DailyTech: iPhone buyers, no you can't have a wi-fi only plan

[skyman]

Not true. No plan required for any smart phone they sell.

I'm a long time BlackBerry user on AT&T/Cingular/AT&T. They will sell you any BlackBerry, or Blackjack, or any other smart phone they offer without a plan.

There are thousands of people that purchased the small BlackBerry Pearl without a data plan. They bought it because they like the style, brilliant display, good camera, music player and great call quality. Since they only want it for a phone and text device they have no need for a data plan and AT&T is just fine with that.

Then if they wish to use it for the push mail, internet access and other features like exclusive BB PIN Messaging, they purchase the plan with the phone. Or later if that happens to be the case. No pressure or complaints from AT&T.

I am a long time BB user, with a BB plan as I use mine for lots of email, web access etc. Also AT&T gives BB users several choices of plans from as low as $29.99 per month. And that's an unlimited plan that provides all the emails and net access you can use.

You have got to be kidding....

AT&T can do whatever they want. If you don't like it then you don't get the iPhone. I guarantee the data plan will be REQUIRED. The ONLY unlimited DATA plan AT&T offers is $44.95.

Remember this is AT&T we are talking about.

 

[skyman]

Still just speculation. Nothing has been officially announced from AT&T. SO, ONCE AGAIN, any and all comments made by "reps" at stores are purely speculative.

Keep dreaming......

 

[skyman]

You guys all all dreaming if you think you are going to walk into an AT&T store and buy the iPhone for $499 without any data plan. If you think it is going to be that easy then keep dreaming.

The DATA plan will be REQUIRED.

Call every AT&T store you can and you will get the same answer. Same answer over and over.

 

[skyman]

Yes. People have been arrested for it and charged with theft of service for sitting in coffee shop parking lots using the free wifi. And I don't mean just a few people, I mean a LOT of people have been getting in trouble for this.

Hotspots are different as they're subscription or pay per use services. Open networks that are free are not necessarily legal to use.

It's not always feasible to lock down a network, though more and more places are inconveniencing their customers by doing this so that people nearby who are not customers can't use the networks.

You are 100% correct!

 

[skyman]

until it's confirmed on release day, blogs a pretty crappy source of information. "An anonymous AT&T store rep..." Yeh, great. I refuse to get worked up about something that may be a non-issue.

I can't wait to see you throw a fit on the 29th.

 

[skyman]

It all comes down to this......

If you can afford to throw down $500 to $600 for a phone and at least $39.00 per month for a voice plan then an extra $39.95 to $44.95 for the data plan is nothing!

That is what AT&T and Apple are banking on. I mean really, if you can't afford $44.95 per month for a data plan then you should not be buying an iPhone. Devil's advocate speaking...

 

[soloudinhere]

^I'm really glad that someone else sees the obvious dichotomy between throwing down $600 for an iPhone and then whining about how expensive the data service is. If you want it, pay up. That's the way wireless service works, no matter HOW much Apple wants to change it.

But on that note, I don't think they want to change it THAT much, as you can bet they're getting a cut of service and thereforee, stand to profit MORE from roping you into things, even if you think that's "not the Apple way." The Apple way is to make money, period. And they make lots of it.

 

[TrippalHealicks]

^I'm really glad that someone else sees the obvious dichotomy between throwing down $600 for an iPhone and then whining about how expensive the data service is. If you want it, pay up. That's the way wireless service works, no matter HOW much Apple wants to change it.

But on that note, I don't think they want to change it THAT much, as you can bet they're getting a cut of service and thereforee, stand to profit MORE from roping you into things, even if you think that's "not the Apple way." The Apple way is to make money, period. And they make lots of it.

Requiring a data plan has nothing to do with Apple, that's AT&T's call. I think they would be able to sell even more units, if they DIDN'T require you to purchase a data plan each month. It's simple math.

There are a good many people that have stated that they would be reluctant if not completely unable to buy the phone, if they had to hike their bill up each month another 30-40$. I know I'm in that boat. If I knew I could just go spend my 600$, which is plenty enough already, and just be able to use it as a phone with SMS and stuff, and not be REQUIRED to buy internet service, then I would have no second thought about it, whatsoever.
There would be no question of whether or not I would purchase one. I know there are a lot of people that feel the same way as me.

EDIT: And yes, I understand that's it's "future tech" stuff, and it's meant to be all those things that would require data service. But sometimes, you can't always afford a 100$+ bill each month, for a luxury like this. Sometimes I wanna reduce my bill, and go a couple months without that luxury. When i'm in the clear financially, go ahead and add it back. It's an option I would like to have.

If AT&T were smart, they wouldn't REQUIRE it, but they would automatically enable it when you buy the phone, make the first month or two FREE, and just have it automatically start billing after the first 30 or 60 days. ENCOURAGE the end-user to use ALL the features, including the internet browsing and email. DEMONSTRATE it, before they leave the store. This way, your users have a CHOICE, but they get a taste of what they're gonna be missing, right off the bat. It works just like drug dealing. lol (not that i'm aware of how that works). Once your "users" get a taste, they'll keep coming back for return businesss.

 

[thinkart]

there will be a hack....

its just a matter of time. here's an idea for a poll...
how long will it take for a hacker to hack the iPhone?
there are too many people who are praising vs condemning the iPhone. this only makes the "wi-fi with no data plan" feature more inticing to a hacker to hack.

 

[wjp09]

What if the Data plan requirement is for existing customers only? Think about it, Existing customers are already paying for data and AT&T wouldn't get anything out of the deal they don't already have. But if Data is tacked onto their existing bill then they will make more money.

 

[Spin This!]

^I'm really glad that someone else sees the obvious dichotomy between throwing down $600 for an iPhone and then whining about how expensive the data service is. If you want it, pay up. That's the way wireless service works, no matter HOW much Apple wants to change it.

There's a fair amount of people who just want to use the iPod and phone functions of the device--who couldn't care less about email, web browsing, data. For those people you're already changing your network and signing up for a 2 year agreement. The price of the phone becomes irrelevant when a required plan ends up being more than double the price of the phone after 2 years. Now Apple/AT&T are expecting users to drop more money on a data plan they'll never use? I think there will be plenty of phones around on release day if this happens.

 

[Marksman]

Yes. People have been arrested for it and charged with theft of service for sitting in coffee shop parking lots using the free wifi. And I don't mean just a few people, I mean a LOT of people have been getting in trouble for this.

You have any links to any stories of people being arrested for this? I am a bit skeptical to be honest.

 

[soloudinhere]

for the record, federal law states that theft of service is a felony and is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to 5 years in prison.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9722006-7.html
http://www.designnine.com/news/node/423

"David M. Kauchak, 32, pleaded guilty this week in Winnebago County to remotely accessing someone else's computer system without permission, the Rockford Register Star newspaper reported. A Winnebago County judge fined Kauchak $250 and sentenced him to one year of court supervision."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyid=2007-04-18T111159Z_01_L18480902_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-WIRELESS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/8667098p-8559268c.html

http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html

The only reason I'm really "up" on this is because last year I did sue someone in civil court for hacking into my computer, which is the same portion of the law that refers to wifi theft.

 

[skyman]

You have any links to any stories of people being arrested for this? I am a bit skeptical to be honest.

I guess you have never heard of google?

Go to www.google.com (I will give you a couple secs......)

Now type in "arrested for using WIFI"

and you will get this...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.html

Was that so hard

 

[Marksman]

for the record, federal law states that theft of service is a felony and is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to 5 years in prison.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9722006-7.html
http://www.designnine.com/news/node/423

"David M. Kauchak, 32, pleaded guilty this week in Winnebago County to remotely accessing someone else's computer system without permission, the Rockford Register Star newspaper reported. A Winnebago County judge fined Kauchak $250 and sentenced him to one year of court supervision."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyid=2007-04-18T111159Z_01_L18480902_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-WIRELESS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/8667098p-8559268c.html

http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822.html

The only reason I'm really "up" on this is because last year I did sue someone in civil court for hacking into my computer, which is the same portion of the law that refers to wifi theft.

Very interesting information thanks for sharing.

I am not sure it will ultimately be upheld if challenged, as I am not sure there are protections enabled to people who leave their networks wide open like that. But thanks for the information.

 

[Marksman]

I guess you have never heard of google?

Go to www.google.com (I will give you a couple secs......)

Let me explain something to you... someone else made a claim. I asked them to substantiate it. It is not my responsibility to go research a claim every time makes one. If someone says something, it is entirely reasonable to ask them to substantiate it. Souldinhere did that, and he did not seem to have a problem with it. I had just never heard that before and found it odd. But I appreciate the fact that he reasonably went above and beyond providing me the information and links.

Considering you are one of the people perpetuating the myth that current AT&T customers will not be able to get an iPhone without a new number, I know that facts and support are not your strong suit.

 

[soloudinhere]

Very interesting information thanks for sharing.

I am not sure it will ultimately be upheld if challenged, as I am not sure there are protections enabled to people who leave their networks wide open like that. But thanks for the information.

You're welcome. Thank you for requesting information instead of shooting me down. i'm always glad to help inform.

I would not be concerned that the iPhone will spawn millions of arrests, but it's possible that the data plan requirement may be simply to prevent the kind of wifi piggybacking that's under discussion- buying a device solely with the intent of using free wifi.

 

[Spin This!]

I saw that too... so it's one dude for now.

For one, the guy looked suspicious enough that he got busted—mistake number 1. Pleading guilty was his mistake number 2. I would at least asked for a plea bargain. They virtually had nothing on him. The guy didn't "hack" into anything. The Wi-Fi was unprotected and essentially giving him permission. If he was doing something illegal (say using the network for spam), I think they would have more reasonable cause.

In a case like this, afaik, they would also need to prove his laptop indeed was the one that "hacked" into the network. They could do that in a couple ways but usually a MAC address isn't enough, because those can be spoofed. They would need to contact the ISP and see if any of his e-mail accessed by the coffee shop owner's IP address, etc.

All that ends up being a real hassle—so must people don't pursue it. I have a feeling if he would have actually fought the case with somebody who knows what they're talking about, he probably would won, cost the state more money then they put in, etc.

the data plan requirement may be simply to prevent the kind of wifi piggybacking that's under discussion- buying a device solely with the intent of using free wifi.

It's more money, plan and simple. I am one of those customers who would just use the Wi-Fi. There are plenty of legal ways to get Wi-Fi—including your workplace and at home (probably the only places I'll end up using it anyway)—so mandating a data plan based on one case would be pretty insane.

 

[soloudinhere]

It's not one case. Four different ones are mentioned above, with the first arrest for this occuring back in 2005. These are the ones that are high profile enough to make the news. I know in my county four or five more people were charged for this in the past year, mostly for using the wifi at starbucks and panera.

 

[skyman]

Let me explain something to you... someone else made a claim. I asked them to substantiate it. It is not my responsibility to go research a claim every time makes one.

No one here should have to spoon feed you everything.

People like you ask the same questions over and over again before doing any research (search the forum, search google etc..) in an attempt to have us do the work for you.

Grow up!