AT&T caps new iPhone, iPad data plans at 2GB, announces tethering

11213141517

Comments

  • Reply 321 of 359
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Well let's be polite and using round numbers say that 200 MB at 100KB per page is 2000 web pages loaded in a month. We are talking about 180 seconds worth of difference across 2000 pages.



    Is 9 hundredths of a second really enough to crap all over other networks about presuming optimal conditions in both cases?



    Sustained throughput doesn't mean you will get those same speeds when loading a website. I'll take faster whenever possible, and believe it or not, a 10th of a second is a perceivable difference. You didn't answer my question though. Why would you want slower speeds? I've never made any claims that At&T's network was superior to Verizons. I don't even live in the US, I was just pointing out the absurdity that of the concept that speed doesn't matter.





    Quote:

    I'm sure you will give it a try on EDGE and really you should. It is a great time saver in that instance, much more than .09 secs per page for sure.



    EDGE? I'll let you know in a couple months then. I don't leave 3G coverage very often. I'm on Fido in Canada, not AT&T. I never said anything bad about Opera mobile, I just pointed out that I was one of the ones who downloaded it, but I don't use it. Download numbers can be misleading, that's all.





    Quote:

    Numerous studies.... have you seen any of them? This is one of those things that gets repeated until it must be true. I've never seen an actual recent study linked to on here with regard to it. Do I believe a typical iPhone user uses ten times more data than a Rarz owner. Sure. Do I think this is true above Android and others? No and I didn't think it was true even over feature phone users. Also I've seen that stat repeatedly cited, but never sourced. Can you provide the source?



    Here's a chart (source):





    PS: Who is saying 10 times as much data? Your post was absurd because you blew everything out of proportion, while complaining about others doing exactly that. You are still doing it too.



    Edit: Maybe I'll disable 3G and test Opera on EDGE just to see how good their compression is, but I doubt I'll use it much.
  • Reply 322 of 359
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Every web market share analysis shows the iPhone OS browser share far beyond every other phone. Android has only recently become popular. Android will indeed catch up and perhaps surpass the iPhone. But don't act as if the iPhone has not dominated mobile browser market share.



    While that was true once upon a time, as was noted then as now, web share isn't data share.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    Sustained throughput doesn't mean you will get those same speeds when loading a website. I'll take faster whenever possible, and believe it or not, a 10th of a second is a perceivable difference. You didn't answer my question though. Why would you want slower speeds? I've never made any claims that At&T's network was superior to Verizons. I don't even live in the US, I was just pointing out the absurdity that of the concept that speed doesn't matter.



    Well as you note, sustained versus peak is what many people are pondering in their network performance. If you have looked at the various maps for the various networks in the U.S. it becomes an issue of large swaths of decent speed networks versus concentrated areas of high speed networks. I do live in the U.S on the West Coast. As an example, when driving from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, there are large areas of the freeway that have no 3G coverage on AT&T. The tenth of a second I'm saving in the respective cities won't help me across miles of freeway stuck on EDGE. Also while you claim a tenth of a second is noticeable, I would say only in direct side by side comparisons. I doubt most people could start and stop a stopwatch in .09 seconds.



    The main issue though is that a tenth of a second isn't a deal breaker for any cell network. If the next iPhone loaded all webpages .09 seconds slower than Android, no one would forgo an iPhone for that reason. No one should forgo a network either. The secondary point is many of the fanbois steer the discussions into the realm of absurdity to justify the iPhone as the only solution to every problem. They crap all over any other alternative, even alternatives on the iPhone itself to rationalize their own true answer.



    Quote:

    EDGE? I'll let you know in a couple months then. I don't leave 3G coverage very often. I'm on Fido in Canada, not AT&T. I never said anything bad about Opera mobile, I just pointed out that I was one of the ones who downloaded it, but I don't use it. Download numbers can be misleading, that's all.



    Well there is a secondary consideration now and that is that Opera will help save data charges.



    Quote:

    Here's a chart (source):





    PS: Who is saying 10 times as much data? Your post was absurd because you blew everything out of proportion, while complaining about others doing exactly that. You are still doing it too.



    Edit: Maybe I'll disable 3G and test Opera on EDGE just to see how good their compression is, but I doubt I'll use it much.



    My post isn't absurd or blowing everything out of proportion. The AI article that started this thread had that claim in it and it has been repeated often.



    This was in the initial post....



    Last December, one AT&T executive said he believed it was inevitable that users who utilize more bandwidth than their share will have to pay more than the rest. At the time, the company said that 40 percent of the network capacity for AT&T is used by just 3 percent of smartphone users. Other reports have alleged that the average iPhone user consumes 10 times the bandwidth of a typical smartphone user.



    I do thank you for the chart though and it confirms much of what I thought, that iPhone users do use more, but not massive amounts more and the gap is narrowing.
  • Reply 323 of 359
    hellacoolhellacool Posts: 759member
    insult removed
  • Reply 324 of 359
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I do thank you for the chart though and it confirms much of what I thought, that iPhone users do use more, but not massive amounts more and the gap is narrowing.



    To quote the source I included:



    Quote:

    On average, iPhone users consume 273 MBs of data per month. That compares with 54 MBs for consumer users of Blackberrys and 150 MBs for consumers who use other brands of smart phones, the Validas study found.



    That would still qualify as massive to me. Though not the 10x the AT&T rep said. Given that there are more iPhones on AT&T than there are Android devices on all carriers combined, I think it is reasonable to assume that AT&T has much higher data requirements than other carriers in the US. The graph represents a single point in time, but I suspect that you are correct in assuming that the gap is closing. I'd expect more tiered pricing if capacity cannot keep up with demand. Thanks for quoting the article though. Sometimes I forget what it is even about after 9 pages of comments
  • Reply 325 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    To quote the source I included:







    That would still qualify as massive to me. Though not the 10x the AT&T rep said. Given that there are more iPhones on AT&T than there are Android devices on all carriers combined, I think it is reasonable to assume that AT&T has much higher data requirements than other carriers in the US. The graph represents a single point in time, but I suspect that you are correct in assuming that the gap is closing. I'd expect more tiered pricing if capacity cannot keep up with demand. Thanks for quoting the article though. Sometimes I forget what it is even about after 9 pages of comments





    I, likewise, welcomed the actual numbers.



    While it is clear that iPhone users use "more" than Blackberry users, my own unscientific inquiries have led me to conclude that Blackberry users (even the ones who would qualify as "crackberry" users) tend to use it predominately for email with some texting. This is, at least in part, due to the poor performance of the Blackberry on the internet and the fact that the screen is, well, small which is not very user friendly. Even though the iPhone screen is not "large" I would have to say that it is more usable than the Blackberry for internet browsing, at least in part due to the ease of zooming and rotating it to a landscape mode.



    The quoted figures, in my view, show that there really is not that much bandwidth being utilized by iPhone (or other) users. It is just that AT&T has not built their network to support reasonable use of the services they sell. It is a shell game.



    In my experience with AT&T, it is clear that customers who actually use a product are viewed (and frequently treated as) abusers of the system. Why would one want a "smart phone" with internet access if not to use it on-the-go? I certainly would not like to download very large files/system updates over the 3G network (irrespective of caps and charges) if there were a Wi-Fi connection available to do it sometime and somewhere which was reasonably convenient, I must say that it is pretty routine to get email with attachments which are multiple MBs in size. I consider them an ordinary and expected use of email and the internet. Internet video, whether Flash or HTML 5 is bound to consume more bandwidth than the text only sites which are typically viewed on a Blackberry. Weather websites with radar, overhead imagery, and computerized visual simulations of forecasts consume more bandwidth than simple text.



    My conclusion is that AT&T (and the others for that matter) "doth protest too much". I am reminded of a commercial on TV in which a young child is invited to "ride a bike", but then they are only permitted to do so in a three foot circle. "Even a child knows..." such restrictions aren't right.



    The FCC has recognized that the wireless providers are over charging and under delivering services to consumers.



    Sadly, the FCC and Congress have not bothered to implement a nation-wide network with a single technical standard. Users of land lines do not care about technical standards so long as they get a dial tone when they pick up the phone and someone answers at the other end when the dial a number. Wireless users should expect no less. While it is true that the FCC does not always get the reimbursement rates (for the use of other's networks) right the first time or as quickly as they should it is a system which has worked well for the nation for many years. Other nations and regions have a single (or unified) technical standard. It works. It really should not matter what company you are with when you need to make a call.



    Anyway, AT&T's current deal is a sham and should be called such. Charging more for less is not a price reduction.



    Oh, by the way, AT&T rather belatedly sent some of their people to work with Apple so as to optimize the way the iPhone interacts with the network and to reduce its

    unintended impact on the available bandwidth. One would have expected them to have done so before the release of the first iPhone.



    People buy products and services to use them. What is the surprise?
  • Reply 326 of 359
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Sadly, the FCC and Congress have not bothered to implement a nation-wide network with a single technical standard. Users of land lines do not care about technical standards so long as they get a dial tone when they pick up the phone and someone answers at the other end when the dial a number. Wireless users should expect no less. While it is true that the FCC does not always get the reimbursement rates (for the use of other's networks) right the first time or as quickly as they should it is a system which has worked well for the nation for many years. Other nations and regions have a single (or unified) technical standard. It works. It really should not matter what company you are with when you need to make a call.



    This is where you are 100% WRONG.



    EU has been auctioning spectrum licenses on a technology neutral basis for the last 4-5 years. The best example is the 3G expansion band spectrum space (2.6 GMz).



    http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/05...pean-strategy/



    The name (3G expansion band) by definition should be restricted to WCDMA --- but Europe learned their lesson. Remember this was 2006-2007, WCDMA was a mess, HSDPA might be a mess as well. LTE was in the drawing stage and WiMAX looked a lot promising at that point.



    So Europe decided to copy the American approach --- technology neutral spectrum auction. This is silicon technology world we are talking about --- 1 start-up making it big and 99 failures and you still end up a billionaire. Governments shouldn't try to roll the dice.



    Put it in other way that geeks can relate. There is probably some geek in silicon valley right now working on the next generation of wireless technology that is 100% incompatible with LTE but is 100x faster. The ONLY reason he is working on it right now is because the FCC doesn't restrict their spectrum to a single technology. You don't want to prevent that geek to work on some really cool stuff.
  • Reply 327 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    This is where you are 100% WRONG.



    EU has been auctioning spectrum licenses on a technology neutral basis for the last 4-5 years. The best example is the 3G expansion band spectrum space (2.6 GMz).



    http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/05...pean-strategy/



    The name (3G expansion band) by definition should be restricted to WCDMA --- but Europe learned their lesson. Remember this was 2006-2007, WCDMA was a mess, HSDPA might be a mess as well. LTE was in the drawing stage and WiMAX looked a lot promising at that point.



    So Europe decided to copy the American approach --- technology neutral spectrum auction. This is silicon technology world we are talking about --- 1 start-up making it big and 99 failures and you still end up a billionaire. Governments shouldn't try to roll the dice.



    Put it in other way that geeks can relate. There is probably some geek in silicon valley right now working on the next generation of wireless technology that is 100% incompatible with LTE but is 100x faster. The ONLY reason he is working on it right now is because the FCC doesn't restrict their spectrum to a single technology. You don't want to prevent that geek to work on some really cool stuff.



    Actually, you are a bit off point. If one travels around the E.U. with a current technology 3G phone, it works in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Finland, the U.K., Austria, Italy and so on. That is not the case in the U.S. There is a lot of "legacy" technology around.



    It is true to say that the 4G implementation may wind up being somewhat different in both technology and result. While 4G/Wi-Max in the U.S. is being viewed as a means to deploy broadband to more rural areas which are currently either not served at all or poorly served (and gaining mobile 4G/Wi-Max) I suspect that it may be more of a mobile issue in the E.U. because deployment of (wired) broadband does not face the same hurdles as here. Still, 4G/Wi-Max could change the face of broadband in the U.S. by nudging the cable companies and such to offer faster speeds than that of the 4G/Wi-Max competition. As it is, the U.S. lags behind in both broadband deployment and speed. There are still too many areas were dial-up is the main choice.
  • Reply 328 of 359
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Actually, you are a bit off point. If one travels around the E.U. with a current technology 3G phone, it works in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Finland, the U.K., Austria, Italy and so on. That is not the case in the U.S. There is a lot of "legacy" technology around.



    It is true to say that the 4G implementation may wind up being somewhat different in both technology and result. While 4G/Wi-Max in the U.S. is being viewed as a means to deploy broadband to more rural areas which are currently either not served at all or poorly served (and gaining mobile 4G/Wi-Max) I suspect that it may be more of a mobile issue in the E.U. because deployment of (wired) broadband does not face the same hurdles as here. Still, 4G/Wi-Max could change the face of broadband in the U.S. by nudging the cable companies and such to offer faster speeds than that of the 4G/Wi-Max competition. As it is, the U.S. lags behind in both broadband deployment and speed. There are still too many areas were dial-up is the main choice.



    So what? You can get a CDMA/GSM blackberry worldphone from Verizon if you frequently travels outside the US --- and the GSM side is not even simlocked by Verizon.



    The FCC's job is to get the best mobile service at the lowest price for Americans --- 50 weeks out of every year. It is NOT the FCC's job to make sure you are compatible for your annual 2 week vacation in Europe.



    EU is 4 years BEHIND the US in FTTH fiber optics deployment.



    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028



    EVERYTHING that was thought to be wrong about the US telecom market --- turned out to be right. Sweden and Ireland opted for "3G beauty contest" instead of auction 10 years ago --- then they learned their lessons and copied the US style auction. The whole Europe copied American style technology neutral spectrum auction. The last 2 years, Europan regulators have been studying American style mobile termination charge (which means charging for both sending and listening to calls).



    Now Americans have higher 3G penetration than Europeans. Americans talk 2-4 times more minutes per month and send more SMS than Europeans. Americans use more data than Europeans and more smartphones than everyone else. The list goes on and on.
  • Reply 329 of 359
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    To quote the source I included:



    That would still qualify as massive to me. Though not the 10x the AT&T rep said. Given that there are more iPhones on AT&T than there are Android devices on all carriers combined, I think it is reasonable to assume that AT&T has much higher data requirements than other carriers in the US. The graph represents a single point in time, but I suspect that you are correct in assuming that the gap is closing. I'd expect more tiered pricing if capacity cannot keep up with demand. Thanks for quoting the article though. Sometimes I forget what it is even about after 9 pages of comments



    In some ways, I think Blackberry numbers should always be treated as outliers. They are the only smartphone platform that requires all their data requests go through RIM servers that expressly compress the data when sending it out.



    To me those amounts don't sound massive at all. 200 megs as an average? That is miniscule, especially from devices that will likely hold minimum 8-16 gigs of data.



    RIM is specifically touting this as a feature of BB's as noted in the other thread on these forums. It is going to be really interesting to see what Apple comes up with now that these new data plans are out there. The key strength of the iPhone has always been the uncompromised internet. Clearly even with pinch to zoom though this isn't always enjoyable on a 3 inch screen and thus there are many mobile and iPhone optimized websites. The creation of these over the years has likely helped hold down data requirments and perhaps even held down data demand. We see Apple limiting features like multitasking to help improve battery life. RIM is the company that has the most experience limiting data while keeping the phone useful.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    I, likewise, welcomed the actual numbers.



    While it is clear that iPhone users use "more" than Blackberry users, my own unscientific inquiries have led me to conclude that Blackberry users (even the ones who would qualify as "crackberry" users) tend to use it predominately for email with some texting. This is, at least in part, due to the poor performance of the Blackberry on the internet and the fact that the screen is, well, small which is not very user friendly. Even though the iPhone screen is not "large" I would have to say that it is more usable than the Blackberry for internet browsing, at least in part due to the ease of zooming and rotating it to a landscape mode.



    I agree that Blackberry users tend to browse less but seem to, again just my experience, just love emailing photos over the network. Almost every real estate agent I know has a Blackberry and they have some program that actually opens the keyboxes for homes on it. Then they take the photos on their phones and email them to themselves back in the office for putting into the listing. I mean think about that for a moment. If these BB folks aren't browsing, that means almost all 50 megs are spent just emailing and texting. That is a ton of data for just those two activities on a phone. No wonder it is like crack for them.



    Quote:

    The quoted figures, in my view, show that there really is not that much bandwidth being utilized by iPhone (or other) users. It is just that AT&T has not built their network to support reasonable use of the services they sell. It is a shell game.



    Agreed. As I noted earlier, the cell model has always been built on getting people to buy more capacity than they need using massive penalities for overages if you guess wrong. These data plans are no different. The cost of that 201st megabyte is $15 no matter what, so of course people opt for the 2 gigs just to even get a more reasonable rate for overages. Looking at how low these numbers are, it is really surprising AT&T has had so many issues. The claims always involved people using massive gigabytes of information of information per month.



    Quote:

    In my experience with AT&T, it is clear that customers who actually use a product are viewed (and frequently treated as) abusers of the system. Why would one want a "smart phone" with internet access if not to use it on-the-go? I certainly would not like to download very large files/system updates over the 3G network (irrespective of caps and charges) if there were a Wi-Fi connection available to do it sometime and somewhere which was reasonably convenient, I must say that it is pretty routine to get email with attachments which are multiple MBs in size. I consider them an ordinary and expected use of email and the internet. Internet video, whether Flash or HTML 5 is bound to consume more bandwidth than the text only sites which are typically viewed on a Blackberry. Weather websites with radar, overhead imagery, and computerized visual simulations of forecasts consume more bandwidth than simple text.



    My conclusion is that AT&T (and the others for that matter) "doth protest too much". I am reminded of a commercial on TV in which a young child is invited to "ride a bike", but then they are only permitted to do so in a three foot circle. "Even a child knows..." such restrictions aren't right.



    The FCC has recognized that the wireless providers are over charging and under delivering services to consumers.



    Sadly, the FCC and Congress have not bothered to implement a nation-wide network with a single technical standard. Users of land lines do not care about technical standards so long as they get a dial tone when they pick up the phone and someone answers at the other end when the dial a number. Wireless users should expect no less. While it is true that the FCC does not always get the reimbursement rates (for the use of other's networks) right the first time or as quickly as they should it is a system which has worked well for the nation for many years. Other nations and regions have a single (or unified) technical standard. It works. It really should not matter what company you are with when you need to make a call.



    Anyway, AT&T's current deal is a sham and should be called such. Charging more for less is not a price reduction.



    Oh, by the way, AT&T rather belatedly sent some of their people to work with Apple so as to optimize the way the iPhone interacts with the network and to reduce its

    unintended impact on the available bandwidth. One would have expected them to have done so before the release of the first iPhone.



    People buy products and services to use them. What is the surprise?



    Well when the model is based around a well understood low average which already has a ridiculous profit margin, and then selling fear of even higher obscene gouging fees to avoid outright insane profit margins on massively marked up overages, then what can you really expect. Anyone who manages to "cheat" and actually use or expect value of the system is automatically wrong. The FCC does have an obligation here since these are public airwaves. In my view they have abdicated that responsibility. People so often ask why there can't just be reasonble add ons based around what most people use. They don't understand that isn't the model. They'll complain that 500 txt messages are $5 and unlimited are $20 and why isn't there something reasonable. The real question is to ask why someone leasing our radio spectrum is entitled to sell an amount of data that wouldn't even be a good email, and that data would equal all texting most people do in one month the amount of data in that one email, and request $20 for that email.



    If we can deliver a stamped piece of paper for less than $.50 why is progress delivering a letter/email worth of data for $30? It ought to be stopped.
  • Reply 330 of 359
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    The FCC does have an obligation here since these are public airwaves. In my view they have abdicated that responsibility.



    This is where you lost most non-American AI'ers here.



    Americans enjoyed the lowest mobile voice and data plans, speaks more than 2-3 times than Europeans, sends more SMS than everyone (except the Philiphines), have pro-rated ETFs...



    Europeans don't even have ETF's, let alone pro-rated ones --- they have to pay off the rest of the contract to get out. I, as a Canadian, faces 3 year contracts --- with one carrier charging $20 a month in ETF (which means max $720 ETF).
  • Reply 331 of 359
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,902member
    This past weekend I did some experimenting with an old iSight camera, my MBP i7 and Evocam to stream video to my iPhone via 3G. Got it to work, but I noticed that my iPhone data usage went WAY up. My numbers were over 500meg for the billing period. The others on my family plan who typically use their phones more than I, had much lower data usage. So much for having a cool phone accessible camera to watch the dog, or the neighbors or whatever on the new data plans.



    Two interesting side notes. First, when I view the cam feed in Safari on the phone I think the phone keeps the stream active even when sleeping. I had the stream open and pushed the sleep button and went away for a while. When I came back the phone was hot. I then tried quitting Safari before sleeping. Same deal phone was really warm after 15 minutes and battery was almost depleted. I killed the page in Safari and that fixed the problem. Bug? Secondly, why does one measly text message show up as 1 meg on the AT&T bill? There is no way a text message is actually 1 megabyte. Rip off?
  • Reply 332 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    So what? You can get a CDMA/GSM blackberry worldphone from Verizon if you frequently travels outside the US --- and the GSM side is not even simlocked by Verizon.



    The FCC's job is to get the best mobile service at the lowest price for Americans --- 50 weeks out of every year. It is NOT the FCC's job to make sure you are compatible for your annual 2 week vacation in Europe.



    EU is 4 years BEHIND the US in FTTH fiber optics deployment.



    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028



    EVERYTHING that was thought to be wrong about the US telecom market --- turned out to be right. Sweden and Ireland opted for "3G beauty contest" instead of auction 10 years ago --- then they learned their lessons and copied the US style auction. The whole Europe copied American style technology neutral spectrum auction. The last 2 years, Europan regulators have been studying American style mobile termination charge (which means charging for both sending and listening to calls).



    Now Americans have higher 3G penetration than Europeans. Americans talk 2-4 times more minutes per month and send more SMS than Europeans. Americans use more data than Europeans and more smartphones than everyone else. The list goes on and on.



    Again, you miss the point. The example was that a 3G phone works throughout the E.U. My point was that a phone, of whatever technology, should work throughout the U.S. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a U.S. spec phone working in Europe.
  • Reply 333 of 359
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Again, you miss the point. The example was that a 3G phone works throughout the E.U. My point was that a phone, of whatever technology, should work throughout the U.S. It had nothing whatsoever to do with a U.S. spec phone working in Europe.



    Verizon covers about 300 million people throughout the US.



    Nobody forces you to go with a carrier with less coverage.
  • Reply 334 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Verizon covers about 300 million people throughout the US.



    Nobody forces you to go with a carrier with less coverage.



    Either you simply do not understand a very simple concept or are merely an apologist. That or a schill for the wireless providers.



    Consumers do not care about what technology creates the connection. They simply want a connection.
  • Reply 335 of 359
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Either you simply do not understand a very simple concept or are merely an apologist. That or a schill for the wireless providers.



    Consumers do not care about what technology creates the connection. They simply want a connection.



    They want cheap affordable connections with good service within their country where they spent 50 weeks out of every year.



    What are you going to do with a 3G iphone that you bought in the UK --- which for the last 2 years you can't get unlocking codes for and which there is no cheap affordable way to get out of contract for. Are you going to bring that UK iphone to the rest of Europe where they are going to charge you an arm just to look at the top page of any website.



    The European launch of the iphone showed one thing --- there is no simlocking laws in Europe. So you are an European and you have an iphone, what is the point of that 300 million people coverage.
  • Reply 336 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    They want cheap affordable connections with good service within their country where they spent 50 weeks out of every year.



    What are you going to do with a 3G iphone that you bought in the UK --- which for the last 2 years you can't get unlocking codes for and which there is no cheap affordable way to get out of contract for. Are you going to bring that UK iphone to the rest of Europe where they are going to charge you an arm just to look at the top page of any website.



    The European launch of the iphone showed one thing --- there is no simlocking laws in Europe. So you are an European and you have an iphone, what is the point of that 300 million people coverage.



    Please read the post before regurgitating irrelevant matter.
  • Reply 337 of 359
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Please read the post before regurgitating irrelevant matter.



    And reread all my postings for the last few years on this forum before you response on this topic.



    Your thinking is essentially circa-2007 --- when Apple hasn't launched the iphone in Europe yet. Somehow everybody thought at the time that Europe is some kind of mobile paradise. That bubble bursted a long time ago.



    Europe is a continent with no effective simlocking laws, and no pro-rated ETF's. While geeks like you think that it is easier TECHNICALLY to swap phones or swap SIM cards in Europe --- the lack of affordable pro-rated ETF's means that in real life, Europeans can't get out of their contracts because of financial reasons.



    In the US, while technically it is difficult to switch carriers because of incompatible technology --- in real life, it is financially more affordable to switch carriers. And when you switch carriers, the new carrier will basically give you a new phone for peanuts --- which eliminates the whole CDMA vs. GSM issue.
  • Reply 338 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Apparently the Android activations are impacting Sprint's network in a manner similar to the problems AT&T has encountered. How long before they cap their unlimited plans?



    http://phandroid.com/2010/06/04/over...prints-system/
  • Reply 339 of 359
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    This is where you lost most non-American AI'ers here.



    Americans enjoyed the lowest mobile voice and data plans, speaks more than 2-3 times than Europeans, sends more SMS than everyone (except the Philiphines), have pro-rated ETFs...



    Europeans don't even have ETF's, let alone pro-rated ones --- they have to pay off the rest of the contract to get out. I, as a Canadian, faces 3 year contracts --- with one carrier charging $20 a month in ETF (which means max $720 ETF).



    I don't have to lose anyone. Declaring you suck more doesn't mean we have to tolerate suckage as a general rule anywhere.



    As for the suckage, what do you think ought to be done about it? I've noticed this all or nothing approach for many industries with regard to ridiculous fees and terms. When they engage in it, I choose nothing most often. My television comes from an antenna because all the provides want $5-10 per box to connect the television, programming packages full of channels I don't watch for ever higher fees, contracts extensions for any little thing, and finally you buy the equipment like DVR's from stores and turns out you are actually only LEASING it. You pay full price to lease. So i said thanks, here's my antenna and I'll watch OTA television, use Netflix Redbox and check out some movies from our local library.



    For the family, I've got the two boy's phones on $10 every four months to get 85 minutes or something like that with Page Plus. They are 10 and 8 and their parental security blankets work just fine for under such terms. My wife is on prepaid with Page Plus as well with unlimited talk/text and 20 megs data for $45 a month. I'm pondering the move myself because even as nice as my iPhone experience has been, the choice of all or nothing feels like it will turn to nothing again soon. Tmobile offers me 1000 minutes and unlimited text and data for $65 a month which seems very fair. If anything about these terms change though, I'm going prepaid talk and text only because I will not let data be used to double my phone bill regardless of what a company wants.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Apparently the Android activations are impacting Sprint's network in a manner similar to the problems AT&T has encountered. How long before they cap their unlimited plans?



    http://phandroid.com/2010/06/04/over...prints-system/



    I could be reading that wrong, but it sounds like their internal network has crashed, not their wireless network.
  • Reply 340 of 359
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I don't have to lose anyone. Declaring you suck more doesn't mean we have to tolerate suckage as a general rule anywhere.



    As for the suckage, what do you think ought to be done about it? I've noticed this all or nothing approach for many industries with regard to ridiculous fees and terms. When they engage in it, I choose nothing most often. My television comes from an antenna because all the provides want $5-10 per box to connect the television, programming packages full of channels I don't watch for ever higher fees, contracts extensions for any little thing, and finally you buy the equipment like DVR's from stores and turns out you are actually only LEASING it. You pay full price to lease. So i said thanks, here's my antenna and I'll watch OTA television, use Netflix Redbox and check out some movies from our local library.



    For the family, I've got the two boy's phones on $10 every four months to get 85 minutes or something like that with Page Plus. They are 10 and 8 and their parental security blankets work just fine for under such terms. My wife is on prepaid with Page Plus as well with unlimited talk/text and 20 megs data for $45 a month. I'm pondering the move myself because even as nice as my iPhone experience has been, the choice of all or nothing feels like it will turn to nothing again soon. Tmobile offers me 1000 minutes and unlimited text and data for $65 a month which seems very fair. If anything about these terms change though, I'm going prepaid talk and text only because I will not let data be used to double my phone bill regardless of what a company wants.







    I could be reading that wrong, but it sounds like their internal network has crashed, not their wireless network.



    I got a bit ahead of the story. The new signups crashed the internal network. (This also happened to AT&T with the iPhone.) I am not going to be surprised if, in fact I am guessing that they will soon have the problems AT&T is having when all the new Android phones are actually put in service. Everything I have read about the Android phones is that they are pretty good. I hope they push Apple into making improvements and vice versa. Competition is good.
Sign In or Register to comment.