[MRES]

I guess it's about coverage - AT&T are obviously woefully lacking in their network.
We used to have these kinds of problems a decade or more ago here in the UK, but these days coverage on all networks seems to be fairly universal with a few black spots in more remote rural areas.
I have the iPhone on O2 (who the exclusive carriers in the UK), and there's no problem at all with 3G speeds. 3G is a slow connection anyway compared to wired broadband, but it seems to run at a decent enough speed on the O2 network.
So I reckon it's AT&T who should be the targets of this lawsuit, not really Apple. I don't sue my car manufacturer for the congestion on the roads capping by top speed to way below the manufacturers stated possible top speed figures.

[douglas_goodall]

They are throttling down the speed. between the day I signed up for the service and now, they reduced the advertised speed of the network substantially. There are published specifications on the net about what 3G is able to do, and the write ups on the ATT site about the specifications for Apple 3G service have the speed capped well below the expected rate that the technology can do.

This is a two pronged problem. They deny us the ability to tether on the basis of their fear that the network would be congested if people could read their email on their MacBooks via the iPhone. If the iPhone was accessing the net at the full rate possible, I doubt the tethering would be a problem. They may be concerned that people would be torrenting through the system, and I have sympathy for that.

The other aspect here is that what they call unlimited is actually quite limited, although this problem is not confined to the iPhone.

This capping may be due in part to the realities of how connectivity is provided to cell towers, and this is a general problem of Internet service in general. Having to provide Internet service at a point of presence by running a T1 line to a tower is problematic. We the people paid a lot of tax money to the Internet service providers to have fiber laid all over. It seems to me that be cause of the convergence of services around handheld devices and the Internet services available on contemporary cell phones, fiber should be feeding the towers, and full speeds should be available.

[hillstones]

My iPhone works great with AT&T in Los Angeles. My friends with 3G iPhones love them too, and they are twice as fast as my original iPhone. I think the majority of complainers don't even own iPhones. Apple and AT&T have always advertised that 3G is not available in all areas. You have no right to sue when you didn't read the details. Also, if you don't like the phone, you could have returned it within 30 days for a refund.
Verizon is a joke. They disable features with their software. Both my sister and I had Moto Razr V3 phones. Mine with AT&T, hers with Verizon. Both phones have Bluetooth, but Verizon disabled the Bluetooth on her phone with their software.
Everyone has complaints of cell carriers. But suing for slow internet speed? These people are idiots. Are they suing their internet providers at home too? No one gets the full throughput, not even with the old modems of the old days. Internet traffic causes slowdown, regardless of how fast your network may be.

[hillstones]

raegis said:

Actually, AT&T's false advertising ("fewest dropped calls in CA") is already enough to warrant a huge fine. There's a difference between exagerration and just a flat out lie. When you get into specifics in advertising, you might get into trouble-- "dropped calls" can be measured, but "the best phone company" can mean lots of different meaningless things, which makes it a better lie. When you lock someone into a $70/month (actually $80 with taxes) 2-year agreement, you better delver what you promise. Nobody wants to pay $80/month for crappy service, though most wil just live with it because the iPhone is so cool. The lawsuit is sound. Unfortunately the end result probably won't help everyone.

I live in Los Angeles and I don't get any dropped calls with my iPhone with AT&T. In fact, AT&T (Cingular, who originally started that campaign) dropped that campaign 2 years ago. So I don't know what you are talking about. All cellular carriers are prone to losing a signal, just like when you drive around and your FM station may drop in and out. It is a radio signal and it can be hindered by interference.

[hillstones]

darkgoob said:

They SHOULD be sued for deciding to go with AT&T in the first place! AT&T is the WORST company I have ever dealt with for any reason, for any product. They charged me for two phone lines for SIX MONTHS even though I only had one phone, and they refused to refund the bill! THEN they charged me a disconnect fee when I cancelled my account due to their horrible, rude customer service, and put me in collections for it, screwing up my credit report!! They were billing me for services I was never provided, for a phone I never had!! NOT TO MENTION that AT&T has the worst sound quality and reception of any carrier due to their low frequency signal.

Sprint is TWICE the frequency and sounds way better, and gets MUCH better reception inside of buildings and structures. Oh yeah and AT&T consistently drops calls. Meanwhile on Sprint I get 40KBPS Bluetooth modem capability on my Macbook Pro using my nearly two-year-old Samsung M610.

I hope Apple LOSES this lawsuit, it will teach them a freaking lesson!!!

All depends where you live. Sprint's service is Los Angeles is the worst. They have so many drop out areas that it would cause the phone to say No Service. So you are complaining about getting charged for disconnect fee within your contract, then you refuse to pay? Sounds like you didn't really know how to handle that situation in the first place. Doubtful they refused to refund you when they realized you only had one phone with one line. Are you an expert on how much signal strength each carrier puts out? Wow, you are impressed with average modem speeds over Bluetooth? Bluetooth is a low speed protocol. Since you never owned an iPhone, you have nothing to base your opinion on.

[Laahchaasad5224]

AT&T sucks ASS!!!!! I've had my phone for about two months and already have more dropped calls in that time then a year and a half with my old carrier.
I never wanted AT&T just waned the iPhone. I work in the heart of new York across from central park and still get shitty coverage! I hardly see the 3g sign on my phone.
I'm at work and all I get is this edge signal. If I get one at all! Most times my phone e is searching for the elusive signal I have completly turn my phone off inorder to
Find a signal.

[Laahchaasad5224]

More bars in places you don't want to be!!!!!!!!

[raegis]

> All depends where you live. Sprint's service is Los Angeles is the worst.



Earlier you said AT&T in Los Angeles is great. If you're a paid shill, you should try to make it less obvious. It's true that AT&T has better coverage in some areas than Sprint (none that I recall though), but the reverse is true as well. I'm moving to a place in the hillls near Slauson/Crenshaw, which is a dead spot for my AT&T phone, my fiancee's AT&T phone, and our real estate agents iPhone. I just got a Sprint phone which works just fine at the house. At my current place (near Olympic/La Brea) I get decent coverage from both outside, but my Sprint phone can barely keep a signal indoors. But this is IRRELEVANT. I'm not talking about coverage, I'm talking about DROPPED CALLS. And this is where AT&T reigns supreme in L.A. and S.F. Ironically, when canceling my AT&T service, I was walking around Little Tokyo and, guess what, the call dropped. That right, my last call on my AT&T phone dropped. I had Verizon for 5 years in L.A. from 2001-2006: no dropped calls EVER. I have Sprint now as a compromise, since the only time calls drop are when the signal is weak, not just randomly like AT&T (and please don't talk that turning my phone off nonsense.)

[viclen]

So Apple is as culpable as AT&T? Nope - in the UK I get almost continuous 3G coverage with O2, no dropped calls and very few problems. If there's a fundamental problem with the iPhone, I'd expect that to be so worldwide. Seems to be a US problem - and that falls squarely into AT&T's lap...

[chilidog]

I am absolutely amazed at how many people claim to be getting such poor service and yet have apparently taken no steps to change carriers. I find that very hard to believe. If I had bought my iphone and found the service unacceptable, I would have immediately returned the phone and changed carriers - and I have done just that twice. After following these comments for the past few days, I have a feeling that most of the complainers are employed by other carriers or other hand set manufacturers. I dont think they can really be as stupid as they come across.

[hillstones]

raegis said:

Earlier you said AT&T in Los Angeles is great. If you're a paid shill, you should try to make it less obvious. It's true that AT&T has better coverage in some areas than Sprint (none that I recall though), but the reverse is true as well. I'm moving to a place in the hillls near Slauson/Crenshaw, which is a dead spot for my AT&T phone, my fiancee's AT&T phone, and our real estate agents iPhone. I just got a Sprint phone which works just fine at the house. At my current place (near Olympic/La Brea) I get decent coverage from both outside, but my Sprint phone can barely keep a signal indoors. But this is IRRELEVANT. I'm not talking about coverage, I'm talking about DROPPED CALLS. And this is where AT&T reigns supreme in L.A. and S.F. Ironically, when canceling my AT&T service, I was walking around Little Tokyo and, guess what, the call dropped. That right, my last call on my AT&T phone dropped. I had Verizon for 5 years in L.A. from 2001-2006: no dropped calls EVER. I have Sprint now as a compromise, since the only time calls drop are when the signal is weak, not just randomly like AT&T (and please don't talk that turning my phone off nonsense.)

You are going to have dead zones with EVERY carrier. There is interference everywhere...mountains, buildings, etc. Verizon has them too. Drive through La Tuna Canyon on the 210 freeway and your Verizon phone will drop out, as well as any other phone. Dropped calls are caused by a loss of signal. Drive through the desert on the 395, no cell service there either. But to sue about speed is just plain stupid. Can I sue LA because I can't drive the posted speed limit on the 405 because of constant traffic? Also, I don't work for AT&T, but I do love my iPhone and my calls rarely drop out.

[hillstones]

Laahchaasad5224 said:

AT&T sucks ASS!!!!! I've had my phone for about two months and already have more dropped calls in that time then a year and a half with my old carrier.
I never wanted AT&T just waned the iPhone. I work in the heart of new York across from central park and still get shitty coverage! I hardly see the 3g sign on my phone.
I'm at work and all I get is this edge signal. If I get one at all! Most times my phone e is searching for the elusive signal I have completly turn my phone off inorder to
Find a signal.

Those high rise buildings in New York city would be quite obtrusive for a cell signal, and any other radio signal. The 3G transmitter in your iPhone is nothing more than a radio trying to receive a signal. Read the following:

http://www.davidmann.../FAQ/faq5a.html

Multipath affects all radio transmissions. How well does your phone receive a signal when you are not at work?

[ericole]

Unless of course it's a moral issue, then the West coast is VERY happy to sue anyone with a Bible, a U.S. Constitution, a cross, etc.

[ericole]

"...bitter about paying 50% more and not getting that in service..."

I can't agree more. I am so tired of these "agreements" we are forced to sign as consumers when we as consumers had no say in the matter. It's not an "agreed to" agreement, it is a "I'll sign this to use this b/c I have no choice" agreement. When they don't live up to their end, so what. But let me be one day late on a payment and see what happens.

This is SO OLD that I'm surprised somebody hasn't started a riot somewhere.