Introducing Doctor AT&T!

Finally got around to a little bit of a blog revamp. And here's our new mascot, Dr. AT&T. He thinks your "coverage" and "service" is just fine. He's evil. (Dr. AT&T, like this blog, is in no way affiliated with AT&T and is simply a fictional character representation of AT&T's evil soul.)

Is Hype About Google Phone Really AT&T Hate?

An article in PC Mag.com makes the argument that all the interest in a rumored Google phone is really prompted by the hatred of AT&T's lock on the iPhone. Right here:

Hatred of AT&T Goes Deep in America

It goes on to argue that there is really nothing people can do about it. They're stuck with AT&T or equally uncaring cell carriers until at least 2013. The problem is this kind of resentment doesn't go away quickly. People have long memories of being kicked repeatedly. 2013 isn't a long time away for AT&T to ignore it's need to turn around perceptions of it's service.

Remember what happened to AOL. It had a opportunity to lead America into the internet age. Instead it tried to use it's early advantage to set up a closed old style monopoly. Now it's just a relic of the quant old early log on days.

The problem is AT&T seems to be acting like the cell phone market is a mature market and it's time to try to milk the cow until it dies. Rapid changes in technology can wipe out AT&T's market share faster than it thinks. And once a downhill trend starts, as AOL found out, it's hard to ever reverse it.

Fake Steve Jobs Calls AT&T

The fake Steve Jobs blog imagines a call with AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson.

FAKE STEVE JOBS TAKES ON AT&T CEO

UPDATE Dec. 16, 2009: Here's the post for the "Operation Chokehold" protest.

AT&T WOULD YOU PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME?

Is the iPhone to Blame for AT&T's Problems?

Those all thumbs AT&T media flacks apparently worked hard to get a weird pro-AT&T article by Randall Stross into the New York Times. It basically blames the iPhone for AT&T's well publicized service problems (particularly in New York).

It's the iPhone's Fault

It's a strange article, because it really doesn't make much sense. The iPhone is to blame, but it works fine everywhere except New York and San Francisco. (It also seems to work fine around the world.) The best argument for this was made on the rabidly pro-Apple site, MacDaily News.

MacDaily's Response to New York Times Article

Randall Stross' transparently fake journalistic "investigation" leaves little doubt AT&T planted the whole thing. "I was astonished to discover that I had managed to get things exactly wrong…" he bubblers. I'm astonished this shit gets in the New York Times. These days the New York Times has less credibility than a tech blog written by a crazy guy in his basement (as this one is). The paper can pretty much be bought and sold to promote the corporate interests of it's advertisers. Of what value to New York Times readers was a piece telling them that they shouldn't blame AT&T for the fact that phone service in New York sucks? Where are the suggestions on phones that New Yorker's might consider as an alternative to the "faulty" iPhone? This is really embarrassingly lame "reporting." New York Times, this is news? There's no other real news in the tech world that needs covering? You just had to get out this info on imaginary iPhone problems?

The question to Uncle Bell is, is there a secret war going on between AT&T and Apple? Are AT&T flacks trying to plant stories to undermine the iPhone and focus blame on Apple for their problems? Or is the hope that Apple loving iPhone users will forgive AT&T if they think their beloved company is at least partially to blame?

Or does the whole thing just confuse the issue of poor AT&T service with the hope Verizon won't win the perception war?

One can only hope someone at AT&T is putting as much effort into just fixing the actual problem.

UPDATE:

It appears everyone has instantly questioned this planted article. In addition to MacDaily news, blogger John Gruber takes the time to tear it apart inch by inch:

Daring Fireball on Randall Stross

Even worse for this spin job on bad service, Boing Boing, instant controversy legitimizer, links to John Gruber's blog:

Oh, no! Not Boing Boing! AT&T FLACK DISASTER!

So let's review. AT&T flacks plant a story in the New York Times to try to deflect blame for their bad service in New York. Odds are, virtually no one would read the story anyway, even on the New York Times website because there is no story there. No there there.

But now Boing Boing, which has a massive readership that reads everything that passes by it's feed, covers the fact that the story has to be bullshit. So now the real story is: AT&T get's New York Times to lie.

And their service sucks.

Great work AT&T flacks! Way to keep the story of AT&T service sucking in the news!

Now… how about fixing the service?

AT&T Sends Mixed Messages

The latest AT&T Luke Wilson ad once again argues that it has the fastest wireless network:

Luke Wilson Returns

But elsewhere, spokespeople for AT&T complain about users… um… using their system.

We Can't Handle the Bandwith

Of course, this is once again a trial ballon to try to create another "net neutrality" creating crisis. The problem is a few greedy bandwith hogs. It's a corporate mentality that keeps trying to figure how to get more money for less service. They would like to create data tiers with various charges, and ultimately charge per bite.

This is very bad short term thinking. Yes, despite the claims in it's ads, AT&T can't handle all the usage coming from iPhone and there are lots of problems. The solution is to fix it, not to try to penalize your happiest customers by forcing them to cut back on what they paid for or charge them more.

AT&T Last in Service Survey

Not a huge surprise, unfortunately:

AT&T Dead Last

Once again, the reason the Verizon ads scare AT&T is because they know customers are unhappy with their service. Maps don't matter as much as the word of mouth.

iPhone for T-Mobile?

Scott Moritz at The Street.com is predicting that AT&T will lose it's exclusivity on the iPhone next year to T-Mobile, not Verizon. Check it out here:

T-Mobile or Verizon?

He discusses that Verizon is the number one network and that Apple shareholders will be disappointed with a deal with T-Mobile. But I think he's underestimating what a game changer the iPhone is. The iPhone has been a huge success, despite AT&T's overpricing for service (and service problems). T-Mobile, while in third place, has a good rep as a bargain phone service and very good customer satisfaction. Throw iPhone hardware on top of that and it might be a smashing success and give AT&T some much needed competition. Verizon might end up being the loser by waiting on the sidelines.