Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Media Apple

MMS Arrives For the iPhone — Will It Crash AT&T's Network? 153

itwbennett writes "AT&T has said it is already seeing 'record traffic during peak hours of the night' with just the users selected for testing, and so it is 'very nervous' about the spike in traffic that it expects will occur after it launched MMS service for iPhones on Friday. Of course, setting records for MMS traffic isn't that great a feat considering that 'the service in question has been out for years on other handsets and hasn't exactly taken the mobile world by storm. In 2008, MMS made up just 2.5 percent of all messages sent from phones worldwide, meaning about 97.5 percent were SMS text messages, according to ABI Research. ABI expects the MMS share to grow to just 4.5 percent by 2014.' However, the carrier's fears in one respect may have been justified, says ABI analyst Dan Shey: 'Interoperability between carriers has always been an issue, and that's why MMS usage hasn't really taken off.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MMS Arrives For the iPhone — Will It Crash AT&T's Network?

Comments Filter:
  • I'm quite surprised iPhone hasn't had MMS yet. It has been on phones since like 2003.

    For that matter it'll never got popular. This is partly because operators overprice MMS and because it doesn't really serve that much purpose. Yeah I could send a pic with it, but meh. Could always show them via computer or otherwise too.

    'Interoperability between carriers has always been an issue, and that's why MMS usage hasn't really taken off.'"

    I doubt this is really the issue. Where I live MMS has been working greatly since the beginning between operators too. But it still hasn't taken off.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you really surprised or are you just karma whoring? Next time say the truth, meaning: "I can't believe that people buy iShit when it doesn't even support simple features like MMS."
      • I'm surprised. I knew the original iPhone didn't support MMS, but given that it was one of the first things people winged about in reviews, I'd have thought a firmware update would have added it and I was under the impression that the iPhone 3G came with it from the start.

        That said, my last two (or possibly three) phones have supported MMS and I have only ever received one and never sent any. I don't know what the pricing is like in the USA, but over here it's silly. It costs less to send the picture a

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not true in the US. I know many people who work at VZW and ones who work at ATT Wireless. The way the networks handle MMS is completely different. My friend on ATT can send me a pic or video, which comes in fine, when I go to forward to another VZW user it reports the MMS is too large.

      Also, I can send a picture to a few people I know.. all but 1 is on VZW. The one who isn't is on ATT since that's who he's working for. Half of the time, all the VZW people will get it, but he will receive a MMS with nothing

      • by hitmark ( 640295 )

        could have something to do with MSS being built on GPRS that again built on GSM, while VZW uses CDMA2K/EV-DO...

    • by Brandee07 ( 964634 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:41AM (#29548029)

      MMS would have caught on with my friends a long time ago if it weren't so crippled by the phones that use it.

      When I received an MMS on my old phone, I couldn't do anything with it but view it. I couldn't save it to my photo library, or set it as the wallpaper, forward the message, or anything, really. It was permanently attached to the SMS it came with, to either clog my inbox or be deleted. Thus, the useful functions of an MMS image are reduced to a) sending pictures of your drunk friends to other drunk friends and b) sending pictures penises to, well, anyone. With the ability of the iPhone to save an MMS photo to my photo roll, and from there send it by MMS or email to someone else, or edit it in an app, or later save it to my computer, I might actually use the MMS feature on occasion.

      So, I feel that the crippled firmware of most phones is to blame for MMSes not catching on. Many of you will claim that the iPhone OS is likewise hobbled by Apple's tight controls, but if you think that the iPhone OS has it's hands tied by software/firmware, than normal phones are wrapped head to toe in duct tape, placed in cast iron sarcophaguses which are then welded shut, buried under several tons of concrete, and placed under armed guard for the rest of eternity.

      Your mileage on phone OSes may vary. Prior to the iPhone, I used a Nokia flip phone that ran the default Cingular OS, whatever the hell that's called.

      • by hitmark ( 640295 )

        funny, unless my memory is faulty (one never knows) my latest 3 sonyericsson phones where fully able to do all those things from day one...

        meh, what "killed" it was the overly complex editors, that it was "played" not displayed, and it was basically priced to oblivion...

    • by plover ( 150551 ) * on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:46AM (#29548049) Homepage Journal

      For that matter it'll never got popular. This is partly because operators overprice MMS and because it doesn't really serve that much purpose.

      Well, there are a couple of things that you got wrong here. First, overpriced or not, unlimited MMS is included as a part of the data plan you have to buy from AT&T when you have an iPhone. So cost won't matter.

      The other is that one reason MMS hasn't taken off is that it's been hard to use on a lot of phones. On some of them the user has to know to go into a different messaging task, or to say create some kind of special message, and do some weird stuff they've never done before. On the iPhone, they added a little camera icon to the left of the text entry box. Couldn't be easier.

      Since the "barriers to entry" have now been substantially lowered, iPhone users will indeed start to use the feature more.

      • by Brandee07 ( 964634 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:56AM (#29548085)

        Well, there are a couple of things that you got wrong here. First, overpriced or not, unlimited MMS is included as a part of the data plan you have to buy from AT&T when you have an iPhone. So cost won't matter.

        No, actually, it's not. It was, back when the first iPhone came out, but now you're required to get a $30 data plan that includes no SMS or MMS messages. I pay for those at the a la carte rate of $.20 and $.30 each, respectively. If I sent more than 5 a month, I might consider an Messaging plan at an additional $5 to $30 a month, depending on which plan. But it's certainly NOT included in the price of the iPhone data plan.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by plover ( 150551 ) *

          Oh, sorry, you're absolutely right. I was confusing some of the salesman's spiel with some of the things we rearranged on our plan to switch to the iPhones.

      • by marmoset ( 3738 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:57AM (#29548091) Homepage Journal

        First, overpriced or not, unlimited MMS is included as a part of the data plan you have to buy from AT&T when you have an iPhone.

        Actually the US AT&T base iPhone data plan doesn't include SMS nor MMS. For $5 you can add 200 SMS/MMS. (I'm on the family plan)

        I really don't see myself using MMS all that much -- after all, I've got a full-featured mobile email client. I have some younger relatives with cheapie feature phones that occasionally send us cameraphone snaps, though, and this will beat the crap out that horrible torture we had to go through before.

        • by RMH101 ( 636144 )
          in the UK, on O2, one MMS counts as four SMS as part of your allowance. Actually seems kind of fair. Contrast with the additional £15 a month they want from you before they'll allow any tethering.
      • by smallfries ( 601545 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:01AM (#29548099) Homepage

        Are you kidding me? The phone that I've had for four years is not unusual - it is a bog standard Sony Ericsson model. It's had working MMS since I got it. I wouldn't describe it as hard to use. After taking a picture with the phone one of the menu options that pops up is send via mms. It works to the phones of everyone that I know, regardless of their network: O2, Orange, Vodafone, Three...

        Are you sure that MMS not taking off is not more to do with the US having appalling infrastructure for mobile phones? It seems to work well enough everywhere else in the world...

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mobby_6kl ( 668092 )

          MMS also works/ed on my SE T68i, which was a slight update of the T68 from what, 2001? I didn't send many messages, but from what I remember it was pretty easy to use and worked well.

          As far as I can tell, MMS didn't catch on here was because they were ridiculously expensive. Vodafone, which I use, prices them at 65 cents per message, independently of the plan you have. Even if you're on the cheapest monthly plan, this works out to over 2 minutes of talk time per message, and gets more silly for more expensi

          • Yeah it was two things - overpricing (although it's not so bad now, at least in the UK) and poor marketing.. they kept calling it 'picture messaging' when for example it has a much larger text limit - so if you had a long SMS to send it often worked out cheaper to send it via MMS (roughly double SMS cost) rather than 5 SMS messages for example.

            I've received and sent quite a few in my time, going right back to 2000 and before - I remember when MMS first came out it was free for a few months because the carri

      • by sam0737 ( 648914 )
        MMS itself is actually very complicated. More than SMS with pictures attached.
        A few weeks ago the bank sent me an MMS promotion, which is a timed pictures slide show of ADs.

        Perhaps that makes the software vendor (Phone makers) more reluctant in adopting the protocol...and the price was so expensive that stops people really from using it. Hence...a chicken and egg problem.

        On the other hand, MMS are just data (GPRS/EDGE/3G...), instead of SMS using system spared timeslot. So I don't understand why MMS will h
        • by hitmark ( 640295 )

          and interestingly enough, my last couple of phones have had a setting that allowed them to use the GPRS connection to handle SMS, rather then the GSM control channel...

      • Does the iPhone's data plan not come with unlimited internet access? If so, MMS seems like just another redundant protocol. Most phones that can send/receive MMS probably support email as well. Of course, there may be a difference in cost to the recipient between receiving an MMS versus an equivalent e-mail.

        For all the resources spent on overlapping cellphone, radio, and terrestrial TV infrastructure, I think we probably could have just erected a nationwide wifi network that would be both cheaper to operate

        • by plover ( 150551 ) * on Saturday September 26, 2009 @12:05PM (#29548775) Homepage Journal

          Apple's recommendation if you can't get MMS working or don't want to upgrade is to continue to send pictures via email. It's pragmatic but not the best solution for immediate mobile to mobile picture transfers.

          How much people really need an instant mobile to mobile picture transfer solution is a different question.

        • If so, MMS seems like just another redundant protocol. Most phones that can send/receive MMS probably support email as well

          Phones that support MMS - pretty much every phone produced since 2000 (except those by a certain fruit based manufacturer).

          Phones that support email, at least meaningfully (that means without having to get a geek to spend 20 minutes fiddling with settings to get even rudimentary support - Symbian need not apply). The iphone and blackberry and a few Windows Mobile phones.

          • That comes as quite a surprise to me. With WAP [] and mobile internet access having been available (and heavily marketed) on even the cheapest of phones since 2000, I would have thought that e-mail would be one of the first standard features to implement—it's certainly easier than trying to render a webpage on a tiny 2~3" screen. I'm pretty sure my Motorola RAZR had a built-in email client. I would think that most Sidekicks & Sidekick-type phone would also support email as well. Even my cheapo Samsun
    • .... only in the US (Score:3, Informative)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      I'm quite surprised iPhone hasn't had MMS yet. It has been on phones since like 2003.

      Not surprisingly, this is only the case in the US. Same with the AT&T lock-in.

      Here, iPhones can send/receive MMS just fine for a long while already, and I can plug any SIM card in it and it just works.

    • by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:21AM (#29548203) Homepage

      I was thinking that too. In Europe, *every* phone has MMS, with the possible exception of some older Blackberries which don't have cameras, and the "easy to use no frills phones" marketed to older people. I don't think there are any of those on the market at the moment.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

      The iphone is notorious for it's lack of basic features, Im surprised you can even make voice calls.

      • Haha, this tired rant is still so funny. Thanks for making it yet again. Twit.
    • by macraig ( 621737 )

      You must have gotten a pink slip a week ago, for you to so suddenly become first-to-post on nearly everything that hits the Slashdot Firehose. In the last week or so I've been seeing your username appear in comments of virtually every article I read, and now I'm finding that applies even to the ones I've been skipping. Is there any topic for which you don't feel a compulsion to share an opinion?

      • by ls671 ( 1122017 ) *

        > You must have gotten a pink slip a week ago,

        Or maybe he/she just GOT a JOB ;-) Not being busy looking for one anymore and having easy access to a computer 8 hours a day ;-)

  • No. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jafiwam ( 310805 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:19AM (#29547947) Homepage Journal
    Judging by the number of AT&T Sales-shitheels cold calling my customers and trying to confuse them deliberately, no. AT&T must have plenty of extra capacity sitting around.

    They would simply prefer that users use their minutes and do things that can get them charged more money, rather than using efficient asymmetric communication methods.
    • Judging by how pitiful AT&T service has been, it's got to be one of the shittiest networks ever designed.

      Not that it should cause problems for anyone -- it's not as if they didn't see this coming -- but I wouldn't be surprised.

  • Sigh, AT&T... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...when will they learn that by being d***-**s cheapskates trying to "earn" (save) a few pennies by not spending money on expanding the capacities of their network to allow more services, they will never reap the tremendous money involved in customers' spending in that area (or to put it differently: they won't have a chance to rape the customers with sky-high traffic fees per single MMS).

    Just look at the operators in europe, and the money they are making by making sure their customers can actually send MMS

    • You buy an iPhone, pay through the nose for it - and it still lacks basic functions available to "dumbphones" for years already.
      Then... they discontinue THAT iPhone, and bring out a newer, improved and cheaper version - and you get a coupon for half of the discount.
      Then... You buy ANOTHER iPhone and it still lacks basic functions, it still costs an arm and a leg - and its camera sucks and it can't record video.
      Then... You buy YET ANOTHER iPhone, and this time camera finally can record video. At 30fps. And u

      • by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

        Don't sound so surprised, these are Apple customers we're talking about here.

        • I like the apps idea and that's probably why it's so popular. It did make me laugh to see the ads for the 3GS saying how amazing being able to record video was. My first thought was "well done for being 7 years behind the times".

          • Even the apps wouldn't have happened but for users bitching - remember Steve-o said that web apps were all you needed? Easy to forget that for ages to run apps you needed to jailbreak the thing..

      • by shmlco ( 594907 )

        You have one too many phones in your rant. iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS. The "half" discount was on the 3G.

        And personally, I'd much rather have been using my iPhone over the last two years, "crippled or no," instead of Apple having waited two more years to develop and ship the "perfect" phone.

        Did I miss copy and paste? Occasionally. Will I use MMS? Occasionally. Did I use SMS and email and weather and Google maps? The clock and movie times and Stanza and Kindle and OmniFocus and, OMG, how did I forget,

        • Price drop outcry

          On September 5, 2007, the 4 GB model was discontinued, and the 8 GB model price was cut by a third.[46] Those who had purchased an iPhone in the 14-day period before the September 5, 2007 announcement were eligible for a US$200 "price protection" rebate from Apple or AT&T. However, it was widely reported that some who bought between the June 29, 2007 launch and the August 22, 2007 price protection kick-in date complained that this was a larger-than-normal price drop for such a relatively short period and accused Apple of unfair pricing.[47][48]

          In response to customer complaints, on September 6, 2007, Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote in an open letter to iPhone customers that everyone who purchased an iPhone at the higher price "and who is not receiving a rebate or other consideration", would receive a US$100 credit to be redeemed towards the purchase of any product sold in Apple's retail or online stores.[49]
          [edit] iPhone 3G pricing model changes

          With the July 11, 2008 release of the iPhone 3G, Apple and AT&T changed the U.S. pricing model from the previous generation. Following the de facto model for mobile phone service in the United States, AT&T will subsidize a sizable portion of the upfront cost for the iPhone 3G followed by charging a moderately higher monthly fees over a minimum two year contract.[50]

          Or did you mean that I am actually missing a couple?

          On July 11, 2008, Apple released the iPhone 3G in twenty-two countries, including the original six.[29] Apple has since released the iPhone 3G in upwards of eighty countries and territories.[30] Apple announced the iPhone 3GS on June 8, 2009, along with plans to release it later in June, July, and August, starting with the U.S., Canada and major European countries on June 19.[3] Many would-be users have objected to the iPhone's cost,[31] and 40% of users have annual incomes over 100,000 USD.[32] In an attempt to gain a wider market, Apple has retained the 8 GB iPhone 3G at a lower price point. This is the latest of several price reductions over the years; it now sells for one-sixth of the price of the original 8 GB iPhone when it first became available. In the U.S., it now costs $99, down from $599, although it includes a two-year contract and a SIM lock.

          It sure does suck for all those that jumped on the 8GB model the first day...
          But hey... at least the two AT&T years are up now, right?

          • by shmlco ( 594907 )

            "Or did you mean that I am actually missing a couple?"

            I meant what I said. Please reread for comprehension. There have been three iPhone models introduced, one each summer since 2008: the original (2.5G), the 3G, and the 3GS. And each was available in various RAM configurations (4/8/16, 8/16, 16/32) and the later two in two colors (white/black).

            So, three models, two options.

            • When you pay $599 or $499 for something, and two months later the more expensive version is $100 cheaper than the originally cheaper version - that counts as a new model.
              See... it has this unique function that makes it COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the originally released model.

              Now... just two months after the most loyal customers bought the original 8GB version - each box comes with TWO PHONES inside instead of just one.
              OK... Almost two. They would still have to fork over extra $100.
              Even with that iCoupon for

              • by shmlco ( 594907 )

                I can buy a PS3 now for $200 cheaper than when it was initially released.

                It's still a PS3.

                Same SKU. Same box. Same components. Same functionality. The. Same. Model.

                But if you want to complain about pricing, go bitch at Sprint and Palm regarding the Pre. Same exact phone, priced dropped $100 from $300 to $200 (not counting rebate) not even three months after it was launched.

                'Course, that's because no one wants one, but that's another story...

      • by Fred_A ( 10934 )

        Wow! Surely that is the cutting edge of both service and technology.

        Come on, it actually has cut and paste. They even made a TV ad specially to mention the fact since it was so awesome.
        (Which must have been the most bizarre thing I've seen lately "Welcome to 2009, We have cut and paste !")

        And I still don't see what the fuss is about the iPhone. But then I'm not really that fond of cell phones in general.

  • by hamburgler007 ( 1420537 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:21AM (#29547955)'s their own damn fault. Considering how long mms has been around, and how long this has been mulled and they have had to prepare for this.
  • Just a thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:21AM (#29547959)
    Perhaps AT&T should spend the time it spends fucking up my voicemail to fix the network. Or god forbid actually invest in infrastructure. Given the ridiculous overpricing that mobile providers commit, one would think that somebody would have money to actually service the equipment and increase bandwidth. I mean they do it other places just fine with less cost per customer.
    • Re:Just a thought (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jltnol ( 827919 ) <> on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:12AM (#29548149)
      Agreed. Companies today don't provide a service OR a product. They supply profits. Service and products are just the ugly, messy way of moving money from the bottom to the top of the financial pyramid.
    • Perhaps AT&T should spend the time it spends fucking up my voicemail to fix the network. Or god forbid actually invest in infrastructure. Given the ridiculous overpricing that mobile providers commit, one would think that somebody would have money to actually service the equipment and increase bandwidth. I mean they do it other places just fine with less cost per customer.

      Well said!!

  • Don't use MMS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by trawg ( 308495 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:32AM (#29547993) Homepage

    MMS just helps cell/mobile telcos perpetuate the myth that they're now anything other than mere purveyors of wireless data connectivity. The iPhone has done so much to help break this pattern, it'd be a shame to go backwards.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Indeed. SMS and MMS and any other xxS should be going the way of the dodo. As soon as a significant number of people have data-enabled phones everyone will just use free IM networks and skip the expensive Frankenstein monster that is the xxS system.

      • by Ma8thew ( 861741 )
        I think the world would be better without MMS, but not SMS. Text messages do not require as strong a signal as is needed to make a voice connection, let alone a data connection.
  • arrives? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:32AM (#29547995)
    MMS Arrives For the iPhone
    MMS arrived for the iphone with the release of 3.0, which happened months ago, which means most of us have had MMS for months now. it's just you american peasants who are newly getting it. headline should read, AT&T finally allows MMS on american iphones
    • by Dan541 ( 1032000 )

      which means most of us have had MMS for months now.

      While the rest of us have had it for years.

      • Oh yes, I had MMS on the two phones I owned prior to my iPhone 3G and I believe I sent a total of two or three images using it, I also received maybe half a dozen images. Amazingly I didn't really miss MMS on the iPhone prior to iPhone OS 3.0, I was mostly thrilled to finally have a cellphone with a decent email client that didn't explode when trying to connect to an IMAPS server, and that didn't squeeze the input field for new mails into some ridiculously tiny space. Oh, and the iPhone actually supports si

  • I enabled tethering on my iPhone. To enable MMS on AT&T, I'd have to update, which would break tethering. I don't see the trade being worth it by any means, especially since this sucker is my primary internet connection.

    Perhaps it is time to jailbreak.

    • There are modified carrier files out there that are MMS enabled with tethering. I don't have much use for tethering, but I have it if I ever need it.

    • by e4g4 ( 533831 )
      As best I can tell - jailbreaking won't allow you to get the MMS update and tethering working at the same time (yet, I'm sure it's just a matter of time). Apple has changed the way carrier profile files are handled on the phone, now requiring them to be signed (meaning the downloadable ones that enabled tethering will no longer function).

      I'm in the same boat as you - tethering is far more valuable to me than MMS - I won't update until i can have both (on my already jailbroken phone).
      • by RMH101 ( 636144 )
        You can get them working at the same time: I've done it. For MMS to work, you need to be running the 3.0 firmware. If you jailbreak this (and you can't jailbreak 3.1 so don't use that) then you can get hacked carrier files that enable tethering. For MMS you *also* need the carrier to enable MMS on your account. This should do it.
        I am presuming that currently any 3.0 or above iPhone users on AT&T have the GUI options to send MMS, but that they just don't work yet as the subscriber's account doesn't
    • SwirlyMMS is available on Cydia for $12, and worth every cent. In my opinion, SwirlyMMS is a better MMS client than the native iPhone functionality.

    • Exactly why I haven't installed 3.1 yet. When this stuff came out, I had already booked a cross-continent trip with a layover in a city known for charging the shit out of everyone for everything. Wasn't gonna give up free connectivity for my laptop until after I got home.

      Luckily for me, Delta was handing out cards at the departure gate for a free try on their in-flight WiFi thingy, so I'm actually posting this from 34,000 feet.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by notxarb ( 621681 )
      Maybe soon someone will create a hack to enable tethering with the new firmware. Most patches Microsoft comes out with for WGA and other things are broken quickly. I'm sure people can do the same with the iPhone.
  • AT&T has offered MMS support for a while (at least I've been being billed for it....20 MMS messages for $2.99/mo, then $0.25 each additional message). Would the MMS support for iPhones require this additional 'feature' be added to your plan? And if so, who's going to pay $0.25 for each message (I assume the first 20 would go rather quickly)? That seems like it would prevent many people from actually using the feature.
  • by mdwh2 ( 535323 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:43AM (#29548035) Journal

    But how could it crash anything? - Surely, for years we've been told that the no one needs MMS anymore, certainly not Iphone users, and no one would possibly want to use it. So why is it news that it now has MMS - let alone the wild claim that it might crash a network?

    Seriously, it's not news, unless you count taking so long to add the feature. We don't have news for any other phones adding features that have been around for years. The idea that MMS, which has been around for years, might suddenly result in a spike in usage in 2009, enough to cause a network to crash, is ludicrous - if Iphone users were so desperate for that feature, why did they buy an Iphone? (And remember that the Iphone is still a minority of all phones sold - yes, you can redefine the market to "smartphone" and say it's doing well there all you like, but the market here is that of all mobile phones which can send MMS, which is billions - so even if all Iphone users started using MMS, it wouldn't make any significant difference in the global usage.)

    I thought this was news for new technology, not news for old technology... I bet in a few months time, we'll be hearing people say "Well it doesn't matter that other phones had MMS for years, people only started to use it with the Iphone" - despite the fact that, for years, all we heard was from those same Iphone fans "But why would I have the need for something outdated like MMS?" No, this is just another trumped up Slashvertisement for the Iphone, where a wild speculation is made as if Iphones were 90% of the market, and perpetuating the myth that no one uses anything until the Iphone does it.

    • You started off insightful and went full-steam ahead straight into Troll.

    • by Nethead ( 1563 )

      I thought this was news for new technology, not news for old technology...

      It's news for nerds. Now get off my lawn while I bring up the autopatch on my local 2m repeater and call my XYL.

  • by willyd357 ( 1293166 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @09:44AM (#29548041) Homepage
    We can only hope.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward


      AT&T has one of the most robust cellular networks in the nation. To think that MMS would take down their infrastructure is simply silly.

      -- posted from my iPho{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER")

  • Non-Open Networks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cytlid ( 95255 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @10:02AM (#29548105)

    Wow if cell phone networks were open like the internet, there wouldn't be these types of problems.

  • I updated my carrier settings, rebooted my iPhone and sent my first iPhone MMS (a pic) to a friend with a Verizon phone. The friend promptly sent back an MMS (also a pic) who was pretty much rolling her eyes over the fact that I just got MMS and she's had it on various Verizon phones for years.

    Then all the excitement of being able to MMS pretty much fizzled out.

    Still, it's good to have the option now.
  • A friggin superbowl could crash the network.

    Come on AT&T, beef up the pipes!

    • Doesn't even take a superbowl. A NCAA Division-1 football game that isn't even sold out will do it.

      Truly pathetic. I can't even send a text message from 30 minutes before kick, to 30 minutes after the final whistle. Then, when their horseshit network catches up, I get a machinegun of stuff that was supposed to be delivered to me over the last 4 hours.

      What a joke.

  • MMS should die, but it can't because people with new phones need to be able to interact with people old phones, and the people who use old phones tend not to have the alternatives (eg email) probably because they require data plans.

    What keeps MMS going is that it is convenient. On S60 phones, which are very prolific, it's just a menu option on the camera. I've not seen a phone before iPhone that couldn't receive, so you could send to anyone. It's relatively popular in Asia, I understand - still not often us

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Sure, all it needs is for someone to set up an MMS to IM gateway. There are are SMS to IM gateways already. It's just a bandaid though, until everyone has a phone with data access.

      • by dwater ( 72834 )

        yeah, I've about those. There's even an open source one iirc.

        my impression is that it's not exactly transparent...

  • Ripples (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UttBuggly ( 871776 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @12:26PM (#29548875)

    I couldn't care less about MMS. Don't use it, won't use it.

    Unfortunately, I'm in the minority, based on AT&T network behavior since late Thursday. Typically, I DON'T get dropped calls or "unable to contact mail server" or text messages that take hours to send/receive. Since early Friday a.m., I've gotten all of that and both of our iPhones have gone "brick" on us; won't make or take a call.

    Might be coincidence, but doubtful. We did get iPhone OS 3.1 and iTunes 9.0.x in the last 2-3 weeks, so there may be some issue there. Again, I don't think so. Several of my friends with iPhones and folks WITHOUT iPhones, but on AT&T have had issues. I've also noticed the DNS servers at AT&T are flakey as hell right now. Did some WireShark caps and offered to send them to AT&T Support, but so far, no takers or response of any kind. Straight NSLOOKUPs are timing out, which is annoying to say the least.

    So, I think there are some ripples in the network pond and they (AT&T) SHOULD be nervous.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      IMHO, 3.1 is slightly flakier than 3.01 was, but only slightly.

      I *have* noticed, though, that they have really cranked up voice compression. I had to ask a colleague if he had a cold or the flu as his voice started sounding funny. He laughed and said no and then I noticed that several other people sounded as if they had a similar "disorder". At that point I put 1+1 together and assumed AT&T was trying to shave a tiny bit of extra data off of every voice call to try to create some spare bandwidth for

  • It wouldn't surprise me if half of those MMS messages are just text, with no photo/video/sound attached.

    I found out that if someone sends me an MMS message, and I just hit "reply" without thinking about it, my reply is sent as an MMS even if I don't insert any media.

    This may just be a "feature" of my phone (HTC + Windows Mobile) but I was doing this for quite a while until I realized it.

    Thankfully, I have the unlimited plan for messages no matter how they are sent.

  • Is it REALLY so hard to actually spell out a few words to explain an acronym in the summary?

    Not once in the summary do we actually find out what MMS means.

    Or is the article ONLY for those in the know?

    Until then, I'll have to just assume that the Malaysian Mussel-fishers Society has problems with AT&T (Asynchronous Titillation & Torment).

    • by socsoc ( 1116769 )

      On this site, spelling out MMS makes about as much sense as spelling out DOS or CD-ROM.

      AT&T, Inc. is the company's official name. Just like it's HP and not Hewlett-Packard anymore. Troll fails hard.

      • OK. I had to Google it (go figure).

        Now I get it.

        As an outsider (that is to say I don't spend my waking hours dependent on the adulation of my peers via twitter, or any other such nonsense, to validate my existence), I wasn't supposed to understand in the first place. Forgive my intrusion.

        Fucking technology. STILL can't tell me when I am outside of my social standing.

  • The same thing happend in the UK with Vodafone when they launched MMS: people give it a go, send a couple to their friends, then never send any more ever again once the short-lived novelty wears off.

  • In 2008, MMS made up just 2.5 percent of all messages sent from phones worldwide, meaning about 97.5 percent were SMS text messages...

    So that's a ratio of 1 MMS to 39 SMSs. BUT... I'll be willing to bet that the average MMS is more than 39x larger than the typical SMS. Just to be nice, let's say that the average text message is the full 160 characters (160 bytes) allowed. (Ignoring overhead, compression, concatenated messages, etc.) 39x160/1024 = about 6 kilobytes. And let's be REALLY nice and pretend the average MMS is 6kb. (That's probably low by a factor of at least 10.) If that's the case then the amount of data sent via SMS is the sa

  • by Bob Cat - NYMPHS ( 313647 ) on Saturday September 26, 2009 @06:53PM (#29551295) Homepage


    Lazy bastards.

    t his is f1or the l ameness filter 1th is is fo2r the la meness filter 2thi s is for3 the lam eness filter 3this is for 4the lame ness filter 4this is for t5he lamen ess filter 5this i s for th6e lamene ss filter 6
    this is for the7 amenes s filter 7this is for the 8lameness filter 8this is f or the l9ameness filter 9this is fo r the la0meness f ilter 0this is for the lamaeness fi lter -this is for the lamesness fil ter =
    this is for t he lamendess filt er athis is for th e lamenefss filte r sthis is for the lamenesgs filter dthis is for the lamenessh filter f this is for the l ameness jfilter gthis is for the la meness fkilter h
    this is for the lam eness fillter jthis is for the lame ness fil;ter kthis is for the lamen ess filt'er lthis is for the lamene ss filtezxr ;this is for the lamenes s filter c'this is for the lameness filter hjj
      this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter
    this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter
    this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter

  • My thoughts, in no particular order:

    1. it doesn't surprise me that picture/video messages are in the significant
    minority vs. text messages. In addition to the fact that I personally
    send/receive between 400 and 600 SMS's and 1 or two MMS's, if I send a picture
    to a friend, they're not going to respond with a picture, they're going to
    respond with a text message. While texts go back and forth, easily racking up
    20-30 messages at a clip, picture messages rarely merit a response in kind.

    2. As a T-Mobile USA subscr

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"