pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 8:53 am
BSWith the ridiculously low data caps now in place, what economic incentive does AT&T have to fix things? If anything, improving the network to handle more data would result in less revenue from overages. | |
|
| Steve B Premium Member join:2004-08-02 Auburn, WA
1 recommendation |
Steve B
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 9:00 am
Re: BSExactly. AT&T and the like do not want to spend the capital to improve their network. They want to sit on their profits and nickel and diming their customers to death. I mean, why improve the network when you can sit tightly on what you have and squeeze more money out of people? Its BS. | |
|
| | BassistguyAlrighty Then Premium Member join:2001-07-14 Ballwin, MO |
Re: BSSadly, that's the way everything is. If it's not profitable, it doesn't get improved upon. I third that (on the BS). | |
|
| | | spewakR.I.P Dadkins Premium Member join:2001-08-07 Elk Grove, CA ·Consolidated Com..
2 recommendations |
spewak
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 9:33 am
Re: BSsaid by Bassistguy:Sadly, that's the way everything is. If it's not profitable, it doesn't get improved upon. I third that (on the BS). I fourth that BS call! Just look at slicky boy in that photo. Is that a face you can trust? | |
|
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to Bassistguy
said by Bassistguy:Sadly, that's the way everything is. If it's not profitable, it doesn't get improved upon. That is common sense. No company is going to spend money on things that are not profitable or won't be profitable in the future. Companies that spend all their capital on non-profitable projects soon go out of business. | |
|
| | | | DrModemTrust Your Doctor Premium Member join:2006-10-19 USA |
DrModem
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 11:12 am
Re: BSsaid by FFH5:said by Bassistguy:Sadly, that's the way everything is. If it's not profitable, it doesn't get improved upon. That is common sense. No company is going to spend money on things that are not profitable or won't be profitable in the future. Companies that spend all their capital on non-profitable projects soon go out of business. Improving the network is profitable, its just not AS profitable. | |
|
| | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY
1 recommendation |
to Steve B
As long as they have the iPhone as a cash elephant they could care less. As soon as the iPhone gets farmed out to other providers this may change. | |
|
| | | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
djrobx
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 10:00 am
Re: BSsaid by Transmaster:As long as they have the iPhone as a cash elephant they could care less. As soon as the iPhone gets farmed out to other providers this may change. And since that might be happening soon, we're getting an earful of empty promises. In fact, I'd say this is the second sign that there might be some truth to the January Verizon rumors. The first being early iPhone 4 upgrade eligibility. | |
|
| | | | |
talz13
Member
2010-Jul-13 2:16 pm
Re: BSsaid by djrobx:said by Transmaster:As long as they have the iPhone as a cash elephant they could care less. As soon as the iPhone gets farmed out to other providers this may change. And since that might be happening soon, we're getting an earful of empty promises. In fact, I'd say this is the second sign that there might be some truth to the January Verizon rumors. The first being early iPhone 4 upgrade eligibility. Didn't they do early iPhone 3Gs upgrade eligibility too? | |
|
| | |
to Steve B
I agree that they have reduced their speeds in the southeast on the DSL CIRCUITS. | |
|
| |
to pnh102
Not if they keep the caps the same...higher speeds = people actually USING the network rather than being unable to. Pair that with 2GB and you get overage $$$.
What's funny is that AT&T has said that they might deploy LTE or HSPA+ but have done neither, yet anyway. All of the "big three" Canadian cellular providers have HSPA+ enabled on their networks, and T-Mobile is deploying it to their entire HSPA (non-plus) footprint as fast as they possibly can. That leaves AT&T... | |
|
| | |
Re: BS2 of 3 Canadian HSPA networks are built from scratch very recently, the carriers used to be CDMA only. Its like comparing ATT to Clearwire, and blaming ATT for not deploying WiMAX when it didn't exist when ATT got into the 3G business. | |
|
| | | |
Re: BSNot at all. AT&T has plenty of money to make the relatively minor upgrade to HSPA+...they *do* own their own internet backbone and they *do* have all those iPhone customers paying into the system, yaknow. | |
|
| Z80A Premium Member join:2009-11-23 |
to pnh102
Because most people apparently don't give a shit about the caps and millions of current subscribers aren't subject to caps. | |
|
| Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA
1 recommendation |
to pnh102
Vote with your wallet people!
Go to another carrier, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, there are dozens more!
If you want real 3G, the real fastest network, go to T-Mobile.
42mbps in the near future! | |
|
| | ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 11:38 am
Re: BSsaid by Gbcue:Vote with your wallet people! Go to another carrier, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, there are dozens more! If you want real 3G, the real fastest network, go to T-Mobile. 42mbps in the near future! Don't you mean 42 mbps undecided on in the near future? » T-Mobile Undecided On 42 Mbps HSPA+ Upgrades [19] comments | |
|
| | |
to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:If you want real 3G, the real fastest network, go to T-Mobile Verizon. :) | |
|
| | | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 5:03 pm
Re: BSsaid by puck0114:said by Gbcue:If you want real 3G, the real fastest network, go to T-Mobile Verizon. :) I think not. Compare T-Mobile HSPA+ 3G to Verizon's "LTE", or Sprint's "4G" and you'll find the true difference. | |
|
| |
Phatty join:2000-05-10 Saint Louis, MO 1 edit |
Phatty
Member
2010-Jul-13 9:10 am
IF they wanted to improve things it would already be doneThey have had enough time to Improve things if they really wanted they just choose not to, or choose to not put the resources behind what effort they do have.
I was recently on vacation with my work provided Iphone 3g in a non 3g area. Almost the entire week I was their I barely got any data signal and could never send a picture message, no emails, no surfing until I was back in the hotel room with Wifi. It amazes me anyone pays them for service as I would be pissed if I went somewhere with no 3G and suddenly lost all data services. My friend who joined me on vacation had a 3GS so I had fun rubbing it in that he actually paid for the crap service we were both getting. | |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2010-Jul-13 9:11 am
enablement layer?Enablement layer? I think I'm gonna be sick. | |
|
| Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 11:32 am
Re: enablement layer?said by morbo:Enablement layer? I think I'm gonna be sick. Sounds like walled garden to me. | |
|
Z80A Premium Member join:2009-11-23 |
Z80A
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 9:20 am
Is Heaven and Earth their new capping system?Cause that is the only "improvements" they want to make. | |
|
1 recommendation |
So they'll just pour funds into lobbyists...And just WTF does this doublespeak mean:
"Until we find a healthy system where everyone gets paid and friction is low, then I don't think we've tipped past the midpoint,"...
Run for congress, you tool. Run. Or sell lubricants. Or both! | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: So they'll just pour funds into lobbyists...i wondered the same thing. does anyone know what that crap means? | |
|
| | Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 2 edits |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 10:52 am
Re: So they'll just pour funds into lobbyists..."where everyone gets paid"
AT&T wants to be the middle man in smart phone application purchases so they can get their piece. They're not happy with users being able to bypass them to purchase directly from the iPhone / Android app stores.
They just don't get that they don't deserve a single red cent from any application purchases. They provide the connection between the user and the store, which the user is already paying them for. | |
|
| duranr join:2006-10-14 Leonia, NJ |
to cableties
My take on it is they want to be the gatekeeper to getting apps on the phones. They see the app store and Android market as ways of bypassing them onto the device. They want a slice of the App store/Marketplace pie and apple/Google isn't sharing so they're doing the only thing they can; removing features and capabilities and charging the customer (preferably) a (recurring) fee to get those features back. (Tethering anyone?)
I really wish the carriers would just stop messing with the phones and concentrate on the Network speeds and Coverage. But I'm under the impression that it's asking for too much. | |
|
| | Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 10:56 am
Re: So they'll just pour funds into lobbyists...That would relegate them to dumb pipe providers, which is the exact opposite of what they want. | |
|
| |
to cableties
said by cableties:And just WTF does this doublespeak mean: "Until we find a healthy system where everyone gets paid and friction is low, then I don't think we've tipped past the midpoint,"... Run for congress, you tool. Run. Or sell lubricants. Or both! Ha, ha, He's toying with the media... and us the public. They (AT&T) think we're idiots for buying their junk and keeping up with their abusive billing practices and to some point he's right. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 10:52 am
Donovan wants different charges based on who you areLooking forward, Donovan sees billing systems that can tell when a subscriber is acting as a consumer or a professional, based on place, time of day, application and other factors. Using that criterion, AT&T would be able to bill differently for that use, he said. I am not sure who he plans on ripping off based on that statement. Business/Professionals or consumers? Your guess is as good as mine. | |
|
| Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985 |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 10:55 am
Re: Donovan wants different charges based on who you areEveryone he can. | |
|
| Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue to FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 11:33 am
to FFH5
said by FFH5:Looking forward, Donovan sees billing systems that can tell when a subscriber is acting as a consumer or a professional, based on place, time of day, application and other factors. Using that criterion, AT&T would be able to bill differently for that use, he said. I am not sure who he plans on ripping off based on that statement. Business/Professionals or consumers? Your guess is as good as mine. It's both, obviously. AT&T just wants to charge more for what they provided in 2007. | |
|
djeremy join:2004-07-12 San Francisco, CA |
djeremy
Member
2010-Jul-13 12:54 pm
They are fixing SFNow, I'm no AT&T fan and would not have a cell phone if they were the only carrier (yes, I hate the deathstar that much), but they are actually fixing their network in San Francisco. Mini cell towers have been popping up all over Noe Valley and Diamond Heights where they basically had almost no signal before. This one was installed across the street from my house a couple weeks ago. I think some are T-Mobile, some are AT&T. My guess is that these are way easer to put up and they don't require the normal tower permits being that they are installed on utility poles. | |
|
|
I'd never use ATT in nycVisiting this week in the big apple and the data here just sucks. Only mace two calls but one didn't connect.
The network here just doesn't cut it. Much worse than most places I go. In October I get to see just how bad it is in San Fran.... | |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2010-Jul-13 8:47 pm
Why?Because they are cheap. | |
|
|
What's next?So, will AT&T "improve" their network by reducing the bandwidth cap to 100MB? I mean they want users to only use smartphones for text emails, nothing more. | |
|
|
|