or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T warns of coming clamp-down on iPhone data hogs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T warns of coming clamp-down on iPhone data hogs - Page 6

post #201 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Thats quite a job to be sitting pretty just listenting to your iphone all day lol. In all honesty i think 1-2 hours is what most spend listening to Pandora a day if even that. I use mine when i dont feel like listening to music on my Bold and want something different in the car. Assuming you listen 1 hour everyday for 30 days, you only use 1.7GB of data.

So 1.7GB from streaming Pandora, lets allocate 1GB for emails/MMS and you would have 2.3GB of web surfing/youtube goodness/moderate app downloads. Its very easy to fall within 5GB or less a month even with moderate usage.

When you start going on streaming binges for hours upon end or tethering is when it becomes a grossly apparent problem. It was silly of AT&T to offer unlimited because of course there are those that will abuse the system, if a 5GB cap was in place already we most likely wouldnt be even having this discussion.

What does your iPhone tell you for data usage?

I wonder where you get 1GB for email/MMS. I would have to move the entire contents of my gmail account four times in order to get 1GB. I doubt anyone is going to read 1GB of text in any given month, an entire novel can fit in a MB or so, and I doubt many people read hundreds of novels' worth in a month.

I do think it was inappropriate to advertise unlimited, though I think 5GB is a sizable amount to pull down wirelessly, it was supposedly unprecedented save for tethering.
post #202 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

I actually wouldn't mind a tiered pricing plan if it meant that I paid less than $30/month. I've had my iPhone 3GS for a little less than 6 months and I barely even put a dent in my "unlimited" data plan:


You don't need a tiered plan, like me, you need and should want a metered plan. Everyone pays by the MByte and price price should be regulated contingent on the size of the user base. That would bring down the overall price of broadband usage and everyone pays equally for the amount they use.

Just like electricity is sold here in the US. That's what we need. AT&T would hate it. The data hogs would hate it. But you and I and most users would love it because at ~ $0.0005/ MB, I'd save at least $24.95 a month on a so called $30 unlimited monthly plan.
post #203 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

It doesn't belong here.

It belongs in here (the PoliticalOutsider forum). You can argue your politics to your hearts content there, but you can't here. I quoted you for posterity sake, to document that you are posting in violation of the TOS.

In the future, keep your political opinions, fears, leanings, outbursts, etc. where they belong and not here in the iPhone forum.

There is a TOS for AI, you agreed to it when you signed up. You violated it with your above political rant of a post. You did it again when you personally attacked me.

One of the great things about AI is that we can have civil discussions about Apple without degenerating into all the political or religious crap. They even created a separate forum (PoliticalOutside) for you guys who live/eat/breathe that stuff. You can pontificate your politics to anyone there who cares to listen.

But we don't care to listen to it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Irrelevant & off topic - not having anything to do with the topic at hand. For whatever reason you wanted to insert that, it doesn't matter, as noted by someone else, politics belong in Political Outsider or on some other site.

Very well, then I do apologize. But as one who has frequented this site nearly everyday for several years (and posted for the last year or so) I can easily recollect reading political jabs and/or views that cropped up in posts for main page articles, which were not "scrubbed" from the comments section. Perhaps the mods missed them, or perhaps I read them before they got to them. I'm not saying that I'm disappointed in my comment being scrubbed from this thread (although subsequent posts quoting the original post were not, oddly), I'm just surprised. I'll be more considerate in the future- let bygones be bygones.
post #204 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post

Very well, then I do apologize. But as one who has frequented this site nearly everyday for several years (and posted for the last year or so) I can easily recollect reading political jabs and/or views that cropped up in posts for main page articles, which were not "scrubbed" from the comments section. Perhaps the mods missed them, or perhaps I read them before they got to them. I'm not saying that I'm disappointed in my comment being scrubbed from this thread (although subsequent posts quoting the original post were not, oddly), I'm just surprised. I'll be more considerate in the future- let bygones be bygones.

We can't get everything, much less right away. I tried to scrub the political quotes that I found, I'm sure I missed some.

There were a handful of front page stories which were political, such as covering Apple's donations and certain employment policies, political discussion was on topic in those cases. It's just one of those subjects that easily rub people the wrong way and easily blow up into a flame fest.
post #205 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

We can't get everything, much less right away. I tried to scrub the political quotes that I found, I'm sure I missed some.

There were a handful of front page stories which were political, such as covering Apple's donations and certain employment policies, political discussion was on topic in those cases. It's just one of those subjects that easily rub people the wrong way and easily blow up into a flame fest.

Thank you Jeff. I'm actually interested in politics, but not every day, and not on AppleInsider.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #206 of 212
The "all you can eat" model doesn't work well for a finite product such as wireless broadband. Consumers enjoy this model when dining at the Chinese buffet because they get to choose from many different types of product for relatively little money compared to buying individual product.

At every Chinese buffet you'll surely see those groups of morbidly obese people gorging down all the good stuff for hours at a time. It drives the sellers nuts and raises the price of product for everyone else. However, it still works for Chinese buffets because they can control the hours of operation.

Broadband wireless data networks have the same problem offering unlimited data plans, but without the luxury of prime time minutes. They hope the lure of unlimited usage bring in the customer but pray they don't use it. This model worked in the past when consumer data networks were young, hard to use, and lacking content and customers. Those days are over and the holdouts are dwindling faster than the crab legs at a Chinese buffet.

We are rapidly moving into a media rich society for all its members. Broadband networks have only two choices. Make a network large and cheaply enough that consumer usage can't reach its limits. Unlikely. Or, meter service per some unit price.

Heavy users don't have a right to be financially subsidized by lite users. Lite user's data service shouldn't be degraded because of data hogs. Data networks should not be legally able to sell data plans, just data transfer by the unit.
post #207 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

We are rapidly moving into a media rich society for all its members. Broadband networks have only two choices. Make a network large and cheaply enough that consumer usage can't reach its limits. Unlikely. Or, meter service per some unit price.

Heavy users don't have a right to be financially subsidized by lite users. Lite user's data service shouldn't be degraded because of data hogs. Data networks should not be legally able to sell data plans, just data transfer by the unit.

If a few heavy users really are a problem, and not just a lot of people using more data than expected, then think the reality is somewhere in the middle, or more accurately, a fairer hybrid system, and I think should require an easy and accurate way to track usage.

Just charging for the bits ignores a lot of the fixed costs of infrastructure. There is a per-user cost of having an always-on, always-available connection whether it's a heavy or light user, and I think that cost is higher than the cost of the bits. It's like that for land-based connections too, the cost per GB is very low, most of the expenses are really going towards maintenance and the amortized cost of the initial cable lay.
post #208 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

The "all you can eat" model doesn't work well for a finite product such as wireless broadband. Consumers enjoy this model when dining at the Chinese buffet because they get to choose from many different types of product for relatively little money compared to buying individual product.

At every Chinese buffet you'll surely see those groups of morbidly obese people gorging down all the good stuff for hours at a time. It drives the sellers nuts and raises the price of product for everyone else. However, it still works for Chinese buffets because they can control the hours of operation.

Broadband wireless data networks have the same problem offering unlimited data plans, but without the luxury of prime time minutes. They hope the lure of unlimited usage bring in the customer but pray they don't use it. This model worked in the past when consumer data networks were young, hard to use, and lacking content and customers. Those days are over and the holdouts are dwindling faster than the crab legs at a Chinese buffet.

We are rapidly moving into a media rich society for all its members. Broadband networks have only two choices. Make a network large and cheaply enough that consumer usage can't reach its limits. Unlikely. Or, meter service per some unit price.

Heavy users don't have a right to be financially subsidized by lite users. Lite user's data service shouldn't be degraded because of data hogs. Data networks should not be legally able to sell data plans, just data transfer by the unit.

I think a more sane approach would be to ensure that content providers never own the pipe the content is being pushed over. That ensure that the pipe owners would never oversell their product for fear of missing SLA. As it is right now, with content and pipe bound together, they can oversell and simply hope no one notices or cares.

I'm still of the belief that internet should be treated like a utility. Hell, I wouldn't even mind too much of the price per megabyte was a sane value, but we're talking about the same folks who charge 20 cents a text. I have little hope that they wouldn't gouge the hell out of people. I simply can't trust them.

On top of that, end users often have to download huge bundles for all sorts of things that aren't even related to 'entertainment'. Blu-Ray player updates, PS3 updates, OS updates, service packs, security fixes, ad-nauseum. This also bodes ill for applications as well unless they want to force all apps onto the phone via WiFi.

The whole point of monitoring a networks capacity is to not oversell it, which AT&T has obviously done. They aren't keeping up with demand and their blaming the end user. Take a look at Asia and you'd be amazed at the pipe size and prices they pay for broadband. 10 times faster than ours, and for dirt cheap. We need far more competition, and I think a separation of content providers from broadband providers.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #209 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

If a few heavy users really are a problem, and not just a lot of people using more data than expected, then think the reality is somewhere in the middle, or more accurately, a fairer hybrid system, and I think should require an easy and accurate way to track usage.

Just charging for the bits ignores a lot of the fixed costs of infrastructure. There is a per-user cost of having an always-on, always-available connection whether it's a heavy or light user, and I think that cost is higher than the cost of the bits. It's like that for land-based connections too, the cost per GB is very low, most of the expenses are really going towards maintenance and the amortized cost of the initial cable lay.

I completely understand those economics. That's why in an earlier post above I mentioned how electricity is sold here. There is a fixed supply charge for infrastructure and then a usage by unit charge. Here in my part of NYS the supply (infrastructure) fee is fixed at ~ $14. Then I'm charge for how much I use. This is what I mean when I say metered.

As long as the billing model hides the actual cost of infrastructure versus the actual data usage, the network providers will be able to get away with ripping off the consumer. Hopefully the FCC will change this with regulating full disclosure billing.
post #210 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I think a more sane approach would be to ensure that content providers never own the pipe the content is being pushed over. That ensure that the pipe owners would never oversell their product for fear of missing SLA. As it is right now, with content and pipe bound together, they can oversell and simply hope no one notices or cares.

I'm still of the belief that internet should be treated like a utility. Hell, I wouldn't even mind too much of the price per megabyte was a sane value, but we're talking about the same folks who charge 20 cents a text. I have little hope that they wouldn't gouge the hell out of people. I simply can't trust them.

On top of that, end users often have to download huge bundles for all sorts of things that aren't even related to 'entertainment'. Blu-Ray player updates, PS3 updates, OS updates, service packs, security fixes, ad-nauseum. This also bodes ill for applications as well unless they want to force all apps onto the phone via WiFi.

The whole point of monitoring a networks capacity is to not oversell it, which AT&T has obviously done. They aren't keeping up with demand and their blaming the end user. Take a look at Asia and you'd be amazed at the pipe size and prices they pay for broadband. 10 times faster than ours, and for dirt cheap. We need far more competition, and I think a separation of content providers from broadband providers.

I agree with you... I won't trust the ISP being a content provider. Broadband should absolutely be a dumb pipe. ( Are you listening FCC? ) The updating problem took root because data transfer was simple and relatively cheap for a consumer in a small ecosystem. Updating won't work in a metered system (even with dumb pipes) if the price for transfer is too high or not subsidized in some way by program developers.

The best solution is a dumb pipe with reasonable transfer rates, and it would have to be responsibly regulated. Mergers with content providers and ISPs must never be allowed, if the people want to keep the freedom to communicate, wired or wireless, open and neutral.
post #211 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Well the iPhone is a data hog, but on other networks like Verizon their data plan is a 5GB cap before they start to investigate you and throttle your speeds.

AT&T should just have different levels of data for the iPhone.

$15 - 2.5 GB

$30 - 5GB

$50 - True Unlimited

(emails not included in data usage)

I think that is fair, if you want all you can eat data then you can pay the full price premium.

I might have agreed with you if your above proposed plan happened BEFORE the iPhone ever came out. But the "indian-giving" nature of this report is just ridiculous! ATT has the gaul to start charging us now for using "too much" internet? I'm sorry but that's just poor planning. like what the earlier poster said, don't blame the consumer for your poor planning ATT~! iPhone Users already pay more per month than any other smart phone service out there...
post #212 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I might have agreed with you if your above proposed plan happened BEFORE the iPhone ever came out. But the "indian-giving" nature of this report is just ridiculous! ATT has the gaul to start charging us now for using "too much" internet? I'm sorry but that's just poor planning. like what the earlier poster said, don't blame the consumer for your poor planning ATT~! iPhone Users already pay more per month than any other smart phone service out there...

No business with any common sense offers a deal good from now through eternity. They have to be able to change the terms if needed at some point if they wish to remain viable in the future. Too many people, when they think they've scored a good deal, delude themselves into thinking they are entitled to the deal forever. That's simply wishful thinking.

To me, it's foolish for any wireless carrier to offer truly unlimited data. Why? Well, because no one knows how much data could be used in the future while wireless capacity, in theory, is finite. You can lay more cables but you can't create spectrum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T warns of coming clamp-down on iPhone data hogs