said by alrandolph :

I see the retainer perks you give to your executives to keep them from leaving the company has really paid off if this is the best they can do

said by fiberguy :

Honestly.. #2 is all they talk about. #1 is also called "roping a customer"... they've never publicly stated to keep churn low - but it's true. It's also a way to not have to compete... lazy and greed. Yes, I'm using the term greed here for once - because it is.

They've offered NOTHING and want a contract. Seems more and more businesses want contracts for no reason.

"The problem? The deal requires you sign a two-year contract which somewhat defeats the purpose. Carriers have always argued that the contract is to help subsidize the phone. But in this case you're not getting one."

Back in 2005, I already satisfied a Nextel agreement of 1 year. I took my phone to it's own account - already owning the phone, they wanted a 2 year agreement to simply turn on the service to a phone I already owned.

This isn't anything new to AT&T but sure is right up their alley.

said by Gilitar :

..

1. To keep churn low

...

said by Gilitar :

Agreements have always been required because of two reasons:

1. To keep churn low

2. Subsidize price of acquisition

There is no way they would open themselves up to the churn.

said by kamm :

It's the usual fuxed-up US corporate practice, the straight result of complete lack of market oversight - your FCC long became the telcos' arm instead of being the watchguard of fair market practices to ensure YOUR interests are protected... you know, things we HAVE and pay our government...

said by chd176 :

Even if you have your own SIM (AT&T unactivated) and phone you still have to sign at least a one year agreement to have unlimited M2M

said by morbo :

$8,000 later... are you planning do DO something about it (switch to another provider)? or is it mostly hot air?

said by mikes60 :

And he also woiuld like to go back to TDMA ???

said by Surfinusa :

I like the reliability and voice quality for TDMA.

In florida TDMA was the only thing working were I was at the time during the triple hurricanes. I had a Gate phone and a TDMA Phone and both operated on TDMA only.

Everyone who had the new GSM Phones were not able to use the service.

I am not one for all the hype of new feature that allow you to send video and watch it on your phone if I wanted that I would sit down and watch tv.

Besides the ammount of money they charge for me to take advantage of those features doesn't justify the cost, because I work and don't have time to surf the net on my phone. I use my phone for business.

TDMA is a more robust and reliable network and I always heard every word the other person was saying and only once in awhile did it drop the call.

Hard to belive huh?

said by Surfinusa :

Coinsidence? I wouldn't bet on it. TDMA is a more Robust Network. It took weeks for Cingular to repair the GSM Network till then I had service via TDMA. GOOD thing to alot depended on it.
No it doesn't have all the bells but it did the job.
GSM sounds noisy and at times digified.

said by Snickerdo :

That's AT&T's fault, not the GSM protocol. The GSM protocol blows IS-136 (aka "TDMA") out of the water in terms of performance and usability. IS-56 and IS-136 were hacks onto the existing AMPS network, while GSM was built from the ground up for use in Europe. If AT&T can't get the protocol to work right, that's their own damn incompetence and not the fault of the protocol.

For the record, GSM up here with Rogers - a former TDMA carrier - actually works better than any other provider in the country. Not only that, but it -sounds- a hell of a lot better than TDMA ever did, too. In fact, Rogers shut down IS-136 and AMPS last year. They only operate GSM and UMTS/HSPA.

said by Surfinusa :

Anything is possible but as I went from tower to tower my TDMA Phones were both working. GSM? Wasn't neither was anyone else I ran into during and after those storms.

Coinsidence? I wouldn't bet on it. TDMA is a more Robust Network. It took weeks for Cingular to repair the GSM Network till then I had service via TDMA. GOOD thing to alot depended on it.

No it doesn't have all the bells but it did the job.

GSM sounds noisy and at times digified.

said by xsiddalx :

You are possibly correct. No point getting into a pissing match about technology. TDMA is certainly older than GSM in the US. The cost savings of one versus the other lies in the hands of the providers.

Glad it worked for you. I hear the same arguments about Voip
vs POTS. DirecTv HD vs HD...my attitude, if you think it's worth it, pay the bill or cancel

'Course that don't mean if you feel cornered because it's the only game you town you shouldn't be bitchin and looking for alternatives...we all have breaking points.

said by Surfinusa :

I like the reliability and voice quality for TDMA.

In florida TDMA was the only thing working were I was at the time during the triple hurricanes. I had a Gate phone and a TDMA Phone and both operated on TDMA only.

Everyone who had the new GSM Phones were not able to use the service.

I am not one for all the hype of new feature that allow you to send video and watch it on your phone if I wanted that I would sit down and watch tv.

Besides the ammount of money they charge for me to take advantage of those features doesn't justify the cost, because I work and don't have time to surf the net on my phone. I use my phone for business.

TDMA is a more robust and reliable network and I always heard every word the other person was saying and only once in awhile did it drop the call.

Hard to belive huh?

said by mikes60 :

I have spent over 20 years in the cellular/wireless industy. You may have a personal reason for wanting to keep TDMA, but you'll stand pretty much alone.

When the hurricanes hit South Florida a couple of years ago, all my GSM phones worked fine. And so did most of the TDMA phones.

I have no idea what happened where you lived, but don't blame it on GSM.

Your assessments of the technology and what you wrote abve are just plain wrong.

We were well behind the rest of the world until we finally moved on to GSM.

I can give you an entire lesson, but on GSM,CDMA and TDMA, AMPS, etc. But I just don't have the time.

And please, don't bother to answer this. I don't want to get into another long conversation with you on something you obviously don't hnow about.

said by morbo :

$8,000 later... are you planning do DO something about it (switch to another provider)? or is it mostly hot air?

said by Surfinusa :

Sounds like POTS Delivered from ATT extra fees charges.

said by xsiddalx :

Nah, more like POTS uncontrolled (circa 1945).

POTS don't generally require (aren't allowed) to force contracts for POTS.

said by Nightshade :

I think of the saying by B.T. Barnum, "there's a sucker born every minute."

But seriously, how come why is it that AT&T is so desperate to hold on to these customers, after they hook them in, they have to lock them in a 2 year contract for a device that is no bigger than the first knuckle of your thumb?

said by snipper_cr :

Well back with Cingular, I brought in a locked GSM Razr V3. They charged me 30 dollars to unlock it (which seems to be a going rate online) and it included a new SIM card. The offer did not include a cell phone better than a Razr so I just stuck with the one I had. As it was pay as you go, there was no contract.. however, i just entered a contract with US Cellular.

said by wavesound :

I just noticed that they do offer the plan without a contract. Apparently that was a mistake...

»www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/01/2···ar-plan/