MP3 Vibrator. Murdering Mormons. Stupid St. George Missouri pigs (Sgt. James Kuehnlein now suspended without pay, haha, fucker!). $4,800 iPhone bill.
-
CORPORATIONS: Apple charges man $4,800 for taking his turned-off iPhone on a cruise.
See, iPhone updates your email even when it’s off.And if you happen to be in another country? Prepare to get fucked, goatsey style.
Enjoy your fate, lemmings.
-
Conservatives will be unable to see a problem here, they just keep hitting the “W” key…The guy had been assaulted by police before, and paid to not sue. He was smart. And prepared. Cops hate that. Fascist thugs hate people who assert their rights.
-
HARDWARE + MUSIC + SEX: MP3 Vibrator
Yup. It’s real. Question: Would the iGasm be better or worse than this? Enquiring vaginas want to know.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_meadows_massacreAmazing stuff. My friend Ryan’s blog is the first place I ever heard of this, though apparently it is known history.
September 11, 2007 at 11:26 PM
I’m pretty sure the iPhone is probably not the only phone that still does stuff when it’s off. Nowadays, if you really want to make sure your phone is actually completely off, remove the battery.
September 12, 2007 at 9:06 AM
Do you actually have any examples of people getting charged $4,800 (or anything at all) for their phone being off, or is that pure speculation??
September 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM
All I did was read the article. No, I have no examples. The main thing I was trying to say was that based on links you have posted before such as cellphones can record conversations even when they’re off, cellphones can track your location even when they’re off …. the solution is to remove the battery. Then you can be sure your phone is really off. And based on those articles, lots of phones aren’t really off when theyre turned off. AT&T just decided to be a bastard about it. Blame the carrier, not the phone. Apple doesn’t stand to profit by this. AT&T does.
September 12, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Ahhh, your clarification makes perfect sense; thanks!
September 12, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I take it back. Your clarification makes sense, but isn’t totally valid.
Apple purposely designs their devices such that the batteries are not user-serviceable. Thus, the class action lawsuit against iPods for their battery failure.
You can’t actually take the iPhone battery out. In their never-ending pursuit of “hipness” and making things unnecessarily small, they design their devices such that people cannot (generally) change their batteries.
(Pure speculation: I bet it would void your warranty too.)
So, this problem actually IS caused by Apple, since if it had been a non-apple phone, you probably could have taken the battery out.
http://www.ipodbatteryfaq.com/#1
Q: Is the iPod battery user-replaceable?
A1: Yes and no. The iPod’s case is not designed to be opened, so, in that respect, it’s not what would generally be referred to as “user-replaceable”. But, the case can be opened, and there are several third parties that offer replacement batteries for the iPod for as low as $20, such as…
So, they trade-off size vs easy-of-battery replacement. Some people say this is good, because size is everything (Everything must be either HUGE or TINY; nothing in between! TV is only impressive if it’s 56-inches, or on your cellphone! I hate that mentality myself… I’d rather have it be 0.5 inches thicker and have a truly user-replaceable battery.)
September 12, 2007 at 3:42 PM
I was going to point out that the iPhone battery isn’t replaceable, but then saw that you beat me to it, Clint.
Damn busy day of work.
September 12, 2007 at 5:09 PM
I guess I haven’t done my research into iPhones, since I have no intention of getting one anytime in the near future. I assumed it was like most every other cell phone in the world, where the battery simply clips into the back of the phone.
I agree. BAD design flaw.
However, the charges are still caused by AT&T and not Apple. I just got a new cell phone myself, and my main consideration was features of the phone, not the carrier. However, due to other things I’ve heard of in the past, AT&T was the one carrier that I outright refused to consider, no mattter what kind of phones they had available.
September 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Well, I still consider the charges to be “mostly” caused by Apple, because they were the ones who designed a phone that automatically uses expensive internet services, even when turned off, without taking the battery out.
ANY carrier would have given a high bill if you cruise around the world making data transmissions the entire time…
Also, Apple voluntarily entered into the deal that AT&T is the *ONLY* carrier for iPhones, so that also makes them culpable. They COULD have given a choice of another carrier, but don’t. Of course, another carrier would likely charge similarly high bills….
And if 100% of carriers would have charged high bills — at that point, I would even say it’s 100% apple’s fault.
September 13, 2007 at 6:44 AM
Thanks for posting the iPhone article, Clint. I actually had no idea that phones could still track things or otherwise do ANY activity if they were turned off. Now I know better. Yikes!
Sometimes it’s sad to think what chaos the U.S. would get thrown into if, one day, all the cell phones stopped working at once for no apparent reason. Can you imagine the bedlam? BEDLAM, I SAY, BEDLAM!!!!
September 13, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Parthena, the government can turn the microphone on your phone and listen in even when you’re not making a call. I posted about it when the UK was doing it, saying if it’s done there, it’s done here, we just don’t know about it.
Then, they busted a mob boss using that tactic, so they had to admit to mainstream media that they can and will do this.
Buyer beware :)
And, the U.S. worked fine BEFORE cellphones. If all the cells shut off, maybe people would start PLANNING again, hehe.
September 13, 2007 at 10:45 AM
@Clint:
Why are you such an Apple hater? Maybe when they designed the equipment, they weren’t aware that AT&T was going to charge these exorbitant rates. The concept of having your mail available to you when you turn on the phone, in itself is not a bad concept. You should however have the ability to turn that feature off. Maybe you do, I don’t know. I do know however, that while I was playing with my new cell phone last night, alot of the shortcomings about my phone that reviewers bitched about, are completely and utterly false. I just had to go deep enough into the menus to enable/disable certain features.
Also, the concept of entering into an exclusive deal betweeen a phone manufacturer and a service provider is not unheard of. In fact, nowadays its pretty much the standard. When I was phone shoppimg(online) It’s pretty much noticed, that almost no carriers carry the same phone. The one exception is the Motorola RAZR(not the one I wound up getting).
Apple is not profiting by this. AT&T is. And if anything, Apple is being hurt by this when people get hit by these charges, therefore reducing fututre sales of their phones.
Disclaimer: I’ve never owned an apple nor do I plan to, for purely technical reasons.
@parthena:
Cell phones have stopped working before. Anytime there is a big emergency like 9/11 or Katrina, the cell phones for the affected area are pretty much useless. Everyone tries to make calls during events like that, and the cell networks simply cannot handle that kind of traffic. Most people trying to use their cells will get a network busy signal.
And I agree with Clint, not that long ago, we used to get along just fine without cellphones. And we used to stare at the sun till we went blind. An we walked 5 miles to school through a blinding blizzard. And we liked it!
September 13, 2007 at 11:14 AM
@Clint: Has that bit about cell phones having microphones been on the news? I’m just amazed that I’ve never even heard about that before. If it’s true, then I’d be inclined to stop using cells altogether, and only put the batteries in if I’m going on a road trip and need it for emergencies or something.
@Chriggy: True, true, I had forgotten about the cell phone’s not working on 9/11. I suppose I was thinking of a more grand-scale thing, where they stopped working for days. From what I recall there was only about a 6-hour window on 9/11/2001 when cell phones mostly were getting busy signals. I could be wrong, though!
I agree, I remember never ‘needing’ a cell phone before they became mainstream–all of a sudden, after everyone started getting their own, it suddenly seemed like a basic NEED, like someone NEEDS clean water or something. Haha. I even *gasp* remember the pre-internet days (meaning, before it was widespread and trendy), when the very concept of “online” was an incredible concept.
Ah, the 80s.
September 13, 2007 at 5:26 PM
@Chriggy: Being locked into one provider on one plan is the norm pretty much in this country only, and the cell companies LOVE it that way. That’s why what Google is doing by bidding on the new 700 MHz frequency range auction and trying to impose open-access rules for that spectrum is so exciting! If they get what they are shooting for, vendor lock-in with cell phones would be a thing of the past and we could finally enjoy cell phone service the way the rest of the world has been enjoying it for the past 10 years.
September 13, 2007 at 5:29 PM
And oh yeah:
@ Parthena:
The thing about microphones being activated in shut-off cells has been in the techie news if you keep up with that, and Clint even posted a link to a story where some hackers figured out how to use this ability to spy on this teenage girl’s family! They would record their own voice (run through distortion to disguise it) and put that as the ringtone, they would send text and voicemail messages detailing or commenting on what the family was doing at that particular time, etc. etc. Freaky stuff.
September 17, 2007 at 12:50 AM
@gaugeyagee:
In places like Europe, for example, cell phone subsidies are also mostly illegal. Translation: You might have a wider range of carriers who carry a particular phone, but it’s probably going to cost you twice as much to get that phone.
September 17, 2007 at 12:58 AM
FYI, an interstng comparison of US vs European cell service:
http://policyblog.verizon.com/PolicyBlog/Blogs/policyblog/LinkHoewing9/327/Wireless-Networks-US-and-Europe.aspx
September 17, 2007 at 6:24 AM
@ Chriggy: That link is interesting, but keep in mind who the author is. They’re going to try to put the best face they possibly can on the state of cellular phones in this country, especially because of the house hearings mentioned at the top of that page.
Europeans pay more for their phones. That’s an interesting stat, but is that taking into account the fact that their cell phones are 2 years ahead of ours? By the time those same models of phone are released here, with vendor lock-in built in of course, they damn well BETTER be cheaper! Technology depreciates rather rapidly. This widescreen TV I got as a gift last Christmas has already come down in price by about 40%, as a quick example.
Even without depreciation, I’d much rather have the ability to say “screw you” if my wireless provider pissed me off and take my phone to a different carrier, rather than be stuck with a worthless phone and be forced to buy a new one that is vendor-locked to a different carrier. I’d also rather have large, compatible cell phone networks, combined, very good coverage as opposed to a bunch of incompatible networks, each with spotty coverage (there are “dead zones” on some major highways and roads around here!) Ever had a dropped call? I’m not going to say they don’t happen in other parts of the world, but I’ve seen continuous coverage in rural Australia (not Europe, but uses the same cell phone network as Europe, compatible with their phones).
September 17, 2007 at 8:28 AM
hehe yea really.. that a Verizon page espouses the system Verizon works under isn’t quite earth-shatteringly surprising to me :D
September 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM
By the way, that asshole cop (St. George) who was on youtube harassing the guy for parking in the lot…. Has a follow-up story:
http://www.badcopnews.com/2007/09/15/speed-trap-st-george-missouri-town-finally-ends-up-on-map-thanks-to-youtube-and-nutcase-bad-cop-sgt-james-kuehnlein-who-just-just-happens-to-have-checkered-past-including-prior-assault-and-theft-c/
“A check of court records shows Kuehnlein himself pleaded guilty of assault and stealing in two different cases, in 1988 and 1990. He successfully petitioned a judge in St. Louis County in 1998 to expunge his criminal record, which was making it hard for him to get work as a cop.
The judge ordered those records sealed, as well as records of an acquittal for drunken driving and an assault arrest that did not result in charges.
Five years ago, an administrative commission upheld an accusation that Uhrig propositioned a 17-year-old girl for sex during a traffic stop in 2000, when he was an Arnold officer.”
More unbelieveableness:
“Paul Keene, a city alderman, said that although Kuehnlein shouldn’t have lost his temper with Darrow, the city’s police officers act appropriately.”
September 17, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Another update on asshole pig Sergeant James Kuehnlein of St. George Missouri:
http://www.badcopnews.com/2007/09/16/st-lous-missouri-cop-website-contained-threats-against-motorist-who-videotaped-crazed-st-george-missouri-police-officer-sgt-james-kuehnlein-exposes-tiny-brains-and-big-mouths-of-st-lous-area-law/
* the video from HIS cop car has gone “missing”
* message board threats against the guy were made both before and after the incident, on a message board for cops
“St. George Police Chief Scott Uhrig is also being investigated by city officials who say he may have failed to inform them that the State of Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission concluded that, “Uhrig’s unwelcome sexual advances to a teenager, while on duty and under the guise of enforcing the laws, indicate an especially egregious mental state, show that he cannot enforce the law, and are cause for discipline.””
September 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Just FYI, I posted that verizon link, smply because it had the most clear and concise side by side comparison. However, several independent articles basically confirmed what they are saying. I’m not naive enough to take a carriers claims at their words, without independently confirming them.
And to anyone who wants at least some degree of freedom when moving between carriers, I suggest purchasing an ulocked GSM phone. AT&T, T-mobile, and Cingular all use GSM networks.
September 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM
@gaugegayee:
Just one more think I wanted to add, when it comes to coverage. Whether it’s CDMA or GSM, cell towers pretty much are considered line of sight devices. So it makes total sense that in someplace like rural Australia, where you’re going to have lots of flat open expanses, you’re going to get better coverage with less cell phone tower density. Not much there to block the signals.
I also wanted to point out, that the phone itself makes a big difference. I’ve been in situations where my coworkers on the same network have had no coverage while I had three bars, due to my unfortunately now retired dinosaur of a cell phone simply having a better antenna and/or transmitter/receiver.
Europeans not only pay more for their phones, they also pay MORE for their service. So it can’t be chalked up purely to, well the technology here is a little older so prices have come down.
For the record, quite a few U.S providers offer prepaid/pay as you go plans. They cost more. Hence, they are not very popular. But they are available.
September 17, 2007 at 2:00 PM
What if you take into account how much more each euro can buy compared to the dollar?
(ducks)
hehe
September 17, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I was talking with a co-worker who visits France fairly often (family there). He said that link was just plain wrong on many counts. He said their phones aren’t more expensive like the link states. This is especially bad considering that their phones are newer models than ours! He also said the prices for plans are comparable, while the coverage is considerably better.
That’s Europe. What about Asia? A guy I know lived in Japan for a few years and just 2 weeks ago at my party showed me a phone he bought there last year. The reason he got the phone was that it was a late-model phone that nobody wanted anymore so he got it for a low price. This thing was more advanced than most of the phones I’ve seen in this country! He showed me how he could flip the screen around and watch TV on his phone. He also said that in Japan, unlimited voice + unlimited data plan for the phone comes out to $30 a month. Considering our exchange rate with Japan, that’s extremely low cost, especially for them!
Basically, we have screwed up telecoms in our country in the last 10 years and most of the rest of the industrialized world’s telecoms systems surpass ours now. It’s possible to argue one way or the other with cell phones, but with Internet access we’re so far behind it’s embarrassing. Japan’s prime minister has monthly meetings with leading technology and industry executives to discuss how much progress is being made in Japan in expanding IPv6 use. That kind of government-directed focus and direction is considerably lacking here.
Re: line-of-sight thing… that’s true, but in equally rural parts of the USA, the line-of-sight rule breaks down apparently. :) (Kidding, of course…. what I’m saying is in equally rural parts of the USA, continuous coverage would not be achieved from my experience whereas in Australia it was).
Re: prepaid. Yep! Have a prepaid T-Mobile phone that I got as a gift several years ago. I use it when I need it (not often) and thus, I end up paying on average $15 to $17 per month for it.
Re: unlocked phones. Those should be the rule, not the exception. In our country, they’re the exception, not the rule. Why is that?
September 18, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Actually, really kind of depends on what kind of plan you get, and what kind of phone usage you have. So to be fair, lets compare apples and apples. I’ve chosen T-mobile, since they are a major provider both in the US, as well as Germany, and compared similar plans. They use GSM in Germany, as well as in the US.
For the phone comparison, I’ve chosen the Nokia 5300, since it is carried by t-mobile in the US, as well as in Germany(I chose Germany, because that way I can actually read the site). Phone prices look comparable:
US: with contract 49.99(I’ll leave out online offers, where you can actually get paid $50 to take the phone, just to keep it fair. Without contract, $199, but can be found online for $99(I’m assuming locked)).
Germany:
with contract between 1 and 10 euro, depending on which rate plan, 2yr contract required. Seems about the same. I guess contracts are making their way into Europe now too.
Without contract:not offered through T-Mobile. (Based on MSRP’s on google Germany, about 150 Euro($200)(I’m assuming unlocked). So we’re looking at about a $100 price difference here.
Now let’s look at rate plans:
US, 300 minutes (lowest fixed rate plan available),unlimited night and weekends(This is actually rather expensive compared to other carriers, where you usually get about 450 or 500 minutes for the same price, $39.99.
Germany, no unlimited nights and weekends(since it’s not offered), 200 minutes, 29.99 Euro, 400 minutes 49.99 Euro. So let’s split the difference and assume 300 minutes(not available) would be 39.99 Euro(about $50). Seems more expensive to me. Over the course of a year, that’s a $120 difference. Seems like the money for that unlocked phone is coming from somewhere.
Rural coverage: depends where you’re at. And you have to keep in mind that the US is a MUCH bigger country to cover if you want continuous coverage everywhere. West VA for instance, is pretty much a cell phone black hole.
RE:unlocked phones.
I think the reason they’re the exception here are several. The average cell phone user doesn’t know they’re available. They cost more. Alot of people would rather sign a contract and save the money. You can always get it unlocked later. Depending on the phone, getting a locked version, getting it unlocked by a third party, and breaking the contract might actually be cheaper. The reasons are many, but mainly, there’s just not the market demand for it. And without market demand, there’s no reason for the carriers to start offering them. The average American would just rather pay less for more minutes, so they can yap away in their cars all day.
And it took me long enough just to do this comparison, so no, I’m not going to take the time to research other markets like Asia. :)
September 18, 2007 at 1:04 AM
And FYI, some providers in the US, like T-mobile, will supply you with the unlock code for your phone. You just have to request it.
September 21, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Of course, there are subtleties. Comments in the article linked below seem to indicate that Americans pay for incoming calls, and Europeans don’t. So (assuming 50/50 distribution of incoming/outgoing calls) a plan that costs twice as much in europe could actually be considered equal to america. But anyway, this article questions the value of the iPhone deal in the UK, and is tangentially related to our discussion:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/20/170235&from=rss
September 21, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Interesting discussion. I see the point on incoming calls, but it depends on usage. They, for the main part, don’t get unlimited nights and weekends. Seeing as during the week, I am mainly at work(sitting next to a landline and computer) or at home(sitting next to a landline and computer), I really don’t use my phone much during that time. The only time I really need to use it, is when I’m away from those things, which tends to be nights and weekends. So for me, I would place a much higher premium on free nights and weekends(which on my plan includes internet use, since it just comes out of my minutes).
Just based on that, and my own personal cell phone usage, I would not say that getting free incoming calls would be worth 2 times the price. More like 1.1 times the price.
Now factor in other things that we take for granted, like free nationwide long distance. If I want to call someone out of state, do I use my landline? Hell no? I’ll make that call on my cell during a night or weekend. So now it would be worth about .8 times the price to me.
Then factor in nationwide roaming. It’s as easy for us to go on a weekend trip to PA, NY, WV etc., As it is for a German to go to France, Switzerlan, Holland, etc. Guess what, roaming rates. I’ll be lax on that one so, so I’d be willing to pay about .7 time the price to get my value on a european plan.
Of course, that’s based on my usage, and someone with a different usage profile would probably completely disagree.
September 21, 2007 at 9:28 PM
UPDATE: Sergeant James Kuehnlein, taxpayer-funded douchebag, now fired over video.
Special thanks to Brett Darrow. You took a bad guy off the streets. Maybe YOU should be a cop!
March 19, 2008 at 7:03 AM
UPDATE: Sergeant James Kuehnlein’s dashboard tape of his encounter with Brett Darrow — the one that got him fired — has mysteriously “disappeared or been destroyed”.
Of course!
This is why every car needs a video recorder. If only they were cheaper.
LINK: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B8A7548DC9EF17A286257410000F8BCA?OpenDocument
BACKUP: http://www.badcopnews.com/2008/03/18/man-who-videotaped-crazed-now-fired-st-george-missouri-police-officer-sgt-james-kuehnlein-files-federal-lawsuit-for-civil-rights-violations-assault-battery-and-false-imprisonment-police-lose/
March 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Technology is getting very useful in new ways – consider Qik.com, which lets you stream LIVE video directly from your phone. It also records your streams so you can watch them later. Turn on your live stream once you suspect a cop is abusing authority! I think stuff like Qik is going to become much more widespread considering the popularity of online video services.