Operation Chokehold aims to take down AT&T

No smartphone users in the world approved of AT&T CEO Ralph de la Vega's remarks about iPhone users hogging the network's bandwidth. His statement permeated the hearts of every tech savvy, phone loving user worldwide.

Fake Steve Jobs (Dan Lyons), who many of you may follow, has decided to stick it to the man. He is calling on all iPhone users to bring AT&T's network to a halt. Here are the details:

Subject: Operation Chokehold
On Friday, December 18, at noon Pacific time, we will attempt to overwhelm the AT&T data network and bring it to its knees. The goal is to have every iPhone user (or as many as we can) turn on a data intensive app and run that app for one solid hour. Send the message to AT&T that we are sick of their substandard network and sick of their abusive comments. The idea is we'll create a digital flash mob. We're calling it in Operation Chokehold. Join us and speak truth to power!

It is still undetermined which data intensive app will be summoned upon to bring AT&T to its knees, but Fake Steve is welcoming suggestions to help finalize his master plan. Assuming the operation is a success, bringing down AT&T's network could cause quite a commotion (let's hope it's able to come back up afterwards).

So spread the word, let every iPhone user know of Operation Chokehold, and hopefully, this will make AT&T realize that the problem lies with them and not with their loyal, paying, customers. Oh, and remember to have Wi-Fi turned off when you do it. You wouldn't want to waste your battery for no reason.

Will you join the cause?

 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's future: part one

Next Story

Microsoft Entity Cube now in English

128 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

How interesting. I say good for iPhone users, AT&T does need to upgrade their network for sure. But ironically I think the best thing that could happen to them is for the network NOT to crash... Then they'd be able to say that it isn't because of iPhone users and their upcharges aren't legitimate and AT&T can't blame anyone else for their poor network anymore...

haha i think its pretty funny, being a teenager.
i doubt the network will go down, but if it does id call it an achievement.

id take part if i was in america and had an iphone!

Run the ustream broadcaster app!!! it consumes the 3g upload!

Or run RDP or a like app, and have the remote pc playing a video...

Or just find a long youtube video...

Personally I vote for the ustream option.

This is stupid and against the entire notion of how the market is supposed to work. Instead of speaking to at&t with their wallets, these people are flat out attacking the service to make their 'point'. What happened to simply not buying an inferior quality product? In this case, the product is at&t. The people who support this are immature and have absolutely no understanding of how business works.

I mean, I understand the problem here. It's these people who have purchased an iPhone and feel like they're these innocent little iPhone users trapped unfairly in a network that doesn't care about them, but they're wrong. Since its introduction, the iPhone has never been a caged bird yearning to be free. It's a JOINT product, made by Apple and offered for at&t. I simply don't understand why you people aren't just as angry at Apple as you are at at&t. Is this just more of the Apple-can-do-no-wrong mentality? Did at&t swoop down and steal the iPhone from a fair and just world or something?

Switch providers and get another damn phone. Send the message to at&t that your money isn't for them, and send the message to Apple that future phones shouldn't be restricted. Grow up and do this the right way, because so far it sounds like it's more important to you people simply to HAVE an iPhone than it is to have an iPhone that works.

Spreading this message and making this "story" top news on this site is irresponsible and despicable. What you guys don't understand is that People rely on ATT for telephone service like placing emergency phone calls. There is no difference between this and a DDos attack. Well there is... blocking access to a website and stopping people from placing telephone calls is a huge difference.

When all is said and done, I am hoping the Justice Department and HMS prosecute Mr. Fake Steve Jobs and websites like this one. If one person dies in that hour, It is on Fake Steve Jobs and it is on you Neowin.

Krad said,
Spreading this message and making this "story" top news on this site is irresponsible and despicable. What you guys don't understand is that People rely on ATT for telephone service like placing emergency phone calls. There is no difference between this and a DDos attack. Well there is... blocking access to a website and stopping people from placing telephone calls is a huge difference.

When all is said and done, I am hoping the Justice Department and HMS prosecute Mr. Fake Steve Jobs and websites like this one. If one person dies in that hour, It is on Fake Steve Jobs and it is on you Neowin.


I have to agree with you here, re-reading the article back shows it not as a news story but more as an article actually promoting the attack, note the "So spread the word". Very irresponsible on the part of Neowin to publish this, I fully expect excuses to be made by adminstrators as to why it is and should be published, but then that beats taking responsibility for it.

emergency phone calls will not suffer. there´s a network protocol that protects call for emergency numbers. you can make them even without a sim card.

jingarelho said,
emergency phone calls will not suffer. there´s a network protocol that protects call for emergency numbers. you can make them even without a sim card.

But they still need bandwidth... ? Or am I missing something.

Totally bad idea, IMO. A better idea is getting people to together for a lawsuit in the area's where service sucks.

I am in support of the move... I will participate if I am in US now.

More and more telcos are behaving arrogantly. Instead of using profits/revenues into upgrades and expansion of their infrastructure to keep up with technologies and demands of modern usage, they spend most as fat bonuses to high management folks, luxurious retreats, etc.

Of coz the consumers, the customers who are their rice bowl providers are mad and furious.

VoX said,
No, not at all. I'm not from the UK :)

Generalising an entire nation now? really summarises the importance of the nonsense comments you've made so far.

Ahh, it would appear that TSO is an avid AT&T supported, perhaps even employed by them..

This "Stunt" will be the single most important thing to happen in the wireless market since the beginning if it actually happens. Which I might add, I hope it does.

What it is designed to do is let the idiots, greedy suits, and all the rest of people out there know ONE thing.

WE dictate your salary, as we are your customers. WE are in control. I f4ucking hate the IPHONE and all it stands for. It's for fanboys with no clue how to use a computer, a bicycle or a real cellphone but I think this is one large step in the right direction. FIGHT ON!

VoX said,
Ahh, it would appear that TSO is an avid AT&T supported, perhaps even employed by them..

This "Stunt" will be the single most important thing to happen in the wireless market since the beginning if it actually happens. Which I might add, I hope it does.

What it is designed to do is let the idiots, greedy suits, and all the rest of people out there know ONE thing.

WE dictate your salary, as we are your customers. WE are in control. I f4ucking hate the IPHONE and all it stands for. It's for fanboys with no clue how to use a computer, a bicycle or a real cellphone but I think this is one large step in the right direction. FIGHT ON!


Considering I live Derbyshire, in the UK, I have absolutely no opinion on AT&T whatsoever, and can therefore give a completely unbiased opinion on the actions of what clearly appear to be a few morons. Now don't you feel like a silly sausage? :P

You don't dictate their salary. You can't even get out of the contract without giving them more money. The only way to affect their bottom line is by cancelling service with them. This stunt will do no such thing. In fact, the people supporting it amaze me with their stupidity and failure to realize that at&t will simply take this as an attack on their network and find a way to prevent it in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they punished everybody who used a constant flow of data access for the duration of the attack. Welcome to reality.

This is a ridiculous idea and I hope the person/people responsible for it are held to account, it could very well be construed as a denial of service attack. You might be annoyed with AT&T, but all this will really achieve is putting perfectly innocent users at an inconvenience. If your annoyed with a service there's many ways to make your voice heard, the best of which is with your wallet, this sort of childish attack isn't one of them. I'm surprised to see this sort of rubbish on neowin, though yes it can somehow be construed as news, it seems more fitting on a place like 4chan.

I find it absolutely pathetic that Neowin would support and condone this. Shame on you Neowin, give yourselves an uppercut.

Nashy said,
I find it absolutely pathetic that Neowin would support and condone this. Shame on you Neowin, give yourselves an uppercut.

I don't think they are supporting it (or at-least I hope not), but at the same time I also think they shouldn't be publishing it. Unprofessional journalism is one thing, cyber attacks better suited to 4chan are another.

I just hope that when the monopoly that apple/at&t has ends, that 3/4 of the idiot iPhone users leave at&t, which would take care of the bandwith problem.

This could give AT&T some valuable usage numbers to help calculate an efficiency based throttling service... could backfire a bit.

Why just mention iPhone users? Do other smartphone users of AT&T not exist? Makes me dislike this group for being rather exclusionary.

So because ATT wants to cap a bunch of people who want to sit and download 1000 apps and stream radio all day long, theyre going to try to take my network down? Thanks fellow ATT users. The fact that theyre willing to bring down their own service to prove a point just goes to show that all these iphone users dont use that data for anything important or meaningful. While I cant say that ATT has great service (because it doesnt), this isnt going to help the greater good. This is selfish and is just going to hurt the end users. Should ATT be selling an "unlimited" plan with a limit? Absolutely not, I stand with you on that. But if it bothers you this much switch to another carrier. Hurt them where it counts, their pockets, dont just kamikaze yourself and fellow users. Things like this are why I absolutely cannot wait for the iphone to be sold on other carriers. Get the hell off my network.

I'm not really concerned with the monetary issues of the people who use arguably the most expensive phone on arguably the most expensive network. You enter into a contract willingly, and you pay for the service. If you dont like it, too bad, its a contract. Either opt out and pay or deal with it. I'd bet that a used iphone sold on ebay would pay for most if not all of the ETF anyways.

This is like boycotting a store, except instead of peacefully not shopping there, theyre wrapping the store in barbed wire for an hour, making it a huge pain for anybody that needs to go there for legitimate business. Its a good cause, but the action being taken is irresponsible and selfish.

therapyreject174 said,
I'm not really concerned with the monetary issues of the people who use arguably the most expensive phone on arguably the most expensive network. You enter into a contract willingly, and you pay for the service. If you dont like it, too bad, its a contract. Either opt out and pay or deal with it. I'd bet that a used iphone sold on ebay would pay for most if not all of the ETF anyways.

My cell phone provider and I have entered into an agreement: "I give you $115/month and buy an $800 phone at your store. You give me access to features (text messages, phone calls, browsing the web, etc).

My part of the deal is to pay the fee every month on time - if I don't the cell phone provider has legal options to force me to pay up. I don't get to say "well sod off - find yourself another customer if you actually want to be paid."

If the cell phone provider fails to meet their end of the deal (for example: phone calls only last from start-to-end 1/3 times, or the internet is so slow that google maps no longer works) then a consumer should have some sort of legal recourse.

Unfortunately the American court system doesn't favor individuals - even a relatively simple proceeding like fighting a traffic ticket can cost hundreds of dollars (afternoon off work + 2 hours of lawyer time) and many individuals simply can't afford it: this is an option of last resort.

Complaints, 'work-to-rule' (using exactly the amount of bandwidth/talk time/text messages/etc) that you pay for, civil protest, etc. are all tools available to those who may not have direct access to other methods of motivating an uncooperative partner. Packing my bags (and paying a $400 early-termination fee) is not a reasonable alternative and it can hardly be considered fair that the consumers who feel cheated should have to pay extra in order to leave an 'abusive' contract.

Imagine you leased a car. In the agreement you sign it's allotted 2,000 miles per month, regular maintenance, and 5 seats. If that car would only travel 1 mile per hour making it impossible to use all 2000/month you paid for - or the rear door locks would regularly refuse to open - you'd have every right to demand they repair or replace the faulty vehicle. Why should a phone contract be any different? The prices aren't even that different: a well-featured iPhone contract isn't that far off the lease price of a cheap new car.


Consider

You are forgetting the contract you signed doesn't say, "We guarantee that you'll have coverage everywhere and be able to use 3.6Mbps data speeds." Actually, the contract you signed basically says, "Pay us X dollars a month and we give you service as best as we can which may not be all the time."

If they know about it ahead of time, I would not be surprised if they just turn of data for that time :P

Perhaps we all want to listen to Pandora at that moment, or something...

This just kinda seems like tech terrorism to me. People who are unhappy with a corporation doing something malicious to harm that corporation while at the same time harming others who have nothing to do with this "cause." It's going to hurt everybody, is everybody willing to chance that? Is fear of their customers really going to force AT&T to change their ways? I guess I've been living in America too long to believe that individuals (barring shareholders) have any control over how a corporation does business. I am definitely interested to see how this strategy fares, I'm just not sure I'm on-board with it.

Ani Maul said,
I guess I've been living in America too long to believe that individuals (barring shareholders) have any control over how a corporation does business.

Sounds like a good reason for change...

Brother, you bet I believe it. I'm suddenly feeling like maybe I should brush up on my foreign languages and forget my native one...

The $64,000 question: is AT&T taking this as a credible threat? I personally don't use them, but I am curious to see if and how this turns out. Would a ¡Viva la Revolución! be appropriate?

I'm totally down with this. I use about 1.5gb of data on average per month on my iPhone - so them capping users is a concern for me.

my only issue is that is that if AT&T can't come back up... I'll kind of be cut off from the world haha

I just think Apple should sell the iPhone unlocked.. so users are free to use it on whatever network they choose... Then automatically we end Verizon and AT&T's hold on really high tariffs and they would have no choice but to please us consumers

There is nothing illegal with the whole thing. People are going to use a legitimate application to watch video or something. If AT&T doesn't have the infrastructure to provide that kind of demand then they should state that in their TOS (ex. "you can not use so and so application between 10am - 10pm).

I say give them hell. Companies that false advertise (we have the best network etc etc) should be punished by their customers.

r1ddl3r said,
There is nothing illegal with the whole thing. People are going to use a legitimate application to watch video or something. If AT&T doesn't have the infrastructure to provide that kind of demand then they should state that in their TOS (ex. "you can not use so and so application between 10am - 10pm).

I say give them hell. Companies that false advertise (we have the best network etc etc) should be punished by their customers.



What you mean Cingular *cough* AT&T that has "the most reliable network, with the most bars anywhere" ? no psh they are perfect, the TV told me so

You can "hit" a host on the Internet and that is perfectly legal. If you coordinate an effort so that multiple people (and connections) on the Internet "hit" a particular host with the intent of disabling it, then that is clearly illegal. The sole action of something can be legal or illegal depending on your intent.

Shadrack said,
You can "hit" a host on the Internet and that is perfectly legal. If you coordinate an effort so that multiple people (and connections) on the Internet "hit" a particular host with the intent of disabling it, then that is clearly illegal. The sole action of something can be legal or illegal depending on your intent.

The problem is the network, not the host. They don't plan to hit youtube.com rather than bring AT&T network to it's limit. Nothing illegal there.

Silly idea. What else do you expect from a bunch of people who buy overpriced products and worship anything with the prefix 'i' on it?

Ok ok that was a stretch. Just kidding. =p

ArKeYa said,
Silly idea. What else do you expect from a bunch of people who buy overpriced products and worship anything with the prefix 'i' on it?

Ok ok that was a stretch. Just kidding. =p


Lol.

I hate ATT so much, I'd buy an (unlocked - I have tmobile) iPhone, then let my cousin (who is on ATT) use for 3 days surrounding that date.

Wanna know a better way? The money you used to buy the iPhone, use it instead to pay your cousin's ETF and move him over to T-Mobile.

Hmm i thought tampering with communications lines is a Federal offence and could land you some serious (federal prison) time!

Oh well, i'll continue to enjoy my AT&T just as these other people (probably the 3% of users they keep mentioning) complain some more.

SHoTTa35 said,
Hmm i thought tampering with communications lines is a Federal offence and could land you some serious (federal prison) time!

Oh well, i'll continue to enjoy my AT&T just as these other people (probably the 3% of users they keep mentioning) complain some more.


You're not tampering with it though, it's just a lot of people would be using bandwidth at the same time.

wow this is dumb. So make it hard on all atts customers. I hate people like this. Why not just go to verizon and get a droid or something. Why must people be babies about it. Considering they are making a group effort to bring down the network and are admitting it I am sure this isnt legal and att could get the fbi involved in this.

majortom1981 said,
wow this is dumb. So make it hard on all atts customers. I hate people like this. Why not just go to verizon and get a droid or something. Why must people be babies about it. Considering they are making a group effort to bring down the network and are admitting it I am sure this isnt legal and att could get the fbi involved in this.

It's not the intention it's just the possible likely forcasted outcome of standard use. Some people actually care about their service providers no matter how ignorant they and sometimes it just takes a slap in the face to make it hit home and to realise and listen.

Umm.. It's legal for everyone to use their data how they see fit within the terms and conditions of the contract.. there is nothing illegal about brining down a network by usage alone.

Ryoken said,
Umm.. It's legal for everyone to use their data how they see fit within the terms and conditions of the contract.. there is nothing illegal about brining down a network by usage alone.

If you advertise that the act of bringing it down is your intent then it is illegal.

No, it's not. The usage they are doing is still what AT&T Says you can. You can't Intent only comes into play when an Illegal Act happens.. you can't make a legal act illegal because of intent ( only the other way around ).

Ryoken said,
No, it's not. The usage they are doing is still what AT&T Says you can. You can't Intent only comes into play when an Illegal Act happens.. you can't make a legal act illegal because of intent ( only the other way around ).

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

This is perfectly legal and fine. It's a good way to show ISP's or telcos who bitch and moan like this when they spend more on rubbish advertising and gimmicks and things when they should be investing in their infrastructure and capability. If i was in the US and an ATT customer I'd certainly participate

Digix said,
This is perfectly legal and fine. It's a good way to show ISP's or telcos who bitch and moan like this when they spend more on rubbish advertising and gimmicks and things when they should be investing in their infrastructure and capability. If i was in the US and an ATT customer I'd certainly participate


Tell me how this is legal .They are admitting to trying to bring down the network. What makes this legal over say a hacker working in Iran using a packet storm to bring down the government network? Their isnt any difference.

I'm no legal expert, but why is it illegal for users to run approved, data intensive applications? The whole point is to show that AT&T can't handle a huge number of users doing it at the same time. I don't think anyone's doing any truly illegal actions. I think they'll prove an important point.

i thing is illegal. they are trying to compromise the network and this is illegal, at least in my country. this could be considered some form of DDOS attack.

i compare it to having a 10M bot net and make all the "bots" request the same site at the same time for 1 hour.

jingarelho said,
i thing is illegal. they are trying to compromise the network and this is illegal, at least in my country. this could be considered some form of DDOS attack.

i compare it to having a 10M bot net and make all the "bots" request the same site at the same time for 1 hour.

Well maybe but they're not trying to compromise anything they're only intending on utilizing the network at its highest capacity which most likely will cause strain and possible fail. There's zero wrong with that. It's not illegal to to use a cpu at 100% or download at home at 100% line speed capacity. That's the point they're making lack of quality infrastructure = fails under load plain and simple. Botnets are controlled by single person intending on malicious purposes or denying services. This would just be multiple legitimate users demonstrating network capacity and integrity.

No network is designed to deliver 100% ALL OF THE TIME, you know basic normal usage will be 15% or so with some spikes every now and then (say a LAN when someone's copying a big 10GB ISO).

So any method that's designed to cause a network to fail (100% all the time) is definitely a attack.

Benjamin Rubenstein said,
I'm no legal expert, but why is it illegal for users to run approved, data intensive applications? The whole point is to show that AT&T can't handle a huge number of users doing it at the same time. I don't think anyone's doing any truly illegal actions. I think they'll prove an important point.

IANAL, but I do know that in terms of Law, intent is everything. If the intention is to play with your app and have fun, that is one thing. If the intention is to cause the network to be brought down then that is illegal. This group have made their intentions public, which was really really stupid.

primortal said,
Would this count at a DDoS? Wonder if ATT and take legal action against those who participate in this "stunt".

How would they know who was participating? All you're doing is watching a video or streaming something.

If they do this...does it prevent normal phone calls or just hamper data? I mean its winter, what about all the emergency road calls or just general 911?

I'm no expert. But I remember hearing at one time that all cell phone provides are required by law to allocate so much bandwidth that is dedicated to voice only communication. This amount of bandwidth is much larger than what they are able to use for data. In some cases it is a shame that they cannot use that band for data because my understanding is that much of the capacity goes unused throughout the day.

Shadrack said,
I'm no expert. But I remember hearing at one time that all cell phone provides are required by law to allocate so much bandwidth that is dedicated to voice only communication. This amount of bandwidth is much larger than what they are able to use for data. In some cases it is a shame that they cannot use that band for data because my understanding is that much of the capacity goes unused throughout the day.

Well if that's true then I have no problem with this (not that my opinion matters).

If this sort of thing brought down genuine voice calls and interfered with emergency use though, I would hope questions were asked as to why someones data plan warranted the endangerment of lives. It's not Granny Nels fault lil Billy signed over 2 years of his life to a BS carrier known to have shotty service and coverage just because he had to have "the phone".

That's not entirely correct. Ever hear of the South by Southwest debacle this year? It's a HUGE music festival in Austin.

This year's event had so many people with iPhones that it brought the AT&T network crawling to it's knees and caused dropped calls, slow network, and unavailable service.

When using 3g, voice is routed through there I believe similar to VOIP. You could always turn off 3G and use the EDGE network.

Shadrack said,
Too bad it will hurt users who actually need to use the Internet during those hours more than it will hurt AT&T. ><

The point is that AT&T internet hurts users by being so rubbish period and more then likely won't have any different effect then the quality of the status quo.

I guess where I live, if I'm on 3G I don't have a problem with data. My problem with AT&T has always been coverage area and not access once I am covered. When I've gone on travel it hasn't been a problem either. If this occurs, guess what now I DO have a problem and my problem isn't with AT&T its with you knuckle heads who are stupid enough to think that this childish behavior is a good idea. I equate it to turning a light bulb on and off over and over until it blows out. It doesn't prove a point, its just stupid.

If you are not happy with your service, you have a capitalist solution: leave. Go to another provider. AT&T doesn't have a monopoly.

hehe, everyone jailbreak your iphones. grab 3g unrestrictor. apply it to youtube.app and watch youtube for an hour at wifi quality through your 3g network!

Umm... yea. They have a special mp4 low quality encoded version of most of the youtube videos for the iphone. How else do you think it makes it over 3G?

Problem is, this isn't going to help the cause, its only going to make his comments true, and give him more leverage to work with. When will people ever learn that fighting the man, only makes things worse. If you want to fight the man, go with another company.

the solution is so simple a child could point it out. Let the phone onto all major carriers. This should equally distribute the bandwidth across multiple networks and expand apple's market

cybertimber2008 said,
Steve Jobs & AT&T hates you for saying a child could CEO better than him.

T-minus 6 minutes until the commercial disputing your statement arrives.

HAHAHAHAHAHA that was good. LOL

Sounds like a rather childish way to make a point. What about people trying to legitimately use the network at that point?
*trying to refrain from pointing out silly iPhone users doing silly things*

They will just have to wait out the silliness. But it will all boil down to ATT who is responsible for their network. If I was on their network, I would be all over this.

What if people cannot use the service they paid for?
Last time I checked if an Airline cannot give you the seat you booked and paid because they screwed with overbooking they will have to find you another flight, paid your expenses in the meantime and also pay you money for the inconvenience they caused to you.

Fred 69 said,
*trying to refrain from pointing out silly iPhone users doing silly things*

This is almost on that same scale that the don't buy gas for 24 hours crap. Whether it is today or tomorrow you still have to buy the gas. ATT knows if you want to use the iPhone legally (according to all the TOS, EULA, TOA, etc and not according to one of our non enlightened lawyers here on the site) you have to use ATT. That may change in the US soon, but right now your stuck. Don't like the coverage, move carriers. Don't like the speed, move carriers. Don't like the love grams from ATT about bandwidth, move carriers.

Fritzly said,
What if people cannot use the service they paid for?
Last time I checked if an Airline cannot give you the seat you booked and paid because they screwed with overbooking they will have to find you another flight, paid your expenses in the meantime and also pay you money for the inconvenience they caused to you.

Almost any type of service provider has clauses that they don't guarantee service.

Childish is the best way to describe it. Do iPhone users really have nothing better to do that sit idle for an hour on a "data intensive app" with the intent of bringing down a network? I'd be willing to bet that any action taken with the intent to bring down AT&T's network is against their terms of service. AT&T could easily argue that you are breaking your own contract and therefore they owe you nothing at that point.

I wish I had that much time to waste on an overpriced toy.

Commitments work both ways. AT&T commits to provide you service. You commit to pay your bill and abide by their rules. If AT&T can't provide their end of the deal then the commitment is void in the majority of the cases.

Don't see how putting on a strap-on and screwing AT&T is anywhat childish.

In fact, I'd say this is some pretty adult content going on here.

Xilo said,
Almost any type of service provider has clauses that they don't guarantee service.


Here in the US yes you are right although up to a certain extent; our DSL provider does not guarantee that our connection will always be 3.0Mb which is the service we bought but if it fell below 2.5 Mb they are in default.

Said that there is a big difference between "guarantee" and "provide" an advertised service. If I state that I will provide a service and then I will, pretty constantly, unable to do it it becomes a fraud.

Fritzly said,
What if people cannot use the service they paid for?
Last time I checked if an Airline cannot give you the seat you booked and paid because they screwed with overbooking they will have to find you another flight, paid your expenses in the meantime and also pay you money for the inconvenience they caused to you.

Well, an airline is very different. But I would imagine, like most other services like this that AT&T has a clause in their user agreement stating that they do not guarantee service.

Im on sprint, but I would support a cause like this.

For all the whiners out there; data != voice. Voice is not affected.

Ummm very wrongâ€Â¦a cell tower has a finite amount of bandwidth which carries both voice and data traffic to the backbone (normally over multiple T1s or a DS3). If a tower is over saturated when you drive into its range and away from the current town then your call will be dropped. In metro areas there is a lot of tower overlap, but if they are all saturated then both voice and data will pretty much suck!!

Umm..if they are smart they are using a seperate tunnels for Data and Voice, with the bandwidth specified for each tunnel. This would allow voice service to continue unaffected regardless of the amount of data use and I'm sure resembles the way they are doing it.

jzetterman said,
Umm..if they are smart they are using a seperate tunnels for Data and Voice, with the bandwidth specified for each tunnel. This would allow voice service to continue unaffected regardless of the amount of data use and I'm sure resembles the way they are doing it.

Well, according to AT&T themselves, the reason for calls dropping for users is because iPhone users are using so much data, so perhaps AT&T wasn't that bright after all... That statement is actually the cause for this article...

i hope it happens !! hate companies like at&t. They shouldn't complain about users hogging network bandwidth. Upgrade the stupid network. Thats why people pay their phone bills !!

Agreed. AT&T is so far behind with this stuff. I don't understand why they have struggled so much to upgrade their network over the last several years... It's a bit pathetic...

If I had an iPhone I would so join this. It's time they stop spending so much on SF and NY, and get 3G into more places, and be able to provide a "decent" speed for them.
I live in Greenville, NC (home of East Carolina University) and AT&T is the ONLY carrier that *doesn't* have 3G here, but we have a massive number of iPhone users (let alone AT&T) on campus. There isn't even 3G within 100 miles (closest being raleigh I believe, which is ~100mi). Was pretty bad when the tower went down a couple weeks ago, users were able (through speedtest) to see ONLY 4-6Kbps.... if and when it loaded.

cybertimber2008 said,
If I had an iPhone I would so join this. It's time they stop spending so much on SF and NY, and get 3G into more places, and be able to provide a "decent" speed for them.
I live in Greenville, NC (home of East Carolina University) and AT&T is the ONLY carrier that *doesn't* have 3G here, but we have a massive number of iPhone users (let alone AT&T) on campus. There isn't even 3G within 100 miles (closest being raleigh I believe, which is ~100mi). Was pretty bad when the tower went down a couple weeks ago, users were able (through speedtest) to see ONLY 4-6Kbps.... if and when it loaded.

SF is a big area I use my phone and it sucks for ATT. Screw you :P

cybertimber2008 said,
If I had an iPhone I would so join this. It's time they stop spending so much on SF and NY, and get 3G into more places, and be able to provide a "decent" speed for them.
I live in Greenville, NC (home of East Carolina University) and AT&T is the ONLY carrier that *doesn't* have 3G here, but we have a massive number of iPhone users (let alone AT&T) on campus. There isn't even 3G within 100 miles (closest being raleigh I believe, which is ~100mi). Was pretty bad when the tower went down a couple weeks ago, users were able (through speedtest) to see ONLY 4-6Kbps.... if and when it loaded.

I don't think you absolutely have to have an iPhone to take part... any smartphone user on AT&T should participate. I personally think it's kind of childish, but oh well.

Chsoriano said,
I personally think it's kind of childish, but oh well.

Nothing wrong with being childish. Children are important.


cybertimber2008 said,
If I had an iPhone I would so join this. It's time they stop spending so much on SF and NY, and get 3G into more places, and be able to provide a "decent" speed for them.
I live in Greenville, NC (home of East Carolina University) and AT&T is the ONLY carrier that *doesn't* have 3G here, but we have a massive number of iPhone users (let alone AT&T) on campus. There isn't even 3G within 100 miles (closest being raleigh I believe, which is ~100mi). Was pretty bad when the tower went down a couple weeks ago, users were able (through speedtest) to see ONLY 4-6Kbps.... if and when it loaded.

They all jumped into bed with AT&T and now they think they have the right to complain. Now they want to bring down the AT&T network and disrupt all of us that are using the service with no problems.
Those people are the ones that goes out and buys a home by an airport or a train track, and then turns around and complains about the noise.
If they are all so sick of the service and the way AT&T treats them, then just drop the service. That will definitely get AT&Ts attention. Apparently, they are all are not that sick of the service. Toys, these people that buys toys...

cybertimber2008 said,
If I had an iPhone I would so join this. It's time they stop spending so much on SF and NY, and get 3G into more places, and be able to provide a "decent" speed for them.

Well, according to reports AT&T isn't quite spending enough money in NY either to have reliable service... So I think they have a lot more issues than just focusing on the wrong areas...