12-13-09 11:39 AM
35 12
tools
  1. cenloe's Avatar
    I cant believe this is the solution that they've come up with, how about some new towers??

    Cap My iPhone? Try This Instead, AT&T | Epicenter | Wired.com
    12-09-09 07:59 PM
  2. stuaw11's Avatar
    "how about some new towers??"

    I dont think you quite get how not simple that is. 1. get a piece of land to put it one. HARD in itself. Cities/towns fight new towers as eye-sores and dont want to let towers be built, then their population complains about service. 2. Wait for the lease to be complete for the land. 3. actually build the thing. Along the way FCC red tape.

    Prob quite a few more steps to it but thats the basics. that can take MONTHS and MONTHS just to get the residential area approval for the land lease to erect the tower. The BIGGEST problem is finding a spot to put them and then the locals actually approving of it being there. The other red tape isnt nearly as time consuming

    Its not all cake and rainbows to just "throw up more towers" it makes time to do that. It could be months to a year just to get approval let alone months to construct it after the red tape is cut. Youre talking a year or more to put up ONE tower.

    I agree with ATT on this one, its the small number of abusers using most of the bandwidth. Its time to cap those users off and let everyone's experience improve. If they want to do tiered data Im all down for that using <1 GB a month. Ill gladly pay less and 3,4,5gb people more since they use more. Sounds fair to me.
    Last edited by stuaw11; 12-09-09 at 08:40 PM.
    12-09-09 08:30 PM
  3. Chaldo's Avatar
    I think it will be capped until LTE comes out.
    12-09-09 09:10 PM
  4. stuaw11's Avatar
    and i say good, for the good of everyone. Theyre not essential uses of data to watch streaming video or use streaming apps. No one NEEDS ti watch 500mb of streaming video a day, its a frill luxury to have.

    No one's essential data need like browsing and email will take a hit, and it will eliminate a lot of the problems for people and everyone's data speeds will increase with less load too.
    12-09-09 09:22 PM
  5. cenloe's Avatar
    "how about some new towers??"

    I dont think you quite get how not simple that is. 1. get a piece of land to put it one. HARD in itself. Cities/towns fight new towers as eye-sores and dont want to let towers be built, then their population complains about service. 2. Wait for the lease to be complete for the land. 3. actually build the thing. Along the way FCC red tape.

    Prob quite a few more steps to it but thats the basics. that can take MONTHS and MONTHS just to get the residential area approval for the land lease to erect the tower. The BIGGEST problem is finding a spot to put them and then the locals actually approving of it being there. The other red tape isnt nearly as time consuming

    Its not all cake and rainbows to just "throw up more towers" it makes time to do that. It could be months to a year just to get approval let alone months to construct it after the red tape is cut. Youre talking a year or more to put up ONE tower.

    I agree with ATT on this one, its the small number of abusers using most of the bandwidth. Its time to cap those users off and let everyone's experience improve. If they want to do tiered data Im all down for that using <1 GB a month. Ill gladly pay less and 3,4,5gb people more since they use more. Sounds fair to me.
    What you say is true, however Its not that hard to put temporary towers in place-I see all the time whenever there are huge sporting events or in any large event where many people are expected to gather. After Katrina hit, every major cell provider had one of these at the airport.

    Cell on wheels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I understand that putting a new cell tower in place is not that easy, especially in San Fran where property is so expensive, but a C.O.W. is a better temporary solution than capping data, the negative press alone is bad enough.
    12-09-09 09:35 PM
  6. Duvi's Avatar
    There's a big difference between users that can switch to a carrier that works than Katrina, where there were no choices.

    It's difficult... very difficult. NYC and San Fran are very populated and even when they get permission to add towers, they would have to find a place that would help or a place they actually can.
    12-09-09 10:35 PM
  7. Chaldo's Avatar
    There's a big difference between users that can switch to a carrier that works than Katrina, where there were no choices.

    It's difficult... very difficult. NYC and San Fran are very populated and even when they get permission to add towers, they would have to find a place that would help or a place they actually can.
    I'm sure there is enough places to pay people to use their property, also I think AT&T is just taking the temporary cheap way out. If they knew what they were doing, wireless data usage is only going to get more bigger.. so why give up the opportunity to show us how your 3G technology beats Verizons??? Deploy HSPA and bring more back haul and you should do a lot better. Things are only going to get worse... I like AT&T, but this just pissed me off.
    12-09-09 11:29 PM
  8. Duvi's Avatar
    I'm sure there is enough places to pay people to use their property, also I think AT&T is just taking the temporary cheap way out. If they knew what they were doing, wireless data usage is only going to get more bigger.. so why give up the opportunity to show us how your 3G technology beats Verizons??? Deploy HSPA and bring more back haul and you should do a lot better. Things are only going to get worse... I like AT&T, but this just pissed me off.
    These solutions are not easy to implement. How stupid would a company be to do this purposely knowing that the iPhone is not going to be exclusive soon and will have to rely on good service.

    You can be mad at AT&T, but the same would have happened to any other network that got the iPhone. If you're having bad service, then you should not be on the network. If AT&T is pissing you off, then why stay?
    12-10-09 12:27 AM
  9. ShiPanda's Avatar
    Do you think AT&T will actually do this?? Really hope they dont.
    12-10-09 02:19 AM
  10. Entertainment72's Avatar
    Do you think AT&T will actually do this?? Really hope they dont.
    If they do I doubt most will exceed their limits so I would not worry. Only overpaid sports stars exceed caps . De La Vega mentioned that only 3% of users abuse it so that means 97% are good.

    Have you ever hit that 130mph speed limiter and if so how many times....

    I for one cannot wait for the iPhone to go to another network.. even T-Mobile so it puts less strain on AT&T and I get even better speed than my 1.5-2 I get now .

    Just 3 percent of smartphone users are consuming 40 percent of the network capacity, de la Vega said, adding that the most high-bandwidth activity is video and audio streaming. Several applications on the iPhone provide nonstop Internet radio.
    Per PC World's reporting of his keynote speech, de la Vega noted that demand for wireless data service has grown 5,000 percent in the last three years, with growth only expected to accelerate as time wears on.

    You can thank the iPhone for that. De la Vega says that just three percent of his company's smartphone customers use a whopping 40 percent of the network's data, 13 times the usage of other smartphone users on the network. While he didn't explicitly finger these data hogs as iPhone users, the subtext was fairly obvious. Even de la Vega doesn't want to bite the hand that's been keeping his network fed for the last three years.
    If the iPhone were only on VZW they'd crash and burn to..
    Last edited by Entertainment72; 12-10-09 at 08:12 AM.
    12-10-09 08:00 AM
  11. brokedaytonadriver's Avatar
    Whether ya'll think it's understandable or not.. AT&T has just shot themselves in the foot and gave more credit to Verizon. Yes if Iphones or a Droid was this popular on another systems (exclusively) it would bog it down as well, but if the Iphone wasn't exclusive to one carrier this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.
    12-10-09 08:22 AM
  12. M_Vineyard's Avatar
    I agree with ATT on this one, its the small number of abusers using most of the bandwidth.I
    So now when a corporation sells a consumer a product (unlimited data plan) that the customer uses as it was advertised and sold to them, it's abuse by the consumer.

    Got it.
    12-10-09 10:00 AM
  13. stuaw11's Avatar
    and whats was data usage PRE-iphone? 1/100th? pre when it got 3G, 1/50th?

    You just cant predict something like that happening. So what do you do about it? Well you cant alter the pricing or contracts now. So you either 1) limit the data usage until you can put up more towers in a year or so (approval, FCC, etc red tape); or 2) start raising data pricing for new contracts and phase it in or tier it.

    I cant tell you #2 wont fly because people whine already about $30, imagine if they did it by the mb or GB like in most other countries. The high users would be in a frenzy. No one is going to pay more, period. The way of the American is more for less.

    So the only other feasible option is limit usage until they can get more towers up. For one, I couldnt care less about people's need to be glued to the id*ot box and stream content all day on their phones sucking the bandwidth. If its hurting the network then curb it until you put up towers and alleviate some of the stress maxing them out. It would only be a temporary move until LTE anyways!

    Thats life, you dont always get what you want and no amount of fist pounding or whining will change that theyre going to do whats best for their network and everyone. And for once I agree with them to do whats best for the sum and screw the 3% whiners using 40 % of the data making other's experience poor. Personally I hope the high use/streaming whiners do cancel when the data policy changes, just more bandwidth for the rest of us- 40% more which is a ton.
    Last edited by stuaw11; 12-10-09 at 10:36 AM.
    12-10-09 10:19 AM
  14. xxxxpradaxxxx's Avatar
    If this means they'll let me pay less for less data, I'd be happy.

    I never pass 500MB a month.

    5-8GB seems ridiculous.

    I'll opt for unlimited data when I can play World Of Warcraft from my iPhone.
    12-10-09 10:35 AM
  15. stuaw11's Avatar
    i agree ive always though 5gb was way too much for a phone. The "unlimited" data at a fixed price is an antiquated theory when phones were mobile browsers and email and it was hard to use a gig. With full html browers and streaming content usage SHOULD be capped at 2 or 3gb MAX. If youre not streaming crap hours a day youd be VERY hard pressed to use 2-3gb browsing and email and even using apps.

    If you want more, you pay more per gb, or just dont allow it at all until they can open up 4G on a new band (700mhz). People got by just fine prior to streaming content on their phone, just like people got by without computers and other luxuries. It wasnt too long, less than 10 years, ago browsing the web on the phone was a luxury that few had.

    I never pass 1gb a month, id be fine with paying $10 less even and charge people at 4 and 5gb $40 and $50 respectively if theyre hogging bandwidth or just cap it off lower totally and people can deal.

    Unfortunately its technology hurting itself here. ATT's 3G uses the same bandwidth for voice and data under HSPA unlike EVDO which has the luxury of separate voice and data channels (although they cant do simultaneous voice/data as a result). So saying "oh well VZW can do it" is totally inaccurate because 1) their total data usage of ALL their customers in probably trumped by ATT due to the iphone by possibly many times; and 2) the high data usage doesnt affect voice channels because of EVDO technology. So its not even a fair comparison, but a technological limit on a fixed amount of spectrum available.
    Last edited by stuaw11; 12-10-09 at 10:46 AM.
    12-10-09 10:39 AM
  16. Entertainment72's Avatar
    Even with the separate channels the iPhone would create chaos if it were exclusive to Verizon just on their data channel alone. I mean Verizon's edge *cough*cough* I mean "3G" network is sloooow as it is. I doubt it will happen this summer but I do hope the iPhone will be available on another US carrier.
    12-10-09 12:50 PM
  17. Username00089's Avatar
    If they cap data then so be it I guess. If they're going to charge less then that
    would be better. Most of the data I use is at home and at home I'm always
    connected to Wi-Fi.
    12-10-09 01:54 PM
  18. Entertainment72's Avatar
    I wouldn't mine paying $10 less for a cap of 1GB.. ($30 for 2GB cap) while others pay $10 more for 3+. Shoot I barely even get to 500mb let alone 1GB.
    12-10-09 02:12 PM
  19. eve6er69's Avatar
    i know the cap wouldnt affect me but i think this was a dumb idea. att sat on their thumbs for a couple years when the iphone first came out wondering how to fix the overcrowded network.
    now instead of doing something intelligent they just meter the high users.
    i am sure that 3% wouldnt mind paying more for more data storage and/or faster speeds.

    think of how much att gets from each customer cellphone and residential. they knew this was coming but instead of taking a proactive approach with the insane rise of customer base they just kept pocketing the $.

    again it dosent affect me because my sprint works fine for me but this is just lazy to me.
    12-10-09 02:35 PM
  20. Entertainment72's Avatar
    AT&T is spending millions on new towers and network expansion, it takes time and resources. It's not like they aren't doing anything, this is just a temporary solution.
    12-10-09 03:04 PM
  21. stuaw11's Avatar
    A reminder for all the "pro-consumers" who wanna complain here about they want unlimited data "they agreed to buy," THIS clause is IN the contract you signed:


    "Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows."

    I guess it pays to read what youre signing before you do so. You didnt agree to a static contract for life of unlimited do what you want.
    Last edited by stuaw11; 12-10-09 at 03:29 PM.
    12-10-09 03:22 PM
  22. sniffs's Avatar
    AT&T is spending millions on new towers and network expansion, it takes time and resources. It's not like they aren't doing anything, this is just a temporary solution.
    It takes a very long time to just put up 1 tower. It can take up to 2 months.

    The reason why is AT&T doesn't do tower installs themselves. They outsource it to a third party company. That third party company is now the proxy between the City and AT&T for approvals.

    The City board then has a telecommunications team who must approve it. Then it goes to the City to approve it. Then the third party company takes it to AT&T to approve it.

    This entire time, there are back and forths on placement of the towers, angles, etc..

    Then there's usually city hearings allowing citizens to voice approval/disapproval for the placement of the tower. If it's voted against by the citizens, then it must go on another vote by the city.. It's really REALLY ridiculous.
    Last edited by sniffs; 12-10-09 at 04:19 PM.
    12-10-09 04:16 PM
  23. stuaw11's Avatar
    It takes a very long time to just put up 1 tower. It can take up to 2 months.

    The reason why is AT&T doesn't do tower installs themselves. They outsource it to a third party company. That third party company is now the proxy between the City and AT&T for approvals.

    The City board then has a telecommunications team who must approve it. Then it goes to the City to approve it. Then the third party company takes it to AT&T to approve it.

    This entire time, there are back and forths on placement of the towers, angles, etc..

    Then there's usually city hearings allowing citizens to voice approval/disapproval for the placement of the tower. If it's voted against by the citizens, then it must go on another vote by the city.. It's really REALLY ridiculous.
    Of course Ive been trying to vocalize this point the past few days but people dont want to listen. They want to do whatever they want on data AND have better service overnight screaming ATT sucks.

    It CANT be both ways, you cant have your cake and eat it too, things take time and a temp fix like restricting content will open up the congestion UNTIL the new towers are up and active. Its the only way to go really.
    12-10-09 04:29 PM
  24. FATMANSDAD's Avatar
    Sucks to be on at&t. My carrier let's you use data as much as you want, the only thing they'll do is after about 5gigs or so they slow the speeds up on you or boot you off then allow you to get back on in a couple minutes. (The 2nd option pertains to tethering which is FREE on t-mobile.) Maybe at&t should try the same strategy.
    I experienced getting booted off once when my home internet service was off for about a month
    12-10-09 04:50 PM
  25. Username00089's Avatar
    Sucks to be on at&t. My carrier let's you use data as much as you want, the only thing they'll do is after about 5gigs or so they slow the speeds up on you or boot you off then allow you to get back on in a couple minutes. (The 2nd option pertains to tethering which is FREE on t-mobile.) Maybe at&t should try the same strategy.
    I experienced getting booted off once when my home internet service was off for about a month
    It doesn't suck because all it is is a rumor.
    12-10-09 05:16 PM
35 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD