or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T's tough talk on data use seen as part of struggle with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T's tough talk on data use seen as part of struggle with Apple - Page 4

post #121 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

US overtakes Europe in 3G penetration.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/33436.php

3G subscribers have nothing to do with 3G coverage. Ask a SF or NY native who has a 3G iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

European Commission studies on American style "bill and keep" cell phone charges.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008...fx5119680.html

I'm not sure what this has to do with their networks, other than the way they bill. The EU doesn't charge for incoming anything. They want to start billing for incoming calls. What has this got to do with the rollout of high speed networks?


Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Europe embracing technology neutral spectrum auctions.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/24472.php

WiMax? With a projected base of 89 million fixed and wireless broadband by 2014, and a UMTS-HSPA-LTE world wide base of 2.8 billion, I think the argument for mobile WiMax on the same spectrum as fixed WiMax can contain itself to the newest members of the EU who are so far behind in wired coverage to be considered not to have even developed wired coverage. Wireless might be their only hope for broadband, so maybe they do need a different spectrum for the two.

http://www.3gamericas.org/documents/..._09_final_.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Suddenly, EVERYTHING that was deemed to be wrong in the US --- i.e. how Americans have a mixture of CDMA and GSM, how Americans have low 3G penetration, how Americans have to pay for incoming calls.... --- turns out to be the correct model.

It's the rabbit vs. the turtle. And the turtle wins at the end.

You sound like Fox News. I don't like Fox News so much.
post #122 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

3G subscribers have nothing to do with 3G coverage. Ask a SF or NY native who has a 3G iPhone.

I'm not sure what this has to do with their networks, other than the way they bill. The EU doesn't charge for incoming anything. They want to start billing for incoming calls. What has this got to do with the rollout of high speed networks?

WiMax? With a projected base of 89 million fixed and wireless broadband by 2014, and a UMTS-HSPA-LTE world wide base of 2.8 billion, I think the argument for mobile WiMax on the same spectrum as fixed WiMax can contain itself to the newest members of the EU who are so far behind in wired coverage to be considered not to have even developed wired coverage. Wireless might be their only hope for broadband, so maybe they do need a different spectrum for the two.

http://www.3gamericas.org/documents/..._09_final_.pdf

You sound like Fox News. I don't like Fox News so much.

Ask anyone in SF and NY resident, and they will tell you that their Verizon 3G coverage is bullet proof. So it has nothing to do with government policies.

It has everything to do with network deployment --- because the European way of charging for interconnection calls was justified as the only way to get big carriers to spend massive amount of money on network infrastructure. The US doesn't have such a system --- so you would assume that the American networks all suck. It doesn't work that way --- Verizon decides to compete on their network coverage.

Nobody can predict what the future is --- governments shouldn't bet on technology, period. Wimax might sound stupid in 2009 --- but it didn't sound stupid a few years ago. This is silicon valley stuff --- one success for every 100 failures. It was a mistake for Europe to bet everything on GSM --- it was just pure luck that GSM was a success. But the problem is that their mandating of WCDMA was a total disaster.

No, you sound like FoxNews --- where truthiness rules. The fact is that the Americans talked 3-4x more on their cell phones than the Europeans, spend much less per minute than the Europeans, send 3-4x more SMS messages than the Europeans, enjoys the 2nd cheapest iphone data plans in the G7 world, enjoys the third fastest 3G iphone speed according to the wired.com survey, enjoys the highest regular priced data allowance on the iphone in the world --- wow there must be something wrong with that picture. This is why the European regulators are looking at the American system for answers.
post #123 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Ask anyone in SF and NY resident, and they will tell you that their Verizon 3G coverage is bullet proof. So it has nothing to do with government policies.

Verizon's 3G isn't even considered 3G elsewhere. It doesn't even do voice and data simultaneously (let the flames grow higher for that remark .) 2.5G at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It has everything to do with network deployment --- because the European way of charging for interconnection calls was justified as the only way to get big carriers to spend massive amount of money on network infrastructure. The US doesn't have such a system --- so you would assume that the American networks all suck. It doesn't work that way --- Verizon decides to compete on their network coverage.

I'm not convinced it was the only way, but it was one way to get them to do it. Don't forget, they pay zero for incoming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Nobody can predict what the future is --- governments shouldn't bet on technology, period. Wimax might sound stupid in 2009 --- but it didn't sound stupid a few years ago. This is silicon valley stuff --- one success for every 100 failures. It was a mistake for Europe to bet everything on GSM --- it was just pure luck that GSM was a success. But the problem is that their mandating of WCDMA was a total disaster.

I completely agree with that. I'm certainly not arguing that we legislate a particular type of technology, just that the people who do set up our infrastructure don't also have a vested interest in what data comes across it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, you sound like FoxNews --- where truthiness rules. The fact is that the Americans talked 3-4x more on their cell phones than the Europeans, spend much less per minute than the Europeans, send 3-4x more SMS messages than the Europeans, enjoys the 2nd cheapest iphone data plans in the G7 world, enjoys the third fastest 3G iphone speed according to the wired.com survey, enjoys the highest regular priced data allowance on the iphone in the world --- wow there must be something wrong with that picture. This is why the European regulators are looking at the American system for answers.

I would think if we were charged per minute on par with Europe there would be riots . We get charged both ways for everything, incoming and outgoing. They do not. Everything incoming is free there. Their way of doing business is equally being studied by companies here.

Another point that you are not addressing is Asia, which is not Europe and has a completely different setup than Europe. Heavily subsidized, but far superior networks.

My hope is that the FCC study all of these various deployment structures and weigh the pros and cons of each. I am certain we do not have the best networks, as well as certain we need to change the way things are done here.
post #124 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnb View Post

I'm not defending AT&T. I do question the competency of their management. It seems like most of the time they are merely holding on for the ride, and don't have a clear plan or sense of direction.

Doesn't a company first need to HAVE management before one could consider whether or not they are competent?
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #125 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Verizon's 3G isn't even considered 3G elsewhere. It doesn't even do voice and data simultaneously (let the flames grow higher for that remark .) 2.5G at best.

I'm not convinced it was the only way, but it was one way to get them to do it. Don't forget, they pay zero for incoming.

I completely agree with that. I'm certainly not arguing that we legislate a particular type of technology, just that the people who do set up our infrastructure don't also have a vested interest in what data comes across it.

I would think if we were charged per minute on par with Europe there would be riots . We get charged both ways for everything, incoming and outgoing. They do not. Everything incoming is free there. Their way of doing business is equally being studied by companies here.

Another point that you are not addressing is Asia, which is not Europe and has a completely different setup than Europe. Heavily subsidized, but far superior networks.

My hope is that the FCC study all of these various deployment structures and weigh the pros and cons of each. I am certain we do not have the best networks, as well as certain we need to change the way things are done here.

Up until the 3G iphone came out, nobody care about this "feature" --- even though 3G has been around for 10 years. Which basically means that this feature is not central to 3G at all --- and Qualcomm/Verizon were correct to ditch ev-dv.

It doesn't matter --- it all even out at the end. If you get 100 minutes for 10 dollars (and don't have to pay for incoming) and I get 250 minutes for 10 dollars (and have to pay for incoming) --- then I am ahead of the game.

Japanese and Korean governments want to promote their tech industry (and their export) --- the problem is that they are doing it at the expense of their own citizens (who have to pay more). Highly industrialized countries shouldn't have only 3 national carriers, with the largest carrier owning 50% of the market --- that's just bad for the consumers.

The grass is not greener on the other side. The wired.com survey of 3G iphones show that the US has the 3rd fastest iphone speed in the whole world --- and that's AT&T's poor-assed network (and with the highest data allowance per month). What does the rest of the world do? They give their people a 500 MB per month iphone data allowance, charged a whole lot more, and still give slower speed in the wired.com survey.
post #126 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

Doesn't a company first need to HAVE management before one could consider whether or not they are competent?

And of course, the head of AT&T became the head of General Motors --- god help us all.
post #127 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It doesn't matter --- it all even out at the end. If you get 100 minutes for 10 dollars (and don't have to pay for incoming) and I get 250 minutes for 10 dollars (and have to pay for incoming) --- then I am ahead of the game.

I suppose that is a matter of perspective. A majority of my calls and texts (and emails for that matter) are incoming. I'm usually placing outgoing calls as a response, so they are generally shorter calls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Japanese and Korean governments want to promote their tech industry (and their export) --- the problem is that they are doing it at the expense of their own citizens (who have to pay more). Highly industrialized countries shouldn't have only 3 national carriers, with the largest carrier owning 50% of the market --- that's just bad for the consumers.

Depends on the data you are looking at. For the lower tiers, these countries are marginally higher for slower speed access (which is not the same as our slower speed networks. They are much faster.) For the higher tiers, their cost is significantly reduced. As an example:

"Japan has not only the highest percent of fiber penetration, but providers in Japan have also invested in squeezing out the highest possible speeds over DSL and cable (160 Mbps from J:COM, as compared to 50Mbps offered using the same DOCSIS 3.0 technology in the United States, and J:COM's offering is available for about half the price)."--Berkman Study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The grass is not greener on the other side. The wired.com survey of 3G iphones show that the US has the 3rd fastest iphone speed in the whole world --- and that's AT&T's poor-assed network (and with the highest data allowance per month). What does the rest of the world do? They give their people a 500 MB per month iphone data allowance, charged a whole lot more, and still give slower speed in the wired.com survey.

However, this point ignores the actual coverage provided. It's not fast at all where you can't use it, and we've all seen the maps.
post #128 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

I suppose that is a matter of perspective. A majority of my calls and texts (and emails for that matter) are incoming. I'm usually placing outgoing calls as a response, so they are generally shorter calls.

Depends on the data you are looking at. For the lower tiers, these countries are marginally higher for slower speed access (which is not the same as our slower speed networks. They are much faster.) For the higher tiers, their cost is significantly reduced. As an example:

"Japan has not only the highest percent of fiber penetration, but providers in Japan have also invested in squeezing out the highest possible speeds over DSL and cable (160 Mbps from J:COM, as compared to 50Mbps offered using the same DOCSIS 3.0 technology in the United States, and J:COM's offering is available for about half the price)."--Berkman Study.

However, this point ignores the actual coverage provided. It's not fast at all where you can't use it, and we've all seen the maps.

If you are under the European system, maybe your friends will cost you less. Maybe you have a bunch of cheapass friends who are going to wait for you to call them.

You are also talking about Japanese government owning 1/3 of NTT's shares. The Japanese economy has been "lost" since 1990 when their real estate bubble bursted --- and a lot of the fiber build-out is basically government pork spending. We haven't even talked about their high population density issue yet.

Everybody complains about their iphone coverage. When O2 was picked as UK's exclusive iphone carriers, thousands of geeks were on the net saying that O2 had the worst network in the UK. Samething for all the other countries (notably Japan's smallest cell phone carrier Softbank Mobile being the iphone exclusive). The grass is not greener on the other side --- everybody bitches about their weak network coverage --- yet when we have actual factual comparisions, Americans enjoy the highest data allowance, the 2nd cheapest among G7 countries and the third fastest 3G iphone speed on the wired.com survey.

When you look at the factual comparisons --- AT&T's network is actually really good when compared with the rest of the world. The problem is that AT&T is being compared at home against Verizon "THE NETWORK".
post #129 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Everybody complains about their iphone coverage. When O2 was picked as UK's exclusive iphone carriers, thousands of geeks were on the net saying that O2 had the worst network in the UK. Samething for all the other countries (notably Japan's smallest cell phone carrier Softbank Mobile being the iphone exclusive). The grass is not greener on the other side --- everybody bitches about their weak network coverage --- yet when we have actual factual comparisions, Americans enjoy the highest data allowance, the 2nd cheapest among G7 countries and the third fastest 3G iphone speed on the wired.com survey.

When you look at the factual comparisons --- AT&T's network is actually really good when compared with the rest of the world. The problem is that AT&T is being compared at home against Verizon "THE NETWORK".

Has anyone debunked this map yet?



You can download the pdf here:
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/index.shtml
post #130 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Has anyone debunked this map yet?

Excellence in charging you insanely priced international roaming rates.
post #131 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

When you look at the factual comparisons --- AT&T's network is actually really good when compared with the rest of the world. The problem is that AT&T is being compared at home against Verizon "THE NETWORK".

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Excellence in charging you insanely priced international roaming rates.

I was kind of hoping you has something to say along the lines of the above quote in reference to all the 3GSM coverage on the map there, versus all of the not so yellow for the US. You said "factual comparisons", there are the factual comparisons there on the map. It doesn't reference anything about price.
post #132 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

I was kind of hoping you has something to say along the lines of the above quote in reference to all the 3GSM coverage on the map there, versus all of the not so yellow for the US. You said "factual comparisons", there are the factual comparisons there on the map. It doesn't reference anything about price.

That's AT&T's 3G coverage --- nothing to do with government policies. You are also talking about areas where there are more cows than humans in the midwest. You can look at the red area in the Verizon map.

You might as well point out that half of Finland (home land of Nokia) is brown.

So what if Italy is all yellow --- they are giving you something like 250 MB data allowance for an iphone plan, or that of UK (where prepaid iphones are limited to 384 kbps in speed). Or that Europe is plaster with 3G yellow coverage, but most people still uses a 2G GSM phone.

The American policies ensures that supply and demand are figured out first. Verizon was the first American carrier to go national wide with 3G coverage 5-6 years ago --- because they found consumer demand for 3G, not because there was a government regulator forcing them to deploy 3G network coverage from their 3G licenses.

The European system is completely broken --- and they know it --- that's why they are all looking at the US for answers. European regulators forced their carriers to build 3G networks --- but it's not like Costner's baseball movie (if you build it, they will come). They built it, consumers never came, but everybody pays for that costly build-out that nobody uses.
post #133 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

That's AT&T's 3G coverage --- nothing to do with government policies. You are also talking about areas where there are more cows than humans in the midwest. You can look at the red area in the Verizon map.

You might as well point out that half of Finland (home land of Nokia) is brown.

So what if Italy is all yellow --- they are giving you something like 250 MB data allowance for an iphone plan, or that of UK (where prepaid iphones are limited to 384 kbps in speed).


Their networks are ahead, no matter what you choose to pick apart.

You point out UK prepaid iPhone data speeds? Yet, in the same reply you reference Verizon's 3G map coverage.

Why are you flopping all over the place, are you a politician or something?

Verizon's top theoretical speed on CDMA is 3.1Mb, but from what I've read typical throughput down is between 500Kb-1Mb. And that's not cheap, either.

Also, here's a current offer from 3 in Italy:
800 minutes, 400 SMS, 10GB internet. 29. The limitation is 200/min a week though. Other than that, there are a multitude of smartphone plans from 29-49 euros. Some have unlimited Mobile TV. There are more choices there for sure.
post #134 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

That's AT&T's 3G coverage --- nothing to do with government policies. You are also talking about areas where there are more cows than humans in the midwest. You can look at the red area in the Verizon map.

You might as well point out that half of Finland (home land of Nokia) is brown.

So what if Italy is all yellow --- they are giving you something like 250 MB data allowance for an iphone plan, or that of UK (where prepaid iphones are limited to 384 kbps in speed). Or that Europe is plaster with 3G yellow coverage, but most people still uses a 2G GSM phone.

The American policies ensures that supply and demand are figured out first. Verizon was the first American carrier to go national wide with 3G coverage 5-6 years ago --- because they found consumer demand for 3G, not because there was a government regulator forcing them to deploy 3G network coverage from their 3G licenses.

The European system is completely broken --- and they know it --- that's why they are all looking at the US for answers. European regulators forced their carriers to build 3G networks --- but it's not like Costner's baseball movie (if you build it, they will come). They built it, consumers never came, but everybody pays for that costly build-out that nobody uses.

Here is something for you to consider, also. This article is from 2004. Replace 3UK with AT&T, and 2004 with 2008:
"The reason for this marked difference can largely be explained by the UMTS specific issue of "cell breathing". "In basic terms cell breathing is the reduction in the coverage of a particular cell site as more and more people begin using it" Mako Analysis says. The range of a single 3G tower shrinks in relation to the network traffic, as such, with a completely empty network, 3 and other 3G operators can claim relatively impressive population coverage figures. As the network begins to load with customers however the coverage range of each base station shrinks and if the network is not provisioned correctly, significant 3G coverage holes will appear.

One of the reasons 3 are criticised for their network quality is down to cell breathing. Since 3 are not able to seamlessly hand a call off from their 3G network to O2's 2G network (O2 UK are currently allowing 3UK to use their network where they lack 3G coverage) the call drops, in effect cutting the user off. Given 3's claimed 70% population coverage, dropped calls of this nature should be a relative rarity. This is far from the case however, as the new entrant's 3G network begins to load with customers their cell site range shrinks and holes appear where they previously had blanket coverage. As customers move around they dip in and out of 3G coverage and this causes a significant increase in dropped calls.

As the majority of 3G operators around the world have switchable legacy networks to fall back on in the case of a voice call, the 3 example serves as a powerful example to those who will be reliant on 3G coverage for data applications, in particular laptop data card users."
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/April2004/6970.htm

That is four full years ahead on 3G coverage and network issues. If the US companies were so great, why didn't they anticipate this demand as Europe fumbled around with it first.

I still agree with you though, that we shouldn't regulate and force a particular technology. Not sure why you bring that up, but we certainly agree on it.
post #135 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

That is four full years ahead on 3G coverage and network issues. If the US companies were so great, why didn't they anticipate this demand as Europe fumbled around with it first.

Nobody on the planet anticipated the iphone's demand on the carriers' networks. You might as well blamed Warren Buffett for missing the signs that the economy was in trouble.
post #136 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post


Their networks are ahead, no matter what you choose to pick apart.

You point out UK prepaid iPhone data speeds? Yet, in the same reply you reference Verizon's 3G map coverage.

Why are you flopping all over the place, are you a politician or something?

Verizon's top theoretical speed on CDMA is 3.1Mb, but from what I've read typical throughput down is between 500Kb-1Mb. And that's not cheap, either.

Also, here's a current offer from 3 in Italy:
800 minutes, 400 SMS, 10GB internet. 29. The limitation is 200/min a week though. Other than that, there are a multitude of smartphone plans from 29-49 euros. Some have unlimited Mobile TV. There are more choices there for sure.

Their "advertised" networks are ahead --- but when you look at the wired.com surveys, the actual speed is slower than AT&T's networks. And when you look at the wired.com survey --- AT&T has a faster 3G iphone speed than O2.

EV-DO Rev A averages about 600-1400 kbps. AT&T's network averages 700-1700 kbps. You take the middle, AT&T's speed is 200 kbps faster --- but you can't see the difference in real life.

3 is owned by Li Ka Shing --- who spent a lot of money of 3G spectrum auctions around the world. He wants an out --- so he has been trying to start pricing wars around the world so that the other carriers would buy him out. He tried unneccessfully to IPO the Italian carrier (to cash out). He "sold" his Australian carrier by merging it with another carrier.
post #137 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Nobody on the planet anticipated the iphone's demand on the carriers' networks. You might as well blamed Warren Buffett for missing the signs that the economy was in trouble.

1) I seem to recall that when others stated that your response was simply that AT&T and GSM was the problem.

2) I do blame Warren Buffett for that. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain. His interest in GE was also stupid.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #138 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) I seem to recall that when others stated that your response was simply that AT&T and GSM was the problem.

2) I do blame Warren Buffett for that. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain. His interest in GE was also stupid.

My position has always been that AT&T's 3G network, when compared internationally, is operating quite well --- highest 3G iphone data allowance, 2nd cheapest in the G7 and 3rd fastest in the world. I said it maybe more than 20-30 times in the past.

My position also has always been that AT&T, when compared with Verizon, is relatively weak. And "relative" is the word --- it is on who sucks the least.

It's never obvious. If you read the latest Warren Buffett interview, he acknowledged that he didn't time it perfectly. But I also agree with him that if his only "mistakes" for the last 18 months came from getting 8.5% preferred shares on the Dow investment (instead of 10-12% preferred in other investments later on) and GE options under the water --- that's a pretty good record for the last 18 months. Otherwise, you are the kind of people who goes and yell at your kid because he "only" got a 98 on a math test.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T's tough talk on data use seen as part of struggle with Apple