Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Apr 2014 19:55 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

I'm using the URL slug headline for this one (check the link).

This map showing the locations of 280 million individual posts on Twitter shows a depressing divide in America: Tweets coming from Manhattan tend to come from iPhones. Tweets coming from Newark, N.J., tend to come from Android phones.

If you live in the New York metro area, you don't need to be told that Manhattan is where the region's rich people live, and the poor live in Newark. Manhattan's median income is $67,000 a year. Newark's is $17,000, according to U.S. Census data.

This fascinates me, as it seems to be a very American thing. In The Netherlands, Android has an 80% market share, and we have far lower poverty rates than the US (that Newark median income is crazy low by Dutch standards). I'm pretty sure the situation is similar for many other West-European nations.

This raises an interesting question: is it 'Android is for poor people' - or is it 'Android is for poor people in America'?

Order by: Score:
Poor: Social or Economic
by themwagency on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:02 UTC
themwagency
Member since:
2013-03-06

Poor Comes in a couple flavors. It's not just economic but also social standing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Poor: Social or Economic
by reduz on Mon 7th Apr 2014 22:05 UTC in reply to "Poor: Social or Economic"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

I think you are right and wrong at the same time.

The key to the situation is that iPhone IS a social standing icon, but only in certain parts of the world.

In others, people gives a damn about the difference between Apple or Android, no matter what the price is.

It's kind of the same as driving a Mercedes in a Middle East country, or wearing Adidas in many South American countries.

Edited 2014-04-07 22:07 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Ha, I suppose iOS is for Rich People?
by umccullough on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:06 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Can't tell you how often I see poor people who can barely feed their family texting on an iPhone...

Reply Score: 9

Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Can't tell you how often I see poor people who can barely feed their family texting on an iPhone...


How do you know they are too poor?? in any case the survey is bogus, i can't believe people repost this stuff without realising what is going on

1. Did you notice the complete absence of weighting in the linked article?? iPhone users are generally way over represented in app usage stats..

2. Common sense will also tell you that the people living in the "poor" areas are actually spending most of their time working in the so called in "rich areas" of manhattan.

So i bet that this map simple shows where people go to work, rather than a rich /poor divide.

Reply Score: 3

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

How do you know they are too poor??


Because I know many of them personally.

There is nothing that frustrates me more when people complain about how poor they are, as they watch TV on their $100/month cable and chat on their $100/month iPhone.

I've come to the conclusion that some people just have their priorities completely screwed up - perhaps that is why they can barely make ends meet to begin with...

Reply Score: 9

hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not a unknown fenomena that people will spend bundles on clothes and car, but live in a dump. This because few know where they live, but everyone they meet see what they wear and drive.

I suspect this is because we new have "communities" that are so big that very few of us know everyone we meet down to their tastes and habits. Supposedly we can only organize some 100-150 people in our heads before those we interact the least with fade into noise. End result is that first impressions become key.

Edited 2014-04-08 00:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

Reminds me that if you compare the case offerings across brands from Otterbox, they have gone out of their way to put in a window for the fruit logo. No such logo window on any of the cases for Samsung, HTC, or others.

And this is not just Otterbox, i have noticed it again and again while browsing cases for phones and tablets...

Reply Score: 4

xeoron Member since:
2007-03-25

I have seen many people who can't afford smart phone plans own iPhones via AT&T and Verizon and other people own Android phones either for the features or because that is what is supported by 3rd party carriers.

I have seen Window Phone zealots swear by tile UI being better than the rest (but only 2 people, thus far I have ever seen have Window Phones). I, also, know wealthy people who switched from iPhones to android phones for better battery life, signal strength, quality of voice-to-text texting, and freedom to customize settings (built in, or changeable by adding a app), while still using iPads for using the web.

But most of all, I have seem most people unaware how to use any feature of their smart phone except for phone calls and texting. Either because they are afraid to explore, or don't have a need for anything else.

Edited 2014-04-08 02:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

or Iphone is NOT for poor people
by soulrebel123 on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:10 UTC
soulrebel123
Member since:
2009-05-13

That is saying the same, only better

Reply Score: 1

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

So how come my mother (young at 92) who lives on her UK State pension loves her iPhone? I son gave a 4s to her for her 91st birthday. She took to it like a 5yr old.

The whole premise of this article is IMHO bogus. There are an awful lot of poor/unemployed with iPhone's in their hands on the council estate near me.

A phone is a phone to me. As long as I can make calls and send texts I really don't care what type of phone it is. My own phone is a Nokia 6310i. My company gives me an iPhone but is really only used when I'm away on business.
Each to their own I guess.

Reply Score: 2

Being poor is a bad, bad thing
by Gullible Jones on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:11 UTC
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

Because if you're poor it's your fault and you deserve to be mocked for it, right?

Right?

Anyone?

In other news, most poor people are too busy working 14 hour days, dodging bigoted cops, and praying that they don't get sick to know what the hell "Android" is.

Reply Score: 6

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You must not be from the US because that is a load of crap. Lets start with if you are over 30 and poor, you probably work 2 jobs to survive. When are you going to do all this learning? Not to mention that while much of what is online might be decent, without a degree from a college or experience, you are not going to get a better job. There are people lining up to get mail room jobs that have a MBA. Having a HS diploma won't get you anywhere.

Reply Score: 9

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

If you're in America and you're over the age of 30, then it probably is. There are entire college curriculums online for people to consume; with Android tablets being as cheap as $50 and free wifi hotspots all over town, you might be poor, but you don't have to stay that way. That might not be enough to get you a 6 figure salary, but it should be enough to get you above the poverty level, where you can start taking some real classes.


Because all poor people are single 30 white males with no children.

Reply Score: 5

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Because all poor people are single 30 white males with no children.


And if you had kids while living below the poverty level, who's fault is that?

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Because all poor people are single 30 white males with no children.


And if you had kids while living below the poverty level, who's fault is that?
"

Because every person who has kids while in poverty had those kids during poverty. They could NEVER have had kids when they could afford it, then slipped into a state of poverty because of external factors.

Because everything in the world happens according to a strict predictable order and any deviation from that is 100% the fault of the "victim".

Bad local economies NEVER happen, and EVERYONE should automatically be able to find a job because America.

Reply Score: 8

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

It's not a question. It's begging the question.

Reply Score: 2

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I'd wager most who had kids had them while they were unable to afford them.

That has been my experience with humans. I see children going without while their parents collect welfare then go out and buy the latest iMustHave.

Thankfully, I know a few CPS agents...

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I'd wager most who had kids had them while they were unable to afford them.

That has been my experience with humans. I see children going without while their parents collect welfare then go out and buy the latest iMustHave.


Sometimes, but it's still a broad over generalization. There's just so much prejudice against the poor, to the point of pretending they're all just lazy worthless bums. The thing is there's a tendency to rope them all together as though they all deserve to be in that boat. This overlooks the real hardships of the situation, and that very few of us could realistically hope to escape from if we were the ones in poverty.

15% of the US population is officially in poverty, which is bad, however looking at the official income levels used to measure poverty in the US, this seems to be under represented for political purposes.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

Single: $11,670
Couple: $15,730
Family of 3: $19,790
Family of 4: $23,850


There's just no realistic way *anyone* can afford to pay for modern housing/food/childcare/medical/clothing/savings/etc bills at those levels (ie pick one). Even doubling those incomes won't dramatically increase true self sufficiency, because expenses are just getting out of hand even at the median level.

It is a real problem that's gotten worse in recent generations even as GDP has grown (owning to the fact that most/all of the gains have been distributed to the wealthy). I don't think it does justice to brush this off as solely a consequence of bad personal financing.

Reply Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Sometimes, but it's still a broad over generalization. There's just so much prejudice against the poor, to the point of pretending they're all just lazy worthless bums. The thing is there's a tendency to rope them all together as though they all deserve to be in that boat. This overlooks the real hardships of the situation, and that very few of us could realistically hope to escape from if we were the ones in poverty.


Well, if we say that stereotyping is bad, we will overlook the rampant stereotyping by liberals of rich people as seal-clubbing bastards and focus on the issue at hand. Although I know for sure that some poor people are lazy worthless bums (just as some rich people really ARE seal-clubbing bastards), I do not feel this way about the majority of them. For most of them, they made a lot of stupid decisions when they were younger, and then are like 'oh crap' when they hit their 30's. By then, their financial situation is in dire straits, they probably have 2 or 3 kids, and I doubt their health is all that great either, due to poor lifestyle choices. I'm sure that for many, they would go back and do it all again if they could.

And sure, we can give them more. But having already accumulated a lifetime of poor decision making skills, it isn't likely that they're going to do anything constructive with it, like continuing their education or putting it into savings. As it is, these people are always only going to have barely enough to survive, because they will likely squander the rest. (I once knew a lady that won $100,000+ in a lottery. In less than 3 years, it was all gone.) You ever see people that stand in line for 36 hours to save $300 on a big screen TV? What do you suppose their financial situation is like? These are the exact people that SHOULDN'T be buying big-screen TVs.

So no, I don't necessarily object to giving them a little more, but the people who are striking for $15 an hour for working fast food are smoking crack ;)

Edited 2014-04-09 00:42 UTC

Reply Score: 0

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I'd wager most who had kids had them while they were unable to afford them.

That has been my experience with humans. I see children going without while their parents collect welfare then go out and buy the latest iMustHave.

Thankfully, I know a few CPS agents...


Cool story bro...

Reply Score: 2

Not very good stats
by DrillSgt on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:15 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

Cost wise both Android phones and iPhones are about the same, especially the mandatory data plans. In Manhattan, the rich on Wall Street usually want Apple just because it's Apple. That is not indicative of the rest of the states. It would not surprise me if that was a paid for article, especially with the source of Business Insider.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Not very good stats
by stimut on Mon 7th Apr 2014 21:30 UTC in reply to "Not very good stats"
stimut Member since:
2012-10-08

Yes, and I think it's also complicated by the fact that they use tweets, assuming that the entire population uses twitter equally. It definitely looks like twitter using iPhone owners are more heavily tweeting in wealthy areas, but actually looking at the maps, Android has a much more even coverage. As in, perhaps iPhone's are only for wealthy people, but Android is for everybody. You have to assume that twitter is a fair way of determining usage though.

On other notes, towards the end of the article, one of the diagrams has text which says:

Apple has roughly half the app market in China
But their diagram shows Apple having 100% of the market, due to the fact that developers can't sell Android apps in China. That just seems shoddy journalism. There is plenty to report on here (including the huge disparity in the amount of money to be made in the different stores) without the need to abuse statistics.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Not very good stats
by cdude on Tue 8th Apr 2014 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Not very good stats"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The statement "Apple has roughly half the app market in China" is very missleading. The original diagram, those that shows 100% Apple, compares with only Google Play which is just not used in China. The half-argument is made only comparing Apple with the alternate Wandoujia. Same thing, it keeps silent that there are a dozen more Android app stores and Wandoujia is just one of them, not even the largest.

Edited 2014-04-08 15:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Well no shit
by Ultimatebadass on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:22 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

since apple has nothing to offer in low-end and mid-range prices (yeah, the 5C doesn't cut it).

Reply Score: 3

Not this again
by derekmorr on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:35 UTC
derekmorr
Member since:
2005-09-25

This is old "news" -- it first ran last summer. It's BS. Classic data visualization bug -- the site draws Android data points first, then draws iOS data points on top of them thus hiding many of the Android data. If you bring up two browser windows, side-by-side, and toggle one to only show iOS, and the other Android, you get a very different impression. I did some side-by-side screenshots when this first ran (and Danny Dilger at AppleInsider picked it up) - http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/158143/twitter-heat-map-shows-ipho...

In addition to the visualization problems there also appear to be problems with the underlying dataset: http://cartonerd.blogspot.com/2013/06/3-billion-tweets-on-map.html

In short, Twitter use is skewed towards young, urban males, and very few users geo-tag their tweets. I wonder how and if these biases were controlled for in the analysis? Just plotting lots of data points on a map is not analysis. It's map porn.

This story highlights several problems I have with the popularization of so-called "Big Data." It can lead to lazy analysis. Too many folks seem to think that volume of data makes up for sloppy analysis and questionable sampling. It doesn't.

Reply Score: 16

tkkyj
Member since:
2014-04-07

Wall Street prefers Apple; hard-working self-starters prefer Android. Proven by the same map..... whatevr.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:43 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Since the other "Open" OS was supposed to be for poor people I supose that now only Android is left.

Reply Score: 3

v Poverty rates
by Vinegar Joe on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:45 UTC
RE: Poverty rates
by vansmith on Mon 7th Apr 2014 21:38 UTC in reply to "Poverty rates"
vansmith Member since:
2014-04-07

Pay back the aid you received after WWII

There's so much wrong with this statement:

1. That's not how aid works. You don't give money for reconstruction and then hold it over someone.
2. An overly simplistic statement such as the preceding fails to recognize the very American-centric nature of the ERP - the funds were largely used to buy American goods and done in such a way to benefit America's interest over Europe. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that (certainly not a criticism of the policy) - just something to consider.
3. Beyond that, if the Dutch felt compelled to pay that back, it's about $1.3b USD in 2013 money. The budget of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is more than $420b USD. Since you seem to be making this comment out of spite, you ought to aim higher. But, while were making claims that repaying loans and debts are necessary for critique, China's calling and would like their 1.1 trillion dollars back before the US government criticizes them (that's 86b USD in 1945 dollars by the way, a significantly larger amount than the 100m USD sent to the Netherlands as part of the ERP).

and then take back the descendents of slaves you brought to North America (the first slave ship arrived at Jamestown in 1619.......and was Dutch).

I'm sure there's a point in here but you fail to make any form of one. The fact that you're trying to blame the Dutch here (for bringing over 19 slaves from a seized Spanish ship) for the systematic enslavement of people supported and encouraged by the US government is beyond me. Secondly, the slaves that the Dutch brought over were baptized by the Spanish which exempted them from slave work (and thus, they weren't really slaves at all in the US).

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Poverty rates
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 7th Apr 2014 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Poverty rates"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't want to go to deep into this, since the OP only wanted to insult, but the Dutch involvement in the slave trade - a gigantic crime against humanity - should not be, in any way, swept under the rug, or made less. Us Dutch have contributed greatly to this crime, and while it may have been a long time ago, the reverberations of it can be felt all over the world to this very day - including in the United States.

The OP's intentions with bringing it up may have been cloudy, but the point in and of itself is a valid one. The Netherlands' role in the slave trade is something our schools would rather not dive into too much, but every historian knows what's up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Netherlands

That's the end of this particular subject. Back to technology please.

Edited 2014-04-07 21:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Poverty rates
by Soulbender on Tue 8th Apr 2014 05:07 UTC in reply to "Poverty rates"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

How about you guys give the country back to the American Indians?

Reply Score: 8

re: Newark
by Drunkula on Mon 7th Apr 2014 20:47 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

No, 17,000 is crazy low. I think the median income nationally is right around 51,000.

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: Newark
by abcxyz on Mon 7th Apr 2014 21:04 UTC in reply to "re: Newark"
abcxyz Member since:
2009-07-30

It looks like you'd be talking about median *household* income. While the one mentioned in article could then be adjusted to a person?

Reply Score: 4

RE: re: Newark
by steveftoth on Mon 7th Apr 2014 21:21 UTC in reply to "re: Newark"
steveftoth Member since:
2005-10-30

17,000 is per capita median income, 50,000 you are looking at is household income, which for New Jersey is about 34,000.

Reply Score: 5

Android is for everyone
by Morgan on Mon 7th Apr 2014 22:34 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

This raises an interesting question: is it 'Android is for poor people' - or is it 'Android is for poor people in America'?


It could be a third, obvious option: Android is for everyone. You can pay anywhere from $50 to $1000 or more for a contract-free Android device. The cheapest contract-free iPhone is $400, and that's two generations behind. If this means that more poor people have Android devices than iOS devices, well...duh!

Reply Score: 7

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 8th Apr 2014 00:05 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

This raises an interesting question: is it 'Android is for poor people' - or is it 'Android is for poor people in America'?

Obviously Android is for poor people in America because poor people elsewhere in the world buy pricey Apple products. Poor non-Americans may not have much income but they have their standards.

Reply Score: 1

on the net...
by hobgoblin on Tue 8th Apr 2014 00:45 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

USA == world.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by judgen
by judgen on Tue 8th Apr 2014 03:26 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Here in Sweden most newly arrived immigrant kids has more expensive clothes than most swedish kids and owns an iPhone before the first year since arrival. source: sibling works as immigrant officer.

Reply Score: 3

What I want to know is...
by theosib on Tue 8th Apr 2014 04:36 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

How the hell do you live in Manhattan with an income under $67000? There are lots of places in New York where you can live on that much money. Elmira, Onondaga, Utica, Corning, Binghamton, Owego, Cortland, Rome, Manlius, and numerous upstate places you’ve never heard of. Hell, there are places on Long Islang where you could live on that money, like Montauk. But Manhattan?

Reply Score: 2

RE: What I want to know is...
by Hayoo! on Tue 8th Apr 2014 06:09 UTC in reply to "What I want to know is..."
Hayoo! Member since:
2013-04-13

How the hell do you live in Manhattan with an income under $67000?

Maybe frugally or miserably?

Edited 2014-04-08 06:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

The Term
by Hayoo! on Tue 8th Apr 2014 06:07 UTC
Hayoo!
Member since:
2013-04-13

We should all be aware of pars pro toto. It can be a fatal fallacy when used carelessly.

Reply Score: 3

SImple
by Soulbender on Tue 8th Apr 2014 06:14 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

It' simple really. Android is for people who wants a smart phone but don't care enough about the Apple brand to find the iPhone good value for money.

Reply Score: 6

i prefer..
by Brunis on Tue 8th Apr 2014 07:02 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

..if by poor people you mean people who prefer not to waste the money they have.. getting no where near the functionality or usability and a terribly small screen for almost twice the amount of a great Android value device.. then yeah! i'm poor as hell!

some people just want to belong and if all they have to do is pay a lot extra for an iPhone, then let them. let them continue their insecure lives in a bubble of illusion! ;)

Reply Score: 4

Comment by TusharG
by TusharG on Tue 8th Apr 2014 07:11 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

and what you have to say about Windows Phone? Where it is most popular within its popularity index is India (which is poor country). Also receiving message from android does not mean its been messaged from low cost android phone! It can also come from Samsung Galaxy Golder phone or from Sony Z1 which are more expensive then iPhone.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by TusharG
by Morgan on Tue 8th Apr 2014 11:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by TusharG"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

My experience has been that Windows Phones are the absolute best value in the low end phone arena. You can get one for less than $100 contract free that, performance wise, will wipe the floor with most $200 Android phones (apart from the Moto G, that thing is an enigma). That said, the app situation on Windows devices is nothing short of pathetic, but if all you want is a great, cheap social media phone that won't bog down every other time you touch the screen, you can't beat them.

Now, once you get into the midrange and above, Android gets very competitive. For $350 you can get a Nexus 5 that beats the pants off of just about any other phone in its price range. Jump up to $500 and pretty much any Android phone at that price is a great pick. While I still have a personal preference for Windows Phones, I can't deny how far Android has come.

And here's the punchline: It's not until you get to that $500 (again, contract free) price that you find the iPhone, which apart from cult status and app ecosystem, has nothing to offer that you can't find in a comparatively priced Android or Windows phone.

To put it another way, if someone were to offer me a choice, for free, between an iPhone 5s ($649), a Galaxy Note 3 ($549), or a Nokia Lumia 1020 ($506), the iPhone wouldn't even be on my radar.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Tractor
by Tractor on Tue 8th Apr 2014 09:06 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

Class & social division is much more acute in USA than in Europe.

Europe still dreams of a middle class encompassing from the poor to the riches, with minimum people out of it. But even in Europe this vision is being hammered and slowly disappear overtime.

USA is more and more looking like South Africa or Israël : Rich people living together in protected places, while slaves, sorry poor people/uneducated moron/dangerous dealer/potential terrorists, are parked into their own separated area (with preferably a fence to separate both worlds).

The future of USA, as dreamed by its most wealthy members, is something like Elysium.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by brichpmr
by brichpmr on Tue 8th Apr 2014 09:11 UTC
brichpmr
Member since:
2006-04-22

I train up to Newark every day for work, and I see a mix of iOS and Android devices on the train. At my enterprise in Newark, I also see a mix with a growing number of Galaxy phones and Notes, but our management team uses iPads and iPhones mostly. Newark is a mix of folks with and without money, of course.

IMO, there is no broad brush that accurately reveals the truth.

Reply Score: 4

Only in the USA
by unclefester on Tue 8th Apr 2014 09:18 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I'ts strictly a US thing. Australian wages are generally much higher* than in the US yet Android phones are the norm here.

*In Australia the minimum wage is equivalent to USD35,000.

The median male wage is equivalent to about USD67,000.

Reply Score: 2

przemo_li
Member since:
2010-06-01

And Apple is targetting high end only.

So why would they be present in areas where low end matters (like in whole damn USA)?

Anyway, Apple got to late to Europe,Asia,Africa or any other market that matter.

They are either too expensive (Asia, Africa) or too late (Europe) to ecosystem game, or late to innovation (Japan) game.

Not that Apple is struggling to keep its market...

Just they do not have what most people wants, and most people do not have cash for what Apple have.

(And Android ecosystem is at least good enough to stop Apple advance if Apple starts second)

Reply Score: 2

A commercial
by Janvl on Tue 8th Apr 2014 09:53 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

made to the insights of Darell Huff.
"How to lie with statistics". 1954

Do not believe it.

Reply Score: 2

egarland
Member since:
2005-08-05

Everyone I know who's technical dislikes iOS and prefers Android. It's unfortunate, but sensible that iOS gets more developer attention because it's customers have more money than sense.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Ressev
by Ressev on Thu 10th Apr 2014 09:56 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

I would not say I am poor, but I choose not to use an iPhone given as I prefer the flexibility of the android platform and the fact that for the majority of the iPhone's existence in the USA, AT&T had a monopoly on it. I very much dislike AT&T's customer service and rates.

Reply Score: 2