Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why I don't want to

Because I need ATT for my cell phone to work. I don't want to bring ATT down to its knees as it affects me:cool:

It is very childish as the intention is to bog down ATT. This is akin to DOS attacks. Very immature

Question: Are you going to intentionaly not use data at said time and date to prove how mature you are? I'm all for the operation chokehold, but honestly would probably be using the same amount of data as I normally would around that time Friday. Perhaps you should make a blog/website/whatever encouraging iPhone users of just the opposite, you can call it Anti-Chokehold, and it should balance out the extra data usage on Friday.
 
FCC condemns idea... ABC news

Well, the FCC has gotten wind of it now.

ABC News - FSJ rallies users

"Threats of this nature are serious and we caution the public to use common sense and good judgment when accessing the Internet from their commercial mobile devices," Jamie Barnett, chief of FCC's public safety and homeland security bureau, said in a statement. "To purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern."
 
Question: Are you going to intentionaly not use data at said time and date to prove how mature you are? I'm all for the operation chokehold, but honestly would probably be using the same amount of data as I normally would around that time Friday. Perhaps you should make a blog/website/whatever encouraging iPhone users of just the opposite, you can call it Anti-Chokehold, and it should balance out the extra data usage on Friday.

LOL, no I plan on not going out of my way to support any "cause"

I will use my phone as normal. If it happens at the same time, so be it. If I don't, so be it

But yes, intentionally doing this with this "cause" as the reason is immature. Can't really argue otherwise

Regardless, I cant take my phone to work so yea
 
I'm just curious at what point this "immaturity" evolves into respected idealism. You try to work with the system with level headedness, and when that fails some would say the mature thing to do is accept your situation and move on. Others would say then you move on to more clever and noticeable measures, and that is the respectable path.

So which is it? Are we being immature, or are we being idealist renegades who hope for the greater 3G network that we all deserve? :D
 
I'm just curious at what point this "immaturity" evolves into respected idealism. You try to work with the system with level headedness, and when that fails some would say the mature thing to do is accept your situation and move on. Others would say then you move on to more clever and noticeable measures, and that is the respectable path.

So which is it? Are we being immature, or are we being idealist renegades who hope for the greater 3G network that we all deserve? :D

NO network or any system is designed for 100% usage at once

Examples

1) Interstates
2) Getting your money from a bank
3) Cell Phone networks
4) Any server system
5) Electrical grid

There are many more

Yes you are "paying" for it but these systems were designed with averages (and variants of it) in mind, not 100% load
 
I'm on Verizon so this does not affect me, however I think this whole idea of trying to bring AT&T down for an hour or two is silly business. First of all, I doubt they will get enough people to actually cause the network to go down. Second, even if they do effect it in certain areas it is not going to cause the whole network to go down. Last of all, it is irresponsible. What if people need the network for a true emergency?

If people are that upset then leave AT&T for another carrier. If AT&T's market growth begins to stagnate and people start leaving the company then you can bet they will start to make changes that people are demanding. Right now AT&T is still experiencing record growth (thanks to the iPhone) and doesn't really have any incentive to speed up the time table on network improvements.
 
NO network or any system is designed for 100% usage at once

Examples

1) Interstates
2) Getting your money from a bank
3) Cell Phone networks
4) Any server system
5) Electrical grid

There are many more

Yes you are "paying" for it but these systems were designed with averages (and variants of it) in mind, not 100% load

Mmmhmmm, yes but I highly doubt that we will get anywhere close to 100% load. The plan is not to get everyone who has an Iphone to use at once, but to get many many using at once. Chances are there will be only a small spike in usage. (if this will be enough to take it down, well then that tells us something, if not, well then it tells us the opposite.)
 
Oh, I remember how it was to be young and naive, and not able to see how something like this proves and fixes nothing.
 
All of you complaining about the people who will need AT&T to call 911 to save their lives, I think that's pretty outrageous. We aren't knocking out satelites and destroying all forms of communication. It's data coverage on ONE cell network that will probably drop their call anyways.:p

Stop exaggerating people ;)
 
AT&T is right. Pure and simple. You may have problems with their network (as do I) but people need the network to be working for emergencies, critical emails, etc.. This will serve no purpose.

indeed. if this gag were to work it could screw with everyday folks service. not cool.

if you go back and look at the comments by the ATT guy, they say that 3% of users are taking up 40% of the bandwidth. that is who the 'could you chill on the usage' comments are directed to. and those are the folks that might be negatively affected by a usage cap. some of them could be illegal tetherers, others could be heavy game app users that could be using wi-fi instead and so on.

FakeSteve's blog blew things all up and even the FCC is shaking a finger at him cause some folks might not get that the proposal was something of a joke and actually try to bring down the network.

that said, i'm pretty sure all the guys in my office that are obsessed with playing "words with friends" nonstop could bring down a chunk of SoCal.
 

well how about 3GPP the telecommunications standards body they even have a diagram to show where LTE falls (very crude i know) http://www.3gpp.org/About-3GPP

In an interview with the UMTS forum (last question) http://www.trustedreviews.com/netwo...ew--UMTS-Forum-Talks-LTE--the-Future-of-3G/p3

common sense since LTE technology is based on the 3G network basis and doesn't even comply with 4G

also when true 4G comes out what are you going to call it, it won't be 4.5G so you've got yourself stuck
 
And how justified will you feel if someone loses their life because YOU participated in "taking down" at&t and that 911 call didn't go through. Fakesteve posted an email from a concerned user who apparently has a disabled family member and is afraid of something like that actually happening. Fakesteve blew it off. Will you laugh too at the tragedy?

Yes I will laugh... Please stop the FUD!

911 calls or 112 calls in Europe are prioritized in the GSM/WCDMA network, so a emergency call will always go through. If there is too much load on a specific celltower, the towner will drop non-prioritized or data connections. Thats simply how the network are set up...
 
meh, so if the network isn't strong enough to handle a real emergency (like the earthquake in your post), we should just accept that? If it's so volatile that a simple blog post can bring it down, we should all be focusing on the blog post instead of the gaping flaws in critical infrastructure?

Deeper problems are there. Don't blame that guy for exposing them in this relatively harmless manner (I doubt anyone will die because they missed a critical email, btw.. much more than likely they'll die because of a dropped call on AT&T's consistently poor network. but whatever).

Most people couldn't get through period. There was one carrier, I think it was Sprint but I really don't remember, where people were actually able to call their family. The rest of us couldn't even get a busy signal, even those on Verizon.

And I don't care enough to blame anybody for anything. I don't live in either of those cities and he's not gonna be able to rally enough people anyway
 
Yes I will laugh... Please stop the FUD!

911 calls or 112 calls in Europe are prioritized in the GSM/WCDMA network, so a emergency call will always go through. If there is too much load on a specific celltower, the towner will drop non-prioritized or data connections. Thats simply how the network are set up...

They are here in the US also. All cell networks have to allow 911 calls to jump on their towers no matter what. 911 calls get directed to the nearest tower no matter who owns it.
 
Yes, but if the nearest tower is first-choice ATT and the phone can't get its attention, will the phone stop trying ATT and automatically flip over to a different carrier?

When you dial 911, the local BST will make room for an emergency call. Its called prioritizing. Different 2G/3G networks can be setup differently but the basics are the same.

Exampel: A GSM network can be setup to simply drop a connection to make room for an emergency call. In a 2G network 7 out of 8 timeslots are used for connections while the last one is a control channel. When you dial 911 the local basestation controller is contacted using this control channel. If there is no available timeslot for your emergency call the basestation will simply hang up one of the other call thus making room for you call.

To answer you questio about other networks: No the telephone will not automatically switch to another network unless there is no connection at all to its home network. When using 911 the phone acts like when you are roaming internationally. The phone will always try to connect to its home network no matter how lousy the connection is.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.