T-Mobile Lifts 1GB Cap From New Android PhoneCompany tells us limits are "still being reviewed" ( old news - 08:52AM Thursday Sep 25 2008) tags: business · wireless · T-Mobile USWhen exploring T-Mobile's new Android-driven G1 phone last Tuesday, we were the first to note that the device came with a 1GB cap, seriously stunting the benefits of a high speed device on a next-generation network. Not only was there a cap, but the fine print on the T-Mobile website warned users that they'd be throttled back to 50kbps should they exceed it. I asked T-Mobile just how strictly they planned to enforce this cap, and was not only informed it was a "soft" cap, but that they'd be removing the cap reference from their terms of service -- for now. "We removed the 1GB soft limit from our policy statement, and we are confident that T-Mobile G1 customers will enjoy the high speed of data access over our 3G network," says company spokesperson Amanda Ginther. "The specific terms for our new data plans are still being reviewed and once they are final we will be certain to share this broadly with all customers." According to Ginther, the company still reserves the right to "temporarily reduce data throughput for a small fraction of our customers who have excessive or disproportionate usage that interferes with our network performance." In other words, they still plan to cap and throttle users if network congestion makes it necessary, they just removed the 1GB reference to diffuse what was quickly becoming a public relations firebomb. When users get their hands on the new phone next month, we'll keep an eye peeled on just how stringently these network management policies are enforced.
Related:- T-Mobile Cooking Up $50 Unlimited Voice Plan?
- Motorola Demonstrates LTE In Barcelona
- T-Mobile's Retention Pricing Goes Live
- New T-Mobile Loyal Customer Pricing Goes Live
- T-Mobile 3G Launch Schedule Leaked
- T-Mobile Quietly Reinstates Handset Upgrade Fee
- T-Mobile: 21 Mbps In 2010
- T-Mobile Drops 21 Mbps HSPA+ On Philly
|
 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Old vs New small print
Their OLD small print:
Data: If your total data usage in any billing cycle is more than 1GB, your data throughput for the remainder of that cycle may be reduced to 50 kbps or less. Your data session, plan, or service may be suspended, terminated, or restricted for significant roaming or if you use your service in a way that interferes with our network or ability to provide quality service to other users. Their NEW small print:
To provide the best network experience for all of our customers we may temporarily reduce data throughput for a small fraction of customers who use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. Your data session, plan, or service may be suspended, terminated, or restricted for significant roaming or if you use your service in a way that interferes with our network or ability to provide quality service to other users.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|  | 
John Keels
@appstate.edu
| Re: Old vs New small print Unlike the WIRED internet providers who do not generally have valid excuses for not having enough bandwidth I can see where the wireless providers have to watch bandwidth more carefully. EVDO/HSDPA etc are much more bandwidth limited in the sense that they cannot support massive bandwidth for 100's of users at a time. Also, especially in rural areas that have these services it is not unheard of for a tower to be connected through one or TWO T1's which really doesn't provide massive bandwidth for users. I suppose that in cities the tower backhaul is more likely fiber or OC3, ATM, etc that has more bandwidth. Even then the limitations of wireless mean that they cannot always provide endless bandwidth to users.
For wired services I'd argue that its a bunch of B&*&S&*& when comcast and others argue that they don't have enough bandwidth for everyone though. AT&T, Charter, TW, etc same thing. | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Old vs New small print said by John Keels :
Unlike the WIRED internet providers who do not generally have valid excuses for not having enough bandwidth I can see where the wireless providers have to watch bandwidth more carefully. EVDO/HSDPA etc are much more bandwidth limited in the sense that they cannot support massive bandwidth for 100's of users at a time. Also, especially in rural areas that have these services it is not unheard of for a tower to be connected through one or TWO T1's which really doesn't provide massive bandwidth for users. I suppose that in cities the tower backhaul is more likely fiber or OC3, ATM, etc that has more bandwidth. Even then the limitations of wireless mean that they cannot always provide endless bandwidth to users.
For wired services I'd argue that its a bunch of B&*&S&*& when comcast and others argue that they don't have enough bandwidth for everyone though. AT&T, Charter, TW, etc same thing.
1 GB is still a joke. So is the 5 GB cap everyone has especially for $60 a month. Not to mention $256 per GB overage Verizon charges. | |
| | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Old vs New small print said by BF69  :said by John Keels :
Unlike the WIRED internet providers who do not generally have valid excuses for not having enough bandwidth I can see where the wireless providers have to watch bandwidth more carefully. EVDO/HSDPA etc are much more bandwidth limited in the sense that they cannot support massive bandwidth for 100's of users at a time. Also, especially in rural areas that have these services it is not unheard of for a tower to be connected through one or TWO T1's which really doesn't provide massive bandwidth for users. I suppose that in cities the tower backhaul is more likely fiber or OC3, ATM, etc that has more bandwidth. Even then the limitations of wireless mean that they cannot always provide endless bandwidth to users.
For wired services I'd argue that its a bunch of B&*&S&*& when comcast and others argue that they don't have enough bandwidth for everyone though. AT&T, Charter, TW, etc same thing.
1 GB is still a joke. So is the 5 GB cap everyone has especially for $60 a month. Not to mention $256 per GB overage Verizon charges. I agree with you both. While wireless providers have a far better argument for bandwidth management techniques, 5GB or less is atrocious. I'm glad to see T-Mobile is responsive to the market - unlike VZW, ATT, and Sprint...
--
"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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Old vs New small print said by schja01 :said by tiger72 :I agree with you both. While wireless providers have a far better argument for bandwidth management techniques, 5GB or less is atrocious. I'm glad to see T-Mobile is responsive to the market - unlike VZW, ATT, and Sprint... Actaually Sprint doesn't cap it's 3G Phones. Only Data Cards and the optional "Phone as a Modem" Plan. My $15/mo Data Plan shows "Unlimited". That's actually useless. The only reason people like my friend that lives a few miles out of town would want to use a mobile company for interent is to use it on a computer. In which case there is a cap. One isn't likely to go over 5 GB surfing the web on a cell phone anyways. | |
| | | | | | | 
schja01
I need to get a life.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL
clubs: 
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Old vs New small print said by BF69 :said by schja01 :said by tiger72 :I agree with you both. While wireless providers have a far better argument for bandwidth management techniques, 5GB or less is atrocious. I'm glad to see T-Mobile is responsive to the market - unlike VZW, ATT, and Sprint... Actaually Sprint doesn't cap it's 3G Phones. Only Data Cards and the optional "Phone as a Modem" Plan. My $15/mo Data Plan shows "Unlimited". That's actually useless. The only reason people like my friend that lives a few miles out of town would want to use a mobile company for interent is to use it on a computer. In which case there is a cap. One isn't likely to go over 5 GB surfing the web on a cell phone anyways. But since this discussion pertains to the Android phone and not a computer you are mixing apples and oranges. Other carriers limit Data on 3G phones but not Sprint which was the point of my original reply. | |
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | So basically cell phone companies don't want to get into the fixed residential broadband market. Lame, yse. Uncalled-for, no. | |
| | | | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Old vs New small print said by iansltx :So basically cell phone companies don't want to get into the fixed residential broadband market. Yes give on on 20 million potential customers. I'd fire the CEO that has that kind of thinking. | |
| | | | | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Old vs New small print Not when it's more profitable to have them on landline, and don't forget that half the major wireless companies are also telephone companies, and Sprint is now dependent on cable companies to fund Clearwire. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Old vs New small print said by EPS :Not when it's more profitable to have them on landline, and don't forget that half the major wireless companies are also telephone companies, and Sprint is now dependent on cable companies to fund Clearwire. Well let's see at&t is the phone company here. So who would Verizon offering wireless internet at reasonable rates and higher caps and lower overage fees be cannibalizing thier business? It seems it would be ADDING to it since Verizon doesn't have a landline footprint anywhere near here. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Old vs New small print said by BF69 :said by EPS :Not when it's more profitable to have them on landline, and don't forget that half the major wireless companies are also telephone companies, and Sprint is now dependent on cable companies to fund Clearwire. Well let's see at&t is the phone company here. So who would Verizon offering wireless internet at reasonable rates and higher caps and lower overage fees be cannibalizing thier business? It seems it would be ADDING to it since Verizon doesn't have a landline footprint anywhere near here. maybe not near you, but Verizon has a massive landline footprint - second only to ATT... They're not going to have varying packages for various regions. They're a national carrier so they have national rate plans. And since they don't want to undercut themselves in the regions they serve, they're offering the same thing everywhere.
--
"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 | |
| | | | | | | | | 
uroberto
join:2001-05-01
Piscataway, NJ | Re: Old vs New small print Verizon wireless has overage fees. at&t and Sprint don't. | |
| | | | | | | Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Old vs New small print My experience is that cell providers are clinging to the dinosaur known as TDM and seem reluctant to jump into backhaul solutions that are robust and don't cost a ridiculous amount of money. For what they spend (waste) on DS1's, they could get a 5x5 or sometimes a 10x10 Mbps ether circuit. For what they waste on DS3's, they're in the neighborhood of 100x100 Mbps ether. Obviously this scenario is more likely to take place in urban areas, but why not use P2P microwave for backhaul in the sticks?
I just don't understand why they don't packetize EVERYTHING at the tower and bring it back to concentrators / hubs via ether which then hand off to the PSTN over their precious DS3's.
It makes me cringe every time I see an order for a DS1 to a cell tower at work (pretty much a weekly thing).
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement... | |
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Old vs New small print Uh, how exactly do you plan to get this Ethernet to the cell site, if not over telco fiber, DS3, or DS1? I know around here the telco's 'metro ethernet' product (and the cable company, too, for that matter) is transported over SONET with media converters at each end, just like anything else.
It is cheaper to get a GigE transport than it would be for OC-48 for whatever reason, but that doesn't apply when you get below that level of bandwidth.
T1s are down to $150 to $200 a month with no mileage within the wire center, though. That's a lot better than the thousand bucks plus mileage they were charging 10 years ago.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | | | | | Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Old vs New small print I never said anything about not using telco fiber. What I said was that I can't believe that in this day & age, copper TDM is still so prevalent. My suggestion for its replacement is a combination of GPON / EPON, CWDM / DWDM, SONET, and microwave where optical isn't cost effective.
The point I'm trying to make with my rant is that regardless of the physical medium cellular voice and data traffic takes to get from point A to point B, I'd really like to see everything get packetized at the cell site and routed through mostly IP-based networks (heck, why not just use SIP trunking?).
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement... | |
| | | | | | 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Re: Not perfect but it seems our fire reached someone's @ss @TMO said by kamm :Now this is the kind of corporate behavior I would expect at least - even though you tried to pull some trick (they always try) at least have the decency and pedal back when you get caught. Again, far from perfect - stop calling it unlimited when it clearly isn't etc - but better than before. You realize they didn't change anything at all...right? Just dropped a static number that people can point to. In fact, this type of ambiguity is actually worse than stating what the cap is. | |
| | | 
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| Re: Not perfect but it seems our fire reached someone's @ss @TMO said by ReVeLaTeD :You realize they didn't change anything at all...right? Just dropped a static number that people can point to. In fact, this type of ambiguity is actually worse than stating what the cap is. No matter what reasonable number they come with it, there will be unhappy people out there. This language is merely meant to control the subscriber who mods the phone and uses it as a modem. You know this hack will appear soon enough.
I highly doubt that normal use of 3G apps on the phone will raise any eyebrows over at T-Mobile. And besides, T-Mobile's primary responsibility is to maintain a network that can process voice calls. That takes priority over data, and they should be commended on that.
--
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." -- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
| |
| | | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Not perfect but it seems our fire reached someone's @ss @TMO said by biggbrother :said by ReVeLaTeD :You realize they didn't change anything at all...right? Just dropped a static number that people can point to. In fact, this type of ambiguity is actually worse than stating what the cap is. No matter what reasonable number they come with it, there will be unhappy people out there. This language is merely meant to control the subscriber who mods the phone and uses it as a modem. You know this hack will appear soon enough. What "hack" are you talking about?
Any smartphone out there can be tethered like that, without any hack (sans iTards' phone but that's a scam anyway.)
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
| | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| said by ReVeLaTeD :said by kamm :Now this is the kind of corporate behavior I would expect at least - even though you tried to pull some trick (they always try) at least have the decency and pedal back when you get caught. Again, far from perfect - stop calling it unlimited when it clearly isn't etc - but better than before. You realize they didn't change anything at all...right? Just dropped a static number that people can point to. In fact, this type of ambiguity is actually worse than stating what the cap is. WHile it is true there's at least one change: no 1GB cap exists per se so TMO cannot use it as a measuring tool anymore.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
| 
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ | looks like Looks like the folks at Google read BBR. | |
| |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: looks like not Google. T-mobile... | |
| MIXZ1
join:2001-01-02
Mexico
·Prodigy Infinitum
2 edits | What time is it?
What time is it? |
Of course if you transpose the minute hand and the second hand, things fall into line. | |
| | 
NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
·VOIPo
| Re: What time is it? said by MIXZ1 :Is it me, or do the two clocks totally disagree? Not even half-hour time zones like Afghanistan would account for 2:47 and 3:11 being displayed at the same time. Of course if you transpose the minute hand and the second hand, things fall into line. Perhaps the analog clock was designed at the same factory that made the Pet food and now the infant formula in China?? | |
| |
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | not sure where you get 3:11. All I see is a digital clock that says 2:47pm, and an analog clock which says 9:11... | |
| | | MIXZ1
join:2001-01-02
Mexico
·Prodigy Infinitum
| Re: What time is it? said by tiger72 :not sure where you get 3:11. All I see is a digital clock that says 2:47pm, and an analog clock which says 9:11... Yikes! Thanks for catching that. Typing before coffee got me. | |
| 
Qoiz
join:2005-06-26
·Cox HSI
| not everybody can be happy even if they made it totally unlimited and you could download eighteen million gb per sec if you wanted to(assuming it was possible) people would then start complaining that their kids never do anything but download with that damn phone
--
I have had Direcway/Hughes for years. I've had trouble with them some until the latest system DW7000. It is blazing fast 1 to 1.5 kbps down most of the time- Kath159 | |
| ShadezeRO
join:2006-04-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL | The screen is .... Crooked o_0
Might get annoying after a while | |
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: ATT fine print said by CtrlAltDel :is in CAPS.  Here's the ATT Data Plan: UNLIMITED BULLSHIT! At&t has the same 5 GB as everyone else. | |
| | | 
CtrlAltDel
WORSE. THAN. CARTER.
Arbitrary Text
join:2001-12-30
Backyard
 ·1and1
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: ATT fine print said by BF69 :said by CtrlAltDel :is in CAPS. Here's the ATT Data Plan: UNLIMITED BULLSHIT! At&t has the same 5 GB as everyone else. You say Bullshit without providing a link? Welcome to the internet. lol | |
| | | |
|
|
Not perfect but it seems our fire reached someone's @ss @TMO