http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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/]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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).]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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...]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aMpcH3kAcA]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/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...]]>Dec 9th 2009 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 2:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 2:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 2:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 3:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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. ]]>Dec 9th 2009 3:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 8:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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'!]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
Not saying it's a good thing. Just saying that this is what it sounds like he's saying. I hope I'm wrong.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 8:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
Either way I suggest running as fast as you can.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/I got G1 on at&t and love it. I travel international...A lot and into areas that are pretty scarce for coverage.]]>Dec 9th 2009 2:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 3:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 8:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 10th 2009 11:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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).]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 7:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Well, you could complain... Verizon probably has 3G there...]]>Dec 9th 2009 4:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
Replace New York with Denver, and I'd mirror your comment exactly. ]]>Dec 9th 2009 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/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!]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/
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.]]>Dec 9th 2009 1:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/ralph-de-la-vega-promises-fix-for-san-francisco-and-manhattan-co/Dec 9th 2009 1:53PM