AT&T: Wireless Is 'Different' In which AT&T gives that speech about growing wireless demand. Again. As we noted last week, AT&T stayed largely quiet when Verizon and Google announced their network neutrality agreement, not wanting the deal telecom tango to be seen as a plan hashed out by only the debate's wealthiest participants (which it was). So, even though the framework gave AT&T everything they wanted (no wireless neutrality, a weak FCC, paper thin rules) AT&T figured they would stay quiet.
That didn't last. AT&T's now put a blog post up entitled "Wireless Is Different," which complains there's a lot of "misinformation out there about this issue," which AT&T will be happy to clear up for you. AT&T pulls out their well-used speech about how mobile data use is exploding (I think we get it already, guys), and argues that because wireless networks are more bandwidth-contained, it makes better sense to skip wireless when/if we impose network neutrality rules. Says AT&T's Joan Marsh:Pitted against this insatiable demand are wireless networks of finite and shared resources. Wireless networks simply cannot provide the same amount of capacity as wireline networks (i.e., DSL and cable). Fiber is to a wireline network what spectrum is to a wireless network, and as a transmission medium, the two simply do not compare. The theoretical top speed of a LTE carrier is 100 Mbps. By contrast, theoretical transmission speeds on fiber can reach as high as 25,000,000 Mbps. The 5 extra zeros tell the story.
AT&T just doesn't want consumer protections for wireless. Why? They might prevent AT&T from crippling vendor handsets so users are forced to use AT&T bloatware, or forcing users to pay more for certain services. Consumer protections also might prevent AT&T from blocking applications that either compete with their own services, or say the services of a giant preferred advertising partner with a colorful and whimsical logo. Such protections might restrict AT&T's shiny new pricing model as well, which involves fairly unreasonably-low caps of 200 MB and 2GB.
Sure, wireless may be different, but AT&T's love of using capacity as a bogeyman to justify any and all behavior remains the same, whether we're talking about wireless or wireline networks (you'll of course recall the AT&T-funded Exaflood myth). Of course this discussion really isn't about capacity, given regulators could easily craft rules that allow for intelligent network congestion management. The discussion is about protecting consumers from AT&T's bad behavior. It's also simply about money. It has always been about money.
|
 | | Their fantastic here at least They are better than ANY other carrier in this area. Can't speak for anyone else. But Capacity was never compromised here.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|  |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Their fantastic here at least Especially not at 11:54PM at night in rural Alabama ... almost 2 months ago. 
What I think is a slap in the face, is all the studies released (and even AT&T's own) that show the majority of users consume around 250MB of data. How "convenient" that their 200MB plan costs you twice as much the moment you use 201MB, which also conveniently winds up costing you more than the 2GB data plan. | |
| | | mike656
join:2002-04-21
Frederick, MD | Re: Their fantastic here at least Where he lives according to his info isn't rural, still good speed though. | |
| | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Their fantastic here at least said by mike656:Where he lives according to his info isn't rural, still good speed though. 10 miles outside of Birmingham is what I would consider rural. You're right though, they are great speeds. Wish their network performed like that everywhere. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Airwolf7Premium
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY
kudos:1 | Re: Their fantastic here at least said by Uncle Paul:Hoover is the upscale section of Birmingham. It's where all the money is. All iLive4Apple's sayin is 'What's wrong with the beer we got?' (youtube clip) I could not believe that video was real.
It is real though.
Alvin Holmes comes in at the 5:30 mark.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFDVc6XCcc | |
|
| | | | mike656
join:2002-04-21
Frederick, MD | I wish my Sprint EVDO service was that fast, the fastest speeds i've had are over 2mbps. BTW Hoover AL is about as rural as Cary NC if you know the triangle, used to live in Cary and have family nearby Hoover in AL. | |
| | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Their fantastic here at least said by mike656:I wish my Sprint EVDO service was that fast, the fastest speeds i've had are over 2mbps. BTW Hoover AL is about as rural as Cary NC if you know the triangle, used to live in Cary and have family nearby Hoover in AL. Quick stats:
Birmingham Metro Area (including Hoover): 1.2 million
RDU Metro Area: 1.1 million
The RDU area has roughly twice the population density (2800 sq/mi vs 1500 sq/mi) in roughly the same amount of space and has overall, much more affluent residents, therefore, much higher penetration rates of cell service.
I consider the area he is in to be relatively rural when compared to the rest of the country, hence his high speeds. If you suddenly took away half or more of the users in an area like RDU (or NYC), you'd see the congestion problems disappear and speed tests more in line with the OPs. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Their fantastic here at least said by Matt3:said by mike656:I wish my Sprint EVDO service was that fast, the fastest speeds i've had are over 2mbps. BTW Hoover AL is about as rural as Cary NC if you know the triangle, used to live in Cary and have family nearby Hoover in AL. Quick stats: Birmingham Metro Area (including Hoover): 1.2 million RDU Metro Area: 1.1 million The RDU area has roughly twice the population density (2800 sq/mi vs 1500 sq/mi) in roughly the same amount of space and has overall, much more affluent residents, therefore, much higher penetration rates of cell service. I consider the area he is in to be relatively rural when compared to the rest of the country, hence his high speeds. If you suddenly took away half or more of the users in an area like RDU (or NYC), you'd see the congestion problems disappear and speed tests more in line with the OPs. We do have a pretty dense population to cell phone coverage if you look at it as we do not have as many cell phone tower's because of city regulations. So 1 cellular tower is covering about the same amount of people as 5-6 would in NYC or Atlanta. Now it's not overpopulated but far from rural compared to other part's of the South.
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|
| | | | | | Hoover is a close suburb of Birmingham - not rural.
Hoover has a population of around 78,000, part of the Birmingham metro area with a population of 1.1 million.
I've been to rural Alabama, and Hoover is to rural Alabama as New York is to Birmingham. | |
| | | | | | | said by Matt3:said by mike656:Where he lives according to his info isn't rural, still good speed though. 10 miles outside of Birmingham is what I would consider rural. You're right though, they are great speeds. Wish their network performed like that everywhere. Were part of the "Birmingham" Metro area in one of the fastest growing cities'. We have 2 city high school's, a freshman campus, + 3 middle school's and god know's how many elementary school's, city garbage pickup and are covered by 5 cellular provider's, and I live 1/2 a mile from the interstate.
To me rural is cow town Alabama
--
2010 Ford Fusion Sport | |
|
| | |
| | | That test was taken at 4AM... try 5PM. | |
| | | |
| rob316
join:2005-10-17
Carteret, NJ | Wait that test was done at 3:45 Am in the morning when no one is even up to use data. Run the test at around 12 noon and then post those results. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Their fantastic here at least I stand corrected. You learn something every day. | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | If wireless is different, then so what? (I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...)
But, if wireless is different, then what?
If the open Internet is part of the pipe, the remainder is what carriers can use for their own premium services. If the pipe is smaller because it's wireless, then the carriers have more incentive to erode the Internet part of the pipe to make room for premium services. MORE protections are needed in that case, NOT LESS!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by funchords:(I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...) You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? Wireless is different. That doesn't mean carriers should be able to discriminate based on what services you use, though.
Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time.
My Cox service has been sucking lately because of people using all the bandwidth on the node (I have a sneaking suspicion it's just one or two customers doing the hogging, given the traffic patterns), but that doesn't mean they should be able to tell me what services I can or can't use, although I'd appreciate some reasonable prioritization of interactive traffic, since they have the option of splitting the node or adding a new DOCSIS carrier at any time of their choosing.
Wireless providers don't have that luxury, in general. Between the relatively small amount of spectrum they can get their hands on and the difficulty in installing new sites thanks to NIMBYs, they definitely rate different regulations.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by wierdo:You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? That's not limited to wireless. Wireless has more noise, but discriminating useful signal from that noise has always been an improving capability (wireless and wired). To say that wireless is merely behind would be a simplification of reality, but it's effectively true: wireless is following where wired has already tread.
said by wierdo:Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. Several US carriers are doing this, too, rather quietly. They characterize the service as "unlimited" but actually it's limited.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by funchords:That's not limited to wireless. Wireless has more noise, but discriminating useful signal from that noise has always been an improving capability (wireless and wired). To say that wireless is merely behind would be a simplification of reality, but it's effectively true: wireless is following where wired has already tread. The difference is that with a wire, you have 1 GHz or more of bandwidth to work with. Even the most spectrum-heavy carrier is lucky to have a tenth or twentieth of that in a few markets, and more like a hundredth in many.
Several US carriers are doing this, too, rather quietly. They characterize the service as "unlimited" but actually it's limited.
I strongly disagree with that characterization. My cable service is not "limited" (in the sense of "opposite of unlimited data transfer") merely because it has speed tiers. As best I can divine from your statement, you think my cable company ought not be able to advertise "unlimited" service unless they let the modem run uncapped?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
| | | | | | said by funchords:To say that wireless is merely behind would be a simplification of reality, but it's effectively true: wireless is following where wired has already tread. And wireless providers don't want to lose control and end up with the same issues they currently face with wire line. If they can keep the choke hold on, then even if wireless ever does catch up... it'll always be different... their cash cow foreva. | |
|
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by wierdo:Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. But the same "consumer advocates" that are attacking AT&T, Verizon, etc for using pricing mechanisms or caps & overage charges to manage spectrum would attack just as vociferously if they used the "slow down" method. Face it, nothing that the providers do to manage wireless congestion will be accepted by the champions of the people.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by Linklist:But the same "consumer advocates" that are attacking AT&T, Verizon, etc for using pricing mechanisms or caps & overage charges to manage spectrum would attack just as vociferously if they used the "slow down" method. Face it, nothing that the providers do to manage wireless congestion will be accepted by the champions of the people. These advocates largely have accepted reasonable pay-for-use models. What they've rebelled against was clearly unreasonable rates and tiers that were nothing but an anti-video filter.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | | said by Linklist:said by wierdo:Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. But the same "consumer advocates" that are attacking AT&T, Verizon, etc for using pricing mechanisms or caps & overage charges to manage spectrum would attack just as vociferously if they used the "slow down" method. Face it, nothing that the providers do to manage wireless congestion will be accepted by the champions of the people. How about proof that congestion is actually necessary? You know why that's impossible? Because AT&T et al. are making huge, huge margins on wireless while cutting capex. There's no excuse for their practices, which are unheard of in other developed countries like Japan and the Scandinavian countries. | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by wierdo:said by funchords:(I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...) You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? Wireless is different. That doesn't mean carriers should be able to discriminate based on what services you use, though. Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. FEW GB? So this is what they want to take away broadcast TV for? So rural people can have slow wireless internet with severe caps and many restrictions because net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless? Rural people can have that now. It's called satellite internet. | |
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by BF69:FEW GB? So this is what they want to take away broadcast TV for? So rural people can have slow wireless internet with severe caps and many restrictions because net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless? Rural people can have that now. It's called satellite internet. Fixed wireless broadband is a pretty stupid idea in the grand scheme of things, IMO.
Regardless, it is true that without caps of any kind, you will end up with LTE being just like satellite. Crappy. Satellite isn't crappy because of the FAP, it's crappy because it's congested at the best of times, in my experience.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
| | | | | | | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by wierdo:said by BF69:FEW GB? So this is what they want to take away broadcast TV for? So rural people can have slow wireless internet with severe caps and many restrictions because net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless? Rural people can have that now. It's called satellite internet. Fixed wireless broadband is a pretty stupid idea in the grand scheme of things, IMO. Regardless, it is true that without caps of any kind, you will end up with LTE being just like satellite. Crappy. Satellite isn't crappy because of the FAP, it's crappy because it's congested at the best of times, in my experience. Again, no caps in many other countries with much lower-capacity 3G and there have been no problems. | |
| | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: If wireless is different, then so what? said by sonicmerlin:Again, no caps in many other countries with much lower-capacity 3G and there have been no problems. You're right. No caps, but they do throttle after a certain amount of data transfer in a month, at least in a lot of places I've been.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
| | | | said by wierdo:said by funchords:(I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...) You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? Wireless is different. That doesn't mean carriers should be able to discriminate based on what services you use, though. Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. Wait what? There's no throttling in Japan, on either 3G or 4G. Lots of people use 3G as their primary internet connections at home and on the road. Heck I use hundreds of gigabytes every month on my WiMax connection, and they've actually tripled my upload speed over the last 4 months. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | I think flat rate metered billing makes sense when the demand is much higher than the supply. What I'd really like is for people who use very little to pay very little. The guy using 10GB can pay $50, the other guy using 10MB pays 5 cents. That would seriously encourage the efficient use of bandwidth by the software, but the carriers don't want 50% of their data users paying 5 or 50 cents a month.
The carriers care about how much money is going into their pockets. If overloading the network was the fastest way to make money, they would do it. Killing network neutrality will mean more money for them. Bandwidth considerations are simply an excuse. | |
|
| | 3G? Where? AT&T has completely ignored my county when it comes to 3G. The City of Jackson has 35,000 people and there are several smaller communities, and 3G is nowhere to be found. Their crappy EDGE network barely reaches us for phone calls.
VZW is building a new tower just two miles to my north. I hope it's a part of LTE expansion, but they're probably hoping to compete with a local WiMAX provider who can barely keep up with requests for service.
AT&T isn't interested in me as a customer. Period. | |
| nishiko7Premium
join:2007-05-01
Pleasant Hill, CA |  Thank you Karl!
Speaking of money, THANK YOU also that you haven't sold out, and that you keep advocating so hard for the consumer and really, the future of U.S. global tech leadership and overall competitiveness.
Thank you for all you do! It's genuinely appreciated by most of us. In fact, this is my favorite blog. | |
| | | | Re: Thank you Karl! quote:
You hit another one out of the park today with this one Karl! I so love reading your hard hitting, tell-it-like-it is posts.
I think you forgot the /sarcasm tag. Karl's mantra and postings are getting tiring. He needs to stop the editorializing and just report the facts. | |
| | | | | Re: Thank you Karl! No... no Karl is doing just fine the way he is. In fact he is the primary reason I read this site. | |
| | | | | | Re: Thank you Karl! Wireless is definitely different because there is only so much spectrum real estate in the wireless world. As more dumbphone users move to smartphones and other mobile devices become ubiquitous, the carriers will have to manage the spectrum more carefully than for landline. It's already obviously a challenge as caps are starting to appear.
I'd bet long term the carriers will be adding more WiFi sites (or partnering with existing WiFi providers) to supplement 3G/4G. We might even eventually see 3G/4G devices force to WiFi if it sees one it can subscribe to. It's unfortunate that WiFi would have to be part of the strategy but I don't think they have other options.
Carriers will figure out how to squeeze more out of available spectrum, but probably not faster than the growth rate of users and rate of mobile content pulling more data. IE, Netflix/Hulu are coming to phones/pads. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Thank you Karl! The carriers are the ones pushing the smartphones despite there complaints of capacity. I don't feel sorry for them pushing to sell phones on spectrum shortages and backhaul. They need to put those profits back into the network not bitch about what we do with the phones they sold us. | |
|
| | | said by nishiko7:You hit another one out of the park today with this one Karl! I so love reading your hard hitting, tell-it-like-it is posts. Speaking of money, THANK YOU also that you haven't sold out, and that you keep advocating so hard for the consumer and really, the future of U.S. global tech leadership and overall competitiveness. Thank you for all you do! It's genuinely appreciated by most of us. In fact, this is my favorite blog. QFT | |
|
| | ummm.... its just a network. Dear AT&T,
While you continue to baffle everyone with bullshit. Network Professional here to remind you that your "precious" is just another network. A regular old network just like any other network. It needs no special "babying", just a whole hell of a lot more money dumped in to it to make it actually perform adequately.
Get over yourself please, it's embarrassing. | |
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: ummm.... its just a network. said by axiomatic:It needs no special "babying", just a whole hell of a lot more money dumped in to it to make it actually perform adequately. just a whole hell of a lot more money is the key phrase. And AT&T or Verizon or any other wireless provider is NOT going to spend all that money if FCC regulations will greatly reduce the ROI on that investment. It is Business 101. And they will lobby like fiends to prevent that from happening.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | Re: ummm.... its just a network. When you find that proof that FCC regulations impact that particular ROI I'll listen to your theory then. Until then Networking 101 trumps Business 101 in my book. | |
| | | | | |  w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR
2 edits | Simple solution: Not gunna maintain and develop your network? Then you lose your licenses so someone who will can move in and take over. Making profit is only icing on the cake, their first duty is to provide a competitive service to the American people.
--
www.aimless.us - irc.aimless.us channel #fix | |
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| Re: ummm.... its just a network. said by w0g:Simple solution: Not gunna maintain and develop your network? Then you lose your licenses so someone who will can move in and take over. Making profit is only icing on the cake, their first duty is to provide a competitive service to the American people. Making profit is the only reason companies exist. Would you show up to your job every day if your employer decided to stop paying you and decided you should just keep working to support "the greater good?" | |
|
| | Caps?? So I think they are shooting themselves in the foot on wireline caps now. I keep reading (maybe between the lines) that wireline services are so abundant that no metering or mgmt is necessary.
Wireless is the future though and I feel pity for all those who will be forced and are currently to use aircards for home broadband.
iPhone 4. | |
| Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | the only way for it to be "different" is if these companies made a whole other internet for Wireless.
you wouldn't be able to connect to the regular internet via wireless devices. it would have to be its own internet..
once they do that, then yes, it shouldn't be regulated like the normal internet.. but if these current devices only just connect the same old regular internet that it is now, then yes, you need to get it regulated. | |
| | | So is wireless viable for broadband internet access or not.. If wireless is not a viable substitute for internet access in the foreseeable future then perhaps these companies should not be dumping so much investment into wireless and playing up wireless as the future,should be giving more love to wireline and should not be marketing these services as alternatives for broadband internet access.
If the wireless infrastructure isn't going to be up to the task as far as the eye can see then so be it, but we should then be focused on wireline.
If wireless is going to be sold as a viable internet access solution then don't bitch about how it can't handle the demands made of internet access solutions and tell us that we need to remake the de facto rules of the internet to accommodate your inadequate technologies. | |
| | | WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | Re: How quickly we forget. said by Mr Matt:  Back in 1997 the incumbent local exchange carriers were having a problem. Actually it goes back further than that. As it was told to me in 1989, in the mid-'80s, a Southwestern Bell Telephone exec gave a presentation at the Fort Worth, Texas L.D. Bell High School explaining how a home user's dial-up modem used longer connect times and users should be charged more for a "computer phone line". | |
| | | |
| | wireless bandwidth Might be more restrictive, but it can be managed things such as micro cells and segmentation. The system works a whole lot better when you have 20 people on a tower compared to 20000, yes it costs money, but that is called investment and why would they do that when they can instead pay wall only to their services and overcharge for BW. | |
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | The companies will want to continue the slowing trend and start to up the speeds, lower the caps, and continue issuing statements that all of these issues are "great for consumers" and offer a "better experience for the consumers" with nothing to actually explain what the hell that even means | |
| | | I don't get it.... I thought the solution to all the congestion on AT&T's pipes was the death of unlimited wireless data, and the introduction of fair & balanced buffet checks in the form of metered* billing. So what's the basis for AT&T's argument against Net Neutrality? If they're already charging per byte, then who cares where the byte comes from or what app/device is chowing down on it. Maybe that's why they were staying quiet....they didn't want their bullshit called out
*metered = flat rate + ridiculous overage fees | |
| | | Yeah whatever Sure AT&T, sure. This is 2010, and we're still paying $$$ for SMS. Oh, and we're still paying to RECEIVE calls and SMS. Data? We're going from unlimited -> 5GB -> 200MB/2GB. Is that progress? AT&T: Think different, that you shall use your smartphone only for text emails, nothing else. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
How quickly we forget.
Re: How quickly we forget.
I think that you are referring to the disagreement and legal battle between the Incumbent Local Telephone Companies and GTE Telenet because of the long holding times on calls to the Telenet Modem Pools.