91–100 of 114 posts
I wonder if apple could use this to get out of the exclusive deal without penalties?
Does anyone realize with the new Camera on the front of the Iphone coming out, this Data usage issue will change drastically? The Camera phone will use Data. They are charging for more data. They are set to make a bit of money off this...
Does anyone realize with the new Camera on the front of the Iphone coming out, this Data usage issue will change drastically? The Camera phone will use Data. They are charging for more data. They are set to make a bit of money off this...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood the argument that capping data plans will improve the "experience" for the non-heavy users. Capping doesn't change the fact that AT&T does not have the tower capacity to support as many iPhone users as they already have, so even if they can curb the 2% of heavy users, the other 98% are still overloading their towers and receiving poor service. The only thing data caps do is generate more money f…
>I've never understood the argument that capping data plans will improve the "experience" for the non-heavy users. It isn't a difficult concept. A very small number of people contribute significantly to the network load. Yeah, ideally there's more capacity than anyone can ever use, but back here in reality that would be remarkably expensive to fulfill. It's the same thing with crime, btw: A very, very small percentag…
When other major countries are investing huge amounts in their infrastructures to support higher and higher capacities and bandwidth for lower and lower prices, our ISPs are instead capping bandwidth and increasing prices without investing that higher revenue into better service.
I wonder if apple could use this to get out of the exclusive deal without penalties?
Are you kidding me? It's AT and fucking T. They don't let you get out of your two-year contract without exacting their poiund of flesh; what makes you think they'll let something as lucrative as iPhone exclusivity just wriggle away?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've never understood the argument that capping data plans will improve the "experience" for the non-heavy users. It isn't a difficult concept. A very small number of people contribute significantly to the network load. Yeah, ideally there's more capacity than anyone can ever use, but back here in reality that would be remarkably expensive to fulfill. It's the same thing with crime, btw: A very, very small percentag…
But this is exactly my point. Caps will not stop all (or even most?) heavy users from being heavy users, and there is no data (that I've ever found) to show that caps do anything other than generate more revenues, which may or may not actually be spent on improving the network. When other major countries are investing huge amounts in their infrastructures to support higher and higher capacities and bandwidth for lowe…
Especially when you pay $25 per GB, and it costs an extra $10 per GB. People will probably stop streaming Pandora over the cell network, and heavily watching movies.
Canada has had data limits the entire time, and Blackberry has been constantly cautioning US providers about offering unlimited data plans in the name of providing better service to their customers.
This kind of limitation for regular ISPs is ridiculous, because the cost of bandwidth is actually cheap, but it's different and much more expensive with cell phone networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we should force iPhone users to pay for unlimited bandwidth so that we can try to force them to "do more awesome things" with their phone? What this argument is not taking into consideration is that some people don't use their device as much as others, and they do so by choice . Plenty of people will take a $10 discount to cut their phone usage a bit, and be happy that someone offered them the choice. Personally,…
Offered tiered pricing. $5/mo for 100MB, $10/mo for 250MB, $20/mo for 1GB, $30/mo for unlimited.
As for the $30/mo unlimited, I believe part of the reason why AT&T removed the unlimited option in the first place is because a disproportional amount of bandwidth is spent by people who jailbroke their iPhone and use 100+GB/month using it as a 3G modem.
Hey entrepreneurs: pretend for a moment that AT&T is YOUR company. You have a hit on your hands (the iPhone), but one that has crippled your network in major metro areas like San Francisco and New York. Investing in new cell towers means not just millions in capital expenses, but also years spent arguing with NIMBY neighborhood associations who don't want to see any more of your ugly towers. And, you have a way to re…
If it results in heavier use, they should just charge for the use directly, not micromanage how I use the service. In the freemium scenario, it would be like charging extra to be able to access the website from more than one computer. Both are stupid because both require nothing to "support"; they inherently work as part of the existing infrastructure. On the other hand it does take resources to try to block that functionality, because you have to actively look for "cheaters".
Hey entrepreneurs: pretend for a moment that AT&T is YOUR company. You have a hit on your hands (the iPhone), but one that has crippled your network in major metro areas like San Francisco and New York. Investing in new cell towers means not just millions in capital expenses, but also years spent arguing with NIMBY neighborhood associations who don't want to see any more of your ugly towers. And, you have a way to re…
Announce a US$50 per month femtocell subsidy for anyone who installs an AT&T femtocell in their house in targeted neighborhoods.
I too dislike how AT&T foisted these prices on us - but I disagree with the author here. He seems to be advocating that there's something wrong with not consuming 1.5-2GB a month. He's a heavy user - cool, but I see no reason for the majority of the world to be just like him. > "Why are so many people using so little bandwidth? Or, put another way, you should be ashamed of yourself if you sell a device like the iPhon…
I think he wants to say AT&T should get the users hooked to using lot of data, so they as a subscription company can keep making money from users for a longer time.
It would be like encouraging people to eat more when they go to an all-you-can-eat buffet by giving them doggy bags to take home as much as they want, on the theory that then they're more likely to come back. If you're losing money on those people you don't really want them to come back.
It's obviously an open question as to exactly what their costs per user are for light versus heavy users of data, but I'm going to infer from their recent actions that they've decided that at the moment supporting heavy users of data isn't such a great business to be in.