dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
27

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to MIABye

Premium Member

to MIABye

Re: [iPhone] AT&T customers surprised by 'unlimited data' limit

See what AT&T has done? They have taken loyal customers and nickeled and dime them so bad that customers feel they want to get every ounce of bandwidth they are paying for. They are shooting themselves in the foot but will probably charge us for the first aid.

It's all about the shareholders, we know that. This congestion excuse is just a smokescreen, that's all. Every week it seems you hear about something else AT&T is doing to bend us over even worse.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

SThis congestion excuse is just a smokescreen, that's all.

It's not a smokescreen. 3G is designed for burst traffic, not streaming media. Consumers of large amounts of bandwidth are consuming it with long running streams. Which ties up resources on a tower. Which costs significant dollars to expand capacity on.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Let's preface this with as you mentioned as long as AT&T pays dividends you don't care. So it's painfully obvious the end game you desire.

That aside, one could have easily said that other carriers are dealing with the increase in traffic and do not have the same draconian throttling practices that AT&T has. One could also say that if it was designed for burst, not sustained use AT&T should have been much more aggressive in their LTE buildout. So if I hit my floating cap or whatever it may be 3 days into my billing cycle then that congestion which obviously AT&T says I cause magically disappears? No. Look at Verizon's policy, it makes more sense than AT&T's ever will. So all these people on tiered plans don't cause congestion? Hardly.
If I switch from an unlimited plan to a tiered plan this ap called congestion doesn't go away, just the $10 increments from my wallet.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

Let's preface this with as you mentioned as long as AT&T pays dividends you don't care. So it's painfully obvious the end game you desire.

That aside, one could have easily said that other carriers are dealing with the increase in traffic and do not have the same draconian throttling practices that AT&T has. One could also say that if it was designed for burst, not sustained use AT&T should have been much more aggressive in their LTE buildout. So if I hit my floating cap or whatever it may be 3 days into my billing cycle then that congestion which obviously AT&T says I cause magically disappears? No. Look at Verizon's policy, it makes more sense than AT&T's ever will. So all these people on tiered plans don't cause congestion? Hardly.
If I switch from an unlimited plan to a tiered plan this ap called congestion doesn't go away, just the $10 increments from my wallet.

Look, the point here is that the carriers aren't in this business because they love us, or because wireless data is a fundamental human right, or any other BS. They are in this business to make money.

So, shockingly, if there is a business model that is not making money, they will not support that business model.

Unlimited data when phones were 2G wasn't much data. Unlimited data when devices were HVGA and there was no streaming video content to be had on the internet except for SD crap on youtube wasn't much data. Unlimited data on devices with HD displays and the hardware to effectively drive them, with access to large libraries of HD media to legally stream, is a crapload of data.

Wireless data is not an unlimited resource. It costs real dollars to expand capacity at the tower.

When a user does not pay for their usage, they use more data. When a user pays for their data, they self-limit. If they don't self-limit, they generate additional revenue, which can then be plowed back into expanding tower capacity.

If the extra cost of using additional data was NOT a self-limiting factor, why else would all those who used to consume much more than 2-3GB of data a month whine and complain about having to either pay more for it, or suffer much slower throttled speeds?

Anyway, you're free to choose whatever carrier you want. Vote with your money.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

We just saw the report stating on average the tiered plan user actually consumes more bandwidth.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

We just saw the report stating on average the tiered plan user actually consumes more bandwidth.

Link?

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Was earlier in the thread...
»Cisco: Metered Users Consume More Data [28] comments

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

Was earlier in the thread...
»Cisco: Metered Users Consume More Data [28] comments

Where does that show Metered users consume more data?

"Consumers on tiered data plans are using more data than those on unlimited plans, says Thomas Barnett, Cisco's senior manager of service provider marketing. "

The comment is offline from the report. Interestingly, the comment is about average use. Of 1GB. Which is below the throttle point for "unlimited"

If the throttle is at 5%, then 5% of all unlimited users are using far more than the average user. Which is the problem. The product pricing supports the average user, not the outliers. The low outliers are your friend. You want those. The high outliers are money sinks. You want to make those people pay, or drive them down towards the average.

Per the linked article »www.lightreading.com/doc ··· edefault the top 1% account for 1/4 of all usage.

Read that again.

And again.

There you go.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Which is going down. It was 52%, now it is 24%. So it is going the opposite direction. It's the top 20 percent which is going to be the problem which represents the tiered users.

"Cisco has been studying tiered data plans at two global, Tier 1 wireless operators for the past 21 months. While at the beginning, the top 1 percent represented 52 percent of traffic on the networks, now that 1 percent only represents 24 percent of traffic, while the top 20 percent continues to grow in usage, Barnett says."

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

Which is going down. It was 52%, now it is 24%. So it is going the opposite direction. It's the top 20 percent which is going to be the problem which represents the tiered users.

"Cisco has been studying tiered data plans at two global, Tier 1 wireless operators for the past 21 months. While at the beginning, the top 1 percent represented 52 percent of traffic on the networks, now that 1 percent only represents 24 percent of traffic, while the top 20 percent continues to grow in usage, Barnett says."

That's much more due to the penetration of smartphones vs feature phones. »blog.nielsen.com/nielsen ··· by-2011/

Don't forget this is a cisco report. Which is going to support the thesis "you need to buy more cisco routers for your data centers"

Or, did you think cisco was just trying to help poor suffering unlimited data users on AT&T?

The MUCH more interesting statistic is that 1% of all data users drive any significant amount of data. 25% of all data. So, if the average is 1GB, and the sample size is 100, what is the median? Yeah, kinda hard to guess that one, but it's the one you really want to argue with me with.

Because the 1%ers drive the average WAY up.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Which again is going down. So they have seen the smartphone adoption rates explode, they try to buy T-mobile and fail. They fully admit that they could have expanded on their own.
Obviously I am not the only one who finds this practice ridiculous as it is being picked up on CNN, etc.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

Which again is going down. So they have seen the smartphone adoption rates explode, they try to buy T-mobile and fail. They fully admit that they could have expanded on their own.
Obviously I am not the only one who finds this practice ridiculous as it is being picked up on CNN, etc.

Let's try this again
100 user sample size
100GB total use
Average use: 1GB
1 user accounts for 24% of that use
99 user sample size
76GB total use
Average use: .76GB

Question: if top 1% use 24% of data... how much does 2% use? 5%?

Answer: Most likely: ~ 95% of all data.

So,
95 user sample size
5GB total use
Average use: 0.052GB

Magic!

You complain that's too high? That somehow the dropoff from top 1 to top 5 is much sharper? Ok, let's say the total for top 5 is 80% (24 + 20 + 16 + 12 + 8%)

Average use: 210 MB... wow, where have I seen THAT number before?

How about 70% (carve up the remaining 50% however you like...)

Average use: 315 MB... wow, where have I seen THAT number before?

So, here's MY guess. On AT&T last year, the average use per sub was 200MB on all data plans. Now, it's closer to 300MB. That's why they have that bottom offering... because most people actually fall at or below that mark.

That's the point. The top users still use all the data. And if the top users have no reason to limit themselves, they won't. But you have to build out to support those users, who generate no additional revenue.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

I didn't see it being a sample size of 100 people, maybe I missed that. The issues are they are blaming it on unlimited data account holders, and that number of top usage has gone down 25% while smartphone usage and adoption is exploding.

Understanding that obviously Cisco has an agenda as well, I understand you do as a stockholder to AT&T. But it's the top 20% that is growing and causing the issues, not that 5% that they blame. Their usage is going down.

To blame it on congestion is a smokescreen. You are right, us unlimited users are not as profitable. But to be told by an AT&T rep that congestion goes away when you move to a tiered plan made me laugh. Verizon's practice makes sense, AT&T's is ridiculous.

We will agree to disagree on this I guess.

trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
·AT&T U-Verse

trparky

Premium Member

I'm going to say this... AT&T doesn't care about you the customer, their network, or their employees. They have consistently shown to put their stockholders and executive bonuses before everything else.

It shows in everything they run, including their wireless and their absolutely pathetic excuse for a triple-play service called uHearse (that's uVerse for those that don't get the joke). Their "HDTV" service looks worse than a badly encoded YouTube video! I'm paying for HDTV, not YouTube!

They have neglected their wireless service to the point where I ran to Verizon Wireless because of the constant dropped calls I was getting in my area. What good is five bars of service when you can't place a damn phone call!

They have also neglected their copper line business to the point that more often than not the copper lines haven't been replaced in over 50 years. 50 years! This crap was installed when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in office! And now they expect to shove VDSL down these crappy lines? I got news for you... it ain't going to happen.

This company is the worst run company I've ever seen. I lump these guys in with Enron, Freddie Mac, and the other various companies we blame for the economic mess we're in.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to ptrowski

Premium Member

to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:

I didn't see it being a sample size of 100 people, maybe I missed that.

Add as many zeros as you want, the math is exactly the same. Thats how statistics works.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

You can devise any numbers you so choose as long as it pays your dividends. The throttling practice of AT&T is the the worst out of the carriers.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

You can devise any numbers you so choose as long as it pays your dividends. The throttling practice of AT&T is the the worst out of the carriers.

That's the summation of your argument?

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

For now yes. Why? Because I will continue to show it is a smokescreen to throttle under the guise of the 5%, and you will continue to show how we are not revenue producing and it's in AT&T's best fininacial interest. We will go back and forth not convincing either to change their mind.

I want speeds that are not throttled under false pretense, you want want maximum dividends paid to you. We can agree to disagree.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

For now yes. Why? Because I will continue to show it is a smokescreen to throttle under the guise of the 5%, and you will continue to show how we are not revenue producing and it's in AT&T's best fininacial interest. We will go back and forth not convincing either to change their mind.

If it's a smokescreen, switch to one that doesn't do it. Vote with your wallet. If AT&T doesn't make money because they don't offer unlimited unthrottled wireless data for all, then they'll offer it.

I want speeds that are not throttled under false pretense, you want want maximum dividends paid to you. We can agree to disagree.

You want a non-profit utility run by the government funded by the people, and I live in a country that embraces capitalism.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

We shall eventually when the ETF is at a reasonable amount. At this point Verizon would be a way to go if caught on one of the double data promotions. I don't want a non profit at all, nice try. I am just sick and tired of being repeatedly bent over more and more. Double the upgrade fee? Great! Throttle the data? Fantastic! Limited texting packages? Wonderful!

The congestion statement is false. Like I said when I called I was told there would be no congestion if I went to a tiered plan. Really? Horse crap.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

don't buy the service if you don't want to be "bent over".

It's a service, not a human right. I'm tired of people whining about how they're getting ripped off for not getting unlimited data.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

And I am tried of people whinin about congestion and dividends paid. So we can agree to disagree.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

And I am tried of people whinin about congestion and dividends paid. So we can agree to disagree.

I didn't ever say anything about congestion, did I? I just repeatedly pointed out that for-profit companies mostly care about profit. Since that's the world we live in, being outraged over a company doing that seems silly.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Silly me, I took this..

"It's not a smokescreen. 3G is designed for burst traffic, not streaming media. Consumers of large amounts of bandwidth are consuming it with long running streams. Which ties up resources on a tower. Which costs significant dollars to expand capacity on."

as your explanation of congestion.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

Silly me, I took this..

"It's not a smokescreen. 3G is designed for burst traffic, not streaming media. Consumers of large amounts of bandwidth are consuming it with long running streams. Which ties up resources on a tower. Which costs significant dollars to expand capacity on."

as your explanation of congestion.

Nope, it's the reality of how GSM works, and where the expense is. The rest of that post went on to explain how metered data use generated revenue to pay for expansion, while unmetered did not. So, in context, the issue isn't "congestion" - it's capacity utilization vs revenue. Congestion is YOUR red herring, since it's decoupled from any idea that there are costs associated with capacity.

Do you think each tower has unlimited capacity for long running data sessions? Does each tower have unlimited backhaul?

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Yes, and they are powered by unicorns eating fairy dust. Of course not.
It's not my herring, it's the BS being told to me from AT&T directly via SMS, email, and on the phone. And when the header on the email says Domestic Restricted Data Cap it is disturbing.

Increase capacity if there is an issue.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by ptrowski:

Increase capacity if there is an issue.

which costs money, which is raised by charging for use. We agree!

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ

AVD

Premium Member

said by JohnInSJ:

said by ptrowski:

Increase capacity if there is an issue.

which costs money, which is raised by charging for use. We agree!

yes, because ATT was losing money in the first place....

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

said by AVD:

said by JohnInSJ:

said by ptrowski:

Increase capacity if there is an issue.

which costs money, which is raised by charging for use. We agree!

yes, because ATT was losing money in the first place....

Exactly. They need these improvements to remain competitive. The nickel and diming is out of control.
ptrowski

ptrowski to JohnInSJ

Premium Member

to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

said by ptrowski:

Increase capacity if there is an issue.

which costs money, which is raised by charging for use. We agree!

You mean trying to push me to pay more for my use.