It appears that ATT is validating against the USPS street address database. For towns (like mountain towns) where there is all mail goes to PO Box's the only valid street address tends to be for post office itself. But, then ATT won't let you sign up using that fudge in your "service address" because it also isn't allowing sign ups from places that aren't in its primary digital service areas which is much of the rural US.

A work around when signing up is to enter your PO Box in the billing section but then pick the post office address (from USPS web site) for a post office as your service address location. This seems to work. Have not yet tried correcting the service address after signup.

This is why I don't own an iPhone.

This whole in or out of coverage jazz is ridiculous. I live in a rural western state. We don't have AT&T coverage but do have GSM network coverage. I bought the 3G version of the iPad because I had every intention of using it once a week when I am on the road. The rest would be WIFI only.

I am traveling to a nearby city tomorrow to have a different sim placed in the iPad by a commission-based cellular technician who "thinks" he can get me up and running on a different providers data plan. I'd be pissed if the iPad was a locked device. But, I suppose, I can eventually find a work around.

Has anyone heard of mailing an iPad to a location of someone in a 3G area to activate the phone? Will AT&T eventually determine the usage is outside of that area consistently on a partner providers' network and then cause a stink because it costs them more to provide data to that iPad?

In that scenario, will the iPad work in an area without any AT&T 3G coverage (but in an area where out of state iPhones get edge coverage without any problems)?

The rub with the iPhone was that you would get an odd number with an non-local area code; but with the iPad, we don't need a number and the "remote activation" (and payment) seems like it might be suitable work around. I just don't want to end up with AT&T's panties in a wad because I'm working the machine outside of their coverage area.

If they determine your usage (more than 24 mb a month) is outside their coverage area, regardless of what address you use, they will kill the contract. I live in a "partner" area and even though AT&T is supposed to be coming to town (bought out alltel) in the next month, they just dropped my new iphone because of usage in a partner area (read that "Edge"). You can bet, since they are not letting people sign up the ipad in a partner area, that they will close you down if most of your usage is in a partner area.

I live in a dead zone, although I have a Verizon cell phone contract and two AT&T cell phone contracts. AT&T sales rep told me on Sunday June 5, 2010 that if I try to sign up for a data plan on my iPad, I will not succeed.

I mentioned my two cell phones on existing AT&T contracts. He said yeah but your account is flagged not to permit adding any more lines because we have changed our system and we don't want to sell service to people who cannot use it where they live. We don't want them to be disappointed.

I said the whole purpose of a mobile phone, or any mobile telecoms device, for me, is to be able to take it on the road and use it wherever I can get a signal. That is how I use my cell phones now. It is how I have always used them. I don't expect cell service in my residence becuase I live in a rural area and hell will freeze over before there's a tower my house can see, unless some rich politician buys a vacation house here and makes Verizon or AT&T bring a tower over one of the mountains that enclose this area (western Catskills in New York).

He said what can I say; that is the new policy of AT&T, if you can't use it where you live, you can't have a data plan for the iPad.

So I overpaid for the 3G option on my iPad, apparently. I am tempted to return it unopened to the Apple Store. And I'm tempted to kill my two AT&T phone contracts and eat the ETFs, I am so mad. I have paid cell bills uncomplainingly for FIVE YEARS, fully aware the phones are only useful elsewhere than in the 400 square mile dead zone in which I live. I accept that as a fact of my life and my choice to live in a rural area and to use cellular communication when I am elsewhere. The cell phones are MOBILE DEVICES. I go somewhere, and then I use them. Seems a simple enough concept to me.

If I don't care that I have to maintain a land line as well , why should AT&T concern themselves over such a detail? And why should I not be able to travel to a city to visit friends or relatives and use my iPad with cellular access at those times?

If I were a little more paranoid, I would think this is just about national security or something, not about AT&T's ability to scope out potential customers' requirement for spectrum usage by "primary usage location."

After all, even if I lived in a coverage area, who's to say that I would actually use my cellphone from my residence more than I would use it wherever and whenever I traveled from my home to somewhere else? I might live in San Francisco and work in LA and use the data plan only in LA while waiting for my flight home on the days I have to show up in person on the job. How is that different from living in the Catskills and working in New York City and using the data plan only in the city before heading home again? At home I would use the iPad on my DSL's WiFi the same as I now use the iPhone and iPod touch, etc on my WiFi at home. It's when I'm not near my WiFi that I turn to cellular connections. Why would I chose slow cell over fast WiFi at home?do

I could live to be a hundred and ten years old and not understand this policy. This is the USA, not Iran. Whose business is it where I use a damn phone anyway. If you are someplace where a cell tower can see you open your phone or turn on your iPad, you should be good to go. And why do the providers call their plans "national" when they can toss your contract out if you bounce "too many" calls off partnered towers? I used to think we needed different laws for telecoms. Now I am starting to think we just need different telecoms. Bring in some serious competition from providers based in other countries where they actually invest in some infrastructure before they try to cut costs and reap profits from jacked up rates on reduced services.

It's pretty darned funny AT&T is denying iPad users 3G coverage because they live outside the 3G service area, when they do just the opposite if you have a 3G iPhone.

I live in a rural area, far from coverage on any 3G network, but when I recently upgraded my old 2nd Gen iPhone (which used Edge), to an iPhone 3G, the first thing AT&T did when they found out, was notifiy me that they have upgraded my data plan accordingly (so they can charge me more for the 3G data plan).

I don't use AT&T's 3G network, but they are forcing a data plan that costs me more, simply because I have 3G capability. It's probably about time for me to go back to a basic phone, and tell them they can keep their 3G networks and expensive data plans.

My Take, (no I'm not defending AT&T or it practices)is that AT&T is doing everything it can to protect themselves and the network from a meltdown. They were caught completely unprepared for the massive increase in traffic and did very little to correct it early. Following the business model of previous years that most telecoms still follow which is to make the consumer bite it. Well what happened is that the problem became so bad and so wide spread that it became extremely high visibility and I suspect it put their entire cellular network at risk due to the load. Now it seems the company does everything it can to not deliver on their service promise. you can tether your IPhone (soon - Sure AT&T you've told us that for years), but not to your iPad. I can imagine the counter arguments but one has to be market cannibalization the other has to be load related. The biggest thing I think is that AT&T is struggling to catch their network bandwidth up with consumption and they are not winning at present. They have to be in the top 10 most despised companies in the U.S. (they are in my books anyway) and I think their ads are laughable. Fast Networks, NOT!!! Anyway fast means naught if there is little or no availablility. One the edge side I'm sure that the iPad would be the network slayer if you try to pull large volumes of data through it.

Jennifer Nguyen,

"Despite AT&T's recent marketing, which states that 97% of all Americans are covered by AT&T's 3G network." Where does AT&T state their 3G covers 97% of all Americans?

Guess you don't pay enough to the ads or the wording, what AT&T claims is that they provide a service area for 97% of Americans. That does not mean 97% of America; Verizon's is around 95%, however, they have more customers by a few million so they're the largest. Anyways, AT&T's 97% service include mostly phone, then some edge, and very little 3G. Their 3G is laughable because they have a small backbone to handle the users. It didn't take them by surprise of the amount of data usage, they've been making profits for years and haven't done much with improvements.

Its easier and cheaper to raise a stink and to limit data plans in order to bypass backbone and infrastructure upgrades, plus they get to rack in the overage fees.

AT&T may in some areas have a slightly faster 3G (3G is only in major cities, AT&T) than its competitors, however, they're rated the lowest on reliability, meaning your speed is spotty. Where Verizon has 5+ the 3G coverage and better reliability and I would take that any day.

I faced the same issue; living outside G3 coverage in midcoast maine but southern maine is in the network. I simply used my step daughter's address in CT for the service address and it worked. Plan activated. FWIW.