Uh...once you run the fiber to the tower upping capacity is not so difficult. AT&T's problems were due to skimping on costs and running multiple T1s to their towers instead of just going all-in with fiber.
In major cities in Japan people have given up their landline connections for 3G ones. They constantly tether their phones and use it to access the internet all day long. So you're wrong about the "culture" thing.
They just went from unlimited to 2GB, far below the 5GB standard on 3G USB sticks. What in the world makes you think they would ever raise their caps? The history of every ISP that has ever implemented caps after first being unlimited (Canada for example) is that they continually tighten the noose on customers by gradually decreasing the cap and raising prices.
Since 3G already limits the rate at which a user can download files, how do you define a "hog" when even granny watching her grandkids' youtube videos at 7 PM is contributing equally to bandwidth congestion? Here's an even better solution: invest AT&T's record profits into infrastructure upgrades. Problem solved.
Then why is it unlimited in much of developed Europe and throughout the Netherlands? Verizon's CEO had come out and said there is no spectrum shortage, and there will be none for 5-10 years. AT&T admitted their network problems were their own fault for cutting capex investment in their infrastructure, not a spectrum issue. Please stop blindly defending your favorite corporation out to screw you.
AT&T's network issues are entirely self-inflicted by their own voluntary cutting of capex. They themselves admitted as such. So please stop repeating the iPhone users are bringing down the network meme.
You have no idea how bandwidth is paid for by ISPs. The concept of a bandwidth hog is a myth, in large part because a pipe unused costs the ISP the same amount as a pipe used.
You don't seem to understand AT&T is not scraping by in the red while trying to maintain an over-burdened. They're making record profits while providing substandard service at substandard speeds (compared to Europe). The limitation of shared resources is a deception perpetrated by the incumbents.
Because maintenance of a highway is a major part of the cost, and expanding space is a huge, huge expense. Once the lines (usually fiber) are laid down, the cost of upgrading is minimal. The cost of electricity and maintenance is negligible. Peering is a whole other matter, but generally serves to decrease cost of bandwidth for ISPs.
It's not possible given network fundamentals. ISPs pay for a given throughput of bandwidth, usually based on the 95th percentile of peak bandwidth usage. In other words if peak usage is 100mbit/s, ISPs will pay for 95th percentile (let's just say 95 mbit/s). Even if no one uses the network, the ISPs' costs are the same. If everyone uses the network, the costs are the same.
10 gigs in 5 years? In Europe they have 50 gig pre-paid plans for 20-30 euros right now. In the Netherlands they have true unlimited for that much. Americans have absolutely no idea just *how badly* they're being fleeced.
I don't think you fully realize how profitable AT&T is. They tripled their profits between 2005 and 2008 from $4 billion to $12 billion, all the while cutting capex investments into their network, resulting in their current substandard iPhone-bogged network. They know people are going to be using more bandwidth as time goes on, which is why they capped their new tiers at 2 GB. They're counting on massive overage fees to make up for the lower-cost plans.
To put this in perspective, in the Netherlands you can get an unlimited 3 mb 3G connection for 10 euro a month.
Data hogs don't raise the price for other users. Bandwidth is purchased in terms of throughput, not aggregate data usage. In other words AT&T pays for 100mbit/s to a tower, not 1000 GB. A single person limited by 3G speeds and the natural limitations of spectrum availability is no greater a contributor to network congestion than is casual teeny bopper watching a friend's Youtube video during net prime time.
Going out of business?! Don't make me laugh. AT&T tripled their annual profit between 2005 to 2008, from $4 billion to $12 billion, all the while providing substandard service. Their 3G coverage is pathetic, and their substandard network was caused by purposeful underinvestment by management. It *doesn't* make sense for unlimited to stop, as HSPA+ uses the spectrum more efficiently than standard 3G, and AT&T should be beefing up the backhaul that they've been skimping on for the last 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh...once you run the fiber to the tower upping capacity is not so difficult. AT&T's problems were due to skimping on costs and running multiple T1s to their towers instead of just going all-in with fiber.
Uh, I think you mean EU 20/month for 50 (FIFTY) gigabytes.
In major cities in Japan people have given up their landline connections for 3G ones. They constantly tether their phones and use it to access the internet all day long. So you're wrong about the "culture" thing.
AT&T's congestion problems are self-inflicted, through a reduction in capex and network investment. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100215_absolutely_no_wireless_spectrum_shortage_in_2010/
There is no wireless spectrum shortage, as admitted by Verizon's own CEO: http://dslprime.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/2844-no-spectrum-for-competition-why-verizon-turned-around
They just went from unlimited to 2GB, far below the 5GB standard on 3G USB sticks. What in the world makes you think they would ever raise their caps? The history of every ISP that has ever implemented caps after first being unlimited (Canada for example) is that they continually tighten the noose on customers by gradually decreasing the cap and raising prices.
AT&T's congestion problems are self-inflicted, through a reduction in capex and network investment. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100215_absolutely_no_wireless_spectrum_shortage_in_2010/
There is no wireless spectrum shortage, as admitted by Verizon's own CEO: http://dslprime.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/2844-no-spectrum-for-competition-why-verizon-turned-around
AT&T's congestion problems are self-inflicted, through a reduction in capex and network investment. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100215_absolutely_no_wireless_spectrum_shortage_in_2010/
There is no wireless spectrum shortage, as admitted by Verizon's own CEO: http://dslprime.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/2844-no-spectrum-for-competition-why-verizon-turned-around
Since 3G already limits the rate at which a user can download files, how do you define a "hog" when even granny watching her grandkids' youtube videos at 7 PM is contributing equally to bandwidth congestion? Here's an even better solution: invest AT&T's record profits into infrastructure upgrades. Problem solved.
Wait what? No they're not. I'm in Japan right now and data is unlimited usually at ~$30/month.
Then why is it unlimited in much of developed Europe and throughout the Netherlands? Verizon's CEO had come out and said there is no spectrum shortage, and there will be none for 5-10 years. AT&T admitted their network problems were their own fault for cutting capex investment in their infrastructure, not a spectrum issue. Please stop blindly defending your favorite corporation out to screw you.
You'd think they'd spend their record profits on building out more infrastructure. Sigh.
AT&T's network issues are entirely self-inflicted by their own voluntary cutting of capex. They themselves admitted as such. So please stop repeating the iPhone users are bringing down the network meme.
You have no idea how bandwidth is paid for by ISPs. The concept of a bandwidth hog is a myth, in large part because a pipe unused costs the ISP the same amount as a pipe used.
Of course electricity consumes a finite resource, whereas "bits" are essentially infinite. Even if nobody uses the pipe, the ISPs costs don't go down.
You don't seem to understand AT&T is not scraping by in the red while trying to maintain an over-burdened. They're making record profits while providing substandard service at substandard speeds (compared to Europe). The limitation of shared resources is a deception perpetrated by the incumbents.
Because maintenance of a highway is a major part of the cost, and expanding space is a huge, huge expense. Once the lines (usually fiber) are laid down, the cost of upgrading is minimal. The cost of electricity and maintenance is negligible. Peering is a whole other matter, but generally serves to decrease cost of bandwidth for ISPs.
It's not possible given network fundamentals. ISPs pay for a given throughput of bandwidth, usually based on the 95th percentile of peak bandwidth usage. In other words if peak usage is 100mbit/s, ISPs will pay for 95th percentile (let's just say 95 mbit/s). Even if no one uses the network, the ISPs' costs are the same. If everyone uses the network, the costs are the same.
10 gigs in 5 years? In Europe they have 50 gig pre-paid plans for 20-30 euros right now. In the Netherlands they have true unlimited for that much. Americans have absolutely no idea just *how badly* they're being fleeced.
I don't think you fully realize how profitable AT&T is. They tripled their profits between 2005 and 2008 from $4 billion to $12 billion, all the while cutting capex investments into their network, resulting in their current substandard iPhone-bogged network. They know people are going to be using more bandwidth as time goes on, which is why they capped their new tiers at 2 GB. They're counting on massive overage fees to make up for the lower-cost plans.
To put this in perspective, in the Netherlands you can get an unlimited 3 mb 3G connection for 10 euro a month.
Capitalism requires a free market to be effective and produce the greatest benefit to consumers. The US wireless market is far from competitive.
Data hogs don't raise the price for other users. Bandwidth is purchased in terms of throughput, not aggregate data usage. In other words AT&T pays for 100mbit/s to a tower, not 1000 GB. A single person limited by 3G speeds and the natural limitations of spectrum availability is no greater a contributor to network congestion than is casual teeny bopper watching a friend's Youtube video during net prime time.
Have you ever considered rinsing your mouth out with water after you drink soda...?
You do realize tethering for the iPhone is available outside the US, and has been for a long time?
Going out of business?! Don't make me laugh. AT&T tripled their annual profit between 2005 to 2008, from $4 billion to $12 billion, all the while providing substandard service. Their 3G coverage is pathetic, and their substandard network was caused by purposeful underinvestment by management. It *doesn't* make sense for unlimited to stop, as HSPA+ uses the spectrum more efficiently than standard 3G, and AT&T should be beefing up the backhaul that they've been skimping on for the last 5 years.
You're right! In fact, we should now replace all anti-Bill Gates memorabilia with these pictures: http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/272750-pic-funny-bill-gates-pics-from-1983/#entry585309992
Ooo...sssmmmooking!