Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 10 September 2007 14:24 : \____
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:19:38 -0700, John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fun, Tours and a $3,000 Bill for Hardly Using an iPhone
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/technology/10iphone.html?
>>>> ref=technology
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> As it turned out, the cellphone carried by Mr. Dingman, a mortgage
>>>>> consultant in Minneapolis, made calls on a European data network several
>>>>> times each hour to check for e-mail messages. Because he didn't
>>>>> deactivate the feature that automatically checks for new e-mail
>>>>> messages, during Mr. Dingman's trip through Italy, Croatia and Malta,
>>>>> the phone went to retrieve e-mail more than 500 times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other iPhone users have felt the sting of high roaming charges with
>>>>> their iPhone, too. Some, like Mr. Dingman, are unaware that they need to
>>>>> disable the e-mail feature; others are billed erroneously; still others
>>>>> misunderstand the explanation of charges they are given by AT&T customer
>>>>> service representatives. Many of them are complaining to the company or
>>>>> on blogs.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Bailo,
>>>> Does the iPhone run Linux? No? Oh.
>>>
>>> Well, it runs OSX (or a derived OS). So, are you telling us that OSX was the
>>> reason for this bill?
>>
>> Apple's misapprehension of telephone roaming and charging was the reason
>> for the bill. The defaults set are clearly wrong.
>>
>>>
>>>> ... and why are you surprised at the high international roaming bills on
>>>> a phone that is advertised to be US only?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What part of "roaming" has to be explained to you again?
>>
>> Roaming charges are often deal-dependent, so it is quite possible that
>> the charges applied to the iPhone are different to any other phone.
>>
>>>
>>> And why don't you have the faintest clue about cell phones?
>>
>>
>> You don't seem to be overly top-notch on them, either.
>
> Are you trying to suggest that the phone (Apple), not the carrier, is to blame?
> Or is it the unhealthy relationship with a company that eavesdrops and censors
> on behalf on Captain Bush the Great?
>
It's the phone default setup which is the problem. When the phone
is roaming, then it should not be automatically trying to collect
email without notifying the user of possible high charges. This is
no different to delivering computers with all ports open, all services
running, no security and no firewall, it's not actually illegal per se,
but it is most certainly at best irresponsible.
The particular deals which AT&T have offered for roaming may only be
available for this phone, and it's possible that the setup was
deliberate in order to raise revenue, but knowing how telco land works,
it's more likely to be due to miscommunications than anything else.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
