Content Providers and App Developers to Subsidize LTE/3G Bandwidth Costs?

[AppleDroid]

This is 100% true. Another example is insurance. Even though you may never use your policy, say for car insurance, your premiums still go up based on everyone else who does utilize it. The more people who require them to pay out the higher the prices for everyone is goes. They aren't going to eat the cost because more people are texting, driving and dying in wrecks. They pass it along to everyone else to pay.

Some insurance companies may lower it incrementally over a period of years but wait until you get your next infraction! What may have gone up by 10% is now 110%. Why? Because they know the statistics and it's a good bet you will get into a wreck eventually.

Same thing will happen with content providers. It's not your fault more people are using too much data but if they have to pay providers money for hogging their spectrum they will make sure to pass that along with fees and other hikes.

The consumer always pays.

Ultimately, the consumer pays for everything, even if it is indirectly or intentionally hidden.

We pay for shoplifting, for example, by the price including a loss fee for the seller. For better or worse, how can it be otherwise. If the seller, or manufacturer pays, they lose revenue and close down. In some situations, the government gives support - but guess who pays for that.

Someone once said that companies don't pay taxes, they collect them.

I realize these are just examples, not direct comment on the issue of bandwidth.

But it comes down to TAANSTAAFL.

 

[MattMJB0188]

Its to bad they can't restore unlimited data plans but the without the capability to stream video or music. I'd be all over that. Same could apply for smartphones as well. Do anything except stream video or audio.

 

[MacinDoc]

Its to bad they can't restore unlimited data plans but the without the capability to stream video or music. I'd be all over that. Same could apply for smartphones as well. Do anything except stream video or audio.

At $20/month for unlimited data except streaming, you could certainly sign me up!

 

[BJMRamage]

Now with DirecTV, Comcast or AT&T, for the monthly fee, I should not have to watch commercials. Pay TV use to imply no commercials. Nor should I have to put up with the networks logo constantly on my screen or stupid animations coming on in the middle of my show advertising other shows!

totally agree here.
What really Irks me is when a cable (for lack of a better term) channel has Paid Programming for hours on end...like from 6-9:30. I don't mind seeing a repeat of a show. My example is food network. in the morning i could be watching some shows but they have Paid Pro. and even repeats would be entertaining.

so, i can agree with you on that point.

 

[8CoreWhore]

This is terrible. This is what happens when there is not enough competition and congress takes their money.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

The mobile data war is not turning in the right direction. Carriers should be focusing on bringing back an era of unlimited use, not 'unlimited' so long as you use a specific application. I honestly wouldn't mind if the universal rate for unlimited data switched to $50 a month instead of $30 if that mean't you would get truly(no throttling for exceeding a few gigabytes) unlimited plans.

 

[snorkelman]

The developer/content provider would have to either charge individual users on basis of the data they've personally consumed (in which case might as well just let the networks do it themselves)

or they average out the data costs of all users and hit everyone with a single average fee - in which case light users of an app/service are going to be expected to effectively subsidise the heavy usage of other subscribers.

In that scenario I just see it encouraging light users to become heavy users "if I'm paying for other folks heavy usage I may as well stream content 24/7 myself too", which doesn't really help anyone.

give it another 5 years and they'll probably just broadcast three mins of compulsory ads to everyone's phone 4 times an hour, morning noon and night

 

[k1121j]

proof in the pudding

the face that these talks are going on shows it's not an avalable bandwidth issue they are just looking to charge for something else. the carriers already make bank off non contract customers the don't get a discount for not having a subsided phone the greed is no suprise

 

[hchung]

Just a thought. How about Over the air HD antennae in the next iPad?

No. That'd make for a US-only iPad because there's no worldwide standard for over-the-air HD tv.

Part of what makes iPads affordable for the amount of tech in place is that they don't need to manage inventory for too many models. This would screw it all up. They'd never do it.

 

[hardcoreericxxx]

This is a very dangerous road to travel down for consumers. It's almost like a precursor to what the cable and DSL companies ultimately want to do with their wired lines...tiered data for consumers (some already do) and have websites subsidize bandwidth costs. I can't help but think that they are using mobile internet as test waters for this change in home and business internet.

 

[faroZ06]

This is why I don't want LTE. Faster speeds means faster accidental bandwidth usage when I accidentally load a video or something. Besides, on sites with images, the text and links load first, so I can click them before the images load.

 

[bn-7bc]

AT&T, Verizon, and the also-ran cell carriers of the world are doing everything they can do to make themselves appear relevant. The sooner they're kicked down the dumb-pipe stairs, the better.

That could happen when "real 4G" is rolled out. It will combine voice and data into a single packet stream, so there won't be any difference between voice "minutes" and data. Of course, the carriers can and will do anything they can to hide that fact. They want to keep on charging us separately. That's why AT&T calls their network "4G" now, even though it's a mix of LTE (aka 3GPP) and old-school 3G. Real 4G exists only in the lab now.




----------



Agree. Consumers are being exploited.

Hmm coverging voice and data is a good thing (lowers costs) but treating voice as any other data is a bad idea. Voice is jitter and loss sensitive, so qos has to be applied (esp if you are in a cell with high load), and good luck getting a provider to do that when there is no profit in it for them. To see what I mean try running any 3. party voip app on a highly loaded cell (eg bus depot at peak commuter times), and see how happy you, the other person is with that experience

 

[bn-7bc]

Carriers have claimed that they've stopped offering Unlimited plans and have started jacking up the prices because of limited bandwidth. Classic supply and demand, they claim.

Now, if bandwidth is truly limited, where are the carriers expecting to get the additional bandwidth to sell to the app developers?

I can't help but feel that we're being lied to by the carriers... </sarcasm>

Well I'm no expert so take my opinion as what it is (half educated guesswork). My feeling is the the real bandwith limitation is really that, As in limited radio spectrum to serve the cells (and her comes the quess work) there is a limit to how small yo can make a cell as radio waves can't be told to go only x meters and then just stop. A lot can be done with output power reduction and more directional antennas but unless you do a micro-cell for a few rooms only, well you see my point

PS: as stated above I'm not a radio expert (not even a HAM) so any corrections are greatly appreciated

 

[MrNomNoms]

The last time I checked the different networks that feed into each other play interconnection agreements for the data transferred across them - in other words it appears the mobile carriers simply wanting to double dip.

 

[Detrias]

This is a terrible idea. One of the best things about the App Store for developers is that it allows small companies to compete against the big boys. Doing this allows the big companies (that can afford to) pay the bandwidth costs, while smaller companies that might not be able to afford this will lose out, as the customer will always go to the app that doesn't count against their usage allowance

Which data intensive app is currently popular, that is made by a small company or indie developer? Data is not a problem for 99% of the apps imo, rather for the streaming ones and all of those are linked to a big company.

 

[charlituna]

LTE picocells/"small cells" are coming to fill this need.

Handover/handdowns to WiFi are problematic for a variety of reasons.

totally not what I'm talking about. I said that the issue isn't LTE cells or switching from LTE or even 3g to wifi.

I said that the intention on devices like the iPad is for cell data to supplement wifi so perhaps the issue is that there isn't enough wifi in enough places, especially public ones. When you can drive down a major street and there's open wifi spaced so you don't lose that connection you don't need to use LTE. Perhaps things like that are the answer.

----------

sure there would be users who use more than the average, but for every above average user there will be a below average user.

And that person never gets throttled because they never go even close to the higher caps. in fact they are probably on the lowest possible plan anyway.

now if you want to argue that they are still paying too much, that's a talk for another thread and one that you will find many folks in total agreement with. In fact some people would say that the cell phone companies should allow you to not have to buy a data plan. Those that are never outside of wifi could just use that and not pay anything. Or perhaps have pay as you use data plans for really low users. Say you pay $15 for 500MB but it rolls over month after month for the unused MB until you use it up. Perhaps even put a time cap of like 6 months or a year on it. That's not totally unfair.

 

[OsloBergen]

I'm torn. I agree with all the "anti" sentiment. However, when I need to keep my cell data turned off to keep nightly data dumps from using all of my monthly allotment it makes me consider the benefit.

 

[smithrh]

totally not what I'm talking about. I said that the issue isn't LTE cells or switching from LTE or even 3g to wifi.

I said that the intention on devices like the iPad is for cell data to supplement wifi so perhaps the issue is that there isn't enough wifi in enough places, especially public ones. When you can drive down a major street and there's open wifi spaced so you don't lose that connection you don't need to use LTE. Perhaps things like that are the answer.

OK, I see what you mean, but that goes to my point about small cells regardless.

While AT&T did a good job with signing up Starbucks and McDonalds for WiFi access, it's just not suitable for people walking by or worse, driving by. There isn't any good way for the traffic from one network to be handed off to the other and back again. The user experience would be terrible - especially so when voice traffic begins to be carried over LTE.

Plus, that sort of WiFi isn't necessarily where the traffic is.

When operators implement small cells (and it's not a question of "if" but rather "when") they'll be able to place them exactly where they're needed - and handoffs/handovers/handups/handdowns will not be an issue.

 

[SockRolid]

Hmm coverging voice and data is a good thing (lowers costs) but treating voice as any other data is a bad idea. Voice is jitter and loss sensitive, so qos has to be applied (esp if you are in a cell with high load), [...]

Low latency and high data rates are part of the 4G requirements. 100Mbps for mobile use, and 1Gbps for stationary use.
(Where "mobile" means use in cars and vehicles at speed, and "stationary" means fixed positions and walking speeds.)
Here's an excerpt from the most recent ITU-R press release I could find:

"4G is a relatively loose term for next generation mobile broadband. It does not officially exist yet and will not until standards (called Recommendations) are ratified. But IMT-Advanced is expected to provide a major increase in the data rates that can be handled on mobile devices. In turn, this will open the door to new and better services of all kinds, including broadband multimedia and fast data access. Experts say it will approach the same sort of user experience that fixed broadband services currently offer."​

Here's a link to the full press release. The 4g-relevant paragraphs are at the bottom:

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/itu-r/index.aspx
​

[...] and good luck getting a provider to do that when there is no profit in it for them. To see what I mean try running any 3. party voip app on a highly loaded cell (eg bus depot at peak commuter times), and see how happy you, the other person is with that experience

Right now, LTE (aka "3GPP Long Term Evolution") requires two separate, parallel networks. One for voice, another for data. They use different technologies: circuit-switched network nodes for voice, packet-switched nodes for data. Combining voice and data into a single stream will mean that only one network technology will be needed.

Sounds like a long-term cost reduction to me. And yet the carriers are trying to get app developers to subsidize their business.
They're acting like the oil companies are. Scraping as much profit as possible out of a legacy business on the brink of major change.

 

[smithrh]

Low latency and high data rates are part of the 4G requirements. 100Mbps for mobile use, and 1Gbps for stationary use.
(Where "mobile" means use in cars and vehicles at speed, and "stationary" means fixed positions and walking speeds.)
Here's an excerpt from the most recent ITU-R press release I could find:

"4G is a relatively loose term for next generation mobile broadband. It does not officially exist yet and will not until standards (called Recommendations) are ratified. But IMT-Advanced is expected to provide a major increase in the data rates that can be handled on mobile devices. In turn, this will open the door to new and better services of all kinds, including broadband multimedia and fast data access. Experts say it will approach the same sort of user experience that fixed broadband services currently offer."​

Here's a link to the full press release. The 4g-relevant paragraphs are at the bottom:

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/itu-r/index.aspx
​

Right now, LTE (aka "3GPP Long Term Evolution") requires two separate, parallel networks. One for voice, another for data. They use different technologies: circuit-switched network nodes for voice, packet-switched nodes for data. Combining voice and data into a single stream will mean that only one network technology will be needed.

Sounds like a long-term cost reduction to me. And yet the carriers are trying to get app developers to subsidize their business.
They're acting like the oil companies are. Scraping as much profit as possible out of a legacy business on the brink of major change.

Quoted for truth.

However, I'd not follow the ITU to closely on the definition of 4G - they really screwed the pooch on this one and it's lead to nothing but market confusion, mainly thanks to them.

 

[charlituna]

.

While AT&T did a good job with signing up Starbucks and McDonalds for WiFi access, it's just not suitable for people walking by or worse, driving by. .

It's not good for it because it wasn't set up to be good for it. The purpose was to provide wifi to their customers, not the world