Our most recent posts on AT&T share something of a theme in that they're about what they won't enable you to do. For instance, you can't inform them of a security hole or you'll face years of prison time. Likewise, we learned recently of their plans to limit what you can do on the internet, or limit your access entirely via one flavor of the now infamous "Six Strikes" plans. Hell, sometimes AT&T doesn't even allow competitors, because logic based on lies is so much more gratifying. That said, we make a habit here of pointing out when companies manage to go the other way and enable rather than disable, so it's with that in mind that we congratulate AT&T for generously enabling (and charging) customers for data plans on used smart phones their customers bought, even when those customers disabled and refuse to use any data applications. (In case you're slow on the uptake: that's sarcasm.)

Joel Runyon has the heartfelt story of how AT&T looked out for his own best interests by charging him for a data plan he didn't want, never used, and specifically turned off on his phone.

4-5 months ago, the hardware on my old flip phone was dying (that happens when it's from 2008). I was out of contract with AT&T and so I could have chose to get a new subsidized phone & shiny new 2-year contract with them, but I simply bought a used out-of-contract iPhone 4 from my friend and swapped in my sim card (that whole commitment thing again). Again, no problems. America! Neat.

After using the iPhone as a dumb phone for all intents & purposes (call, text, no data) for the last 4-5 months or so, I get a text message out of the blue from AT&T that they've detected I'm using a smart phone and that all smart phones require a data plan - never mind that I actually had data turned off. That would be only a little annoying if it was just a notification message, but they went ahead, chose a data plan for me, and started billing me from then on.

Yes, AT&T unilaterally decided a data plan was needed for all of the data Joel didn't need and didn't use. This wasn't a new contract along with a subsidized phone. Simply by putting his existing sim card in a used phone he bought elsewhere, this automagically meant he was given a data plan and billed for it. No discussion, no contract, just instant data plan.

"Welcome to AT&T customer service. Now, if you'd kindly go f@*# yourself..."
Image source: CC BY-SA 2.0

Offering customers choices is a good thing. Limiting them is not. Forcing a plan on someone who has no intention of using it and charging them for it is about the best way I can think of to lose a customer. When Runyon contacted AT&T about this, they apparently replied that this was "standard practice," in which case it should probably be "standard practice" to find another carrier.

A little over a year ago, I asked how long it would be until we had a full, professional quality feature film filmed entirely with smartphones. This one doesn't completely qualify, but it is quite interesting. Ross Pruden points our attention to the story of This Is Not A Film, the documentary from widely respected Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi. The story behind this film is pretty crazy. Basically, Panahi was arrested and given a six-year sentence in prison, while also being barred from making films for 20 years. While he appealed the sentence, he was apparently able to remain in his Tehran apartment under house arrest... and decided to document his life as he dealt with this situation by filming it, often using iPhones to capture scenes (though not entirely). The film has been shown at various film festivals, but is hitting US theaters starting February 29th, and the trailer recently came out: Apparently the film itself was smuggled out of Iran to Cannes by putting it on a USB key, and then baking that USB key into a cake that was shipped out of the country. In all the news coverage of this film, I haven't seen anything about how the Iranian government reacted to this film, which they must know about by now.

Either way, there's something of a statement being made here about the power of smartphone cameras these days. It really was just a few years ago that the idea of mixing cameras with phones was widely panned as a dumb idea. And now they're helping internationally renowned filmmakers who are being censored and persecuted to keep making their art. It also says something about the need for some creators to keep making their art, no matter what the challenges to doing so. That's really amazing.

Also, it starts to lead you down the path to rethinking questions about censorship and free speech limitations. Obviously, banning someone from making a film is a form of censorship and an infringement on free speech rights. And, of course, Iran does not have a particularly good reputation on free speech issues. But technology changes things. When "making a film" is as easy as clicking a button on the phone you carry at all times, it changes the equation. "Making a film" is no longer "making a film." It's just something you and anyone else can do at any time. When that happens, the very concept of banning someone from making a film... just seems silly.

Last week's big LulzSec (pre-disbandment) dump of Arizona police info apparently included some documents telling police to search the iPhones of arrestees for specific apps, including OpenWatch, a simple app for recording people (targeted at authorities) without it displaying on the phone that they're being recorded. The police were also told to look for speed trap identifying apps and an app that lets people spoof caller ID numbers. As we've discussed a few times, there are some legal questions about whether or not cops can just search your iPhone during, say, a routine traffic stop, but tragically a few courts have said it's fine. That seems rather troubling, as the cops can search your phone after just a routine traffic stop... and then potentially get you in more trouble just because they don't like the types of apps you have?

Separately, the article notes that the Justice Department has been sending around notices to local law enforcement, telling them to be aware that iPhone users have a feature that lets them remotely wipe their phones. This is part of the mobile me service, and the wiping has a perfectly legitimate purpose: to let someone who has lost their phone or had it stolen, to wipe the data from the phone. It's pretty useful, really. But, to police who are seizing phones and want to search them later, they're scared that evidence can be destroyed this way, so the Justice Department is telling them to store the phone in Faraday bags to keep them disconnected from any network, so they can't receive the "wipe" signal.

Last week, we noted that Apple had successfully convinced a court that Samsung should be forced to hand over unreleased prototypes of its new phones and tablet computers as part of its patent dispute with Samsung. In response, Samsung (which filed countersuits over other patents) is demanding Apple hand over its next generation iPhones and iPads to Samsung. The whole thing is getting pretty childish, which is basically what happens in patent disputes of this nature. Why can't these two companies just focus on competing in the marketplace, and letting the best company win based on who's buying what?

One of the interesting questions we've been looking at for years is whether or not a business is an enabler or a gatekeeper. Being in the gatekeeper business can work for a period of time, but it's often difficult to sustain. Apple is an interesting company in that it certainly has elements of both, enabling in some areas, but being a very strict gatekeeper in other areas. As if to reinforce this point, Apple is apparently changing the screws on iPhones to make them much harder to open. Apparently, it's come up with a "pentalobe" design: Not only that, but if you bring in your iPhone for repairs, Apple will replace the old screws with these new pentalobe screws to keep you from... well... screwing around. The whole thing seems really incredibly pointless. First of all, those who really want to open the phones will figure out ways to do so. I would guess that it won't take long for tools that work on such screws to hit the market. All this really does is frustrate iPhone owners by making life difficult for them. What possible good does it serve to have a non-standard screw system?

Just last month, we wondered how long it would be until a feature-length film was shot solely on a smartphone. We're not quite there yet, but Ross Pruden points us to the news that famed South Korean director Park Chan-wook, who did the movie Oldboy, has shot a new film entirely with iPhones. Of course, I'm not sure it really qualifies as a "full-length" film, since it's only half an hour. But we're getting there. I would imagine it won't be long until we get a real feature-length film filmed entirely with smartphones. While it still may feel gimmicky at this point, think of just how empowering that can be to filmmakers. In the past, just the idea of making a film represented too huge a hurdle for most people. But these days, a huge percentage of people now carry one of the key tools in their pockets every single day. That's a tremendously disruptive technological shift.

One of those class action specialist lawsuit firms, who seem to file lawsuits mostly designed to make the lawyers money, rather than correct any sort of improper actions, has sued Apple and some app makers over supposed privacy violations. At issue is the fact that some apps pass on the unique UDID code that is associated with each iPhone to advertisers. This lets advertisers track the same user across multiple apps -- similar, in some sense, to a browser cookie. The "difference" is that a browser cookie is deletable, while you're stuck with your UDID. This all came out a couple weeks ago in a WSJ article, and since these kinds of lawyers are opportunists, they're always quick to jump on any lawsuit opportunity whenever the press highlights a story like this.

Not surprisingly, it appears this case is yet another attempt to abuse the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), which is generally thought of as an anti-hacking law, but which is continulously stretched and abused to pull in other situations. In this case, the lawyers are claiming that accessing the UDID without permission is the equivalent of accessing a computer without authorization. Think about that for a second and then realize how silly this is. No one is hacking anything to get this info. The info is made available, and so it's been shared. Using the CFAA here is ridiculous. They also seek to use a similar California anti-hacking law in a similar way. This is clearly not what those laws are intended for.

Furthermore, it seems silly to blame Apple for the way that some app providers are sharing data. To get around this issue, the lawyers rely on two key points. First, that Apple itself recently changed its terms to ban apps from sending data to third parties such as ad networks. Of course, most people realized this was not about protecting privacy, but about forcing developers to use Apple's own ad platform. Second, the fact that Apple approves each of the apps in the marketplace. I know that some people assume this automatically adds liability to Apple for anything those apps do, but that seems like a bit of a stretch as well. It's ridiculous to assume that Apple tests all aspects of an app, and thus becomes liable for anything those apps do.

All in all this looks like yet another attempt by some lawyers to take some fear mongering and make some money out of it. It's not going to do anything to protect anyone's actual privacy.

About a week ago, a band named Atomic Tom apparently had all of its instruments stolen, but as the story goes, they still had their iPhones and the will to continue. So they filmed themselves performing one of their songs on a NYC subway -- playing their iPhones, instead of their usual instruments. The band got some attention for this stunt, and along with it, questions like: "Did they really have their instruments stolen? Was this performance really impromptu? Did Apple pay them to advertise for the iPhone?" You can watch the video for yourself here: The video certainly seems polished enough to warrant questions about how much planning must have gone into making it. But does it really matter? Isn't the best advertising the kind of advertising that you don't care if it's advertising? Even if this performance is a well-orchestrated (no pun intended) publicity stunt, the band is still offering up this entertainment for free to attract new listeners (and presumably to help pay for new instruments, someday in the future). That's just a smart business move.

It really was just a few weeks back that Steve Jobs defended the closed nature of the iPad and iPhone app store as offering "freedom from porn." But even Jobs must know that when you offer up new ways to communicate, one of the first businesses that takes advantage of it is going to be the porn industry. So while I may still not be convinced that video calling is really set to take off, it appears that there is one industry set to embrace the iPhone's "FaceTime" video calling: porn. Apparently, at least one company is already looking for women to be part of a new sex chat offering using FaceTime on the iPhone:

Starting an online interactive pornography firm where woman will use the iphone 4 to video chat with potential customers on a pay as you go basis.

Hours are flexible, pay will increase as the business builds. Woman will receive a free iphone 4 to use as personal time when not working. Woman will talk to potential clients and chat with them and perform various acts as desired by clients. All information will be confidential.

Freedom from porn, Steve? It seems that some "think different."

As they had previously hinted, starting June 7th, AT&T's new smartphone customers will no longer be able to opt for the $30 unlimited data plan that was previously offered. Instead, two plans will be offered, both with monthly usage caps: $15 for 200MB or $25 for 2GB. Additionally, tethering is now available for an additional $20 a month. However, tethering is only available with one of the new capped plans. Those who already have the old $30 unlimited plan will be able to keep it... but won't be able to tether. So, existing power users have to decide between $30 a month for unlimited internet data without tethering, or $45 a month for 2GB of data with tethering -- of course, with tethering, data usage would likely go up... even as the amount of data you can use goes way down.

AT&T's motive behind this switch (beyond the obvious of boosting profits) is to attempt to address the network capacity issues that it has been experiencing, of late. As anyone on AT&T can attest, performance of the AT&T data network is far from stellar. The adoption of smartphones like the iPhone have made the internet a truly useful part of the mobile experience, and as such, data use on the AT&T network has risen dramatically as a result. Clearly, AT&T was not able to properly plan to handle the increased demand on its network, and as a result, is claiming it needed to respond by throttling the usage. Of course, one might argue an alternative would be to invest more in capacity, but that gets in the way of that boosting profits thing.

Amusingly (but not surprisingly), AT&T is trying to play this whole thing up as a big benefit to consumers:

"Some customers, up until now, have been hesitant to sign up for a $30 monthly data plan" for unlimited access, says Ralph de la Vega

Fair enough, but just because some people have been hesitant to sign up for the unlimited data plan doesn't mean you should do away with it altogether.

That said, there are actually a few things that AT&T has done right with this announcement. It's surprising that they are actually offering a cheaper tier for limited data -- something that they had not offered before. Also, with the limited plans, they have introduced a system of alerts that will notify users when they are near their caps. And, existing users with unlimited plans can continue as long as they want, without the tethering option, of course.

Even so, throttling usage could put a damper on the explosive growth of smartphone usage that we have seen in the past few years. There is an added cognitive transaction cost whenever a limit exists, so, by introducing these limits, AT&T has effectively made the iPhone less appealing. Recently, when asked about AT&T's capacity issues, Steve Jobs said "things, when you start to fix them, get worse before they get better. That's what I'm told. And if you believe that, things should start getting a lot better soon." It sounds like Jobs knew what was coming.