dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
812
share rss forum feed


treichhart

join:2006-12-12

You know something

You know something I am getting sick and tired of everybody bitching and complaining that they want more bandwidth but not willing to pay for higher bandwidth. Just think these companys have to pay more and more money for equipment to handle the higher bandwidth. Yes it does cost alots of money for newer and faster technology to handle Larger Bandwidth and Users.

Also just think if they upgrade the equipment and bandwidth pipe how do you think they are going to get there ROI back? I dont care how much they have they would have to get it back some how that means they would charge more for higher bandwidth.

I dont blame these mobile carriers for throttling it just going to show if you want more bandwidth your just going to pay more for higher bandwidth end of story.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

You know something I am getting sick and tired of all these people that have no clue about an argument and yet they spout off their nonsense as though they do. Let's try some education:

They have $39 billion to spend on T-Moble, yet they don't have money to invest in their backhaul? They made $3.6 billion this previous quarter, yet they don't have money to invest in their backhaul? They have more spectrum than Verizon and yet they are in a spectrum crunch and can't survive without T-Mobile?

All of that without them having to charge additional rates. But even then, they did just implement caps with overages so they can now have access to another revenue stream. So how is it they are giving up "all" their bandwidth and not making vast amounts of cash on it?



RiseAbove
Premium
join:2004-01-30
reply to treichhart

Do you know anything about high end optical switches or routers? Let me clue you in on them. I work for a company that does about 1billion dollars or more in sales to AT&T and Verizon in terms of upgrading their backhaul and wireless network. We have thousands and thousands of patents on this technology and continually improve and revolutionize this product to the point that data transmission costs are becoming insanely cheap. Also to power that equipment is getting cheaper and cheaper.

This metered billing and data scarcity crap that providers are pulling now is an utter joke and just like when text messaging first came out nothing but a money grab. Their costs for data transmission are dropping year after year, no data scarcity exists nor does it need to be metered to the levels it is now.

So basically what I am saying is when these companies control 80% of the market it's ridiculous to set such rules. Both you and them can shove it if you think it's fair by any stretch.



ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to treichhart

Wow, spoken just like someone who is trying to get a WISP off the ground...



treichhart

join:2006-12-12
reply to treichhart

Ok please tell me why in rural spots the bandwidth cost so freaking high then?

because for 10x10 meg line from cable company is freaking 1600 dollars.

for a full 45meg DS3 connection to me would cost me 5-6k so dont tell me me the crap is getting cheaper because its not!!!!



RiseAbove
Premium
join:2004-01-30

said by treichhart:

Ok please tell me why in rural spots the bandwidth cost so freaking high then?

because for 10x10 meg line from cable company is freaking 1600 dollars.

for a full 45meg DS3 connection to me would cost me 5-6k so dont tell me me the crap is getting cheaper because its not!!!!

Did you really just write that and think you made a point? Please go take your CompTia A+ cert classes again.


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to treichhart

Are you kidding me?


Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to treichhart

said by treichhart:

You know something I am getting sick and tired of everybody bitching and complaining that they want more bandwidth but not willing to pay for higher bandwidth. Just think these companys have to pay more and more money for equipment to handle the higher bandwidth. Yes it does cost alots of money for newer and faster technology to handle Larger Bandwidth and Users.

Also just think if they upgrade the equipment and bandwidth pipe how do you think they are going to get there ROI back? I dont care how much they have they would have to get it back some how that means they would charge more for higher bandwidth.

I dont blame these mobile carriers for throttling it just going to show if you want more bandwidth your just going to pay more for higher bandwidth end of story.

Look dude, yes i agree in some ways people r gonna have to pay its not free nor cheap but what AT&T is doing is takin us back to the days of Ma-Bell, now the FCC broke them up just for the reason that they where chargin whatever they wanted, and where a monopoly, idc really if they did get T-Mobile and i think everyone agrees BUT that leaves us with VERIZION AND AT&T thats it, sprint wont last on its own, this is my concern and so is millions more, AT&T has a history that goes all the way back for 30 years of doing this kind of crap, NO I WILL NOT GIVE THEM THE CHANCE, customers have gave them the chance for the last 30 years and im gettin quite fed up with giving them chances, but its alright cause soon ill be a SPRINT customer just because of this merger, yes im a AT&T customer, after they said they wanted to buy T-Mobile i lost all trust in AT&T. Sure T-mobile should have the right to sell, i understand completely that its owned by a german company and they should be able to get out if they so do wish, but that doesnt mean they should sell to the most worse company, oh and the spectrum idea is completly lies, sure AT&T may not be liein that they need the spectrum but like Verizons CEO said THEY AT&T did not effectively put the spectrum to use in fact its a big mistake how they r using it on the towers..., but of course they believe that its not their fault and instead the gov, so in that case the gov should make more just for AT&T, and no one else.

AT&T if this merger does happen good luck to them, throttleing?? ha thats funny, caps (oh ya they where the ones that wrote the FCC Net Nuetrality)

People are willing to pay but people are tired of gettin screwed over and over and over, wall street is the only thing that AT&T looks to (thats fine i have no problem with that) but saying that our customers love caps is a complete lie, people r willing to pay 15 just to have a smartphone not 25-30.., i pay 15 for data just cause i have wi-fi, AT&T believes that they can walk over who ever, but karma is a ____ and it will only bite them and the stock holders when its said and done

PS: THIS ISNT CANADA!!

little video for yall
»www.hulu.com/watch/4163/saturday···rnestine

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to RiseAbove

said by RiseAbove:

Do you know anything about high end optical switches or routers? Let me clue you in on them. I work for a company that does about 1billion dollars or more in sales to AT&T and Verizon in terms of upgrading their backhaul and wireless network. We have thousands and thousands of patents on this technology and continually improve and revolutionize this product to the point that data transmission costs are becoming insanely cheap. Also to power that equipment is getting cheaper and cheaper.

This metered billing and data scarcity crap that providers are pulling now is an utter joke and just like when text messaging first came out nothing but a money grab. Their costs for data transmission are dropping year after year, no data scarcity exists nor does it need to be metered to the levels it is now.

So basically what I am saying is when these companies control 80% of the market it's ridiculous to set such rules. Both you and them can shove it if you think it's fair by any stretch.

you are right to, man, i mean what has AT&T done in the last week.. they now offer unlimited minutes on family plans AS LONG AS you have family txtin...........um id rather txt threw data then give these people my money

sparc

join:2006-05-06
reply to Skippy25

They have $39 billion to spend on T-mobile because it's an enormous value to them. If T-mobile had to be replicated by AT&T, it would cost far far far more than $39 billion to do that. When the sale was first announced, there were many that indicated there could be somewhere near $40 billion in cost savings alone. i.e. AT&T basically gets T-mobile for free.

Plus they get all that done immediately without waiting years for a real build out.

If you were a business executive in AT&T, there's little alternative but buying T-mobile. Keeps the investors happy, your fat compensation keeps rolling in, compatible technologies, and the customers have little choice with only two other primary competitors.



iLive4Fusion
Premium
join:2006-07-13
reply to treichhart

said by treichhart:

Ok please tell me why in rural spots the bandwidth cost so freaking high then?

because for 10x10 meg line from cable company is freaking 1600 dollars.

for a full 45meg DS3 connection to me would cost me 5-6k so dont tell me me the crap is getting cheaper because its not!!!!

Its expensive to provide service to little hick towns. Trust me I know. It does suck, but not much you can do about it. Were getting LTE in many rural areas this year from Verizon, so i can get 15-50 Mbit/s down and I have unlimited hotspot so when I am at my lake house I will have unlimited broadband, otherwise its a still expensive $50 for 5GB or $80 for 10. Cheaper than cable.

If you want wired broadband, move to SK, or the UK where they are supposedly getting 90% DSL availability.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport


iLive4Fusion
Premium
join:2006-07-13
reply to sparc

said by sparc:

They have $39 billion to spend on T-mobile because it's an enormous value to them. If T-mobile had to be replicated by AT&T, it would cost far far far more than $39 billion to do that. When the sale was first announced, there were many that indicated there could be somewhere near $40 billion in cost savings alone. i.e. AT&T basically gets T-mobile for free.

Plus they get all that done immediately without waiting years for a real build out.

If you were a business executive in AT&T, there's little alternative but buying T-mobile. Keeps the investors happy, your fat compensation keeps rolling in, compatible technologies, and the customers have little choice with only two other primary competitors.

They could just buy Spectrum from one of the spectrum hoarding company. All they are going to do is turn around and shut down T-Mobiles HSPA+ infrastructure and migrate everyone over ASAP. They claim they are doing it for the AWS spectrum. But thats pathetic, its not like they are going to build out rural areas with AWS spectrum anyways. 700Mhz is needed, they are already behind Verizon and this isn't going to help.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport


tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

said by iLive4Fusion:

They could just buy Spectrum from one of the spectrum hoarding company.

Who would that be? Who would they buy from, and which spectrum is available?

All they are going to do is turn around and shut down T-Mobiles HSPA+ infrastructure and migrate everyone over ASAP.

Indeed they are.

They claim they are doing it for the AWS spectrum. But thats pathetic, its not like they are going to build out rural areas with AWS spectrum anyways. 700Mhz is needed, they are already behind Verizon and this isn't going to help.

Haha, right. Well, tell that to ATT. You can build out a good sized network with AWS. They'll use their 700mhz spectrum in some areas, but they have more AWS spectrum than 700 spectrum already. With T-Mobile they'll have even more in many markets, plus they'll have nationwide spectrum.

I'm always disappointed when I see people who equate poor network engineering (Clear/ATT), or business decisions (TMO/ATT/Sprint) with spectrum limitations.

Whatever the spectrum, so long as the network is properly engineered (with proper cell sizes, microcells/picocell deployments, and correct carrier-usage it doesn't matter what spectrum is used - all spectrum can be used for rural or urban deployments.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara


treichhart

join:2006-12-12
reply to treichhart

@ iLive4Fusion there is really no such things as unlimited data plans with any mobile carrier its all capped at 5GB that is something they dont tell you about intill you get your lovely phone bill.



hoch51

@sunflowertelco.com
reply to tiger72

buying t-mobile will not accomplish any rural return for at&t. T-mobile is city oriented with contracts with rural carriers to suplement their lines. In eastern Colorado, we use a Cross-tie with Viaero for service. Their network is shakey at times and service goes from excelent to marginal in a heartbeat. spectrum has less to do with it than poor distribution oif towers and maintenance on that equipment. They just do not want anyone else getting their hands on the system as it will impact their size ratio to Sprint and Verizon. Both companies need t- mobile also. Their signal structure sucks out here. The viaero contract and many others like it are the pursued portions for these giants in communications.



tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1

said by hoch51 :

buying t-mobile will not accomplish any rural return for at&t. T-mobile is city oriented with contracts with rural carriers to suplement their lines. In eastern Colorado, we use a Cross-tie with Viaero for service. Their network is shakey at times and service goes from excelent to marginal in a heartbeat. spectrum has less to do with it than poor distribution oif towers and maintenance on that equipment. They just do not want anyone else getting their hands on the system as it will impact their size ratio to Sprint and Verizon. Both companies need t- mobile also. Their signal structure sucks out here. The viaero contract and many others like it are the pursued portions for these giants in communications.

on an interesting note, I *just* went on another drive from St Louis to Denver and experienced precisely what you were referring to with Viaero. "Edge" data all the way, but not very reliable. Marginally faster than TMO's GPRS til Hayes, KS.

On a more interesting note, however, I of course have T-Mobile (and Sprint, but I didn't have it with me during that trip), while the other 2 people with me had an ATT iPhone and a Verizon iPhone. Logic would dictate that the cheap guy with T-Mobile would have the worst service, followed by the ATT customer, then the Verizon one. Especially in the Rocky Mountains, right?

Totally wrong.

The friend with the Verizon iPhone had to consistently switch to wifi for internet access, since cellular data continuously failed. The ATT iPhone fared far better, however it surprisingly lost data entirely while my little ol T-Mobile phone had 4 bars of fast HSPA+ available in multiple places south east of Estes Park, as well as north of Grand Lake into RMNP. In fact, a running theme for the trip was me making fun of their iPhones for not being able to access data, and them using my GalaxyS on T-Mobile to check their facebook pages, etc.

Go figure.

T-Mobile: Faster. More Bars. No dropped data.

And cheaper.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara