Well that didn't take long... Droid X has root!!!

[Brian Stirling]

I don't, in principle, disagree that tethering should be transparent to the carrier with total data use being about the only thing they should care about. However, the current plan structure has not kept up with technology and data use per customer and they are not well situated to deal with the significant increase in data use that is due to:

1. Smart phones with increasingly large screens that make viewing video and surfing the net more practical every year.

2. The percentage of cellular customers that are using the data intensive smart phones.

3. The addition of new features, like YouTube, that eat lots of data.

and

4. Tethering


A few years ago the monthly average data use would have been much less than 100MB and probably closer to 10MB or less with voice being more of a bandwidth eater than pure data. Pure data has already surpassed voice and the trend line suggests data will dwarf voice shortly.

No mater what the carriers do the per user data demands are going to continue increasing and they will need to evolve there networks to keep up. I anticipate the trend will see the use of a vastly greater number of short range cells to limit the total number of people on each cell. I also see the spectrum jumping to higher frequencies to increase per cell bandwidth. I can see a time when almost all telephone poles have micro cells operating at much higher frequency and much shorter ranges. I also see office buildings be retrofit with micro cells on each floor.

Anyway, the timeline for the carriers to move to fully metered plans is probably on the order of 5 years with the next move, coming very soon, being multi tiered plans. I can see Verizon and ATT and eventually everyone else having plans along the lines of:

A. $40 (dumb phones)

B. $55 (dump phone high minutes)

C. $65 (smart phones, <1GB/month + $8/GB over 1GB)

D. $80 (1GB-5GB per month + $6/GB over 5GB)

E. $95 (5GB-10GB per month + $4/GB over 10GB)


Again, I think we will eventually see fully metered plans and likely within 5 years.


Brian

 

[AMDZen]

I agree that phone companies have a history of doing shady stuff to con you out of money. Also it is bull that they would advertise unlimited and then cap/throttle you at 5GB, but I think it's legit to have a tethering surcharge on an "Unlimited Plan". Now if they still throttle/cap at 5 gigs then that once again is a bad way to go since it makes them look like they are double charging you like ATT now is for tethering.

There isn't even a single ISP out there that doesn't do this, much less wireless provider.

Comcast, Charter, Verizon, AT&T - all of them will start throttling you over a certain limit. I think on Comcast its 250 GB but still.

This isn't anything new, not in any industry - the cost on the wireless side is a lot higher then the broadband "land" side if you will, so the only thing suprising is how long it took for this to happen.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Yes, cable based internet providers have a much larger pipe to push data so the cost per GB is a lot less. Going forward, however, it seems the percentage of internet traffic that goes through a phone will increase relative to cable. This will force changes in cellular technology as I mentioned in my prior but in the short run I see big problems for cellular users.

As the data demand increases there will be periods in which one network or another will choke and grind to a halt with many PO'd customers. Eventually, with a much larger constellation of micro cells operating at much higher frequency and bandwidth, the problem will ease. Although higher frequency signals are typically worse at building penetration I foresee the carriers putting cells inside buildings. We may see a good many office building do away with LAN based internet and go wifi and cellular with both systems tied together.

It would be interesting to speculate on what the total cellular data traffic per month will be 10 years from now versus now -- as a guess I'd say at least 100X.


Brian

 

[exdeath]

I have a problem paying 2-3x more for limited/restricted internet for a phone that sees minor use than for a nearly unlimited and 10x faster home connection.

I pay $60 a month to download at 10+ mbps at home where I am able to move large amounts of data up to gigabytes per day if I choose.

Why am I paying $140 a month to be able to browse the web, check email, and use GPS on a phone?

Not to mention you can't do half of what you can at home with ports being blocked at the carrier side. Thats cell companies for you, pay alot more for alot less, or next to nothing at all.

Providers are sitting on a golden goose and they know it. Can't wait till that goose dies and we get reasonable proportional rates.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I have a problem paying 2-3x more for limited/restricted internet for a phone that sees minor use than for a nearly unlimited and 10x faster home connection.

I pay $60 a month to download at 10+ mbps at home where I am able to move large amounts of data up to gigabytes per day if I choose.

Why am I paying $140 a month to be able to browse the web, check email, and use GPS on a phone?

Not to mention you can't do half of what you can at home with ports being blocked at the carrier side. Thats cell companies for you, pay alot more for alot less, or next to nothing at all.

Providers are sitting on a golden goose and they know it. Can't wait till that goose dies and we get reasonable proportional rates.

You clearly have no clue, not an f'n clue. Here's the deal ... if cable internet is all you need DON'T pay to access the internet on your PHONE! Save the money and stick with cable...

If you think it is even remotely equal in cost to deliver data with a phone versus cable what the hell are you doing on this board! I thought there was some minimum level of technical knowhow required, I guess you prove me wrong...

You know, I don't usually come on this strong but your post just blows me away with your ignorance.


Brian

 

[exdeath]

You clearly have no clue, not an f'n clue. Here's the deal ... if cable internet is all you need DON'T pay to access the internet on your PHONE! Save the money and stick with cable...

If you think it is even remotely equal in cost to deliver data with a phone versus cable what the hell are you doing on this board! I thought there was some minimum level of technical knowhow required, I guess you prove me wrong...

You know, I don't usually come on this strong but your post just blows me away with your ignorance.


Brian

A phone is a mobile device you use for light duty that is in addition to home broad band to check up on quick shit away from home, it should not cost 3 times as much for 1/10th the capability and usage. End of discussion. You are blind if you think cell providers arent milking the golden goose.

If it's so hard to deliver internet to a phone perhaps providers should stop crippling things that are wifi capable to force you to use their data network so they can bitch about needing to charge more hmm?

I should not cost me more to check email on my phone than it does to download half the internet at home because...well...it doesn't, regardless of wireless or not. Cell providers have been nickle and diming customers disproportionately for years in ways that would not be accepted by anyone on any other platform.

When is the last time you heard of Ford or Toyota getting away with disabling the cars built in stereo unless you paid a recurring endless subscription of $20 a month, and trying to find ways to make your car not run if you brought a portable player inside of it?

 

[PlatinumGold]

A phone is a mobile device you use for light duty that is in addition to home broad band to check up on quick shit away from home, it should not cost 3 times as much for 1/10th the capability and usage. End of discussion. You are blind if you think cell providers arent milking the golden goose.

If it's so hard to deliver internet to a phone perhaps providers should stop crippling things that are wifi capable to force you to use their data network so they can bitch about needing to charge more hmm?

I should not cost me more to check email on my phone than it does to download half the internet at home because...well...it doesn't, regardless of wireless or not. Cell providers have been nickle and diming customers disproportionately for years in ways that would not be accepted by anyone on any other platform.

When is the last time you heard of Ford or Toyota getting away with disabling the cars built in stereo unless you paid a recurring endless subscription of $20 a month, and trying to find ways to make your car not run if you brought a portable player inside of it?

"Milking it" is what capitalism is all about. "what the market will bear" = "milking it".

as to crippling devices, Intel made that famous with the 486SX, but that was a while ago

actually, GM sells Onstar devices on their cars that are "crippled" after a period of time if you don't pay a fee. i drive a Hyundai that has an XM Radio built in but because i don't feel like paying for XM Radio, the XM radio portion doesn't work.


bottom line is, there is a Convenience factor to having wireless internet available to you where ever you go. what you are willing to pay for that is your choice. but the market is apparently willing to pay more for it than you are. don't hate on the wireless carriers, they are just behaving as free market companies are supposed to behave.

 

[exdeath]

There are other industries getting along with capitalism just fine without being half as devious and underhanded as cell providers. Maybe its because they are actually focused on delivering good product and earning your cash instead of bending over backwards to find ways to make you pay for nothing or pay more for something you already have or the holy grail of cell carriers: hooking you with subscriptions for something the carrier doesn't have to do anything to provide. Double dipping on top of the service you are already paying for of course.

 

[Brian Stirling]

A phone is a mobile device you use for light duty that is in addition to home broad band to check up on quick shit away from home, it should not cost 3 times as much for 1/10th the capability and usage. End of discussion. You are blind if you think cell providers arent milking the golden goose.

If it's so hard to deliver internet to a phone perhaps providers should stop crippling things that are wifi capable to force you to use their data network so they can bitch about needing to charge more hmm?

I should not cost me more to check email on my phone than it does to download half the internet at home because...well...it doesn't, regardless of wireless or not. Cell providers have been nickle and diming customers disproportionately for years in ways that would not be accepted by anyone on any other platform.

When is the last time you heard of Ford or Toyota getting away with disabling the cars built in stereo unless you paid a recurring endless subscription of $20 a month, and trying to find ways to make your car not run if you brought a portable player inside of it?

People that have both cable internet at home an a smart phone with a data plan probably download or transfer more data at home over cable then they do using there phone but that equation is changing. I think it will not be long before data sent over cellular networks exceed the data sent to you home over cable. Remember, you probably only have one cable at your house but you may have 5 (1-10 or more) cell phone users.

From a cost standpoint cellular is in some respect cheaper and you see in developing parts of the world that they have no land lines but have cellular. However, when the data demand reaches a certain point the cellular system chokes off and you have to go cable/fiber. In the western world where phone service has been common for about 100 years and cable TV has been common for over 30 years we have a well developed cable/fiber infrastructure that makes delivering high bandwidth data feasible in a way that cellular is not. Delivering a MB of data over cable in the west is just plain cheaper than cellular in part because you generally run cable/fiber to the cell site anyway.

Cellular transmission has problems that cable/fiber does not. You have all manor of wave property issues that anyone with an iPhone 4 is only partly aware of. You also have limitations on where you can place a cell tower and that results in weak signals and too many people using the other towers. And, all of this was true when voice was the only game in town so as pure data moves on the be vastly more significant than voice those problems only get worse.

It is true, of course, that many of the carriers play the same nickle and dime fee thing the banking industry is so fond of and for that they can go f*ck themselves -- I don't like that anymore than you. But when it comes to delivering an ever increasing amount of data while at the same time making sure the every customer has a decent experience using there phone it is on this point I stand behind the carriers BECAUSE I understand what's involved and the cost/risks involved. As I said before we will likely see a time when the data traffic over our phones exceed the data traffic on our wired internet connections at home and given the relative bandwidth limitations of RF in the spectrum available it will require the carriers to deploy a vastly larger constellation of cell towers to handle the load. That, my friend, is what makes cellular much more expensive.

And finally, I pay about $70/month for Comcast cable internet whereas my monthly bill from Sprint for my 4g Evo is about $90. So, for about 25% more I get the internet ANYWHERE not just at home. My data use is greater on my cell phone that my cable system!


Brian

 

[Alex R]

The Motorola Devour has also been rooted with the help of the instructions to root Droid X.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

holy batman derail

 

[thescreensavers]

^haha yep