Usage Limitations: Other plans may receive prioritized bandwidth availability. Streaming video speeds may be limited to 1 Mbps. Sprint may terminate service if off-network roaming usage in a month exceeds: (1) 800 min. or a majority of min.; or (2) 100 MB or a majority of KB. Prohibited network use rules apply.
Hmm. “Prohibited network use rules,” you say… so you also can’t do this:
Sprint data services are provided solely for purposes of web surfing, sending and receiving email, photographs and other similar messaging activities, and the non-continuous streaming of videos, downloading of files or on line gaming. Our data services may not be used: (i) to generate excessive amounts of Internet traffic through the continuous, unattended streaming, downloading or uploading of videos or other files or to operate hosting services including, but not limited to, web or gaming hosting; (ii) to maintain continuous active network connections to the Internet such as through a web camera or machine-to-machine connections that do not involve active participation by a person; (vi) for an activity that connects any device to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for the purpose of transmitting wireless data over the network (unless customer is using a plan designated for such usage); or (vi) for any other reason that, in our sole discretion violates our policy of providing service for individual use. Unlimited Use Plans. If you subscribe to rate plans, services or features that are described as unlimited, you should be aware that such "unlimited" plans are subject to these Sprint Prohibited Network Uses.
Bolding mine, except for the “Unlimited Use Plans” title. First bolding refers to tethering, which this entire time I’ve treated as an understood ‘not unlimited’ factor, because no one is stupid enough to think that tethering would be unlimited on any of these telecom’s plans. Apple wouldn’t care. That’s part of my claim here. Were they to have their own network, they’d set it apart by having no fine print to their service claims other than re-delineating what you can’t do on their networks because it’s already illegal in whatever country you live.
That’s better than Sprint, at least, but is of course not “unlimited”. Its terms are otherwise similar to Sprint.
You’ll notice that I cut out the obvious ones (can’t use for constant requests to servers, can’t use as an e-mail service, etc.) because those are illegal in the first place and don’t matter to end-users. The rest? That’s becoming ever more standard use case stuff.
Straight Talk’s “unlimited” claims are even more stringent, but they’re a budget provider, so the stringency is to be expected. Still calling it “unlimited”, however, isn’t.
<strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">Apple wouldn’t care.</strong>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">That’s part of my claim here. Were they to have their own network, they</span>
’d set it apart by having no fine print to their service claims
Pure speculation, and unconvincing. Apple throttle many of their services; iCloud storage, Photo Stream traffic, and a new x.0 iOS release is always slow to download at zero hour. Apple are subject to the exact same limitations and cost considerations as any other carrier. This idea that they'd spring magic dust and everything would be limitless is a fantasy.
Pure speculation, and unconvincing. Apple throttle many of their services; iCloud storage, Photo Stream traffic…
Talk about pure, unconvincing speculation!
and a new x.0 iOS release is always slow to download at zero hour.
Yeah, it’s not like they have 200,000,000 devices downloading at once or anything.
This idea that they'd spring magic dust and everything would be limitless is a fantasy.
Not really. The existing telecoms could do it with a hit to their profits. The concept itself is far from ludicrous; choosing to do it is an Apple thing.
That’s capping, not throttling. Big difference. “Unlimited” services throttle (as yet uncontested by law), but cannot legally cap. Conversely, capped services would have a very hard time throttling.
But that's my point. Apple don't have limitless resources and would hit the exact same bandwidth and traffic issues that other carriers do. They also won't invest billions of dollars for no discernible advantage or profit, so their deals would be cost comparable with what's already out there.
Unless you can point out a specific advantage, technological or in some other way competitive that Apple would have over incumbent carriers in providing cell and data service then these claims that Apple could offer a better service are just finger in the wind guesses.
For these reasons I don't think Apple will do this. They may have considered it in the past, but things have changed as the iPhone business has grown bigger, more international, and multi-tentacled. The only obvious advantage to them is integration and simplicity for users, but with such a huge downside of competing with their partners in an area outside of core competency it would be a crazy step. Even if they just tried to do it in the US it would put the frighteners on carriers around the world and massively jeopardise Apple's entire iPhone operation.
No, it just won't happen. It defies common sense at this point.
If only it was interactive. These maps don’t say much. Being able to take away everything but one company’s would go a long way in helping people figure out if they’ll get service where they live.
And who cares about competing companies?! I want to know the protocols of the towers.
If only it was interactive. These maps don’t say much. Being able to take away everything but one company’s would go a long way in helping people figure out if they’ll get service where they live.
And who cares about competing companies?! I want to know the protocols of the towers.
There are probably better sources available, but I'm not in that industry. It's entirely possible that future "white space" spectrum auctions may provide additional opportunities for companies like Apple that we are not yet aware.
Comments
http://www.sprint.com/landings/compare/index.html
*sigh*
Hmm. “Prohibited network use rules,” you say… so you also can’t do this:
Bolding mine, except for the “Unlimited Use Plans” title. First bolding refers to tethering, which this entire time I’ve treated as an understood ‘not unlimited’ factor, because no one is stupid enough to think that tethering would be unlimited on any of these telecom’s plans. Apple wouldn’t care. That’s part of my claim here. Were they to have their own network, they’d set it apart by having no fine print to their service claims other than re-delineating what you can’t do on their networks because it’s already illegal in whatever country you live.
And what about T-Mobile?
http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html
Well…
That’s better than Sprint, at least, but is of course not “unlimited”. Its terms are otherwise similar to Sprint.
You’ll notice that I cut out the obvious ones (can’t use for constant requests to servers, can’t use as an e-mail service, etc.) because those are illegal in the first place and don’t matter to end-users. The rest? That’s becoming ever more standard use case stuff.
Straight Talk’s “unlimited” claims are even more stringent, but they’re a budget provider, so the stringency is to be expected. Still calling it “unlimited”, however, isn’t.
Talk about pure, unconvincing speculation!
Yeah, it’s not like they have 200,000,000 devices downloading at once or anything.
Not really. The existing telecoms could do it with a hit to their profits. The concept itself is far from ludicrous; choosing to do it is an Apple thing.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4858
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4858
That’s capping, not throttling. Big difference. “Unlimited” services throttle (as yet uncontested by law), but cannot legally cap. Conversely, capped services would have a very hard time throttling.
And were they to actually make a network, I don’t believe they would do that.
What’s the point of doing something that everyone else is already doing? How is that better? How is that Apple?
Unless you can point out a specific advantage, technological or in some other way competitive that Apple would have over incumbent carriers in providing cell and data service then these claims that Apple could offer a better service are just finger in the wind guesses.
For these reasons I don't think Apple will do this. They may have considered it in the past, but things have changed as the iPhone business has grown bigger, more international, and multi-tentacled. The only obvious advantage to them is integration and simplicity for users, but with such a huge downside of competing with their partners in an area outside of core competency it would be a crazy step. Even if they just tried to do it in the US it would put the frighteners on carriers around the world and massively jeopardise Apple's entire iPhone operation.
No, it just won't happen. It defies common sense at this point.
You’re absolutely right.
If only it was interactive. These maps don’t say much. Being able to take away everything but one company’s would go a long way in helping people figure out if they’ll get service where they live.
And who cares about competing companies?! I want to know the protocols of the towers.
There are probably better sources available, but I'm not in that industry. It's entirely possible that future "white space" spectrum auctions may provide additional opportunities for companies like Apple that we are not yet aware.