Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract. Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
Throttling people to a slower speed is not allowing unlimited data. It is choking their ability to get unlimited data, because at the slower speed they won't be able to get the same amount of data they otherwise could receive.
At home I use sixty-five to eighty gigabytes of data each month. I use Skype, Netflix, and several different music streaming sources. I'll be moving into an RV next year. Even if I cut my usage in half as a mobile user it wouldn't come close to that 2 GB maximum.
The whole problem with the USA mobile networks is the government is in the pockets of the telecommunications companies. The government won't enforce contracts or require more upgrades to the networks.
In the 80s the telephone and cable TV companies promised to upgrade their networks to fiber optics in exchange for allowing monopolies within geographical areas. They didn't ever fulfill their commitment. The government just let them get away with it.
Wireless services are raping the public and it makes me wonder just how long the citizens will put up with it. There just isn't enough competition.
Read your contract. They reserve the right to make changes. All you can really do is fight and be allowed to leave without paying an EFT.
I prefer what Vodafone does here in New Zealand. Although we don't have an unlimited plan what Vodafone does is reduces the speed so that instead of 10Mbps it slows it to 3Mbps for everyone. That way the network is not congested.
Meanwhile Telecom keeps full speed and suffers constant slowdowns to less than 1Mbps in some cases down to 256Kbps.
What happen to the days of verizon mocking AT&T for havin a incompetent network before the vz iPhone?
Chumps..A so called "superior" network shouldn't have a bandwidth problem..
Something you gots to remember, is that both AT&T and VZ (and T-Mo) all resell bulk minutes to the MVNOs. So the cell overloading may be for lots of reasons (other than the obvious).
Only if you're on a congested cell site. I suppose that's pretty ambiguous, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsteeno
Determining data usage for the top 5% is a dynamic and challenging problem.
I surmise that all people's billing cycles are different, and that the volume of data usage changes over time (either in a pattern such as week vs. weekend and/or increasing as more people are using smartphones).
My naivety is speaking here, but it seems that one could be in top 5% one minute and out the next. It would be interesting to see more details on how they do this, plus example data.
I'm not against this at all, but in addition to the relative amount of data as a criterion, there should be a magnitude element, like "top 5% and greater than 2 GB/month", IMO (although I think 2 GB / month is quite low).
I'm sure they're making up the dividing line as they go along. Heck, I'm somewhat surprised they notified anyone, much less pre-announced it long before they put it to action. When landline ISPs started throttling connections, they didn't say anything until people figured it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
If the users who get throttled think paying for their usage, instead of having others pay for their usage, is a better option, they are encouraged to do that. It's what everyone without an unlimited plan does.
Your first line is very confusingly worded, but I don't think it's necessarily like that. I think the fact that they paid for what was called unlimited, means they are technically paying for their usage, unless they're infringing on the terms of the contract. If the user violated the terms of the contract, then they should take the penalties outlined in the contract.
In many ways, I'm unsympathetic to both sides, I don't trust a telco any farther than I can throw one of their repair trucks. They shouldn't have been using unlimited in any of their advertising. On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
Why not? Are there technical limitations?
Some communities around here are experimenting with free public wifi everywhere. I don't know any technical details re speed/bandwidth, but I think it is 802.11g. ISTM that it is intended to replace DSL, but maybe it is just supposed to supplement it. Isn't wifi g a lot faster than DSL?
OTOH, the cell companies have no problem piggybacking off of their customer's WIFI. All the equipment they sell to consumers will switch from the cell company's cellular data to the customer's (or anybody else's) WIFI connection whenever possible. Hell, they even provide devices that plug into the customer's wired system, using wired bandwidth, to handle cellular calls and phone/tablet data. Femtocells? Isn't that what they are called?
IMO, all this pious bullshit about data hogs is just that: bullshit. People are offered a deal, they buy it, and then get crucified by certain misguided folks in this forum when they actually want to use what they bought and paid for.
ISTM that the celco's are the bad guys here. They sell more data plans then they can handle with their existing infrastructure, they welsh on the deals they made, that long-time customers have bought and paid for, and they sell phones that steal bandwidth from wired WIFI base stations wherever and whenever possible, whether that base station is paid for by their customer or paid for by the next-door neighbor or by a restaurant of by the local government, or whoever.
And then there are the misguided fools who side with the cellcos, instead of with the customers. Stockholm syndrome? The cellcos sell data plans that they cannot possibly service. The company now in question has seen its stock rise more than 50% in 3 years, presumably due to profit growth, and pays a dividend of more than 5%. Note that they could put the dividend towards actually providing the services that they have sold, but instead, they change the deal and deny bandwidth to their customers.
I don't understand the knee-jerk allegiance to profit-making ventures, when they deny customers the deal that the customer paid for, and when they simultaneously and blatantly jigger their phones to steal WIFI bandwidth wherever and whenever it is available, paid for/provided by third parties.
I agree, but that being a demand-driven process, it will always lag.
I think that the main reason that the providers like to promote unlimited plans is because that way, most customers actually end up paying hugely inflated data rates but somehow feel they are getting a good deal.
They have projections as to what they will need for bandwidth, given the number of data plans that they sell. They sell as many data plans as they can, knowing that their system cannot handle the demand for bandwidth. I don't see it as demand-driven when they are able to project the demand. With tens of millions of existing data points, they can and do project future needs.
Instead of throttling customers, maybe they need to throttle their sales staff? As in limiting the number of new data plans they sell, so that they can provide the promised service to existing customers? Waiting to take on new customers until they can reasonably be expected to get what the new customer is being sold?
The contract is to protect the carrier, not you. If they break the contract then the initializing party is voiding it and you can switch carriers/phones without paying an ETF, but I'm pretty sure there is specific wording that allows them to do what they are doing without invalidating the agreement.
Generally, long complicated contracts which are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis are called "contracts of adhesion". While most contracts bind each party to what they agreed to, special rules apply to contracts of adhesion. I'm not saying that any of those special rules apply to the cellco contracts, but in general, overly onerous terms can be avoided in such contracts.
Given that in the US we have a situation where the cellcos are an oligopoly, I wonder whether the old contract of adhesion doctrines need to be dug out, dusted off and used against the cellcos.
The current situation is that many people entered into unlimited bandwidth contracts, are now paying full price, no longer are subject to any ETFs, but are losing the benefit of the bargain, due to weasel worded cellco contracts of adhesion. Their remedy seems to be to suck it up and leave. They get no commensurate benefit, to the extent that they now have no ETFs that they can avoid.
The cellcos suck. They are immoral and exploitative of their long-term customers. Anybody who takes their side is equally immoral, IMNSHO.
Some communities around here are experimenting with free public wifi everywhere. I don't know any technical details re speed/bandwidth, but I think it is 802.11g. ISTM that it is intended to replace DSL, but maybe it is just supposed to supplement it. Isn't wifi g a lot faster than DSL?
There is a major difference between cellular data and WiFi.
With WiFi, you're dividing space and frequencies a lot more granularly because you have an access point every few hundred feet. Even then, it doesn't always work well.
With cellular data, one tower has to feed a few square mile's worth of customers. Even if it is divided by sector antennas and wider frequency bands, it's still quite limited.
With DSL or cable, you get your own "space" in the form of a wire direct to the CO. A cable is like your own private set of frequencies that don't interfere with others, and others don't interfere with you.
There is a major difference between cellular data and WiFi.
With WiFi, you're dividing space and frequencies a lot more granularly because you have an access point every few hundred feet. Even then, it doesn't always work well.
With cellular data, one tower has to feed a few square mile's worth of customers. Even if it is divided by sector antennas and wider frequency bands, it's still quite limited.
With DSL or cable, you get your own "space" in the form of a wire direct to the CO. A cable is like your own private set of frequencies that don't interfere with others, and others don't interfere with you.
OK. I thought we were discussing the differences between DSL and cellular. But I asked about whther there were technical limitations that made cell data service a bad choice compared with DSL/wifi.
As far as having an AP every few hundred feet, I don't see that as an argument against using cell data. The number of cell towers is not limited. Low power solutions are now in the news, which have small footprints. I don't understand why populated areas cannot have as many cell antennas as they have street lights - on every few hundred feet. In the boonies, there are no street lights, and so I understand that there is no real incentive to have as much bandwidth available. But in normal communities, I think that better bandwidth is feasible.
WRT DSL giving you your "own space", I think that is an imperfect point. My understanding is that wired bandwidth is shared just like wireless bandwidth. So the "data hogs" meme could apply equally to DSL as to wireless data.
In both cases, if the advertised bandwidth is not available, then the seller needs to build out its infrastructure, or as an alternative, stop selling services it is unable to provide.
Maybe bandwidth should be a publicly funded service? Like roads and water and sewer and streetlights? I don't know enough to have any firm opinions, but I'd love to hear the pros and cons.
On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
Assuming you can get terrestrial broadband (DSL being one kind), I agree.
The ground truth is that VZ(wireless) bought out Alltell. Alltell was primarily a rural wireless provider. Many people in those same rural areas cannot get DSL to this day. Many people in those same rural areas do not have any other 3G option than VZ EV-DO (AT&T has been particularly bad about extending GSM 3G outside of major highway corridors, or large metro areas).
See how we have arrived at this situation ?
One solution would be for VZ to get out there and do as complete as possible 4G LTE rollout (in other words, make 4G available everywhere that EV-DO exists).
They have projections as to what they will need for bandwidth, given the number of data plans that they sell. They sell as many data plans as they can, knowing that their system cannot handle the demand for bandwidth. I don't see it as demand-driven when they are able to project the demand. With tens of millions of existing data points, they can and do project future needs.
Instead of throttling customers, maybe they need to throttle their sales staff? As in limiting the number of new data plans they sell, so that they can provide the promised service to existing customers? Waiting to take on new customers until they can reasonably be expected to get what the new customer is being sold?
Naw. That's not what they do.
I think you are over-complicating the issue. Bandwidth costs money to build. As with most kinds of service, cellular data transmission relies on investment in infrastructure, ultimately paid for by customer. A particular problem with data is that the market has an almost unlimited appetite, and the more bandwidth that becomes available, the more the market adapts to make use of it. The huge increase in HD media streaming represents the biggest manifestation of that at present, on both the cellular and DSL/cable networks.
Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract.
Because Unlimited isn't defined by speed, rather amount. and if you look in the terms there is likely one saying that speeds may be reduced for some users. ANd even that 'unlimited' isn't a guarantee of how much data you will actually get
Quote:
Wireless services are raping the public and it makes me wonder just how long the citizens will put up with it. There just isn't enough competition.
I don't particularly care for the use of the term rape but that's that a totally different issue and discussion.
That said, the carriers are pulling bigger moves to get money from us than this. Like not having device subsidies on their own line so even once we pay off our device we pay the same rate. or the same rates on full price phones. ETFs that reduce at less than what we paid each month. What about carrier locking still being allowed in the US. Tons of folks travel internationally all the time and yet with phones, especially smartphones, you are locked into ATT unless you want to pay someone to unlock it. But then if it turns out to be a lemon or the unlock screws up something you are SOL cause you voided the warranty.
As for the speed throttling, it likely won't affect that many folks in the end even with their goofy way of doing it. Companies like Sprint that say "Unlimited but after 5gb you speed will be cut and cut again after every additional 5gb" will probably hurt more folks. The point in this game is to get folks to stop turning off their wifi and just using 3g for everything and congesting the network. If they do that then there's fewer overloaded towers to trigger the throttle in the first place
In both cases, if the advertised bandwidth is not available, then the seller needs to build out its infrastructure, or as an alternative, stop selling services it is unable to provide.
That's exactly what they've done. They've stopped selling it. So you're happy, right?
Quote:
Maybe bandwidth should be a publicly funded service? Like roads and water and sewer and streetlights? I don't know enough to have any firm opinions, but I'd love to hear the pros and cons.
Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use.
It's very simple, you pay for what you use. Unlimited data transfers isn't a real, possible thing, this is a finite resource where one person's use can impact many other people's use. Where a tiny percentage of users DO affect the mass of users. Usage should be charged on a GB to GB basis, as it is going to be going forward. That way heavy users can decided if it's worth it, and if not, they can use another service. Light users should not be forced to pay $30 a month for 1/100th the data that heavy users get.
Thankfully, unlimited is a thing of the past. This debate is already lost by the proponents of unlimited data, they just don't seem to realize it yet.
OK. I thought we were discussing the differences between DSL and cellular. But I asked about whther there were technical limitations that made cell data service a bad choice compared with DSL/wifi.
We were, but you added WiFi into the discussion, which is why I discussed DSL, cellular AND WiFi.
Quote:
As far as having an AP every few hundred feet, I don't see that as an argument against using cell data. The number of cell towers is not limited. Low power solutions are now in the news, which have small footprints. I don't understand why populated areas cannot have as many cell antennas as they have street lights - on every few hundred feet. In the boonies, there are no street lights, and so I understand that there is no real incentive to have as much bandwidth available. But in normal communities, I think that better bandwidth is feasible.
Communities and companies have a hard enough time rolling out city-wide WiFi and making it work. To ask the cellular carriers to do a similar thing on a nationwide scale that is very hard for anyone to do on a city scale is unrealistic. In short, wireless is often not the best tool for the job, especially with high housing densities. For rural, the equation changes because you have a lot fewer subscribers in a given area.
Quote:
WRT DSL giving you your "own space", I think that is an imperfect point. My understanding is that wired bandwidth is shared just like wireless bandwidth. So the "data hogs" meme could apply equally to DSL as to wireless data.
The weak point is different. You can only break down airwaves into so many channels. The backhaul is still shared on DSL, but that's a simpler problem to deal with. The harder problem is usually the last mile.
I think you are over-complicating the issue. Bandwidth costs money to build. As with most kinds of service, cellular data transmission relies on investment in infrastructure, ultimately paid for by customer. A particular problem with data is that the market has an almost unlimited appetite, and the more bandwidth that becomes available, the more the market adapts to make use of it. The huge increase in HD media streaming represents the biggest manifestation of that at present, on both the cellular and DSL/cable networks.
I don't think I'm overcomplicating it. It is simple.
The telcos should not sell more data plans than they can service. It is not a bad thing for a customer to use a service that they paid for.
That's exactly what they've done. They've stopped selling it. So you're happy, right?
They have not stopped selling it. They have people who signed up for it and pay for it and do not get it.
[WRT public WIFI]
"Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use."
Your sainted grandma pays municipal taxes for people who throw away more garbage than her, she pays municipal taxes for people who drive more than her, especially on snowy days, and she pays taxes for people who need police protection more than her, like the people who have fancy artworks and valuable crystal and silver. She pays higher taxes due to people who live in wooden houses rather than brick houses with sprinklers. That is quite typical for any municipal service, and so I'm not sure why it is a factor here.
"It's very simple, you pay for what you use."
Were that the deal that the telcos sold, then this debate would not be happening. But given that it was NOT the deal the telcos sold, then IMO, some folks are getting a raw deal.
Communities and companies have a hard enough time rolling out city-wide WiFi and making it work. To ask the cellular carriers to do a similar thing on a nationwide scale that is very hard for anyone to do on a city scale is unrealistic. In short, wireless is often not the best tool for the job, especially with high housing densities. For rural, the equation changes because you have a lot fewer subscribers in a given area.
The weak point is different. You can only break down airwaves into so many channels. The backhaul is still shared on DSL, but that's a simpler problem to deal with. The harder problem is usually the last mile.
Good points.
I don't necessarily think that sparsely populated areas are ripe for either wifi or cell service. Most people live in densely populated areas, and they, of course, subsidize the few who live in the boonies.
Given that the last mile is the problem, maybe the most economically efficient solution is to have freely available or municipally funded wireless bandwidth in dense areas? Just as it would be inefficient to expect every homeowner to have a private fire department, maybe it is inefficient to have every homeowner pay for a private last mile service?
I am no expert on any of this. I don't know what the rationale was, for example, for the rural electrification projects (was it just a great depression make-work project, or were there greater goods to having universal electric service, even in low population areas?). Is its better to have multiple companies stringing up ugly cable TV wires compared to having one CATV company per town? I don't know these answers, nor do I know the best mode of analysis to arrive at the best answer.
"Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use."
Your sainted grandma pays municipal taxes for people who throw away more garbage than her, she pays municipal taxes for people who drive more than her, especially on snowy days, and she pays taxes for people who need police protection more than her, like the people who have fancy artworks and valuable crystal and silver. She pays higher taxes due to people who live in wooden houses rather than brick houses with sprinklers. That is quite typical for any municipal service, and so I'm not sure why it is a factor here.
Clearly you aren't a deep thinker.
Just because there are 100 things that people are forced to pay for despite not using, that doesn't mean that a bunch of whining cell phone-addicted crybabies should get to force them to pay for one more arbitrary thing just because said babies don't want to pay their fair share. Cell phone internet use does not fit under and of the definitions of public goods that should be provided-for through threat of imprisonment and the fact that you think it should is mind boggling.
I am no expert on any of this. I don't know what the rationale was, for example, for the rural electrification projects (was it just a great depression make-work project, or were there greater goods to having universal electric service, even in low population areas?). Is its better to have multiple companies stringing up ugly cable TV wires compared to having one CATV company per town? I don't know these answers, nor do I know the best mode of analysis to arrive at the best answer.
Why not just have one restaurant in town, that way all those foodservice trucks you see driving around could be eliminated. FAR more efficient.
Why do we all need cars? Most people just want to go to the same place - everyone should live in high rises within walking distance of where they work. Far more efficient!
Why do we need a whole aisle of cereals? Total and Cheerios provide all the nutrition that a cereal can be expected to provide, eliminate the rest!
Comments
Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract. Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
Throttling people to a slower speed is not allowing unlimited data. It is choking their ability to get unlimited data, because at the slower speed they won't be able to get the same amount of data they otherwise could receive.
At home I use sixty-five to eighty gigabytes of data each month. I use Skype, Netflix, and several different music streaming sources. I'll be moving into an RV next year. Even if I cut my usage in half as a mobile user it wouldn't come close to that 2 GB maximum.
The whole problem with the USA mobile networks is the government is in the pockets of the telecommunications companies. The government won't enforce contracts or require more upgrades to the networks.
In the 80s the telephone and cable TV companies promised to upgrade their networks to fiber optics in exchange for allowing monopolies within geographical areas. They didn't ever fulfill their commitment. The government just let them get away with it.
Wireless services are raping the public and it makes me wonder just how long the citizens will put up with it. There just isn't enough competition.
Read your contract. They reserve the right to make changes. All you can really do is fight and be allowed to leave without paying an EFT.
Basically SUCK IT.
Meanwhile Telecom keeps full speed and suffers constant slowdowns to less than 1Mbps in some cases down to 256Kbps.
Sometimes full speed isn't a good thing.
What happen to the days of verizon mocking AT&T for havin a incompetent network before the vz iPhone?
Chumps..A so called "superior" network shouldn't have a bandwidth problem..
Something you gots to remember, is that both AT&T and VZ (and T-Mo) all resell bulk minutes to the MVNOs. So the cell overloading may be for lots of reasons (other than the obvious).
Because these companies are run by professional liars.
Noooo, there called marketing experts ...
Only if you're on a congested cell site. I suppose that's pretty ambiguous, though.
Determining data usage for the top 5% is a dynamic and challenging problem.
I surmise that all people's billing cycles are different, and that the volume of data usage changes over time (either in a pattern such as week vs. weekend and/or increasing as more people are using smartphones).
My naivety is speaking here, but it seems that one could be in top 5% one minute and out the next. It would be interesting to see more details on how they do this, plus example data.
I'm not against this at all, but in addition to the relative amount of data as a criterion, there should be a magnitude element, like "top 5% and greater than 2 GB/month", IMO (although I think 2 GB / month is quite low).
I'm sure they're making up the dividing line as they go along. Heck, I'm somewhat surprised they notified anyone, much less pre-announced it long before they put it to action. When landline ISPs started throttling connections, they didn't say anything until people figured it out.
If the users who get throttled think paying for their usage, instead of having others pay for their usage, is a better option, they are encouraged to do that. It's what everyone without an unlimited plan does.
Your first line is very confusingly worded, but I don't think it's necessarily like that. I think the fact that they paid for what was called unlimited, means they are technically paying for their usage, unless they're infringing on the terms of the contract. If the user violated the terms of the contract, then they should take the penalties outlined in the contract.
In many ways, I'm unsympathetic to both sides, I don't trust a telco any farther than I can throw one of their repair trucks. They shouldn't have been using unlimited in any of their advertising. On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
Why not? Are there technical limitations?
Some communities around here are experimenting with free public wifi everywhere. I don't know any technical details re speed/bandwidth, but I think it is 802.11g. ISTM that it is intended to replace DSL, but maybe it is just supposed to supplement it. Isn't wifi g a lot faster than DSL?
OTOH, the cell companies have no problem piggybacking off of their customer's WIFI. All the equipment they sell to consumers will switch from the cell company's cellular data to the customer's (or anybody else's) WIFI connection whenever possible. Hell, they even provide devices that plug into the customer's wired system, using wired bandwidth, to handle cellular calls and phone/tablet data. Femtocells? Isn't that what they are called?
IMO, all this pious bullshit about data hogs is just that: bullshit. People are offered a deal, they buy it, and then get crucified by certain misguided folks in this forum when they actually want to use what they bought and paid for.
ISTM that the celco's are the bad guys here. They sell more data plans then they can handle with their existing infrastructure, they welsh on the deals they made, that long-time customers have bought and paid for, and they sell phones that steal bandwidth from wired WIFI base stations wherever and whenever possible, whether that base station is paid for by their customer or paid for by the next-door neighbor or by a restaurant of by the local government, or whoever.
And then there are the misguided fools who side with the cellcos, instead of with the customers. Stockholm syndrome? The cellcos sell data plans that they cannot possibly service. The company now in question has seen its stock rise more than 50% in 3 years, presumably due to profit growth, and pays a dividend of more than 5%. Note that they could put the dividend towards actually providing the services that they have sold, but instead, they change the deal and deny bandwidth to their customers.
I don't understand the knee-jerk allegiance to profit-making ventures, when they deny customers the deal that the customer paid for, and when they simultaneously and blatantly jigger their phones to steal WIFI bandwidth wherever and whenever it is available, paid for/provided by third parties.
Data hogs? WTF? Try "Ripoff Cell Companies".
I agree, but that being a demand-driven process, it will always lag.
I think that the main reason that the providers like to promote unlimited plans is because that way, most customers actually end up paying hugely inflated data rates but somehow feel they are getting a good deal.
They have projections as to what they will need for bandwidth, given the number of data plans that they sell. They sell as many data plans as they can, knowing that their system cannot handle the demand for bandwidth. I don't see it as demand-driven when they are able to project the demand. With tens of millions of existing data points, they can and do project future needs.
Instead of throttling customers, maybe they need to throttle their sales staff? As in limiting the number of new data plans they sell, so that they can provide the promised service to existing customers? Waiting to take on new customers until they can reasonably be expected to get what the new customer is being sold?
Naw. That's not what they do.
The contract is to protect the carrier, not you. If they break the contract then the initializing party is voiding it and you can switch carriers/phones without paying an ETF, but I'm pretty sure there is specific wording that allows them to do what they are doing without invalidating the agreement.
Generally, long complicated contracts which are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis are called "contracts of adhesion". While most contracts bind each party to what they agreed to, special rules apply to contracts of adhesion. I'm not saying that any of those special rules apply to the cellco contracts, but in general, overly onerous terms can be avoided in such contracts.
Given that in the US we have a situation where the cellcos are an oligopoly, I wonder whether the old contract of adhesion doctrines need to be dug out, dusted off and used against the cellcos.
The current situation is that many people entered into unlimited bandwidth contracts, are now paying full price, no longer are subject to any ETFs, but are losing the benefit of the bargain, due to weasel worded cellco contracts of adhesion. Their remedy seems to be to suck it up and leave. They get no commensurate benefit, to the extent that they now have no ETFs that they can avoid.
The cellcos suck. They are immoral and exploitative of their long-term customers. Anybody who takes their side is equally immoral, IMNSHO.
cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
Why not? Are there technical limitations?
Some communities around here are experimenting with free public wifi everywhere. I don't know any technical details re speed/bandwidth, but I think it is 802.11g. ISTM that it is intended to replace DSL, but maybe it is just supposed to supplement it. Isn't wifi g a lot faster than DSL?
There is a major difference between cellular data and WiFi.
With WiFi, you're dividing space and frequencies a lot more granularly because you have an access point every few hundred feet. Even then, it doesn't always work well.
With cellular data, one tower has to feed a few square mile's worth of customers. Even if it is divided by sector antennas and wider frequency bands, it's still quite limited.
With DSL or cable, you get your own "space" in the form of a wire direct to the CO. A cable is like your own private set of frequencies that don't interfere with others, and others don't interfere with you.
There is a major difference between cellular data and WiFi.
With WiFi, you're dividing space and frequencies a lot more granularly because you have an access point every few hundred feet. Even then, it doesn't always work well.
With cellular data, one tower has to feed a few square mile's worth of customers. Even if it is divided by sector antennas and wider frequency bands, it's still quite limited.
With DSL or cable, you get your own "space" in the form of a wire direct to the CO. A cable is like your own private set of frequencies that don't interfere with others, and others don't interfere with you.
OK. I thought we were discussing the differences between DSL and cellular. But I asked about whther there were technical limitations that made cell data service a bad choice compared with DSL/wifi.
As far as having an AP every few hundred feet, I don't see that as an argument against using cell data. The number of cell towers is not limited. Low power solutions are now in the news, which have small footprints. I don't understand why populated areas cannot have as many cell antennas as they have street lights - on every few hundred feet. In the boonies, there are no street lights, and so I understand that there is no real incentive to have as much bandwidth available. But in normal communities, I think that better bandwidth is feasible.
WRT DSL giving you your "own space", I think that is an imperfect point. My understanding is that wired bandwidth is shared just like wireless bandwidth. So the "data hogs" meme could apply equally to DSL as to wireless data.
In both cases, if the advertised bandwidth is not available, then the seller needs to build out its infrastructure, or as an alternative, stop selling services it is unable to provide.
Maybe bandwidth should be a publicly funded service? Like roads and water and sewer and streetlights? I don't know enough to have any firm opinions, but I'd love to hear the pros and cons.
On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.
Assuming you can get terrestrial broadband (DSL being one kind), I agree.
The ground truth is that VZ(wireless) bought out Alltell. Alltell was primarily a rural wireless provider. Many people in those same rural areas cannot get DSL to this day. Many people in those same rural areas do not have any other 3G option than VZ EV-DO (AT&T has been particularly bad about extending GSM 3G outside of major highway corridors, or large metro areas).
See how we have arrived at this situation ?
One solution would be for VZ to get out there and do as complete as possible 4G LTE rollout (in other words, make 4G available everywhere that EV-DO exists).
They have projections as to what they will need for bandwidth, given the number of data plans that they sell. They sell as many data plans as they can, knowing that their system cannot handle the demand for bandwidth. I don't see it as demand-driven when they are able to project the demand. With tens of millions of existing data points, they can and do project future needs.
Instead of throttling customers, maybe they need to throttle their sales staff? As in limiting the number of new data plans they sell, so that they can provide the promised service to existing customers? Waiting to take on new customers until they can reasonably be expected to get what the new customer is being sold?
Naw. That's not what they do.
I think you are over-complicating the issue. Bandwidth costs money to build. As with most kinds of service, cellular data transmission relies on investment in infrastructure, ultimately paid for by customer. A particular problem with data is that the market has an almost unlimited appetite, and the more bandwidth that becomes available, the more the market adapts to make use of it. The huge increase in HD media streaming represents the biggest manifestation of that at present, on both the cellular and DSL/cable networks.
Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract.
Because Unlimited isn't defined by speed, rather amount. and if you look in the terms there is likely one saying that speeds may be reduced for some users. ANd even that 'unlimited' isn't a guarantee of how much data you will actually get
Wireless services are raping the public and it makes me wonder just how long the citizens will put up with it. There just isn't enough competition.
I don't particularly care for the use of the term rape but that's that a totally different issue and discussion.
That said, the carriers are pulling bigger moves to get money from us than this. Like not having device subsidies on their own line so even once we pay off our device we pay the same rate. or the same rates on full price phones. ETFs that reduce at less than what we paid each month. What about carrier locking still being allowed in the US. Tons of folks travel internationally all the time and yet with phones, especially smartphones, you are locked into ATT unless you want to pay someone to unlock it. But then if it turns out to be a lemon or the unlock screws up something you are SOL cause you voided the warranty.
As for the speed throttling, it likely won't affect that many folks in the end even with their goofy way of doing it. Companies like Sprint that say "Unlimited but after 5gb you speed will be cut and cut again after every additional 5gb" will probably hurt more folks. The point in this game is to get folks to stop turning off their wifi and just using 3g for everything and congesting the network. If they do that then there's fewer overloaded towers to trigger the throttle in the first place
In both cases, if the advertised bandwidth is not available, then the seller needs to build out its infrastructure, or as an alternative, stop selling services it is unable to provide.
That's exactly what they've done. They've stopped selling it. So you're happy, right?
Maybe bandwidth should be a publicly funded service? Like roads and water and sewer and streetlights? I don't know enough to have any firm opinions, but I'd love to hear the pros and cons.
Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use.
It's very simple, you pay for what you use. Unlimited data transfers isn't a real, possible thing, this is a finite resource where one person's use can impact many other people's use. Where a tiny percentage of users DO affect the mass of users. Usage should be charged on a GB to GB basis, as it is going to be going forward. That way heavy users can decided if it's worth it, and if not, they can use another service. Light users should not be forced to pay $30 a month for 1/100th the data that heavy users get.
Thankfully, unlimited is a thing of the past. This debate is already lost by the proponents of unlimited data, they just don't seem to realize it yet.
OK. I thought we were discussing the differences between DSL and cellular. But I asked about whther there were technical limitations that made cell data service a bad choice compared with DSL/wifi.
We were, but you added WiFi into the discussion, which is why I discussed DSL, cellular AND WiFi.
As far as having an AP every few hundred feet, I don't see that as an argument against using cell data. The number of cell towers is not limited. Low power solutions are now in the news, which have small footprints. I don't understand why populated areas cannot have as many cell antennas as they have street lights - on every few hundred feet. In the boonies, there are no street lights, and so I understand that there is no real incentive to have as much bandwidth available. But in normal communities, I think that better bandwidth is feasible.
Communities and companies have a hard enough time rolling out city-wide WiFi and making it work. To ask the cellular carriers to do a similar thing on a nationwide scale that is very hard for anyone to do on a city scale is unrealistic. In short, wireless is often not the best tool for the job, especially with high housing densities. For rural, the equation changes because you have a lot fewer subscribers in a given area.
WRT DSL giving you your "own space", I think that is an imperfect point. My understanding is that wired bandwidth is shared just like wireless bandwidth. So the "data hogs" meme could apply equally to DSL as to wireless data.
The weak point is different. You can only break down airwaves into so many channels. The backhaul is still shared on DSL, but that's a simpler problem to deal with. The harder problem is usually the last mile.
I think you are over-complicating the issue. Bandwidth costs money to build. As with most kinds of service, cellular data transmission relies on investment in infrastructure, ultimately paid for by customer. A particular problem with data is that the market has an almost unlimited appetite, and the more bandwidth that becomes available, the more the market adapts to make use of it. The huge increase in HD media streaming represents the biggest manifestation of that at present, on both the cellular and DSL/cable networks.
I don't think I'm overcomplicating it. It is simple.
The telcos should not sell more data plans than they can service. It is not a bad thing for a customer to use a service that they paid for.
Those are my main points, and they are simple.
That's exactly what they've done. They've stopped selling it. So you're happy, right?
They have not stopped selling it. They have people who signed up for it and pay for it and do not get it.
[WRT public WIFI]
"Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use."
Your sainted grandma pays municipal taxes for people who throw away more garbage than her, she pays municipal taxes for people who drive more than her, especially on snowy days, and she pays taxes for people who need police protection more than her, like the people who have fancy artworks and valuable crystal and silver. She pays higher taxes due to people who live in wooden houses rather than brick houses with sprinklers. That is quite typical for any municipal service, and so I'm not sure why it is a factor here.
"It's very simple, you pay for what you use."
Were that the deal that the telcos sold, then this debate would not be happening. But given that it was NOT the deal the telcos sold, then IMO, some folks are getting a raw deal.
Communities and companies have a hard enough time rolling out city-wide WiFi and making it work. To ask the cellular carriers to do a similar thing on a nationwide scale that is very hard for anyone to do on a city scale is unrealistic. In short, wireless is often not the best tool for the job, especially with high housing densities. For rural, the equation changes because you have a lot fewer subscribers in a given area.
The weak point is different. You can only break down airwaves into so many channels. The backhaul is still shared on DSL, but that's a simpler problem to deal with. The harder problem is usually the last mile.
Good points.
I don't necessarily think that sparsely populated areas are ripe for either wifi or cell service. Most people live in densely populated areas, and they, of course, subsidize the few who live in the boonies.
Given that the last mile is the problem, maybe the most economically efficient solution is to have freely available or municipally funded wireless bandwidth in dense areas? Just as it would be inefficient to expect every homeowner to have a private fire department, maybe it is inefficient to have every homeowner pay for a private last mile service?
I am no expert on any of this. I don't know what the rationale was, for example, for the rural electrification projects (was it just a great depression make-work project, or were there greater goods to having universal electric service, even in low population areas?). Is its better to have multiple companies stringing up ugly cable TV wires compared to having one CATV company per town? I don't know these answers, nor do I know the best mode of analysis to arrive at the best answer.
Interesting topic though.
"Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use."
Your sainted grandma pays municipal taxes for people who throw away more garbage than her, she pays municipal taxes for people who drive more than her, especially on snowy days, and she pays taxes for people who need police protection more than her, like the people who have fancy artworks and valuable crystal and silver. She pays higher taxes due to people who live in wooden houses rather than brick houses with sprinklers. That is quite typical for any municipal service, and so I'm not sure why it is a factor here.
Clearly you aren't a deep thinker.
Just because there are 100 things that people are forced to pay for despite not using, that doesn't mean that a bunch of whining cell phone-addicted crybabies should get to force them to pay for one more arbitrary thing just because said babies don't want to pay their fair share. Cell phone internet use does not fit under and of the definitions of public goods that should be provided-for through threat of imprisonment and the fact that you think it should is mind boggling.
Does that help you think about it?
I am no expert on any of this. I don't know what the rationale was, for example, for the rural electrification projects (was it just a great depression make-work project, or were there greater goods to having universal electric service, even in low population areas?). Is its better to have multiple companies stringing up ugly cable TV wires compared to having one CATV company per town? I don't know these answers, nor do I know the best mode of analysis to arrive at the best answer.
Why not just have one restaurant in town, that way all those foodservice trucks you see driving around could be eliminated. FAR more efficient.
Why do we all need cars? Most people just want to go to the same place - everyone should live in high rises within walking distance of where they work. Far more efficient!
Why do we need a whole aisle of cereals? Total and Cheerios provide all the nutrition that a cereal can be expected to provide, eliminate the rest!