dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
2
« unfortunatelyCharging Per Byte for LTE? »
This is a sub-selection from irony
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

elray to icp1

Member

to icp1

Re: irony

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/ga ··· eligion/
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

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

ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI

ssj4android

Member

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.
« unfortunatelyCharging Per Byte for LTE? »
This is a sub-selection from irony