Android Users Consume 870 MB of Data Per month While Consuming 2.5 GB of Data per Month Over Wi-Fi Friday Sep 28 2012 16:34 EDT September data from the NPD Group indicates that Android users now consume an average of 870 MB of data per month over cellular networks, and 2.5 GB per month on Wi-Fi networks. Rather unsurprisingly, the younger you are the more data you use: NPD found that 18-24 year olds used 1.05 GB per month on average, while users aged 55 or older used 750 MB per month. A study last month from NPD found that the majority of wireless customers consume less than 2 GB per month. The firm also found that T-Mobile had the hungriest data users, with 11% of T-Mobile subscribers using more than 3GB per month, compared to 4% for AT&T and Sprint and 3% for Verizon. When wired or wireline ISPs justify their low usage caps you'll usually see them say something along the lines of "95% of our users will never reach the cap," and they're right; but they're aiming those juicy per gigabyte overages at the users of tomorrow, not the users of today. |
 silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Sep-28 5:05 pm
Interesting.This kind of disproves all the mainstream media outlets who claim Sprint's unlimited plans are unsustainable. If only 4% use more than 3GB, same as At&t, then I would Sprint users do not abuse the unlimited. Marketing unlimited brings people in and if they only use 870MB, Sprint can market them a service and suffer no greater impact than the limited plans offered by Verizon and At&t. | |
|  | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Interesting.The catch here is that, in many places, Sprint's network is not conducive to using a lot of data. When Sprint turns on LTE, I'd expect them to jump to roughly the same level as T-Mobile. | |
| | |
1 edit |
Re: Interesting.I'm on a grandfathered Verizon unlimited package. I don't use much data away from WiFi, but the problem is that my phone ( Thunderbolt) has trouble using 3G AND 4G data out in suburban DC. I would use MORE data if I could, but it's a real problem with my phone and I don't want to pay money for another phone to see if that helps ( Another Thunderbolt doesn't have as many problems and the data usage is a LOT higher because it gets used more by another person). I wonder if that many people are having data connectivity problems like me? | |
| | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to iansltx
True. Sprint does have a decent sized 4G WiMax footprint though. I have no idea how that performs for phones since Sprint does not have WiMax in my state, but I would think that would deliver decent speeds to users. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Interesting.WiMAX is nothing if not inconsistent on the mobile side. In some areas you can get 10 Mbps down or better and 1.5 Mbps up. A mile away, you might have no 4G at all, or 4G that is slower than good 3G. | |
| | | | |  djdanskaRudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA
kudos:4 |
djdanska
Premium Member
2012-Oct-1 12:18 pm
Re: Interesting.said by iansltx:WiMAX is nothing if not inconsistent on the mobile side. In some areas you can get 10 Mbps down or better and 1.5 Mbps up. A mile away, you might have no 4G at all, or 4G that is slower than good 3G.
Isn't that the truth or what! My laptop has clear wimax. Trying to get a good connection is near impossible. I can go half a block away and have my speeds go from 16Mb down to 1Mb down. | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2 |
Re: Interesting....and yet I'm still tempted to grab a FreedomPop data stick, knowing full well what speeds are like here (I won't get the Spot because its speeds are poor compared to the stick...but then again the stick might have poor speeds as well). | |
|
| | |
to silbaco
said by silbaco:This kind of disproves all the mainstream media outlets who claim Sprint's unlimited plans are unsustainable.
Unlimited is perfectly sustainable, it just requires a greater infrastructure investment than tiered plans. The question is, should a provider make such an investment for a small minority of its customers, or is it better to monetize them? Verizon and AT&T have chosen the latter. Sprint and T-Mobile the former. The question that has yet to be answered is this: Will the simplicity of unlimited attract enough people to make Sprint and T-Mobile more competitive? If the answer is "Yes" then they have made the right choice and a handful of data hogs won't matter. If the answer is "No" then they've gained a bunch of data hogs for nothing. My hunch is that this decision will prove to be a smart one for T-Mobile and Sprint. People like "unlimited", even when they don't need it, and they've proven willing to pay a premium for it in the past. Sprint and T-Mobile aren't even charging a premium for it, so it stands to reason they'll gain quite a few customers this way. | |
|
| |
Caps scaring users?I have Verizon grandfathered unlimited as well. Aside from the fact that I don't watch a lot of video on my too-small-to-watch-much-video phone screen, I use the 3G/LTE for what it is: backup/mobile Internet. I don't consider it a replacement for my wireline service (I often update my phone on wifi at my house), and don't want to even entertain that mindset, as I don't believe I'll be unlimited indefinitely.
I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA  ·Time Warner Cable
|
elray
Member
2012-Sep-28 6:03 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by coreyography:I have Verizon grandfathered unlimited as well. Aside from the fact that I don't watch a lot of video on my too-small-to-watch-much-video phone screen, I use the 3G/LTE for what it is: backup/mobile Internet. I don't consider it a replacement for my wireline service (I often update my phone on wifi at my house), and don't want to even entertain that mindset, as I don't believe I'll be unlimited indefinitely.
I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.
You're right on the money. Contrary to the dribble we read here daily, caps are not intended to create overage charges, but to train subscribers to keep their consumption in check - far below the "up to" ceiling. Far away from the DSLR forum crowd, the average consumer simply doesn't use that much, to begin with, but without the introduction of caps, would learn to expect to watch full-length HD movies on their QXGA tablets. And while the caps chosen are arbitrary, and far far below the theoretical capacity of the airwaves, given the pathetic spectrum allocation methods our government has chosen, they remain perhaps the best tool to educate the masses and keep response times and throughput reasonable. | |
| | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Sep-28 6:26 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?When it comes to caps on wireless, I agree with you. Battling congestion is the main goal in mind when it comes to wireless caps. As we have seen it has not proven to be as effective as the companies wished it would. This is especially true on satellite. But at this point there is really nothing more effective out there. Throttling and QoS can improve overall performance, but they have little impact on eliminating congestion.
However, when it comes to wired services I think it is more about money than anything else. We are seeing caps on even FTTH services. The caps on these services are high enough that they do essentially nothing to counter peak usage, but are excellent at raking in money for usage used on off-peak times. With the exception of some DSL providers that have copper-fed DSLAMs, congestion on wired services is really not that big of an issue. Especially on some of the major providers we have, such as Comcast.
Now with that said, I honestly have a hard time feeling sorry for people who complain about 300GB+ caps. The overwhelming majority of people will not use that much data at all, and if they do, more often than not a large amount of that traffic is illegally acquired content that was downloaded in violation of your ToS anyway. | |
| | | | | |
Heh213
Member
2012-Sep-28 11:18 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by silbaco:Now with that said, I honestly have a hard time feeling sorry for people who complain about 300GB+ caps. The overwhelming majority of people will not use that much data at all, and if they do, more often than not a large amount of that traffic is illegally acquired content that was downloaded in violation of your ToS anyway.
I can somewhat see where you're coming from, but I am pretty data hungry  . I think it can (even at 300GB+) become a bigger issue with more people in a household. (even more so as data needs increase). Takes a healthy bit of effort to use up 300GB as a single person even with steam, Netflix, and whatnot, even at fairly high speeds. Divide that by a household of 4 and that leaves you with 75GB per person, or roughly 2.5GB a day which is far from impossible to do in the age of streaming media, large games, and more. The answer I hear a lot is people should go to a business plan etc, which I think is a silly to have to go to unless you're actually running a business. | |
|
| | | |
to elray
Problem is these services are being marketed as a replacement for wireline services to some, particularly those in rural areas. They also have crazy low caps even though they're the alternative to DSL marketed to the masses in the "sticks". | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable
|
elray
Member
2012-Sep-29 2:28 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by jjeffeory:Problem is these services are being marketed as a replacement for wireline services to some, particularly those in rural areas. They also have crazy low caps even though they're the alternative to DSL marketed to the masses in the "sticks".
Welcome to the 21st century. Wireless deployment means you can have a high-speed connection where wired is cost-prohibitive. The rural folk aren't, by and large, willing to pay what it would cost to provide higher speed wireline broadband service. And when LTE is deployed in those areas, wired services will begin to fold without monopoly powers. Wireless caps are arbitrary, but I wouldn't call them "crazy low". It is the expectations of this forum, that ultra-low-density rural subscribers should enjoy "universal service" that includes FTTH, at our collective expense, so they can use their Roku/Netflix and Vonage - that's crazy! | |
| | | | | | |
Heh213
Member
2012-Sep-29 5:42 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by elray:Welcome to the 21st century. Wireless deployment means you can have a high-speed connection where wired is cost-prohibitive.
The rural folk aren't, by and large, willing to pay what it would cost to provide higher speed wireline broadband service. And when LTE is deployed in those areas, wired services will begin to fold without monopoly powers.
Wireless caps are arbitrary, but I wouldn't call them "crazy low".
Being forced to because there is no other options for service is hardly "willing". Many areas don't have any "wired services" other than phone lines for dialup. As far as the caps go I still call them crazy low, even if we did have 4G service out here w/ Home Fusion it's $60/month for 10GB, $6 a GB isn't cheap. Highest plan is 30GB with home Fusion for a small $120/month. And that's ignoring the expensive overages. | |
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable
1 edit |
elray
Member
2012-Sep-29 6:11 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by Heh213:Being forced to because there is no other options for service is hardly "willing". Many areas don't have any "wired services" other than phone lines for dialup.
As far as the caps go I still call them crazy low, even if we did have 4G service out here w/ Home Fusion it's $60/month for 10GB, $6 a GB isn't cheap. Highest plan is 30GB with home Fusion for a small $120/month. And that's ignoring the expensive overages.
You didn't shop very well. You can get 50GB for $70/month. But I do agree that the initial rollout of fixed-LTE is a bit stingy. That will change. Rural folks do have options. But it remains simple fact that a majority of non-subscribing rural households are simply disinterested, or unwilling to pay - even when offered urban rates. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Heh213
Member
2012-Sep-29 8:01 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by elray:Rural folks do have options.
But it remains simple fact that a majority of non-subscribing rural households are simply disinterested, or unwilling to pay - even when offered urban rates.
Fair enough, going to be interesting to see what things are like in a few years. Who knows what might come along and change the playing field. I really wish I could get something lower latency than sat without massive restrictions (I've pulled 60GB in a month due to Hughes' free zone), but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Probably will happen a day after I move out of here :P. | |
| | | | | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
2 edits |
to elray
My rural telecom is now running fiber to every customer in their service area, no matter how remote they are. The beauty of small companies. They are willing to invest in infrastructure and make long term investments. By mid next-year I will have ftth and I am in the middle of a corn field on a gravel road with my nearest neighbor over a half mile away. It will take a long time for my telco to make a serious return on their investment, but they have all the numbers figured out and strongly disagree with you. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that rural households are unwilling to pay urban rates. That simply is not true. At least not in this area. And when it comes down to price per mbps, it is even more so.
BTW, EVDO sucks as your only internet connection. Especially in rural areas where a single T1 feeds the tower and is shared by all. But most rural people cannot get that plan anyway because Sprint does not target rural people. | |
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable
|
elray
Member
2012-Oct-2 6:34 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by silbaco:My rural telecom is now running fiber to every customer in their service area, no matter how remote they are. The beauty of small companies. They are willing to invest in infrastructure and make long term investments. By mid next-year I will have ftth and I am in the middle of a corn field on a gravel road with my nearest neighbor over a half mile away. It will take a long time for my telco to make a serious return on their investment, but they have all the numbers figured out and strongly disagree with you. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that rural households are unwilling to pay urban rates. That simply is not true. At least not in this area. And when it comes down to price per mbps, it is even more so.
BTW, EVDO sucks as your only internet connection. Especially in rural areas where a single T1 feeds the tower and is shared by all. But most rural people cannot get that plan anyway because Sprint does not target rural people.
There is plenty of evidence. Read the government surveys. Read the industry data. Read the articles Karl posts here on rural penetration rates. Examine Verizon's balance sheet. That said, you're right, small, privately-held or cooperatively-run independent companies may prove that they can do better math than the MBA-driven big boys, and find a way to re-wire low density settings cost-effectively. Please let us know all the gory details when it is deployed. Of course EVDO sucks as a primary connection, but if the real-world cost to reach your abode is $10K and up, and you and yours aren't willing to pay for it, what do you expect? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to elray
elray,
Looks like you're in Santa Monica, CA. Funny thing with California: Even in the sticks ( You know, like Oxnard or Indio) there, you can get FiOS...
You simply live in a different world with little frame of reference. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Heh213
Member
2012-Sep-29 11:01 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by jjeffeory:elray,
Looks like you're in Santa Monica, CA. Funny thing with California: Even in the sticks ( You know, like Oxnard or Indio) there, you can get FiOS...
You simply live in a different world with little frame of reference.
Didn't know Oxnard was the sticks xD. I'm in California also, but I'm still isolated enough to where I don't have any internet, next town is 50ish miles away. Nobody is going to bring service out here unless they're forced to. | |
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable
|
to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:elray,
Looks like you're in Santa Monica, CA. Funny thing with California: Even in the sticks ( You know, like Oxnard or Indio) there, you can get FiOS...
You simply live in a different world with little frame of reference.
You would think so. But the last time I called Verizon (having seen the Fios trucks in the neighborhood for years), they still would not turn us up. About six feet outside my window, there is a now-10Gbps municipal fiber loop. Its been there for over a decade. But neither the city nor AT&T will let us access it. We are stuck with cable modem service as our only hard option - which in recent years has been a highly reliable and inexpensive service. I'm not complaining. My "frame of reference" is simple economics. I don't waste money on frivolous items, things I don't need. We don't need "unlimited" broadband, we don't need FTTH speeds. Don't need wireless broadband; "smart" phones have no appeal. If, however, I "needed" any of the above, I would be willing to pay the market price to obtain same - not expect the taxpayers to underwrite my "need". | |
|
| | | | | |  redxii
Mod
join:2001-02-26
SW Michigan |
to elray
The only option I have is 3G and get the best signal from Verizon. I would pay any monthly rate for DSL or cable but I don't have the cash (at least $10000) to pay the cable company to extend their service about 1500 feet. | |
| | | | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable
|
elray
Member
2012-Oct-2 6:53 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by redxii:The only option I have is 3G and get the best signal from Verizon. I would pay any monthly rate for DSL or cable but I don't have the cash (at least $10000) to pay the cable company to extend their service about 1500 feet.
If that 1500 feet is on your property, I'd think you could cut the cost substantially with a direct-bury cable. But if they have to plant 10 utility poles to bring in an aerial or trench and conduit, that's a realistic charge. If you're not planning on moving, if you don't have the cash, but you're "willing to pay any monthly rate", why not finance the $10K - that's about $200/month to retire the debt on a five-year amortization? | |
|
| | | | | |
to elray
Thanks, been here (21st Century) for a while. The caps are pretty low for regular home usage for a family of 4.
The rural folks, by and large, probably can't pay what they would be charged for the services. I dunno, I'm not rural, but I've been there and understand that they also need some higher speeds. Nothing insane, just something along the lines of 10 Mbps would be great and shouldn't be that expensive to provide... | |
| | | | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Sep-29 11:02 pm
Re: Caps scaring users?said by jjeffeory:Thanks, been here (21st Century) for a while. The caps are pretty low for regular home usage for a family of 4.
The rural folks, by and large, probably can't pay what they would be charged for the services. I dunno, I'm not rural, but I've been there and understand that they also need some higher speeds. Nothing insane, just something along the lines of 10 Mbps would be great and shouldn't be that expensive to provide...
Slow speeds and low caps. It is nearly impossible to escape both in a rural area unless your telco deploys fiber. If you go the DSL route and can get it, it will probably be unlimited but only be ~1mbps. If you go the HomeFusion/Exede route it will be fast, but suffer from extremely low caps. A 30GB cap is very low, and it is the highest you can buy. | |
|
| | |
to coreyography
said by coreyography:I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.
I know my co-worker is. He's on AT&T with a 2GB cap. | |
| |  trparkyAndroid... get back here
MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:4 ·AT&T U-Verse
|
to coreyography
I have unlimited on Verizon 4G LTE too. But I usually stay below 2 GBs of usage anyways. Last month I used only 1 GB. The month before that, half a GB.
I don't even come close to the 2 GB caps that most users have now. I'm not really worried. Will I give up unlimited? No, because I don't want to have to worry about some arbitrary number just yet. | |
| | djdanskaRudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA
kudos:4 |
to coreyography
said by coreyography:I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.
It's easy to tell which people have what carriers. The higher the need for wifi, the worse his or her cap is. I have unlimited with t-mobile and i don't even think of using wifi anymore. Hell, my tmo connection is faster than any free wifi at starbucks or mcdonalds. | |
|
 Lone WolfRetired
Premium Member
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1 |
Philly.comYesterday there was an story about data usage in my local newspaper and Philly.com. quote:
As you might imagine, there's a vast difference in how much data different smartphone users actually go through. And while iPhone users were once way ahead of the pack, that's no longer true, according to Validas.com, a Texas company that helps clients manage wireless accounts.
Validas says that in 2012, iPhone owners have so far used an average of 568 megabytes per month - little enough to avoid throttling, if they were on an unlimited-data plan, or overage charges. But the story was different for the highest-end users. The top 5 percent of iPhone users averaged nearly three gigabytes per month, and the top 1 percent of users topped five gigabytes per month.
And owners of some Android smartphones left them in the dust. Topping the list were owners of an HTC Thunderbolt sold for use on Verizon's new LTE network. The top 5 percent of Thunderbolt users averaged more than nine gigabytes per month, and the top 1 percent used more than 27 gigs. Owners of the Motorola Droid Razr weren't far behind.
Read more: »www.philly.com/philly/bu ··· 7o1JHNKt
| |
|  IowaCowboyIowa native
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1 |
Home vs AwayThe only Wi-Fi network that I use (and trust) is my secure home network. When I am on the go, I use the Verizon Wireless network.
Can't wait to get the iPhone 5, my upgrade eligibility date on Verizon is November 30, 2012. That LTE radio in the iPhone 5 will be nice. | |
| |
••••• |  JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA |
JohnInSJ
Premium Member
2012-Sep-28 7:28 pm
wifi blanketWifi at home, work, gym, grocery store, auto shop, coffee shop.
No wifi when commuting 20 minutes to/from work, or otherwise actually mobile...
My cellular usage is under 1GB - wifi usage is > 4GB. total would be 5-7GB/mo. | |
|  ArkhmAsylmEvrythng I need isn't really what I want
Premium Member
join:2006-02-22
Saint Paul, MN
ARRIS SB6141
|
Android user averagesWhen my wife and I upgraded to Android phones, we bought into the Verizon upgraded 4 GB plan for each of us. On average, I'll use between 2-3 GB per month, and she hit a new high point of 1.75 GB last month.
My usage is racked-up mostly at work or on the road; my wife's is on the bus and at home - both on the VZW network (I've just purchased a router to help with the lousy coverage in our neighborhood). We are in the 45-50y range of users. | |
|  88615298
Premium Member
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298
Premium Member
2012-Sep-28 10:17 pm
Caps to to increaseOK if not for Wi-Fi the AVERAGE Android user would use 3.3 GB a month. That's more than the standard 2 GB data package. Also that's right now. Usage has been increasing by 40% a year. In 5 years the AVERAGE user will be using 18 GB. What's the big deal about 4G if you can't use it much? Might as well go back to a basic phone for calling and get a Kindle Fire or such for all the things you have to do on a phone with Wi-Fi. | |
| BinkVillains... knock off all that evil
join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4 |
Bink
Member
2012-Sep-29 4:41 am
250MB a MonthI run Jelly Bean and use about 250MB a month—and that probably because, more often than not, I can access Wi-Fi when working from home or at a client’s site. | |
|  aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-N56U
Asus RT-N65
4 edits |
aaronwt
Premium Member
2012-Sep-29 9:29 am
only 870MB...My monthly billing period ended on September 26th with my LTE Verizon phone(ReZound) with unlimited data. I hit 18GB of data usage this past monthly billing period.
I rarely use WiFI when out of the house since I typically have a 4G connection at least 95% of the time in the DC area, which is many times faster than WiFi networks.
At home my phone does connect to my 5Ghz WiFi to use my FiOS 150/65 connection, but I don't typically use my cell phone at home. It just sits there on the charger base. So data usage over wifi is minimal for my phone.
Since uploading all my Music to the Amazon cloud, I've finally been able to have a device with access to all my music. Since none of the cell phones or music players had enough storage to store all of my music. So that is why my data usage is so high. And when I spend a bunch of days in a month listening to the music all day at work, in addition to the normal listening while in the car, the data usage really climbs way over 10GB | |
| |
••••• |  antdudeA Ninja Ant
VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:5 |
If I had a moible phone with a data plan...... I would use way more! :P | |
| | |
Average is meaninglessWhen the skew is so high. Median is a much more meaningful number. Karl you can't draw all your conclusions based on the mean average. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas |
They aren't caps, they are tiered pricingAny meaningful analysis has to take this into account. It's not that you can't go over your "cap" on cell data, it's that you pay more. | |
| bklass
Premium Member
join:2012-02-06
Canada
kudos:4 |
bklass
Premium Member
2012-Sep-29 3:38 pm
I don't consume anything on the internetCould we please stop calling data use 'consumption'? Nothing is being produced, we're renting time based access to cables. | |
|  ARGONAUTHave a nice day.
Premium Member
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
kudos:1 |
ARGONAUT
Premium Member
2012-Sep-29 4:01 pm
No problems here..Straight Talk 4G "unlimited everything & no conrtact" $45
No cappy, I'm happy. | |
| |
•••• | spartan002
Premium Member
join:2008-12-22
Brampton, ON |
no large deployment of Wi-Fi in canadaI average 1 to 8 gigs on data, as there is a large lack of free public WiFi in Canada. I am sure I would use less if I could use WiFi. Thankfully I got unlimited plan | |
| | |
Guess I'm among the top 10%With Wind, Unlimited Canada-Wide Talk/Text+Unlimited Data. Not as fast as the Telcos, but still racked up ~1.5GB this month. And I am relying on Mobile data for a small part, I keep Airplane Mode when travelling in subways (as it's hard to get connections, I might be taking a rest anyway, and it saves some battery), and I have Wifi at school and home.
Wii-Fi is a whole new ballpark. Thanks to Unlimited Internet (Distributel) and School's Wifi, I have racked up an impressive 17GB of data usage. And that consists of watching Youtube videos (High Quality), tTorrent, or streaming/storing videos from Dropbox.
Neither of them would have been possible with Rogers. | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
.
·
