Unlimited this all you can eat that. The concept is a little silly. The conservative low key people are always paying for the extravagant consumer. The problem is that marketing has shown that this works in the USA because people want the unlimited freedom even though at the end of the day it costs them more. In Canada rogers offers 2 packages 500 mb and 1gig (1gig is 6gigs if you took up the special offer the existed when both the 3G and 3GS came out). these numbers might be low but 1gig and 5gigs seems to be very reasonable. These limits would also maybe convince people to stop looking at there phones and enjoy the world and people around them.
Unlimited is not good for 97% of the people... Why do they accept it?
All of you guys that I have read so far have forgot to mention that the "Unlimited" Data Plan from AT&T is actually not Unlimited... It has a 5GB Cap on it, I am 99.9999% Sure of this. So what is the problem that AT&T is having? If these people at the top 3% or whatever they say are using so much ... they are using more than 5GB? If so then they are already able to charge them a Fee for going over the cap.. I think this is ridiculous, are they not enforcing their caps? I really am lost on this whole thing. I always thought that the cap was what made sure that no one used up too much bandwidth. F*** AT&T.\
Besides--relative to ATT's plan to "incentivate" users to moderate their usage--why SHOULD i care if 3% of users, who are responsible for 40% of network traffic, pay a premium? If i watch six movies today at the local cineplex i pay more than someone who goes in and watches just one: If several dozen like-minded people tie up all the seats in those six theaters they prevent hundreds of others from enjoying a single movie. If i drive 750 miles around my town I pay more than the person who cruises only once to the convenience store, and if dozens of others are putting on miles like I am, we congest the city's streets and maybe prevent you, and you, from even getting to the convenience store. If i print 400 pages out of my all-in-one my paper and ink costs will exceed the costs of someone who prints a single sheet; it costs me more to build a 4000 sf home than a 2100 sf one; I pay more if I want to cool my house to 55 degrees F in the summer than someone who's happy at 72 degrees, and if thousands of others utilize that resource in the greedy, 55 degree way, they contribute to brownouts that could end up with some people not being able to use their a/c at all. Should someone be allowed to book 95% of the rooms in a hotel at a city i want to visit--and pay the same as i'd pay for a single room? AND in the process prevent me and hundreds of other people from enjoying accommodations at our destination? If there are 40 cabanas on the beach in st pete, should two people be allowed to occupy all of them for the price of a single cabana, and keep 38 people from also enjoying that amenity? Or in all these instances should those consuming more pay more?
In all these analogies you provide there's a set price for a single item/unit. ATT sold every iPhone user a bucket of minutes AND an UNLIMITED data plan. UNLIMITED. I would totally agree with your analogies if we weren't all on unlimited plans, but we are. If you choose to only check your iphone email once a month, that's your prerogative, but ATT is charging you as if you checked it all day long. You should care that 3% is using 40% of the bandwidth - ATT sold their bandwidth to consumers as unlimited, and now it seems they're sorry that they did. Instead of biting the bullet and upgrading their network to handle the flood of bandwidth usage that they sold everyone, they're asking consumers to be kind and not call so much, and be mindful of the network. Would you want the local city official to tell you when to drive to work because the roads couldn't handle the rush hour traffic? Of course not, you'd want them to expand that highway or add carpool lanes to handle the capacity! After all, more cars should mean more tax/toll revenue to pay for the upgrades, right?
Basically what ATT is now saying is that they sold too much bandwidth, their network can't handle it, and could everyone please not use bandwidth they're (still) charing you for. That way they don't have to invest in the infrastructure and they can continue to pocket that revenue.
My girlfriends Nokia N97 and the newer N phone drops calls on AT&T at such a maddening rate, I doubt it's the iPhone that is dropping the calls. It's the network stupid.
Exactly. I currently have three AT$T phones in my house. Two iPhones and a regular type. ALL drop calls regularly. At least 75% of my calls fail on all three phones. An the normal phone is not 3G so it is both EDGE and 3G that blows.
In all these analogies you provide there's a set price for a single item/unit. ATT sold every iPhone user a bucket of minutes AND an UNLIMITED data plan. UNLIMITED. I would totally agree with your analogies if we weren't all on unlimited plans, but we are. If you choose to only check your iphone email once a month, that's your prerogative, but ATT is charging you as if you checked it all day long. You should care that 3% is using 40% of the bandwidth - ATT sold their bandwidth to consumers as unlimited, and now it seems they're sorry that they did. Instead of biting the bullet and upgrading their network to handle the flood of bandwidth usage that they sold everyone, they're asking consumers to be kind and not call so much, and be mindful of the network. Would you want the local city official to tell you when to drive to work because the roads couldn't handle the rush hour traffic? Of course not, you'd want them to expand that highway or add carpool lanes to handle the capacity! After all, more cars should mean more tax/toll revenue to pay for the upgrades, right?
Basically what ATT is now saying is that they sold too much bandwidth, their network can't handle it, and could everyone please not use bandwidth they're (still) charing you for. That way they don't have to invest in the infrastructure and they can continue to pocket that revenue.
I agree with 90% of your argument. Of course, I think 90% of mine is valid, too, which is why the differing points of view in the marketplace make this such a subject of debate.
No, I don't want a city official telling me when to drive to work. But I see the wisdom in the fact that many workplaces stagger shifts to accomplish the same decongestion objective. If I have to drive, or choose to drive, in the middle of rush hour, I am imposing extra costs on myself--costs of time, of annoyance, of extra gas wasted idling. BTW, every truck steering its way through that rush hour traffic IS paying higher costs through taxes and fees, because they add to congestion and to wear and tear on the system (degraded concrete=potholes=road repair crews=consumption of tax dollars that could otherwise be used to ADD roadways instead of maintain them AND, ironically, those road repair projects slow everyone down more!). Isn't that somewhat analagous to the 3% of users pushing their electronic 12-wheelers through a phone network?
OF COURSE i'd prefer to see ATT build out such a magnificent network my calls went thru perfectly 100% of the time from everywhere in the U.S. That's unachievable right nowt. So my position is just an argument for how to cope with the compromised situation that exists (and which most people would agree also exists with cable TV, the highway system, education, et al): the question in each of those cases is what's best to do with what we've got, while we're striving to get somewhere better.
OF COURSE i'd prefer to see ATT build out such a magnificent network my calls went thru perfectly 100% of the time from everywhere in the U.S. That's unachievable right nowt. So my position is just an argument for how to cope with the compromised situation that exists (and which most people would agree also exists with cable TV, the highway system, education, et al): the question in each of those cases is what's best to do with what we've got, while we're striving to get somewhere better.
I really don't see it as purely a congestion problem. If data congestion is causing problems with voice service, then that's most likely AT&T's fault, not so much the fault of the data users. Their system should be able to prioritize voice traffic above all else, because that's the most valuable service. The actual amount of bits required to handle a voice call is very low, but it must be handled well for the call to sound good. Data users can generally handle extra milliseconds of lag when a page is loading and such, but that kind of lag can noticeably disrupt the quality of a voice signal.
While there probably is a minority that use more data than most, I'm not convinced that's really the whole story. I doubt cutting them off will solve data congestion, I think it's just a convenient scapegoat and a misdirection to try to prevent people from asking real questions about whether the network is up to the task. We see enough stories come here and there saying that the typical iPhone user is using a lot more data than past smartphone users. To me, it's enough that the blame can't just be placed on the upper outliers. Not only that, if AT&T really wants to make its case, it would seem to me that they should produce a good volume of data, not just a couple numbers, in effect telling us to blame the scapegoat, their network couldn't possibly be the problem. The assumption is that they're telling the truth, but I doubt it's the whole truth. I'm pretty sure people can more easily torrent using other devices, and many other brand devices can be more easily tethered, so that can't be all of it, that doesn't explain the disparity in mobile traffic.
I agree with 90% of your argument. Of course, I think 90% of mine is valid, too, which is why the differing points of view in the marketplace make this such a subject of debate.
Actually, I agree with none of yours. AT&T sold unlimited plans, not capped or single unit/price.
Quote:
No, I don't want a city official telling me when to drive to work. But I see the wisdom in the fact that many workplaces stagger shifts to accomplish the same decongestion objective. If I have to drive, or choose to drive, in the middle of rush hour, I am imposing extra costs on myself--costs of time, of annoyance, of extra gas wasted idling. BTW, every truck steering its way through that rush hour traffic IS paying higher costs through taxes and fees, because they add to congestion and to wear and tear on the system (degraded concrete=potholes=road repair crews=consumption of tax dollars that could otherwise be used to ADD roadways instead of maintain them AND, ironically, those road repair projects slow everyone down more!). Isn't that somewhat analagous to the 3% of users pushing their electronic 12-wheelers through a phone network?
No, not at all. AT&T is not your employer or a government agency. It is a company, one which sold you a product. In this case, they sold unlimited data. They've since been complaining about the very users who made them millions.
Quote:
OF COURSE i'd prefer to see ATT build out such a magnificent network my calls went thru perfectly 100% of the time from everywhere in the U.S. That's unachievable right nowt.
No one expects that. I expect decent voice service, though. I'd also like for them not to complain about iPhone users once a month.
Comments
Unlimited is not good for 97% of the people... Why do they accept it?
Circus
Besides--relative to ATT's plan to "incentivate" users to moderate their usage--why SHOULD i care if 3% of users, who are responsible for 40% of network traffic, pay a premium? If i watch six movies today at the local cineplex i pay more than someone who goes in and watches just one: If several dozen like-minded people tie up all the seats in those six theaters they prevent hundreds of others from enjoying a single movie. If i drive 750 miles around my town I pay more than the person who cruises only once to the convenience store, and if dozens of others are putting on miles like I am, we congest the city's streets and maybe prevent you, and you, from even getting to the convenience store. If i print 400 pages out of my all-in-one my paper and ink costs will exceed the costs of someone who prints a single sheet; it costs me more to build a 4000 sf home than a 2100 sf one; I pay more if I want to cool my house to 55 degrees F in the summer than someone who's happy at 72 degrees, and if thousands of others utilize that resource in the greedy, 55 degree way, they contribute to brownouts that could end up with some people not being able to use their a/c at all. Should someone be allowed to book 95% of the rooms in a hotel at a city i want to visit--and pay the same as i'd pay for a single room? AND in the process prevent me and hundreds of other people from enjoying accommodations at our destination? If there are 40 cabanas on the beach in st pete, should two people be allowed to occupy all of them for the price of a single cabana, and keep 38 people from also enjoying that amenity? Or in all these instances should those consuming more pay more?
In all these analogies you provide there's a set price for a single item/unit. ATT sold every iPhone user a bucket of minutes AND an UNLIMITED data plan. UNLIMITED. I would totally agree with your analogies if we weren't all on unlimited plans, but we are. If you choose to only check your iphone email once a month, that's your prerogative, but ATT is charging you as if you checked it all day long. You should care that 3% is using 40% of the bandwidth - ATT sold their bandwidth to consumers as unlimited, and now it seems they're sorry that they did. Instead of biting the bullet and upgrading their network to handle the flood of bandwidth usage that they sold everyone, they're asking consumers to be kind and not call so much, and be mindful of the network. Would you want the local city official to tell you when to drive to work because the roads couldn't handle the rush hour traffic? Of course not, you'd want them to expand that highway or add carpool lanes to handle the capacity! After all, more cars should mean more tax/toll revenue to pay for the upgrades, right?
Basically what ATT is now saying is that they sold too much bandwidth, their network can't handle it, and could everyone please not use bandwidth they're (still) charing you for. That way they don't have to invest in the infrastructure and they can continue to pocket that revenue.
you're right Allan,, I booted verizon for AT&T
so that I can get the iPhone and I haven't had any kind of problems
what so ever.. AT&T has been great for my family.
AT&T is a little cheaper than verizon too. As for verizons
maps, who cares if they don't have 3g coverage in the middle
of nowhere like south Dakota Montana etc.
I love the AT$T employees that join here to try convince me I have no issues. Here is a message to take back to your boss:
AT$T SUCKS!!!!!! iPhone rocks.
My girlfriends Nokia N97 and the newer N phone drops calls on AT&T at such a maddening rate, I doubt it's the iPhone that is dropping the calls. It's the network stupid.
Exactly. I currently have three AT$T phones in my house. Two iPhones and a regular type. ALL drop calls regularly. At least 75% of my calls fail on all three phones. An the normal phone is not 3G so it is both EDGE and 3G that blows.
In all these analogies you provide there's a set price for a single item/unit. ATT sold every iPhone user a bucket of minutes AND an UNLIMITED data plan. UNLIMITED. I would totally agree with your analogies if we weren't all on unlimited plans, but we are. If you choose to only check your iphone email once a month, that's your prerogative, but ATT is charging you as if you checked it all day long. You should care that 3% is using 40% of the bandwidth - ATT sold their bandwidth to consumers as unlimited, and now it seems they're sorry that they did. Instead of biting the bullet and upgrading their network to handle the flood of bandwidth usage that they sold everyone, they're asking consumers to be kind and not call so much, and be mindful of the network. Would you want the local city official to tell you when to drive to work because the roads couldn't handle the rush hour traffic? Of course not, you'd want them to expand that highway or add carpool lanes to handle the capacity! After all, more cars should mean more tax/toll revenue to pay for the upgrades, right?
Basically what ATT is now saying is that they sold too much bandwidth, their network can't handle it, and could everyone please not use bandwidth they're (still) charing you for. That way they don't have to invest in the infrastructure and they can continue to pocket that revenue.
I agree with 90% of your argument. Of course, I think 90% of mine is valid, too, which is why the differing points of view in the marketplace make this such a subject of debate.
No, I don't want a city official telling me when to drive to work. But I see the wisdom in the fact that many workplaces stagger shifts to accomplish the same decongestion objective. If I have to drive, or choose to drive, in the middle of rush hour, I am imposing extra costs on myself--costs of time, of annoyance, of extra gas wasted idling. BTW, every truck steering its way through that rush hour traffic IS paying higher costs through taxes and fees, because they add to congestion and to wear and tear on the system (degraded concrete=potholes=road repair crews=consumption of tax dollars that could otherwise be used to ADD roadways instead of maintain them AND, ironically, those road repair projects slow everyone down more!). Isn't that somewhat analagous to the 3% of users pushing their electronic 12-wheelers through a phone network?
OF COURSE i'd prefer to see ATT build out such a magnificent network my calls went thru perfectly 100% of the time from everywhere in the U.S. That's unachievable right nowt. So my position is just an argument for how to cope with the compromised situation that exists (and which most people would agree also exists with cable TV, the highway system, education, et al): the question in each of those cases is what's best to do with what we've got, while we're striving to get somewhere better.
OF COURSE i'd prefer to see ATT build out such a magnificent network my calls went thru perfectly 100% of the time from everywhere in the U.S. That's unachievable right nowt. So my position is just an argument for how to cope with the compromised situation that exists (and which most people would agree also exists with cable TV, the highway system, education, et al): the question in each of those cases is what's best to do with what we've got, while we're striving to get somewhere better.
I really don't see it as purely a congestion problem. If data congestion is causing problems with voice service, then that's most likely AT&T's fault, not so much the fault of the data users. Their system should be able to prioritize voice traffic above all else, because that's the most valuable service. The actual amount of bits required to handle a voice call is very low, but it must be handled well for the call to sound good. Data users can generally handle extra milliseconds of lag when a page is loading and such, but that kind of lag can noticeably disrupt the quality of a voice signal.
While there probably is a minority that use more data than most, I'm not convinced that's really the whole story. I doubt cutting them off will solve data congestion, I think it's just a convenient scapegoat and a misdirection to try to prevent people from asking real questions about whether the network is up to the task. We see enough stories come here and there saying that the typical iPhone user is using a lot more data than past smartphone users. To me, it's enough that the blame can't just be placed on the upper outliers. Not only that, if AT&T really wants to make its case, it would seem to me that they should produce a good volume of data, not just a couple numbers, in effect telling us to blame the scapegoat, their network couldn't possibly be the problem. The assumption is that they're telling the truth, but I doubt it's the whole truth. I'm pretty sure people can more easily torrent using other devices, and many other brand devices can be more easily tethered, so that can't be all of it, that doesn't explain the disparity in mobile traffic.
I agree with 90% of your argument. Of course, I think 90% of mine is valid, too, which is why the differing points of view in the marketplace make this such a subject of debate.
Actually, I agree with none of yours. AT&T sold unlimited plans, not capped or single unit/price.
No, I don't want a city official telling me when to drive to work. But I see the wisdom in the fact that many workplaces stagger shifts to accomplish the same decongestion objective. If I have to drive, or choose to drive, in the middle of rush hour, I am imposing extra costs on myself--costs of time, of annoyance, of extra gas wasted idling. BTW, every truck steering its way through that rush hour traffic IS paying higher costs through taxes and fees, because they add to congestion and to wear and tear on the system (degraded concrete=potholes=road repair crews=consumption of tax dollars that could otherwise be used to ADD roadways instead of maintain them AND, ironically, those road repair projects slow everyone down more!). Isn't that somewhat analagous to the 3% of users pushing their electronic 12-wheelers through a phone network?
No, not at all. AT&T is not your employer or a government agency. It is a company, one which sold you a product. In this case, they sold unlimited data. They've since been complaining about the very users who made them millions.
OF COURSE i'd prefer to see ATT build out such a magnificent network my calls went thru perfectly 100% of the time from everywhere in the U.S. That's unachievable right nowt.
No one expects that. I expect decent voice service, though. I'd also like for them not to complain about iPhone users once a month.