Discussion on:
View:
Show:
The new "mobile revolution" will come from people who become so frustrated by their smart-phone's eye-popping high-prices and agonizingly poor-performance (because every mobile carrier in the U.S. is massively over-subscribed) and simply switch back to "basic" phones and do their "mobile" computing on tablets mated to less-expensive (i.e. not-metered-service) WiFi networks.
The mobile revolution is far from over. The world is already mobile and it's not going to end because unlimited data plans are ending. People will just modify their behavior. They will be more cognizant of their data usage and use WiFi as much as possible. Carriers see the financial bonanza by eliminating unlimited data plans. This is capitalism 101...
If I have to "modify my behavior" to avoid being gouged then the service doesn't meet my needs. When I bought my phone, it met my needs, but if the service ceases to meet my needs, why would I keep paying for it?
My point isn't that "mobile" is over altogether, its that "mobile" is about to change in a way that will make it far-less useful than it is currently, and that this will be a net-loss for consumers, whose "behavior modifications" may include canceling data service on their mobile contracts, and just accepting that they have to wait until they're within range of a WiFi access-point to use their phone/tablet browser(s).
My point isn't that "mobile" is over altogether, its that "mobile" is about to change in a way that will make it far-less useful than it is currently, and that this will be a net-loss for consumers, whose "behavior modifications" may include canceling data service on their mobile contracts, and just accepting that they have to wait until they're within range of a WiFi access-point to use their phone/tablet browser(s).
It makes sense to have limits. The limits are not the problem. The way they are implemented is what scares people. In general most of us have no idea how much bandwidth we are using. We also are not clear what happens when we go over our data plan or at any time how close we are to going over.
Every explanation I've heard from a wireless carrier sounds like making a deal with an evil genie from an episode of the TwilightZone.
Nothing translates into the consumer knowing where they stand, and nothing turns into an incentive for content providers to keep the fun comming using less bandwidth.
Every explanation I've heard from a wireless carrier sounds like making a deal with an evil genie from an episode of the TwilightZone.
Nothing translates into the consumer knowing where they stand, and nothing turns into an incentive for content providers to keep the fun comming using less bandwidth.
When I got started on Android, even though I was on an unlimited plan, I spent six months tracking my 3G usage. I'm pretty certain that in that time, I only cracked 1.5GB in one month and that was when I had a heavy travel month. Now I'm about to switch from one carrier to another, going from "unlimited" to a 5GB 4G plan, so I'll track that usage again, but I'm not planning on changing my phone use behavior just because I've got 4G. We'll see how it works...I do know one thing, though. This change is going to cut my bill in half.
The revolution is not over because data limits encourage usage of data compression and for app programmers to become aware of what REALLY needs to be transmitted and what is not so necessary.
Taking a step "backward" to move larger clumps of data over WiFi should also encourage hardware manufacturers to use even faster chips to make up for the lack of cell access. It should also re-affirm the need for WiFi hotspots in as many places as possible.
The revolution will just simply not be riding on the back of one data transmission method.
Taking a step "backward" to move larger clumps of data over WiFi should also encourage hardware manufacturers to use even faster chips to make up for the lack of cell access. It should also re-affirm the need for WiFi hotspots in as many places as possible.
The revolution will just simply not be riding on the back of one data transmission method.
This isn't just a wireless data issue. Nothing in this world is truly free or unlimited - data, healtcare, money, time - you name it. Somewhere somebody pays. We all need to know what the real cost of our consumption is in order to make informed decisions - and pay a fair share for what provides value. Without understanding both sides of the coin, we're left chasing our tails.
Most tech professionals should have some sympathy for the concept of the fact that people don't value unlimited anything...especially if it relates to data-related things. There's a tendency for all free goods and services to be undervalued and over-consumed.
Those of you with unused time / data should sell it off to the bandwidth hogs. 
Speaks to the basic fallacy of the carrier claims on this issue.
The vast majority of users do NOT exceed or even approach their monthly bandwidth allotments - yet their allotment just disappears. The carriers are effectively admitting that they have capacity to burn - as long as customers are paying for it.
It really is a scam - but I love this idea, Palm. They'll never do it, of course.
The vast majority of users do NOT exceed or even approach their monthly bandwidth allotments - yet their allotment just disappears. The carriers are effectively admitting that they have capacity to burn - as long as customers are paying for it.
It really is a scam - but I love this idea, Palm. They'll never do it, of course.
I as disinterested as a bystander can be. I have rock-bottom pay-as-you-go plan, a phone that only gets charged before a road trip, and used for voice calls only.
From this vantage point, it looks like much of what people are pulling down to their phones could just as easily be downloaded to a computer first via traditional methods (cable or DSL), then uploaded to the phone. I submit this should be the method for most entertainment content. It's a question of priority and triage: what information do you need NOW vs. what can wait.
Just this idiot's opinion...
From this vantage point, it looks like much of what people are pulling down to their phones could just as easily be downloaded to a computer first via traditional methods (cable or DSL), then uploaded to the phone. I submit this should be the method for most entertainment content. It's a question of priority and triage: what information do you need NOW vs. what can wait.
Just this idiot's opinion...
I keep in contact with several organizations through email and having it mobile so I can keep up to date through out the day is invaluable. Before I had my smart phone I had to block out time while I was at home for email which affected my family time. I can also quickly get answers to questions immediately instead of waiting until I get to a computer to get the info. I look up address on maps, navigate to places I have never been, etc. If you are any type of data consumer I would bet money you would quickly find a smart phone invaluable.
I'm not; certainly not enough to justify the expense.
I don't support several organizations. I've declined a company phone several times as a waste of resources, since I get called at home only about once every 18 months.
I look up addresses and directions before I leave the house.
I don't support several organizations. I've declined a company phone several times as a waste of resources, since I get called at home only about once every 18 months.
I look up addresses and directions before I leave the house.
*enough to justify the expense*.
That is exactly the problem. It is kept artificially expensive - and bandwidth caps are just one method by which that is implemented.
I had a Cell phone in 1987. I was 17. Lawyers, Doctors and Drug Dealers had Cell Phones there. If you were 17 and you had a Cell Phone, it was a safe bet you were not either of the former. I was none of the 3, but I certainly received the kind of profiling the 3rd would because of my phones. My future in-laws suspected I was a drug dealer when I first met them because of it.
I've watched, nearly from the start, as the industry held back adoption of this technology by keeping the technology artificially out of the reach of average consumers. The broader and more affordable they've made it, the larger the rewards they've enjoyed. I understand that build out was expensive and like any technology, there are price premiums to be paid for early adopters. But the quicker you can make your product have mass consumer accessibility, the *better* it is for your industry.
You're an outlier on LATE adoption, Palm. Some people *never* bought into television, or land-line phones. But at some point, most people go, "Man, it is so cheap now and offers at least some benefits I can leverage, I might as WELL do it".
I'm not a massive consumer of home bandwidth, and we consume 20GB of data a month on average. Wireless companies think that wireless Internet users can get by with 4GB or less. That isn't the case. They're basing their models on what consumers are doing with the limits of the devices they THINK they should be connecting with. They're not forecasting, they're not displaying vision - they're seeing their whole world in the current box they are already in. There is no ambition or direction - they're content with the status quo.
That is exactly the problem. It is kept artificially expensive - and bandwidth caps are just one method by which that is implemented.
I had a Cell phone in 1987. I was 17. Lawyers, Doctors and Drug Dealers had Cell Phones there. If you were 17 and you had a Cell Phone, it was a safe bet you were not either of the former. I was none of the 3, but I certainly received the kind of profiling the 3rd would because of my phones. My future in-laws suspected I was a drug dealer when I first met them because of it.
I've watched, nearly from the start, as the industry held back adoption of this technology by keeping the technology artificially out of the reach of average consumers. The broader and more affordable they've made it, the larger the rewards they've enjoyed. I understand that build out was expensive and like any technology, there are price premiums to be paid for early adopters. But the quicker you can make your product have mass consumer accessibility, the *better* it is for your industry.
You're an outlier on LATE adoption, Palm. Some people *never* bought into television, or land-line phones. But at some point, most people go, "Man, it is so cheap now and offers at least some benefits I can leverage, I might as WELL do it".
I'm not a massive consumer of home bandwidth, and we consume 20GB of data a month on average. Wireless companies think that wireless Internet users can get by with 4GB or less. That isn't the case. They're basing their models on what consumers are doing with the limits of the devices they THINK they should be connecting with. They're not forecasting, they're not displaying vision - they're seeing their whole world in the current box they are already in. There is no ambition or direction - they're content with the status quo.
is irrelevant to me. I don't care if the cost is artificially high; I just know it's higher than I'm willing to pay. Unlike others, I'm willing to vote with my wallet. But it isn't just the monthly service charges; I don't view the hardware as a good investment, even at the providers' subsidized price. There are plenty of things I'd rather do with $200.
And as I noted earlier, I've turned down company phones several times. Short of travel emergencies, I just don't feel any need or want for this class of device, even when it's provided at no expense to me. The cost of 'pay as you go' hit the point where this late adopting Luddite did finally exclaim, "Boy, that's too cheap an insurance policy not to have one on the road". That was a $50 outlay for hardware and $25 every three months; that's not even a tank of gas these days. Road trips are the only time the phone gets charged; I just don't want it otherwise. If the unsubsidized price of a 'smart' phone and a couple of gigs monthly reaches those numbers, I -may- upgrade. Or not.
And as I noted earlier, I've turned down company phones several times. Short of travel emergencies, I just don't feel any need or want for this class of device, even when it's provided at no expense to me. The cost of 'pay as you go' hit the point where this late adopting Luddite did finally exclaim, "Boy, that's too cheap an insurance policy not to have one on the road". That was a $50 outlay for hardware and $25 every three months; that's not even a tank of gas these days. Road trips are the only time the phone gets charged; I just don't want it otherwise. If the unsubsidized price of a 'smart' phone and a couple of gigs monthly reaches those numbers, I -may- upgrade. Or not.
But that is going to limit broadband wireless access to IT professionals and the technically savvy. That is tremendously limiting your potential market.
I'll refer to the models that Palm and Windows used on their embedded OS platforms. Both really focused on "enterprise, business class" consumption of their PDAs and early smart-phones. They actually distanced themselves from consumer, leisure markets on purpose in order to be perceived as "business class" devices. Their products were expensive and arguably crippled in ways that enabled productivity at the cost of widespread consumer application and adoption.
Then the iPhone came out and revolutionized the SmartPhone market, and the Windows CE line and Palm became insignificant in a matter of months. As a matter of fact, the current plummet in RIM is a legacy of this move.
When you structure your model like this, to appeal to "business class users" and require high technical barriers to entry - you may maximize initial profits - but in the long term, a broader market is a better goal to pursue.
What people are pulling down from their phones is limited not because of the technological limits of the devices or method of connection. It is limited because of artificial caps and other roadblocks put in place by the Wireless Telcos.
This is about market demand. Nearly every consumer in the world who has a wired Internet connection would dump it if they could get the same level of service and speed from a wireless device that they could take anywhere with them, if the price were right. It is a superior solution - but it can serve the same need, with benefits. If this *were* the case, the usage pattern of wireless would change. People would use a MiFi hotspot as their sole Internet connection at home and on the go. They would hook up all their increasingly connected consumer devices. Their blu-ray, their game-console, their refrigerator - whatever - would all go through their wireless connection. They would let the kids stream Netflix cartoons over the in-car, MiFi connected LCD screen when they went on trips. They would use the connection when shopping to price compare. They would download movies and music. All that business, all that traffic, would be stolen from the billions of dollars people pay annually for their traditional wired connections.
There is a precedent for this. How many people have dumped traditional wired telephones to solely have mobile phones? Isn't this a problem for the traditional telcos? The same disruptive technology that allowed the Wireless Telcos to change the model for the Bells could be just as disruptive for Time Warner, Comcast, Cox, Roadrunner and... well, the Bells, again.
Just because it CAN wait doesn't mean it should HAVE to. The cellular phone and the Internet were revolutionary for society. During both of those periods lots of people dismissed those technologies saying, "Why can't things be done the way they always were". Because we haven't even figured out just WHAT we might be able to do with a global wireless high speed mobile internet that is affordable for mass consumer adoption - but it is PROBABLY mind blowing.
And right now, this short-sighted view of the wireless ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile is holding that revolution back.
Ultimately - there is a market demand - a HUGE one, for this kind of thing - even if no one *knows* it yet. Someone like Steve Jobs who is visionary and has the drive to deliver it is going to change the world. I'd like to see that time come sooner, rather than later.
I'll refer to the models that Palm and Windows used on their embedded OS platforms. Both really focused on "enterprise, business class" consumption of their PDAs and early smart-phones. They actually distanced themselves from consumer, leisure markets on purpose in order to be perceived as "business class" devices. Their products were expensive and arguably crippled in ways that enabled productivity at the cost of widespread consumer application and adoption.
Then the iPhone came out and revolutionized the SmartPhone market, and the Windows CE line and Palm became insignificant in a matter of months. As a matter of fact, the current plummet in RIM is a legacy of this move.
When you structure your model like this, to appeal to "business class users" and require high technical barriers to entry - you may maximize initial profits - but in the long term, a broader market is a better goal to pursue.
What people are pulling down from their phones is limited not because of the technological limits of the devices or method of connection. It is limited because of artificial caps and other roadblocks put in place by the Wireless Telcos.
This is about market demand. Nearly every consumer in the world who has a wired Internet connection would dump it if they could get the same level of service and speed from a wireless device that they could take anywhere with them, if the price were right. It is a superior solution - but it can serve the same need, with benefits. If this *were* the case, the usage pattern of wireless would change. People would use a MiFi hotspot as their sole Internet connection at home and on the go. They would hook up all their increasingly connected consumer devices. Their blu-ray, their game-console, their refrigerator - whatever - would all go through their wireless connection. They would let the kids stream Netflix cartoons over the in-car, MiFi connected LCD screen when they went on trips. They would use the connection when shopping to price compare. They would download movies and music. All that business, all that traffic, would be stolen from the billions of dollars people pay annually for their traditional wired connections.
There is a precedent for this. How many people have dumped traditional wired telephones to solely have mobile phones? Isn't this a problem for the traditional telcos? The same disruptive technology that allowed the Wireless Telcos to change the model for the Bells could be just as disruptive for Time Warner, Comcast, Cox, Roadrunner and... well, the Bells, again.
Just because it CAN wait doesn't mean it should HAVE to. The cellular phone and the Internet were revolutionary for society. During both of those periods lots of people dismissed those technologies saying, "Why can't things be done the way they always were". Because we haven't even figured out just WHAT we might be able to do with a global wireless high speed mobile internet that is affordable for mass consumer adoption - but it is PROBABLY mind blowing.
And right now, this short-sighted view of the wireless ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile is holding that revolution back.
Ultimately - there is a market demand - a HUGE one, for this kind of thing - even if no one *knows* it yet. Someone like Steve Jobs who is visionary and has the drive to deliver it is going to change the world. I'd like to see that time come sooner, rather than later.
I'm just pointing out that until Utopia arrives, there are other, less costly options for getting content onto a device.
Some cell phone provider is currently running a series of TV ads, Various people (a little girl in a play, a new high school graduate, a German-accented boss) complain about someone who didn't download images of them because that person 'wasted' bandwidth on something else. I want to scream at the set, "Down load the damn video / photo / whatever on your computer and then upload it to the phone! Better yet, view it on the computer's larger screen! Isn't that how you would have done it three years ago?" The phone's expensive bandwidth isn't the only option, and deciding what is information is needed NOW and what can wait until you get home is a decision-making skill many seem to have lost.
Some cell phone provider is currently running a series of TV ads, Various people (a little girl in a play, a new high school graduate, a German-accented boss) complain about someone who didn't download images of them because that person 'wasted' bandwidth on something else. I want to scream at the set, "Down load the damn video / photo / whatever on your computer and then upload it to the phone! Better yet, view it on the computer's larger screen! Isn't that how you would have done it three years ago?" The phone's expensive bandwidth isn't the only option, and deciding what is information is needed NOW and what can wait until you get home is a decision-making skill many seem to have lost.
That is what these devices are *made* for. Heck... don't take that call in the Starbucks, wait until you get HOME to talk to your mom about the family reunion.
That is the thing. You MAY be right - but the whole justification for a mobile device is to have what you want or need immediately. It seems silly to make a device that is supposed to un-tether you from the devices that you can't take with you and then say, "but you can only use it a little bit, and you shouldn't use it for this, or that, or the other thing."
Doesn't it? It defeats the whole purpose.
Keep in mind, the device also TAKES the video and pictures - and that may be what they're talking about - someone who records something and doesn't UPLOAD it until later. Again, the idea is that we're supposed to be able to record items in real time and share them on social media sites so people who couldn't be present can attend vicariously. That is one of the BENEFITS that the carriers push about a smart-phone. Only - well, you should wait until you get to a WiFi signal to upload that big video, because you really don't want to squander your data-plan on that, do you?
The fact that bandwidth demand on wireless carriers is blowing up and "stressing networks" is something that should be *encouraged*, not discouraged - and making it more expensive and more limited isn't the right way to make that market continue to grow.
Then there is convenience. I just took the video, I can quickly click on it, select share, and send it to Facebook. Or I can wait a few hours, drive home, remember the video, and either connect to my WiFi and upload it directly from the phone, or copy it to my PC via USB or other method, and upload it from there. Sure, this can be done - in fact, I do this all the time. But it is a hassle. It takes more time, more steps, more thought and planning. Sometimes this can be a good thing,
"Man, I'm glad I sobered up after that wedding party before I considered uploading THIS video to Facebook!"
But more frequently it is just a hassle and impedes getting it done.
"Did you upload that video of the employee awards to the social media sites and blogs?"
"Oh darn! I forgot, I was waiting until I got back to the office and had a WiFi connection. I'll do it now."
"It has been two weeks, Jones - never mind, don't bother. We're going to make Smith the new director of social media."
That is the thing. You MAY be right - but the whole justification for a mobile device is to have what you want or need immediately. It seems silly to make a device that is supposed to un-tether you from the devices that you can't take with you and then say, "but you can only use it a little bit, and you shouldn't use it for this, or that, or the other thing."
Doesn't it? It defeats the whole purpose.
Keep in mind, the device also TAKES the video and pictures - and that may be what they're talking about - someone who records something and doesn't UPLOAD it until later. Again, the idea is that we're supposed to be able to record items in real time and share them on social media sites so people who couldn't be present can attend vicariously. That is one of the BENEFITS that the carriers push about a smart-phone. Only - well, you should wait until you get to a WiFi signal to upload that big video, because you really don't want to squander your data-plan on that, do you?
The fact that bandwidth demand on wireless carriers is blowing up and "stressing networks" is something that should be *encouraged*, not discouraged - and making it more expensive and more limited isn't the right way to make that market continue to grow.
Then there is convenience. I just took the video, I can quickly click on it, select share, and send it to Facebook. Or I can wait a few hours, drive home, remember the video, and either connect to my WiFi and upload it directly from the phone, or copy it to my PC via USB or other method, and upload it from there. Sure, this can be done - in fact, I do this all the time. But it is a hassle. It takes more time, more steps, more thought and planning. Sometimes this can be a good thing,
"Man, I'm glad I sobered up after that wedding party before I considered uploading THIS video to Facebook!"
But more frequently it is just a hassle and impedes getting it done.
"Did you upload that video of the employee awards to the social media sites and blogs?"
"Oh darn! I forgot, I was waiting until I got back to the office and had a WiFi connection. I'll do it now."
"It has been two weeks, Jones - never mind, don't bother. We're going to make Smith the new director of social media."
Minor quibble - "wait until you get HOME to talk to your mom " Aren't voice minutes measured separately from data transfers?
"the idea is that we're supposed to be able to record items in real time and share them ... That is one of the BENEFITS that the carriers push about a smart-phone."
Agreed, assuming you think the carriers are pushing this for any reasons other than their own best interests.
Again, it's easy for me to kibitz; I'm a completely unaffected bystander.
"the idea is that we're supposed to be able to record items in real time and share them ... That is one of the BENEFITS that the carriers push about a smart-phone."
Agreed, assuming you think the carriers are pushing this for any reasons other than their own best interests.
Again, it's easy for me to kibitz; I'm a completely unaffected bystander.
I'm talking broadly about the reason that a mobile device called a smart-phone *exists* in the first place. So that you can do what you want or need immediately, conveniently. The non-data example was intentional.
Remember, at one time people thought, "If I need to make a call while I'm travelling, I'll use a pay phone for $.10." Now you need to have a Cell Phone because a pay phone is as hard to find as the Loch Ness monster. It changed society. Verizon built their company on this change that is actually one of those rare times that the phrase "paradigm shift" is appropriate. Now they're a mature, stable company with a built in model they are comfortable with, and they're terribly afraid of the next change that is coming. It'll come eventually either way, and they're in a great place to guide that shift in a way that benefits them. Or they can be the *target* for an aggressive upstart company that figures out how to gut THEIR model and profits while delivering a new model that is superior. Look at the Wireless Telcos coming in and gutting the model of the traditional telcos. They were young, hungry, risk-taking, and understood that they had a technology that would shift the balance in their favor. That technology is out there for mobile broadband data - even if it hasn't been invented yet. When it does, their minute-based voice communciation model via wireless tower is dead. That is what they're most afraid of, and it will probably happen. But they want to squeeze oil from their dinosaur as long as possible.
Remember, at one time people thought, "If I need to make a call while I'm travelling, I'll use a pay phone for $.10." Now you need to have a Cell Phone because a pay phone is as hard to find as the Loch Ness monster. It changed society. Verizon built their company on this change that is actually one of those rare times that the phrase "paradigm shift" is appropriate. Now they're a mature, stable company with a built in model they are comfortable with, and they're terribly afraid of the next change that is coming. It'll come eventually either way, and they're in a great place to guide that shift in a way that benefits them. Or they can be the *target* for an aggressive upstart company that figures out how to gut THEIR model and profits while delivering a new model that is superior. Look at the Wireless Telcos coming in and gutting the model of the traditional telcos. They were young, hungry, risk-taking, and understood that they had a technology that would shift the balance in their favor. That technology is out there for mobile broadband data - even if it hasn't been invented yet. When it does, their minute-based voice communciation model via wireless tower is dead. That is what they're most afraid of, and it will probably happen. But they want to squeeze oil from their dinosaur as long as possible.
"Because we haven't even figured out just WHAT we might be able to do with a global wireless high speed mobile internet that is affordable for mass consumer adoption - but it is PROBABLY mind blowing. "
Global wireless net access is somthing that would transform many communities and certainly would change forever the way we consume services like news, entertainment and access to business networks. With low cost hardware the human race as a whole could benefit greatly.
Other than the obvious tech problems with wireless access on such a grand scale, there is one massive barrier to this utopian vision - the carriers themselves. The companies holding the keys to the castle on this one wouldn't be able to effectively monetise such ubiquitous access. No company could. As such, nobody will push towards the creation of such a thing.
This barrier is beyond our control. In capitalist societies we have deemed for so long that the market will drive change. The market will regulate itself. The market is all. Well, the market isn't selfless or visionary enough to go out and do something that's good for everyone - participants in 'the market' are out only for themselves. We created the monster and now we just about stop it from burning the castle down but no more.
And that, sadly, can stifle innovation far better than any limits on wireless plans.
Global wireless net access is somthing that would transform many communities and certainly would change forever the way we consume services like news, entertainment and access to business networks. With low cost hardware the human race as a whole could benefit greatly.
Other than the obvious tech problems with wireless access on such a grand scale, there is one massive barrier to this utopian vision - the carriers themselves. The companies holding the keys to the castle on this one wouldn't be able to effectively monetise such ubiquitous access. No company could. As such, nobody will push towards the creation of such a thing.
This barrier is beyond our control. In capitalist societies we have deemed for so long that the market will drive change. The market will regulate itself. The market is all. Well, the market isn't selfless or visionary enough to go out and do something that's good for everyone - participants in 'the market' are out only for themselves. We created the monster and now we just about stop it from burning the castle down but no more.
And that, sadly, can stifle innovation far better than any limits on wireless plans.
I think some brilliant young capitalist will see that barrier as an opportunity.
Google would LOVE to figure out a way to get the entire world connected 24x7. Facebook would too. Facebook has more accounts than the United States population. 20 years ago, the idea of an online service with that many accounts was "impossible". It wasn't altruistic goals that drove Mark Z. to break *that* barrier. It was market-driven, capitalistic greed. Regardless of what you think of Facebook, I think it is inarguable that Facebook has made us a more connected society in a way that was previous difficult to imagine. Mark Z. thought it was possible, and he overcame a bunch of obstacles to make it happen.
I think we have the brain power out there to deliver this. I think the problem is that the incumbents don't want to see the status-quo changed.
Google would LOVE to figure out a way to get the entire world connected 24x7. Facebook would too. Facebook has more accounts than the United States population. 20 years ago, the idea of an online service with that many accounts was "impossible". It wasn't altruistic goals that drove Mark Z. to break *that* barrier. It was market-driven, capitalistic greed. Regardless of what you think of Facebook, I think it is inarguable that Facebook has made us a more connected society in a way that was previous difficult to imagine. Mark Z. thought it was possible, and he overcame a bunch of obstacles to make it happen.
I think we have the brain power out there to deliver this. I think the problem is that the incumbents don't want to see the status-quo changed.
I disagree with your statement that "The carriers are effectively admitting that they have capacity to burn" although I do see why it would look like that.
Mobile carriers, just like ADSL or cable providers, have massively oversubscribed their networks for the products they sell. They bank on users having a 'normal' pattern on behaviour that they can largely predict and don't, as some people on this thread rightfully point out, build for the heaviest use they expect to see. The extra capacity they 'sell' to the average users is simply a comfort blanket to stop these users worrying about what service to buy - whether that user is on limited or unlimited doesn't matter a jot as the situation is currently the same either way.
To a carrier/provider why build your network for the maximum (or even top 15%) of the traffic you'll see when you'll only see it occasionally on your network? It's far more profitable to build the network for the 'average users' and build a litle on for heavy users then just slow it all down during peak times, blaming the heavy users and pirates for why the service you paid for isn't being delivered at the levels you were promised.
ISPs and mobile carriers should be ashamed of themselves. they have failed to plan their capacities correctly and frequently fail to deliver the services the users are paying for in good faith. Even on limited data plans you suffer this issue and it's not the people on the unlimited data plans causing this problem.
For carriers to actually have the bandwidth they are selling they'd all have to limit all their users heavily and reduce the size of their user base. THAT would certainly stifle mobile innovation. As this would also stifle carrier profits there isn't a cat in hell's chance they'll do this (or, indeed, invest the right amount of cash in infrastructure to server their users effectively).
Mobile carriers, just like ADSL or cable providers, have massively oversubscribed their networks for the products they sell. They bank on users having a 'normal' pattern on behaviour that they can largely predict and don't, as some people on this thread rightfully point out, build for the heaviest use they expect to see. The extra capacity they 'sell' to the average users is simply a comfort blanket to stop these users worrying about what service to buy - whether that user is on limited or unlimited doesn't matter a jot as the situation is currently the same either way.
To a carrier/provider why build your network for the maximum (or even top 15%) of the traffic you'll see when you'll only see it occasionally on your network? It's far more profitable to build the network for the 'average users' and build a litle on for heavy users then just slow it all down during peak times, blaming the heavy users and pirates for why the service you paid for isn't being delivered at the levels you were promised.
ISPs and mobile carriers should be ashamed of themselves. they have failed to plan their capacities correctly and frequently fail to deliver the services the users are paying for in good faith. Even on limited data plans you suffer this issue and it's not the people on the unlimited data plans causing this problem.
For carriers to actually have the bandwidth they are selling they'd all have to limit all their users heavily and reduce the size of their user base. THAT would certainly stifle mobile innovation. As this would also stifle carrier profits there isn't a cat in hell's chance they'll do this (or, indeed, invest the right amount of cash in infrastructure to server their users effectively).
I don't build my networks to be able to handle PEAK load times at maximum performance. I build them to deliver acceptable performance during AVERAGE load times. It isn't cost effective to do otherwise. In a heavy use situation things slow down for a few minutes, for example, after a power outage when I get a rush of 1000 users all logging back into all of their systems. Here come the calls, "Things were going great, and then we had a power outage, and now I'm logging back in and things are running slowly." My systems didn't even see the power outage - only the end-user's desktop. But suddenly my authentication systems are handling 10 times the usual simultaneous traffic all hitting the same servers (various levels of authentication).
Yeah, I get that - but... I think you're off base, too. During the peak periods, they may not have enough bandwidth, but during MOST periods, they have extra capacity that isn't being utilized at all. I know *that* much about how my networks and systems are designed, too. During the worst peak periods, resources are pegged. During average use, I have a comfortable margin, during low use periods, even with maintenance and upkeep taking place, most of my enterprise is sitting idle and not utilized at all.
The point then, is that there are huge inefficiencies in the design.
Yeah, I get that - but... I think you're off base, too. During the peak periods, they may not have enough bandwidth, but during MOST periods, they have extra capacity that isn't being utilized at all. I know *that* much about how my networks and systems are designed, too. During the worst peak periods, resources are pegged. During average use, I have a comfortable margin, during low use periods, even with maintenance and upkeep taking place, most of my enterprise is sitting idle and not utilized at all.
The point then, is that there are huge inefficiencies in the design.
.....was built around expected need with some extra thrown on for growth and unexpected peak bursts. At the time I designed it there were many managers who looked at it and said "this seems a bit overkill" (it was, and deliberately so).
The point behind the design was to lask a number of years to repay it's investment while serving the needs of everything I could predict and a little more (because I'm only human). Whilst this didn't appear to be cost-effective at the time I built it I wasn't playing the short game.
So far my network design is several years past it's predicted expiry and has served its needs admirably. My company has gotten more than it's money back on the investment because I spent the time analysing our expected use and planning for a touch more. By playing the long game we have certainly had a much more cost-effective network here.
Many things went into my calculations but the most relevant to the mobile operators example would be the expected lifecycle of any given technology. To my mind, operators should plan their networks for just higher than average use with expansion over the estimated lifespan of the tech - then do it all again with the next tech. Their design needs to include effective ways of mitigating extreme peaks so that all users get acceptable minimum service during those times.
I dare say while there will be a slight difference in our opinion as to where 'average' and 'high' use thresholds may fall, we're probably on the same page here.
I want to see ISPs and mobile operators take a longer view approach to their networks as in my experience it does pay benefits. Businesses are rife with short-termism and time and again it catches them out with the consumer of the service paying the price. Immediate sales figures for the next period seem to be the principal driving force in today's business arena (and my business is no exception, I'm sad to say).
Over subscription of services has no excuse. Allowing more users than you know you have capacity for is just plain wrong and is driven by naught but greed. I'd rather operators close subscribtions temporarily until they build in more capacity or until they manage to get agreement from their users to change the nature of their services. I pay for unlimited data with no peak throttling so why is it right that an operator can suddenly turn around and massively throttle my connection (or even drop it altogether, as they have on occasion) when they choose as they find they have no capacity to cope with what they've sold without fists obtaining my agreement to change the nature of my service? Should an ISP be suddenly able to increase your contention ratio or drop your connection speed just because they've oversold their service?
We just accept this BS and leave the operators unchallenged all too often. The simple rule is: Don't sell what you don't really have. With smarter, longer term, network design, our operators could cope a lot better than they currently do and now we've had a decade or so of solid trends for data services and mobile tech growth operators should now have the data they need to plan appropriately.
So, to reiterate your final point - "...there are huge inefficiencies in the design"
Couldn't. Agree. More.
The point behind the design was to lask a number of years to repay it's investment while serving the needs of everything I could predict and a little more (because I'm only human). Whilst this didn't appear to be cost-effective at the time I built it I wasn't playing the short game.
So far my network design is several years past it's predicted expiry and has served its needs admirably. My company has gotten more than it's money back on the investment because I spent the time analysing our expected use and planning for a touch more. By playing the long game we have certainly had a much more cost-effective network here.
Many things went into my calculations but the most relevant to the mobile operators example would be the expected lifecycle of any given technology. To my mind, operators should plan their networks for just higher than average use with expansion over the estimated lifespan of the tech - then do it all again with the next tech. Their design needs to include effective ways of mitigating extreme peaks so that all users get acceptable minimum service during those times.
I dare say while there will be a slight difference in our opinion as to where 'average' and 'high' use thresholds may fall, we're probably on the same page here.
I want to see ISPs and mobile operators take a longer view approach to their networks as in my experience it does pay benefits. Businesses are rife with short-termism and time and again it catches them out with the consumer of the service paying the price. Immediate sales figures for the next period seem to be the principal driving force in today's business arena (and my business is no exception, I'm sad to say).
Over subscription of services has no excuse. Allowing more users than you know you have capacity for is just plain wrong and is driven by naught but greed. I'd rather operators close subscribtions temporarily until they build in more capacity or until they manage to get agreement from their users to change the nature of their services. I pay for unlimited data with no peak throttling so why is it right that an operator can suddenly turn around and massively throttle my connection (or even drop it altogether, as they have on occasion) when they choose as they find they have no capacity to cope with what they've sold without fists obtaining my agreement to change the nature of my service? Should an ISP be suddenly able to increase your contention ratio or drop your connection speed just because they've oversold their service?
We just accept this BS and leave the operators unchallenged all too often. The simple rule is: Don't sell what you don't really have. With smarter, longer term, network design, our operators could cope a lot better than they currently do and now we've had a decade or so of solid trends for data services and mobile tech growth operators should now have the data they need to plan appropriately.
So, to reiterate your final point - "...there are huge inefficiencies in the design"
Couldn't. Agree. More.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
