Related
I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of the recent Orange contract change palarver and move to T-Mobile. Much cheaper contract, twice as much data and not having to deal with Orange's 'interesting' outlook on customer service.
Not sure what this will mean but http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8243226.stm
I don't think so large mergers are ever good for the customer though.
Practically-speaking they will probably get past the regulator with a bit of begging as O2 and Voda still own a decent chunk of the market, and the T-mob people will benefit from the better backbone capacity of Orange. The whole contract escape thing will still apply as it's in EU law - if the new company ups prices in the future, people can envoke the cancellation clause then just as they did last month. I imagine they'll reprice only when the brand names merge, and only to the bare minimum, as they know people will exploit it to death. You can't keep the same prices forever though, as everyone's copying each other so switching will be less tempting as time goes on.
Sidebar - if you're using data a lot, Voda UK is the place to be as they're finally rolling out their new backbone. HSDPA at up to 14 mbits to all existing customers instead of the 3 to 7 mbits everyone else caps at, and no handset upgrades required. Initial testing proves it works as advertised, though of course depends on the signal strength.
Does this mean that if the do merge, we will be able to cancel our contracts etc again???
Thanks for the reply Spartan. Will look into Vodaphone.
I don't think contracts will be able to be broken unless they change charges or similar. . .
c_lee said:
Sidebar - if you're using data a lot, Voda UK is the place to be as they're finally rolling out their new backbone. HSDPA at up to 14 mbits to all existing customers instead of the 3 to 7 mbits everyone else caps at, and no handset upgrades required. Initial testing proves it works as advertised, though of course depends on the signal strength.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pull the other one.
Vodafone may be rolling out 14.4Mbps in about 3 places but for those of us who live in the majority of the rest of the country, it's just a slap in the face.
Personally, given the choice between HSDPA coverage with O2, Orange or T-Mobile or not even getting 2G coverage with Vodafone, let alone high-speed data, I know who I won't be choosing.
As for all this talk about cancelling contracts, read the article again - even if the merger is approved, both brands will operate under their own names for the first 18 months or so whilst all the admin gets sorted.
Step666 said:
Pull the other one.
Vodafone may be rolling out 14.4Mbps in about 3 places but for those of us who live in the majority of the rest of the country, it's just a slap in the face.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their service is currently live for the centers of London, Birmingham and Liverpool simply because those are the three cities with highest HSPA usage density, though it's apparently being rolled out to the whole country over the next 6-12 months. It's a heck of a lot of work, but Voda insist it will happen, and none of the other operators will say they're even considering it. Some say they can't afford it, some say they're waiting for HSPAE/LTE before doing any upgrades.
As I said it is indeed dependent on your RF path and the cell load, but the point is a BTS capped at 14M will be able to run far more users at typical 3-bar rates (1 to 5M), which if you've tried to pull data in the centre of a city with 5 bars on your phone you know is a big problem - we hit the backhaul capacity very easily. Of course in the middle of nowhere your data rates won't be any good, but it's supply and demand; if it's only you out there it's uneconomical for anyone to install a cell tower. Femtos are available though, so you can turn your DSL line into a domestic 3G base station.
As I also said, T-mob/Orange prices are only likely to change at the rebrand stage and only where absolutely necessary, but it's still the case that when they do happen the contract escape clauses are still very much there. I doubt you'll get to save much as I guess all the operators will have upped their prices (specially if there's less competition), but we we've seen many people want to get out of long contracts for other reasons.
As my sig says, I don't use Voda nor do I have any connection to them. In theory I use Orange, as they provide Three's 2G capacity, but I wish I didn't!
c_lee said:
...though it's apparently being rolled out to the whole country over the next 6-12 months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last I heard, it's continuing roll-out was 'on an ongoing basis'.
But the problem for those of us who live somewhere other than those certain parts of London, Birmingham and Liverpool is that Vodafone's plans are ridiculously vague - sure, they plan to roll it out to the rest of country but what does that mean exactly?
Does that mean they're going to be increasing the amount of the country that they cover or are they merely going to upgrade the speeds in the few places that they already offer coverage? Because, if it's the second option, it still leaves a lot of people out in the cold because Vodafone's coverage is already pretty crummy - they're a long way off being the best network for coverage.
As for femtocells, what a joke.
If your broadband speeds are good enough to make installing one viable, why would you then want to use a mobile-based internet connection and not just your landline instead?
Anyway, speeds are just one element of offering a practical cellular data service to customers - obviously (as I've already mentioned) coverage is another factor, one that Vodafone currents fails quite badly on and there's also the issue of download allowances, another area that Vodafone is really quite poor for.
Going back to the point at hand though, I for one doubt that T-Mobile and Orange merging will cause end customers to be worse off - T-Mobile hasn't been a big player for a while, they're not particularly competitive so I honestly doubt that their disappearance as a separate entity will be that big an issue.
In fact, I reckon it'd probably be better for customer in the long run - being leapfrogged in this manner will, hopefully, force Vodafone and O2 to up their game - both are guilty of a lot of complacency of late so to be taken down a peg or two and forced to approach the market from a disadvantaged position could well be a good thing.
Firstly the roll-out will happen to all existing Voda 3G BTS nodes, as the backhaul upgrade is required for other purposes. Installing new BTSs is a different matter entirely, and I agree they're not great in rural areas (but then no one operator is ahead of the game on that one. Our office is in the middle of the countryside and we get a decent Three signal purely by chance - no 3G from anyone else - but a few miles down the road at home only Orange will work.
All the operators are gradually populating the dead areas where there's a demand, but nobody's going to put 3G in where there aren't enough customers and there's a 2G signal available - the priority is going to the zero signal areas first, and only those where people are calling them and complaining about it.
Agree a femtocell is a strange idea if you use your landline for calls and DSL through a PC, but many people run their entire lives through their cell number, and forwarding it to a landline costs you money when someone calls you. Femtos mean you're not paying for the calls in either direction, and helps people who don't have a wifi-enabled handset to pull down 'free' data.
I would like to start by thanking you for your reply, it makes for interesting reading.
But I reserve the right to remain cynical (I'm Scottish, what do you expect...). Large parts of Vodafone's 3G network don't even support 7.2Mbps yet, so I just don't see them upgrading it all to 14.4.
As for the problems with signal, I'm not talking about rural areas.
Where I work is in a built-up area, near the centre of a large town and, as it happens, right across the road from a mobile phone mast. Every network except Vodafone offers HSDPA coverage but to just make a call on Vodafone you have to hang out a window or head off down the street waving your phone in the air to get signal.
I see what you're saying about some people's lives being run through their mobile but I still cannot quite see the use of femtocells.
If a person's phone is that important, then they would be unlikely to be using a network that offered such poor coverage in their home. Alternatively, if they already have reasonable 2G coverage, then why get a femtocell to aid 3G coverage when you have a perfectly good landline internet connection which will be cheaper to use, almost certainly offer a faster speed and will definitely have a larger usage allowance; not to mention that no-one in their right mind would argue that the web experience on a phone can match that of a proper PC or laptop.
A femtocell doesn't give you free data, nor does it give you wi-fi access - it merely improves the network signal strength/coverage in your home but you still have to pay for data the same way you would if you were out and about.
In your case, you can find the local spread of BTSs using Ofcom's Sitefinder database - www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk - and one trick to see what BTS your phone is hitting for data is to open Google Maps with the GPS option turned off - "your location" is then that of the BTS you're downloading maps from.
If your operator's own map claims good coverage for your house, but in practice you don't have any, then it's ether a line of sight issue (something conductive between you and the antenna) or a terrain dip (sectors put out a roughly-horizontal beam, angled down a few degrees, so if you're above or below it because of your relative heights, you can be over the road from the thing and not get a signal). In modern houses, we've also seen issues with foil-backed cavity wall insulation acting like a Faraday cage and ruining your signal until you're near a window. Either way, phone the operator and let them know - coverage is only altered when someone tells them it's not as good as they think it is.
Just FYI, a femtocell uses your existing DSL ISP's connection for all the data, including voice packets, and simply routes them to the mobile operator's gateway IP address - so depending on your operator and service plan they may or may not be counted as airtime minutes/bytes. Voda does count them, however that's not the norm as you're in effect paying twice for the same megabyte (to your ISP and to Voda); but as so few people have femtos in the UK, nobody's grumbling enough to be heard.
c_lee said:
Firstly the roll-out will happen to all existing Voda 3G BTS nodes, as the backhaul upgrade is required for other purposes. Installing new BTSs is a different matter entirely, and I agree they're not great in rural areas (but then no one operator is ahead of the game on that one. Our office is in the middle of the countryside and we get a decent Three signal purely by chance - no 3G from anyone else - but a few miles down the road at home only Orange will work.
All the operators are gradually populating the dead areas where there's a demand, but nobody's going to put 3G in where there aren't enough customers and there's a 2G signal available - the priority is going to the zero signal areas first, and only those where people are calling them and complaining about it.
Agree a femtocell is a strange idea if you use your landline for calls and DSL through a PC, but many people run their entire lives through their cell number, and forwarding it to a landline costs you money when someone calls you. Femtos mean you're not paying for the calls in either direction, and helps people who don't have a wifi-enabled handset to pull down 'free' data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Three is the only provider with any kind of 3G coverage in our town (rural shropshire) they claim to best 3g coverage in the UK - and my experience with them backs that up - im with Orange for my phone and Three for my dongle.
Sorry to bring the speed issue again but I read this the other day, which is rather fitting to some of the discussions we've been having of late.
[EDIT] Some posters have responded that the assumptions made below are unrealistic as regards the average subscriber. That is absolutely true! This OP is unrelated to the "average subscriber." The thread is about the disconnect between the data download volume required by high-bandwidth apps being advertised by the carriers and the cummulative monthly data volume permitted by the carriers. I.e., this post would be valid if there were zero subscribers using these services. I would note, however, that these ideas will become increasingly applicable to the average subscriber as subscribers begin to use the cited services in greater volumes.
Other posters have commented that the 2 mbps assumption in this OP is unrealistically high. Please see posts 52, 54, and 75 for calculations related to actual apps that use similar bandwidths.
There has been much contraversy surrounding TMO's throttling network access speeds after a subscriber uses (or downloads?) 5 GB of data. Also, some people seem to be confused as to the meaning of the associated terms "bandwidth," "download speed," "total monthly usage," etc. This post is simply an attempt to clarify these terms and to add perspective to the issue.
I will use an (imprecise) analogy to household electrical power usage. The quantity of electrical power (measured in kilowatts), consumed at any point in time depends upon the sum of the current draw of the appliances, fixtures, machinery, etc. operating at that point in time. (Although power = voltage multiplied by current, the power company keeps the voltage relatively constant.)
Wireless data downloads can be considered as analogous to electrical power consumption if we analogize maximum link speed (also referred to as bandwidth) to voltage and bit flow to current. The power company maintains a (relatively constant) voltage to enable us to pull a variable amount of current according to our needs. A carrier maintains a (variable) amount of bandwidth to enable us to transfer a variable amount of data according to our needs.
Kilowatts and bits/second are both instantaeous values. So, the electric meter must continuously meter the current as it flows through the meter to sum the total energy used (kilowatt-hours). Likewise, TMO (apparently) implements a meter on their servers for each subscriber to monitor data flow over the course of a billing month.
Now, this is where the analogy gets interesting.
The power company charges per usage while TMO advertises and charges a flat monthly rate (assuming an "unlimited" data plan). On the surface (read: "as advertised"), the TMO plan sounds better. One is able to plan for a fixed monthly expenditure without having to worry about consumption. That is very appealing, because TMO has also heavily marketed their newer and ever-faster networks as well as devices and services requiring these greater bandwidths.
But notice what happens when a customer attempts to aggressively use the new devices, services, and supporting network bandwidths. When the data throttling hammer comes down, Internet data services are simply terminated until the beginning of the next billing month, for most practical purposes! (The modern Internet is largely non-functional at 56 kb.)
How would such behaviour play out with household energy consumption per our analogy? Say the power company initiates a big marketing campaign to place equipment and services in your home that require lots of power to operate, and sets you up on a flat monthly fee. To accommodate the new equipment and services, the power company drops 10kV service to your home. The first month, You use the new, very power-hungry equipment and services for 5-6 hours. By then, you have used 20,000 kwH. The power company's policy is to throttle users who reach 20,000 kwH. So what do they do? According to the analogy, they decrease the voltage to your house to 20 volts. Of course, 20 volts is not enough to run anything except perhaps enough to make a couple of light bulbs flicker. However, the power company can say that, technically, they have not breached their obligation to supply you unlimited power for a fixed fee. If you can do something with 20 volts for the remainder of the billing month, have at it!
For both the power company and a wireless carrier, these are peak loading problems. The difference is that the power company builds out the infrastructure necessary to handle peak loading for all of its customers, big and small.
A wireless data carrier can "build out" in two dimensions, speed and capacity. These are related but different quantities. Say TMO replaces transceiver technology on a tower. Say the old system had 4 transceivers, each capable of handling 1000 subscribers and providing data speeds of between 500kbps and 5 Mbps to each subscriber depending upon the number of data users connected to that tower. Now assume that the upgrade has five transceivers, each capable of handling 1000 subscribers. New technolgoy coding techniques now render a transceiver capable of providing data speeds of 1-21 Mbps, depending upon the number of data uses connected to that transceiver and their data requirements, etc. In this scenario, the carrier could do fancy marketing to pull in additional subscribers and some users would in fact sometimes see faster downloads. However, the carrier might not have accomplished much from a capacity standpoint in this scenario. E.g., tripling the number of 3G radios might be better from a capacity standpoint than replacing the existing 3G radios with 4G radios. However, the latter is much sexier from a marketing standpoint.
We will know when TMO has finally built out sufficient capacity to satisfy the data demand that they themselves create by hyping speed and speed-requiring services such as TMO-TV; because at that point there will be no further need for data caps and they will be removed or increased to higher thresholds. In the meantime, the following calculation is an indication of the amount of "unlimited" nework access we currently receive from TMO in exchange for our $80 - $100:
What is your average download speed? Of course it varies from region to region and from one moment to the next. Let us just pick some reasonable number as an average to work with, say 2 mbps. Consider that average and the 5 GB data cap. For quick calculation purposes, let us consider 10 bits/byte. (The real number is ~9 bits/byte after taking into account error correction overhead, etc.)
(5 x 10E9 Bytes) x (10 bits/byte) = 5 x 10E10 bits
(5 x 10E10 bits) / (2 x 10E6 bits/sec) = 25000 seconds
(25,000 seconds) / (3600 seconds/hr) = 6.9 hours
In conclusion: An "unlimited" TMO data plan provides about 7 hours of [clarification: high bandwidth application] access monthly, based upon advertised and provided speeds, before one is cut off from useful data access. Your available number of hours will vary according to the data speeds that you experience/utilize.
There are ~720 hours in a month. Thus, our carrier's plan provides for 2 mbps use of our phone about 1% of the time or about 25 minutes per day.
If you understand and are happy with this (as many no doubt are), wonderful! I believe that a subscriber should at least be aware of what he/she is getting for his/her $80-$100 per month, though; and the carriers should, but do not, disclose this information.
The only grip I have about it is, I wished it was cheaper, maybe $20-25 (i know about the loyalty plan but I haven't gotten time to ask about it). Or offer a $15 2gb plan (as opposed to the janky $10/15 200mb plan)
Unlimited means..
1. Having no restrictions or controls.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute.
This is what Unlimited mean,not the twisted version T-mobile trick some into believe,Unlimited mean no restrictions no controls,you can't abuse something that is presented to you in Unlimited form period.
I don't know why people have no sue T-mobile for this.
eltormo said:
Unlimited means..
1. Having no restrictions or controls.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute.
This is what Unlimited mean,not the twisted version T-mobile trick some into believe,Unlimited mean no restrictions no controls,you can't abuse something that is presented to you in Unlimited form period.
I don't know why people have no sue T-mobile for this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who says unlimited means no restrictions and no controls? Unlimited defines whether there is a limit or not, not how you use the internet.
As for the OP, I regularly tether and use my phone and still haven't hit the 5 GB limit (downloading apps/games on my phone, roms, kernels, streaming Pandora, forum browsing on my laptop and youtube streaming).
The one's that get over the 5GB limit are probably doing things that they shouldn't be doing so imo it's fair and I would rather have it set to 5GB than having them raise rates for everybody and offer real unlimited.
not satisfied, but not upset. had i not streamed the entire super bowl through my phone, my data wouldn't be throttled right now!
my bad
ahem
Umm....
Cap ?
sahil04 said:
Who says unlimited means no restrictions and no controls? Unlimited defines whether there is a limit or not, not how you use the internet.
As for the OP, I regularly tether and use my phone and still haven't hit the 5 GB limit (downloading apps/games on my phone, roms, kernels, streaming Pandora, forum browsing on my laptop and youtube streaming).
The one's that get over the 5GB limit are probably doing things that they shouldn't be doing so imo it's fair and I would rather have it set to 5GB than having them raise rates for everybody and offer real unlimited.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know i just quoted a dictionary definition of Unlimited right one of them is having not restrictions or controls.?
Maybe you know more than the dudes who wrote the dictionary maybe we should go by your terms and not what the real definition means.
In fact the terms i quote are not referring to the Internet.
Stop lying dude i download 3 gameloft games,and watched some video on youtube and i landed over 1 GB in just 3 days,games from the android market like gameloft ones are close to 300 MB,i have spiderman,SplinterCell and GT racing and with those 3 alone i got close to 900MB.
In fact i made a test and watched several videos on youtube,and did some download without tethering,and i landed on 1.3 GB in just 3 days,and i did not even tether dude,stop acting like 5GB is allot if not,in fact not even close to be that much 5GB is nothing this days,i have video on my Galaxy S that are 53MB just for a 3 and half minute video,just head over to youtube and see how much data and actual good quality video takes.
In fact i have Temperature by Sean Paul and is 53 MB,10 miserable video like that one,that is what enough to get you what an hour of entertainment or less,and you have 500MB is just 1 hours of watching videos,use it 2 hours and you have 1GB already eat up.
5GB is nothing.
In fact roms alone are 130+ MB,some are close or over 200 MB,download 7 of those on 1 week and you already have close to 1GB use,just for roms.
Your math doesn't add up,and even without tethering 5GB is nothing.
But show me what we should not be doing,since phones like the mytouch 4G are also throttle and those are advertise as video phones (not that the Vibrant can't do that) and as a wireless hub,where other devices can connect to you,(again no that the Vibrant can't do that either),so in the end you have a service that is been advertise as unlimited,only to be punish for using it,Verizon did the same thing and was force to settle in cash.
I read now that T-mobile was sue for this as well,i don't think the outcome will be any different than what happen with Verizon.
I like the dictionary version of what Unlimited means,not your or T-mobile twisted version,you most work for T-mobile you have to,to actually cheer for such a scam,and to accuse others of wrong doing,when the features all this phones have are bandwidth demanding.
Tmobile
I like Tmobile
n2ishun said:
Umm....
Cap ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what's this a picture of?
eltormo said:
Unlimited means..
1. Having no restrictions or controls.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute.
This is what Unlimited mean,not the twisted version T-mobile trick some into believe,Unlimited mean no restrictions no controls,you can't abuse something that is presented to you in Unlimited form period.
I don't know why people have no sue T-mobile for this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that is what "unlimited" means. You got the adjective right but I believe that you may be misunderstanding the noun. "Unlimited" must modify something; it cannot be analyzed by itself. if you read the fine print you will see that TMO promises unlimited Internet access, not unlimited Internet access at any particular speed. Thus (they claim), they continue to supply "unlimited" Internet access at 56kb after switching on the cap. That is, you may download any amount of data possible at 56kb. They may not even promise that. They may simply talk in terms of an "unlimited plan," which is marketing sizzle that means essentially nothing, except perhaps suggesting an absence of up-charges.
It seems that you may be suggesting that TMO promises unlimited access at any speed. That would not make sense, of course, because they are not physically capable of providing "any speed." So, what bandwidth are you buying when you sign up with a carrier? Well, essentially you are buying into an uncertain, imaginary bandwidth. By that I mean that in your own mind you imagine/hope what the bandwidth will be like, based upon that carrier's generally-stated advertising, PR releases, reputation, etc. At the current state of the wireless art, a carrier will not promise a retail customer any particular bandwidth.
That is where the "trick" lies and how unpleasant surprises arise. The carriers speak out of two sides of their mouth. One side is the advertising, PR, press releases, etc. which suggest certain bandwidth availability by making references to services (movie downloads, Internet TV, etc.) that require such bandwidth availability. The other side of their mouths is the retail subscriber contract terms which suggest just the opposite. That is, regular use of the bandwidths suggested in the PR constitutes punishable abuse.
These are untenable, contradictory positions that will likely not persist for much longer (JMO). Unfortunately, the short-term "fix" could be a metering scheme that is even worse. If they take that route, though, their ad campaign might take a big hit, as they would likely have to abandon terms like "unlimited."
It may be helpful to keep in mind what the wireless carrier business really is. A carrier spends billions of dollars to purchase spectral bandwidth from the US government. That carrier then spends additional billions of dollars to build out a network which enables them to repackage the spectral bandwidth as voice/data bandwidth to sell at retail. Like any other business, a wireless carrier will attempt to sell its service (repackaged bandwidth) for as high a price as the market will allow. Understanding this is the key to understanding why a carrier will laugh all the way to the bank when a fixed price, high-bandwidth customer threatens to cancel their contract and/or take their business elsewhere. If that happens, the carrier will simply resell that bandwidth to two or more new customers who may be smaller bandwidth consumers. Following such a transaction, the carrier will have replaced $80 per month of revenue with $160 $240 or more of monthly revenue.
Please note that my writings in this or any other XDA threads are simply personal opinions relating to public matters and are specifically not intended as statements of fact or advice. Any references to particular carriers are intended as examples only and could be applicable to any carrier.
Interesting Poll
The poll at the top of the page is interesting. At this point, at least, the extremes of "very satisfied" and "completely dissatisfied" are fairly evenly split.
Please vote if you have not already done so.
I am sure T-Mobile will double the cap pretty soon, and $30 ($25 with EM+) internet will have tethering included in the near future because AT&T is pressing hard on the new 4G smartphone + tethering pricing:
$45 with 4GB and tethering, and $10 per GB overage.
zbt1985 said:
what's this a picture of?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
121 gigs of transfer over Tmo in the last 31 days ?
BruceElliott said:
Yes, that is what "unlimited" means. unlimited Internet access, not unlimited Internet access at any particular speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think if even YOU (a Tmobile shill) will look at it, limiting internet speed is still LIMITING.
My contract states in clear language, UNLIMITED INTERNET ACCESS.
They have tried to force me to change that contract many times.
Many many times.
I will not change it, or allow them to change it, it is a binding contract.
Yes, they offer free phones and minutes and even freemonths for me to change it...NFW, ain't happenin.
n2ishun said:
I think if even YOU (a Tmobile shill) will look at it, limiting internet speed is still LIMITING.
My contract states in clear language, UNLIMITED INTERNET ACCESS.
They have tried to force me to change that contract many times.
Many many times.
I will not change it, or allow them to change it, it is a binding contract.
Yes, they offer free phones and minutes and even freemonths for me to change it...NFW, ain't happenin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A T-Mobile shill? You must not be reading my posts very carefully... LOL!
n2ishun said:
121 gigs of transfer over Tmo in the last 31 days ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No; that is an application associated with a BitTorrent client that simply keeps track of Internet usage. Not sure how it is applicable to this thread, given that TMO provides the same information for TMO's wireless service.
mingkee said:
I am sure T-Mobile will double the cap pretty soon, and $30 ($25 with EM+) internet will have tethering included in the near future because AT&T is pressing hard on the new 4G smartphone + tethering pricing:
$45 with 4GB and tethering, and $10 per GB overage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be good. Let's hope that you are correct.
I pay good money for my data plan. And it is indeed very limited.
I had a talk with T-mobile on Twitter back when it was announced about the HSPA+ speeds and said why is there a cap after 5gb and I used the 21mb/s and gave them all the calculations as to how quickly that 5gb would get used up. I asked why give us faster speeds when you could be investing our money into expanding the network giving 3G speeds to areas stuck on EDGE or have no coverage from T-mobile. Their only response was stay tuned for what we have in store for our customers.
Yes throttling speed that is done purposely by T-mobile makes it not unlimited. If it was simply limited to the speed that you can get given where you are using your phone at then that would mean unlimited.
Scoobyracing03 said:
I had a talk with T-mobile on Twitter back when it was announced about the HSPA+ speeds and said why is there a cap after 5gb and I used the 21mb/s and gave them all the calculations as to how quickly that 5gb would get used up. I asked why give us faster speeds when you could be investing our money into expanding the network giving 3G speeds to areas stuck on EDGE or have no coverage from T-mobile. Their only response was stay tuned for what we have in store for our customers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, you clearly anticipated what my OP is about when you communicated with TMO. Let's hope that the person who suggested that you "stay tuned" was well-informed!
I imagine that the early build-out in the speed dimension was a marketing tool designed to capture customers based upon the "wow" factor of enormous speed. However, a carrier who does not quickly follow this angle up with building out in the capacity dimension will (and has) disappoint(ed) customers and will likely fall flat on their face. Wireless carriers are, of course, a limited monopoly, limited by available spectral bandwidth constraints and huge investment costs. We in the U.S. are fortunate to at least have a few carriers to compete for customers. Hopefully that competition will be sufficient to continue to drive investment in capacity. If not, the public sector can always step in... At the end of the day, the freqency spectrum, like the air we breath, is owned by the people. We may lease it out. We may also cancel leases for the public good...
I don't know how many here use podcast app that download mp3 files such as google listen, but for me this has recently been very slow unless using wifi. No mater wich app, kernel, modem, rom... I can only get 10kB/s. I'm not over the 5 gig limit either and everything else is plenty fast as it should be.
It appears that tmo is slowing all mp3 files down except the amazon mp3 app. Has anyone else been having issues with this?
I've found one other thread on the tmo forums about the issue.
XDA App
My data connection was pretty crappy last week. Back to normal this week.
This has been going on for almost two months for me
XDA App
I haven't been able to dl car talk via npr podcast apps on 3g as of late, this would explain why
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
Amazon MP3 is slow on AT&T or T-Mobile for me.
This is impossible unless they are targeting particular hosts, but I think that might be illegal.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
It's definitely not impossible. As to the legality of it, that may be more of a gray area. They can make many seemingly reasonable claims to justify it, including improving the efficiency of their network.
XDA App
Well I really hope this is not true because this will heavily sway my current somewhat positive view of them.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA Premium App
SeanFloyd said:
Yeah, **** tmobile. Never realized how ****ty the network was till my gf got a Samsung Epic on Sprint. ****s all over tmobile.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint is garbage around these parts and they have traffic shaping as well - all carriers do. 4G a horrible experience because of the constant disconnects/loss of signal.
heygrl said:
Sprint is garbage around these parts and they have traffic shaping as well - all carriers do. 4G a horrible experience because of the constant disconnects/loss of signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't comment on the 4g sentiment but her 3g on Sprint seems at least twice as fast as T-Mobile's 3g. I am living in the Phoenix area so there should be ample coverage.
SeanFloyd said:
Can't comment on the 4g sentiment but her 3g on Sprint seems at least twice as fast as T-Mobile's 3g. I am living in the Phoenix area so there should be ample coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're kidding right? You must be in an area with a ton of T-Mobile customers because the last time I was out there Sprint 3G was complete garbage and I was getting 2-5Mbps easy with T-Mobile's 3G. Not to mention, Sprint's data card was switching back between 1X and EV-DO on Sprint and downloading any type of file at 27KB/sec. It was really pathetic and still is. There are rampant complaints about Sprint 3G in Phoenix right on this forum.. look in the Evo section.
This is definitely real. Just google it, people are complaining lots of places. It's odd because I can download other audio formats of the exact same file (or any other type of file I've tried) at normal speed. Speedtest confirms a solid 5.5mbps connection. I hit tmo up on twitter about it but haven't heard a response. Haven't tried calling them but others confirm they have.
I not sure it's illegal as of now. They control their networks until some form of net neutrality is passed.
yea ive noticed the same thing
I've noticed the same thing, google listen downloads over 3g are slow, wifi fast. When listening to shows on rapid transit, invariably the TCP connection will either break or I will hit the 'end' in the middle of the down load, and I'm left with like half a friggin download to listen to.
Slowing it down is easy to do. There are traffic shapers, the most popular ones are Sandvine and the Cisco Service Control Engine, that can pick out traffic and traffic signatures and rate limit them in hardware.
The legality is questionable if they don't disclose what they are doing up front.
I've been meaning to setup a vpn with home and the phone to avoid this slow down, but haven't found the time.
I actually spoke to a tmobile rep about this cuz I had experienced this problem for about a month. they went through the usual steps..... Turn off phone, take out sim card and battery, and ofcourse clear my browsers cache, that was a load of crap. Anyways the rep told me that I had an outdated sim card in my phone, I got a new one and still my downloads of twit podcasts and other MP3 files are slow as hell.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Same issue with a Nexus S. Called tmobile, claimed they have never heard of the problem, but their engineers will look at it when they get a chance since it is a low priority issue. So lame. However, not everyone is having this problem, it almost seems to be affecting people in certain area's I for one am in Orlando.
It's not a problem, you've just wasted your time by calling in.. it's intentional to manage network traffic. Even Slacker streams are shaped.
heygrl said:
Sprint is garbage around these parts and they have traffic shaping as well - all carriers do. 4G a horrible experience because of the constant disconnects/loss of signal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint has a bigger network 3G network than T-Mobile - Voice too. T-Mobile depends on Roaming for voice, and they aren't building out their data network - just upgrading them to HSPA+ (Software upgrade, not hard or expensive).
Traveling around with an AT&T or Sprint phone is a different experience than T-Mobile. Driving to Houston, my Vibrant was drops signal (Voice and Data) between major cities like nothing.
That never happened when I had an AT&T phone. I could basically be on 3G the whole way there... My phone would never become useless while traveling.
With T-Mobile if you travel to some cities you also run the risk of having nothing but GPRS for voice and no decent data connection. The risk of that with the larger carriers is much less. T-Mobile is decent in bigger cities, but outside of them (I'm talking, drive 3-5 miles out of some of them) they are terrible.
They're cheap because the service is cheap, compared to other carriers. AT&T and Verizon get by with charging more because their networks are huge by comparison, and while AT&T has had issues they have been consistently building their network out and adding capacity. T-Mobile and Sprint haven't (not that they need to, they aren't that large). AT&T just put up a new tower here, for example, so they're the only carrier around here with 3G/HSPA coverage.
T-Mobile gets voice coverage due to roaming contracts. Verizon and Sprint get little to no coverage here...
EDIT: GSM 3G is faster than CDMA 3G. There's really no argument about that. Of course, if T-Mobile doesn't have great towers/service where you live that can flip. But Coverage and Reliability > Speed, and that's why T-Mobile is still the smallest carrier despite having the best prices/plans. Their 3G network is too small, and unreliable especially if you travel and/or live outside of major cities.
ibous said:
It's definitely not impossible. As to the legality of it, that may be more of a gray area. They can make many seemingly reasonable claims to justify it, including improving the efficiency of their network.
XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Horrible since with that excuse they cap everything,while still selling in BIG LETTERS The FASTEST 4G NETWORK.
N8ter said:
Sprint has a bigger network 3G network than T-Mobile - Voice too. T-Mobile depends on Roaming for voice, and they aren't building out their data network - just upgrading them to HSPA+ (Software upgrade, not hard or expensive).
Traveling around with an AT&T or Sprint phone is a different experience than T-Mobile. Driving to Houston, my Vibrant was drops signal (Voice and Data) between major cities like nothing.
That never happened when I had an AT&T phone. I could basically be on 3G the whole way there... My phone would never become useless while traveling.
With T-Mobile if you travel to some cities you also run the risk of having nothing but GPRS for voice and no decent data connection. The risk of that with the larger carriers is much less. T-Mobile is decent in bigger cities, but outside of them (I'm talking, drive 3-5 miles out of some of them) they are terrible.
They're cheap because the service is cheap, compared to other carriers. AT&T and Verizon get by with charging more because their networks are huge by comparison, and while AT&T has had issues they have been consistently building their network out and adding capacity. T-Mobile and Sprint haven't (not that they need to, they aren't that large). AT&T just put up a new tower here, for example, so they're the only carrier around here with 3G/HSPA coverage.
T-Mobile gets voice coverage due to roaming contracts. Verizon and Sprint get little to no coverage here...
EDIT: GSM 3G is faster than CDMA 3G. There's really no argument about that. Of course, if T-Mobile doesn't have great towers/service where you live that can flip. But Coverage and Reliability > Speed, and that's why T-Mobile is still the smallest carrier despite having the best prices/plans. Their 3G network is too small, and unreliable especially if you travel and/or live outside of major cities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon has better cover than both from what i read.
But here in Puerto Rico T-mobile is good,and i have data pretty much any were i go,they are cheap because they are the smaller guys not the big ones,and have a much better customer service than AT&T which ranked last.
Some of the best phone plans here were made by a company call Movi Star,before Movi start everything cell phone related here in Puerto Rico was ultra expensive.
In fact by the late 90's here you were charge by the minutes,in plans of 400 minutes and so and they counted both ways in or out,text ultra expensive as well,like .30 cents a text or more.
Movi Star actually came with the first all call receive free plan,and it was a hit,they also boosted the first pre-pay phones with unlimited receive calls free as long as you had balance to make calls as well.
Not only that they also came with the first plan here in Puerto Rico,that included both calls incoming and outgoing unlimited for a fixed price,in that time it was $99 dollars i remember it,it was like 1998 i think.
By that time the PRTC,Cellular One were the tops dogs here,and a 1000 minute plan on any of the 2 could cost you almost what Movi Star charged,but you only have 1000 minutes that counted both ways,with Movi Star it was unlimited.
Now that company is call Open Mobile and they sell just pre-pay phones,they are not as attractive to customers because they don't have a huge selection of phones,and they sell the phone to you without financial,unlike T-mobile and AT&T which sell you the phone cheap or free to tie you in the contract.
In fact they have the cheapest plan of any company here in Puerto Rico and have good signal to,they charge you $55 for unlimited calls, unlimited data,unlimited text.unlimited US long distance calls,Unlimited roaming in US,and even 411 (information to ask for numbers) Unlimited.
All that for $55 dollars,the only down side is that they don't use sim cards,and that only some Sprint phones are compatible out side the ones they sell you,and android phones like the hero are expensive like $300.
So you see usually the best plans comes from the smaller guys,because when they are big like AT&T they charge people what ever they want,is the number 1 reason why AT&T and T-mobile merge should not be allowed,because once T-mobile is in and the rest of the contracts are up,the abuse will begin,and believe me they will rise they price once your contract is done.
T-mobile service is not cheap because is bad,is cheap because T-mobile is not as big as AT&T and Verizon so to bring customers in they have to offer better prices,just because AT&T over charge for their services doesn't mean that what T-mobile is doing most be because their signal is bad.
Companies are being really stupid when it comes to 4G, and the Ipad having 4g is really dumb because of the dumb choices by the cell phone companies. Whats the problem? Should be obvious, data caps. What the hell is the point of faster internet when you can't use it without paying hefty premiums? I am watching verizon advertisements about 4G and how you can download 1100 songs and stream multiple HD movies and it makes me sick. Sure you can download 1100 songs on 4g, if you don't use ur internet for single byte of data for anything else. Sure I can quickly stream movies over 4g, whats the point when the movie will eat up half my data plan? Sure webpages will load faster, but the only websites where it will make a real difference are ones that will eat up my data. What do they think, people want their email messages to download faster? OOO I have 4g, my one email downloads half a second faster. Give me a break.
Putting 4G on the new Ipad I think is more for marketing than it is for anything else, because people will quickly realize that their data usage bills are through the roof when they start using that data for a lot of the things people will use an Ipad for, and by that time it will be too late, they already bought the product. In the long run this will create a ton of consumer backlash. I am so glad I am grandfathered in with unlimited data, because if I had a data cap life would be extremely difficult in regards to my cell phone and tablet usage (HTC Thunderbolt with wireless tether)
AMEN BROTHER!
Just like no sd cards in phone, they give you cloud storage for free, but you get to pay for data. My sd card never charges me when I use it! This is a blatant ploy by the wireless providers to get us to use more and more data, paying them more and more, when they claim they are struggling to keep up with demand and don't have enough spectrum!
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA
Your right that's one other thing. I love the claims that they need data caps to keep up with demand on a 4g spectrum that is no where near capacity, its so insane how selfish and greedy they can be.
PS I also have grandfathered unlimited data and ATT decided that unlimited is really 3gb and then you get switched to edge. I never agreed to this. I guess big companies can do whatever they want.
And by the way, The HTC Vivid is still sending some data over 4g even when you are on WiFi! I have seen it on 3 phones now! 1.6gb 3 weeks usage, only gmail and weather when not on WiFi, very minimal user, no streaming, no downloading! Beware!
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA
Well Bros
You Guys are Talking "4G",
Whereas we ,in Pakistan are still Waiting for 3G To be launched...
Or, you could go with someone that offers unlimited data still or buy unbranded like I did.
z33dev33l said:
Or, you could go with someone that offers unlimited data still or buy unbranded like I did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In America the only major carrier that still offers unlimited data to new customers is Sprint, who is known for being one of the worst carriers when it comes to getting a signal. I do not know if Europe or other areas have 4G coverage yet and if those countries have options when it comes to unlimited bandwidth.
Also what do you mean when you say buying unbranded?
T mobile does, att does on prepaid.
z33dev33l said:
T mobile does, att does on prepaid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are sort of right about Tmobile, they won't charge you for overages, but you get dropped to the lower speed network when you go over your plans allotment for 4g, you can pay for 2 gb of 4g speed or you can pay more for 5 gb of 4g speed, so they are still doing tiered data plans and charging more for higher allotment, but doing what ATT does when you go over your plans allotment and dropping you to slow speed.
I believe this should still be considered a problem when they advertise all the high bandwidth things you can do with 4G but require you to either pay a hefty premium to have a decent amount high speed data or force you to crawl internet speeds when you don't want to pay extra but want to do internet intensive things. I just feel its shady marketing practices, especially the current verizon 4gb data 4g ad.
And clearly I do not know how to spell allotment.
I'd hardly consider 3g a crawl...
Would you consider dial-up a crawl? I'm using it now and I would like to shout some distasteful comments about it
Sent from my Lemon™ 5GS using Tapatalk
I get 3g speeds after running my 4g into the ground.
sfetaz said:
In America the only major carrier that still offers unlimited data to new customers is Sprint, who is known for being one of the worst carriers when it comes to getting a signal. I do not know if Europe or other areas have 4G coverage yet and if those countries have options when it comes to unlimited bandwidth.
Also what do you mean when you say buying unbranded?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Speaking for europe I can say there is no 4G in uk but plans for 4G within two years.
We are stuck with 3G which cost me five pound for five hundred mb.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
We have a 30Gb data limit here in Finland for 4G LTE.
The carriers want you to go over your data limit so they can charge you more. Then they want to recharge you for the same data if you want to tether with it. And for some of us we don't have a choice of many carriers if we want coverage.
They also impose the data cap because VZ is marketing part of their 4g bandwidth to customers now. FIOS is in pretty limited markets and it's a pretty low-cost method for VZ as they don't have to put down new cables or anything. What sucks though is that now you will have people attempting to run all their normal computer data over the same data network as people on their phones which doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome.
Unlimited data
This is the only reason I will not switch from Sprint to Verizon or AT&T. UNLIMITED data! Sooner or later Sprint will take the lead for this simple reason...
All these companies need to break away from wanting consumers to sign a new contract for data on a tablet.
I also believe that having 4G on an iPad is pointless because if you get a texting+voice app you now have a huge iPhone.
Well the telecommunication corporations in north America charge the most in the world so what do you expect. Furthermore, they can get away with it and there is nothing you the consumer can really do about it because it is something such a wide spread amount of people use that they can charge whatever they want.
Not to go off topic but I think socializing the telecommunications industry would be the best course of action as it is a universal service that pretty much everyone uses. It would lower the rates greatly if there wasn't a huge mark up on all the services.
Then again anything a little related to communism is scary because you know Nixon said so and corporations tend to push technology further to stay ahead of their competition so meh.
Ok, so here's the deal. US subscribers are in a pickle as far as unlimited data plans are concerned with tethering. Our plans suck (comparatively).
Some of it has to do with wording of contracts by carriers. Some of it has to do with the entitlement we feel when we purchased our respective unlimited data plans. Either way, we all feel hurt by this. As consumers, we want it our way. We want our unlimited data plans to cover our 2GB months to our 200GB months. We don't want to be told about limits on plans labeled and sold as unlimited.
Here's where you come in. How would you change the terms of the agreement as an AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or other carrier's customer if you were in charge? Keep in mind that you may have limited network resources, funds, or staff to carry out the extreme plans. You still need to generate income for your investors. What would you do to make your customers happy as well as the investors? Is it possible? Is there any sort of reform that is possible in our wireless industry?
Ban contracts all-together. The bundling of phones with network vastly distorts both markets; phones are no longer truly competing on price (e.g. apple's strong position with the iPhone allows them to dictate high carrier subsidies, whose costs must be paid off by effectively taxing everyone else on the network) while carriers are instead competing on phones (rather than the quality of their service).
On the other hand, without subsidies (which essentially hide the costs for the average person who doesn't think it through), manufacturers would have to actually worry about choosing a price low enough to be attractive. This is something that is sorely missing under the current regime.
Not to mention, contracts themselves are effectively anti-competitive, locking in users who don't really know how to properly evaluate their choices. The way to ensure the best service for the user is to allow them to quit at a moment's notice.
Now, I notice you might be thinking more specifically about how the service agreements can be modified, rather than the "contracts" per se. Do the above, and this woud automatically happen. The carriers will have to actually compete for better service (rather than just drawing in people with new shiny phones in order to lock them in). If their service is not up to par with their advertisements, people would just quit the next month. Hence, no more random throttling of plans, etc.
thebobp said:
Ban contracts all-together. The bundling of phones with network vastly distorts both markets; phones are no longer truly competing on price (e.g. apple's strong position with the iPhone allows them to dictate high carrier subsidies, whose costs must be paid off by effectively taxing everyone else on the network) while carriers are instead competing on phones (rather than the quality of their service).
On the other hand, without subsidies (which essentially hide the costs for the average person who doesn't think it through), manufacturers would have to actually worry about choosing a price low enough to be attractive. This is something that is sorely missing under the current regime.
Not to mention, contracts themselves are effectively anti-competitive, locking in users who don't really know how to properly evaluate their choices. The way to ensure the best service for the user is to allow them to quit at a moment's notice.
Now, I notice you might be thinking more specifically about how the service agreements can be modified, rather than the "contracts" per se. Do the above, and this woud automatically happen. The carriers will actually have to compete for better service, rather than just ensure that people are locked in longer than they can think about. If their service is not up to par with their advertisements, people would quit the next month. No more throttling plans with nothing the users can say about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand your position, but I have doubts that this would be possible to implement in our market. T-Mobile's CMO made a statement about device subsidies contorting what the devices actually cost. T-Mobile actually has a line of Value plans that are kind of on par with what you're thinking about. The rate plans are considerably cheaper than the ones with a device subsidy. The real problem is convincing the other carriers to follow suit.
See, by doing this, it put investors at risk. It's all a money making game. If an idea isn't profitable, then it generally never sees the light of day. What about a sales model similar to what T-Mobile is offering? Could you see a way to make this model profitable to both carriers and consumers alike?
I think it should be handled like the european networks handle their service agreements. You sign up for service when you buy a phone, and you pay full retail price for the phone. Then you pay a relatively lower price for service. Instead of paying say, 59.99 for a phone that retails for 399.99 and then paying 100$ give or take a little each month, you pay full price for the phone, and then get your bill for 50ish a month. Which one sounds better?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
leo321 said:
I think it should be handled like the european networks handle their service agreements. You sign up for service when you buy a phone, and you pay full retail price for the phone. Then you pay a relatively lower price for service. Instead of paying say, 59.99 for a phone that retails for 399.99 and then paying 100$ give or take a little each month, you pay full price for the phone, and then get your bill for 50ish a month. Which one sounds better?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that this would benefit us more as consumers, but we would need to come up with a marketable solution to the current situation that would be agreeable to the carriers as well.
cajunflavoredbob said:
If an idea isn't profitable, then it generally never sees the light of day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
Blaming carrier greed is easy but really doesn't solve anything. Carriers want to make more money and contracts make them more money - I can't fault them for that.
I don't see the US market becoming like Europe's. Although T-Mobile USA is trying to change things, I can think of two things in the way:
-Americans are too stupid to save money~~ Everyone thinks short term savings, hence the persistence of contracts.
-Carrier incompatibility~~ Verizon and Sprint are CDMA. T-Mobile and AT&T run on (mostly) different 3G bands. Buy a phone for full retail and you're probably going to be stuck with one carrier anyway.
luftrofl said:
This.
Blaming carrier greed is easy but really doesn't solve anything. Carriers want to make more money and contracts make them more money - I can't fault them for that.
I don't see the US market becoming like Europe's. Although T-Mobile USA is trying to change things, I can think of two things in the way:
-Americans are too stupid to save money~~ Everyone thinks short term savings, hence the persistence of contracts.
-Carrier incompatibility~~ Verizon and Sprint are CDMA. T-Mobile and AT&T run on (mostly) different 3G bands. Buy a phone for full retail and you're probably going to be stuck with one carrier anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The incompatibility is changing this year, at least with AT&T and T-Mobile. T-Mobile is currently refarming their spectrum to rollout a network on the 1900MHz PCS spectrum. This will be used for their HSPA/+ network, while the existing 1700MHz network will be used for LTE. This move makes their network inter-operable with AT&T devices.
Other than that, I agree with your points. I don't feel that T-Mobile is going to make contracts as we know them go away. I admire the bold move, but I doubt it will ripple the waters much. That being said, I'm hoping we can come together and brainstorm a bit to think of a way to benefit carriers and customers alike. Our market NEEDS to change.
Pentaband unlocked handsets for everybody! Then you can choose whatever retarded WCDMA bands you like!
A list of things I would do:
1) Bring back the unlimited data plans, but only for LTE. (bandwith limits 3g unlimited plans)
2) Have them start rolling out LTE v10 or LTE advaned right now.
3) Voice over LTE.
4) Unlimited voice and text added to a data plan like this:
Plan1) Unlimited voice and text+2gb of data for $
plan2) Unlimited voice and text+5gb of data for $$
plan3) Unlimited voice and text+10GB of data for $$$
plan4) Unlimited voice and text+Unlimited data for $$$$ (LTE only)
They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.
And verizon needs to fix this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDxJoGv3FLA&feature=player_embedded
4ktvs said:
A list of things I would do:
1) Bring back the unlimited data plans, but only for LTE. (bandwith limits 3g unlimited plans)
2) Have them start rolling out LTE v10 or LTE advaned right now.
3) Voice over LTE.
4) Unlimited voice and text added to a data plan like this:
Plan1) Unlimited voice and text+2gb of data for $
plan2) Unlimited voice and text+5gb of data for $$
plan3) Unlimited voice and text+10GB of data for $$$
plan4) Unlimited voice and text+Unlimited data for $$$$ (LTE only)
They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.
And verizon needs to fix this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDxJoGv3FLA&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This isn't really a plan. It's more of a wish list. I was hoping that some of the people around here might actually have better ideas of how to do things than the carriers. This isn't a wish list thread. I intended it more as a brainstorming thread.
Well, before anything I want to happen will even be possible, we'd have to see real net neutrality laws in this country...
I would like to see wireless carriers charge for internet access the same way that most ISPs charge. You pay for speed and have unlimited data. Say I have an LTE device. I can pay $50 for unlimited data at 10 Mbps or $100 for 20 Mbps. This makes much more sense to me.
Also, carriers need to be dump pipes. That's just how it has to be. I know they all fear that and will do everything in their power to stop it but I think it's inevitable.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
cajunflavoredbob said:
This isn't really a plan. It's more of a wish list. I was hoping that some of the people around here might actually have better ideas of how to do things than the carriers. This isn't a wish list thread. I intended it more as a brainstorming thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
#2 was more of a wish, but the rest of it is not. Let me try to put it in a better way:
1) give 4G LTE users a higher cap/unlimited data, becuase there is more bandwith. They could charge a bit more for the new Data plans, but over all save $ for the buyers. In turn, this would likely help the push for LTE and kill 2g and 3g sooner, so that the bandwith can be used for 4G.
2) Voice over LTE( 3 will be why)
3) When Voice over LTE is done, then make voice/text/data all one plan, Like:
1) 2GB for $60. ( Voice and text would use data)
2) 5GB for $80.
3) 10GB for $100.
4) 20GB/unlimited for $120.
Any way I am not a CEO and I don't have the # for everything, so this "plan" of mine may not work/be good, but I tryed.
I have both AT&T and verizon unlimited data plans and don't like the low bar they have set of 2-5gb plans, but really most don't use more than about 5GB. Now I bet they would if they used a crap load of voice at 50mb per 60 min. ( If you used 900min per bill then you would use about 750mb or about bit less 1/2 of the 2GB plan and then a few e-mails, some text and bam over the limit.)
Mobile voice is surely not 50Mb for 60 minutes. That'd be close to 128kbps MP3 quality, which our phones certainly are not!
I read that on verizon, that voice would be about 45mb per hour. I don't know all the #, but think it may work. They may up the voice quality to make this work and I think it's one of there goals with voice over LTE.
4ktvs said:
#2 was more of a wish, but the rest of it is not. Let me try to put it in a better way:
1) give 4G LTE users a higher cap/unlimited data, becuase there is more bandwith. They could charge a bit more for the new Data plans, but over all save $ for the buyers. In turn, this would likely help the push for LTE and kill 2g and 3g sooner, so that the bandwith can be used for 4G.
2) Voice over LTE( 3 will be why)
3) When Voice over LTE is done, then make voice/text/data all one plan, Like:
1) 2GB for $60. ( Voice and text would use data)
2) 5GB for $80.
3) 10GB for $100.
4) 20GB/unlimited for $120.
Any way I am not a CEO and I don't have the # for everything, so this "plan" of mine may not work/be good, but I tryed.
I have both AT&T and verizon unlimited data plans and don't like the low bar they have set of 2-5gb plans, but really most don't use more than about 5GB. Now I bet they would if they used a crap load of voice at 50mb per 60 min. ( If you used 900min per bill then you would use about 750mb or about bit less 1/2 of the 2GB plan and then a few e-mails, some text and bam over the limit.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's actually a much better way of saying it. It's not a bad idea. Going all data would seem to be the way to go for the future. That problem is going to be getting carriers to realize this and make adjustments accordingly. They keep saying that they don't have enough bandwidth to service everyone, but this plan makes exclusive use of data. It requires a nationwide "4G" footprint. Verizon is the closest to this right now. T-Mobile is close behind with its HSPA+ rollout. AT&T has a large HSPA+ footprint as well, but it's not any/much faster than their 3G in my testing. We won't even go into Sprint's "4G" services....
I think that Verizon and T-Mobile would be the biggest players in this. T-Mobile currently has the bandwidth and lower customer base to make this a reality. Verizon may still have quite a way to go, though. CDMA technology really needs to hurry up and die already.
In any case, this is any interesting plan, that would indeed be beneficial to both parties. The biggest hurdle is that their are still large parts of the country that do not have high speed wireless access. Within the next three years, I can see this being put into play.
EDIT: Also, GSM networks use the G.729 codec (as far as I recall) for voice calls which compress the call to roughly 6-8Kbps. This makes it about 3.6MB per hour on a normal, non VoIP GSM call. I have no idea what CDMA uses.
4ktvs said:
They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... you're not trying hard enough
Seriously though, that list is unrealistic. "I want more advanced tech and I want it released and working now." is not a useful answer for "How would you change the wireless market?"
As for me, I want American cell networks to be more compatible with other networks - right now AT&T and T-Mobile are the only carriers with anything close to this. Maybe there's hope for this with LTE developments, but I don't know.
If this happens, maybe cheaper postpaid plans will be available - I really like this - it's why I'm on T-Mobile. I wish AT&T would have discounted plans if you're not on contract - it's not like they need to subsidize a phone.
luftrofl said:
... you're not trying hard enough
Seriously though, that list is unrealistic. "I want more advanced tech and I want it released and working now." is not a useful answer for "How would you change the wireless market?"
As for me, I want American cell networks to be more compatible with other networks - right now AT&T and T-Mobile are the only carriers with anything close to this. Maybe there's hope for this with LTE developments, but I don't know.
If this happens, maybe cheaper postpaid plans will be available - I really like this - it's why I'm on T-Mobile. I wish AT&T would have discounted plans if you're not on contract - it's not like they need to subsidize a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're answer is similar to the one you jest about. How would such a move benefit the carriers? If it is not beneficial to them, it will not happen. What would be their motivation to make their networks or devices interoperable? Customer loyalty, or doing it to make customers happy isn't a reason, unfortunately. Generally, there needs to be financial motivation to make changes to the market.
cajunflavoredbob said:
EDIT: Also, GSM networks use the G.729 codec (as far as I recall) for voice calls which compress the call to roughly 6-8Kbps. This makes it about 3.6MB per hour on a normal, non VoIP GSM call. I have no idea what CDMA uses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, I couldn't remember the exact bitrate but I knew it was really very low.
Adaptive Multi-Rate Speech (AMR) is the codec used by WCDMA voice and it tops out at 12kbps.
Now I know were I got 45mb/hour. I read it in the mobile broadband part of a verizon mag.
It list Voice call(VoIP) as 45MB/hour over 4G LTE.