 SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Verizon Wireless..
| No problems here-so far Well, it seems this asshole hasn't shut down my phone service yet. I understand the frustration with AT&T,. I have been there and am still there on occasion, even though service has markedly improved in my area(previously a trouble zone). It's no excuse to block 911 calls and other possible emergencies. Some of us don't have a landline because we're not home enough to justify paying for one. Not talking about myself personally(have TWC digital phone), but it would be often a pain to have to come home to make calls. This idiocy is almost equivalent with "Let's DDoS Facebook because they won't give us a dislike button! Wah! Wah!". Go to hell, Lyons. You call yourself a professional? Try massive phone complaints about the service instead of plotting stupid shit on your blog. I did that here with other unhappy people and that may be why they seem to be solving whatever issue we had been having. 1 person is not enough for these companies.
--
deltree /y C:\*.* |
|
| Technically "operation chokehold" doesn't begin until 3PM EST. |
|
SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | Thanks for the info, Karl. Seriously, I rely on my cell and want to lynch this douche bag.
--
deltree /y C:\*.* |
|
|
|
| Oh yea, lynch the guy that asks users to simply use the network they have service on... |
|
 digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Technically "operation chokehold" doesn't begin until 3PM EST. I'm sure AT&T will shut things down at 3pm EST just to make the program work and blame it on this guy and sue him. 
--
SouthWest Louisiana PC Users Group »www.swlapcug.com |
|
SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Verizon Wireless..
| reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:Oh yea, lynch the guy that asks users to simply use the network they have service on... You have shown us just how much you don't know about networks. If a similar act were done to your ISP, you would have no internet service. Just like DOCSIS(cable) would not have enough upstream channels, an attack like this would kill the limited cell spectrum in the area, even if the AT&T network's backhaul can handle the load. UMTS=5 MHz per channel spread into 3 50-100 MHz bands, each tower usually only serving 1 of the 3. Go back to school and learn about the networks before you make statements like that.
--
deltree /y C:\*.* |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Uncle Paul
I've had my issues with AT&T and ditched them for a phone that's superior to the iPhone (Hero) and a more reliable network (Sprint). However, this is just kindergarten stuff. Everyone knows that AT&T's network has issues with the iPhone (although other smart phones seem to work pretty decently, and I'm not convinced that the phone itself doesn't have something to do with the issues), so what's the point of this? You're not just knowingly screwing over AT&T, you're also knowingly screwing over other iPhone users. That's unethical at best.
And where's the outcry against Apple? Regardless whether there's an engineering flaw in the iPhone or not (and yes, it IS possible that there's a specific issue connecting with AT&T's towers), they should have done enough testing to make sure the network could support their product before releasing it into the market. They bear as much responsibility for this as AT&T because the product bears their name. I will always think twice before buying another device from them. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to Selenia
Why don't we lynch anyone who says or creates anything which other people use or employ to cause mischief?
How about those gun makers or the drug companies that make Sudafed? How about those Wal-Mart executives? They're in charge of stores that sell both GUNS AND SUDAFED! Lynch them! They're killers and deserve to die! |
|
4 edits | reply to puck0114
(although other smart phones seem to work pretty decently, and I'm not convinced that the phone itself doesn't have something to do with the issues)
This point is overlooked far too much I believe.
I deal with this on a daily basis in my job and it pisses me off to no end... recent example; our department decided it would be a good idea to give Apple devices to employees to manage calendars and e-mails. When some people plug them into their PC usb port their machines blue screened. Turns out that IPods and IPhones are incompatible with certain devices and can't be connected to the machine at the same time...
But it's "not the Apple product that's the problem" ohhhh noooo it's the other devices that are going to be junked and replaced... the other devices that up until the ICraps were introduced got along with every other device just fine... yeah they're the problem.
Apple makes junk, flashy, well marketed junk, that can't play nice with anyone and is probably the root of the problem with AT&T "network problems"
Yep, makes perfect sense all the other smart phones work fine on AT&T networks, IPhone is the only one with a problem so it MUST BE the network that's the problem. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | reply to Selenia
if you rely on your cell phone, then get a better cellular provider that doesn't have crap like this happening.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | reply to Selenia
said by Selenia:You have shown us just how much you don't know about networks. And you have shown an utter lack of critical thinking and analysis.
Paying customers using services they are (over)charged hard earned dollars for is not an "attack" of any kind, let alone DoS.
Of course, the percentage of AT&T customers who will participate in the scheme is very small in comparison to the company's entire wireless customer base. If AT&T can't handle what is bound to only be a slight uptick in usage, then it just proves the point the protesters are trying so hard to make - that AT&T has been negligent in maintaining its network.
The FCC should be on AT&T's case for providing sub-par services. The FTC should get in on the action for false advertising and selling services that AT&T can't possibly provide given the sorry state of its network. AT&T shareholders should sue the company for a breach of fiduciary responsibility....by under-investing in infrastructure, the management has put the future of the company and its status as a going concern at risk.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com |
|
| reply to Selenia
Compare apples to apples. A DDoS to Facebook would be stupid. None of us pay for Facebook, so no expectation has been set. But we all pay hard earned money for wireless service. ISPs and wireless carriers all oversell, it is the nature of the beast. But how much AT&T's network is oversold is completely up to them. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to puck0114
quote:
And where's the outcry against Apple? Regardless whether there's an engineering flaw in the iPhone or not (and yes, it IS possible that there's a specific issue connecting with AT&T's towers),
1) My iPhone works great, most of the time. It would work better, more of the time, if AT&T had better coverage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell the difference between capacity or coverage issues, versus design flaws.
If your internet slowed to a crawl between the hours of 3pm and 8pm every weekday evening, would you blame your computer manufacturer or your ISP?
2) My previous Samsung Blackjack had every single problem that iPhone 3G users complain about with respect to poor 3G signal quality and calls being frequently dropped. I usually had to force it into EDGE mode with a hack to be able to hold conversations. It wasn't until iPhone 3G users started complaining that AT&T actually started addressing the 3G call dropping issues, and now both phones work significantly better.
Despite the recent barrage of articles about AT&T's poor quality network, for me things have improved significantly since I purchased the iPhone 3G a year and a half ago. I think the point is they have more work to do, and the only thing that's going to motivate AT&T to do it is for people to complain loudly as they have.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
 JoeIacPremium
join:2009-03-02
MA
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to UncleDirtNap
While I agree with your views on some apple products, the one thing I will add is that I feel its more of a split.
The Iphone was designed to use enormous amounts of data, to download videos and music and apps over the air, it even has a youtube app. Some of these features were uncommon and much more widely used before apple brought a more advanced data-intensive device to the market. Did they overdo it? probably, but the iphone has always been sold as a connected multimedia device, AT&T should know that when you are talking about a phone that's designed from the ground up around the internet, its going to use ALOT more bandwith than a phone like a blackberry, which is designed around stripped down text-only emails first off, and additional features like an MP3 player, or heck, HTML email / emails with images came after.
All in all though, both companies could be handling this whole situation better, and everyone is starting to realize that.
edit - reworded first sentence |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to rradina
Actually, you are on to something regarding the Walmart execs...  |
|
SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Verizon Wireless..
| reply to kapil
said by kapil:said by Selenia:You have shown us just how much you don't know about networks. And you have shown an utter lack of critical thinking and analysis. Paying customers using services they are (over)charged hard earned dollars for is not an "attack" of any kind, let alone DoS. Of course, the percentage of AT&T customers who will participate in the scheme is very small in comparison to the company's entire wireless customer base. If AT&T can't handle what is bound to only be a slight uptick in usage, then it just proves the point the protesters are trying so hard to make - that AT&T has been negligent in maintaining its network. The FCC should be on AT&T's case for providing sub-par services. The FTC should get in on the action for false advertising and selling services that AT&T can't possibly provide given the sorry state of its network. AT&T shareholders should sue the company for a breach of fiduciary responsibility....by under-investing in infrastructure, the management has put the future of the company and its status as a going concern at risk. So, you guys who think this is not a DDoS. Many of you probably have a website. Would you say your site should handle it if someone spread a worm that simply used the features of your site constantly. Even granting the worm will only "turn on" for a significant portion of your site's total userbase. There is a huge difference between typical demand of the entire userbase of a service that runs as unlimited vs every user hitting it at the same time. Likely only Google is equipped for that. Microsoft proved it wasn't when the MS Blaster worm hit-guess what? Only their userbase. Just because 1 way is automated and the other requires user intervention and works in a user space app does not make the principal any different. Read some whitepapers about handling peaks in network traffic and you'll find that there is a difference between what is required for average demand and this artificial peak.
Also, why do you think the smart way to handle subpar service is to ruin it for those who it works fine for? That will really get you support. There are legal avenues to follow, if people were as enthusiastic about them as they are about this act of spite. They are only hurting their cause. Knowing AT&T they will now start passing "network DDoS protection" charges on to the consumer, like these companies manage with everything else.
--
deltree /y C:\*.* |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Customers are not worms, even if at&t thinks of them as such. This is the major flaw in your argument. Customers using the service they paid for is not an attack.
Take a look at most class action lawsuits (the only real option one has in suing a large corporation). While they do sometimes get things changed the people that bring the lawsuit get (essentially) nothing.
Keep in mind that unless at&t were total morons setting up their network, using all the data in the world should not effect regular cell calls. |
|
| reply to Selenia
You are comparing apples and oranges and yes the principle is way different.
I guess by your logic unions should not be able to strike and consumers should not be able to provide negative reviews or encourage others not to do business with X or purchase Y because that may effect someone else further down the line when it displays the faults of the company or product.
If someone wants to organize an AT&T bashing party to display the companies faults then they have every legal right to do so. I know companies like AT&T are almost god like in our country, but they are quite there YET. |
|
SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Verizon Wireless..
| There is nothing wrong with an AT&T bashing party. There is something wrong with even attempting to willfully disrupt service to other paying customers. You sir are the one comparing Apples to oranges.
On another note, this was posted from an AT&T phone. So, still online =) We'll see later.
--
deltree /y C:\*.* |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | So a union strike doesn't affect customers? If it doesn't, it's not a very effective strike. |
|
