|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > September 2007 > take your iPhone abroad, pay $4800
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
take your iPhone abroad, pay $4800
|
|
| Mark Crispin 2007-09-10, 10:33 am |
| http://theinquirer.net/?article=42235
So the sucker takes his iPhone toy with him on a Mediterranean cruise,
and doesn't actually use it. Presumably, he had it with him just in case
he got a call from home on his cell number -- that being the reason why
most people take their US worldphones overseas.
When he gets home, he's rewarded with a 54 page bill from AT&T for $4800,
because the iPhone was updating its email in the background over expensive
GPRS roaming.
What do the fanboys say: "He shoulda turned the phone off if he wasn't
using it." That misses the point of having your home country phone with
you when overseas, which is to receive phone calls. It's supposed to be a
phone.
If he actually intended to use the phone overseas, he'd get a local prepay
SIM card. But the iPhone is locked...oh dear, oh my...
The hype and the glitter is starting to come off the 21st century Edsel.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-10, 12:33 pm |
| In article
<alpine.LRH.0.9999.0709100800480.23506@shiva1.cac.washington.edu>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> http://theinquirer.net/?article=42235
>
> So the sucker takes his iPhone toy with him on a Mediterranean cruise,
> and doesn't actually use it. Presumably, he had it with him just in case
> he got a call from home on his cell number -- that being the reason why
> most people take their US worldphones overseas.
>
> When he gets home, he's rewarded with a 54 page bill from AT&T for $4800,
> because the iPhone was updating its email in the background over expensive
> GPRS roaming.
>
> What do the fanboys say: "He shoulda turned the phone off if he wasn't
> using it."
Attention fanboys: HE DID TURN HIS PHONES OFF. The problem is, the
phones are NEVER OFF--only the display and touchscreen are powered off.
The guts of it continue to work AT ALL TIMES.
To quote the article:
> The problem was that their three Iphones were racking up a bill for data
> charges using foreign phone charges. The Iphone regularly updates e-mail,
> even while it's off, so that all the messages will be available when the user
> turns it on.
>
> Levy is fuming, claiming that Apple and AT&T were acting like a bank which
> has automatic access to your ATM machine and is siphoning money out during
> all times of the day and night.
Didja see that, fanboys? "...regularly updates email, even while it's
off..."
Let me see here: I can't turn it off. I can't remove the battery, like
I can with a Blackberry (for example).
gee, somehow Steve managed not to mention that little bit of how it
works...
| |
| Jonathan Kamens 2007-09-10, 12:33 pm |
| This has nothing to do with the iPhone per se. The same thing
could have happened with any BlackBerry or Windows Mobile
device configured to download new email automatically. I
don't know about the iPhone, but on my Windows Mobile device,
I can turn off email updates without turning off telephone
service. If he didn't want to pay to download email during
his cruise, then he should have turned off email updates.
The iPhone isn't responsible for the fact that some dweeb
forgot to turn off email updates on his phone while roaming.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www. genocideintervention
.net/
| |
|
| Mark Crispin wrote:
> http://theinquirer.net/?article=42235
>
> So the sucker takes his iPhone toy with him on a Mediterranean cruise,
> and doesn't actually use it. Presumably, he had it with him just in
> case he got a call from home on his cell number -- that being the reason
> why most people take their US worldphones overseas.
>
> When he gets home, he's rewarded with a 54 page bill from AT&T for
> $4800, because the iPhone was updating its email in the background over
> expensive GPRS roaming.
>
> What do the fanboys say: "He shoulda turned the phone off if he wasn't
> using it." That misses the point of having your home country phone with
> you when overseas, which is to receive phone calls. It's supposed to be
> a phone.
>
> If he actually intended to use the phone overseas, he'd get a local
> prepay SIM card. But the iPhone is locked...oh dear, oh my...
Well now it's possible to unlock the iPhone to use prepaid SIM cards.
Once you modify it, it's actually an ideal device to take with you
traveling as it's a good small web access device over Wi-Fi. I use my
old Toshiba PDA which doesn't have a great browser. The new iPod Touch
is probably the best option for minimalist travelers that want a
portable web browser, along with an unlocked quad band or 900/1800 GSM
phone to use with prepaid SIM cards. I wish they hadn't removed
BlueTooth from the Touch.
That's a very bad design flaw to have it automatically do those updates.
Many people don't mind some occasional international roaming when they
initiate the call or choose to answer a call, but they don't expect the
iPhone to "phone home" on its own.
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Attention fanboys: HE DID TURN HIS PHONES OFF. The problem is, the
> phones are NEVER OFF--only the display and touchscreen are powered off.
> The guts of it continue to work AT ALL TIMES.
LOL, now we know why they soldered in the battery!
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-10, 12:33 pm |
| In article < 46e56d84$0$27249$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Well now it's possible to unlock the iPhone to use prepaid SIM cards.
> Once you modify it, it's actually an ideal device to take with you
> traveling as it's a good small web access device over Wi-Fi. I use my
> old Toshiba PDA which doesn't have a great browser. The new iPod Touch
> is probably the best option for minimalist travelers that want a
> portable web browser, along with an unlocked quad band or 900/1800 GSM
> phone to use with prepaid SIM cards. I wish they hadn't removed
> BlueTooth from the Touch.
>
> That's a very bad design flaw to have it automatically do those updates.
> Many people don't mind some occasional international roaming when they
> initiate the call or choose to answer a call, but they don't expect the
> iPhone to "phone home" on its own.
you can turn off iPhone's EDGE roaming when traveling overseas, just
call AT&T and they will turn it off for you.
and you can use any SIM Card...
http://www.iphonesimfree.com/cgi-bi...ne.pl?page=home
where to buy:
http://www.iphonesimfree.com/cgi-bi...ine.pl?page=buy
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-10, 3:33 pm |
| At 10 Sep 2007 08:15:39 -0700 Mark Crispin wrote:
> http://theinquirer.net/?article=42235
>
> So the sucker takes his iPhone toy with him on a Mediterranean
cruise,
> and doesn't actually use it.
Sure he did- he just didn't make any calls! ;-)
> Presumably, he had it with him just in case he got a call from home
> on his cell number -- that being the reason why most people take
> their US worldphones overseas.
True.
> When he gets home, he's rewarded with a 54 page bill from AT&T for
> $4800, because the iPhone was updating its email in the background
> over expensive GPRS roaming.
Yep. That's the reason I disable data on my phone when traveling
overseas. I reenable it if necessary (I want to check e-mail when
Wifi isn't available, for example) then disable it again.
> What do the fanboys say: "He shoulda turned the phone off if he
> wasn't using it."
I'm certainly not a fanboy, and have given the iPhone a few solid
knocks where I felt it deserved it, but please- how is this
"sucker's" experience different from anyone who takes their world-
band smartphone overseas and doesn't disable data? The guy next to
him on the cruise with a Blackberry or Treo is getting hit with the
same charges.
The article stated they had three iPhones with them, and AT&T charges
$25 for 20 MB of data when roaming in 29 countries (an excellent
value compared to many carriers, BTW!)
So, to run up $1600/phone, what the heck were these people receiving
via e-mail? XP Service packs?
> That misses the point of having your home country phone with you
> when overseas, which is to receive phone calls. It's supposed to
> be a phone.
And it is. Turn off the cellular data! Many seasoned travelers also
keep cheaper, "dumber" handsets for traveling, either for us with
prepaid SIMs, or just to reduce risk of loss. I'd rather lose a $30
GSM phone to damage or theft on vacation than a $400 one.
> If he actually intended to use the phone overseas, he'd get a local
> prepay SIM card.
Really? I thought you just said "Presumably, he had it with him just
in case he got a call from home on his cell number..." How does he
remain available on his cell number if he replaces his SIM with a
prepaid in each country he visits? Besides, Cruise lines don't offer
SIMs. I suspect the majority of the charges were from the Cruise
company's in-house system. (Which would likely not be part of the
"preferred country" $25/20MB rate, but Cingular's default $30/mb
rate.) Even if not, a Cruise ship tends to stop at a different port
in a different country each day? How many ~$30 SIMs is he supposd to
buy? How much vacation time is he supposed to waste hunting down
mobile phone shops at each port of call?
> But the iPhone is locked...oh dear, oh my...
As are many phones. Again, any phone with an auto-updating e-mail
client would have the same issue. The poor soul learned an expensive
lesson which is worth repeating here not to slam the iPhone, but as a
warning to any "newbie" traveling internationally with a smartphone.
If you don't know how to manage your phone's data settings before
leaving on a trip, ASK someone before you go!
> The hype and the glitter is starting to come off the 21st century
Edsel.
I'm not sure which is worse on these NGs- the fanboys or their
diametrically polarized opposites!
Now if you want to bash the iPhone because of some deficiency of the
PHONE, fine, but this was a deficiency of the "sucker's" knowledge,
not his phone.
Price of iPhone... $599
Price of roaming data... $1600.
Showing off your smug, perceived American superiority to Euopean
cruisers by whipping out your iPhone on the top deck during
shuffleboard... Priceless?
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-10, 3:33 pm |
| At 10 Sep 2007 09:16:18 -0700 SMS wrote:
> That's a very bad design flaw to have it automatically do those
> updates.
One might argue that RIM created an entire business model out of just
that "flaw." ;-)
Automatic e-mail retrieval is a feature of virtually every high-end
phone. This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
of phone design.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-09-10, 3:33 pm |
| On 2007-09-10, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> The article stated they had three iPhones with them, and AT&T charges
> $25 for 20 MB of data when roaming in 29 countries (an excellent
> value compared to many carriers, BTW!)
>
> So, to run up $1600/phone, what the heck were these people receiving
> via e-mail? XP Service packs?
It isn't that excellent. The $25 is a recurring monthly charge
which allows you to receive up to 20 MB in any one month for free.
The overage charge on the plan is $0.005/kB, or $100 per 20 MB.
If you aren't paying the $25 per month, or you are outside the 29
countries, then the data charge is $0.0195/kB, or $400 per 20 MB.
At that price it is fairly easy to see how one could run up a $1600
bill without trying too hard.
I wonder, is it easy to turn the data off on an iPhone while leaving
the phone on? If not, that would be a design problem.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-09-10, 3:33 pm |
|
"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfeb61q.7j.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2007-09-10, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> It isn't that excellent. The $25 is a recurring monthly charge
> which allows you to receive up to 20 MB in any one month for free.
> The overage charge on the plan is $0.005/kB, or $100 per 20 MB.
>
> If you aren't paying the $25 per month, or you are outside the 29
> countries, then the data charge is $0.0195/kB, or $400 per 20 MB.
> At that price it is fairly easy to see how one could run up a $1600
> bill without trying too hard.
>
> I wonder, is it easy to turn the data off on an iPhone while leaving
> the phone on? If not, that would be a design problem.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
Yes, according to the manual it is very easy have the device only check
manually. See below:
[Set whether iPhone checks for new messages automatically
From the Home screen choose Settings > Mail > Auto-Check, then tap Manual,
“Every
15 minutes,” “Every 30 minutes,” or “Every hour.”] p 50 of Iphone manual
Real easy, but in all fairness to the OP I might have gotten bit on this
myself. Oh well.
| |
| Tinman 2007-09-10, 3:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
> Attention fanboys: HE DID TURN HIS PHONES OFF.
Attention ignoramuses: HE DID *NOT* TURN HIS PHONES OFF.
To say otherwise is ludicrous. Tune in next week when some yo-yo posts:
"iPhone found in Titanic wreckage, $670,222,344,111,209
.12 in data
charges!!!"
> The problem is, the
> phones are NEVER OFF--only the display and touchscreen are powered off.
> The guts of it continue to work AT ALL TIMES.
>
> To quote the article:
>
>
> Didja see that, fanboys? "...regularly updates email, even while it's
> off..."
>
> Let me see here: I can't turn it off. I can't remove the battery, like
> I can with a Blackberry (for example).
>
Here's a hint: when the iPhone is turned off it is off and will **NOT**
auto-check email. Ferchrist's sake anyone who turned an iPhone off just
once, and I mean off not sleep, would know this.
Next time do a little research before quoting "The Enquirer" as gospel.
Oxford will have a field day with this--and you deserve it this time.
--
Mike
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-10, 3:33 pm |
| At 10 Sep 2007 19:17:15 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> It isn't that excellent. The $25 is a recurring monthly charge
> which allows you to receive up to 20 MB in any one month for free.
> The overage charge on the plan is $0.005/kB, or $100 per 20 MB.
Ah, the "catch"- thanks. Can you turn it on and off (i.e. a month at
a time) or does it have a term committment? Even a month's fee seems
reasonable for a week abroad vs. the standard rate.
> If you aren't paying the $25 per month, or you are outside the 29
> countries, then the data charge is $0.0195/kB, or $400 per 20 MB.
About the same as T-Mo, then (T-Mo is at $16/MB, IIRC, now.)
> At that price it is fairly easy to see how one could run up a $1600
> bill without trying too hard.
Certainly.
> I wonder, is it easy to turn the data off on an iPhone while leaving
> the phone on?
The folks that have unlocked them seem to have no trouble
provisioning them for T-Mo, so I assume the data settings are
available, but I have no first hand knowledge- I don't currently, nor
do I have any plans to, own one.
> If not, that would be a design problem.
Agreed, but not an insurmountable one- as a last resort you could
simply delete your IMAP accounts and there'd be nothing to sync to.
I'm almost as bad- when I travel outside the US, I rename my APN to
an invalid one just in case I forget to turn off auto-retrieval!
I certainly don't mean to sound unsympathetic to the people in the
posted article- I was really just pointing out that it's not a
problem specific to "iPhones." With the ever-growing popularity of
smartphones, international travel can be hazardous to your wallet
without precautions! (As you well know better than most of us!) ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Alan Baker 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <5klkn5F4e5obU1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnfeb61q.7j.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
>
> Yes, according to the manual it is very easy have the device only check
> manually. See below:
>
> [Set whether iPhone checks for new messages automatically
>
> From the Home screen choose Settings > Mail > Auto-Check, then tap Manual,
> “Every
>
> 15 minutes,” “Every 30 minutes,” or “Every hour.”] p 50 of Iphone manual
>
>
>
> Real easy, but in all fairness to the OP I might have gotten bit on this
> myself. Oh well.
And it's my understanding that the default setting is to check for mail
*manually*.
Not to mention that the iPhone doesn't check for mail when it is turned
off...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-09-10, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Sep 2007 19:17:15 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the "catch"- thanks. Can you turn it on and off (i.e. a month at
> a time) or does it have a term committment? Even a month's fee seems
> reasonable for a week abroad vs. the standard rate.
I don't know. All the other comparable plans, including the one
for laptops ($140 for 100 MB), require a year term, but the iPhone
plan description doesn't explicitly mention this.
It is always possible to cancel term service in the first 30 days,
however, if one has the self discipline to do it. I've actually
been tempted to take the laptop plan for a particular trip and
cancel when I get back, but my organizational skills are such
that I've been scared I'll end up paying a couple of months plus
the ETF.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| ultimauw@hotmail.com 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Sep 10, 8:15 am, Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> http://theinquirer.net/?article=42235
>
> So the sucker takes his iPhone toy with him on a Mediterranean cruise,
> and doesn't actually use it. Presumably, he had it with him just in case
> he got a call from home on his cell number -- that being the reason why
> most people take their US worldphones overseas.
Kind of off topic, but I tied the "Mobile YouTube" (with a Razr, not
an iPhone, but I presume same content) service, and I was very
underwhelmed with the selection of videos they had on there. I would
estimate that the mobile version has maybe 1/1000th of the content of
the regular YouTube site, if even that. Also, the videos seemed to
have been hand picked, and the service reminded me more of regular TV,
albeit with different content, than the wild west goodness of the
regular YouTube. I was very underwhelmed. What does this have to do
with the iPhone? They were using the mobile version of YouTube as a
selling point. Not good.
>
> When he gets home, he's rewarded with a 54 page bill from AT&T for $4800,
> because the iPhone was updating its email in the background over expensive
> GPRS roaming.
>
> What do the fanboys say: "He shoulda turned the phone off if he wasn't
> using it." That misses the point of having your home country phone with
> you when overseas, which is to receive phone calls. It's supposed to be a
> phone.
>
> If he actually intended to use the phone overseas, he'd get a local prepay
> SIM card. But the iPhone is locked...oh dear, oh my...
>
> The hype and the glitter is starting to come off the 21st century Edsel.
>
I agree. The hype bit it for me even before the damned thing was
released when Jobs said "no 3rd party apps" (except Web 2.0 but I
don't consider those apps proper, as in running on the phone its self,
without having to be on a network). I tried the phone itself, and
while the interface is nice, it's not something I would shout from the
rooftops from. Hell, you can find the slider, pusher things on an old
iPaq or other touch screen based Windows Mobile 2002 and better (Palm
probably has this too), and some of the games and apps make extensive
use of those too. On top of that, this has been going on long before
the iPhone was a glimmer in Apple's eyes. No Multitouch, yes, but the
regular touch screens work fine as they are.
| |
|
| In article <5klkn5F4e5obU1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnfeb61q.7j.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
>
> Yes, according to the manual it is very easy have the device only check
> manually. See below:
>
> [Set whether iPhone checks for new messages automatically
>
> From the Home screen choose Settings > Mail > Auto-Check, then tap Manual,
> “Every
>
> 15 minutes,” “Every 30 minutes,” or “Every hour.”] p 50 of Iphone manual
>
>
>
> Real easy, but in all fairness to the OP I might have gotten bit on this
> myself. Oh well.
The default is manual.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| ultimauw@hotmail.com 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Sep 10, 1:18 pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 10 Sep 2007 19:17:15 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the "catch"- thanks. Can you turn it on and off (i.e. a month at
> a time) or does it have a term committment? Even a month's fee seems
> reasonable for a week abroad vs. the standard rate.
>
>
> About the same as T-Mo, then (T-Mo is at $16/MB, IIRC, now.)
>
>
> Certainly.
>
>
> The folks that have unlocked them seem to have no trouble
> provisioning them for T-Mo, so I assume the data settings are
> available, but I have no first hand knowledge- I don't currently, nor
> do I have any plans to, own one.
>
>
> Agreed, but not an insurmountable one- as a last resort you could
> simply delete your IMAP accounts and there'd be nothing to sync to.
>
> I'm almost as bad- when I travel outside the US, I rename my APN to
> an invalid one just in case I forget to turn off auto-retrieval!
>
> I certainly don't mean to sound unsympathetic to the people in the
> posted article- I was really just pointing out that it's not a
> problem specific to "iPhones." With the ever-growing popularity of
> smartphones, international travel can be hazardous to your wallet
> without precautions! (As you well know better than most of us!) ;-)
>
What really gets my goat is *why* does International Data have to be
this expensive in the first place? This seems very XXX backward to me,
sort of like the pricing structures of "information services" like
Compuserve were 25 years ago.
And $M$? Total rip off, thats why I never use it..
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <KefFi.12764$5D.11028@fe099.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 10 Sep 2007 09:16:18 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
> One might argue that RIM created an entire business model out of just
> that "flaw." ;-)
> Automatic e-mail retrieval is a feature of virtually every high-end
> phone. This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
> of phone design.
Automatically retrieving email can be turned off in the iPhone.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <alangbaker-88CFF5.13383410092007@news.telus.net>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <5klkn5F4e5obU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> And it's my understanding that the default setting is to check for mail
> *manually*.
>
> Not to mention that the iPhone doesn't check for mail when it is turned
> off...
By 'turned off' you mean completely powered down. Just pressing the off switch
to blank the screen does NOT stop it from checking email IF you have it set to
check automatically.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
| |
| Alan Baker 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<teadams$2$0$0$3-F5D853. 18333210092007@earth
link.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>
,
Tim Adams < teadams$2$0$0$3@eart
hlink.net> wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-88CFF5.13383410092007@news.telus.net>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> By 'turned off' you mean completely powered down. Just pressing the off
> switch
> to blank the screen does NOT stop it from checking email IF you have it set
> to
> check automatically.
Of course, by "turned off", I mean "turned off". :-)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Sep 2007 21:12:03 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> It is always possible to cancel term service in the first 30 days,
> however, if one has the self discipline to do it. I've actually
> been tempted to take the laptop plan for a particular trip and
> cancel when I get back, but my organizational skills are such
> that I've been scared I'll end up paying a couple of months plus
> the ETF.
More importantly, I assume there is a finite number of times you
could get away with it! ("Uh, Mr. Ferguson, what makes you think
you'll enjoy this service any more THIS time than you did that week
in February, the two weeks last June or the first time you tried it a
year ago March?") ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <JefFi.12763$5D.3037@fe099.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> I'm certainly not a fanboy, and have given the iPhone a few solid
> knocks where I felt it deserved it, but please- how is this
> "sucker's" experience different from anyone who takes their world-
> band smartphone overseas and doesn't disable data? The guy next to
> him on the cruise with a Blackberry or Treo is getting hit with the
> same charges.
No, the guy next to him on the cruise with the BB or Treo can turn his
phone OFF, as in all the way off. The iPhone, no such way exists,
apparently.
The guy next to him can ALSO take the XXXXing BATTERY OUT to MAKE SURE
he doesn't get socked with a $4800 phone bill for roaming with it
overseas.
| |
| Tinman 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, the guy next to him on the cruise with the BB or Treo can turn his
> phone OFF, as in all the way off. The iPhone, no such way exists,
> apparently.
>
Wow. The nonsense spewed in this thread is astounding.
--
Mike
| |
| Tinman 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| "Tim Adams" wrote:
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> By 'turned off' you mean completely powered down. Just pressing the off
> switch
> to blank the screen does NOT stop it from checking email IF you have it
> set to
> check automatically.
Uh, "turned off" means turned off. There is no "off switch," it's the--you
won't believe this--"sleep" button. When pressed it--again, hard to
believe--puts the iPhone to, well, sleep.
Sleep is not, in any way, the same as "off." When the iPhone is off it does
not--can not--check mail.
Can't believe this actually has to be spelled out. Tune in next week while
we debate making phone calls while in "Airplane Mode."
--
Mike
| |
|
| In article <1189460365.012099.34260@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 10, 1:18 pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>
> What really gets my goat is *why* does International Data have to be
> this expensive in the first place? This seems very XXX backward to me,
> sort of like the pricing structures of "information services" like
> Compuserve were 25 years ago.
>
> And $M$? Total rip off, thats why I never use it..
These pricing arrangements will eventually go that way, too, as people
find better ways to get their data.
Hotels try and get an internet charge from you when you can go to the
coffee house down the street.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <5km4ooF4bsh1U1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:
>
>
> Wow. The nonsense spewed in this thread is astounding.
As opposed to the "facts" you're spouting?
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article <5km514F4gvl8U1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" wrote:
>
> Uh, "turned off" means turned off. There is no "off switch," it's the--you
> won't believe this--"sleep" button. When pressed it--again, hard to
> believe--puts the iPhone to, well, sleep.
>
> Sleep is not, in any way, the same as "off." When the iPhone is off it does
> not--can not--check mail.
>
> Can't believe this actually has to be spelled out. Tune in next week while
> we debate making phone calls while in "Airplane Mode."
I only brought it up as I know a person with an iPhone that didn't know the
'Off' vs the 'Sleep' state till I showed him. He thought the 'Sleep' as also
considered 'Off'.
Since Alan doesn't, or at least didn't, own an iPhone, I wanted to claify what
he had written.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| In news:5km4ooF4bsh1U1@
mid.individual.net,
Tinman <ask@for.it> typed:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
>
> Wow. The nonsense spewed in this thread is astounding.
How do you turn OFF an iPhone, like other cell phones when the battery is
removed?
| |
| Jonathan Kamens 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| Tim Adams < teadams$2$0$0$3@eart
hlink.net> writes:
>By 'turned off' you mean completely powered down. Just pressing the off switch
>to blank the screen does NOT stop it from checking email IF you have it set to
>check automatically.
Well, yes, and my Windows Mobile device behaves exactly the same way.
Claims that the iPhone was checking the guy's email even though he had
"turned it off," or that the iPhone was behaving any differently
from any other email-enabled mobile device, are just a load of crap.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www. genocideintervention
.net/
| |
| Jonathan Kamens 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
| "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> writes:
>
>How do you turn OFF an iPhone, like other cell phones when the battery is
>removed?
Straw man and nonsequitur. I don't have to remove my battery to run
off my Windows Mobile device and prevent it from downloading email, and
an iPhone user doesn't have to be able to remove his battery to prevent
his iPhone from downloading email.
The "I remove my battery to be *damn sure* I'm not paying international
data rates, so the iPhone is bad because iPhone users can't do the same
thing" argument is an astoundingly lame, stupid, desperate attempt to
bash the iPhone for something that is simply not the iPhone's fault and
no different for the iPhone from any other data-enabled device.
I don't have an iPhone. I probably never will have an iPhone. I
don't care one way or the other whether people love or hate the
iPhone. But I just can't stand to see the absurd bullshit that people
are spewing because, for whatever reason, they feel desperately the
need to bash everything about the iPhone.
Come on, people, it's just a phone. Get a life.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www. genocideintervention
.net/
| |
| Topo Gigio 2007-09-10, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46e56d84$0$2724
9$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> That's a very bad design flaw to have it automatically do those updates.
> Many people don't mind some occasional international roaming when they
> initiate the call or choose to answer a call, but they don't expect the
> iPhone to "phone home" on its own.
RTFM
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
| At 10 Sep 2007 17:15:13 -0700 Tinman wrote:
> Can't believe this actually has to be spelled out. Tune in next week
> while we debate making phone calls while in "Airplane Mode."
"Airplane mode?" Now you expect us to believe your iPhone can
actually FLY? ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
| At 10 Sep 2007 19:15:45 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> The guy next to him can ALSO take the XXXXing BATTERY OUT to MAKE
SURE
> he doesn't get socked with a $4800 phone bill for roaming with it
> overseas.
He could also ask Issac the bartender to put it in the Pina Colada
blender for two minutes on "Puree" as well, but turning the phone
"off" is generally sufficient...
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
| At 10 Sep 2007 21:25:44 -0500 IMHO IIRC wrote:
> How do you turn OFF an iPhone, like other cell phones when the
> battery is removed?
Geez- I hate to say it, but I'm starting to think Jobs and the
Fanboys might have been right after all. Obviously cellphones WERE
too complicated to use if half the posters in this thread think you
actually have to remove your phone's battery to turn it off!
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| aemeijers 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
|
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:qaoFi.13923$i3.11016@fe115.usenetserver.com...
> At 10 Sep 2007 21:25:44 -0500 IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>
>
> Geez- I hate to say it, but I'm starting to think Jobs and the
> Fanboys might have been right after all. Obviously cellphones WERE
> too complicated to use if half the posters in this thread think you
> actually have to remove your phone's battery to turn it off!
>
Don't know about iphone, since I have never played with one. But I deal with
computer devices every day where the software-commanded 'off' isn't really
OFF, like pull-the-plug-out-of-the-wall OFF. So, yeah, it is plausible. I
also know many cell phones can be remotely brought on line by the locator
signal from the tower, even if they are 'turned off', which is more like
sleep mode. How do you think they handshake with a tower so fast? Mine only
goes into 'search' mode in dead spots.
Hell, your 'instant on' television probably is drawing power all the time,
too. Betcha with all the lights off, and the set off, you can still see a
faint glow from the screen.
aem sends...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
| At 11 Sep 2007 04:11:41 +0000 aemeijers wrote:
> Don't know about iphone, since I have never played with one. But I
deal with
> computer devices every day where the software-commanded 'off' isn't
really
> OFF, like pull-the-plug-out-of-the-wall OFF. So, yeah, it is
plausible.
Sure, many devices stay in a low power standby mode- mostly reduce
bootup time or to respond to a timed event (i.e. a VCR.)
> I
> also know many cell phones can be remotely brought on line by the
locator
> signal from the tower, even if they are 'turned off', which is more
like
> sleep mode.
I am not aware of a single cellphone with this capability, and I've
owned probably fourty different phones in the last 20 years. I
suspect that's an urban legend.
> Hell, your 'instant on' television probably is drawing power all
the time,
> too. Betcha with all the lights off, and the set off, you can still
see a
> faint glow from the screen.
I could with my older sets. (Circa 1980's and older.) I don't with
newer sets, but that could just as likely be my older eyes as any
improvements in efficiency! ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:16:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>That's a very bad design flaw to have it automatically do those updates.
I think AT&T might disagree with you there. ;)
| |
|
| "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in
news:1AoFi.523940$p47.125091@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> Don't know about iphone, since I have never played with one. But I
> deal with computer devices every day where the software-commanded
> 'off' isn't really OFF, like pull-the-plug-out-of-the-wall OFF. So,
> yeah, it is plausible. I also know many cell phones can be remotely
> brought on line by the locator signal from the tower, even if they are
> 'turned off', which is more like sleep mode. How do you think they
> handshake with a tower so fast? Mine only goes into 'search' mode in
> dead spots.
>
>
Does anyone know if turning a phone "off" turns off the government's
snooping functions linked to the GPS? Is the phone still monitoring the
system, waiting for a key to run that function or other hidden functions
without your knowledge? Given the no-search-warrant-is-necessary recent
changes to tap your phones, this sounds very plausible to me. I'm sure
electronics contractors who live on Government money like Motorola would
roll over and build this feature into all their cellphones if threatened
with losing lucrative government contracts. I certainly would!
Does the GPS locator and other monitoring functions still run when you
press the OFF button, which only really has to turn off the basic phone
function, displays and lights to make you THINK it's "off", when it's
not.
Can the phone be made into a remote-controlled microphone OR WEBCAM on
camera phones by sending it a secret code from the system? There's
another false flag operation I see them incorporating to control us in
the near future.....if it's not already operational! How can you know
it's not a listening device?? You can't.
Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......
| |
|
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:oaoFi.13921
$i3.11884@fe115.usenetserver.com:
> "Airplane mode?" Now you expect us to believe your iPhone can
> actually FLY? ;-)
>
>
iPhones can do anything......just ask any owner who paid $600....(c;
Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-09-11, 4:33 am |
| Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote in
> news:1AoFi.523940$p47.125091@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
[color=darkred]
> Does anyone know if turning a phone "off" turns off
> the government's snooping functions linked to the GPS?
Yes.
> Is the phone still monitoring the system, waiting for a key to run
> that function or other hidden functions without your knowledge?
Nope.
> Given the no-search-warrant-is-necessary recent changes
> to tap your phones, this sounds very plausible to me.
More fool you.
> I'm sure electronics contractors who live on Government money
> like Motorola would roll over and build this feature into all their
> cellphones if threatened with losing lucrative government contracts.
Mindless conspiracy theory.
> I certainly would!
More fool you.
Its so easy to check whether the phone ever transmits when
its turned off that you'd soon get caught and that behaviour
would be exposed and publicised that your sales would be ruined.
> Does the GPS locator and other monitoring functions
> still run when you press the OFF button,
Nope.
> which only really has to turn off the basic phone function,
> displays and lights to make you THINK it's "off", when it's not.
Its trivial to monitor whether the phone ever transmits when its off.
> Can the phone be made into a remote-controlled microphone OR WEBCAM
> on camera phones by sending it a secret code from the system?
Nope.
> There's another false flag operation I see them incorporating
> to control us in the near future.....if it's not already operational!
More fool you again.
> How can you know it's not a listening device?? You can't.
Corse you can. If its transmitting anything, that
transmission is detectable by anyone with a clue.
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> (government intrusion) sounds very plausible to me.
A common affliction with conspiracy theorists.
> another false flag operation I see them incorporating to control us in
> the near future.
"False flag"? Is that an "inside code phrase" that conspiracy theorists use?
> How can you know it's not a listening device?? You can't.
Sure you can. See how long the battery will last when its off. See if
there's any CPU generated RF noise.
| |
|
| In article
<1AoFi.523940$p47.125091@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
> news:qaoFi.13923$i3.11016@fe115.usenetserver.com...
> Don't know about iphone, since I have never played with one. But I deal with
> computer devices every day where the software-commanded 'off' isn't really
> OFF, like pull-the-plug-out-of-the-wall OFF. So, yeah, it is plausible. I
> also know many cell phones can be remotely brought on line by the locator
> signal from the tower, even if they are 'turned off', which is more like
> sleep mode. How do you think they handshake with a tower so fast? Mine only
> goes into 'search' mode in dead spots.
>
> Hell, your 'instant on' television probably is drawing power all the time,
> too. Betcha with all the lights off, and the set off, you can still see a
> faint glow from the screen.
>
> aem sends...
First thing would be to actually use an iPhone instead of speculate.
Seems to be a lot of people up here doing that.
I have no problem shutting off my iPhone. You hold the button on top
down until you get a prompt to slide and power off.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| John R. Copeland 2007-09-11, 12:33 pm |
| "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message =
news:Xns99A891BA6B06
noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>=20
>=20
> Does anyone know if turning a phone "off" turns off the government's=20
> snooping functions linked to the GPS? Is the phone still monitoring =
the=20
> system, waiting for a key to run that function or other hidden =
functions=20
> without your knowledge? Given the no-search-warrant-is-necessary =
recent=20
> changes to tap your phones, this sounds very plausible to me. I'm =
sure=20
> electronics contractors who live on Government money like Motorola =
would=20
> roll over and build this feature into all their cellphones if =
threatened=20
> with losing lucrative government contracts. I certainly would!
>=20
> Does the GPS locator and other monitoring functions still run when you =
> press the OFF button, which only really has to turn off the basic =
phone=20
> function, displays and lights to make you THINK it's "off", when it's=20
> not.
>=20
> Can the phone be made into a remote-controlled microphone OR WEBCAM on =
> camera phones by sending it a secret code from the system? There's=20
> another false flag operation I see them incorporating to control us in =
> the near future.....if it's not already operational! How can you know =
> it's not a listening device?? You can't.
>=20
>=20
> Larry
> --=20
> Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
> The ultimate dirty bomb......
Double-wrap your phone in aluminum foil, shiny side in on the inner =
layer only.
Include some pellets of depleted uranium in the package, for extra =
security.
| |
| Gordon Burditt 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
| >> Can't believe this actually has to be spelled out. Tune in next week
>
>"Airplane mode?" Now you expect us to believe your iPhone can
>actually FLY? ;-)
Isn't "Airplane mode" the mode where it displays a bomb with a red
circle and slash through it, and plays "God Bless America" alternated
with insults against Islam, for use when going through airport
security?
| |
| Gordon Burditt 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
| >>How do you turn OFF an iPhone, like other cell phones when the battery is
>
>Straw man and nonsequitur. I don't have to remove my battery to run
>off my Windows Mobile device and prevent it from downloading email, and
>an iPhone user doesn't have to be able to remove his battery to prevent
>his iPhone from downloading email.
>
>The "I remove my battery to be *damn sure* I'm not paying international
>data rates, so the iPhone is bad because iPhone users can't do the same
>thing" argument is an astoundingly lame, stupid, desperate attempt to
>bash the iPhone for something that is simply not the iPhone's fault and
>no different for the iPhone from any other data-enabled device.
How do I turn off the iPhone (or, for that matter, any other phone
with a non-removable battery) so it will not transmit *anything*?
Not even "I'm here" polls from the cell tower?
Believe it or not, there are warnings that you should do just that
at some gas stations in Texas (if not all of them), and there have
been some incidents which suggest that cell phones can, rarely,
ignite gasoline fumes while you are pumping gas into your car. And
I don't care if it really was static electricity or some fool's
cigarette instead. If your passenger is convinced that you're going
to kill her if you don't turn the cell phone all the way off, it's
not worth arguing the point. She's more dangerous than the risk
of gas fumes igniting.
| |
| Jonathan Kamens 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
| gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
>How do I turn off the iPhone (or, for that matter, any other phone
>with a non-removable battery) so it will not transmit *anything*?
>Not even "I'm here" polls from the cell tower?
You find the section in the cell phone's manual where it says,
"Turning on and off the phone," and you follow the directions printed
there for turning it off.
On my Windows Mobile device, I hold down the power button until it
asks if I really want to turn the phone off, and then I say yes.
I've had lots of phones over the years, and I've never encountered one
that wasn't all the way off when I turned it off. This claim that cell
phones don't really turn off when you turn them off is an absurd
canard, coming either from people who are looking for whatever reasons
they can come up with for bashing the iPhone, or from conspiracy
theorists who think that the government is using your cell phone to
spy on you.
There's just no truth to it.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www. genocideintervention
.net/
| |
| aemeijers 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
|
"John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.aol.com> wrote in message
news:46e6b86e$0$2640
4$4c368faf@roadrunne
r.com...
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A891BA6B06
noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>
>
> Does anyone know if turning a phone "off" turns off the government's
> snooping functions linked to the GPS? Is the phone still monitoring the
> system, waiting for a key to run that function or other hidden functions
> without your knowledge? Given the no-search-warrant-is-necessary recent
> changes to tap your phones, this sounds very plausible to me. I'm sure
> electronics contractors who live on Government money like Motorola would
> roll over and build this feature into all their cellphones if threatened
> with losing lucrative government contracts. I certainly would!
>
> Does the GPS locator and other monitoring functions still run when you
> press the OFF button, which only really has to turn off the basic phone
> function, displays and lights to make you THINK it's "off", when it's
> not.
>
> Can the phone be made into a remote-controlled microphone OR WEBCAM on
> camera phones by sending it a secret code from the system? There's
> another false flag operation I see them incorporating to control us in
> the near future.....if it's not already operational! How can you know
> it's not a listening device?? You can't.
>
>
Well, actually, apparently the cell system operator CAN, for some phones at
least, send a 'wake up' signal to the handset. See story at
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html .
I do know that US Govt INFOSEC regs prohibit cell phones in classified
areas.
Do I think it is likely to ever happen, unless some agency has a warrant and
wants to use a GPS phone as a crude tracking device? Not really. But it is
technically possible. (And no, I do not base this on the cartoon tricks they
do on '24' or anything.) I can see how if a customer whines about their
quality of service, the carrier may wish to run some diagnostics on signal
path when they think customer isn't using the phone, which I think is what
the remote wakeup capability was actually designed for.
aem sends...
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:28:58 -0000, gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:
>Believe it or not, there are warnings that you should do just that
>at some gas stations in Texas (if not all of them), and there have
>been some incidents which suggest that cell phones can, rarely,
>ignite gasoline fumes while you are pumping gas into your car.
I'll take 'Not' for $1,000, Alex.
>And
>I don't care if it really was static electricity or some fool's
>cigarette instead. If your passenger is convinced that you're going
>to kill her if you don't turn the cell phone all the way off, it's
>not worth arguing the point. She's more dangerous than the risk
>of gas fumes igniting.
Then, you make her get out and walk instead of letting raw
emotionalism trump facts.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wirelessgas.html
http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp
http://www.esdjournal.com/static/cell/nycellfire.htm
http://media.www.californiaaggie.co...d-1317593.shtml
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode2
http://urbanlegends.about.com/libra...e-gas-fires.htm
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cellgas.htm
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
| Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> wrote:
>
> How do I turn off the iPhone (or, for that matter, any other phone
> with a non-removable battery) so it will not transmit *anything*?
> Not even "I'm here" polls from the cell tower?
>
> Believe it or not, there are warnings that you should do just that
> at some gas stations in Texas (if not all of them), and there have
> been some incidents which suggest that cell phones can, rarely,
> ignite gasoline fumes while you are pumping gas into your car.
Nope, thats never been shown to have happened.
> And I don't care if it really was static electricity or some fool's
> cigarette instead. If your passenger is convinced that you're going
> to kill her if you don't turn the cell phone all the way off, it's
> not worth arguing the point. She's more dangerous than the risk
> of gas fumes igniting.
Wota silly wimp.
| |
| 345ddd 2007-09-11, 10:33 pm |
| aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
> "John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.aol.com> wrote in message
> news:46e6b86e$0$2640
4$4c368faf@roadrunne
r.com...
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99A891BA6B06
noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Well, actually, apparently the cell system operator CAN, for some
> phones at least, send a 'wake up' signal to the handset. See story at
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html .
>
> I do know that US Govt INFOSEC regs prohibit cell phones in classified
> areas.
>
> Do I think it is likely to ever happen, unless some agency has a
> warrant and wants to use a GPS phone as a crude tracking device? Not
> really. But it is technically possible. (And no, I do not base this
> on the cartoon tricks they do on '24' or anything.) I can see how if
> a customer whines about their quality of service, the carrier may
> wish to run some diagnostics on signal path when they think customer
> isn't using the phone, which I think is what the remote wakeup
> capability was actually designed for.
Not even possible.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-12, 4:33 am |
| At 12 Sep 2007 00:50:51 +0000 aemeijers wrote:
> Well, actually, apparently the cell system operator CAN, for some
phones at
> least, send a 'wake up' signal to the handset. See story at
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html .
That story had more holes than aswiss cheese. It was about one
incident, and was all speculation and supposition. The carrier
involved (Nextel) denied any involvement sohow did the "mystery
software" the "experts" claim would be needed to accomplish this get
loaded on the handsets. One expert in the story itself said it was
bunk and the Feds would've had to plant an actual hardware bug in the
phone.
Urban legend, which probably works to the Feds advantage- make the
Bad Guys THINK their celphones can be remotely tapped and encourage
them to use more easily tapped devices like landlines.
> I do know that US Govt INFOSEC regs prohibit cell phones in
classified
> areas.
Occam's Razor- don't you think it's it more likely they fear the
OWNER snapping a few pics and MMSing them off than the Forces of the
Ungodly remotly listening in?
> Do I think it is likely to ever happen, unless some agency has a
warrant and
> wants to use a GPS phone as a crude tracking device? Not really.
But it is
> technically possible. (And no, I do not base this on the cartoon
tricks they
> do on '24' or anything.) I can see how if a customer whines about
their
> quality of service, the carrier may wish to run some diagnostics on
signal
> path when they think customer isn't using the phone, which I think
is what
> the remote wakeup capability was actually designed for.
I'll believe it when I see it.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-12, 4:33 am |
| At 12 Sep 2007 00:11:46 +0000 Gordon Burditt wrote:
> Isn't "Airplane mode" the mode where it displays a bomb with a red
> circle and slash through it, and plays "God Bless America"
alternated
> with insults against Islam, for use when going through airport
> security?
>
You just remined me of a time long ago when Penn Jillette (the
talking half of comedy magician duo Penn and Teller, and longtime
computer geek) used to write a monthly column for one of the ZD
computer magazines. One column (long before 9/11) about computer
"pranks" included the simple DOS batch file he wrote and claimed to
stick in his autoexec back in the days when airport security demanded
laptops be turned on to "prove" they were actual computers. His
batch file made the computer display...
"Armed.
10
9
8
7
6
5"
....etc... ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-12, 4:33 am |
| At 12 Sep 2007 00:42:44 +0000 Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> I've had lots of phones over the years, and I've never encountered
one
> that wasn't all the way off when I turned it off. This claim that
> cell
> phones don't really turn off when you turn them off is an absurd
> canard,
Agreed, but to be fair, the phone's clock and/or alarms do stay
powered, so on a base level, some part of the phone is still running,
like the clock chip on your PC motherboard.
While I can certainly imagine a scenerio where "Q" from the Bond
movies, (or his ilk), could modify a phone via software and/or
hardware
to behave like the Urban legends claim, but certainly not by a
"remote control software download." More like a complex sting
operation where you physically replace the Bad Guy's phone with a
rigged identical model and have the carrier switch service to it.
> coming either from people who are looking for whatever reasons
> they can come up with for bashing the iPhone, or from conspiracy
> theorists who think that the government is using your cell phone to
> spy on you.
>
> There's just no truth to it.
Agreed, but the tinfoil hatters would claim you've just bought into
the
conspiracy, or... (ominious music crescendos to a 'BAAMP BAMMP
BAAAAH...')
....YOU'RE PART OF IT! ;-)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
|
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-09-13, 7:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B7F4C7. 19154510092007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <JefFi.12763$5D.3037@fe099.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, the guy next to him on the cruise with the BB or Treo can turn his
> phone OFF, as in all the way off. The iPhone, no such way exists,
> apparently.
>
> The guy next to him can ALSO take the XXXXing BATTERY OUT to MAKE SURE
> he doesn't get socked with a $4800 phone bill for roaming with it
> overseas.
>
Elmo please check the facts before posting. It is easy to tell the device to
check manually. Read page 50 of the manual.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 10 Sep 2007 09:16:18 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
> of phone design.
>
While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I believe
most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new sophisticated
electronics gadgets. Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
the operation of those gadgets.
That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the average user
can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable practice to me. "User
ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the average user.
| |
| Gordon Burditt 2007-09-16, 3:33 pm |
| >>This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
>While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I believe
>most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new sophisticated
>electronics gadgets. Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
>the operation of those gadgets.
>
>That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the average user
>can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable practice to me. "User
>ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the average user.
*DID* the iPhone default to automatic mail checking? I thought that
had to be turned on manually.
I think the manuals ought to explicitly state things like what
operations (e.g. turning on and off automatic mail checking) restart
the term of your contract. And the manual needs to reflect your
situation even if the carrier exercises its option to change the
terms of the contract.
And it wouldn't hurt to have an option that causes a warning every
time you take an action that will cost money and tells you how much
it's going to cost (per minute or whatever). This would take into
account your current minutes of various types, etc.
| |
|
| In article < 13eqt8dg1ju1n96@corp
.supernews.com>,
gordonb.2dw5q@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> *DID* the iPhone default to automatic mail checking? I thought that
> had to be turned on manually.
>
> I think the manuals ought to explicitly state things like what
> operations (e.g. turning on and off automatic mail checking) restart
> the term of your contract. And the manual needs to reflect your
> situation even if the carrier exercises its option to change the
> terms of the contract.
>
> And it wouldn't hurt to have an option that causes a warning every
> time you take an action that will cost money and tells you how much
> it's going to cost (per minute or whatever). This would take into
> account your current minutes of various types, etc.
This is not beneficial to ATT so they will not do it.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-09-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 13eqt8dg1ju1n96@corp
.supernews.com>,
gordonb.2dw5q@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> *DID* the iPhone default to automatic mail checking? I thought that
> had to be turned on manually.
It does have to be turned on. It is off be default.
>
> I think the manuals ought to explicitly state things like what
> operations (e.g. turning on and off automatic mail checking) restart
> the term of your contract. And the manual needs to reflect your
> situation even if the carrier exercises its option to change the
> terms of the contract.
>
> And it wouldn't hurt to have an option that causes a warning every
> time you take an action that will cost money and tells you how much
> it's going to cost (per minute or whatever). This would take into
> account your current minutes of various types, etc.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
| |
|
| Tim Adams wrote:
>
> It does have to be turned on. It is off be default.
Immaterial. I have turned things on in my phone because it seemed like a
good idea at the time, only to find out later, I shouldn't have done
that. Good thing my "Oops" didn't cost me money and why should it? I'm
on a prepaid phone and it tells me exactly how much money I'm spending.
This is "too complicated" for contract phones?
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-16, 10:33 pm |
| At 16 Sep 2007 13:32:37 -0400 Carl wrote:
> While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I
> believe most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new
> sophisticated electronics gadgets.
Fair enough. However, having said that, I probably chewed some poor
T-Mobile rep's ear off for 20 minutes one day before I first traveled
abroad with a T-Mo phone, just to be sure I knew what I'd be charged
if I made a call, took a call, let the phone ring and not answer,
etc. A similar call might have alerted the family in the story,
rather than simply assuming "if I don't answer the phone, I won't get
charged anything..."
> Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
> the operation of those gadgets.
Probably, but unfortunately, the situation proved users have some
responsibility to learn how to use their gadgets.
> That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the
> average user can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable
> practice to me.
As others have stated (personally I don't have an iPhone, but a WinMo
phone) the iPhone doesn't check e-mail periodically by default- the
user has to override the default setting of "check manually."
Therefore, the user in the story DID set his phone to check e-mail
automatically and apparently didn't realize what that costs overseas.
> "User
> ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the
> average user.
Hardly. You're assuming I'm using "ignorance" the same way a
schoolboy would; as a taunt. Ignorance is simply the state of
unknowing. It's not an insult, Nor was it intended as one.
I'm not unsympathetic to the family in the story the OP cited. What
I took issue with was the fact that the OP was claiming it was a
deficiency of the iPhone, where in reality, that guy would've run up
a $4000 bill with ANY smartphone he forgot to disable data on during
his cruise.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-09-17, 4:33 am |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote
> Carl wrote
[color=darkred]
> Fair enough. However, having said that, I probably chewed some poor
> T-Mobile rep's ear off for 20 minutes one day before I first traveled
> abroad with a T-Mo phone, just to be sure I knew what I'd be charged
> if I made a call, took a call, let the phone ring and not answer, etc.
You shouldnt have to do that with a device like the iphone,
it should provide that info to the user itself, and it shouldnt
need you to read the manual to work that out either.
> A similar call might have alerted the family in the story, rather than simply
> assuming "if I don't answer the phone, I won't get charged anything..."
See above.
[color=darkred]
> Probably, but unfortunately, the situation proved users
> have some responsibility to learn how to use their gadgets.
All it proved is that the iphone is badly designed.
Its perfectly technically feasible for the iphone to work out that
that enabling of auto checking is going to incur a big cost when
its used in that situation, outside the country, and its perfectly
possible to warn the user about that and check that they want
to incur that very high cost by having that enabled.
Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.
[color=darkred]
> As others have stated (personally I don't have an iPhone, but a WinMo
> phone) the iPhone doesn't check e-mail periodically by default- the
> user has to override the default setting of "check manually."
And the user should be warned about the downside of enabling
that, not just when its manually changed from the default, but
when the phone notices that its doing that auto checking while
roaming and that is going to cost the user a hell of a lot.
> Therefore, the user in the story DID set his phone to check e-mail
> automatically and apparently didn't realize what that costs overseas.
And the user should have been warned by the phone about that.
[color=darkred]
> Hardly.
Fraid so.
> You're assuming I'm using "ignorance" the same way a
> schoolboy would; as a taunt. Ignorance is simply the state
> of unknowing. It's not an insult, Nor was it intended as one.
Sure, but its still rather arrogant. Few average users arent ignorant
about some aspect of any device as complex as that and the device
should be designed to protect them from incuring costs as high as that
due to that ignorance. Its trivial to warn the user what that cost will be.
> I'm not unsympathetic to the family in the story the OP cited.
> What I took issue with was the fact that the OP was claiming
> it was a deficiency of the iPhone,
Corse it is, its trivial to warn the user what that cost will be.
> where in reality, that guy would've run up a $4000 bill with ANY
> smartphone he forgot to disable data on during his cruise.
And users should be assisted on that sort of forgetting with a device thats
perfectly capable of doing that without adding anything to the cost of the device.
| |
| Jim Higgins 2007-09-17, 7:33 am |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote
>
Post this trash on iPhones where it is immediately OT.
|
|
|
|
|