I say everyone jailbreak and run Slingbox over 3G

[Vandam500]

The tower itself, no.

The outbound pipe from the tower to the CO/next hop, maybe.

It's not uncommon to see a T1 or two supplying a whole tower's worth of users. Generally high contention ratios are fine -- the high latency of mobile data lets you pull some clever QoS tricks, and the usual usage patterns of mobile data users (light browsing, some e-mail here and there) mean that you don't really have to worry to much about being over-committed.

That is, until some guy decides he's going to "stick it to the man" by convincing loads of folks to stream relatively-high-bandwidth video over UMTS/HSDPA. If you've only got 3mbit on the backhaul, all that's needed is 5 smug pricks streaming video before you make the experience suck mightily for everyone on that tower.

So please: don't. You won't "stick it to the man". You won't prove anything to AT&T. They won't even notice. What you will do is help ensure that everyone on the same tower as you has higher latencies, lower throughputs, and an all-around worse experience than they otherwise would.

In summary: don't be "that guy".

How are apps such as Youtube, Orb and Simplify Media any different then Sling? My point is that it is ridiculous that because of AT&T being worried about their network which is supposedly the "fastest" 3G network in the US, they decide to ban a program that uses the same amount of network connection of others one that are available. It's ludicrous.

 

[joysmahal]

Works on t-mobile

I got it to work on T-Mobile with my unlocked 2nd gen iPhone using Edge. It's a little slow and optimizes every now and then, but it's definitely watchable.

I have to agree with most of the people posting on here. You are usually not going to be streaming for even more than 30 mins to an hour p/day. If you did more than that, you'd run out of battery juice fast.

I had a Motorola Q from 2006-2007 on Verizon, using their 3G/EVDO coverage. When I used my slingbox on VZW, I never went over 2GB per month using my SlingPlayer. I never really watched it for more than 30 mins p/day.

 

[psywzrd]

I have digital cable. Also I've heard some people have trouble getting the 3g hack to work with the AV or classic.

I have the classic and I have no problem running it over 3G. I don't see the connection between the hack and what type of Slingbox you have anyway. As long as your Sling Mobile client can make an outbound connection over 3G to your Slingbox, the hack is working so it shouldn't matter what type of Slingbox it's connecting to.

 

[pendo]

This is the dumbest effin thing I've heard from AT&T for awhile...tantamount to the anti-tethering policy.

They probably have some video service in the pipeline they are hoping to push on its customers....

 

[jajohns8]

I think that AT&T knows that allowing uncontrolled slinging or tethering over the 3G network will significantly degrade the performance of the network.

It's not that hard to understand or believe. Remember the Iphone 3g launch activation fiasco? Reason: Weak 3G infrastructure.

According to comscore.com viewing of online video content increased 34 percent from November 2007 to November 2008.

We are changing how we absorb media. It's constantly evolving.
Its obviously increasing very quickly in the mobile arena.

I think making assumptions about "only a few people" slinging or tethering "not really" affecting the network isn't wise.
AT&T, one would have to assume, makes assessments of what the network can handle given particular factors, over time.

Remember, 90% of the bandwidth, in general, according to broadband providers is consumed by 5% of the subscribers.

So yeah, a "few" people can have a huge impact on network performance.

In my opinion, there should be tiered pricing. You want to impact the frail 3G network significantly more than the non-slinging, non-tethering customer? Fine. You pay more.

Your unlimited data plan is for your phone only. Not what a 3rd party app can "possibly" deliver to your phone.

And hey, if you don't like the TOS, then don't use AT&T's 3G network.

 

[G42X500macguy]

Steve Jobs would never allow this to happen

Let me start by saying I'm fully behind AT&T's decision to do whatever it wants to do with its network if it informs consumers in advance of what they intend to do. They're in the business to make money.

I do have issues with their revised "Terms of Service" earlier this year which detailed "time shifting" as a violation, and then later retracted it saying, "oops, it was a mistake." Now, they've unapologetically reinstated it for iPhone users and Sling players. Whilst I'm not an attorney, I think some people who purchased an Iphone in that window have a case to return their iPhone without any further fees.

What galls me, and what I can't imagine happening on Steve Jobs watch, is the fact AT&T is making the iPhone user a second class citizen on their network. Apple made a great product integrating voice and internet usage. It brought millions of subscribers over to AT&T, and surprise -- they use both features. Now the Sling Player for iPhone becomes available. As Iphone users use more data than other smartphone users, they cannot sling. Yet, I can sling on other phones on the AT&T network.

Thanks AT&T for providing a success penalty to Apple.

 

[aristobrat]

at&t, and most of these all telco guys, and trying to have their cake (by getting yummy money) and eat it too (by not re-investing more into active development aka "eating it").

Just as a point of reference, below is the percentage of the yummy yummy money (income) that the US wireless carries spent on operating and expanding their networks (based on their '09 Q1 results).

Sprint: 107% (they're apparently purging cake instead of eating it?)
T-Mobile: 87%
AT&T: 74%
Verizon: 72%

 

[ppc750fx]

How are apps such as Youtube, Orb and Simplify Media any different then Sling? My point is that it is ridiculous that because of AT&T being worried about their network which is supposedly the "fastest" 3G network in the US, they decide to ban a program that uses the same amount of network connection of others one that are available. It's ludicrous.

I wonder about that actually -- what is the bandwidth usage of Slingbox like compared to, say, YouTube.app?

(From what I recall, YouTube.app streams somewhere in the vicinity of 75kbit/s)

 

[jajohns8]

Just as a point of reference, below is the percentage of the yummy yummy money (income) that the US wireless carries spent on operating and expanding their networks (based on their '09 Q1 results).

Sprint: 107% (they're apparently purging cake instead of eating it?)
T-Mobile: 87%
AT&T: 74%
Verizon: 72%

Above are interesting stats.
I'm wondering what the breakdown is for expanding 3G and future (4G?) type network infrastructure per carrier.

Kind of correlates to constantly having to upgrade your PC/MAC in order to play the latest game.

 

[aristobrat]

I wonder about that actually -- what is the bandwidth usage of Slingbox like compared to, say, YouTube.app?

(From what I recall, YouTube.app streams somewhere in the vicinity of 75kbit/s)

I'd be curious too. The quality of YouTube over 3G is a joke. Sling, from what I've heard, looks pretty darn good.

 

[muskratboy]

Has anyone used the slingbox classic successfully with the app? I haven't bought a slingbox yet but I was considering it. Does the tv have to be on for the app to work? If someone is watching a channel on the tv can I watch a different channel on my iphone without bothering them?

No, the TV doesn't have to be on. the signal is coming straight from your cable / satellite and never really makes it to the TV.

no, you can't watch 2 different channels via sling. it's just hijacking the signal coming into the box.

my brother watches ours from Japan all the time... so any time the channels start switching by themselves, i know it's time to move to a different tv. that, or the ghosts are back.

 

[cellocello]

Just as a point of reference, below is the percentage of the yummy yummy money (income) that the US wireless carries spent on operating and expanding their networks (based on their '09 Q1 results).

Sprint: 107% (they're apparently purging cake instead of eating it?)
T-Mobile: 87%
AT&T: 74%
Verizon: 72%

*shrug*

Those guys have all kinds of fancy lawyers and bookkeepers that can make the numbers say anything they want. I'm willing to bet most of Sprint's "107%" went into several executive wallets.

(I'm surprised they're not ALL "re-investing" "more than" 100% back into the customer "experience" )

 

[fishepa]

Yeah, I agree with you - but, to me, 'uptime' means 'uptime'.

AT&T (it seems, and certainly most carriers) are like crappy old apartment buildings. Where not everyone can flush their toilet at the same time, and the hot water runs out fast in the morning, and the pipes rattle when no one's used them in a bit, like in the middle of the night.

It works because generally not everyone flushes their toliet at the same time, or uses bursts of hot water at once all the time, or use the pipes at 4 am. So it's generally ok. Not that bad. Right?

But I'd rather pay for, and live in, a "good" building. Where, if I wanted to, and was willing to pay for, could run a hot shower 24/7. With a mechanical 24/7 toilet flushing arm.

at&t, and most of these all telco guys, and trying to have their cake (by getting yummy money) and eat it too (by not re-investing more into active development aka "eating it"). Running a "bad building" at, what I consider, "good building" prices.

I enjoy reading your posts. Good stuff.

 

[aristobrat]

Those guys have all kinds of fancy lawyers and bookkeepers that can make the numbers say anything they want.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

 

[cellocello]

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

Ok .... so maybe telecom is the next auto industry, then.

If they can't properly maintain their business, while charging us out the nose - something's broken.

I don't care about this whole "Don't use sling, don't use this, don't use that" thing, but don't charge me MORE than my home internet for the pleasure.

My 2 cents.


(and dude ... they can make the numbers say what they need them to. Just apply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting to what these guys are doing)

 

[aristobrat]

If they can't properly maintain their business, while charging us out the nose - something's broken.

If your standard for "properly maintaining their business" is the ability to be able to stream video, Verizon recently changed their ToS to allow that (so that's one carrier that appears to properly be maintaining their business), and I wouldn't be surprised to see the other carriers eventually change their ToS to match.

Verizon's 3G network is about three years more mature than AT&Ts (based on the dates from when those two carriers started roll-outs), so Verizon does have a competitive advantage with that.

I'm not sure how you gauge AT&T's investments into its network, but in my neck of the woods (Virginia's largest metro area), AT&T customers get a free text message every time a new tower comes online, and that's been happening several times a month for the last year.

I don't care about this whole "Don't use sling, don't use this, don't use that" thing, but don't charge me MORE than my home internet for the pleasure.

I don't agree with AT&T having a ToS that prohibits streaming from home, but I don't understand your logic there.

I can't even begin to think that the cost of piping Internet up your street into your house (typically over a shared infrastructure that has long since been paid for) even begins to compare to the cost of giving you Internet virtually anywhere you go in the US.

(and dude ... they can make the numbers say what they need them to. Just apply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting to what these guys are doing)

Have you read one of the yearly reports from any of the major US carriers? All money is accounted for. If money went to a subsidiary (so the company could post a bogus loss), it'd be accounted for. This isn't the case with the major US wireless providers. Not only are they audited up the ying-yang by the federal gov't, they're also under incredible independent analyst scrutiny, too. (Very much NOT like Hollywood entertainment companies!)

 

[LSUtigers03]

No, the TV doesn't have to be on. the signal is coming straight from your cable / satellite and never really makes it to the TV.

no, you can't watch 2 different channels via sling. it's just hijacking the signal coming into the box.

my brother watches ours from Japan all the time... so any time the channels start switching by themselves, i know it's time to move to a different tv. that, or the ghosts are back.

I was thinking of getting a cable box for my room so now I'll go ahead and get the second box so I can use sling without bothering anyone else.

 

[cellocello]

The backbones have been laid. The fiber is there. MCI and Nortel (and others) have already shouldered the big cost of "the internet" - these dudes are throwing up towers.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure it's not easy. Wireless tech isn't easy on anyone. But still - wouldn't you complain if you weren't able to make a phone call at 9 in the morning, because the "tower's busy"? Would you pay good money for that kind of service? Would you accept the excuse that "connecting calls is hard" at $40 a month?

One day ... we'll look back and laugh that we ever put up with shoddy internet (wireless or not) - I'm just hoping we rush to that future, and not drag our feet. That's all.

EDIT - I should point out I don't live in the US, and have no vested interest in at&t (or american infrastructure in general).

 

[jasond9263]

The tower itself, no.

The outbound pipe from the tower to the CO/next hop, maybe.

It's not uncommon to see a T1 or two supplying a whole tower's worth of users. Generally high contention ratios are fine -- the high latency of mobile data lets you pull some clever QoS tricks, and the usual usage patterns of mobile data users (light browsing, some e-mail here and there) mean that you don't really have to worry to much about being over-committed.

That is, until some guy decides he's going to "stick it to the man" by convincing loads of folks to stream relatively-high-bandwidth video over UMTS/HSDPA. If you've only got 3mbit on the backhaul, all that's needed is 5 smug pricks streaming video before you make the experience suck mightily for everyone on that tower.

So please: don't. You won't "stick it to the man". You won't prove anything to AT&T. They won't even notice. What you will do is help ensure that everyone on the same tower as you has higher latencies, lower throughputs, and an all-around worse experience than they otherwise would.

In summary: don't be "that guy".

Sounds like it's time they upgrade their equipment to handle the customers needs.

 

[jajohns8]

Ever wonder why we have water towers?
They provide extra water during 'peak usage times.' It is cheaper than creating a water pumping facility that can handle the potential "max" needs. (When the max needs are only needed sometimes.)
Hit up howstuffworks.com for more info.

The principle of a network's bandwidth is similar. It makes absolutely NO financial sense to create a network that can handle the 'POTENTIAL' maximum. It would cost so much to create a network that could handle the MAXIMUM (people using the MAX voice/data download 24/7) that we would each be paying 500.00 per month as subscribers. (or some much larger figure than we currently pay.)

The network can physically handle the "average" use. They can temporarily "borrow" assets to handle peaks, ofcourse, when necessary. (like a water tower provides the extra water during peak times.)

This is precisely why there is the concept of peak and non peak minutes. They have to spread the usage because there is a physical limit to the network. You contribute more to peak load? Fine, you pay a penalty of some sort.

So, no, it doesn't make sense to create a network that can handle the 'potential maximum' of data.

AT&T has to manage the data usage on the network somehow. BY not allowing slinging or tethering, that is how they are choosing to manage it at the moment.

Maybe they will come up with some reasonable tiered pricing to manage it in the future.

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason to constantly expand and update the network. I'm simply saying that you will never have a network capable of constantly handling an 'increasing maximum.' By increasing maximum, I mean the increasing demands placed on the network by new software that becomes available that needs greater and greater bandwidth.

 

[Vandam500]

Ever wonder why we have water towers?
They provide extra water during 'peak usage times.' It is cheaper than creating a water pumping facility that can handle the potential "max" needs. (When the max needs are only needed sometimes.)
Hit up howstuffworks.com for more info.

The principle of a network's bandwidth is similar. It makes absolutely NO financial sense to create a network that can handle the 'POTENTIAL' maximum. It would cost so much to create a network that could handle the MAXIMUM (people using the MAX voice/data download 24/7) that we would each be paying 500.00 per month as subscribers. (or some much larger figure than we currently pay.)

The network can physically handle the "average" use. They can temporarily "borrow" assets to handle peaks, ofcourse, when necessary. (like a water tower provides the extra water during peak times.)

This is precisely why there is the concept of peak and non peak minutes. They have to spread the usage because there is a physical limit to the network. You contribute more to peak load? Fine, you pay a penalty of some sort.

So, no, it doesn't make sense to create a network that can handle the 'potential maximum' of data.

AT&T has to manage the data usage on the network somehow. BY not allowing slinging or tethering, that is how they are choosing to manage it at the moment.

Maybe they will come up with some reasonable tiered pricing to manage it in the future.

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason to constantly expand and update the network. I'm simply saying that you will never have a network capable of constantly handling an 'increasing maximum.' By increasing maximum, I mean the increasing demands placed on the network by new software that becomes available that needs greater and greater bandwidth.

You have a couple of points that make sense but think about it, AT&T has had nearly a year (since the release of the app store) to make upgrades to their 3G networks. I mean they knew that programs such as the Sling Box were going to be released and they would utilize the premium 3G network price that millions of people are paying for.

I mean why is it that they are upgrading their 3G speed to 7.2 mbps instead of expanding the coverage and capacity of the current ones? Why say they have the fastest 3G network when they cripple the usage of it and it's not available to anyone. Why?

 

[jajohns8]

You have a couple of points that make sense but think about it, AT&T has had nearly a year (since the release of the app store) to make upgrades to their 3G networks. I mean they knew that programs such as the Sling Box were going to be released and they would utilize the premium 3G network price that millions of people are paying for.

I mean why is it that they are upgrading their 3G speed to 7.2 mbps instead of expanding the coverage and capacity of the current ones? Why say they have the fastest 3G network when they cripple the usage of it and it's not available to anyone. Why?

I definitely understand your frustration. I would love a network that could handle streaming HD video for everyone at a reasonable price. The infrastructure costs money to build. And although it is far from perfect, it has improved.

While AT&T may know that certain bandwidth intensive apps may be coming out, that doesn't mean they have to accommodate them via network infrastructure changes.

They have to lookout for the majority of their (profitable) customers. If that means allowing the customer who doesn't sling or tether to have a reliable network instead of allowing network congestion from unrestricted tethering and slinging, then that is what they will and should do. I think it is an incorrect assumption to assume that "they just want to charge more for it."
There are very real and obvious concerns about network reliability under an increased data load.
Building that into a reasonable pricing model is the trick.

I have no doubt that the network infrastructure will be improving and that one day we will see streaming HD to everyone's smartphone, but that kind of infrastructure change costs money and takes time.

 

[ppc750fx]

Sounds like it's time they upgrade their equipment to handle the customers needs.

Indeed. And they are.

But keep in mind -- they can't afford (or more correctly, *you* can't afford) to pay for a dedicated 7.2 mbit connection for each user. Overselling is a fundamental necessity when it comes to consumer-level broadband -- there's just no other way to sell the service at a cost that people will pay otherwise.

But until that magical day when we all have all the bandwidth we could ever dream of, we have to live with the weaknesses of the systems that we implement. Right now AT&T users might want to hope and pray that all the iPhone users in their cells don't get this "stick it to AT&T" attitude and start streaming video 24x7 just to prove a point...

 

[KidStallyn]

Indeed. And they are.

But keep in mind -- they can't afford (or more correctly, *you* can't afford) to pay for a dedicated 7.2 mbit connection for each user. Overselling is a fundamental necessity when it comes to consumer-level broadband -- there's just no other way to sell the service at a cost that people will pay otherwise.

But until that magical day when we all have all the bandwidth we could ever dream of, we have to live with the weaknesses of the systems that we implement. Right now AT&T users might want to hope and pray that all the iPhone users in their cells don't get this "stick it to AT&T" attitude and start streaming video 24x7 just to prove a point...

We have a contract that allows us to use 5GB (unlimited data) per month. How I use it should not be limited. I may switch to Tmobile after my contract is up....

 

[NT1440]

You have a couple of points that make sense but think about it, AT&T has had nearly a year (since the release of the app store) to make upgrades to their 3G networks.

LOL are you serious? Do you understand how massive of an undertaking upgrading a national system is? It deffinatly should be done, but dont act like its as easy as flipping a switch.