AT&T To Curb Smartphone Data Use(informationweek.com)
informationweek.com
AT&T To Curb Smartphone Data Use
http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222001355&subSection=News
9 comments
The information super highway is every bit as important to the future of our nation as vehicle highways were in the 1950's.
For the most part, you don't have to pay to drive on Interstates. There are exceptions in and around some major cities like Chicago, but imagine where we would be today if it cost money to drive on every road.
We couldn't leave a project like the highway system in the hands of a private corporation. Imagine what we could build with investment from an organization with a vision of decades rather than months.
For the most part, you don't have to pay to drive on Interstates. There are exceptions in and around some major cities like Chicago, but imagine where we would be today if it cost money to drive on every road.
We couldn't leave a project like the highway system in the hands of a private corporation. Imagine what we could build with investment from an organization with a vision of decades rather than months.
>>We couldn't leave a project like the highway system in the hands of a private corporation.
I have to completely disagree with you, I believe you take too much on faith. We don't know what would've happened, but it's very possible that a better alternative could exist.
1. How much richer would everyone be if they were able to keep there tax dollars. 2. Without subsidizing cars, perhaps trains would still be a viable option. 3. Traffic may not be as much of a problem; maximum speeds would not be so ridiculously low. 4. We might see less urban sprawl.
I have to completely disagree with you, I believe you take too much on faith. We don't know what would've happened, but it's very possible that a better alternative could exist.
1. How much richer would everyone be if they were able to keep there tax dollars. 2. Without subsidizing cars, perhaps trains would still be a viable option. 3. Traffic may not be as much of a problem; maximum speeds would not be so ridiculously low. 4. We might see less urban sprawl.
We know what would have happened: It wouldn't have happened.
The claim lots of people make about "we'd be richer if we kept our taxes" is erroneous. How much richer would we be if we didn't have to pay for the operation of the network and the profits to thousands of shareholders who add no value? There are scales of projects where the profit motive hampers development.
The claim lots of people make about "we'd be richer if we kept our taxes" is erroneous. How much richer would we be if we didn't have to pay for the operation of the network and the profits to thousands of shareholders who add no value? There are scales of projects where the profit motive hampers development.
That's an interesting alternative that may very well be true. I don't think it carries over to this discussion quite that well, as I'm not sure what the equivalent of urban sprawl, trains/group transit are in the context of internet infrastructure.
But still, an interesting take.
But still, an interesting take.
Imagine if we had multiple companies building separate highways alongside each other, competing for traffic.
We don't have to imagine too hard - see NYC and the building the of the subway system. Three companies (IRT, BRT, IND) building lines somewhat independently, leaving some areas covered by multiple lines and some areas underserved.
New York has multiple subway lines? What a waste. Sorry, I've never been to New York City.
De la Vega said that 3% of smartphone users are using 40% of data traffic.
It's akin to the argument Comcast trotted out when they claimed a similar disparity where a few (bittorrenting) users were consuming most of the bandwidth.
I guess AT&T can always start traffic shaping, but I'm wondering what exactly those 3% of people are doing since there's no real need to download massive files to the iphone and there's only so much streaming media you can watch / websites you want to refresh.
I guess AT&T can always start traffic shaping, but I'm wondering what exactly those 3% of people are doing since there's no real need to download massive files to the iphone and there's only so much streaming media you can watch / websites you want to refresh.
So "AT&T To Curb AT&T Use" then?
Not really news. The biggest concern for me to go from Verizon to the iPhone was AT&T. And I was right.
AT&T is its own worst enemy. I think Droid is as much psychological pressure as anything else. If Verizon plays it crafty, they can just watch while AT&T self destructs.
AT&T is its own worst enemy. I think Droid is as much psychological pressure as anything else. If Verizon plays it crafty, they can just watch while AT&T self destructs.
AT&T's cellular data plans are already capped at 5GB. Are they actually purposing to punish users who consume less than 5GB/month? Personally I have no problems with reasonable caps but I have a major problem with a previously established cap being lowered mid-contract. I can't see how it's even legally possible for AT&T to do this. It's straight out fraud, breach of contract, bait & switch advertising.
If they absolutely need to change the terms they will probably have to offer all currently contracted AT&T cellular data customers a penalty free contract opt out or at least grandfather in anyone who signed up for a 2 year contract with the terms of $30/month @ 5GB cap.
If they absolutely need to change the terms they will probably have to offer all currently contracted AT&T cellular data customers a penalty free contract opt out or at least grandfather in anyone who signed up for a 2 year contract with the terms of $30/month @ 5GB cap.
I can answer my own question... another source says they want to move to a straight usage based billing model. They'd have to charge less than 1 cent per MB to match $30/month pricing on a 5GB cap which obviously isn't going to happen. This is a stealth price hike for everyone light or high usage.
Usually if they change terms mid-contract you can cancel without penalty... now if only you could use your phone on another network without having to hack it then a lot of people would do that.
As it stands if you leave AT&T your iPhone becomes an iPod...
As it stands if you leave AT&T your iPhone becomes an iPod...
As far as I can tell it's pretty straight forward to unlock your iPhone to use it on T-Mobile.
You lose 3G though. T-Mobile uses different radio frequencies for 3G. iPhone + Mifi is really viable though.
My own kneejerk reaction is to fear a $/MB system, but that's only because I trust AT&T about as far as I can throw them, and it would be reasonable to predict extortionate pricing for whatever plan they come up with. (Side note: why does it have to be that you never hear someone say, "I love my cable/phone/internet company, you should sign up with them."?)
If the bandwidth market resembled those of pretty much everything else we buy, most of us paying the requisite $30/month for unlimited data on the iPhone would save money under a $/MB plan.
If the bandwidth market resembled those of pretty much everything else we buy, most of us paying the requisite $30/month for unlimited data on the iPhone would save money under a $/MB plan.
> (Side note: why does it have to be that you never hear someone say, "I love my cable/phone/internet company, you should sign up with them."?)
I've heard that about TekSavvy DSL in Canada, but they are reliant on Bell which controls the last-mile copper and started throttling even 3rd-party providers 1.5+ years ago. I never got to try them because I moved away around the time that I was considering moving over.
I've heard that about TekSavvy DSL in Canada, but they are reliant on Bell which controls the last-mile copper and started throttling even 3rd-party providers 1.5+ years ago. I never got to try them because I moved away around the time that I was considering moving over.
TekSavvy is amazing. Set-up is fast, they deal with Bell's screwups when they happen (this is a when, not an if), and when you call them, a person answers, with no music-on-hold.
They will also set up a workaround for Bell's throttling if you ask them (it involves a fake multilink PPP login, without the second line).
They will also set up a workaround for Bell's throttling if you ask them (it involves a fake multilink PPP login, without the second line).
I'm like that with Verizon. I had their wireless service for years before I switched to ATT for the iPhone. I have their FiOS service now and LOVE it. Of course, I've never had to deal with customer service, so YMMV.
I don't think a future where bandwidth is capped is going to work. We need more bandwidth in our homes. We will eventually need more bandwidth to our phones.
It smells of a limited-vision knee-jerk reaction. And my reaction is to bail on AT&T, jailbreak my phone and find a carrier that is wise enough not to play the bandwidth game.
It smells of a limited-vision knee-jerk reaction. And my reaction is to bail on AT&T, jailbreak my phone and find a carrier that is wise enough not to play the bandwidth game.
Because the magical broadband fairy is going to put up all of those towers and lay all of those cables for free?
You'd bail from ATT because ATT did not lay in the network capacity for the devices which they were/are selling.
They just have to block access to porn sites. Done, network congestion solved.
[deleted]
Why would I have to pay for your bandwidth again if only Comcast is available in my area?