Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T: 'Fine Tuning' Still Required Before Offering Internet Tethering Via iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fine-Tuning IS necessary
Fine-Tunine IS necessary if fine-tuning means finally bringing 3G service to the Asheville, NC area!! The AT&T reps said that September was the expected rollout month but it came and went with no 3G. They need to get on the ball with their 3G rollout. I'm glad that Verizon is attacking them in their "There is a map for that" ads. Maybe one day I'll actually be able to get full use out of my 3G phone. Ug.
Fine-Tunine IS necessary if fine-tuning means finally bringing 3G service to the Asheville, NC area!! The AT&T reps said that September was the expected rollout month but it came and went with no 3G. They need to get on the ball with their 3G rollout. I'm glad that Verizon is attacking them in their "There is a map for that" ads. Maybe one day I'll actually be able to get full use out of my 3G phone. Ug.
AT&T is screwed, period ....
The sad part is, they haven't really been lying about most of this stuff. They probably really DID double capacity, as they told you. But if it's like it was here in St. Louis, MO - doubling capacity (or even tripling it!) doesn't even put them where they need to be to provide acceptable levels of service!
I believe they essentially bought out existing cellular infrastructure from Cingular, which was designed for a data network no faster than AT&T's "EDGE" speeds (and making the assumption that cellphone users weren't going to do much with the data network anyway besides email, syncing their address books, and so forth).
As I understand it, many of their towers were fed by a single T1 circuit for data, meaning the entire cell site's maximum capacity was 1.5mbits of transfer speed. Two users connecting to that tower on a 3G phone means they're each getting 768K maximum xfer rates if they try downloading things simultaneously. 4 users means 384K max. You can quickly see how this leads to complaints about slow performance and bottlenecks!
The sad part is, they haven't really been lying about most of this stuff. They probably really DID double capacity, as they told you. But if it's like it was here in St. Louis, MO - doubling capacity (or even tripling it!) doesn't even put them where they need to be to provide acceptable levels of service!
I believe they essentially bought out existing cellular infrastructure from Cingular, which was designed for a data network no faster than AT&T's "EDGE" speeds (and making the assumption that cellphone users weren't going to do much with the data network anyway besides email, syncing their address books, and so forth).
As I understand it, many of their towers were fed by a single T1 circuit for data, meaning the entire cell site's maximum capacity was 1.5mbits of transfer speed. Two users connecting to that tower on a 3G phone means they're each getting 768K maximum xfer rates if they try downloading things simultaneously. 4 users means 384K max. You can quickly see how this leads to complaints about slow performance and bottlenecks!
Well, I am no apologist for AT&T, however, the network did not crash (like all you naysayers predicted) when MMS was rolled out. Better to have the network upgraded before the onslaught of data.
I'll concede that I don't know for sure if tethering uses more data connection if used on a computer than if just used as normal on the iPhone. What I do know is that I don't spend hours a day using up the 3G on my iPhone but I do spend hours a day working on a laptop using internet...and I would consider myself to be a lower bandwidth user. What I also know is that there are PLENTY of people out there who LOVE to take advantage of anything and everything and will get on their computers for hours and hours and hours--and may even cancel a home connection or a wi-fi subscription etc. in favor of hogging up a 3G connection that is apparently "free" to them.
Have you ever had your cable internet connection slow down because of high usage on your block? I sure have--because the 7 college kids who decided to move in together in a 3 bedroom house down the street download movies constantly and are always on the network playing video games etc.
3G is a shared connection. I was at a conference in Nashville a year ago and 5,000 of us converged on the hockey arena and I will tell you that my iPhone was mking dial up look speedy. It was disgusting...and yet everybody walking around had a Blackberry or an iPhone.
To me the best solution would be to allow tethering and not filter the number using it by charging a fee (again, a price tag functions as a deterrent to all the cheapskates out there who are itching to call their cable company and cancel their Broadband so they can tether a wifi connection to their whole house). Otherwise it will be like you invited a ton of unwelcomed guests into your community who all own Smartphones and use them all the time. You WILL see your connection diminish. That I do know for sure.
I have some proof, although it's just anecdotal. When I visit my folks their ISP is so dang slow that rather than use their computer I just tether my iPhone to my Macbook. I didn't use to have that option. I'm quite certain I use more of AT&T's bandwidth with tethering enabled than I would without it. (Not that I feel guilty about it.)
And furthermore, as I'm thinking this through more and more... I may have x amount of bandwidth available to me on my iPhone but I'm checking some emails and facebook and some news sites here and there. I'm not pushing that connection to the max. It's like when you're on your computer and you download an e-mail vs. downloading a movie. You may have a 10mbps cable connection but the e-mail didn't use a fraction of a percentage of that available bandwidth.
That's the point I'm trying to make - now you WILL have people using their 3G connection to the max if they tether simply by the nature of they're on a full desktop experience.
Repeat after me: data rate charges and caps have absolutely nothing to do with 'net neutrality'.
I agree that it would be enticing to be able to use my 3G connection on a laptop, especially where free WiFi is unavailable. Still, I could stream my recorded videos over 3G with my EyeTV app or stream music all day via my Pandora app. I don't, but I could.
The fact is, I don't bring a laptop everywhere I go and I'm not constantly on my 3G connection. Some users may cancel their cable or DSL connection in favor of 3G tethering, but given the limits of 3G speed, it doesn't seem likely that there will be a mass exodus from wired home internet.
I think we're on the same page, but I still believe that AT&T needs to present some hard facts about tethering usage if they wish to delay or charge for the service.
I'm all in favor of AT&T having to present hard facts about anything! Don't let me come off as an AT&T apologist! I'm still trying to figure out how with 5 bars of 3G I still drop calls at the blink of an eye...all on the network that claims to have the fewest drop calls. It's laughable. They can start with hard facts proving their claim...and then move on to telling us the facts on tethering : )
Does this count as proof?
https://www.macrumors.com/iphone/20...ate-of-30-considered-normal-in-new-york-city/
AT&T isn't withholding tethering just 'cause they're jonesing for some more bad press. There's plenty of evidence that in some of the bigger cities the network is way overloaded. Of course they should have seen it coming and done something about it by now, but that's a different thread.
I just blame the person on the other end of the call. "Must be your phone--mine's got 5 bars!"
There are differences here. If you ignore VOD (and switched digital), cable TV currently just blasts the same signal out to every home, one way. It is fairly distinct from the bandwidth used for cable Internet. On cellular networks, the bandwidth used for 2-way voice and data is essentially the same. The mobile phone companies pretty much have to prioritize call voice traffic, so if a lot of people are making calls, the available bandwidth for Internet data is going to drop.
Not sure what you mean exactly by "make you use their boxes and their modems" here, but cable companies cannot legally do that in the US.
I don't see 1080p becoming "low def" anytime soon, and without significant improvements to WiFi, I don't really see people streaming 1080p over WiFi either. In most homes, it really only costs a few dollars to run gigabit Ethernet between rooms.
I agree with your 1080p assessment. However, 802.11n is plenty fast for streaming high quality audio and video. It has a higher bandwidth than the Blue-Ray spec.
You hit the nail on the head! While, any bean counter would love the extra "monetized revenue stream" for a resource that already exists - the bigger motivation for charging is not to be greedy but to serve as a deterrent. I certainly know a fair number of people that would freeload off the network to save a buck and cancel their cable internet. I purposely have not upgraded to 3.1 yet so I could have the option to tether. Never have used it other than to test that the connection showed up but I know it would be handy in a pinch (read: airports). Like JPark said, I don't feel guilty about this at all. AT&T definitely gets their pound of my flesh.
In Canada, Rogers allows free tethering right now, but won't allow Skype over its 3G network while AT&T now allows Skype over 3G, but hasn't offered tethering yet. Go figure.
What is most interesting about Rogers is that they have offered tethering at no charge on a pilot basis only. Here is what they say on their website:
"For a limited time, if you subscribe to a data plan which includes at least 1GB of data transmission effective June 19, 2009 until December 31, 2009, and if you have a compatible device, you may use tethering as part of the volume of data included in your plan at no additional charge".
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/wireless-products/tethering?setprovince=on&setlanguage=en&cm_mmc=redirects-_-consumer_wireless_eng-_-tethering_0609-_-tethering
According to Rogers, something like 98% of their users don't go over 1 GB of data per month, even by users who have the 6 GB data plan. My guess is that Rogers is concerned tetherers will use up the monthly bandwidth allotments that they have already paid for. If it finds tethering bandwidth usage is high, I am expecting a separate tethering fee come January 1, 2010.
What is most interesting about Rogers is that they have offered tethering at no charge on a pilot basis only. Here is what they say on their website:
"For a limited time, if you subscribe to a data plan which includes at least 1GB of data transmission effective June 19, 2009 until December 31, 2009, and if you have a compatible device, you may use tethering as part of the volume of data included in your plan at no additional charge".
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/wireless-products/tethering?setprovince=on&setlanguage=en&cm_mmc=redirects-_-consumer_wireless_eng-_-tethering_0609-_-tethering
According to Rogers, something like 98% of their users don't go over 1 GB of data per month, even by users who have the 6 GB data plan. My guess is that Rogers is concerned tetherers will use up the monthly bandwidth allotments that they have already paid for. If it finds tethering bandwidth usage is high, I am expecting a separate tethering fee come January 1, 2010.
We know that the network is overloaded in condensed areas. I think we can all agree that tethering won't do anything to decrease the usage of 3G, so in a way, yes, they have some proof. I still feel that they need to present facts about network usage in regards to tethering, specifically.
The user base is constantly growing each day with every new subscriber. It's not as if network usage is at a standstill and AT&T must only accommodate for the current situation. They need to consistently make improvements to the network for this reason, alone. The question that still remains is if the enabling of tethering for iPhone users will push the network beyond what it can handle, given that its demands are growing, anyway.
Yeah, pretty much. My point was that internet and TV use the same wires coming into a person's home.
What cable company do you use that does not install their own equipment IN YOUR HOME for TV and internet access? Both the modem and boxes in my house are the property of COMCAST, and I can't put my own equipment in if I wanted too. Sure I have a router, but that's my personal equipment used for the sole purpose of splitting and sharing that internet connection, that runs through COMCAST's modem.
When I said "filter" traffic, I meant more along the lines of who gets access to certain channels. HBO content and premium sports packages. Not every person gets all the same channels, and those boxes are used to ensure that COMCAST knows who is watching what.
COMCAST has also gotten in trouble for filtering internet traffic, but I think that's on their end anyway.
I am talking about the future of television over the next decade or two.
1080p is nice, but on a 52inch screen, we really could use a higher resolution in the future. More fiber optic connections and such will likely push resolutions up and make for a more enjoyable experience.
On my MacBook, even DVD's look crappy due to the high resolution of my screen. Blu-ray and higher def platforms are the future. Resolutions should be increasing. I also am of the opinion that wireless internet via 4G wireless connections might also be the future and replace cable companies as we more towards a stronger and faster wireless infrastructure. WiMax, if done right, could be the first major step in such a move towards more wireless.
This of course, will take time and money, so it will be a gradual move.
This stuff is not going to be the way things shape up in the next 2-3 years, but wireless is the future as far as 10-15 years from now.
Not in a modern cellular network. I have about 3 Mbit/s effective download on both Wi-Fi and 3g cellular but Apple does not allow full quality on 3g cellular in in the YouTube app due to their non-existing agreement with AT&T...
I can watch high quality videos (coded to the iPhone screen resolution) from my Dropbox account using 3g cellular without problems. Ooops Apple/AT&T may not allow this...
god, this is yet another piece of evidence around ATT's horrible coverage and capacity of their network. Simply put, ATT doesn't have ability to service all of its customers in many areas. in urban cities, near areas for large concentrations of people ie stadiums, parks or more, just don't expect decent ATT service.
Already i wish Verizon had the iPhone. It is getting a bit ridiculous with ATT's horrible coverage.
Time for us to start a petition for Apple to open up the iPhone to more wireless networks.
Already i wish Verizon had the iPhone. It is getting a bit ridiculous with ATT's horrible coverage.
Time for us to start a petition for Apple to open up the iPhone to more wireless networks.
Actually, we are using tethering as our primary Internet connection at home (we use a combination of my work iPhone and a TMobile MyTouch, so neither of the data connections are overused), the alternatives are too expensive and actually have slower connections:
- Cable: $69.99 per month for just internet, we don't want cable T.V.
- DSL with no traditional landline service: $30.00 per month for 768 Kbps down and 300 Kbps up.
- Traditional LandLine Service: $45 per month minimum in our area (cheapest landline that is available for our address) plus $14.99 for DSL (same speeds as above) = $59.99 per month
- Unlimited Data Plan on cell phone: $25 per month - Usually averages around 1.5Mbps down/up (By far the cheapest) and we have it setup so that multiple computers can share the connection as well.
As you can see, the cell phone connection is by far the best value in our area. The work phone is free for me, so it does allow us to ballance things out better with the two phones, but still, you get the idea.
I suspect AT&T will charge around 20 bucks extra a month for tethering. That's a fair price. Verizon charges 15 bucks for a 5 gig cap on all phones that support tethering. They have no unlimited plan for tethering. I couldn't find anything about tethering plans for Sprint or T-Mobile, so if anyone else can, feel free to mention it. I only found mobile broadband cards. I don't understand why some people think that if they have an iPhone (which i use and it doesn't give me issues here in Houston), they should get free tethering. Being jerked around for three years doesn't count as a reason. No other major industry offers free anything if they have been jerking you around for whatever reason. They may give a credit or something of that nature, but nothing permanently free.
What will be the next big complaint after tethering does arrive? Hopefully something besides the typical ATT sucks crowd.
What will be the next big complaint after tethering does arrive? Hopefully something besides the typical ATT sucks crowd.