AT&T Wireless Data Still Growing At 1000%

jfruhlinger writes "AT&T's wireless network came under a microscope when it seemed unable to handle the massive data use boost that came when the iPhone arrived on the scene. The company has since put money into its infrastructure, and that growth rate has slowed somewhat, but it's still gone up 30 times over the past three years."

Comments

Crap title

[Anonymous Coward]

1000% per what? Second?

Re:Crap title

[SpryGuy]

"30 times over the past three years."

That would make it obviously 1000% per year.

Re:Crap title

[contra_mundi]

Can I get that in football fields or Libraries of Congress?

Re:Crap title

[wowbagger]

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

Re:Crap title

[Anonymous Coward]

We get retarded stories when we have retarded editors.
That's 310% growth per year.

Re:Crap title

[Arthur Grumbine]

Your sig makes your post even more awesome!

Re:Crap title

[l33td00d42]

30x in three years? That's 1000% every 2.031 years.

There are 2.71828 kinds of people in the world. The kind that understand exponential growth, and 1.71828 kinds that don't.

Re:Crap title

[Monkeedude1212]

Yes.

Seven of each.

I hope that clarifies things.

Re:Crap title

[WrongSizeGlass]

Can I get that in football fields or Libraries of Congress?

Sure. If you took 1000% of football fields and covered them with 1000% of the books from the Library of Congress you would find the single book that had the secret formula on how AT&T calculated their increased data growth rate. Your mission is to find that book so you can decode the ISBN number to be used as an RSA key to decrypt the 11 herbs and spices of the original Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe so it could be posted without payment on Cooks Source.

Re:Crap title

[blair1q]

Who has editors?

We have anyone who wants to scribble into a text box, and anyone else who wants to fumble-finger a fancy radio button, and a few people who get paid by the click to forward on the things that get fumble-fingered the most.

Re:Crap title

[bunratty]

Actually, annual growth would be just over 200%. An increase of 200% is equivalent to tripling, just as an increase of 100% is equivalent to doubling.

Re:Crap title

[ThanatosMinor]

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r)
You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state

.

Re:Crap title

[Idiomatick]

1000% Per year. never compounded.

Re:Crap title

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Let's say that 3 years ago their data was 100 units. First year it grew by 310% (310 units) meaning that after year 1 they would have been at 410 units. The second year data woudl grow by 310% of the 410 (thus by 1271 units) to 1681 units. The third year their data would grow by 310% of the 1681 units (thus, by 5211 units) meaning that 100 units growing by 310% a year for three years would end up as 6892,1 units or about 69 times the original.

You are entirely correct if you mean that after each year the amount of traffic is 310% of what it was the previous year. But if traffic goes from 100 to 310, it isn't 310% growth, it is 210% growth.

Re:Crap title

[Anonymous Coward]

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r) You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state

.

That's not what he was doing. He was multiplying each year by 1000% (10.00) to get the next year's total. In other words, f(x+1) = f(x) * 10.

Re:Crap title

[Stregano]

or they could just unload some of that data, you know, stop holding the iPhone as being exclusive to AT&T

Re:Crap title

[sexconker]

...decrypt the 11 herbs and spices of the original Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe...

Futurama has told us that the Colonel's secret recipe is:

Chicken
Grease
Salt

(And 11 is binary for 3.)

Re:Crap title

[c 0xFF]

I get a growth rate of about 115.5% per year. Which means the size will multiply by 2.155x each year.

Think "rule of 70" to make this easy. Given that growth rate, the size will double every .6 years. In 3 years, the value will double nearly five times, for a total of 30x over 3 years.

We seriously need to be more precise with our terms, or we get confusion like this!

Re:Crap title

[quenda]

At least the moderators got the joke.

A woosh and a wrong correction all in one. How would you feel?

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

Indeed. If something grows 30-fold in 3 years, it's growing at an average rate of about 211% per year, because (1+2.11)^3 = 30.

Apparently the author doesn't understand the difference between linear and exponential growth or the terminology used to describe them. I think that percent-per-year growth is almost always a confusing way to describe growth when the percentage is more than 10-20%. That's because people assume x% growth in one year corresponds to 2x% growth in two years. Which is pretty close to the mark for a small growth rates (say 5%), but way off for larger growth rates. It's easily seen in the Taylor expansion of the exponential function, e^x = 1 + x + (x^2)/2 + (x^3)/6 + ..., which is nearly linear for values of x1 but highly nonlinear for larger values.

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

Growth rate percentages over 100% are often confusing, because it's ambiguous whether they refer to the change from the original value or the total final value.

In the usual convention, 310% growth per year would mean a quantity that increases by a factor of (1+3.10)=4.10 per year. So 30x growth in 3 years would actually be an annual growth rate of 210% per year (because (1+2.10)^3 is about 30).

For this and other reasons, percentages are a horribly confusing and unintuitive way to describe high growth rates. It seems much clearer to me to say that AT&T's data traffic is approximately tripling every year.

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

WTF are you talking about? This is a trivial exponentiation problem and you're coming up with some crazy, imprecise and dead wrong solution.

Growth rate of 115.5% per year gives growth over 3 years of: (1 + 1.1155)^3 = 9.46

We want 30-fold growth in 3 years. That's 211% per year, since (1 + 2.11)^3 = 30.

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

30x in three years? That's 1000% every 2.031 years.

Funny indeed, but you've made the same off-by-one error as nearly every other posters here. 1000% growth every 2.031 years... what does that give us in 3 years?

(1 + 10) ^ (3/2.031) = 11 ^ (3/2.031) = 34.5

30x in three years is actually 1000% every 2.115 years, because:

(1 + 10) ^ (3/2.115) = 30

There are 2.71828 kinds of people in the world. The kind that understand exponential growth, and 1.71828 kinds that don't.

As far as I can tell, when I entered this thread, the number of people who actually understand that percentage growth represents the difference between the initial and final values rather than a multiplicative factor... that increased by 50%. (Previously, it was bunratty and some AC.)

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

Yet another math fail. It's actually 966% per year, never compounded, because (1 + 3×9.66) ~= 30. It's incredible how many people make this simple off-by-one mistake.

Furthermore, non-compound interest has no bearing on any real-world financial or scientific calculation. It's a simplification that's just used to introduce students to the power of exponential growth and compounding, by way of comparison with linear growth.

Can you imagine a bank that offered 10% interest per year on savings accounts, but non-compounded? The clients would withdraw all their money every few days, and then re-deposit it and... boom! It's compounding all over again.

Re:Crap title

[sribe]

That would make it obviously 1000% per year.

Actually, not quite. 30 times in 3 years is a growth rate of about 310% per year. Conversely, a growth rate of 1,000% percent for three years would result in 1,000 times as much data.

Re:Crap title

[l33td00d42]

oops

Re:Crap title

[Anonymous Coward]

As wrong as the GPP might be, he's still more right than you.

Company growth is better modeled as a continuous, not periodic.

30 = e^(3r)
r = 113%

The GPP's mistake (besides the significant digits) is calling it "115.5% per year" -- the rule of 70 is best used for continuous compound interest, not periodic.

That said, you're right too, as far as you go. You're just calculating the effective yearly rate.

GPP needs to learn his own lesson: be precise in your terms!

Re:Crap title

[Idiomatick]

Nope, it is only precise to 1 significant digit. Hence 1000.

In case you couldn't tell I'm playing devils advocate, no need to get worked up about it.

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

You're right, continuous growth is a much more useful model for this sort of thing, but calling is "115% growth per year" is nonsensical in that case.

I still maintain that this whole mess is due to the fact that people assume percentage growth to be nearly linear (because it's so often used to describe low growth rates like 1-10% where there's no confusion), and often forget to add the initial 100% contribution (pretty much for the same reason).

Re:Crap title

[MoxFulder]

Wellll... sorta. Significant digits are not magic. They express the relative uncertainty in a quantity.

The relative uncertainty does not propagate equally under all types of arithmetic operations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_arithmetic for addition and multiplication).

This is especially true for exponentiation. If we start with the premise that AT&T's data usage grew 30x over 3 years, to one significant digit, that means that the real value is somewhere in the 25-35x range. That gives us a range of growth rates of 192% to 227%, assuming annual compounding... considerably less than one significant digit of uncertainty in the growth rate.

For linear (non-compound) growth, 25-35x growth over 3 years corresponds to 800%-1133%. That range is not easily exactly describable by significant digits either.

Significant digits suck. They are an imprecise and opaque way to express relative uncertainty.

Re:Crap title

[Mr Z]

Well, it's actually a growth rate of about 210%, unless you consider a growth rate of 100% to be flat year-to-year....

Fewer Bars in More Place

[Merpy]

Still poor coverage out by me...

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place

[Anonymous Coward]

Try removing the iPhone from your anus.

Thanks! That worked great.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place

[sound2man]

I live in the LA area, and my friends on ATT drop calls and have slower bandwidth than I do on sprint - at a higher cost. The iPhone is great hardware, but as long as it is ATT only, my money is with Sprint. Besides, I love my HTC EVO with 4G.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place

[cayenne8]

Interesting..in most parts of New Orleans and area..I get almost full bars, and rarely a dropped call.

When I had sprint...post Katrina...I could hardly get a signal in most parts of the city.

Guess it is really location dependent.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place

[sound2man]

Like most things, YMMV. I have had both companies, and have had very little problems with either of them. I am glad to hear that ATT is upping their data capabilities though - their innovation and expansion can only lead to better service for all of us, regardless of carrier.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't hear the commentary from Steve Jobs if you don't have your head & your phone up your ass.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place

[pecosdave]

My votes with you. I ditched my 2nd Gen iPhone for an EVo three months ago.

Had it not been for financial restraints I would have ditched it for a Nexus One much earlier.

The new iPhone bars

[scorp1us]

Are more realistic, in that I have few bars and few signal.

I had an older edge-only, edition and I don't know how I could have ever used it, leading me to conclude that ATT data rates have fallen to edge levels.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[icebike]

Perhaps your expectations have altered drastically over the years.

You were probably happy to get EDGE and were probably amazed by it. I once took a trip guided only by google maps on a Razr for pete sake!!

Dropped calls have gone virtually to ZERO per month for me on AT&T. Wep page dwnload speeds increased noticeably as well. I first noticed a dramatic drop back in April of 2010.

Perhaps AT&T made dramatic improvements in Network Reliability and speed in my area. That is the date my Android phone arrived and I retired my iphone. I never worry about bars any more.

Its still not "fast enough", and it probably never will be, because "fast enough" is a moving target. But for all the flak AT&T gets, in my area is pretty darn good.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[dgatwood]

Interesting. As an edge-only iPhone user, I've noticed my dropped call increasing astronomically from an average of one drop every three or four weeks to often two or three drops per day. All since early 2010. My guess is they're robbing Peter to pay Paul rather than building out their infrastructure as they should.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[icebike]

You are correct about that to a certain degree.

They (AT&T) have been shifting frequencies around and putting 3G services on the lower bands with better building penetration and shifting edge over to the higher bands.

Almost all Edge phones are quadband so you don't have to do anything at the headset, and may never notice this unless you live on the fringe of the Edge coverage zones.

Hope you have downloaded the Mark The Spot app and use it regularly.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[The Mighty Buzzard]

But for all the flak AT&T gets, in my area is pretty darn good.

I'm happy for you. Myself, I get 0-2 bars anywhere within two miles of my home. Our arguments are anecdotal though, look at a coverage map for AT&T and you'll see there are huge swaths they do not cover at all.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[PopeRatzo]

Dropped calls have gone virtually to ZERO per month for me on AT&T.

There must be some really strong cellular signals and efficient antennae in Fantasyland.

Perhaps AT&T made dramatic improvements in Network Reliability and speed in my area.

Yes, I think I read somewhere they were planning on service improvements there, in Fantasyland, where iPhone batteries never lose their ability to hold a charge and nobody's ever seen the bottom of the bottomless cup, and everyone at the coffee shop is a published author.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[icebike]

To tell you the truth, once the calls stopped being dropped (because I got off the iPhone with its crappy Infinion radios), I haven't paid a bit of attention to bars.

Phone works when I need it, and calls don't drop. Data rate not as fast as I'd like.

I know people in NYC are bleeding. (Or at least complaining loudly). But I'm not seeing that in the Pacific Northwest.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[icebike]

FantasyLand, Or in the Android world, where I now dwell.

I'll just come out and say it, even tho the Apple Mod Nazis will mark it troll in no time flat:

At least 70% percent of AT&T's bad rap came from Infineon chip sets in Apple iPhones.

Since that was a huge percentage of the userbase, it made the carrier look much worse than it was. AT&T BB users had no where near the same percentage of complaints.

My problems went away with the iPhone. YMMV.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[PopeRatzo]

I was just being a jerk, sorry. In fact, I barely knew what a dropped call for the years I had my RAZR on AT&T here in Chicago. I bought my daughter a gen2 iPhone and it was like we were on different networks. I still use a relatively cheap phone and ubiquitous wi-fi. I'm not interested in carrying a smartphone of any kind, so 3G and 4G don't really matter to me right now.

But you're right, I rarely get dropped calls, though I think I'm just lucky to live in an area with strong signals. I keep AT&T mostly because they supply my broadband at home and for my business and I can pay one big bill. My friends complain all the time, though. Plus, since my average phone call duration is about 10 seconds, maybe there's just not enough time for the call to get dropped. I hate talking on the phone.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[Shakrai]

They (AT&T) have been shifting frequencies around and putting 3G services on the lower bands with better building penetration and shifting edge over to the higher bands.

They aren't just moving EDGE to 1900mhz, they've also moved voice services in many areas. All fine and dandy until you get out into the fringe of coverage and can't make or hold a voice call....

As much as I loathe Verizon I've never seen them make changes to their network that dicked over existing customers. AT&T has done so on numerous occasions.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps AT&T made dramatic improvements in Network Reliability and speed in my area. That is the date my Android phone arrived and I retired my iphone. I never worry about bars any more.

Occam's sledgehammer at its best.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[Anonymous Coward]

"As much as I loathe Verizon I've never seen them make changes to their network that dicked over existing customers. AT&T has done so on numerous occasions."

          Absolutely. Here's some examples:
          Analog -- the phone cos (that had 850mhz spectrum) were required to keep analog running until recently. AT&T would keep the *bare minimum* 1 channel running, even in areas where that channel was consistently busy from either analog roamers or TDMA phones still in service. They also didn't maintain the equipment so some of these channels actually didn't work, didn't have the proper transmit power, or were noisy. Verizon tried to maintain the same level of service for analog as for their current services -- if an area had heavy usage they'd run more analog channels, they kept the equipment maintained, and so on, up until the shutoff point.

          EVDO -- they made a point of not compromising voice service. In areas where they need plenty of 850mhz voice (CDMA 1X) channels for reliable service, it means they'll have like 1 850 EVDO channel and the rest at 1900 -- it's better to have data slow down at the fringe than to have calls start dropping constantly.

          LTE -- they've publicly said they'll keep 1X running until at least 2020, even though LTE will be completed by 2013-2014. (They haven't said anything about EVDO, but once a lot of traffic shifts to LTE they could probably keep 1 channel of EVDO going and it'd be plenty for the remaining EVDO devices) This gives 6 to 7 years for people to switch.

          Contrast this to (pre-merger) AT&T Wireless and Cingular, which BOTH quit selling TDMA phones (switching to GSM exclusively) BEFORE they had even finished building out their GSM network. And contrast it to the current situation, where they keep reducing the service levels for GSM-only customers to improve 3G (reducing number of GSM channels, and moving them to 1900 to free up 850 for 3G), while continuing to offer numerous models of GSM-only (i.e. *non*-3G) phones. When I looked a month or so ago, 50% of the models they had on the web site didn't have 3G! THIS is the root of AT&T's present problems -- it's like, if you want people to use 3G, quit selling non-3G phones! Cost isn't an issue any more, there are cheap and basic 3G phones for those who don't want something fancy.

          I should note, AT&T's excuses really are excuses -- Verizon's data traffic has been increasing FASTER than AT&T's, to the point that it's predicted VZW will carry MORE traffic than AT&T by sometime in early 2011. Android phones use more data than IPhones, and due to huge Android phone sales, there's more of them too.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[Lost Engineer]

Speaking of the Northwest, I was in Alaska and encountered 2 areas where iPhones worked and my Sprint Android phone did not.

I asked one dude (whose phone was working) whether it was GSM or CDMA. He said it was an iPhone. I didn't even try to explain...

Re:The new iPhone bars

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent up. Very informative post about differences in how AT&T and Verizon choose to deliver service.

Re:The new iPhone bars

[Anonymous Coward]

Wep page dwnload speeds increased noticeably as well

You should get back to us when they fix your upload error rate. ;-)

Re:The new iPhone bars

[icebike]

Sprint = CDMA.
Iphone = GSM

There are lots of places in Alaska where there is only one real carrier choice, and many of these places only get GSM.
There is even one large state carrier up there that won't let anyone roam onto their network. How dumb is that! Roaming money is pure gravy for carriers.

But has the number of devices changed?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the number of subscribers has not shot up, I don't blame them for raising rates.

Apple's Achilles Heel

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Apple's Achilles Heel. When demand outstrips the AT&T bandwidth, an iXxx will no longer be as desirable.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel

[icebike]

This is Apple's Achilles Heel. When demand outstrips the AT&T bandwidth, an iXxx will no longer be as desirable.

Demand has already outstripped AT&T bandwidth. That happened two years ago. That's the whole point of the story.

With that as the historical base, we look at AT&T exclusivity ending just at the time when AT&T shows signs of catching up with demand.

Or is that iPhone new contracts actually tapering off. Even tho Apple is selling iPhones like crazy, it hasn't translated into that many new customers for AT&T. They activated a record 5.2 million of the devices last quarter, but gained a net of only 2.6 million new mobile customers. See. So clearly the bandwidth demand growth is starting to slow down.

No one else could have handled the iPhone bandwidth demand back in 2007-2009 period any better than AT&T did.

The Achilles heel of Apple may be when they release a CDMA iPhone for Verizon and people suddenly realize half the stuff they used to do on the iPhone does not work on CDMA where you get Talk OR Data. For that reason, I suspect Verizon does not get an iPhone till Verizon gets LTE.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Sprint carries it instead/as well so it can use WiMax for data. Please, god, don't let it happen. I *like* having Sprint as a nice island of well-rooted Android sanity uninfected by the Apple Virus. ;-)

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel

[Shakrai]

No one else could have handled the iPhone bandwidth demand back in 2007-2009 period any better than AT&T did.

Verizon could have handled it better than AT&T.

The Achilles heel of Apple may be when they release a CDMA iPhone for Verizon and people suddenly realize half the stuff they used to do on the iPhone does not work on CDMA where you get Talk OR Data.

Verizon is supposedly working on a way to rectify this problem. There was a story about it here or on BBR a few months ago. Here's one link that talks about the upgrade to CDMA.

I'm curious to know if this is really a big issue for a significant number of people? I've had my Android phone now for five months on Verizon and I really haven't had a problem with this. I do have the option to use wi-fi while I'm talking on the phone but I've rarely exercised it.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel

[Cimexus]

Not really. Remember, it's only in America that the iPhone is tied to a single (and hence, over-congested) network. iThings are sold in dozens of countries and in most of them, are used on whatever network the purchaser wishes.

Having said that, the implication that iDevices are responsible for the bulk of traffic on phone networks isn't really true these days. It was true initially when the iPhone was one of the first popular consumer devices that encouraged mobile data use, but now there are many good alternatives. So the problems AT&T is having are also being suffered by every other network, whether it be caused by iPhones, Android-based phones, or whatever.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel

[AvitarX]

But can the other networks handle it?

Because maybe AT&T can offer better plans rates/more GB to keep customers, even with the loss of exclusivity.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel

[wintermute000]

In Australia were gsm but no problems with our new fangled gizmos. Get over 1mb most places. Of course our telcos charge through the nose

Red Flag

[slick7]

Sounds like Enron to me.

Not surprised

[Starteck81]

That's not surprising. Considering all of the new media streaming apps there are it will only grow. The official Netflix streaming app alone must use a significant amount of bandwidth if used regularly.

Not a problem

[T Murphy]

I just asked my friend who works with Verizon, he says if AT&T data usage was at 1000 GB, 1000% more is just (1000GB + 1000GB/1000%) = 1001 GB, so I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Not a problem

[JonySuede]

you are so bad at math, i hope you don't code for a living 1000% more than 1000GB is 1000GB * 1/100*1000+1000GB so it is = 11000GB....

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

woosh on me !

Re:Not a problem

[wintermute000]

you obviously missed the joke
the famous verizon phone rep conversation where they can't do math.... google it

Re:Not a problem

[Andy Dodd]

He's very, very good at Verizon Math. He also made it clear that he was practicing Verizon Math.

Do note that Verizon Math is very different from traditional math.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That woosh that this comment's siblings hear must be obnoxious.

Re:Not a problem

[dgatwood]

Whoosh.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

*woosh*

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally at this point I would say "that whooshing sound over your head was the joke", but in this case I don't think it even came close enough to your head that you would have heard anything.

Re:Not a problem

[Rijnzael]

Parent's comment is a joke about Verizon's apparent inability to do math.

Re:Not a problem

[Rijnzael]

Parent's comment is a joke about Verizon's apparent inability to do math.

Re:Not a problem

[mikestew]

you are so bad at math, i hope you don't code for a living

And I hope your ability to make a living is never reliant on being able to recognize somewhat subtle humor.

Re:Not a problem

[pushing-robot]

whoosh...

Oh, wait, you're metatrolling. My bad.

Re:Not a problem

[T Murphy]

It seems you could use a math lesson from Verizon.
(The link is for a transcript of a phonecall of a guy trying to resolve a billing issue. He was quoted a data rate of 0.002 cents/kb, but billed at 0.002 dollars/kb.)

Re:Not a problem

[PolygamousRanchKid]

you are so bad at math, i hope you don't code for a living

Folks who are really bad at math don't code. They work in politics, or on Wall Street or for General Motors as a CEO. If you are bad at math, you get a job where you lose other people's money . . . like taxpayer's . . . and not your own money.

Re:Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Verizon Math.

Re:Not a problem

[Ecuador]

It was an amusing reference to the case where Verizon CSR's could not get the difference between 0.02$ and 0.02 cents...
To put it simply...
woooosh!

Re:Not a problem

[Digero]

His comment is a reference to a case where a guy was overcharged for data because Verizon reps couldn't figure out the difference between 0.002 cents and 0.002 dollars.
Verizon Can't Do Math

Re:Not a problem

[melekzek]

swoooosh

Re:Not a problem

[NuShrike]

The American system dictates and shapes that "successful" politicians and executives don't go to school, esp to learn math.

Probably explains why they continuously defund public education over military spending.

Can we blame video/movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are turning these net-devices into the new idiot box. Totally not interactive, it's almost like we're collectively thumbing our noses at cable and their failure to deliver without excessive rates. Must we watch video on smaller devices? Sure, have the video compressed all you want, and then what? It's almost like adding a new channel to your TV. Was this ever the intent?

The new New Math?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did 1000 x 10 become equal to 1001?

Is that the verizon over there, or did the dragons move it just beyond that little sign in the disonance?

Re:The new New Math?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember - verizon thinks .002 cents = $.002

Re:The new New Math?

[trapnest]

GP is talking about a rather well known story about verizon's billing math. There is an entire blogspot about it. http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/

Simple Solution: ( +3, Revolutionary )

[Anonymous Coward]

Rewrite the wireless traffic from former U.S.A. through China.

I hope this breaks the iPhone AND the Android phones.

Yours In Osh,
Kilgore Trout, C.I.O.

Math

[ThanatosMinor]

Somebody forgot about compounded growth.

1000% growth over three years (compounded annually) would have them grown a thousandfold over three years. Compounded continuously would be ridiculously large.

If you assume continuous growth, the actual growth rate would be ln(30)/3, or about 113%. If you just want a number to quote as the annual growth rate that would give a thirtyfold increase over three years, go with 211% since (1+2.11)^3 is about 30.

Re:Math

[L4t3r4lu5]

No way man, your calculations are all wrong.

10% growth per year, compounded over three years is 3 x 10% growth. 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000, so it's obviously 1000%.

I thought this was a nerd site...!

Man customers suck.

[tthomas48]

I mean imagine offering to sell people something, and then have them show up, give you money for it, and then expect to use it! What kind of crazy system IS that?

Can we stop reprinting AT&T press releases that show they continue to be completely baffled by market economics?

Re:Man customers suck.

[Xugumad]

I'm pained there isn't a "+1 Depressingly correct" mod option.

Good to know

[wilgibson]

It's good to know that AT&T is at least trying. I've avoided cancelling my service with them due to the fees and the fact I still have an unlimited data plan. On the flip side, you can probably count me as part of the problem too. My HTC Pure is currently running Dutty's ROM just so I can have an easier time using it as a wireless router for my netbook when out of the house.

Re:What was that sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, ooh, was there a deadline?

All I know is...

[Trip6]

...we tolerate poorer and poorer cell service for more and more money. I switched from my KRAZR to an iPhone and my call quality went down by AT LEAST 30%. Now, for the princely added sum of $30 per month I can have dial-up internet response. Such a deal!

Why did I buy this thing? My wife and kids insisted!

It ain't just the wireless/data links

[Sooner Boomer]

We had an earthquake here in Central Oklahoma a couple of months ago. Not a biggie, just a "rattler". The cell lines (voice and data both) went down from overload, as did the AT&T *land lines*. I'd hate to see what happens when the next "Big One" hits (whatever that event is...).

Re:It ain't just the wireless/data links

[Anonymous Coward]

Think "New Madrid".

Re:It ain't just the wireless/data links

[CrackedButter]

I would argue this because in 2012 I saw people using their phones all the time and they had to deal with extreme tectonic plate movements and tsunamis. Their cell coverage was fine, this was in India though, maybe their networks are better. Plus India uses CDMA.

Re:It ain't just the wireless/data links

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are responsible for one coffee-splattered monitor!

Read the post

[guruevi]

The total data volume over the nationwide network went from 1 billion megabytes per year to 30 billion megabytes per year. Or from roughly 900TB/365days or 2.4TB/day to 28,610TB/365days or 78TB/day.

Divide that by their 100 million customers and on average each customer uses not even 1MB/day.

If you want to be an ISP and you cannot carry more than 1MB/day, you should not be an ISP.

Re:Read the post

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to point out the obvious, but 1MB/day isn't an accurate measurement. The real measurement is how much data each mobile switching center handles on average per day. Given the phone only has a finite frequency it can use, there's only so much data you can squeeze in. Transferring 1MB over the air per person is completely different than 1MB over fiber optics. Even if you add more cell towers, you're still using the same frequency range. You can't magically squeeze 10x more people in and not expect signal degradation. The only real solution is to open up more frequencies for cell service. That is controlled by the FCC, so they are partly to blame for the current crappy service across america. If the FCC licensed more bandwidth out, all the providers would have more room to work with.

Re:Read the post

[Anonymous Coward]

#1) Spectrum in the frequencies useful for cellular communications is hard to come by (i.e. it is already allocated for other purposes with customers actively using it!). It does not just magically appear. Re-organizing spectrum allocations is a logistical nightmare and cannot just happen overnight (e.g. look at the amount of time it took for the DTV spectrum to open up!). The wheels of the FCC turn slowly for good reason. Furthermore, it takes a long time to design/test new BTS hardware and mobile radios. Mobile devices already operate on 700/800/1700/1900/2100 MHz in the US with relatively large bandwidths assigned to them.

#2) You are missing the obvious. In order to increase capacity WITHOUT increasing spectrum, carriers often deploy additional cells, drop the antennas on existing cells and/or lower transmit/receive power. This is VERY effective, but costs MONEY. Some carriers do a LOT better at this. (e.g. Look at NYC... there are some carriers that are absolutely worthless, and some that work flawlessly despite having relatively equivalent spectral holdings)

#3) Service doesn't suck on ALL carriers. AT&T is notorious for their dysfunctional data network, and growth is definitely largely to blame. However, if you look at their infrastructure investments predating the iphone the reasons are fairly obvious. Smart phone usage on other networks has exploded as well but I have yet to hear any serious complaints about the verizon data network.

Y'know...

[hsjserver]

If these jerks think they have the right to own the internet they should at least have the courtesy to give us all the wireless data we want.

Read the article to see how pathetic they are

[guruevi]

They went from roughly 3TB/day to 78TB/day over their nationwide network and they can't handle it? That means that on average, each of their customers used barely 1MB/day. Even if 1% of their customer base uses the data network, that is still only 100MB/day.

An ISP that cannot handle their customers getting 100MB/day is not worth being named an ISP imho.

Re:Read the article to see how pathetic they are

[slonik]

An ISP that cannot handle their customers getting 100MB/day is not worth being named an ISP imho.
We are talking Wide Area Wireless Network here. You know, there are laws of physics that prevent you from achieving 100MB/day/user in a limited spectrum with cells covering 5 square kilometers.
Comparing mobile wireless network with fixed fiber or cable is simply silly.
Learn to use WiFi on top of a fast fiber/cable link.

And yes, I do wireless network engineering for living.

Re:Read the article to see how pathetic they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean you have an engineering degree or are you an IT 'specialist'?

Let me get this straight :

[unity100]

So, when ISPs invest in their infrastructure, they can offset even huge data transmission bottlenecks, like, in 3 years ?

then why the hell arent they just investing in the internet infrastructure, and just shutting their mouth about 'two tiered internet' and whatnot ?

And Yet....

[Anonymous Coward]

Coverage and 3G data speeds in NYC and New jersey still SUCK HORRIBLY.

Heck even in Chicago, I had 5 bars of 3G and it still was like using a 56K modem..

Grew at 1000% in WHAT? Executive salaries?

This is only a little good for AT&T

[blair1q]

yes, they're making money from the iPhone. unquestionably.

but this massive increase in data is also a huge increase in cost, which they'll have to recoup over several years. the iPhone may actually have put them under water temporarily.

Re:This is only a little good for AT&T

[NuShrike]

Commonly called BS because they were already negligent in their infrastructure buildup when at least 70% composed of old-guard AT&T vs Cingular after the merger. This is backed up by their quarterly reports where they were making making massive profits and executive bonuses instead of sinking it into infrastructure.

OTOH, T-Mobile's recent quarterly report shows they are building out heavily hence the pretty lean profits -- ignoring the flat subscriber growth.

Must be that new math.

[EmagGeek]

A growth rate of 1000% per year would mean going up 1000 times over three years, not 30 times.

Increasing 30 times over three years is a growth rate of about 311% per annum.

Do not trust AT&T

[straponego]

Or any telco, but especially ATT. When the iPhone/ATT first earned its reputation as a horribly unreliable phone, ATT said they were going to invest $15 billion in the next year to fix the issue. A year later, they boasted that they'd spent $2 Billion in the last year, yet somehow it still wasn't enough. Huh. Pretty sure the ball got dropped somewhere between engineering's requirements and yacht hookers for executive yachts. Just like when the US government handed out tens of billions for infrastructure upgrades that the telcos translated into record profits and third world Internet speeds. Telcos and cable companies enjoy taking the money, see, but the part about investing some of it seems pointless, given their government supported monopolies.

Re:Do not trust AT&T

[no1nose]

What I really don't like is the 2 GB cap for new customers. Ugh :-(

This might help

[Anonymous Coward]

Instructions from Jobs himself

uhhh

[cuckundu]

Wait... why is this under the "Apple" category...?

not where I live

[Osgeld]

I started my current job 3 years ago, about the exact same time I got my new phone, for those 3 years my phone has been sitting in a dead zone or as I like to call it, my office

And we finally (almost) have a winner!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct. I'm a bit surprised at how many posts it took Slashdotters to get this. Then again, not having a fucking clue what they're talking about rarely influences people here not to speak. ;-)

A multiple of 3.11 is correct, which wowbagger got. Except, he called 311% a percentage growth rate, which it's not. A multiple of 1 each year means a growth rate of 0%. A multiple of 2 each year means a growth rate of 100%. That's what the "1 + " term does: A = P (1 + i)^n

So, multiplying by 3.11 each year is a growth rate of 211% per year! Bunratty, you may garnish your prize from samzenpuss' paycheque.

They've had plenty of time

[slapout]

Smartphones have been available for at least 10 years now. If AT&T and other carriers had started investing in their data networks then, they wouldn't be having this problem now.

Re:They've had plenty of time

[mveloso]

Well, the old smartphones weren't like today's smartphones. They were useable only by hardcore business people and geeks, which as you should know represent a miniscule percentage of the actual public.

Back then, 1 frame a second was great. Today, 24fps is the new black.

Lies

[mr100percent]

I'm just not able to trust AT&T on anything after seeing these stats:

http://gizmodo.com/5428717/att-has-spent-less-on-network-construction-and-capital-expenditures-every-quarter-since-the-q4-2007

It's still too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

$30/mo for data on a single mobile device is exorbitant compared to a standard cable modem hookup or the free wifi in various urban areas. I remember when long distance land lines became a low monthly flat rate, and thinking how awesome it was to surgically sign up with that and tell AT&T to take a hike.

I'm looking forward when smart phones hit market saturation and price wars start for data, only then maybe I'll migrate away from my ipod touch.

You must be new at math.

[Anonymous Coward]

A growth rate of 1000% per year would mean going up 1000 times over three years, not 30 times.

Really? So a growth rate of 100% would be 100 times?

So then a growth rate of 10% would 10 times?

I have six inch penis. If it grows 1% it will now be 12 inches?


Where I come from if something increase a 100% it doubled.
1000% increase would be 10x

Re:You must be new at math.

[EmagGeek]

Wow, you don't read so well, do you?

Here's my quote: "A growth rate of 1000% per year would mean going up 1000 times over three years, not 30 times."

Let's dissect:

"A growth rate of 1000% per year" means it grows 10 times every year.

"would mean going up 1000 times over three years" means that, after three years, growing at 10 times per year, the original number would increase by a factor of 1000.

Let's say the initial value is 5.

After 1 year, it goes up 1000%, so 5 becomes 50.
In the second year, the value starts at 50 and goes up another 1000%, so 50 becomes 500.
In the third year, the value starts at 500 and goes up yet another amazing 1000%, so 500 becomes 5000.

5000 divided by 5 is 1000. So, over three years, the initial value has grown... sit down... get ready... 1000 times!

Do you understand it yet, or do I need to break it down into even simpler terms? I can use smaller numbers if you wish, and possibly even explain how you can compute this using only the fingers you already have.

a.fsdn.com is REAL SLOW!! FIX IT

[cheekyboy]

slashdot, fix a.fsdn.com

or do i have to map it to google.com or something that WORKS!!!

40 second replies is lame.

Same crap, different day

[Whuffo]

I love the way the anti-Apple trolls pile on in these discussions. FWIW, I don't own an Iphone and don't plan to get one. That said, I used to be an AT&T customer - with a Motorola cell phone. In Silicon Valley I couldn't get a signal at work or at home and it was hit or miss in other places. The mall kiosk selling AT&T phones couldn't demonstrate them because there was no signal there. I left them and moved to another carrier for just that reason - lousy signal, lousy coverage. Are they better now? I don't know and I'm not going to give them another chance.

so what?

[hesaigo999ca]

Like the oil industry, if you are cheap at the beginning, and later do not want to reinvest, then of course you will create a bottleneck for those using your services. The oil industry could easily use those TRILLIONS of dollars declared as profit from 1 year, and create 5 new oil refineries, so that next time a hurricane or tornado hits in texas, we are not hit with price hikes because they supposedly can not provide for us (BS if you ask me).....now the cell cos are following suit. Of course, they could easily piggy back on fiber to serve the calls from place to place using the internet and some servers, a bit like skype works, oh, wait , of course...that is called voiceoverip...and is a service being offered right now, and does not cost that much more...just figure out how to incorporate it into your services, at each tower maybe set up nodes for setting web servers to ping between each other and diminish a bit of cell traffic from being all in the air, and under the ground in wires....

The AT&T Network Still Lacks

[forrie]

Our collective experience at work, as it relates to the iPhone in Cambridge, MA (and surrounding region) is that the AT&T network still lacks (put politely). I get dropped calls, spotty coverage and customer service doesn't really care about responding to complaints.

I realize that some of this is infrastructure related and that every carrier has issues -- but really, I'm so tired of the problems that even the glitter of a iPhone doesn't appeal much anymore. I'd rather have great coverage than a fancy phone. *shrug*