rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Throttling? 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 |
|
1 edit | 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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by WernerSchutz:And yes, if a buffet advertises "all you can eat" and someone wants to eat 40 lbs of food, they should be able to. I guarantee that the unaffected "all-you-can-eat" buffet patrons will have little sympathy for bulimics who believe they should be able to binge/purge all day just because "the dictionary says 'all' means *all*"
You've just placed yourself firmly within the irrelevant fringe.
Mark |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
1 edit | reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz: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. I can agree with this. The "All You Can Eat" Buffet near me, where I sometimes eat, has a set of rules on signs near the door which are repeated on the walls. These include the usual of "Eat what you put on your plate" (ie: Do not waste food) and has a Time Limit listed. These former give them the right to toss bulimics (who were mentioned up thread) due to Food Wasting as well as exceeding the eating time limit (they only really enforce the time limit when the restaurant is packed. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Actually, I remember hearing a legal case about this very topic many years ago. An all-you-can-eat pizza place had a couple of patrons removed. They sued, company settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. Restaurant nearly doubled their prices for the buffet.
The fact is, if you advertise unlimited, you flirt with legality. Most companies get away with it because people are too lazy to sue and it costs an arm and a leg. If an 'unlimited' case ever made it to court, the offending company WOULD lose. Just look at comcast removing the word 'unlimited' a while back. They did that to avoid getting the shit sued out of them. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:The "All You Can Eat" Buffet near me, where I sometimes eat, has a set of rules on signs near the door which are repeated on the walls. These include the usual of "Eat what you put on your plate" (ie: Do not waste food) and has a Time Limit listed. These former give them the right to toss bulimics (who were mentioned up thread) due to Food Wasting as well as exceeding the eating time limit (they only really enforce the time limit when the restaurant is packed. I don't know anyone (except a few activists here) who would say a group of bulimics are entitled to binge/purge at the all-you-can-eat buffet just because the buffet didn't qualify the word "all."
It's just common sense. Everyone knows "all" doesn't mean "all" in the literal sense. It's defined toward the 95% of patrons who understand the term within their own usage patterns.
Mark |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Just for curiosity I did ask around today(buffet). Most people I talked to do think all means all, as long as one is not wasting the food(not eating what one took). |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Lazlow:Just for curiosity I did ask around today(buffet). Most people I talked to do think all means all, as long as one is not wasting the food(not eating what one took). Or, purging what they did eat. Or...
It always comes down to those commonly-understood exceptions which mean "all" isn't literal, and most of us know that without the provider being pedantic just to satisfy a few irrelevant customers.
Mark |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | I thought I was pretty clear but apparently not. Most people I talked to said that all means literally all. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to rradina
said by rradina: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. Thats GSM TDMA for you (not sure if an iPhone and ATT do voice calls over WCDMA). CDMA2000 does very good Radio Resource Management, the phone can tune to multiple towers and use their bitstreams for error correcting each other. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | said by patcat88:Thats GSM TDMA for you (not sure if an iPhone and ATT do voice calls over WCDMA). CDMA2000 does very good Radio Resource Management, the phone can tune to multiple towers and use their bitstreams for error correcting each other. If I interpret this correctly, multiple cells are getting my packets and transmitting them and my phone can pick and choose which one to use. This is a good strategy to keep a stream flowing consistently but it seems very wasteful in crowded cells -- especially as cells get smaller and have to handle relatively fast moving mobile users. In that scenario, it seems likely that one mobile connection might consume bandwidth on half a dozen micro cells to make the hand offs work smoothly.
As I mentioned before, adding more and smaller cells seems to work for relatively stationary mobile users but there seem to be ever increasing complexities as cell counts, simultaneous connections and hand offs rise.
Is this a case of most mobile calls are relatively stationary and therefore not that many calls have to consume bandwidth on multiple, adjacent cells? |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by RARPSL:The "All You Can Eat" Buffet near me, where I sometimes eat, has a set of rules on signs near the door which are repeated on the walls. These include the usual of "Eat what you put on your plate" (ie: Do not waste food) and has a Time Limit listed. These former give them the right to toss bulimics (who were mentioned up thread) due to Food Wasting as well as exceeding the eating time limit (they only really enforce the time limit when the restaurant is packed. I don't know anyone (except a few activists here) who would say a group of bulimics are entitled to binge/purge at the all-you-can-eat buffet just because the buffet didn't qualify the word "all." It's just common sense. Everyone knows "all" doesn't mean "all" in the literal sense. It's defined toward the 95% of patrons who understand the term within their own usage patterns. Mark No it`s not. You have no idea what you`re talking about. Average bandwidth usage grows over time. It`s not a few, small minority of users who brought AT&T`s network to its knees. It`s the fact that so many iPhone users actually used their data plans.
You can`t use an all-you-can-eat buffet example. People`s appetites don`t grow exponentially over time. The buffet has no way to augment its supply of food above and beyond what it normally does. Your argument is meaningless.
Your 5% number is completely arbitrary. You have no hard data to back it up. Ethically it`s also baseless. If you advertise unlimited, you cannot discriminate against those who you don`t think are `relevant`. That sort of discrimination is against the law. Whether it involves discriminating against race or gender, or discriminating against high bandwidth users or low bandwidth users, you just can`t do it *if you want to advertise unlimited*. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to rradina
said by rradina:As I mentioned before, adding more and smaller cells seems to work for relatively stationary mobile users but there seem to be ever increasing complexities as cell counts, simultaneous connections and hand offs rise. Is this a case of most mobile calls are relatively stationary and therefore not that many calls have to consume bandwidth on multiple, adjacent cells? Not necessarily,
quote:
again in non-CDMA networks when the user behaviour changes, e.g. when a fast-travelling user, connected to a large, umbrella-type of cell, stops then the call may be transferred to a smaller macro cell or even to a micro cell in order to free capacity on the umbrella cell for other fast-travelling users and to reduce the potential interference to other cells or users (this works in reverse too, when a user is detected to be moving faster than a certain threshold, the call can be transferred to a larger umbrella-type of cell in order to minimise the frequency of the handoffs due to this movement);
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handoff |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | That's a good idea. If the micro cells are on a different piece of spectrum, that would work really well.
The only thorn in this strategy is how well do "large cells" work in a city with lots of tall buildings? It's pretty easy to imagine how the every-street-corner micro cells work...there's always one within line-of-sight. Of course given the traffic in a big city, we need a definition of "fast travelling" user. |
|
