And just like that, you've solved a problem we've had for a century: absolutely inexcusable call audio quality.
If what you've said gets put into effect, telecoms will push FLAC/ALAC audio across the airwaves, and all microphones/speakers in phones will be upgraded to take advantage of it.
Congratulations!
I often use Skype to talk between Central America and the US and most of the time the quality is so good it sounds as if the other person is right there in the room. You can hear everything, the acoustics of the room they are in and even the proverbial pin drop. I'm surprised more people don't use Skype for local calls since it is head and shoulders above the regular mobile call in terms of voice clarity.
I see that but it sets a precedence and since Verizon is still the top carrier it sets one that will be hard for AT&T to ignore. If you can get free tethering with your LTE iPhone on Verizon or have to pay for at least 4GB on AT&T to get it (even though if you do tether you probably want at least 4GB) then AT&T will just look bad in comparison. I'm fully expecting that AT&T follows without any any FCC input on the matter.
Gotcha. I thought you were saying the FCC would hopefully enforce this for everyone, not that market/competition forces would force others to follow suit.
i went to the gas station the other day and the attendant filled 'er up. as i paid him, he was sure to remind me that i could only use the gas for going to the grocery store, the in-laws, and back and forth to a few select stores. he said that if i wanted to use it for anything else that i would have to pay him an extra $20 a month.
i went to the gas station the other day and the attendant filled 'er up. as i paid him, he was sure to remind me that i could only use the gas for going to the grocery store, the in-laws, and back and forth to a few select stores. he said that if i wanted to use it for anything else that i would have to pay him an extra $20 a month.
edit: add "have" in "would have to pay him"
That is a fallacious argument because there is no restrictions that can be imposed by gas station attendants on how you use your data in your vehicle. To make that argument more apt it would be saying you can't use that data on certain websites.
There are, however, mandates on fuels for specific use in the US and other countries. I know of at one, red diesel, which is a dye additive that is used for lower-tax fuel for farm equipment, which can include traditional vehicles so long as that fuel is used on the farm. It's a criminal act for violating the law.
This should trickle to the other carriers, namely AT&T.
Now where is the investigation into SMS costs?
And when it does, other carriers will stop grandfathering Unlimited. Perhaps Verizon saw the hand appear before the wall and decided not to wait for the writing to begin. Ahead of the curve.
I absolutely hate this mindless concept of "data is data" without any other consideration. What we're talking about here is not all data but general internet traffic.
For this type of metered traffic with this type of transmission method I wholeheartedly agree that charging for the luxury of tethering is extortion. If we're talking about unlimited/unlimited cellular data plans then I see how and why the carriers should not be required to offer tethering.
Sorry, but I disagree. Data *is* data. When I buy an unlimited data plan I am buying a conduit down which I can pump unlimited data using the bandwidth I am allocated. If I choose to forward some of that data to another destination (using my own infrastructure) that is no concern of the original bandwidth supplier. Steve Jobs made flat-rate unlimited data plans a condition of AT&T's exclusive license to sell the iPhone. AT&T miscalculated how well the iPhone would sell and the load it would place on their network. They have had to play catchup ever since (though they have also made out like bandits with the increased user base that the iPhone gave them). That does not mean they have the right to redefine "unlimited" to mean capped and throttled (which they have actually done). Since AT&T no longer has an exclusive iPhone license, Apple cannot call them on this. I'm surprised the FCC has let it slip though. AT&T getting away with this redefinition has allowed Verizon to provide similar service and, but for a condition of sale entered into when LTE radio spectrum was auctioned to them, Verizon would have succeeded in similar restrictions and actually been able to charge twice for the same data bandwidth to end users.
If I buy an eBook using my cell phone, why should I have to pay twice to download it to my iPad? If I buy a video stream using my iPhone, why should I have to pay twice to view that stream on my iPad? The same number of bytes were downloaded over the cell-supplier's infrastructure in both alternatives. The same supplier-resource was consumed.
The "all data is not equal" argument is a marketing differentiation. It effectively introduces a surcharge on where I am allowed to enjoy the content I have paid for. Bandwidth providers should have no say in that aspect of my internet use. As such it is just another recast of a non-network-neutrality and should be rejected at the FCC level - and not just as a condition of LTE spectrum use.
The "all data is not equal" argument is a marketing differentiation. It effectively introduces a surcharge on where I am allowed to enjoy the content I have paid for. Bandwidth providers should have no say in that aspect of my internet use. As such it is just another recast of a non-network-neutrality and should be rejected at the FCC level - and not just as a condition of LTE spectrum use.
Sorry, but I disagree. Data *is* data. When I buy an unlimited data plan I am buying a conduit down which I can pump unlimited data using the bandwidth I am allocated. If I choose to forward some of that data to another destination (using my own infrastructure) that is no concern of the original bandwidth supplier. Steve Jobs made flat-rate unlimited data plans a condition of AT&T's exclusive license to sell the iPhone. AT&T miscalculated how well the iPhone would sell and the load it would place on their network. They have had to play catchup ever since (though they have also made out like bandits with the increased user base that the iPhone gave them). That does not mean they have the right to redefine "unlimited" to mean capped and throttled (which they have actually done). Since AT&T no longer has an exclusive iPhone license, Apple cannot call them on this. I'm surprised the FCC has let it slip though. AT&T getting away with this redefinition has allowed Verizon to provide similar service and, but for a condition of sale entered into when LTE radio spectrum was auctioned to them, Verizon would have succeeded in similar restrictions and actually been able to charge twice for the same data bandwidth to end users.
If I buy an eBook using my cell phone, why should I have to pay twice to download it to my iPad? If I buy a video stream using my iPhone, why should I have to pay twice to view that stream on my iPad? The same number of bytes were downloaded over the cell-supplier's infrastructure in both alternatives. The same supplier-resource was consumed.
The "all data is not equal" argument is a marketing differentiation. It effectively introduces a surcharge on where I am allowed to enjoy the content I have paid for. Bandwidth providers should have no say in that aspect of my internet use. As such it is just another recast of a non-network-neutrality and should be rejected at the FCC level - and not just as a condition of LTE spectrum use.
Really.... Start a global voice capable, bulk transfer and interactive data networking company on the ideas you've outlined. Post the NASDAQ ticker in 7 years, please. I'm betting you won't get capital for hour one.
This should trickle to the other carriers, namely AT&T.
Now where is the investigation into SMS costs?
No it won't. It is specific to Verizon and the spectrum they won by auction.
Overcharging for SMS is not a crime and don't expect some kind of government intervention because something is overpriced.
No it won't. It is specific to Verizon and the spectrum they won by auction.
Overcharging for SMS is not a crime and don't expect some kind of government intervention because something is overpriced.
This is a big deal. I hope other cases come up and all blockages and restrictions are removed. Data is data no matter what form it takes as it floats through the airwaves and fiber optic cables.
This also makes Android more attractive than iOS for now. It could save a lot of money for all of the users.
It's not specific to Android but it is specific to Verizon. It's specific to devices that use the LTE 700 MHz spectrum Verizon won at auction. This is probably why the iPad 3 does tethering now at no additional charge and so will the iPhone 5 when it shows up in a few months.
If you have unlimited now and pay full price for your device your contract does not change which just might be worth it. Unlimited LTE plus unlimited tethering would be pretty sweet.
No it won't. It is specific to Verizon and the spectrum they won by auction.
Overcharging for SMS is not a crime and don't expect some kind of government intervention because something is overpriced.
I don't think anyone is saying that this decision applies to anyone else. The argument seems to be that if Verizon has to allow tethering without charge, the competitors will eventually probably offer the same thing - for competitive reasons, not legal ones.
Folks the ruling is about Verizon asking Google to ban the apps from their user, it does not say VZ still can not charge you for tethering. There is enough information especially with AT&T they are using the intelligence in the network switchs to know if someone is tethering and all they do today is add the tethering cost on your next bill. I also heard that VZ has been doing similar things. This ruling just mean VZ can not force you to use their Tethering app.
Supposedly PDAnet will mask the tethering data so the network switch will not know what kind of device is requesting data.
No that this ruling it out, here is the work around for getting these programs onto your device, remove the SIM card and use wifi to connect to google market and it will allow you to download any of those blocked apps, since it used the carrier identifier as the means to filter or block user from gaining access to those apps. The other way is to down load the app to your computer and email it to your phone and then install it.
Since Sprint allows truly unlimited data on the phone, you would see people blow through 20 GB and more of data a month. In fact, you already see this with all the rooted Android phones where people tether to computers or tablets against their TOS. They do offer an optional tether plan though but most people just prefer to root or jailbreak to avoid that fee. With all the other carriers now offering shared data plans, Sprint might have to adapt to allow a capped amount of free tethering a month. They do not plan to end unlimited data on phones anytime soon so this might be a good option.
This does happen on Sprint, both iPhone and Android. Sprint does in fact cap the tethering (see: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/22/sprint-caps-mobile-tethering-plans-to-5-gb-per-month-starting-oc/ ) to 5 GB per month. Of course if you are not using "officially sanctioned" tethering methods, they have no way to know how you're using the data, but officially there is a cap on tethered data, just not on-your-device data, which is still the unlimited plan.
Comments
That's it - pure and simple.
Maybe AT&T will get the message, maybe not. But my previous iPad was AT&T and this one is not. I voted with my wallet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And just like that, you've solved a problem we've had for a century: absolutely inexcusable call audio quality.
If what you've said gets put into effect, telecoms will push FLAC/ALAC audio across the airwaves, and all microphones/speakers in phones will be upgraded to take advantage of it.
Congratulations!
I often use Skype to talk between Central America and the US and most of the time the quality is so good it sounds as if the other person is right there in the room. You can hear everything, the acoustics of the room they are in and even the proverbial pin drop. I'm surprised more people don't use Skype for local calls since it is head and shoulders above the regular mobile call in terms of voice clarity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I see that but it sets a precedence and since Verizon is still the top carrier it sets one that will be hard for AT&T to ignore. If you can get free tethering with your LTE iPhone on Verizon or have to pay for at least 4GB on AT&T to get it (even though if you do tether you probably want at least 4GB) then AT&T will just look bad in comparison. I'm fully expecting that AT&T follows without any any FCC input on the matter.
Gotcha. I thought you were saying the FCC would hopefully enforce this for everyone, not that market/competition forces would force others to follow suit.
edit: add "have" in "would have to pay him"
That is a fallacious argument because there is no restrictions that can be imposed by gas station attendants on how you use your data in your vehicle. To make that argument more apt it would be saying you can't use that data on certain websites.
There are, however, mandates on fuels for specific use in the US and other countries. I know of at one, red diesel, which is a dye additive that is used for lower-tax fuel for farm equipment, which can include traditional vehicles so long as that fuel is used on the farm. It's a criminal act for violating the law.
Yup, now whats up with the personal hotspot charge on ATT?
And when it does, other carriers will stop grandfathering Unlimited. Perhaps Verizon saw the hand appear before the wall and decided not to wait for the writing to begin. Ahead of the curve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I absolutely hate this mindless concept of "data is data" without any other consideration. What we're talking about here is not all data but general internet traffic.
For this type of metered traffic with this type of transmission method I wholeheartedly agree that charging for the luxury of tethering is extortion. If we're talking about unlimited/unlimited cellular data plans then I see how and why the carriers should not be required to offer tethering.
Sorry, but I disagree. Data *is* data. When I buy an unlimited data plan I am buying a conduit down which I can pump unlimited data using the bandwidth I am allocated. If I choose to forward some of that data to another destination (using my own infrastructure) that is no concern of the original bandwidth supplier. Steve Jobs made flat-rate unlimited data plans a condition of AT&T's exclusive license to sell the iPhone. AT&T miscalculated how well the iPhone would sell and the load it would place on their network. They have had to play catchup ever since (though they have also made out like bandits with the increased user base that the iPhone gave them). That does not mean they have the right to redefine "unlimited" to mean capped and throttled (which they have actually done). Since AT&T no longer has an exclusive iPhone license, Apple cannot call them on this. I'm surprised the FCC has let it slip though. AT&T getting away with this redefinition has allowed Verizon to provide similar service and, but for a condition of sale entered into when LTE radio spectrum was auctioned to them, Verizon would have succeeded in similar restrictions and actually been able to charge twice for the same data bandwidth to end users.
If I buy an eBook using my cell phone, why should I have to pay twice to download it to my iPad? If I buy a video stream using my iPhone, why should I have to pay twice to view that stream on my iPad? The same number of bytes were downloaded over the cell-supplier's infrastructure in both alternatives. The same supplier-resource was consumed.
The "all data is not equal" argument is a marketing differentiation. It effectively introduces a surcharge on where I am allowed to enjoy the content I have paid for. Bandwidth providers should have no say in that aspect of my internet use. As such it is just another recast of a non-network-neutrality and should be rejected at the FCC level - and not just as a condition of LTE spectrum use.
So you want all data treated equally? No favoritism to data because you think it's all the same? Is that what you're saying?
See post #19.
Really.... Start a global voice capable, bulk transfer and interactive data networking company on the ideas you've outlined. Post the NASDAQ ticker in 7 years, please. I'm betting you won't get capital for hour one.
No it won't. It is specific to Verizon and the spectrum they won by auction.
Overcharging for SMS is not a crime and don't expect some kind of government intervention because something is overpriced.
:sigh:
It's not specific to Android but it is specific to Verizon. It's specific to devices that use the LTE 700 MHz spectrum Verizon won at auction. This is probably why the iPad 3 does tethering now at no additional charge and so will the iPhone 5 when it shows up in a few months.
If you have unlimited now and pay full price for your device your contract does not change which just might be worth it. Unlimited LTE plus unlimited tethering would be pretty sweet.
I don't think anyone is saying that this decision applies to anyone else. The argument seems to be that if Verizon has to allow tethering without charge, the competitors will eventually probably offer the same thing - for competitive reasons, not legal ones.
Folks the ruling is about Verizon asking Google to ban the apps from their user, it does not say VZ still can not charge you for tethering. There is enough information especially with AT&T they are using the intelligence in the network switchs to know if someone is tethering and all they do today is add the tethering cost on your next bill. I also heard that VZ has been doing similar things. This ruling just mean VZ can not force you to use their Tethering app.
Supposedly PDAnet will mask the tethering data so the network switch will not know what kind of device is requesting data.
No that this ruling it out, here is the work around for getting these programs onto your device, remove the SIM card and use wifi to connect to google market and it will allow you to download any of those blocked apps, since it used the carrier identifier as the means to filter or block user from gaining access to those apps. The other way is to down load the app to your computer and email it to your phone and then install it.
Originally Posted by Arizona Dinger
It's not specific to Android but it is specific to Verizon.
From the first paragraph,
The agreement affects owners of devices running Google's Android operating system…
This is probably why the iPad 3 does tethering now at no additional charge and so will the 6th iPhone when it shows up in a few months.
The iPad already did that, which is why it affects only Android users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
Since Sprint allows truly unlimited data on the phone, you would see people blow through 20 GB and more of data a month. In fact, you already see this with all the rooted Android phones where people tether to computers or tablets against their TOS. They do offer an optional tether plan though but most people just prefer to root or jailbreak to avoid that fee. With all the other carriers now offering shared data plans, Sprint might have to adapt to allow a capped amount of free tethering a month. They do not plan to end unlimited data on phones anytime soon so this might be a good option.
This does happen on Sprint, both iPhone and Android. Sprint does in fact cap the tethering (see: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/22/sprint-caps-mobile-tethering-plans-to-5-gb-per-month-starting-oc/ ) to 5 GB per month. Of course if you are not using "officially sanctioned" tethering methods, they have no way to know how you're using the data, but officially there is a cap on tethered data, just not on-your-device data, which is still the unlimited plan.