Love that Pandora app? Well, we've got good news and bad news for you. The good news is that AT&T's wireless head honcho Ralph de la Vega says it's hard at work at improving
service in San Francisco and Manhattan, where it sees especially high smartphone penetration -- and coincidentally a higher concentration of whiny tech journalists. The bad news, though, is that it might end up hitting you in the pocketbook. Speaking to investors today, de la Vega mentioned that the company is well aware that downtown New Yorkers are suffering, specifically calling out the area for "performing at levels below [its] standards" expressing confidence that it's going to get the problem resolved. In the same breath, though, he assured attendees that independent testing conducted by Global Wireless Solutions shows that a test of over 415 markets (which probably means 416 markets) has AT&T coming out on top for network speed -- something that we found in
our testing as well -- and is "within two-tenths of 1 percent of the highest score among major providers" for dropped calls at 1.32 percent averaged nationally. Anyway, about that bad news -- the company has noticed that a huge chunk (some 40 percent) of its broadband is consumed by just 3 percent of smartphone users, and it's suggesting that it'll "address" that through a combination of usage meters (no complaints there) and likely a tiered pricing model that sticks it to the heaviest users "in a way that's consistent with net-neutrality and FCC regulations." At a glance, that sounds "fair" -- we'd rather they not increase data fees across the board to average out a very small number of users -- but the long-lost term "unlimited" still gives us a warm fuzzy that we're hoping to win back sooner or later. When LTE shows up, perhaps?
posted December 9th 2009 1:15PM
I'm not sure how charging the heaviest data users more money is going to do anything to solve their network congestion issues. They already have plenty of money to improve their network, they just need to DO IT.
Charging heavy data users more money amounts to nothing more than punishment for using more data than other people. It doesn't solve any of the actual problems they're having.
@Jack
I agree they have a lot of money to upgrade their network without extra charges.
However, charging more based on actual usage WILL help the problem since when that 3% of ultra-heavy users start having to pay more for their usage, a large chunk of them will likely decrease their usage significantly to save money.
But they're not simply trying to increase capacity. They're also trying to decrease load, e.g., congestion pricing.
Charging more for data may help alleviate that problem. See Farhad Manjoo's article here for more info on that idea: http://www.slate.com/id/2231646/
@Schmitty338
Yes, but if AT&T's solution to network congestion is to get people to stop using their network, it's still not solving the problem. They need to fix their congestion problem, not bite the hand that feeds them.
@Jack
They are biting the hand of 3 percent, when the other 97 percent WILL benefit.
I do not like AT&T's solution, (because I do believe they have the money to fix the problem easily) but a price increase will work.
M
@BigDaddyM
I just disagree with their reasoning. If they just improved their network, that would work too, and without punishing anybody for using what is supposed to be unlimited data for the base plan price.
I don't use that much data myself, but if I were one of the people in that 3% I would be extremely pissed off that AT&T is attempting to change the meaning of the word "unlimited" (by charging additional fees on top of an already unlimited plan).
@Schmitty338
But think of the facebook users who need constant contact/updates on their friends.How will I keep up with my friends to see if they're having a good day or how they are doing?
Only if there was some type of electronic device from which me and my friends could communicate through instantly via speech.
@Jack - Boy sure wish I had flat rate pricing on my GAS and ELECTRIC bills. A bandwidth glutton is like an insane tractor trailer driver swerving all over the highway taking up multiple lanes and slowing down traffic for others! If you are an insane bandwidth glutton you should PAY MORE just like you do if you go nuts on that GAS and ELECTRICITY! Just sayin...
PS Again we are talking about INSANE TYPES not nominal or above nominal users. Calm down, stop slowing the rest of us down and save the torrents for Wifi...
Sounds a lot like what the British phone company was telling the Python troupe in the late 60's...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aMpcH3kAcA
@Jack and Frankenstein Black I agree, however instead of steadfastly expanding and upgrading towers, their deciding to rake in more money by charging for alleged "overuse" seems odd to me.
I spun this 2 ways:
1) All the data hogs that are just using their 3G just to use it, are indeed clogging the network one smartphone at a time. All that bandwidth from data heavy phones are not playing a good part here. I see this is as AT&T's contingency plan: they can make money off of this, and further help expand their coverage and limit heavy data use on their network.
However, 2) Some people DEPEND on constant streaming, and using lots of data. Business people using their smartphones and people completely innocent in this matter will pay the price that others have brought to them. If AT&T is raking in so much from the 297,000,000 subscribers, maybe this should use this money for upgrading towers instead of just wasting it all to some coms with Luke Wilson.
All in all, we have no way to know how many of those 297m NEED to use 3G speeds. EDGE is no ferrari, but it gets the job done.
The fact of the matter is, we're all footing the bill and it's gonna suck like you would not believe. I hope that if this crazy plan works out, the experience down here will be a little better. Here's to hope.
@N900 maybe *they
@Jack
OK - Here's some rationale...
3% of users are hogging bandwidth and making the network bad for others - Ok, maybe for the mornings, but if they're hogging 3G bandwidth all morning then there's NO WAY their BATTERY (iPhone) is lasting through the afternoon. Assuming they have them plugged in - wouldn't there be a Wifi signal nearby? I know that any place I have my Pre where I could also plug it in - I have wifi access...
@Jack If you are expecting ATT to just shell out all their cash and fix the whole network within a matter of months, I think that is being a little unrealistic. This tiered approach of slapping heavy-user's wrists sounds much more practical short term. Nevertheless, they should have some long term goals or plans to upgrade (which it sounds like they have, since they already have plans to fix a few key cities). If I don't live in one of those major cities, I would be welcoming the tiered pricing for the year or two it will take for them to upgrade the towers where I live.
@Phen That is just asinine. What exactly does a discussion of battery life that add to the discussion? The fact of the matter is that AT&T's network is strained. Congestion pricing is a valid method. I agree with Jack that the current system proposed does amount to punishment, because ultimately these consumers paid for unlimited service, and decided to use it as such. A true congestion pricing scheme would eliminate unlimited plans, and charge for true data consumption. This gives a true demand for bandwidth, and AT&T can devote their resources with some semblance of intelligence, instead of hiring Luke Wilson.
@abracadvr8 Why not shell out? They would just as easily shell out for a screaming contest with Verizon.
While it appears they may be increasing prices, they also seem to be actually *upgrading* their network as well. Is everyone ignoring the HSPA upgrade they are rolling out?
Out of the 97%, most of them don't care about internet and only use the voice and text services. Like almost everyone in my family.
@ThreeDee912
Upgrading the network would theoretically solve the congestion problems, right? So why would they be considering charging the heavy users extra money in that case? It doesn't add up.
As far as the other arguments, here's the thing. If AT&T doesn't really want you to use their network on an unlimited basis, they shouldn't be selling you an unlimited package. It's false advertising. Unlimited means UNLIMITED. Period. No excuses. If AT&T's network is being hammered because some people are actually using their network to transfer a lot of data, whose fault is that? The user's?
Put the blame where it belongs.
@pavlindrom Sounds more anecdotal than statistical.
@Frankenstein Black By that same token, the people who use very little data should pay less. If they want tiered pricing, then it should be just like any other utility: a standard, defined rate per unit, in this case per KB or MB, the more you use, the more you pay.
@Jack They have to have a way to encourage data pigs to stop pigging up so much bandwidth. Stop saying "just improve the network". There is only so much spectrum out there.
They have to, however, cut or throttle people off once they hit the cap, not charge ridiculous overages, as ridiculous overages are just hypocritical, throttling is a legitimate way to deal with network load.
The "net neutrality" language implies (to me) that AT&T will be continuing to have certain aspects of data (ATT navigator, MMS/SMS, iPhone app store) unlimited, and separating out all the other data against a bandwidth cap. If they officially separate it out, it may not technically violate NN.
@Vijay Great so AT&T can choice to allow their add on service run free on their data network, but a competitors application that you bought through their also unlimited data traffic app store is not? That doesn't sound very net neutral to me, that sounds more provider monopolistic. Basically if you want to pay AT&T more money for a la carte services that use their data network its fine, but as soon want to use somebody else they will pound you into the ground with data caps?
Also regardless of if these tiered plan charges go into effect they sure as hell better not continue to use the word 'unlimited' in any case unless the access is truly without limits. Its like getting kicked out or charged more because somebody eats more than the average person should/could at an 'all you can eat buffet'!
@KAL326
Not saying it's a good thing. Just saying that this is what it sounds like he's saying. I hope I'm wrong.
@Vijay I don't think they are giving any exceptions out. The issues is air interface bandwidth, not network core bandwidth. The network core has plenty of bandwidth, and if it is running out, they can buy more. You can't buy more air interface bandwidth, as there is limited spectrum.
I am surprised that telecommunication laws allow IN texting (VZW), M2M (and equivalents) and Unity because these violate the idea of a universal public switched telephone network, and give larger companies an advantage that smaller competitors don't have.
AT&T users are either iPhone users or masochists.
Either way I suggest running as fast as you can.
@Evan
I'm on AT&T because it is the largest GSM and SIM-card based network, and I can own whatever phone I want, and use it overseas. I don't own an iPhone, nor do I want to.
@Evan "either iPhone users or masochists", aren't they one in the same?
@Evan My wife's work blackberry is on AT&T. She has never mentioned having a service problem to me.
@Evan
I got G1 on at&t and love it. I travel international...A lot and into areas that are pretty scarce for coverage.
@Evan Have had ATT for a long while, never had trouble with them. Have always ahd two lines, though, on the various carriers at various times. They all have places you would be masochistic to use them. VZW in MPLS? Ugh... ATT works great for me on Blackjack, iPhone, 8525, etc.
@Evan I use AT&T with an E71. Their 2G network is great, I use GSM/EDGE all the time, and it works great. Because I have a Nokia phone, I often outperform my Verizon friends in very weak signal areas, where there is just enough signal (no bars) to send and receive texts.
@Evan
What are you guys going to say if AT&T actually does fix their network? No one said anything about AT&T until they snagged the iPhone. Apple is so polarizing, it's crazy! Apple joins up with AT&T and now people are siding with Verizon just because they hate Apple.
Following Tmo's game plan:
http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/Coverage/3G-Expansion-amp-HSPA/m-p/254526
Of course, we'll see if T-mo's gets 7.2 within the next 3 weeks to all sites (LA's a no show for far).
The problem in my eyes is they're only (seemingly) focusing on a handful of big cities. how about the rest of the nation that's having the same problems. AT&T's entire network sucks, not just certain locations. Until they fix that they shouldn't be allowed to charge more for anything, they already rip us off too much to begin with.
@(Unverified)
2nd that. They charge more than my home ISP, and I get a quarter of the speed and usability. at&t has me by the cajones though because no other carriers have the coverage they do all over Texas.
Like Chris alludes to: maybe they're aiming at the markets where all the tech/gadget blog writers live. If Endgadet writers had perfectly good service, would they dig up so many articles trashing AT&T's less than good service?
omg, hopefully. Anyone experiencing any problems with 3G in Two Bridges? Or it's neighbor, Chinatown? I am getting 0 luck. EDGE works good though, so...I guess I can't complain.
@N900
Well, you could complain... Verizon probably has 3G there...
I would like to see some kind of metered plan for smartphones. That's part of the reason I still have my dumb phone and data free plan. I mean, I'd like a little more capability than what I have now, but I don't want to pay $30 a month for internet capabilities just because it's 'unlimited'...
@agahnim It's not unlimited, it's 5GB/month.
@jsl4980 Hence the quotes...I just couldn't remember what the cap was. They advertise it as unlimited, though.
Maybe they could stop requiring iPhone users to pay for the unlimited data plan?
I say it's BS that 3% of smart phone users consume 40% of data - show us the data. Even if it is true - it's irrelevant. They're pushing more smartphones and data plans on people so data usage will grow for the other 97% of users anyway. Punishing customers is not a good business model, fixing your crap network is a bare minimum. (and no, I'm not a whiny iPhone user hoping to avoid an increase)
i always get 3G speeds on AT&T's network.. and I live in New York City.. pushing this little tidbit aside, i think everyone expectations for 3G are way too high regardless of network.. im content with my speed on my Pure and i occasionally tether with no problem concerning signal strength or speed.. albeit i dont download huge files or stream HD youtube videos while on it
@iroydude
Replace New York with Denver, and I'd mirror your comment exactly.
From: AT&T
To: Customers
OMFG! How DARE you use services we're already charging you way too much for! Sure, we're offering it, but you weren't supposed to actually USE it! We're going to keep raising prices until you idiots (we're looking at you, iPhone owners!) stop actually USING the service!
And I'm sure by tiered service, they mean add more tiered levels for heavier users, charging them more, but for data light users, they'll still get charged the base $30, even though they're not using that much data.
This is my problem with companies when they want to do tiered service... they want to charge more for heavier usage (even though their plans say unlimited), but don't want to discount others for lighter usage.
@Celicynd I know. Even though there's no way to weed out the ones clogging the network, everyone still gets in trouble for it =(.
They never learn.