Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T: Non-Exclusive iPhone Wont Affect Our Earnings
- Thread starter JustinSaneV2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not talking about anything special AT&T did for the iPhone 4. They normally offer you an upgrade every year as long as you spent over $99 on a line. Also AT&T allowed you to keep your current data cap unlike some global carriers which forced you to get a new lower one if you bought the phone at a subsidized price.
65 is for the 18m plan, I used 60 for the 24m plan to make it more comparable, plus you need to factor in a 10 dollar 1GB bolt on, again to make it comparable.
Also I get charged $15 on 300 dollars worth of service in CA, so I don't know how you get $25 on only 115
Yes Nokia is soo great, that's why you always see people lining up outside at the Nokia store before a new launch
FYI since the iPhone is number 1 cell phone in the world that makes America ahead the curve.
Huh? Seriously, it's because Nokia has been around long enough to make enough phones to handle launches.
iPhone is NOT number 1 cell phone in the world... in fact, Nokia and Blackberry outsell it. You should READ the stats, iPhone OS is the #1 in the world because of iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone combined.
The fact that you say all this makes it clear that you really need to travel the world, and step outside the US once in a while because you're clearly misinformed.
The guy doesn't get it because he doesn't travel outside of his little bubble. He just makes crap up like that he pays $15 in taxes and fees when the friggin CA Excise tax on a $300 bill is $20, and the total taxes for him would be about $50... but whatever.
I'm an Apple fan, but the reality is a Nokia phone like the E72 will do the same thing for about $250 with NO CONTRACT... and they were the first to mainstream video to video calling. It's only "innovative" to Americans because they don't see that Asia's had video to video calling for ages... and you can even initiate it in the middle of a call, and you DONT HAVE TO BE ON WIFI! LOL.... not innovate, immitative maybe.
I love my iPhone 4, but I'm not blind to the reality that it's not the first of it's kind in any category.... maybe because I've experienced world travel and have seen what else is out there. US Carriers and manufacturers love to market products to Americans' naivety... and this guy exemplifies that fact.
Sorry you are right, I don't pay 15 dollars in taxes and fees, it's actually 16.17.
Okay, if the Nokia e72 can do everything the iPhone 4 can for less (sans contract) why would you buy the iPhone
Sounds to me like you are the one making up crap.
Sorry you are right, I don't pay 15 dollars in taxes and fees, it's actually 16.17.
Okay, if the Nokia e72 can do everything the iPhone 4 can for less (sans contract) why would you buy the iPhone
Sounds to me like you are the one making up crap.
No, you don't pay $16.17 in taxes and fees on a $300 bill ANYWHERE in California. I welcome you to scan the front page of your bill and show it and I'll eat my words.
Are you mentally challenged? Why do people buy toyota corolla's rather than hyundai accents? they have the same features, size, etc, but it's called PERSONAL PREFERENCE. And MORE people in the world buy nokia phones than iphones. More people buy iOS devices than Nokia phones, but Nokia isn't in the tablet nor mp3 player business, so you're not comparing equals...
I guess you just edit a bill and paste it in to reflect whatever you want it to say, but congrats on being the only one in the united states with "taxes, fees and regulatory surcharges" of less than 1% when the country's average is 10%, and in a state that averages 17%.
Anyone who has AT&T will look at their bill and know you're talking out your rear....
State Taxes on Cellular Phone
California: 13.18%, Total Cell Phone Tax: 18.66% (with fed and state), Rank: 9
"all states charge a Federal Excise tax of 3.0% and Federal USF tax of 2.48%" which would mean your FEDERAL taxes alone would be $17 before you even added the $39 STATE of CA tax... so CLEARLY you're lying....
But I'm done with this... good luck to ya.
http://www.askstudent.com/money/cell-phone-taxes-by-state/
Can't wait until Verizon gets the iPhone and then all the Verizon users start bitching and moaning about the service sucking, slow speeds and all other things associated with Apple, AT&T and the iPhone.
Meanwhile for all those who remain (such as myself) on AT&T, it will truely be a blessing to drop 10-20% of the data centric users from the network and watch Verizon be the laughing stock of the US mobile industry.
It's coming so get ready for the comedy. I've got my popcorn ready!
Meanwhile for all those who remain (such as myself) on AT&T, it will truely be a blessing to drop 10-20% of the data centric users from the network and watch Verizon be the laughing stock of the US mobile industry.
It's coming so get ready for the comedy. I've got my popcorn ready!
I agree 100%... because then people will bitch that the voice and data running simultaneously isn't as smooth as they're used to, or that it's annoying how verizon makes you pay for extras like visual voicemail, or that verizon's corporate discounts are generally slightly less. But hey, that's what this website is here for, to listen to each other complain.
Either way, in 2-3 years who knows what the playing field will look like. With all of the carriers aspiring to build a ground-up LTE network, theoretically all the carriers will be level playing field network-wise... so only time will tell. Most countries have 3-5 well-established GSM networks so the competition comes down to price, customer service, and individual perks a carrier might offer, so it'll be interesting to see the US finally catch up with the rest of the world in that sense.
Actually, I think most taxes fall under "Monthly Service Charges."
I live in Michigan, and the Government Fees and Taxes section of my $213 bill was only $1.83 (Basically, just the 911 charges).
However, if you scroll down and actually look at the bill, I have the Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge ($1.25), Federal Universal Service Charge ($0.44), and MI State Telecom Charge ($0.78) under "Total Service Charges" on each of my lines (keep in mind, those taxes were on the cheapest of my lines).
So he was telling the (what he thought to be) the truth, he just wasn't paying attention to his actual bill.
We have the same in Canada, and it's not because of the number of GSM carriers; it's because of the telephone numbering system.
In Canada and the USA (and possibly the other members of the North American Numbering Plan), there are no separate area codes for mobile numbers. Mobile numbers are mixed in with landline numbers. This means that there is no way for the caller, given a number, to tell whether it belongs to a mobile or to a landline. Therefore, there's no way to charge extra, and it's the recipient who must pay the extra cost for the convenience of mobility.
Originally, mobiles were in separate exchanges within area codes, but even this no longer holds true. Number portability means that people can take their phone numbers with them as they go from a landline to a competing landline to a mobile to VOIP service to another landline. I had a Bell number in Toronto; I ported it to the competing Rogers landline, and was this close to porting it to a VOIP service that I could take with me for use on my internet connection. But I needed to have something to answer the apartment intercom with...
The only constraint is geographic to some extent: both landlines and mobiles are assigned to specific locations, or 'rate centres'. People say, "I have a Toronto number" or "That's a San Francisco number" even when talking about mobile numbers. I don't think you can port a number from one rate centre to another.
This is why, when you call a North American mobile, you may pay long-distance charges to a specific rate centre, and the recipient may also pay long-distance charges from that location to where he or she actually is. Sucks if you're calling another mobile just down the street, but their number is from the other side of the continent. Both of you pay long distance.
But, if you are the mobile with the number from far away, you're still governed by local calling patterns wherever you are, so you can always make local calls in the area you're in.
Not quite sure I completely agree with your sentiment. I think it has less to do with locking them into a new contract to prevent them from leaving, though that is a positive side-effect for them, and more to do with providing early adopters a good service that gives them a compelling reason to stay with AT&T. I've been able to get a subsidized iPhone with every release, even when not a full year into a contract. I don't think any other carrier offers that.
So while the net effect is the same as you posit, I think the reasoning is much different. It's not because they are fearful of losing customers; they realize that this is a good way to keep customers, which is a far different business strategy. It's proactive and not reactionary, and it works great for me.
And as far as telcos in Canada go; while I love the choice that is offered up there, the big hang up for me is 3 year contracts. Those are outrageous, IMO, especially in this day and age of yearly, if not sooner, release schedules.
But anyway, of course losing exclusivity on the iPhone is going to affect AT&T's earnings and of course they would issue a statement saying the opposite. It would pretty much be irresponsible for them not to. They have to try and stoke and maintain confidence in their investors
Come on people, Do you really think any company will admit that the lose of exclusivity will not hurt earnings ? It's all forward looking guidance so they can say what they want as long as they justify it (using whatever logic they come up with).
I think that they are pretty sure it will hurt earnings but want to put the best spin on it.
I think that they are pretty sure it will hurt earnings but want to put the best spin on it.
A couple years ago, Verizon (landline) screwed over all the customers of VT, Maine, and NH (Northern New England) by dumping all of us to a bankrupt company (Fairpoint). Verizon was not losing money on us but wanted to temporarily increase their bottom line. Verizon really doesn't care about it's customers except what it can squeeze out of them. I never will give Verizon any of my money and I hope that other people from VT, Maine, and NH feel the same way.
I hope Apple comes out with an iphone for all carriers and people do leave ATT so that the network performance can improve. I have been with AT&T for years with no issues, but I do know plenty of iphone users in my family and they say the network can be an issue for data. I do think that if the traffic subsides, network performance will improve.
I also think these rumors may finally actually come true.
I also think these rumors may finally actually come true.
That's exactly what I'm hoping will happen as well. I have been nothing but, frankly, blown away by AT&T's customer service. That really keeps me with Ma Bell. And overall I've been pleased with their cellular service, now more than ever with the new antenna on the iPhone 4.
No, No I was telling the truth and I did look at my bill. Maybe you should look at yours because the other fees are under Credits/Adjustments/Other Charges not Monthly Service Charge.
Like I said, I got 16.17 on fees yet it's only 3.90 under Government Fees and Taxes because I add the other fees under Credits/Adjustments/Other Charges removing the FAN Discount.