So you honestly think people use their phones to pirate? You really believe this? And you believe this "pirating" is so rampant that AT$T must resort to this new data thing to curb it? Really? I thought only the MPAA and RIAA were clueless. I did enjoy the laugh. Now I'm off to my pc to log into my news groups, 256bit encrypted using my 50mb pipe.
This is just a way for AT&T to double-dip, to charge both the producer and the consumer for the data going over AT&T's network. Simply put, there is no way for the consumer to determine how much data he is responsible for vs how much data somebody else has promised to pay for, other than what AT&T tells him at the end of the month.
And AT&T has EVERY incentive to defraud the customer, with no downside [as it's just a civil matter, no class action lawsuit is possible, just arbitrary or small claims court]. And you have no way to prove which app used what data on your phone...
Actually it would be easy to implement a tweak in the OS where each app authorized for its own usage is excluded from the system tracking it. Then each App could keep track of it themselves for you.
Also, there is no double dipping. When you use the data in the app with a contract to ATT, your used data for the month isn't lowered, but remains as is.
So you honestly think people use their phones to pirate? You really believe this? And you believe this "pirating" is so rampant that AT$T must resort to this new data thing to curb it? Really? I thought only the MPAA and RIAA were clueless. I did enjoy the laugh. Now I'm off to my pc to log into my news groups, 256bit encrypted using my 50mb pipe.
Yes I do. There are bit-torrent apps for iOS when jailbroken. People also tether their devices to their computers, so again they can do everything they want. You can also find books in safari and load them into your iBooks or whatever. Just because you don't do it on your iPad or iPhone, doesn't mean others don't. Get a clue. I also never said ATT needed to resort to this. Go back and read more carefully. I said there is only one possible up-spin to this kind of a model. And trust me, if it works for ATT on the mobile front, don't think someone (even ATT themselves) wouldn't try it for your home internet too down the road. Were this to happen it would be a trial run. Remember, many countries already have caps for their home connections much like your mobile connections do.
Actually it would be easy to implement a tweak in the OS where each app authorized for its own usage is excluded from the system tracking it. Then each App could keep track of it themselves for you.
Also, there is no double dipping. When you use the data in the app with a contract to ATT, your used data for the month isn't lowered, but remains as is.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Yes I do. There are bit-torrent apps for iOS when jailbroken. People also tether their devices to their computers, so again they can do everything they want. You can also find books in safari and load them into your iBooks or whatever. Just because you don't do it on your iPad or iPhone, doesn't mean others don't. Get a clue.
That's right because books take up a whole 20kb, and tethering is only illegal to AT$T because you are not paying twice for data, it's not against the law. And there are so many other uses for bit-torrent is is dizzying but if you think someone is tethering to download movies all I can do is I can go on, you may want to get a clue because you clearly have no idea about pirating, bit-torrents ect....only what you read somewhere once. Do you have any idea how long it would take to download one movie over 3G? StarWars BluRay is 65GB. Would take a shade under a decade over 3G.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Which is why I said it was a dumb idea overall. To say this has an upside isn't to agree with it. There typically are advantages and disadvantages to everything in life.
What do you pay for bandwidth for your digital cable TV provider? What? It's not itemized? You don't see a bps charge? Bits delivered are bits delivered and the market is entropy if permitted or not. Delivery networks owning content doesn't work - ask Warner Bros and Time and AoL.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
As someone mentioned above the name DeBeers and diamonds. The telcos are playing the same game. They are making hugh sums of money off of hundreds of millions of accounts and crying they can't supply enough bandwidth but they don't use profits to widen the bands or put up more towers to rectify it. They don't have an incentive, just like DeBeers, to supply what is needed. They want it just the way it is. Now they're looking for more ways to bleed a stone.
That's right because books take up a whole 20kb, and tethering is only illegal to AT$T because you are not paying twice for data, it's not against the law. And there are so many other uses for bit-torrent is is dizzying but if you think someone is tethering to download movies all I can do is I can go on, you may want to get a clue because you clearly have no idea about pirating, bit-torrents ect....only what you read somewhere once. Do you have any idea how long it would take to download one movie over 3G? StarWars BluRay is 65GB. Would take a shade under a decade over 3G.
You realise 4G is being rolled out right? You also realise 3G, though not capable of BD, is quite capable, speed wise, to steal music and books, which do experience a lot of online piracy. And I don't know what books you read for 20kb, but the books I downloaded, illegally, were significantly bigger. They could go anywhere from 5mbs to 100s of mbs. And before you scold me, I only downloaded books I already owned. So rather than scanning those books myself, I figured it easier to download the copies already scanned.
As someone mentioned above the name DeBeers and diamonds. The telcos are playing the same game. They are making hugh sums of money off of hundreds of millions of accounts and crying they can't supply enough bandwidth but they don't use profits to widen the bands or put up more towers to rectify it. They don't have an incentive, just like DeBeers, to supply what is needed. They want it just the way it is. Now they're looking for more ways to bleed a stone.
While I agree with you, by and large, in some locations they cannot add more towers so easily even if they wanted to, like, apparently, in the SF bay area. But at the end of the day, ATT and everyone else providing bandwidth is going to do everything they possibly can to resist becoming "dumb pipes".
It's actually a clever idea. Not that it's going to replace conventional apps or that everyone would use it, but I could picture some scenarios where an app developer would want to pay for bandwidth and include it in the cost of the app.
Are you for real? This will almost stop development of Apps on IOS. Most IOS developers are small shops and there is no way they could afford huge fees from AT&T. This would be a disaster.
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Sorry if you're someone who already sold their first born to pay for their ridiculous data plans, but there are many others who do not want to pay anymore then they need to. Anyone with a low data plan could definitely benefit from this type of system. Just think of the data that Apple alone sends to and from your mobile devices; iCloud syncing, push notifications, over-the-air OS/app updates, iMessages, etc. Wouldn't it be great if Apple were able to pay for that data usage?
Are you for real? This will almost stop development of Apps on IOS. Most IOS developers are small shops and there is no way they could afford huge fees from AT&T. This would be a disaster.
I don't understand how you come to that conclusion? This is not a requirement. It's an additional option for developers. What if say TomTom was willing to pick up the bill for sending you updated map data? Or if a publisher pays for the bandwidth to download the latest issue of a magazine that you pay a monthly subscription fee for?
Sorry, but the people here screaming the "Sky is falling" aren't looking at this from any other perspective than AT&T forcing this on developers, when in fact, this is something optional they want to offer. I seriously doubt you're a developer or content reseller, so I'd also wager you haven't looked at all the angles and can see that there may actually be a reason why someone would want this as an option for your users.
Amazon does this using Verizon's mobile network for their Kindle eReaders as a service to their customers, I don't see why an app developer or other content reseller wouldn't want the option of offering a similar service for their own users?
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Bandwidth was and is an issue. Even Verizon, which got to see and prepare for years before getting the iPhone, has taken steps to ensure the iPhone service will work fairly well on their network. They grew out their already expansive '3G' network while also offering lifetime double-date caps to LTE users. They did this after they had the iPhone 4 for 6 months from mid-cycle release. Just imagine what AT&T experienced going in blind and with a lot more subs.
I don't understand how you come to that conclusion? This is not a requirement. It's an additional option for developers. What if say TomTom was willing to pick up the bill for sending you updated map data? Or if a publisher pays for the bandwidth to download the latest issue of a magazine that you pay a monthly subscription fee for?
TomTom isn't really an issue since the updated map info has been under 1MB per month but I like the idea of magazine subscriptions. Not so much for the iPhone but I would like an always connected iPad that I could access the iBookstore over cellular without me having to sign up or pay monthly fees, and have magazines and newspapers deliveries automatically. As you say, Amazon does this for Verizon [and AT&T and Sprint] for the Kindle.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Please show us where AT&T said that they have no bandwidth.
AT&T has simply said that restricting some of the data hogs would provide a better experience for everyone else. That doesn't mean that there's no bandwidth.
Furthermore, it could be that centralizing the data like this might improve their bandwidth. For example, the data might be cached locally and reduce the losses in transmission from a central site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by satcomer
Are you for real? This will almost stop development of Apps on IOS. Most IOS developers are small shops and there is no way they could afford huge fees from AT&T. This would be a disaster.
So? It's an OPTION. If a small developer can't afford it, they don't have to offer it.
I can see it making sense only for a couple of specific applications, most of which are already being handled by the big guys. It would have no effect on the small developers.
Please show us where AT&T said that they have no bandwidth.
AT&T has simply said that restricting some of the data hogs would provide a better experience for everyone else. That doesn't mean that there's no bandwidth.
Why do you call some users hogs? Why do you think those hogs negatively affect the overall experience? Because what the "hogs" do is use so much data that it congests the network.
Ok, but what does congestion mean? Not enough supply for the demand.
If there was plenty of data to go around and no bandwidth problem, the hogs wouldn't be negatively affecting the experience for everyone, and wouldn't be called hogs, as there would be plenty of bandwidth left for everyone else. They would just be users who use more data than others (which by the way, they paid for).
If there wasn't a bandwidth issue, why would AT&T need to throttle people's connections?
Why do you call some users hogs? Why do you think those hogs negatively affect the overall experience? Because what the "hogs" do is use so much data that it congests the network.
Ok, but what does congestion mean? Not enough supply for the demand.
If there was plenty of data to go around and no bandwidth problem, the hogs wouldn't be negatively affecting the experience for everyone, and wouldn't be called hogs, as there would be plenty of bandwidth left for everyone else. They would just be users who use more data than others (which by the way, they paid for).
If there wasn't a bandwidth issue, why would AT&T need to throttle people's connections?
You don't understand how the system works.
The system can never handle 100% of its theoretical capacity. It would break down completely. As you get closer and closer to the theoretical capacity, performance gets worse and worse - latency increases and the requirement to resend data increases. So, for example (these numbers are made up, but they demonstrate the issue):
If the system is operating at 10% of theoretical capacity, latency might be 10 ms and only 0.1% of packets must be resent.
If usage increases to 50% of capacity, latency might increase to 30 ms and 2% of packets must be resent.
At 80% of capacity, latency might be 100 ms and 10% of packets resent.
At 90% of capacity, latency might be 300 ms and 20% of packets resent or rejected (this 20% must obviously be included in the 90% of capacity figure).
At no point can one say that there is no more available capacity. But clearly, the data usage that drives usage to 90% of capacity is causing a significant degradation of service.
AT&T's position (and the other telcos, AFAIK) is that the system is getting up to a utilization level that causes degradation of performance. Allowing a few ultra-heavy users to continue without limitation will cause even more severe degradation for the other users. And when you consider that the top few percent of users use a huge percentage of total data, it can have a serious impact.
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Sorry if you're someone who already sold their first born to pay for their ridiculous data plans, but there are many others who do not want to pay anymore then they need to. Anyone with a low data plan could definitely benefit from this type of system.
Do you even have an iPhone? Smart Phone? I'm betting you don't or you're trolling for attention. Nobody with a smart phone, either iOS, Android, or WebOS, has a cheap data plan. Verizon and AT&T both REQUIRE that you pay them $30/month/phone for a data plan of ~ 3GB tiered, even if you don't need or use it. What part of that do you NOT understand??? We don't benefit from cheap plans because they don't exist. Period. Is 20 to 40 cent per text message OK with you too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
Just think of the data that Apple alone sends to and from your mobile devices; iCloud syncing, push notifications, over-the-air OS/app updates, iMessages, etc. Wouldn't it be great if Apple were able to pay for that data usage?
And you think Apple will be happy to pick up the cost of that bandwidth usage? I'm sorry, it's appeasers like you that got us an end to commercial free cable TV; into most wars etc. etc., and make the economy stagnate. You must be a troll here or the biggest dumb a$$ ever or you're 12 years-old.
At no point can one say that there is no more available capacity. But clearly, the data usage that drives usage to 90% of capacity is causing a significant degradation of service.
AT&T's position (and the other telcos, AFAIK) is that the system is getting up to a utilization level that causes degradation of performance. Allowing a few ultra-heavy users to continue without limitation will cause even more severe degradation for the other users. And when you consider that the top few percent of users use a huge percentage of total data, it can have a serious impact.
What happens to a network that is up to a utilization level of high degradation if the total capacity of that network increases significantly but the usage remains about the same? I ask you this because clearly the demand right now is so high that it causes degradation of the network. The answer isn't to add more data on the network, or to cut off how much people can use the network. The answer is to expanded the network and how much it can provide (without degradation).
Comments
Pirating.
So you honestly think people use their phones to pirate? You really believe this? And you believe this "pirating" is so rampant that AT$T must resort to this new data thing to curb it? Really?
This is just a way for AT&T to double-dip, to charge both the producer and the consumer for the data going over AT&T's network. Simply put, there is no way for the consumer to determine how much data he is responsible for vs how much data somebody else has promised to pay for, other than what AT&T tells him at the end of the month.
And AT&T has EVERY incentive to defraud the customer, with no downside [as it's just a civil matter, no class action lawsuit is possible, just arbitrary or small claims court]. And you have no way to prove which app used what data on your phone...
Actually it would be easy to implement a tweak in the OS where each app authorized for its own usage is excluded from the system tracking it. Then each App could keep track of it themselves for you.
Also, there is no double dipping. When you use the data in the app with a contract to ATT, your used data for the month isn't lowered, but remains as is.
So you honestly think people use their phones to pirate? You really believe this? And you believe this "pirating" is so rampant that AT$T must resort to this new data thing to curb it? Really?
Yes I do. There are bit-torrent apps for iOS when jailbroken. People also tether their devices to their computers, so again they can do everything they want. You can also find books in safari and load them into your iBooks or whatever. Just because you don't do it on your iPad or iPhone, doesn't mean others don't. Get a clue. I also never said ATT needed to resort to this. Go back and read more carefully. I said there is only one possible up-spin to this kind of a model. And trust me, if it works for ATT on the mobile front, don't think someone (even ATT themselves) wouldn't try it for your home internet too down the road. Were this to happen it would be a trial run. Remember, many countries already have caps for their home connections much like your mobile connections do.
Actually it would be easy to implement a tweak in the OS where each app authorized for its own usage is excluded from the system tracking it. Then each App could keep track of it themselves for you.
Also, there is no double dipping. When you use the data in the app with a contract to ATT, your used data for the month isn't lowered, but remains as is.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Yes I do. There are bit-torrent apps for iOS when jailbroken. People also tether their devices to their computers, so again they can do everything they want. You can also find books in safari and load them into your iBooks or whatever. Just because you don't do it on your iPad or iPhone, doesn't mean others don't. Get a clue.
That's right because books take up a whole 20kb, and tethering is only illegal to AT$T because you are not paying twice for data, it's not against the law. And there are so many other uses for bit-torrent is is dizzying but if you think someone is tethering to download movies all I can do is
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Which is why I said it was a dumb idea overall. To say this has an upside isn't to agree with it. There typically are advantages and disadvantages to everything in life.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
As someone mentioned above the name DeBeers and diamonds. The telcos are playing the same game. They are making hugh sums of money off of hundreds of millions of accounts and crying they can't supply enough bandwidth but they don't use profits to widen the bands or put up more towers to rectify it. They don't have an incentive, just like DeBeers, to supply what is needed. They want it just the way it is. Now they're looking for more ways to bleed a stone.
That's right because books take up a whole 20kb, and tethering is only illegal to AT$T because you are not paying twice for data, it's not against the law. And there are so many other uses for bit-torrent is is dizzying but if you think someone is tethering to download movies all I can do is
You realise 4G is being rolled out right? You also realise 3G, though not capable of BD, is quite capable, speed wise, to steal music and books, which do experience a lot of online piracy. And I don't know what books you read for 20kb, but the books I downloaded, illegally, were significantly bigger. They could go anywhere from 5mbs to 100s of mbs. And before you scold me, I only downloaded books I already owned. So rather than scanning those books myself, I figured it easier to download the copies already scanned.
As someone mentioned above the name DeBeers and diamonds. The telcos are playing the same game. They are making hugh sums of money off of hundreds of millions of accounts and crying they can't supply enough bandwidth but they don't use profits to widen the bands or put up more towers to rectify it. They don't have an incentive, just like DeBeers, to supply what is needed. They want it just the way it is. Now they're looking for more ways to bleed a stone.
While I agree with you, by and large, in some locations they cannot add more towers so easily even if they wanted to, like, apparently, in the SF bay area. But at the end of the day, ATT and everyone else providing bandwidth is going to do everything they possibly can to resist becoming "dumb pipes".
It's actually a clever idea. Not that it's going to replace conventional apps or that everyone would use it, but I could picture some scenarios where an app developer would want to pay for bandwidth and include it in the cost of the app.
Are you for real? This will almost stop development of Apps on IOS. Most IOS developers are small shops and there is no way they could afford huge fees from AT&T. This would be a disaster.
Are you for real? This will almost stop development of Apps on IOS. Most IOS developers are small shops and there is no way they could afford huge fees from AT&T. This would be a disaster.
I don't understand how you come to that conclusion? This is not a requirement. It's an additional option for developers. What if say TomTom was willing to pick up the bill for sending you updated map data? Or if a publisher pays for the bandwidth to download the latest issue of a magazine that you pay a monthly subscription fee for?
Sorry, but the people here screaming the "Sky is falling" aren't looking at this from any other perspective than AT&T forcing this on developers, when in fact, this is something optional they want to offer. I seriously doubt you're a developer or content reseller, so I'd also wager you haven't looked at all the angles and can see that there may actually be a reason why someone would want this as an option for your users.
Amazon does this using Verizon's mobile network for their Kindle eReaders as a service to their customers, I don't see why an app developer or other content reseller wouldn't want the option of offering a similar service for their own users?
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Bandwidth was and is an issue. Even Verizon, which got to see and prepare for years before getting the iPhone, has taken steps to ensure the iPhone service will work fairly well on their network. They grew out their already expansive '3G' network while also offering lifetime double-date caps to LTE users. They did this after they had the iPhone 4 for 6 months from mid-cycle release. Just imagine what AT&T experienced going in blind and with a lot more subs.
I don't understand how you come to that conclusion? This is not a requirement. It's an additional option for developers. What if say TomTom was willing to pick up the bill for sending you updated map data? Or if a publisher pays for the bandwidth to download the latest issue of a magazine that you pay a monthly subscription fee for?
TomTom isn't really an issue since the updated map info has been under 1MB per month but I like the idea of magazine subscriptions. Not so much for the iPhone but I would like an always connected iPad that I could access the iBookstore over cellular without me having to sign up or pay monthly fees, and have magazines and newspapers deliveries automatically. As you say, Amazon does this for Verizon [and AT&T and Sprint] for the Kindle.
Actually it is the dumbest idea ever. AT$T cried the blues saying the have no bandwidth and reduced all the unlimited. Now they want to sell more of something they claim not to have any of.
Please show us where AT&T said that they have no bandwidth.
AT&T has simply said that restricting some of the data hogs would provide a better experience for everyone else. That doesn't mean that there's no bandwidth.
Furthermore, it could be that centralizing the data like this might improve their bandwidth. For example, the data might be cached locally and reduce the losses in transmission from a central site.
Are you for real? This will almost stop development of Apps on IOS. Most IOS developers are small shops and there is no way they could afford huge fees from AT&T. This would be a disaster.
So? It's an OPTION. If a small developer can't afford it, they don't have to offer it.
I can see it making sense only for a couple of specific applications, most of which are already being handled by the big guys. It would have no effect on the small developers.
Please show us where AT&T said that they have no bandwidth.
AT&T has simply said that restricting some of the data hogs would provide a better experience for everyone else. That doesn't mean that there's no bandwidth.
Why do you call some users hogs? Why do you think those hogs negatively affect the overall experience? Because what the "hogs" do is use so much data that it congests the network.
Ok, but what does congestion mean? Not enough supply for the demand.
If there was plenty of data to go around and no bandwidth problem, the hogs wouldn't be negatively affecting the experience for everyone, and wouldn't be called hogs, as there would be plenty of bandwidth left for everyone else. They would just be users who use more data than others (which by the way, they paid for).
If there wasn't a bandwidth issue, why would AT&T need to throttle people's connections?
Why do you call some users hogs? Why do you think those hogs negatively affect the overall experience? Because what the "hogs" do is use so much data that it congests the network.
Ok, but what does congestion mean? Not enough supply for the demand.
If there was plenty of data to go around and no bandwidth problem, the hogs wouldn't be negatively affecting the experience for everyone, and wouldn't be called hogs, as there would be plenty of bandwidth left for everyone else. They would just be users who use more data than others (which by the way, they paid for).
If there wasn't a bandwidth issue, why would AT&T need to throttle people's connections?
You don't understand how the system works.
The system can never handle 100% of its theoretical capacity. It would break down completely. As you get closer and closer to the theoretical capacity, performance gets worse and worse - latency increases and the requirement to resend data increases. So, for example (these numbers are made up, but they demonstrate the issue):
If the system is operating at 10% of theoretical capacity, latency might be 10 ms and only 0.1% of packets must be resent.
If usage increases to 50% of capacity, latency might increase to 30 ms and 2% of packets must be resent.
At 80% of capacity, latency might be 100 ms and 10% of packets resent.
At 90% of capacity, latency might be 300 ms and 20% of packets resent or rejected (this 20% must obviously be included in the 90% of capacity figure).
At no point can one say that there is no more available capacity. But clearly, the data usage that drives usage to 90% of capacity is causing a significant degradation of service.
AT&T's position (and the other telcos, AFAIK) is that the system is getting up to a utilization level that causes degradation of performance. Allowing a few ultra-heavy users to continue without limitation will cause even more severe degradation for the other users. And when you consider that the top few percent of users use a huge percentage of total data, it can have a serious impact.
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Sorry if you're someone who already sold their first born to pay for their ridiculous data plans, but there are many others who do not want to pay anymore then they need to. Anyone with a low data plan could definitely benefit from this type of system.
Do you even have an iPhone? Smart Phone? I'm betting you don't or you're trolling for attention. Nobody with a smart phone, either iOS, Android, or WebOS, has a cheap data plan. Verizon and AT&T both REQUIRE that you pay them $30/month/phone for a data plan of ~ 3GB tiered, even if you don't need or use it. What part of that do you NOT understand??? We don't benefit from cheap plans because they don't exist. Period. Is 20 to 40 cent per text message OK with you too?
Just think of the data that Apple alone sends to and from your mobile devices; iCloud syncing, push notifications, over-the-air OS/app updates, iMessages, etc. Wouldn't it be great if Apple were able to pay for that data usage?
And you think Apple will be happy to pick up the cost of that bandwidth usage? I'm sorry, it's appeasers like you that got us an end to commercial free cable TV; into most wars etc. etc., and make the economy stagnate. You must be a troll here or the biggest dumb a$$ ever or you're 12 years-old.
You don't understand how the system works.
...
At no point can one say that there is no more available capacity. But clearly, the data usage that drives usage to 90% of capacity is causing a significant degradation of service.
AT&T's position (and the other telcos, AFAIK) is that the system is getting up to a utilization level that causes degradation of performance. Allowing a few ultra-heavy users to continue without limitation will cause even more severe degradation for the other users. And when you consider that the top few percent of users use a huge percentage of total data, it can have a serious impact.
What happens to a network that is up to a utilization level of high degradation if the total capacity of that network increases significantly but the usage remains about the same? I ask you this because clearly the demand right now is so high that it causes degradation of the network. The answer isn't to add more data on the network, or to cut off how much people can use the network. The answer is to expanded the network and how much it can provide (without degradation).