19 Jun

Damage control: AT&T denies $55 tethering charge rumor

Posted on 2009 under iPhone News |

Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Rumors, Wireless, iPhone


While it was rumored that AT&T would charge an additional $55 to enable U.S. customers to use internet tethering on the iPhone, the company has scrambled to deny that claim by posting an update on its Facebook page:

"There are a lot of reports out there, but wanted you guys to know that rumors of $55 tethering plan on top of an unlimited data plan are false. We'll have more news to share when the iPhone tethering option is closer to launch."

I'm guessing one of two things has happened.

1. The $55 tethering option price that leaked was real, and AT&T is now in damage control mode. Perhaps realizing that they're overdosing on bad press already, they might be considering following in the footsteps of other telcos and let people tether the iPhone for free, or at least at a far more reasonable price.

or,

2. AT&T is doing the typical corporate PR thing, and by telling us that tethering won't cost $55, they'll expect their customers to be grateful when it actually costs "only" $35 instead.

I'm not a betting man -- when I visit Vegas, I go to visit family and for the cheap drinks -- but if I was, I wouldn't lay down any money on option 1.

[Via Macworld]

TUAWDamage control: AT&T denies $55 tethering charge rumor originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Related Posts

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

About Author

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Vestibulum at arcu. Integer et risus. Morbi id tellus. Integer felis. Mauris malesuada, turpis vitae facilisis euismod, dui arcu adipiscing sem, eu vulputate leo ante in lacus. Sed porta accumsan lectus. Aenean ac sem. In consequat tempus velit. Phasellus leo enim, adipiscing a, egestas nec, pretium ut, pede. Mauris sollicitudin diam et mauris. Sed quis enim vel augue egestas lobortis. Etiam tempus ipsum vel neque.