dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
787
share rss forum feed

icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO

irony

No irony at all with the other half of verizon saying the opposite on the FIOS side (for now)

»Verizon Still Doesn't See the Need for Caps
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: irony

No irony at all considering network capacities are significantly different between the two offerings.

icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO

Re: irony

said by openbox9:

No irony at all considering network capacities are significantly different between the two offerings.

Major irony, because they are the same company. What you are saying is its ok not to invest in network capacity for wireless and just charge for that lack of foresight? Huh, sound like anyone else in the market these days??
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: irony

No, they are actually different companies, with Verizon Communications, Inc. owning a 55% share of Cellco Partnership, d.b.a. Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless has, and is, investing heavily in wireless infrastructure and capacity.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: irony

correct. VZ was NOT allowed to fully buy out all of their "companies" to create the wireless network. Instead they had to create VZW with VodaFone and with the actual name of CellCo Partnership. And that is actually required to stay if not; they can be split. That is why you'll never be able to talk to customer service on landline side about VZW and the other way around.

It's like at&t mobility and at&t. They're actually TWO separate companies. at&t, Inc and at&t mobility,LLC.

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
I don't have a article to back it up, because I can't find it, but there was a article put out within the last year talking about VZW saying they will throttle people and they are already putting it into practice, you never know, VZW has had a long time to sit back and see what happens with AT&T going to caps and overages on the cell data, they may just go the way of T-Mobile and throttle you after a certain usage limit.

Also VZW and FiOS are technically two separate companies just so you know. That's the way it's setup.

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: irony

VZW added the throttling verbiage to it's ToS last year and there were a few articles/discussions on the matter.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 recommendation

said by icp1:

said by openbox9:

No irony at all considering network capacities are significantly different between the two offerings.

Major irony, because they are the same company. What you are saying is its ok not to invest in network capacity for wireless and just charge for that lack of foresight? Huh, sound like anyone else in the market these days??

And just how much wireless network capacity do you think is available to buy and deploy? FCC Auctions typically yield 10-12 Mhz.

No amount of money can change the laws of physics.

That "anyone else" knew well they were going to oversubscribe their capacity, but did not care, nor did the vendor that gave them the exclusive sales contract, self-assured that their flock would lay down the coin regardless of the quality of service delivered.

»www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gad···eligion/

mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

Re: irony

Just curious, since usually the congestion is located to just the cell tower (at least as far as I know and from what I've read) what's to stop them from just throttling all users on that tower when it's over subscribed down to a slower capacity that the tower can handle (so let's say they run 1Gbps to the tower, and with all the current people on it they are trying to pull 1.5Gbps and it throttles everyone back to a max usage of 800Mbps) Or is this technology already in use today?

Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!

ssj4android
Redefining Reality

join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI

Re: irony

If the congestion is only at the tower, why would they limit the total amount of bandwidth to something less than full capacity?
Just do some QoS to distribute the bandwidth fairly.