Fake Steve does it again

[rpadula]

Last week, AT&T dropped hints it would "address" the heaviest bandwidth suckers on their network, likely by putting caps on and/or charging more.

Fake Steve lets 'em have it.

The opening salvo:

So we set up a call with Randall this morning to discuss some of the profoundly stupid things his guy Ralph de la Vega said recently about creating incentives that would encourage people to stop using AT&T’s data network so much. Point of the talk was, when you’re lucky enough to create a smash hit product — when the stars align, and the hardware is great and the ecosystem is great and the apps are great and the whole experience is great, and everything you do just makes everything else better, and you’re totally on a roll and can do no wrong — when that happens, you do not go out and try to **** it all up by discouraging people who love your product. What you do, instead, is you fix your ******* ****** *** network you ******* ****-eating-grin-wearing hillbilly *** clown!

It only gets better. (asterisks mine)

 

[Lawreston]

One might expect that Mr. Jobs (Fake Steve) could convey his opinions without all the repetitious foul mouth activity. But am I the only citizen who doesn't own an IPhone? Further, on this Maine island of Georgetown it's Sprint, U.S. Cellular, and Verizon whose performance(listed from worst to better) pales beside AT&T.

HR

 

[TangoWhiskey]

That was great, thanks.

 

[TMetzinger]

The point missed here is that let's assume AT&T builds more bandwidth into their network - how does this increase their revenue and profit? It only does if more folks subscribe, or if they charge more money per subscriber.

If AT&T built the biggest baddest voice/data net in the country - would enough people subscribe to make it a good venture? I'd like to believe so, but I'm not sure that it's so.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The point missed here is that let's assume AT&T builds more bandwidth into their network - how does this increase their revenue and profit? It only does if more folks subscribe, or if they charge more money per subscriber.

If AT&T built the biggest baddest voice/data net in the country - would enough people subscribe to make it a good venture? I'd like to believe so, but I'm not sure that it's so.

That's the same thinking that made the "Big 3" auto companies what they are now.

 

[mantakos]

The point missed here is that let's assume AT&T builds more bandwidth into their network - how does this increase their revenue and profit?

By countering a reputation as a crappy network, thus eliminating a reason for customers to choose products based on competing networks, and reducing the clamor for a Verizon iphone, thus increasing revenues by attracting new customers and reducing churn.

Alternately, you can tell everybody that you're going to try to discourage people from using your network so much, presumably because it sucks so bad, thus underscoring the perception in the minds of consumers of your network's high suck factor.
-harry

 

[TMetzinger]

Oh yeah - the driving up the price to "discourage" usage is incredibly stupid. I'm still not convinced that increasing bandwidth will "pay off". I WANT the world to reward long-term investment and customer focus. I'm just not sure it really does.

 

[Keith Lane]

I think, AT&T's hardware sales division has vastly oversold the network's ability to handle the traffic. Every ad extolls "download video/music/whatever" while talking/driving/operating a train.
Now the division that operates the network is taking a beating because of all the service issues the success of marketing the do-it-all at once campaign.
Kind of makes me think of how the revenue gurus at Delta et.al decided a good way to generate $$ was start charging for checking bagage. Now the flight operations people are dealing with vastly more carry-on bags to the point that they are gate checking them for free.

 

[Keith Lane]

Oh yeah - the driving up the price to "discourage" usage is incredibly stupid. I'm still not convinced that increasing bandwidth will "pay off". I WANT the world to reward long-term investment and customer focus. I'm just not sure it really does.

I remember when public coin operated phones went from $.10/call to $.25 in response to people using cellphones instead of payphones. Yeah, that strategy paid off.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Oh yeah - the driving up the price to "discourage" usage is incredibly stupid. I'm still not convinced that increasing bandwidth will "pay off". I WANT the world to reward long-term investment and customer focus. I'm just not sure it really does.

That's he problem, it doesn't - at least not this quarter...

 

[Areeda]

Here's what I posted on the WSJ announcement of Goolge's own phone not attached to a cellular provider:

Want to join my fantasy for a minute? Say I could buy a phone for retail, according to the California sales tax on my Verizon Droid purchase, it would have cost me $600 instead of $199.

But what if that phone could connect to any network that had service where I am at the moment? Is there a Map for that? Now how about when there are multiple potential networks and the phone knew what each charged for my transaction be it voice, sms, or data and if the signal was good enough it went with the most cost effective (considering price and performance).

How long would it take to recover the Verizon subsidy?

OK as I've said for quite a few years "The true secret to happiness is to have a grip on reality similar to your golf grip. If something or someone comes up and grabs it out of your hands it should go flying. A firm but not too tight a grasp is what's best"

Joe

 

[dmccormack]

OK as I've said for quite a few years "The true secret to happiness is to have a grip on reality similar to your golf grip. If something or someone comes up and grabs it out of your hands it should go flying. A firm but not too tight a grasp is what's best"

Joe

Do you think Tiger heard this advice?

Just sayin...

 

[steingar]

I don't own an iPhone, but I certainly have noticed the trend that the more expensive and capable the telephone, the less likely the owner is to answer it.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I remember when public coin operated phones went from $.10/call to $.25 in response to people using cellphones instead of payphones. Yeah, that strategy paid off.

I remember pay phones going to $.25 in 1979 and first hearing of palm-sized cell phones around ten years later. Even then, it took a few years to get beyond the early adopter stage.

 

[SkyHog]

I remember when public coin operated phones went from $.10/call to $.25 in response to people using cellphones instead of payphones. Yeah, that strategy paid off.

I remember pay phones going to $.25 in 1979 and first hearing of palm-sized cell phones around ten years later. Even then, it took a few years to get beyond the early adopter stage.

I seem to remember the change being $0.25 to $0.50 because of cellphones. I'm not old enough to remember a payphone being less than $0.25, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it).

 

[wsuffa]

I seem to remember the change being $0.25 to $0.50 because of cellphones. I'm not old enough to remember a payphone being less than $0.25, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it).

I do. I remember when there was a reason for the term "drop a dime" ....

Gawd, I feel old.