10/25/2007, 4:00pm, EDT
Thursday, October 25thAT&T chief on iPhone, more at Forbes expo
The iPhone is making AT&T reconsider its approach to data and video, company chief Randall Stephenson said today at the Forbes MEET II forum. While most users have typically been sparing with Internet use on their phones, the frequency of access "jumps by multiples" when existing subscribers switch to an iPhone, the carrier head noted. The executive also observed that the Apple handset's ability to play video had changed his and the company's approach to video playback, as he and many at the company had never thought it likely that customers would watch video on a cellphone until the iPhone became public.
This sudden discovery of the usefulness of video plays significantly into the motivation behind buying 700MHz spectrum from Aloha Partners, Stephenson said. The potentially fast, long-range frequency would allow AT&T to provide streaming video more easily than it can on today's HSDPA and upcoming HSUPA networks. Large amounts of built-in storage on the iPhone and similar devices are helpful for now, the AT&T chief added, but will be less essential when subscribers can stream the content instantly regardless of their location. No long-term plans for a 700MHz for the iPhone or any device were mentioned at the MEET II event.
Stephenson also reiterated his company's anti-regulatory stance on issues such as carrier device restrictions and net neutrality. The US federal government 'killed' broadband penetration at the turn of the century through controls on access and price, and was likely to do so again if it stepped in to resolve perceived problems today, he contended. AT&T was described as having no plans to violate the principles of net neutrality but would also resist attempts to pass laws that guarantee a level playing field. The company chief also did not object to private organizations offering municipal Wi-Fi but complained about having to "compete with the government" when a city administration proposes building a free or low-cost wireless connection.
, 
, 11
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
whatever dude...
This has a price.
And obviously this muttonhead has never actually been in Europe. Ever use your German cell in Switzerland? Drive any European road other than the Autobahn? Pay taxes in France?
Doofuses.
as for municipal wireless networks... there's a real debate to had here as to whether a municipal wireless network is basic infrastructure which government should provide. I say it is, but I'd certainly be willing to debate that (civilly). Look how 'privatizing' electricity went. There are certain services which government is uniquely qualified to provide... water, highways, even in LA electricity is provided by the city and while Enron was screwing Californians with artificial power shortages, residents served by LA's municipal power agency had reasonably priced electricity.
When you use the word "provide" - that means we, the taxpayer, provide it. The last thing we need is the govt getting involved in wireless or any access. Really, you threw out "LA" (which, by the way, is actually run by private contractor/Co-ops, not the govt) - name ANY program the federal government runs that is efficient and financially responsible. You may be able to come up with one, to which there are 1000s which are not.
the only Doofuses ae those who want to suck the govt tit because they are too lazy to grow up.
Well, there are those who believe regulation is what hinders, not helps, adoption and development of new technologies. Hell, look what happened when they de-regulated plane travel, phone systems, etc. Done well, you don't need regulation. You have competition to push the crowd.
And regulations, by and large, have the lack of foresight to see future possibilities. So, five years form now, when some new invention or use of broadband comes around that could be 'the next big thing', it may get hampered because of net neutrality rules that prevent it from taking off.
Look at cable franchising. It sounded great at the time when it was a fledgling industry. But then it was used to keep competitors out of the market, so most people only had/have one choice of provider for TV. And then the internet boom started, and, again, cable had their own exclusive foot in the door, which leads to Comcast quality service for only $60 a month! But then try to get other ISPs on their pipes, and it all of a sudden becomes something about free markets and all.
The problem is, no one knows how it will affect stuff in the future. And that's the problem with regulation.
That's not quite true. A quality D/A converter can do wonders for even MP3s. I'd rather have an MP3 with a good D/A converter than an AAC with a mediocre one. People who like sound quality also like convenience and efficiency. This gives them both.