Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And you tend to think about this in a linear fashion. But the number of iphones continues to explode. Even if usage did not increase per phone,
could ATT keep up?

I fear they find about the best they can do is just keep pace with iphone growth. Maybe by spreading the strain over Verizon the bandwidth cap issue can be postponed.

It is inevitable that we will pay for what we use in the future. That may be
good for the low power user whereas the hogs lose their "free" ride. Goodbye
flat rates. They will NOT be around much longer imo.
 
But you see, we are already paying higher amounts of $$$ than the rest of the WORLD, according to statistics.

I've never done any comparison to the rest of the world's data plans. Can you give us some figures? Thanks!

(I started using smartphones back around 2000, when we got 9Kbps if we were lucky and it cost an arm and a leg. So $1 a day seems a pretty good deal to me.)

The problem is that at$t as other wireless industries are all about the profits. They are actually thinking on putting Bandwidth caps on the users, so that they can profit a bit more from us

The problem is that there really is a limit in the number of people, and their data bandwidth desires, that can be handled within a current cell.

That's why carriers like Verizon spent billions recently buying up spectrum space. And why they're deploying 4G and better backhaul as quickly as possible.

Verizon Mobile Broadband:
$60/ month per 5GB transfer

That's the plan for laptops, which can suck down data. (Although they're weirdly okay with Slingplayer on their $30 smartphone plan.)

So you're thinking that some people could end up with laptop-like costs? Yeah, that's possible, unless a carrier has bandwidth to spare. (Which is why LTE is so important.)
 
I don't think he's even talking about iPhone users in general, if you do the math.

If he's talking 1% of users- AT&T has what, about 70 million subscribers? That means he's only talking about 700,000 users here who are representing this huge usage. And how many iPhones are in the US? 20 million? Or is that the world total iPhones? Even if there's only 10 million in the US, we're talking even a small fraction of the iPhone users here, the "power" iPhone users.

So, even though it would be a media disaster, I wouldn't blame AT&T for making the 5gb a hard cap instead of a soft cap or something. Very few users would reach that, and then after that they could be throttled or charged with an extra fee or something. AT&T would just have to be careful with a media blitz about making sure they explain that it would be unlikely for most people to reach the cap.
 
I don't see anything in those statements that clearly identifies that all or only iPhone users being the problem with bandwidth. I am not clear on what the author means by "[read iPhone users]". Sounds like a filler for the author's opinion to the statement. Now I can understand AT&T wanting to manage iPhone, or any phone, traffic for those that download GBs of data a month. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, but I don't run AT&T. AT&T doesn't force anyone to sign to their service either.

Just loooks like another article from another angry iPhone owner/AT&T basher.
 
I don't think he's even talking about iPhone users in general, if you do the math.

If he's talking 1% of users- AT&T has what, about 70 million subscribers? That means he's only talking about 700,000 users here who are representing this huge usage. And how many iPhones are in the US? 20 million? Or is that the world total iPhones? Even if there's only 10 million in the US, we're talking even a small fraction of the iPhone users here, the "power" iPhone users.

So, even though it would be a media disaster, I wouldn't blame AT&T for making the 5gb a hard cap instead of a soft cap or something. Very few users would reach that, and then after that they could be throttled or charged with an extra fee or something. AT&T would just have to be careful with a media blitz about making sure they explain that it would be unlikely for most people to reach the cap.

I would never come close to that usage, but would love a reason to end my contract early w/o any fees or penalties.
 
I think AT&T is making the right move here. Those 1-2% of people causing all the problems for them may get pissed off an leave AT&T but guess what those people leveling raises AT&T profit not lowers it. Those people more than likely cost AT&T more per month than they pay.

I remember reading 5G of data at $30 a month it the break even point. After that it cost more money than AT&T makes off the person.

Lets not forget those 3% of banthwith hogs are hurting ATT more ways than just hogging all data but it screws up the network and pisses off people who do not hog the data. Those people leavel ATT do they get hit twice. First they loses customers who were not abusing the unlimited data and then they are having to pay more than they make off the onces who are data hogs.
 
I would never come close to that usage, but would love a reason to end my contract early w/o any fees or penalties.

They don't need to change any terms of the contract to start managing or throttling bandwidth. They do not guarantee you a minimum data rate or unthrottled connection, and they have terms in the existing contract which allow them to take pretty much any action to protect their network or ensure access for others. No materially adverse change to the contract is required.

While most common uses for Intranet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, landlines or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/PDA-to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows
 
I think that many people believe that bandwidth is infinite and the fact is its not. ATT may not be the best at handling the huge increase to its network but its a problem that will affect the other carriers.

I can see apple dropping the ATT exclusivity because of the single point of failure - ATT networks. I'm not saying they're going to verizon but rather, it makes business sense to spread the wealth and provide other avenues for people to buy the iPhone.

Slightly off topic but I think the day is coming that broadband providers will be more proactive in managing internet traffic as well.
So I guess if you're freaking out about this, you're probably part of the problem...so go jump on to your tech-ignorant neighbor's open wi-fi network and let the rest of us enjoy some bandwidth too.
Exactly. I know too many people with iPhones specifically who don't get it. I tell them to use our schools 30+ Megabit down and 5 up fiber connection via wifi but they say the same thing "No I have 3G its faster!".....sounds like AT&T's advertisment is working against them....

Like others, I fear that rationing and higher prices are coming. Wireless data used to be a nice quiet backwater, but now that the masses are getting smartphones, we're in for a ride. And somebody has pay for the ticket.
Nice way of putting it.

If this happens, I'll be jumping on the Verizon bandwagon.
And then you can Enjoy there 100MB cap at $30 bucks a month!




Has Verizon ever really even had their network pushed to the limit? I've been thinking about this for a while - hear me out. I had Verizon 2 years ago - one of those LG Chocolate Flip phones (8600 or something). I liked the phone but 1) I didn't have a data plan because it didn't have a browser or anything - WAP is a joke so I don't even know what I used Verizon 3G (EVDO) for, if anything? Voice on Verizon is not done on 3g like AT&T - it uses the 1xRTT network for that and EVDO (3G) is for data. BUT, you had half of Verizon's customers walking around with their 3G phones boasting about how they have 3G when neither calls or text messages were even being used on 3G. The only sure time I can think I used 3G was when I used it to download VZ Navigator...yeah, it seemed fast downloading 2 megabytes or whatever the file size was. Oh yeah and I bought a ringtone once - that downloaded fast too.

Point is, Verizon's crippling UI which is on all the phone except for the Blackberries and Treos prevented you from really DOING anything on your phone anyway. And most people I know that have Blackberries - yeah, they're on them all the time checking e-mails or whatever but that's it. None I've known ever sit around downloading videos or pictures or doing Facebook or using iTunes etc...at least not like iPhone users do.

SO, I had Verizon and couldn't complain much about them but they talk all big like their network could handle better than AT&T so I'd just like to see 5 million iPhones running on it and see how fast it remains.
CDMA2000/1xRTT is going to be better at handling mass amounts of calls. Lets take a look at what verizon has here going for them:
1) Crazy backhaul capacity; yes there FiOS network REALLY helps.
2) There core network 1xRTT is CDMA based which is great at handling capacity (hence why UMTS is CDMA based). Sure 1xRTT isn't great for data by any means but it can handle more calls that GPRS/EDGE.
3)EVDO is for the data only, while I don't like this I think its great to keep seperate so bob who's making a long distance call to grandma doesn't lower bandwidth for data users or vice versa which is more common.

None the less iPhone for verizon isn't coming anytime soon.

Also, their boasting about how they have a wider 3G footprint is because the upgrade from CDMA to EvDO was a relatively easy upgrade that required little, if any, hardware changes at the tower, where as AT&T had to actually go out to every tower they converted to 3G and upgrade the hardware. Just wait until Verizon goes LTE, I don't think they'll be having 4G coverage in Bumf*** Montana for quite awhile.
Well at least you'll have 1xEVDO is Bumf*** Montana rofl.

Additionally I'm actually concerned about T-Mobile if they ever do get the iPhone....does anyone REALLY think T-Mobile is going to last more than 6 months with even 1/8th of AT&T's bandwidth horny iPhone users boasting there mobile internet while downloading while downloading music and watching youtube over there ub3r 1337 3G network super man special infinite bandwidth network....not that T-Mobile's 3G frequency allocation even supports the iPhone yet though.....
 
Exactly. I know too many people with iPhones specifically who don't get it. I tell them to use our schools 30+ Megabit down and 5 up fiber connection via wifi but they say the same thing "No I have 3G its faster!".....sounds like AT&T's advertisment is working against them....

it is sad that people do not understand wifi is faster than 3G and on top of that it is easier on the battery than sending the data over 3G. the WIFI antenna requires a hell of a lot less power than the 3G antenna.


CDMA2000/1xRTT is going to be better at handling mass amounts of calls. Lets take a look at what verizon has here going for them:
1) Crazy backhaul capacity; yes there FiOS network REALLY helps.
2) There core network 1xRTT is CDMA based which is great at handling capacity (hence why UMTS is CDMA based). Sure 1xRTT isn't great for data by any means but it can handle more calls that GPRS/EDGE.
3)EVDO is for the data only, while I don't like this I think its great to keep seperate so bob who's making a long distance call to grandma doesn't lower bandwidth for data users or vice versa which is more common.


Not completely true there. the FiOS network for the houses does jack for the backhaul. FiOS network only difference between Uverse and FiOS is from the Switchbox to the house (aka nothing for the Backhaul).

FiOS backhaul system is the same type of BackHaul AT&T uses.
 
Not completely true there. the FiOS network for the houses does jack for the backhaul. FiOS network only difference between Uverse and FiOS is from the Switchbox to the house (aka nothing for the Backhaul).

No, he was right. Verizon is using their FiOS network, along with the nationwide fiber trunks they got from buying MCI, to improve the backhaul from their towers.

They're even leasing that bandwidth to other carriers. This especially can happen when multiple carriers share a tower. In those cases, Verizon is increasing the backhaul several times more than they alone need.
 
No, he was right. Verizon is using their FiOS network, along with the nationwide fiber trunks they got from buying MCI, to improve the backhaul from their towers.

They're even leasing that bandwidth to other carriers. This especially can happen when multiple carriers share a tower. In those cases, Verizon is increasing the backhaul several times more than they alone need.

Yeah the fact alone that they are leasing there backhaul tells me that they have a good amount of room for bandwidth hungry users....not that I can say that for sure if they get the iPhone in 2012 or whenever if they ever do but I can say that there leasing of bandwidth is going to be allot less generous in the future as the wireless data trend grows.
 
Here's one idea: Push for more and more heavily populated areas to install free WiFi hot spots. Crack a deal with every major sports stadium across the country to blanket their area in WiFi. Then start doing the same for malls. "Free WiFi at Yankee Stadium brought to you by (insert sponsor)."

This won't solve everything, but it'll take away a lot of users that can clog networks in small areas. I tried to check a weather map at a football game with 92,000 fans. I might as well have been trying to create cold fusion.
 
If this happens, I'll be jumping on the Verizon bandwagon.

way ahead of you, already dropped my att data plan and am on verizon mifi. its more expensive but I can use it for all of my devices and its so much faster and more reliable
 
Here's one idea: Push for more and more heavily populated areas to install free WiFi hot spots. Crack a deal with every major sports stadium across the country to blanket their area in WiFi. Then start doing the same for malls. "Free WiFi at Yankee Stadium brought to you by (insert sponsor)."

This won't solve everything, but it'll take away a lot of users that can clog networks in small areas. I tried to check a weather map at a football game with 92,000 fans. I might as well have been trying to create cold fusion.

Agreed. Its worth it. You would have to provide faster speeds than 3G obviously but with good advertisement people would jump on. Much easier to provide capacity with wifi than with a Node B. This would make it so mostly only calls would go through the cell network drastically reducing overloads. All those bandwidth hungry iPhone users could use as much bandwidth as they like. Seriously you can put a ******** of nodes for wifi in place to allow for a good amount of wifi users. At sporting events you can never have TOO much capacity....even with cell on wheels you still have lots of outages regardless of your carrier when 30,000+ people trying to check there email or show there friend a youtube video. With wifi installed at major areas it would eliminate having to have cells on wheels as much. I can't tell you how annoying it is trying to just send a text message and it taking 5 minutes then saying "text message failed".
 
I would argue that the 1-2% he is referencing represents people who overuse or abuse bandwidth with 3G air cards. Using an air card attached to a laptop uses much more than an iphone. What they need to do is slow down or put more limits on air cards.
 
I use about 1GB a month and I wonder what they are considering throttling because right now there are times when I can't get a solid 3G connection and I live in a major metro area in Florida.

It isn't about monthly throttling. It is about handling the bandwidth when the demand is high. You can use 10 GB of bandwidth a month, but if you are using them at a time when the demand isn't very high, then it doesn't hurt the network. All providers are still learning how to deal with these spikes and there are a lot of solutions out there but they are not very easy to implement.
 
Agreed. Its worth it. You would have to provide faster speeds than 3G obviously but with good advertisement people would jump on. Much easier to provide capacity with wifi than with a Node B. This would make it so mostly only calls would go through the cell network drastically reducing overloads. All those bandwidth hungry iPhone users could use as much bandwidth as they like. Seriously you can put a ******** of nodes for wifi in place to allow for a good amount of wifi users. At sporting events you can never have TOO much capacity....even with cell on wheels you still have lots of outages regardless of your carrier when 30,000+ people trying to check there email or show there friend a youtube video. With wifi installed at major areas it would eliminate having to have cells on wheels as much. I can't tell you how annoying it is trying to just send a text message and it taking 5 minutes then saying "text message failed".


Even with Voice only the sports things are overloading a network no matter how you cut it. At least with wifi it reduces the strain already on a system pushed beyond its limits.

I know during the MS 150 here in houston they would tell the bikers to turn off there cell phones when they started going threw the small towns and only have them on if they were making a call. The reason for this is those small town only have 1-2 cell towers and the MS 150 riders cells on standby were overloading the system. Cell tower on wheels is not an option for that event as it covers roughly 100+ miles of middle of no where. They still tell them to do it because well small town with a population of maybe 2000k is can not handle +10k+ cells being added to the system.

But that is another matter.
 
I accept: The U.S. will start lagging in terms of productivity if our wireless technology is hampered. Frankly, this is an important enough issue that and the government should take a more active role in making sure our networks are up to date.
In the meantime, if AT&T introduced a minimal data plan at $10 that would just cover what I use for A-GPS and very light usage on my iPhone I might take it.
 
I think a couple of the first signs of this inevitable subject were AT&T letting iPhone users jump on their wi-fi hotspots for free and changing laptop connect plans to a 5gig cap from unlimited data.

And did they also agree to VOIP to free up some bandwidth?

Maybe AT&T should lease WiMax bandwidth while they're at it and when the service takes off.
 
I would argue that the 1-2% he is referencing represents people who overuse or abuse bandwidth with 3G air cards. Using an air card attached to a laptop uses much more than an iphone. What they need to do is slow down or put more limits on air cards.

how about the people abusing their iphones, treating them like air cards?
 
I would argue that the 1-2% he is referencing represents people who overuse or abuse bandwidth with 3G air cards. Using an air card attached to a laptop uses much more than an iphone. What they need to do is slow down or put more limits on air cards.

There's already a 5GB limit in the Laptop cards. Thus limit was put in place a couple years ago. There was an uproar about it because some people that spent X $$$ on AT&T or had the service for a couple years before the limit was imposed, were still allowed the original unlimited data per month.

Seeing ad the service is 3G advertised, what would you propose? Throttling the cards to sub-3G speeds?

The cards and phones use the same bandwidth. I'd say there may be just a couple more iPhones connecting to 3G towers than aircards simultaneously. Just a guess....
 
Even with Voice only the sports things are overloading a network no matter how you cut it. At least with wifi it reduces the strain already on a system pushed beyond its limits.

I know during the MS 150 here in houston they would tell the bikers to turn off there cell phones when they started going threw the small towns and only have them on if they were making a call. The reason for this is those small town only have 1-2 cell towers and the MS 150 riders cells on standby were overloading the system. Cell tower on wheels is not an option for that event as it covers roughly 100+ miles of middle of no where. They still tell them to do it because well small town with a population of maybe 2000k is can not handle +10k+ cells being added to the system.

But that is another matter.
Hmm...good point I guess after thinking about it voice overloads do happen allot more... Maybe wifi and/or high capacity UMTS cell sites covering the inside of stadiums but make it so they offer lots of capacity with roaming agreements in place for any other compatible carrier to keep costs down. Sort of like those micro cells set ups you buy from AT&T.
 
I would argue that the 1-2% he is referencing represents people who overuse or abuse bandwidth with 3G air cards. Using an air card attached to a laptop uses much more than an iphone. What they need to do is slow down or put more limits on air cards.

It's very hard to intellectually justify calling air card users over-users or abusers. The situation is not analogous to people choosing to stream video or audio on their phones. Air cards are intended globally for high bandwidth use (that is the full internet and VPNs and so on) and they really have no other use. And people (I'm not one of them) who have them pay extra fees in most countries to be able to use them -- if companies cannot sustain the bandwidth that air card users use, they should not offer the service.

Since air cards don't seem to be going anywhere, though, companies have to figure out how to manage their impact on their networks.

It isn't about monthly throttling. It is about handling the bandwidth when the demand is high.

If done rightly, this ends up actually being a real service to most everyone -- even most iPhone users. I think people have to realize that even iPhone users are being adversely affected by bandwidth crowding -- even among iPhone users, 99% are not always streaming video and audio on their phones. And when you pull out your phone and rely on it to be able to pull up a Google map or public transit directions (features which rapidly become useless if they're not very reliable), and it just hangs and won't load a map, THAT's because of bandwidth crowding too. So iPhone users can also benefit from good management of bandwidth.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.