 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Could 3G data price cuts soon make an appearance? Not unless some company starts up and offers 3G data at a much more reasonable price with a larger cap (20GB-30GB). |
|
| said by Rob:Not unless some company starts up and offers 3G data at a much more reasonable price with a larger cap (20GB-30GB). The existing cell tower infrastructure can't support the load that raised caps would put on them.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to Rob
In the case of wireless I think 5GB caps actually make some sense. I don't think mobile broadband networks are currently up to handling people using them to serve torrents, sling TV, or stream music several hours a day. So, I think it's priced and limited to deter people from using it as a primary source of iternet.
On the other hand, there's a solid demand for people who have broadband connections that just need to be able to surf and get their email when travelling. $60/month for that sort of usage is crazy. I think that's why AT&T is looking at bundling limited data and DSL together.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by djrobx:In the case of wireless I think 5GB caps actually make some sense. I don't think mobile broadband networks are currently up to handling people using them to serve torrents, sling TV, or stream music several hours a day. So, I think it's priced and limited to deter people from using it as a primary source of iternet. IF you're only using it for MOBILE then sure 5 GB is enough, BUT these companies like to state how you can use this for your PC. And frankly 5 GB is a joke. For those that don't have access to DSL or cable this COULD be an alternative. 5 GB? Dial-up potentially uses 17 GB a month. also the overage fees are outrageous $256 per GB for Verizon $503 per GB for at&t. There isn't ANY justification for that. WHile I understand that they can't offer caps like Comcast or Charter in the 250 GB range they certainly can offer say 25 GB. And $1 per GB is certainly enough for them to pay for costs and make some money. |
|
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob:Not unless some company starts up and offers 3G data at a much more reasonable price with a larger cap (20GB-30GB). The existing cell tower infrastructure can't support the load that raised caps would put on them. It depends on how you look at it. A neighborhood all downloading torrents at the same time? Yeah, no one will be able to use their cell phones. 1-2 people doing casual surfing downloading...it will probably be fine.
But, this is why god brought down the wonderful concept of QOS. If 10 people are all bit-torrenting at once then throttle them and other heavy users to low bandwidth to allow other users the ability to use it. Makes sense no? Kick back the heavy use users, while allowing the average users a good "user experience". Or we can take the illogical Comcast approach and just block everything under the sun (ok so they just blocked torrents).
If companies are really worried about the towers not supporting all the users, then we have bigger problems...like where are our monthly payments going to? I mean on average a person pays $50/month, times what? a million customers? This is 2009 and not 1999, either the companies get with the times or leave the industry. |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob:Not unless some company starts up and offers 3G data at a much more reasonable price with a larger cap (20GB-30GB). The existing cell tower infrastructure can't support the load that raised caps would put on them. Part of the problem is fiber, its taking more time then expected to get fiber delivered, so there is a delay, i think in a year or 2. Wireless is going to catch up to at least compete with DSL.
--
They Live... We Sleep...
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Rob:Not unless some company starts up and offers 3G data at a much more reasonable price with a larger cap (20GB-30GB). The existing cell tower infrastructure can't support the load that raised caps would put on them. That is what "first come first serve" is for! Also, data compression would help quite a bit. |
|
 NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:The existing cell tower infrastructure can't support the load that raised caps would put on them. The burden shouldn't be on the customer to keep his usage of "unlimited" data "fair," it should be the provider's obligation to do just that, provide service.
I agree that they can't support load. I don't agree that this is the problem of the consumer.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. |
|
NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | reply to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:Part of the problem is fiber, its taking more time then expected to get fiber delivered, so there is a delay, i think in a year or 2. Wireless is going to catch up to at least compete with DSL. And the underlying problem (why you need fiber to each cell site) is that the backhaul sucks.
AT&T's network is a perfect example. HSPA is capable of speeds well in excess of the iPhone's hardware (~3.something megabits/s). The reason you'll never see those speeds is because the backhaul (tower->tower links, either microwave, some sort of local loop, or otherwise) isn't fast enough for all the load.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | reply to vv1r3d
Not really.. Data compression can only do so much. When the file is already compressed, it's useless. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | It comes down to the following:
1. There's a limited amount of spectrum (varies by market/county/MTA/BTA) accessible to any site.
2. Cell site 'density' (allowing for 'reuse' of spectrum). Sites aren't cheap (equipment, NIMBY, power, backhaul). Sprint worked out well here in SoCal, as they purchased Nextel, and added their CDMA sites onto Nextel cell sites (bypassing NIMBY/site build and many slow regulatory processes).
3. Use (data/voice) management
Balancing the above 3 while attempting to make profit margins demanded by Wall Street isn't always an easy job.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to Nerdtalker
yep. They're T1's for the most part. Doesn't make much sense to me upgrade the hardware for anything above the regular ol 1.8mbps HSDPA when your backhaul is only 1.5mbps... The 3.6 and 7.2mbps upgrades are a waste of money until then. |
|
