Verizon wireless - Is the iPhone an AT&T time bomb against cell users?

Author

Is the iPhone an AT&T time bomb against cell users?

C. Benz

2007-06-29, 10:33 am

Telcom industry writer, Drew Clark (http://www.telmetech.com), and
Microsoft Exchange expert, Jim McBee, are both blogging on an article
on the controversy regarding AT&T's required two-year contract for the
unsubsidized iPhone. From Jim McBee's Mostly Exchange Web Log...
(http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com) "[iCarrot] (http://techswot.com)
makes a very good point about the hype surrounding the iPhone and the
"deal" that you have to sign up for from AT&T. ...that this may be the
end of the subsidized celluar phone, but certainly not (for) the
restrictive and costly contract."

>From "iPhone or iCarrot?"... Since the early days of the cellular
industry, the justification for multi-year contracts has been handset
subsidies. Since the cellular carriers subsidize the cost of the
handsets, the argument goes, they need lock-in contracts to guarantee
sufficient time to recover the up-front equipment costs. Holes in that
story now appear with the iPhone. ... What AT&T may be trying to do
is to redefine the business model for the entire American cellular
industry. They may want to set a precedent for getting rid of handset
subsidies altogether. And the reason for the two-year contract with
the unsubsidized iPhone is to establish that lock-in contracts remain
a part of the deal. ... That doesn't have to happen. If consumers say
"no" to this Friday's launch of the unsubsidized, two-year-contract-
required iPhone, then AT&T will realize that its new business model
will not succeed in the American marketplace. They will have to modify
the terms of the iPhone plan. If consumers instead say "yes" and buy
the iPhone with the two-year contract, then it will only be a matter
of time before all handset subsidies disappear and all cell phone
users have to pay both the full cost of their handsets and still be
locked into multiple-year contacts. Those who purchase iPhones under
the current arrangement may very well be sealing that fate for all
cell phone users.

Read more... (http://www.telmetech.com/2007/06/iphone-or-icarrot.html)

SMS

2007-06-29, 12:33 pm

C. Benz wrote:

> Read more... (http://www.telmetech.com/2007/06/iphone-or-icarrot.html)

A lot of misinformation in the rest of the article, almost funny how
clueless the writer is.

He laments the poor service of the old AT&T Wireless, but AT&T Wireless
was not part of AT&T, it was spun off as a separate company. Back when
it was part of AT&T, it had the best network in the U.S. He claims that
"AT&T Wireless lost millions of customers in 1994, within the first few
months that cell phone numbers became portable." Say what? 1994? It's
true that when number portability did occur that AT&T Wireless lost a
lot of customers, due to their botched GSM conversion which was
occurring at the same time.

As to the subsidy, while AT&T is not directly subsidizing the handset,
they are paying Apple part of the monthly fees, an unprecedented event
(and one reason that Verizon turned down the iPhone letting Cingular
have it).

notme

2007-07-18, 10:33 pm

The motorola V365 is $149.99 at the AT&T store with a 2 year contract.
$299.99 regular price. You can get a $50 rebate if you sign up for a data
plan.

The V365 is $149.99 straight from motorola. Just click on buy now from this
link.

http://www.motorola.com/consumer/v/...how=productHome

"C. Benz" <ChilliBenz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183127561.210215.317470@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Telcom industry writer, Drew Clark (http://www.telmetech.com), and
> Microsoft Exchange expert, Jim McBee, are both blogging on an article
> on the controversy regarding AT&T's required two-year contract for the
> unsubsidized iPhone. From Jim McBee's Mostly Exchange Web Log...
> (http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com) "[iCarrot] (http://techswot.com)
> makes a very good point about the hype surrounding the iPhone and the
> "deal" that you have to sign up for from AT&T. ...that this may be the
> end of the subsidized celluar phone, but certainly not (for) the
> restrictive and costly contract."
>
> industry, the justification for multi-year contracts has been handset
> subsidies. Since the cellular carriers subsidize the cost of the
> handsets, the argument goes, they need lock-in contracts to guarantee
> sufficient time to recover the up-front equipment costs. Holes in that
> story now appear with the iPhone. ... What AT&T may be trying to do
> is to redefine the business model for the entire American cellular
> industry. They may want to set a precedent for getting rid of handset
> subsidies altogether. And the reason for the two-year contract with
> the unsubsidized iPhone is to establish that lock-in contracts remain
> a part of the deal. ... That doesn't have to happen. If consumers say
> "no" to this Friday's launch of the unsubsidized, two-year-contract-
> required iPhone, then AT&T will realize that its new business model
> will not succeed in the American marketplace. They will have to modify
> the terms of the iPhone plan. If consumers instead say "yes" and buy
> the iPhone with the two-year contract, then it will only be a matter
> of time before all handset subsidies disappear and all cell phone
> users have to pay both the full cost of their handsets and still be
> locked into multiple-year contacts. Those who purchase iPhones under
> the current arrangement may very well be sealing that fate for all
> cell phone users.
>
> Read more... (http://www.telmetech.com/2007/06/iphone-or-icarrot.html)
>

LinkBot