’s late “Google Talk” app all into one. Hangouts is available for free on all Android devices running Android 2.3 or higher, but if you pay phone bills to AT&T, you can forget about that video chat for now.

Slashgear reports that customers trying to access video chat on AT&T are met with a message saying “You must be connected to a Wi-Fi network to join a video call.”

The message is reminiscent of news from a year earlier, when AT&T decreed that customers would not be able to use Apple’s new FaceTime video chatting over its networks. The company later sort of relented and said it would make the service free to customers on 3G networks—but only if they were on a shared data plan. (We polled Ars readers last July and 89 percent said they’d never pay extra just to use FaceTime). Amid genuine customer outrage and rumors that it was violating network neutrality rules, AT&T eventually saw a formal FCC complaint filed against it. The company then started independently loosening its restrictions on FaceTime.

Read 3 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Rumor: AT&T To Discontinue The HTC First Facebook Phone

htc-first-slide-01

HTC’s Facebook Home-laden First smartphone may only have debuted on AT&T last month, but it appears that the device may be a dud as far as consumers are concerned. According to a report from BGR’s Zach Epstein, sales of the HTC First smartphone have been so disappointing that AT&T will soon be dropping the device from its lineup completely and shipping all unsold inventory back to HTC.

If this report holds true (representatives from AT&T, HTC, and Facebook have not responded to our questions at time of writing), AT&T will continue to sell the First until it fulfills its contractual obligations to display the thing in its myriad retail stores.

And just how bad was the First doing? Epstein expounds a bit on Twitter, noting that the infinitely lamer HTC Status sold more during its first month on the market than the First did. That may not be the most fair comparison to make considering that the Status was HTC’s first foray into baking Facebook directly into an Android device (and in a time when the Facebook Android app was markedly worse than it is now), but there you have it. What’s also unclear is what such a move would mean for the First in other markets — HTC CEO Peter Chou noted at the Facebook Home launch event that the device would be carried by France’s Orange and the UK’s EE later this summer.

To be quite honest, it’s not exactly a shock to hear that the First hasn’t managed to whip the smartphone-hungry masses into a frenzy. Less than a week ago, AT&T slashed the on-contract price of the First from $99 to a scant $0.99 — it seemed like a curious move at the time given just how new the First was, but many took it as a signal that the sales situation was dire. The real question here is what managed to turn off consumers more: the First’s relatively modest spec sheet, or its reliance on Facebook Home. If I were a betting man, my money would be on the latter considering the thorough drubbing that Facebook’s replacement launcher has received from reporters and users alike and the fact that interest in Home as a whole seems to be waning.

We’re working to verify this rumor one way or the other, but for now it’s best to take this whole thing with a grain of salt. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time a Facebook phone was erroneously thought to be taking a dip in the deadpool.

America’s Carriers Are Terrible. It’s Probably Your Fault.

4779333214_84dd65ff27

A few days ago I landed in England and, expecting little, slipped an old UK SIM card into my phone. I’d bought it when living in London five years ago, and hadn’t used it in more than a year. But to my amazement it was still active — as was the money I’d added to its pay-as-you-go account 16 months earlier…and then I received a friendly text message informing me that my data costs were now £1 per 100MB. Another SMS popped up when I emerged from the Channel Tunnel in France a few days later, informing me it would cost me 8p to send texts and 7p per minute to receive calls.

Can you imagine any of that happening with an American phone company? Or Canadian? North American carriers generally expire pay-as-you-go accounts after 90 days of inactivity, and it’s at best a struggle to get them to support data at all, much less seamlessly, much much less at that price. (Which isn’t even that great, by global standards; in India two years ago I was charged $1 for a full gigabyte.)

As for roaming, you’re very lucky to get American or Canadian pay-as-you-go accounts that can roam across that vast undefended border at all, and if you do, they’ll charge the proverbial arm and a leg. That same UK SIM card worked just fine in Kenya last year, and as I type this I’m about to land in Turkey, where I expect to receive another text informing me that my UK pay-as-you-go number continues to work just fine outside the EU, albeit more expensively. (Update: yep.)

What’s wrong with this picture? Why are America and Canada so unbelievably awful? Yeah, I’m being anecdotal, but there is all kinds of data to support the notion that cell service there is outlandishly expensive compared to almost all of the rest of the developed world. (And worse than a lot of the developing world, too.)

Part of it is laissez-faire capitalism run amok. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a staunch defender of capitalism…that is, well-regulated capitalism. Until 2008 that was a hard row to hoe among many of my friends, but that recent embarrassing spate of financial cataclysms have made it much easer. Why is my UK SIM card relatively cheap to use in France? Because EU regulators insisted on it. Why are America’s carriers so parasitical, predatory, gouging and user-hostile? Because they can be, which in large part means because their regulators (including, alas, Canada’s CRTC) don’t insist on much of anything.

Oh, sorry, no, my mistake. They do insist on perpetuating this state of affairs. Consider the recent breathtakingly wrong decision to make it illegal under the DMCA to unlock your phone. This was one of those classic bureaucratic catastrophes: every individual step that led to it doubtless made sense to the people involved, who were too close to their system to take a step back and notice that its actual outcome was complete insanity. If anything it should should be illegal to lock phones, not unlock them. This is regulatory capture taken to new heights of Stockholm-Syndrome madness.

And yet. At the end of the day the true power lies not with the carriers, but with their customers. Alas, American and Canadian customers seem to have been hypnotized into a kind of learned helplessness where they just sit there and silently accept locked phones, bloated Kafkaesque pricing plans, insane roaming charges, Android phones stuffed with crapware, and two- or even three-year locked-in contracts.

But they don’t have to. That’s what’s so infuriating. You too could buy an unlocked phone — an unlocked Nexus 4, which is a terrific phone, costs all of $299! (And I have high hopes that Google’s rumored new X Phone initiative will be even cheaper.) You too could switch to T-Mobile’s monthly pricing plan, or Straight Talk’s, instead of signing a contract. You’d more than make back the upfront costs of the unlocked phone in less than a year. And if enough people did it, the carriers would be forced to compete on quality and improve their pricing, rather than rely on their customers’ passive despair.

The logical conclusion is that if your phone is locked, or if you’re on a multi-year contract, then you have no right to complain about your terrible carrier — because you’re part of the problem. “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” In fact, you’re ruining it for the rest of us. Thanks.

But it’s not too late for redemption. Just repeat after me: “I solemnly swear that I will never buy a locked phone or sign a multi-year phone contract again.” And when your current contract expires, do just that. Maybe, just maybe, with your help, we can finally defeat these gargantuan economic tapeworms called AT&T, Verizon, Rogers and Bell — and finally catch up with the civilized world.

Image credit: Tapeworm, by Rhys Ormond, on Flickr.

Original Galaxy Note receives Jelly Bean update on AT&T

AT&T announced today that it launched the Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean software update for Samsung’s original phone-tablet hybrid, the Galaxy Note.

The update, which includes Android 4.1 features like Google Now, better notifications, and a new keyboard, can be installed through Samsung’s Kies desktop software via Windows or Mac. Users can download the application from Samsung’s website and then connect their device to prompt the software download. Once it’s complete, Samsung says that the Galaxy Note will register with the Baseband version I717UCMD3. For more information, you can check out the phone maker’s website for handsets on AT&T.

Verizon Wireless users may also be interested to know that the carrier has pushed out Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean for Galaxy Note 2 users as well. The update began rolling out this morning. It features updates to Verizon’s applications that are included with the phone-tablet handset, as well as Multi-Window View functionality and several bug fixes. You can learn more about the update at Verizon’s site.

Read on Ars Technica | Comments

Don’t let Verizon, AT&T run roughshod over smaller carriers, DOJ warns

US antitrust officials today urged the Federal Communications Commission to limit the amount of wireless spectrum Verizon Wireless and AT&T can buy during future auctions.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, in a letter sent to the FCC yesterday and made public today, said Verizon and AT&T have more than their share of prime spectrum compared to T-Mobile and Sprint.

“[T]he Commission must ensure that the allocation of spectrum at auction does not enable carriers with high market shares to foreclose smaller carriers from improving their customers’ coverage,” DOJ officials wrote. “Today, the two leading carriers have the vast majority of low-frequency spectrum, whereas the two other nationwide carriers have virtually none. This results in the two smaller nationwide carriers having a somewhat diminished ability to compete, particularly in rural areas where the cost to build out coverage is higher with high-frequency spectrum.”

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments