Google should pay because the Android OS allows tethering easily. The cell phone carriers can not disable it.
Data caps exist for a reason. If you pay pay 2 GB, you should be able to use 2GB. Tethering should always be allowed and it should always be free on any plan that features a data cap.
Apology accepted. It's about time someone took responsibility.
At 90GB over AT&T?s network last month I think I at least owe an apology to AT&T users. I can?t help but think that us few users tethering despite their contract explicitly disallowing it is part of the reason for carriers dropping unlimited data plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Perhaps it's just misleading sentence construction and you don't really mean this, but there's nothing in the article beyond the data hog bit. The rest is just breathless fanboy gushing.
Based on the posting style I have to think that is yet another alias of a previous banned poster.
We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
In a related story, BP is asking federal regulators to require Ford to help pay for new drilling platforms because Ford continues to sell V-6 engines which use more gasoline than four cylinder engines.
umm... no
Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.
Aren't telecom's already charging customers for some form of capped usage (minutes, bytes, messages, etc.)? How do they justify wanting to be paid twice for the same service?
If their networks can't handle the service, they probably shouldn't be selling it.
That's the thing, they want to have their hands in both sides of the communication. It's a pretty crass system much like a lot of commercial media services, they want both sides to pay twice for both ends of a conversation. While I recognize that there are load sharing arrangements, but I'm pretty sure Google and other internet giants pay for their own internet connectivity in some way. The users are requesting services from Google, Apple or any other web site, I simply don't see a legitimate reason for double charging servers, as it is, servers are charged a higher rate than consumers.
I think they see an opportunity and pursuing it even though it makes them look pretty dumb.
I'm sure there would be all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth but I wish Apple would just buy some bloody mobile networks. Surely this is where it's going? The Google network and the Apple network. I leave you to characterise what those two services will be like.
Consumers start using their internet connected phones more and the telecoms can't handle it! No big surprise there.
As well, like others have said, don't most of the telecoms have caps to handle this?
Telecoms do have a choice in selling these devices. They sell you the phone and then complain your using it too much. Something about that doesn't seemto make business sense.
Data caps exist for a reason. If you pay pay 2 GB, you should be able to use 2GB. Tethering should always be allowed and it should always be free on any plan that features a data cap.
I agree with this. If a company offers unlimited data on a phone and only for a phone, they have an obligation to disallow tethering as bandwidth does have a real upper limit (at least here in the US) or cancel contracts if one is caught in violation*, but if you cap the data usage then that should become the delineator, so they shouldn’t care where and how you utilize that data because they’ve already set up a cap.
* I’m fully ready take responsibility for my actions should AT&T decide to drop me as a customer.
We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
umm... no
Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.
Except that Apple doesn't tell them what subsidy to give or data rate to charge. They tell them what the phone costs; so your analogy doesn't work either.
You must have some personal connection to a network provider since no sane person could possibly defend these douchebags*.
*Americanism used for the purposes of alliteration
I agree with this. If a company offers unlimited data on a phone and only for a phone, they have an obligation to disallow tethering as bandwidth does have a real upper limit (at least here in the US) or cancel contracts if one is caught in violation*, but if you cap the data usage then that should become the delineator, so they shouldn’t care where and how you utilize that data.
But you're paying for potential data, and from the carrier's standpoint, you WOULDN'T have used that data had you not tethered. So in their eyes, it's better that you only got to 1GB with a phone, rather than get to your cap with tethering. Getting to 2Gb with the phone is fair as it's part of the contract. Spread across millions of users, this way of thinking makes sense also.
Now a TRUE "don't care if you tether" scenario would be if you paid for the bandwidth based on how much you used. like $10 a GB for instance, broken down to pennies on the KB.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
Isn't it the other way around? I always assumed that carriers had control of how much they chose to underwrite the cost of a phone. Are you saying that Apple tells AT&T that they must pay x dollars toward the cost of each phone? That doesn't seem right. I think carriers decide how much they are willing to front for each phone based on how much they'll get back over the cost of a contract. They could charge as much as they want for the phone and let the marketplace decide.
Isn't it the other way around? I always assumed that carriers had control of how much the chose to underwrite the cost of a phone. Are you saying that Apple tells AT&T that they must pay x dollars toward the cost of each phone? That doesn't seem right. I think carriers decide how much they are willing to front for each phone based on how much they'll get back over the cost of a contract. They could charge as much as they want for the phone and let the marketplace decide.
I could be misinformed on this, but from all I've read about how these things worked, I was sure Apple tells the carriers what the price should be so that the iphone remains competitive.
Is it possible for Apple to look into partnering with Harbinger and Clearwire to create a mobile network of their own . Harbinger Capital Partners is building a 4g satellite network, LightSquared, thats going to cover 92% of the us, and Clearwire needs money to keep developing their 4g network. any thoughts on this ?
European options ? Europe's LTE 4g is on the 2.5 band the same as LightSquareds and Clears. One world phone with Apple controlling the whole experience .. maybe?
Except that Apple doesn't tell them what subsidy to give or data rate to charge. They tell them what the phone costs; so your analogy doesn't work either.
You must have some personal connection to a network provider since no sane person could possibly defend these douchebags*.
*Americanism used for the purposes of alliteration
Your first two sentences was all your comment needed to consist of. The rest is you just trying to be a dick and make this a personal argument.
If all they tell them is that each phone costs $500, then yes, I'm wrong, and a correction is all that's needed.
These carriers need to understand that they hold the cards in this one. Without them, Apple can't function. Carriers have a responsiblity to deliver service of course, but manufacturers also have a responsibility to make their platforms as efficient as possible. Apple has its head up its butt because they refuse to work with carriers to make the experience better. It's not fair to make something and say make it work on your network and then refuse to work with the carrier when they try to point things out to help the manufacturer make their products more efficient.
I know AT&T gets slammed for their quality, which I personally don't experience, but when they go back and tell Apple that they can help improve the baseband in this way or that way and Apple says that's not our problem, that IS a problem. Then there's also those clowns who want the best reception possible, but will never allow a tower near them.
Should Apple and Google assist in network upgrade costs? Not really. I think they should at least be more willing to work with carriers in making the network experience better.
I think carriers decide how much they are willing to front for each phone based on how much they'll get back over the cost of a contract. They could charge as much as they want for the phone and let the marketplace decide.
I do not know about AT&T, but what you say is definitely correct for most European carriers. E.g. in Germany the price of the iPhone varies depending on the tariff you sign up for (it is something like up to $400 with the cheapest contract and as low as $1.30 with the most expensive one). So, obviously, Apple has no say in handset pricing at all.
But you're paying for potential data, and from the carrier's standpoint, you WOULDN'T have used that data had you not tethered. So in their eyes, it's better than you only got to 1GB with a phone, rather than get to your cap with tethering. Spread across millions of users, this way of thinking makes sense also.
Now a TRUE "don't care if you tether" scenario would be if you paid for the bandwidth based on how much you used. like $10 a GB for instance, broken down to pennies on the KB.
That?s certainly a valid argument, and I bet AT&T and others would quickly say ?if we did that, we?d have to charge you more for that initial 2GB because the average usage would be higher?. I think everyone can agree that the average user would be higher, but looking at the cost per additional GB and their additional cost for tethering without even adding any additional GBs it has the appearance of taking advantage of those who won?t use much data.
It?s their call, but I think it would go a long way ease customer satisfaction if they 1) made the data usage, regardless of how it?s utilized, the only aspect of data price, and 2) allows for automatic stepping of data, SMS and voice so that users can feel free to use their devices without having excessive overage fees potentially costing them thousands of dollars. For instance, if you go over 2GB, you are charged $10 for another 1GB. That?s pretty sane. But if you go over SMS or voice you are charged an outrageous per text or minute charge that can add up very quickly.
Except that Apple doesn't tell them what subsidy to give or data rate to charge. They tell them what the phone costs; so your analogy doesn't work either.
You must have some personal connection to a network provider since no sane person could possibly defend these douchebags*.
*Americanism used for the purposes of alliteration
I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."
So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.
Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.
Comments
Google should pay because the Android OS allows tethering easily. The cell phone carriers can not disable it.
Data caps exist for a reason. If you pay pay 2 GB, you should be able to use 2GB. Tethering should always be allowed and it should always be free on any plan that features a data cap.
Apology accepted. It's about time someone took responsibility.
At 90GB over AT&T?s network last month I think I at least owe an apology to AT&T users. I can?t help but think that us few users tethering despite their contract explicitly disallowing it is part of the reason for carriers dropping unlimited data plans.
Perhaps it's just misleading sentence construction and you don't really mean this, but there's nothing in the article beyond the data hog bit. The rest is just breathless fanboy gushing.
Based on the posting style I have to think that is yet another alias of a previous banned poster.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
In a related story, BP is asking federal regulators to require Ford to help pay for new drilling platforms because Ford continues to sell V-6 engines which use more gasoline than four cylinder engines.
umm... no
Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.
Aren't telecom's already charging customers for some form of capped usage (minutes, bytes, messages, etc.)? How do they justify wanting to be paid twice for the same service?
If their networks can't handle the service, they probably shouldn't be selling it.
That's the thing, they want to have their hands in both sides of the communication. It's a pretty crass system much like a lot of commercial media services, they want both sides to pay twice for both ends of a conversation. While I recognize that there are load sharing arrangements, but I'm pretty sure Google and other internet giants pay for their own internet connectivity in some way. The users are requesting services from Google, Apple or any other web site, I simply don't see a legitimate reason for double charging servers, as it is, servers are charged a higher rate than consumers.
I think they see an opportunity and pursuing it even though it makes them look pretty dumb.
Oh and thanks for stepping up solipsism
Consumers start using their internet connected phones more and the telecoms can't handle it! No big surprise there.
As well, like others have said, don't most of the telecoms have caps to handle this?
Telecoms do have a choice in selling these devices. They sell you the phone and then complain your using it too much. Something about that doesn't seemto make business sense.
Data caps exist for a reason. If you pay pay 2 GB, you should be able to use 2GB. Tethering should always be allowed and it should always be free on any plan that features a data cap.
I agree with this. If a company offers unlimited data on a phone and only for a phone, they have an obligation to disallow tethering as bandwidth does have a real upper limit (at least here in the US) or cancel contracts if one is caught in violation*, but if you cap the data usage then that should become the delineator, so they shouldn’t care where and how you utilize that data because they’ve already set up a cap.
* I’m fully ready take responsibility for my actions should AT&T decide to drop me as a customer.
We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
umm... no
Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.
Except that Apple doesn't tell them what subsidy to give or data rate to charge. They tell them what the phone costs; so your analogy doesn't work either.
You must have some personal connection to a network provider since no sane person could possibly defend these douchebags*.
*Americanism used for the purposes of alliteration
AT&T: hey Apple, you're killing our network here. We want you to help us pay for our network upgrades.
Apple: You're kidding right? Just be glad you're carrying the iPhone.
AT&T: You're right..
I agree with this. If a company offers unlimited data on a phone and only for a phone, they have an obligation to disallow tethering as bandwidth does have a real upper limit (at least here in the US) or cancel contracts if one is caught in violation*, but if you cap the data usage then that should become the delineator, so they shouldn’t care where and how you utilize that data.
But you're paying for potential data, and from the carrier's standpoint, you WOULDN'T have used that data had you not tethered. So in their eyes, it's better that you only got to 1GB with a phone, rather than get to your cap with tethering. Getting to 2Gb with the phone is fair as it's part of the contract. Spread across millions of users, this way of thinking makes sense also.
Now a TRUE "don't care if you tether" scenario would be if you paid for the bandwidth based on how much you used. like $10 a GB for instance, broken down to pennies on the KB.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
Isn't it the other way around? I always assumed that carriers had control of how much they chose to underwrite the cost of a phone. Are you saying that Apple tells AT&T that they must pay x dollars toward the cost of each phone? That doesn't seem right. I think carriers decide how much they are willing to front for each phone based on how much they'll get back over the cost of a contract. They could charge as much as they want for the phone and let the marketplace decide.
Isn't it the other way around? I always assumed that carriers had control of how much the chose to underwrite the cost of a phone. Are you saying that Apple tells AT&T that they must pay x dollars toward the cost of each phone? That doesn't seem right. I think carriers decide how much they are willing to front for each phone based on how much they'll get back over the cost of a contract. They could charge as much as they want for the phone and let the marketplace decide.
I could be misinformed on this, but from all I've read about how these things worked, I was sure Apple tells the carriers what the price should be so that the iphone remains competitive.
European options ? Europe's LTE 4g is on the 2.5 band the same as LightSquareds and Clears. One world phone with Apple controlling the whole experience .. maybe?
Am I too off?
Except that Apple doesn't tell them what subsidy to give or data rate to charge. They tell them what the phone costs; so your analogy doesn't work either.
You must have some personal connection to a network provider since no sane person could possibly defend these douchebags*.
*Americanism used for the purposes of alliteration
Your first two sentences was all your comment needed to consist of. The rest is you just trying to be a dick and make this a personal argument.
If all they tell them is that each phone costs $500, then yes, I'm wrong, and a correction is all that's needed.
I know AT&T gets slammed for their quality, which I personally don't experience, but when they go back and tell Apple that they can help improve the baseband in this way or that way and Apple says that's not our problem, that IS a problem. Then there's also those clowns who want the best reception possible, but will never allow a tower near them.
Should Apple and Google assist in network upgrade costs? Not really. I think they should at least be more willing to work with carriers in making the network experience better.
I think carriers decide how much they are willing to front for each phone based on how much they'll get back over the cost of a contract. They could charge as much as they want for the phone and let the marketplace decide.
I do not know about AT&T, but what you say is definitely correct for most European carriers. E.g. in Germany the price of the iPhone varies depending on the tariff you sign up for (it is something like up to $400 with the cheapest contract and as low as $1.30 with the most expensive one). So, obviously, Apple has no say in handset pricing at all.
Sounds like the top 2% whining to retain their tax cuts over here. We are in our second Gilded Age, but they want more.
But you're paying for potential data, and from the carrier's standpoint, you WOULDN'T have used that data had you not tethered. So in their eyes, it's better than you only got to 1GB with a phone, rather than get to your cap with tethering. Spread across millions of users, this way of thinking makes sense also.
Now a TRUE "don't care if you tether" scenario would be if you paid for the bandwidth based on how much you used. like $10 a GB for instance, broken down to pennies on the KB.
That?s certainly a valid argument, and I bet AT&T and others would quickly say ?if we did that, we?d have to charge you more for that initial 2GB because the average usage would be higher?. I think everyone can agree that the average user would be higher, but looking at the cost per additional GB and their additional cost for tethering without even adding any additional GBs it has the appearance of taking advantage of those who won?t use much data.
It?s their call, but I think it would go a long way ease customer satisfaction if they 1) made the data usage, regardless of how it?s utilized, the only aspect of data price, and 2) allows for automatic stepping of data, SMS and voice so that users can feel free to use their devices without having excessive overage fees potentially costing them thousands of dollars. For instance, if you go over 2GB, you are charged $10 for another 1GB. That?s pretty sane. But if you go over SMS or voice you are charged an outrageous per text or minute charge that can add up very quickly.
Except that Apple doesn't tell them what subsidy to give or data rate to charge. They tell them what the phone costs; so your analogy doesn't work either.
You must have some personal connection to a network provider since no sane person could possibly defend these douchebags*.
*Americanism used for the purposes of alliteration
I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."
So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.
Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.