said by karlmarx:
It's very simple.
You have a tower. It has an antenna that can 'see' all the phones for several miles.
When they built the tower, they ran a circuit (usually a T-1 or a couple of them). In the old days, before IP networks, when you picked up the phone, the tower would assign you a 'switched network' connection. That was 1/24th of a T-1. So, if you had only a single T-1 running to the tower, you could support 24 calls at once. Profits RISE!
Enter packet switched network. Packet switching basically allows you to run about 8-10 times more calls on the same network, without upgrading the circuit. That's a big capital expenditure, but, getting 10 times the calls means it was worth it. Profits RISE!
Enter.. .. DATA!!!!
Suddenly, you've got this device that uses DATA. Now, DATA, unlike a voice call, uses a LOT more bandwidth than a voice call. Suddenly, that T-1, which used to be able to handle 200 voice calls, can only handle 20 voice calls if someone is downloading at 1mb/sec. Ouch. THAT'S what they are complaining about. People complain about dropped calls, etc, not because the signal is bad, but because one person is suddenly using what 100 people used to use.The SOLUTION, is to run MORE BANDWIDTH to the towers. Again, a capital intensive solution, because they need to invest a lot of money on the backbone. AND, the amount they need to spend to service '1' more customer, will cost them 10times what it USED to cost them to service that same customer who only used voice. PROFITS FALL!
Now, they realize this. And the reason they don't want to spend MORE MONEY, is because the RETURN on their investment for a DATA user, is MUCH SMALLER than the RETURN they get from a voice user. PROFITS FALL!
It's very simple. The cost to upgrade their networks to provide an acceptable level of service for the users is not profitable enough for them to want to do it.
They would much rather force everyone NOT to use DATA, so they don't need to invest any more money, and can continue to rape the customer. RAPING THE CUSTOMER= PROFITS RISE!
hey KarlMarx, minus the last 2 sentences in this post you've done a nice job in this post clarifying things for me....(btw, im in the 25% you mention in your sig,
i haven't been a fan of these companies(with their stupid "weekend minutes" "anytime minutes" bla bla bla) and i think they've been colluding to maintain high cell plan prices but if the things you say are accurate, i can't really say i'd blame the ATTs, Verizons and Sprints for not wanting to upgrade just so more and more bandwidth hogs can continue to eat up capacity...not sure if its true but another thread mentioned ATT's recent claim that 3% of customers were using 40% of the capacity...