backtop

Print 29 comment(s) - last by dxf2891.. on Feb 17 at 2:30 PM
AT&T blames smartphones on increased data usage

There has been newfound interest in AT&T's data management policies now that more people are reporting that AT&T has been throttling users that have grandfathered unlimited data plans. As previously reported, some users with unlimited data plans are seeing their data connections throttled after only 2GB of usage. However, some unlucky individuals have had the brakes put at just 1.6GB.
 
While AT&T hasn't directly addressed the issue of throttling its customers who are in the top 5 percent of "data hogs" on its network, it is giving a little insight into why it's taking such actions. John Donovan, a senior executive vice president for AT&T, wrote on the company's Innovation Space blog that data usage has been growing at a tremendous rate.
 
"The growth is now driven primarily by smartphones," said Donovan. "Add to that new customer additions and the continuing trend of upgrades from feature phones to smartphones, and you have a wireless data tsunami."

 
Donovan also claims that data usage on its network has grown by over 20,000 percent in the past five years.
 
Given the fact that smartphone adoption is only going to continue to grow in the coming years, AT&T says that it's committed to building out its wireless network and launch LTE in additional markets. The company said that it spent $20B on network improvements last year, and plans to invest $20B this year. AT&T is also planning to add additional Wi-Fi hotspots throughout the country to lessen the load on its 3G and 4G networks.
 
While all of the network improvements and additional Wi-Fi hotspots are welcome news, we have the feeling that data throttling still won't be going away anytime soon.

Sources: BGR, AT&T


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By toyotabedzrock on 2/15/2012 4:05:49 PM , Rating: 3
It's that simple. These CEO's don't seem to understand that a telcom much expand and expand.

Sell millions of iPhones = build more towers with profit.




RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By robertgu on 2/15/2012 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
Enjoy it while it lasts. Now that they have went heavy into promoting the iphone, the data demands on their network will eventually increase to the point where they will follow suit with the policies of ATT and Verizon.

In previous articles they already hinted that they can't stay unlimited forever, but they can hold off for longer cause they had the capacity (probably due to less data customers than ATT or VZ).


By Omega215D on 2/16/2012 7:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
It also helps that Verizon shares parts of its network with sprint and various regional carriers. The Lightsquared deal would help Sprint in rolling out LTE, provided the issues get sorted out.


RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By sigmatau on 2/15/2012 6:56:57 PM , Rating: 3
LOL, no they are not. Sprint is by far the bottom of the barrel. I had boost at one point and had a vastly improved signal. I have a work Sprint phone, and just the basic function of trying to make a call is extremely frustrating. I had others with the Sprint service try it out when my phone wasn't working, and it was the same with them.

Sometimes it takes 5 tries to make a call. Data? I don't even bother; I use my AT&T phone. Believe me, I would not take a Sprint phone if it was free. I am forced to use one for work.


By kamel5547 on 2/15/2012 8:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a funny point, Boost (which you say had a vastly improved signal) is solely on Sprint's network (in the US).

As always your carrier of choice should be based on where you spend your time (rather than phones, cost, etc). Sprint works perfectly for me (while other carriers failed). I actually specifically requested a Sprint phone from work as other carriers would not get a signal in one of our offices (well that and phone as a modem was free). That being said some field staff need to have VZW or ATT based on where the job site is, its all relative to where you spend your time.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
My experience doesn't match yours. So I can't comment. The data network frustrates me sometimes, but that's because I live on the edge of their service map. And I knew that risk going in. However when I go into the city, the 4G is golden. That's where I spend my time anyway.

However having unlimited data is simply worth the tradeoff for me.


By tenchymuyo2 on 2/16/2012 12:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Agree about Sprint being the bottom. I can't speak of other phones/services using Sprint's network, as I've used none, but we use Sprint (I call it SPRUNT) for work and if we get 1 bar anywhere its a miracle. I keep my WiFi setting checked so at least I can get some decent data use. As for phone usage, I have everything set to go straight to voice mail and I use a land line to return the call.

Long live every network that's not Sprint.


RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By robertgu on 2/15/2012 4:42:08 PM , Rating: 4
Remember wireless service is unlike wired service. With wired service you can build, for all practical purposes, unlimited amounts of bandwidth by just burying and lighting more fiber. So increased capex can greatly increase service bandwidth in this scenario.

For wireless it's different, the telecoms are limited by the frequency the gov't was so kind to auction off to the big telcom guys. Greatly increasing capex eventually hits a wall on increasing service bandwidth until a new technology is developed and propagated to make more efficient use of that frequency. Plus you have the gov't not allowing the big telecom guys to buy the unused frequency from auction winners which has been sitting idle on that asset for years on the hope that these small guys will eventually develop their own services to challenge the big telecom guys.

Commercial wireless frequency is a finite and extremely rare commodity and is the chief limiting factor to the amount of service bandwidth a telecom can provide. So when you have for practical purposes, a locked supply of bandwidth, with demand for that supply skyrocketing year after year, you get what we are currently seeing, all the telecoms giving us less data usage for higher costs. This will continue for the foreseeable future.


RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By kb9fcc on 2/15/2012 5:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, not exactly.

The FCC did set aside additional bands (PCS) to encourage competition in the local markets. E.g., wireless went from the initial 2 (A & B) bands of AMPS days, to 7. The problem became that some players would buy a band in a market, and then either couldn't or wouldn't develop it. The reason the FCC won't let the "big" telcos buy up the unused (under-used) bands is to prevent the system from collapsing back into a duopoly or worse. (The same reason the AT&T buyout of T-mobile was a bad idea). Can you imaging how bad your cell phone bill would be if any single carrier was the only game in town? And customer service would be nonexistent, "well, you could switch to the other phone company, oh right, there is no other company! HAH! Now, pay your bill and shut up. click"

Interestingly enough with the current wireless digital signal transmission technologies, frequency reuse is 100% amongst cells, so the fastest (nearly only) way to increase capacity is to decrease cell radius and put in smaller cells (micro, pico, femento, ...). But the telcos are too cheap/slow to do this.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:39:45 PM , Rating: 4
Great point. That's forgotten all too often in these discussions.

We need an entire new wireless data delivery method not dependent on airwave spectrum. Somehow...

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to beat Apple to it and file my own patent.

"A method to enable communication between two devices using neutrinos. On a phone."


RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By foolsgambit11 on 2/15/2012 8:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
Is there any indication that the air link is the issue they're running into, though? Or that they've fully utilized the frequency bands available to them?

And what's the point of penalizing users when resources are not at a premium?


By Dr of crap on 2/16/2012 10:08:32 AM , Rating: 2
And to follow up - is LTE going to help out with being resticted in cell data usage?
I'm not heard if LTE will help out with the data problem we face now.


RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By juktar on 2/16/2012 11:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
Except that they have brought that on themselves. If they don't want people to use the data they are billing for make an option that allows the cellphones to not require a data plan. I am mostly happy with using wifi only on my cell phone with occasional use of 3G data.

Byu requing a data plan for every smartphone, they are garanteeing the use of the data. Man up and spend more money and don't cry when people are forced into the plans and wonder why people want to use what they are paying for.


RE: Pay CEO Less - Build More Towers
By btc909 on 2/16/2012 11:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just the number and/or location of the towers, it's also the internet connection to the tower itself.


grow up at&t
By tastyratz on 2/15/2012 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 4
Expect us to feel sorry for you? Try growing with the business. Not our fault you aren't building the appropriate infrastructure to keep up.

And 2gb traffic is NO WAY the top 5% of smartphone users, maybe its the top 5% if you include those without data plans and other network leases to private companies. I am sure I could fabricate a pie chart somehow... but if you ACTUALLY compared the top 5% of smartphone owners you should see data much higher than 2gb. Tell me anything else and you are just lying.




RE: grow up at&t
By bobsmith1492 on 2/15/2012 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'd believe it. You can get 300MB plans, for example. My bro got one for his Iphone, and just uses it mostly on wifi. He hasn't been close to the limit.


RE: grow up at&t
By tastyratz on 2/15/2012 4:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Can get", but 300mb sounds awe fully extreme for typical smartphone users, especially with AT&T's saturation of Iphones. I can't imagine many people are savvy enough or care enough to bother with aggressively wifi hunting on their phone. Typical DT readers maybe, but general populace?


RE: grow up at&t
By kattanna on 2/15/2012 4:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
true. I can manage just fine without a data plan on my android phone here in los angeles using nothing but wifi for email/web.. etc

but then again, i dont feel the need to be "connected" via web 24/7 with others. LOL


RE: grow up at&t
By kb9fcc on 2/15/2012 4:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. I used to work for a company that provided the infrastructure (i.e., cell towers, switching systems, etc.) to the telco's and they KNEW this day was coming well over ten YEARS ago, yet they did little to nothing to start growing the infrastructure foundation back then. They would just set there and cry about how expensive it was and would milk every last penny for end of quarter results, essentially saying "we'll worry about that tomorrow". Well guess what boys, tomorrow's here and your a decade behind!


Revenues
By MozeeToby on 2/15/2012 3:56:23 PM , Rating: 5
And how much have revenues related to data increased over the same amount of time? A company that large shouldn't be sunk by their own success; they should be out finding ways to bring in more customers, with more data usage, and more services. You sell data to people, quit complaining when they actually want to use it!




RE: Revenues
By nafhan on 2/15/2012 4:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Just as important as current revenues, they should also be speculating about what would have happened to their revenues if they'd taken measures to keep network-wide data consumption at 2007 levels. I'm guessing they'd have essentially no smartphone customers, which would obviously mean bad things for their bottom line.

Also... with a company mouthpiece like this, you can basically assume that anything he says will be truthful only insofar as the truth supports the current official corporate position. In other words, it's all excuses, not facts.


AT&T builds a virtual super highway...
By mmp121 on 2/15/2012 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
And pushes souped up turbo-charged super cars capable of 200MPH onto their clients and then expects them to only drive 55MPH.

Good job AT&T!

I'm sure others will come up with better snazzier analogies than that, but its all I could come up with.




By anactoraaron on 2/15/2012 5:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
More like they sell regular engines but only on paper. When you in to buy the car you are required to have and pay for the turbo. Then they add a plan 'feature' that is essentially a throttle restrictor preventing the turbo from really being used. They then charge you based on how far that restrictor sits on the line (limiting you to 2 lbs boost, 5 lbs boost, etc). They then whine and complain about people actually using the turbo which they forced upon them that some people didn't even want to begin with (why can't I just buy a smartphone and just use wi-fi??).


By Avatar28 on 2/15/2012 5:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
No, more like they build the highway and give you these fast cars. They promise you can drive on it as much as you like but if you drive more than a few miles they kill your engine and make you walk the rest of the way.


zz
By capcomdevil on 2/15/2012 8:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
have they ever calculate the increasing customer from mobile sector before calculating who suck the bandwidth?




They're blaming smartphones
By overlandpark4me on 2/16/2012 1:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
, but then use them in their advertising as a selling point, then use the selling point to blame their customers. This is no different than the mob coming to my business, telling me for a 1000 bucks a month they can stop something bad from happening if I pay up. Burn in hell AT&T.




This is what pisses me off,
By dxf2891 on 2/17/2012 2:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
So there has been an increase in smartphones? Doesn't that equate to an increase in profits as well? Why isn't AT&T reinvesting some of those profits in infrastructure? That's why I say F0ck AT&T. When this contract is up, I'm out. Hopefully Sprint will still have it's unlimited everything plans.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki