Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Angry AT&T Customers May Disrupt Service 572

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the because-he-can dept.
g0dsp33d writes "Fake Steve Jobs, the alter-alias of Newsweek's Dan Lyons, is calling disgruntled AT&T users to protest comments from AT&T’s Ralph de la Vega that smart phone (specifically iPhone) usage is responsible for their network issues and his plan to end unlimited data plans. The post, dubbed 'Operation Chokehold,' wants AT&T customers to use as much data service as they can on Friday, December 18th at noon. While Fake Steve Jobs is notable for its satire, many Twitter and Facebook users seem to be rallying to its cry. It is unclear if there will be enough support to cause a DDOS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Angry AT&T Customers May Disrupt Service

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:21AM (#30458910)

    "Internet braces for even higher levels of smug Apple douchebags"

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      I agree. While I personally agree with Fake Steve Jobs in that the iPhone isn't the cause of AT&T's crap network, the lunacy that people defend the iPhone with is...well, it's baffling.

      EVERY phone has issues, and the iPhone's issues are glaringly bad. It's a decent device that does its job well, but to claim that it is perfect is like saying 360's don't get teh red ring...

    • DDoS...... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:49AM (#30459394) Journal

      .... there's an app for that ;)

    • Re:I read this as (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:53AM (#30459440) Homepage

      Um no, I use the unlimited data plan to afford it. it's $15.00 a month on my Nokia 5800 I use it for 90% email and 10% other. If they drop the unlimited plan then they will lose me as a customer.

      The douchebags are the AT&T executives. I'm tired of them trying like hell to screw the customer.

      • Re:I read this as (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Albanach (527650) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:08PM (#30459702) Homepage

        If they drop the unlimited plan then they will lose me as a customer.

        Really? What if the new plan offers more data than you currently still use in a month?

        If you do leave, where will you go to? You realise other networks are likely to follow suit?

        The problem in the US isn't the proposal to cap data. It's the complete and utter lack of affordable data in the sort of quantities the mass market needs to encourage mobile internet use to take off.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by r_jensen11 (598210)

          If they drop the unlimited plan then they will lose me as a customer.

          Really? What if the new plan offers more data than you currently still use in a month?

          Good question. I switched from T-Mobile to AT&T because I didn't perform enough homework and got shafted by T-Mobile's 3G network frequency. Apparently, T-Mobile decided they wanted to use 1700/1900MHz for 3G whilst AT&T went the more standard (for the Americas) 850/1900MHz. I, being the not-educated-enough consumer, purchased the 5800 whilst still a T-Mobile customer because I figured "It has a SIM card and is for North America, I should be good!"

          Wrong.

          If you only use WLAN and are fine with Edge

      • Re:I read this as (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sonnejw0 (1114901) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:35PM (#30460220)
        So, the retaliation against the AT&T CEO saying that iPhone users use too much data ... is for iPhone users to use too much data? How is that going to ensure that the unlimited pricing stays in affect? There's a clause in the terms of service that allows them to cut you off at any time if they deem you've used too much data... I hope these 14 year olds with iPhones are willing to become martyrs ... of course, it's the parents that are paying the bill, anyway. Hell if I've ever known a 14 year old that earned $150 a month.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jimbolauski (882977)
        The best part of you leaving is if you signed a contract and still are serving time you can get out, since ATT changed the terms you can break contract with out penality, then just jail break your iphone and go to tmobile for much cheaper unlimited spotty service.
    • Re:I read this as (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jitterman (987991) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:02PM (#30459572)
      I actually do have an iPhone, purchased about 6 months ago (and while I like it, it's far from perfect - overall I dislike Apple as a company). Before that, my service was still AT&T using a Motorola handset. They both drop(ped) calls at about the same rate. I'm all for AT&T users demanding that the company provide service for ALL of its customers via a reliable, properly scaled network. If they're willing to sell the hardware that consumes the services, they need to buck up and provide the infrastructure to support those customers.

      I really don't care WHICH phone Mr. Asshat Bossman of AT&T thinks is the main cause of his company's illness. Point is, they constantly rate dead last for reliability AND customer service among all national carriers. I can tell you this - ATT doesn't fix their problems in a fair (to the consumer) manner, when my contract is up I'll sell this little bugger to a "fanboi" and get a Droid phone, or even just a fucking regular handset, to get away from these clowns.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DJRumpy (1345787)

        Mod this guy up. It's insightful on a few different levels. One for noting that AT&T had these issues before the iPhone came along and the other for noting that the problem is with the network and not the phone. You don't oversell your capacity. I was with AT&T and have been for about 8 years. The network hasn't changed. It was spotty then and it's spotty now. The last I heard most businesses don't complain when they have too many customers. They don't blame their problems on their customers either.

  • Should be (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:23AM (#30458944) Homepage Journal

    This thing isn't only for iPhone users. It's for every user of the AT&T network with a 3G device. And if AT&T had trouble with casual usage, wait until a lot of users try to bring the network down.

    Can't wait to hear how the whole thing went for both sides of this story.

    At least you guys have a choice of providers. Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:28AM (#30459036)

      Don't worry we have cable companies for that.

    • Re:Should be (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NotBornYesterday (1093817) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:43AM (#30459284) Journal
      Great. If this guy goes and speaks truth to power with a "digital flash mob", I can picture two outcomes. One: AT&T's digital network is brought to its knees, normal customers who are not part of the flash mob are pissed off, and AT&T issues a press release saying that unlimited data plans are obviously having a negative impact on the network and will therefore be terminated. Two: AT&T's network sees little or no disruption, and therefore they realize they have nothing to fear from angry customers. Unlimited data plans are terminated anyway.
      • Re:Should be (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Yvan256 (722131) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:48AM (#30459378) Homepage Journal

        If they change the terms of the contract then those contracts are no longer valid, allowing customers to cancel them prematurely.

        Given that those contracts are used to subsidize the cost of the phones, I don't think it's going to happen.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sexconker (1179573)

        Don't forget option 3:

        AT&T's network is fucked over more than usual, and some people die because they couldn't make 911 calls. What, you thought taking down the data connection would have no effect on voice? HA!

      • by tverbeek (457094)

        Exactly. This smacks of someone getting very very angry and lashing out without giving any thought to what he's trying to accomplish, and how to achieve them. Sometimes an uncivil riot gets results. This isn't one of them. Stupid tactics, stupid strategy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        If doing nothing will produce a negative outcome, and doing something will produce the same negative outcome, then why not do SOMETHING especially if it could at least shake some people out of AT&T's grasp through dissatisfaction?
      • Re:Should be (Score:5, Informative)

        by bmearns (1691628) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:11PM (#30459764)

        I really want to reiterate the point of your first case, because I haven't heard enough people catching on to this: AT&T is blaming network issues on what they consider to be the high bandwidth that smart phones use. To protest this, smart phone users are going to try to bring down the network by hogging as much bandwidth as possible. With their smart phones.

        Just wanted to make sure everyone understood exactly what's going on here...

    • Re:Should be (Score:5, Informative)

      by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:48AM (#30459386) Journal

      At least you guys have a choice of providers. Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.

      What do you think we have here in the US? Three of the four big providers have very little difference between them. They all have the exact same price plan for minutes. The only difference is the extra features offered. T-Mobile is the only one that actually offers more minutes/cheaper plans.

      They are all government-backed too. Think you or I could start a cell phone plan? Think again. The spectrum is auctioned off the highest bidder. For a few billion dollars the entrenched interests can just gobble it all up regardless of whether or not they need it or intend to deploy on it.

      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        It's the same problem here with the spectrum... frankly, the airwaves should be controlled so it isn't total chaos, but it shouldn't be reserved to a handful of users (i.e. specific companies). We can manage to have multiple users of wireless networks living close together (apartments), wireless technology is now capable of jumping to free/less noisy ranges, split the bandwidth into multiple chunks, etc...

        Why can't it work the same way for the other spectrums, and simply allow everyone to use other frequenc

      • Re:Should be (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sylver Dragon (445237) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:54PM (#30460496) Journal
        The spectrum is auctioned off the highest bidder. For a few billion dollars the entrenched interests can just gobble it all up regardless of whether or not they need it or intend to deploy on it.

        This has always been one of my biggest complaints about the FCC's wireless spectrum auctions. There really needs to be a use requirement attached to the sale. For example, anytime a company/individual purchases a chunk of spectrum, there are required to put it to use. If they don't utilize it or under-utilize* it it gets taken back from them (no refunds) and then re-auctioned.

        * - Under utilization would cover buying a chunk of spectrum which can carry far more information on it than a company does regularly. In which case, that chunk should be stripped from them and a less valuable one given for their current use. This is to avoid the purchase of a valuable chunk and then using it to send control messages or the like to avoid it appearing unused.
    • Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.

      In Soviet Canada, YOU supply PROVIDERS!

      (I wish I was joking... grumble mumble Telus grumble)

    • Re:Should be (Score:5, Informative)

      by canajin56 (660655) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:21PM (#30459990)
      Are you kidding? It's not like we're limited to the big 3 (Rogers, Telus, Bell), we have all sorts of other providers! There's KOODO, their ads lead me to believe they don't do all that nasty hidden fee stuff. Oh, rebranded TELUS to seem less evil? Oh, well, there's always FIDO, they make the same claims about being not as evil as Rogers in all their ads! Oh...they're owned by Rogers, to rebrand and seem less evil, too? Well, there's always Solo Mobile. Oh...same deal with Bell? Virgin Mobile? Oh, Bell again? Why do they need TWO sham fronts? My favorite customer gouging one was the guy who ran up the $60,000 monthly bill, because they sold him an "Unlimited* Data** Plan!" that didn't cover any data usage other than the phones built in browser, so all that smartphone shit that also used data was billed at dollars on the kilobyte. The best part of that was the way Telus or whoever it was was unrepentant "It's not our fault he did not fully read the contract, but out of sheer generosity we will reduce the bill to a mere 6 grand!" A close runner up is KOODO/Telus's promise of "No activation fee", while there is a cancellation fee that is due in advanced when you sign up! Sort of like Blockbusters "No late fee *cough*but-there's-a-restocking-fee-if-you-return-it-late*cough*"
    • Re:Should be (Score:4, Interesting)

      by i_ate_god (899684) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:47PM (#30460390) Homepage

      This thing isn't only for iPhone users. It's for every user of the AT&T network with a 3G device. And if AT&T had trouble with casual usage, wait until a lot of users try to bring the network down.

      Can't wait to hear how the whole thing went for both sides of this story.

      At least you guys have a choice of providers. Here in Canada, we almost have government-backed monopolies with even higher monthly bills.

      In Montreal, I can get mobile service from Videotron, Rogers, Fido, Telus, Bell, Virgin Mobile, and their discount spinoffs like Koodo. There are plenty of companies to compete against each other.

      The problem isn't the lack of companies to compete, it's the fact that there is very little motivation to compete HARD when every customer is locked into 2-3 year long contracts. I have 2 years left on my Fido contract, so why would Bell or Telus try to woo me away from Fido when I simply can't do it.

      You want competition to explode in Canada? Remove these long term contracts or, remove the penalty for cancelling them ahead of schedule. Do that, and suddenly customers are as mobile as their phones and can move around to different companies, especially now that we can keep our phone numbers regardless of the company we sign up to.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yvan256 (722131)

        I can get mobile service from Videotron, Rogers, Fido, Telus, Bell, Virgin Mobile, and their discount spinoffs like Koodo. There are plenty of companies to compete against each other.

        Multiple choices doesn't mean there is any actual competition...

        Fido = Rogers [wikipedia.org].
        Koodo = Telus [wikipedia.org].
        Virgin Mobile Canada = Bell Mobility. [wikipedia.org]

        And thanks to the CRTC, companies such as Globalive had a hard time coming to Canada. And no thanks to Videotron, they won't be available in Quebec.

        The only question is, which of the three big compani

  • Friday, December 19? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vrallis (33290) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:23AM (#30458946) Homepage

    Obviously they aren't doing it in 2009, since Friday is December 18th, so they're going to do this in 2014?

    • by jasonwc (939262) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:27AM (#30459012)

      The article says the 18th. The summary is incorrect - or the article has been edited:

      "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!"

  • Counter-Productive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Akido37 (1473009) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:23AM (#30458954)
    And if they can, AT&T will just say "I Told you So", and continue their plans to gouge iPhone users anyways.

    The only way this can go well for AT&T customers is if a large, well-documented group gets together, attempts a DDOS, and fails. Then what can AT&T say? "Well it's not THOSE iPhone users, it's the ones who live in their parents' basements..."
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jellomizer (103300)

      Protesters are STUPID. We are protesting against AT&T response that their infrastructure can't handle the load By DDOSing them. Isn't that like beating the crap out of person who says you are too violent.

  • Pirates (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Krneki (1192201) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:24AM (#30458968)
    At least for once the P2P users are not blamed for excessive network usage.

    Of course when we pointed out that the pirates were only the first one to encounter network bandwidth limitations we were told to buzz off and the whole net neutrality debate was pointless too. :/
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:27AM (#30459016)

    Don't fall for the crap that network bandwidth is somehow limited because of usage problems. That's never been the issue with AT&T's network. The problem is simply that they don't have enough cell tower capacity to handle that many simultaneous users. This is why your phone service cuts out in very crowded areas.

    So if a bunch of people simultaneously try to use the network, the cells will max out and a lot of people will be out of coverage, but the network as a whole will continue to run just fine.

    Getting AT&T to increase cell density is a nice goal, but so is getting cells to remote areas. It's a matter of priorities, but a covered area that has insufficient capacity is better than an uncovered area with zero capacity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheSeventh (824276)
      This is already happening anywhere you get a bunch of them in the same area, like a stadium or arena. At the University stadium here, a connection with an iPhone during the game was just about impossible, and they blamed it on the fact that they didn't know so many students would bring iPhones to school with them ?!

      But they just put up a new tower about 5-6 miles away, so that should help . . .

      I'm so glad I bought a g1 instead.
    • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:40AM (#30459220)

      I just got back from a trip to India. In terms of mobiles, the US is lightyears behind them.

      I went out to Sikkim for the first week, closer in geography to Colorado than NYC (or the rest of India). I don't think I ever lost cell reception once. We're talking about an area that is about as densely populated as farm towns in the Midwest. I was standing on top of a mountain and could get 4 networks. 4. Vodaphone, Airtel, Aircel and some other local one. I got better reception at the top of the mountain that I can get at my own house in a subdivision (I don't live in the sticks).

      Not only that EVERYONE had a cell phone. Some of the monks, every farm we were on, etc. Everything was prepaid and the SIM cards 'never' expired (They had an expiration sometime in 2025). Meaning I could add $1-2 and it would never expire. Compare that to the US where if I want to get the cheap $10 prepaid plan I have 30 days to use that before it expires. Calls were around $.01/minute anywhere.

      Then they had the 'data' plans. Stuff for $10-20 a month with unlimited 3G. I had an 'unlimited' GPRS plan that cost me $0.20 a day. Not only that I could turn it on and off at will. Going to not need it: *567#, going to use it: *567#. No locked in plans, no monthly fees, nothing.

      It's depressing coming back to the US and realize how much we're getting screwed by the phone companies compared to else where.

      • by g0dsp33d (849253) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:48AM (#30459380)

        I was standing on top of a mountain and could get 4 networks.

        That is not necessarily a meaningful metric. Mountains tend to be the highest point in the area so you get bonus distance due to a clear line of sight.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Really? Because I have stood on the top of Half Dome in Yosemite in California once a year for the past seven years and my phone has literally no service save 911. I can climb to the top of Bishop's Peak, one of the highest points in San Luis Obispo County, and still get no reception until I get back down to my car, where I get a whopping 1 bar of service from Verizon. Oh, there were also all those times that I went snowboarding in the Sierra Nevada on the California side and never got any reception at the
      • by ptbarnett (159784) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:01PM (#30459570)

        I just got back from a trip to India. In terms of mobiles, the US is lightyears behind them.

        That's because in terms of landlines, India is light years behind the US.

        In the developing world, landline phone systems are in shambles. Many of them are state-run monopolies, and quality and availability is non-existent. People had to literally wait months or years to get new phone service.

        Mobile phone services were a way around that: private companies could build out a cellular network without running wires. Once the price of cell phones came down, it was affordable for almost anyone. For those that still can't afford it, "renting" a handset for a few minutes at a time has become a cottage industry.

        In the US, cell phone networks were developed for a completely different market: the businessman (or woman) that needs a phone during the working day. That market still exists, and is lucrative for the cell phone providers. All the alternatives are designed to avoid cannibalizing that market.

      • Tracfone (Score:3, Interesting)

        by IANAAC (692242)

        Everything was prepaid and the SIM cards 'never' expired (They had an expiration sometime in 2025). Meaning I could add $1-2 and it would never expire. Compare that to the US where if I want to get the cheap $10 prepaid plan I have 30 days to use that before it expires.

        Tracfone offers what you describe in the US. I used one all summer/fall in a fairly remote area of northern Wisconsin because my ATT Blackberry got no coverage there - the remaining minutes and number are good for another two years witho

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        As various people here keep saying, you have to consider the whole lifecycle.

        I'm not defending the entrenched oligarchy of providers in the US, as they probably are gouging customers to an extent and not being as flexible as they could be. However when quoting all the amazing price deals available there, you have to consider how this is linked to pay levels, because to a certain extent the amount you pay is going to be affected by how much it costs to run the infrastructure, and paying people is a large pa

  • Not the best idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ezberry (411384) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:28AM (#30459024)

    How could anyone really think this is a good idea? AT&T has effectively admitted that the data usage growth for smartphones is above the rate that their data network will be able to grow. Using more data intensive applications will only show them how correct they are ("Look how much data will be used in the future when more people are streaming data")

    In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?

    Sorry that this might not be anti-corporate enough, but Operation Chokehold really isn't a great idea.

    • by PKFC (580410) <{pkfc} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:55AM (#30459466)

      If emergency calls cannot go through under "100%" usage of the tower, something is seriously wrong. There needs to be bandwidth provisioned and reserved for emergency calls for every tower and trunk.

      If this does affect emergency calls, AT&T really does need to get their shit together. I assume there are laws in place to enforce the transmission of emergency calls. Hell AT&T gets a free stress test of their network which is something they should be doing anyway. Real world data of extreme usage. Study, learn and yes: build a better network because of it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?

      Data and voice operate independently of one another. While 3G/EDGE service may be disrupted it won't affect end-users' abilities to make calls over GPRS. And while it may further reinforce AT&T's point that their end-users gobble "too much" bandwidth, the publicity that it could generate would be a nice way of sticking it to yet another corporation that enjoys selling "limited-unlimited".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by harmonise (1484057)

      In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?

      People don't place emergency calls over 3G data connections. Those are voice calls.

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:29AM (#30459050) Homepage Journal

    www.fakesteve.net

    Error 500 - Internal server error

    An internal server error has occured!
    Please try again later.

  • by alen (225700) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:30AM (#30459066)

    i have an iphone 3gs and i max out at 2GB per month if i stream pandora almost all day for a month. the 3% AT&T is talking about use 20GB or more and reading some forums people brag how they did it by jailbreaking and tethering or using some banned apps.

    the unlimited data plan is if you follow the TOS. jailbreaking and tethering is against the TOS so expect almost everyone not to care when AT&T implements a 5GB or 10GB max data per month and charges you a lot of money for anything above that. my wife uses less than 100MB per month on her iphone and most people are less than 500MB per month

    the only people the new charges will hurt are a small minority who aren't playing by the contract anyway

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      I care if i don't exceed it the new cap. It is the principle, not the practice.

    • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:43AM (#30459290) Homepage Journal

      i have an iphone 3gs and i max out at 2GB per month if i stream pandora almost all day for a month.

      2*1024*1024*1024/(8*3600*30)*8 = 20Kbps. That's some darn good compression they're using.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alen (225700)

        at least during the workday. i checked my usage on my account page and it averaged 100MB per day

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        When I stream from pandora or last.fm, the rate is indeed between 12-20 Kbps. I'm listening right now and since I started paying attention a few minutes ago, the speed has never exceeded 22.0 Kbps.

        -b

    • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <`Satanicpuppy' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:44AM (#30459306) Journal

      I agree, and yet I don't. Unlimited means unlimited, it doesn't mean "Within reason."

      AT&T needs to get it's shit together.

      • by Amouth (879122)

        exactly - if they want a 5gb a month plan - then sell it as a 5gb a month plan not unlimited.

        unlimited means without limit - a limit is a restriction - a cap is a restriction and there for a limit.

        I really wish i had the resources to take them to court for fraud/false advertising/deceptive practices.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by awyeah (70462) * on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:30AM (#30459076)

    So I can go ahead and expect to stop receiving e-mails on my BlackBerry on Friday? Great, yeah, sweet. Thanks guys!

  • How mature. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by demonlapin (527802)
    You know, it's times like this that I'm glad I have Verizon.

    Seriously, folks, this is like crazy Berkeley behavior. All you're going to do is make sure that every other AT&T customer - like the ones whose family members are sick in the hospital, or who just got in a massive wreck, or who just got carjacked, or maybe are waiting to hear from a family member overseas - can't get service. All so you can point out that AT&T has a grossly inadequate network, which is something that everyone knows alrea
  • Uh oh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ambiguous Coward (205751) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:40AM (#30459232) Homepage

    Pretend-inciting a virtual cyber riot? Why, that hypothetically violates some possible public safety laws! This guy had better watch out, he might go to meta-jail for his semi-crimes!

    But seriously, AT&T is going to try to sue him. :(

  • Bait and swtich? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:41AM (#30459236) Homepage Journal

    Selling us all unlimited *contracts* that they know they cant deliver, then later switching it to limited while we are still stuck with the contract should be something the FCC should look into.

  • Missing Option (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grolaw (670747) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:41AM (#30459248) Journal

    I'm changing my plan to the lowest pricing structure possible. I am going to log every dropped call and file a FCC complaint as it will have "stolen" minutes from me.

    I have two iPhones with 3000 min day & 3000 min night + rollover, unlimited texting and the required data plan.

    I'll send letters off to the AT&T consumer oversight about the obvious overselling of the data//cell service by AT&T - much like the old airlines used to do with seats and overbooking - betting that the no-shows will prevent bumping. Here, we have virtual bumping from saturated networks.

    Frankly, AT&T ought to be dissolved - the Corporate Death Penalty and give the shareholders not a dime. The company has, through several iterations, demonstrated its gross incompetence too many times to exist. It is a monopoly and all monopolies must die. Let's kill AT&T - screw the shareholders. Time for "too big to fail" to take a nosedive into history.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      First - no, you won't.
      Second - even if you did, why should the FCC care? No, really, think about it. Do you think any government agency is going to purposely put thousands of people out of jobs, cause stocks to drop even lower, and send a great big Fuck You to the corporate bosses who pay their paychecks all to make a couple thousand disgruntled geeks happy? When those disgruntled geeks are just going to go away if they're ignored for a while?

      I feel your pain. I don't have a smart phone, but broadband is i
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by grolaw (670747)

        Oh, status quo.

        The FCC doesn't have the power to nullify the corporate charter of AT&T and its affiliates.

        The DOJ does.

        In the past we have rarely used the Corporate Death Penalty - and your argument is AT&T is too big to fail - or be killed off?

        I'm for thousands of managers out of work - and out of the industry as a criminal sanction. The rest of the workers will find jobs with the competition.

        We are the people who control our government. Time to make a stand. Burn AT&T - twice is twice too o

  • If this works and someone can not get through for a 911 call, is fake Steve Jobs going to real jail?
    • by cruff (171569)

      Presumably voice traffic has priority over the data traffic? Do the individual cell towers have enough smarts to be able to identify emergency call traffic?

    • by Amouth (879122) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:01PM (#30459560)

      if AT&T's tower switches fail to prioritize a 911 call ahead of generic data traffic then AT&T should be liable for not providing the required 911 service.

      some funny things happen with cell phones when you dial 911 - they are not treated as a general phone call.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:41AM (#30459254) Homepage

    Disconnect those users. The iPhone zealots have nowhere else to go. Telling them to go for the Droid is like telling a crack addict to drop their habit by smoking pot and slurping vodka. Take down a few thousand users, and the majority will quickly stop complaining.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BlindSpot (512363) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:44AM (#30459308)

    Okay so let me get this straight... show a company you hate their product by creating more demand for it? Does nobody participating understand economics?!? Well don't be surprised when they jack up your rates again and cite "increased network demand" as the reason. Keep at it at you might get to have the same high rates we have here in Canada.

  • Cutoff sentence (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:45AM (#30459330)

    It is unclear if there will be enough support to cause a DDOS...

    ... or, if they're successful, whether AT&T wireless customers will notice anything has changed.

  • ATT charges what is really huge amounts for the iPhone. They make the users buy a significant voice package, then add on the data. Even without many extras, these bills can approach $1000 per year.

    Here is the thing with heavy data users. Some of them don't use a huge number of voice minutes, so it looks like we are paying the $1000 a year mostly for data. Additionally, many plans are unlimited minutes at off peak times, , sometimes with nominal charges. Given unlimited voice, unlimited data, especial

  • That sounds like AT&T 3G service on ANY Friday afternoon around here. As well as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. That's why I'm no longer an AT&T customer. Every weekday, I'd see data speeds start to fall off around mid-morning. By 10-10:30, 3G data service was virtually unusable and stayed like that for the rest of the day. I couldn't even keep a telnet session open reliably. (And, yes, I was paying damn good money for tethering using a non-iphone 3G smartphone.)

  • Specifically, why it ends up so bad on dropping VOICE calls. Yes, data is a huge hog. But the bulk data can be prioritized much lower than voice.

    I could see in Manhattan or San Francisco that the DATA service would suck: too many users, etc. But why should the voice channel suck so badly too?

  • Well, sounds too difficult. Is there an app for it?
  • by Caradoc (15903) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:59AM (#30459540) Homepage

    Slashdot has done to Fake Steve Jobs what Fake Steve Jobs was trying to do to AT&T.

    Awesome.

  • by buelba (701300) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:08PM (#30459710)

    They are protesting AT&T's announcement that smartphones are disrupting its network. By using smartphones. To disrupt AT&T's network?

  • Maybe it's the phone (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mr_Silver (213637) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:17PM (#30459898)

    For an alternative point of view, this article [nytimes.com] is interesting because it claims that the iPhone design isn't very good and that is what is causing the problems.

    I don't live in the USA so I have no idea how good or bad AT&T is, but what I do know is that the RF sensitivity of the iPhone isn't very good. I can think of plenty of times (and places) where my iPhone (and not just my iPhone) will disconnect and then can't get a signal again - yet friends on the same network with other phones do just fine.

    Hell there are large periods of time on my morning train commute where the iPhone claims "No Service" yet my Blackberry (on the same network) is downloading emails and browsing the web just fine.

    It was terrible on the original iPhone and the 3GS is better, but like the camera quality, I do think they need to work at it quite a bit more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ktappe (747125)

      For an alternative point of view, this article [nytimes.com] is interesting because it claims that the iPhone design isn't very good and that is what is causing the problems.

      That's like blaming Airbus for Sully's ditching in the Hudson. The A320 hasn't had to ditch anywhere else in the world but somehow it's still Airbus' fault?

      To point: The iPhone would only be at fault if it were dropping calls worldwide. It's not, so very basic troubleshooting tells you to look elsewhere...specifically at something unique to the U.S. where that problem is occurring.

      I have read that AT&T is mounting a rather significant lobbying effort to try to throw suspicions off of their network. Th

  • Legality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thedbp (443047) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @12:25PM (#30460046)

    Is it legal to publicly co-ordinate a DDOS attack on a major US telecom?

  • Dan Lyons? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dwiget001 (1073738) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @01:27PM (#30461052)

    Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

  • Really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Torodung (31985) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:29PM (#30468188) Journal

    The post, dubbed 'Operation Chokehold,' wants AT&T customers to use as much data service as they can on Friday, December 18th at noon. While Fake Steve Jobs is notable for its satire, many Twitter and Facebook users seem to be rallying to its cry. It is unclear if there will be enough support to cause a DDOS.

    So basically, he's incited the deliberate sabotage of a public communications network. Really?

    I get the feeling "Fake Steve Jobs" is going to be hearing from "Real Homeland Security" soon. :^/

    --
    Toro

The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.

Working...