Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Throttling? While I hope it is not the way they choose to go, they could be using a throttle similiar to the fap satellite uses.
As far as coverage, they provide a map which looks like Tmobile. |
|
|
|
| said by Lazlow:While I hope it is not the way they choose to go, they could be using a throttle similiar to the fap satellite uses. As far as coverage, they provide a map which looks like Tmobile. Like all mobile services, they include legal language that allows them to drop you for ANY reason and also change TOS by publishing changes to their web site:
»www.datajack.com/terms
DataJack may suspend or discontinue providing the Service generally, or terminate your Service, either in whole or in part, at any time in its sole discretion.
Meaning that if they want to they can boot you if you truly become an annoyance by using more GBs/mo than they think is reasonable.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| Usually though they'll use more specific, vague language (if that even makes sense) when caps are present. |
|
| said by Karl Bode:Usually though they'll use more specific, vague language (if that even makes sense) when caps are present. I suspect they will allow unlimited use unless provoked by very extraordinary circumstances and maybe only if T-Mobile complains about a specific user at a specific cell location. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Like all mobile services, they include legal language that allows them to drop you for ANY reason and also change TOS by publishing changes to their web site: It just makes sense that it can't be "unlimited." There's not enough radio spectrum to do that. If everyone dropped their cable or DSL, and went for this, we'd find out in about two days how "unlimited" it is.
I just read an article the other day about how the wireless industry (including the international ITU) is pushing for more spectrum to cope with the growing use of wireless personal-communication (and computation) devices.
This whole preoccupation with the word "unlimited" reminds me of when I was a kid and saw iron pyrite in a dry desert gully one day. I suddenly felt all giddy and light-headed. I'd stumbled upon an immense amount of gold! It took 5-10 minutes to realize it was too good to be true.
There's no way the available radio spectrum could be "unlimited." It defies the laws of physics. Now, everyone should let that 5-10 minute feeling soak in.
Mark |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Lazlow:While I hope it is not the way they choose to go, they could be using a throttle similiar to the fap satellite uses. As far as coverage, they provide a map which looks like Tmobile. Like all mobile services, they include legal language that allows them to drop you for ANY reason and also change TOS by publishing changes to their web site: » www.datajack.com/termsDataJack may suspend or discontinue providing the Service generally, or terminate your Service, either in whole or in part, at any time in its sole discretion.
Meaning that if they want to they can boot you if you truly become an annoyance by using more GBs/mo than they think is reasonable. I honestly don't think that part of the TOS is legal. I believe that businesses need to provide a reason, a canned reason could work, to why they booted you. Otherwise this will turn into the next Verizon fiasco (people getting booted from the Verizon network for using X amount of data and never told exactly why). |
|
| There is no free lunch As we all bash the newcomer there are some enticing aspects to this company's offering that exceed the mouth watering "no cap" deal (I'm sure this cannot last for long before the abusers bring them to thier knees).
1. For the sometime traveler to major metro areas the month to month terms are enticing. I don't need 3G for more than 3 to 4 months a year. The ability to turn it on and off at will is a nice feature for some.
2. The $40 per month price is very reasonable even if there were a cap. I have paid $10 a night for web access in some hotels and RV parks.
So far I have not found a 3G plan that doesn't require a full year (or more) contract. In my case 3G costs would drop from $720 a year to $120-$160. But even if I kept it on for the full year it would only be $480.
I'm goona give em a try. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
2 edits | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Throttling? said by amigo_boy:There's no way the available radio spectrum could be "unlimited." It defies the laws of physics. Now, everyone should let that 5-10 minute feeling soak in. Mark It can be nearly unlimited if you split cells. Look at campus wifi systems. 15mbit/s for 1000 or 2000 sq feet AP, each AP on unique frequency (of the 3) doing frequency reuse. If you don't have enough spectrum, SPLIT CELLS YOU CHEAP *******!!!! If each cell was the size of a wifi cell, or a tower on each street corner, there would be no problems, in Asia they put base stations on every street corner, no bandwidth problems there.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PHS_A···74as.jpg |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
There are a couple of backend providers that resell T-Mobile service like this and they all say unlimited, so I'm guessing your prognosis is correct. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to patcat88
There was an article awhile back about how MetroPCS used microcells to offload traffic in high-use, small areas.
Also, 20 MHz of spectrum (which T-Mobile has in places) is enough to push out a DOCSIS 1.1 channel worth of bandwidth over wireless. Put enough cell sites so that you're serving about as many customers as the cableco does and you'll have no problem giving everyone the bandwidth they want. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:It can be nearly unlimited if you split cells. Look at campus wifi systems. You're talking about a different band which naturally limits itself to 1000-2000 sq. ft. To create a mesh network like that would be something entirely different than what we have now.
And, even within that band you'd invariably have limits. Or, be forced to split to a finer mesh to serving fewer people per access point.
Nothing's unlimited except a dedicated pipe. In that case, you get exactly the limit you paid for -- and you pay for unused capacity just so you'll always have a connection that meet's your peculiar "unlimited" needs.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by patcat88:It can be nearly unlimited if you split cells. Look at campus wifi systems. You're talking about a different band which naturally limits itself to 1000-2000 sq. ft. To create a mesh network like that would be something entirely different than what we have now. And, even within that band you'd invariably have limits. Or, be forced to split to a finer mesh to serving fewer people per access point. Nothing's unlimited except a dedicated pipe. In that case, you get exactly the limit you paid for -- and you pay for unused capacity just so you'll always have a connection that meet's your peculiar "unlimited" needs. Mark So put up more cell towers. Same friggin` thing. The wireless carriers charge obscene prices for obscene plans (why does receiving a call use up minutes?), and make obscene profits as a result. Considering spectrum is tecnically a public good leased to them, it`s their obligation to provide optimum service to all their customers. Put up more towers! |
|
| reply to regor3
Re: There is no free lunch said by regor3:As we all bash the newcomer there are some enticing aspects to this company's offering that exceed the mouth watering "no cap" deal (I'm sure this cannot last for long before the abusers bring them to thier knees). 1. For the sometime traveler to major metro areas the month to month terms are enticing. I don't need 3G for more than 3 to 4 months a year. The ability to turn it on and off at will is a nice feature for some. 2. The $40 per month price is very reasonable even if there were a cap. I have paid $10 a night for web access in some hotels and RV parks. So far I have not found a 3G plan that doesn't require a full year (or more) contract. In my case 3G costs would drop from $720 a year to $120-$160. But even if I kept it on for the full year it would only be $480. I'm goona give em a try. The number of `abusers` is so small they really has no effect on the overall picture. How can such a tiny % of users bring a network `to its knees`? AT&T`s network wasn`t brought to its knees by a few iPhone users. It was strained by all the users using their connections. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Throttling? said by amigo_boy:You're talking about a different band which naturally limits itself to 1000-2000 sq. ft. To create a mesh network like that would be something entirely different than what we have now. Use lower transmit power plus encode each digital signal with properties for reject or detection by the client, IE »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_divis···e_access . |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by patcat88:It can be nearly unlimited if you split cells. Look at campus wifi systems. ... Nothing's unlimited except a dedicated pipe. In that case, you get exactly the limit you paid for -- and you pay for unused capacity just so you'll always have a connection that meet's your peculiar "unlimited" needs. Mark We need to define unlimited. If we're talking about providing your customers as much as they can eat with a relatively low bit rate (say 128Kbps or 256Kbps), perhaps that's possible. Of course what's the definition of a "broadband" connection?
I think you had it right before you made the dedicated pipe exception. Even a dedicated pipe isn't unlimited. I've read that we have not yet hit the limit of a fiber optic cable but eventually there will be a limit, regardless of how big it is.
That's why this discussion is rather pointless without an extremely narrow definition of what is being provided. What does 3G mean in terms of bandwidth? Isn't that definition different between carriers and based on modulation techniques? (At least I've read where AT&T's 3G is slightly faster than Verizon's because they fundamentally use different techniques.) What about latency or packet loss? Shouldn't those be factored into the equation? I've seen ping times on my 3G connection range from a reasonable 100ms to thousands of milliseconds. Is it OK if I can get unlimited bandwidth with 2000ms latency?
I agree that bandwidth can be magnified by lowering transmission power and adding cells. This seems plausible provided customers are reasonably stationary. However, what happens when they get mobile? Can I really expect consistent streaming audio or video while driving down a micro-cell street that required a hand off every block? And even if that works well for a few folks, does it work well for hundreds without butchering the stream? And what about the ever increasing complexity of the backhaul with regards to tracking to which cell the packets need to be sent?
My calls get dropped all the time as I travel between cells. To be fair I am an iPhone user and obviously AT&T has some challenges in this area. But if hand offs are imperfect with respect to large cells and the measly bandwidth requirements of voice-quality streams, I think the wireless industry has a way to go to claim quality unlimited, low-packet-loss, low-latency, megabit or multi-megabit bandwidth to truly mobile users. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rradina:We need to define unlimited. If we're talking about providing your customers as much as they can eat ... I would say you hit the point right there. When we define "as much as they can eat" it becomes an average of "they."
When the buffet calculates how much to charge, it considers how much the average customer eats. If a group of boulemics show up, and plan to spend the day binging and purging, I'm pretty sure the buffet will throw them out. And, average customers (for whom "all you can eat" was defined by) will completely understand.
Now, I'm sure someone will say buffet's aren't a good analogy. But, they'll object regardless of what analogy is used. To them, "unlimited" is a literal word (even if 95% of those it is targetted at never reach a limit, and thus experience "unlimited" service in the sense the provider used the term).
Mark |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:said by amigo_boy:You're talking about a different band which naturally limits itself to 1000-2000 sq. ft. To create a mesh network like that would be something entirely different than what we have now. Use lower transmit power plus encode each digital signal with properties for reject or detection by the client, IE » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_divis···e_access . CDMA is a dying standard.
--
My Blog 2.0 |
|
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by rradina:We need to define unlimited. If we're talking about providing your customers as much as they can eat ... I would say you hit the point right there. When we define "as much as they can eat" it becomes an average of "they." When the buffet calculates how much to charge, it considers how much the average customer eats. If a group of boulemics show up, and plan to spend the day binging and purging, I'm pretty sure the buffet will throw them out. And, average customers (for whom "all you can eat" was defined by) will completely understand. Now, I'm sure someone will say buffet's aren't a good analogy. But, they'll object regardless of what analogy is used. To them, "unlimited" is a literal word (even if 95% of those it is targetted at never reach a limit, and thus experience "unlimited" service in the sense the provider used the term). Mark English applies to 100% of readers, not to the 95% a crook decides to redefine words for.
Maybe they should read up on the definition.
# having no limits in range or scope;
# outright: without reservation or exception
# inexhaustible: that cannot be entirely consumed or used up; "an inexhaustible supply of coal"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The reason they can (still) get away with this shit is because the FCC and the FTC are NOT doing their job.
Let's look at an analogy here. Do you think that the FDA would let a producer get away with selling a subpar product just because 95% of the customers would not get sick ? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by WernerSchutz:Maybe they should read up on the definition. Why should they when, for all intents and purposes, they encountered no limit?
You're sounding like the group of bulimics at the "all-you-can-eat" buffet, after their 6th round of binging and purging, and being ejected, turning to the other patrons, furiously shaking a dictionary at them: "the word 'all' is well-defined. You people need to...."
You might want to look up the word "irrelevant."
Mark |
|
1 edit | It is that 5% of "bulimics" that pushed technology so that you are no longer on dial-up, running a 386 or have electric power.
We are willing to pay for what we use, we just have an issue with deceptive advertising. Maybe it is time for the government to do their job.
And yes, if a buffet advertises "all you can eat" and someone wants to eat 40 lbs of food, they should be able to. If they advertise 1 plate, or 2 lbs of food, whatever clearly defined, it is fair to enforce a limit.
Words are supposed to have clear meaning for all parties involved. Only crooks and lawyers benefit from obfuscating the clear communication. |
|
