It was Apple strong arming the cellular industry into not being able to sell their own apps on the iPhone which caused this. They used to make a lot of money selling those apps/ringtones. Along came the iPhone and that revenue dried up, so they made it up elsewhere by doing away with unlimited data.
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.
FCC Questioning All Carriers On Unlimited Throttling Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was Apple strong arming the cellular industry into not being able to sell their own apps on the iPhone which caused this. They used to make a lot of money selling those apps/ringtones. Along came the iPhone and that revenue dried up, so they made it up elsewhere by doing away with unlimited data.
So basically, your entire point (that you flood all these threads to make) is that some people should be punished because they have a plan that sounds better than yours.
That isn't rational, it is an invite to a bar fight.
----------
People keep misapplying the speed discussion. You are correct, they didn't guarantee a speed, and they shouldn't. But you are not recognizing the true nature of the pipes. One person isn't "hogging" the bandwidth because they are downloading, if bandwidth is too full, it is because too many people are attempting to use it at once. If I'm downloading music, I'm not using their entire pipe by myself. You can't magically become a 10GB/month user in 1 congested hour. And those 10GB users aren't getting faster access than you, they are high users because they use it more often. So, all these arguments are just petty whining when you really come down to it.
"Mine should be faster because I'm more important than you." Wah, wah, wah. Proper slowing of everyone means everyone is on the same page.
----------
Are you sure? Maybe it was Google's fault because their logo has green in it. Or maybe it was my fault because I use my phone in the west end of town more than in the east.
Id like to see the government throttle cars. That way after two weeks of driving 60 mph on the interstate, the car gets throttled to only 35 mph.
Considering the way people crippled their website due to complaints, I'm willing to bet they have more people watching them this time around, forcing something to change. It's harder to be sly when you have the spotlight on you.
What upsets me is that I pay extra to Verizon for unlimited hotspot access. I checked into T-Mobile when this announcement was made and I did not see a hotspot option. I was fully intent on switching over in October.
$150/mo, plus they keep the phone subsidy for themselves (I have to buy my phone outright), and now they want to throttle the line.
My entire point is that the whole Verizon thing that got this going recently is that they likely can do it and people on the unlimited plans have terms and conditions that say they can be affected like that. The regulations related to the spectrum sale might be one the things that might play a role in it all for Verizon, which is probably why the FCC started looking into it now (even though other carriers have been doing this for some time now). But it's not clear if it truly applies or how exactly (otherwise the FCC would have already enforced whatever it is that would apply in those regulations).So basically, your entire point (that you flood all these threads to make) is that some people should be punished because they have a plan that sounds better than yours.
That isn't rational, it is an invite to a bar fight.
----------
People keep misapplying the speed discussion. You are correct, they didn't guarantee a speed, and they shouldn't. But you are not recognizing the true nature of the pipes. One person isn't "hogging" the bandwidth because they are downloading, if bandwidth is too full, it is because too many people are attempting to use it at once. If I'm downloading music, I'm not using their entire pipe by myself. You can't magically become a 10GB/month user in 1 congested hour. And those 10GB users aren't getting faster access than you, they are high users because they use it more often. So, all these arguments are just petty whining when you really come down to it.
"Mine should be faster because I'm more important than you." Wah, wah, wah. Proper slowing of everyone means everyone is on the same page.
----------
Are you sure? Maybe it was Google's fault because their logo has green in it. Or maybe it was my fault because I use my phone in the west end of town more than in the east.
As for bringing up me commenting on this in different threads and what my motives might be, that seems like something those who don't really have much of an argument to make to begin with end up resorting to. Only ends up making things that much more clearer.
----------
They essentially already do and have been doing that for a long time now--the on-ramp meter lights that exist and operant during the times of congestion in highways. What do you know, reality actually provides actual proof that this kind of thing not only works but has been done in real life for quite some time now.
No, it need not be.
The police department is part of the government. Must anything to do with the police department (stories about police efforts to track stolen iPhones, etc) be put in the political forum?
The FCC is a part of the government. Must anything to do with the FCC be put in the political forum? There was a recent article about the FCC relaxing the requirement for putting symbols on the case of the iPhone. Should that have been in the political forum?
* The government imposes taxes on the sale of all iDevices. Should, therefore, every single article discussing pricing of any Apple device be put in the political forum, since taxes increase end user price?
There are many examples of stories that touch upon the government, but need not be viewed in political terms. When we think about politics, we think about things that people from different political parties will think differently, and strongly, about... enough that it would result in a lot of crazy debate.
I think you should check the size of Ireland...it's like 30 times bigger then Rhode Island
Reminds me of the thread a couple months ago where there was at least one user who though Australia was closer to the size of Ohio or something.
That's not quite accurate. Unlimited data mostly started with the iPhone. Steve Jobs required it in his negotiations with AT&T. Here's an interesting article about it: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/att-randall-stephenson/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
----------
They do if you don't pay their traffic tolls. They'll throttle you all the way to 0 mph.
----------
That sounds like a mature opinion. Why don't you tell us more about how they're all poo-poo heads?
Get lost dude. I don't want cellphone service that only works in my home town. I had that back in 2003, and it was terrible. Nationwide cellular service requires large companies.
Unlimited data mostly started with Blackberries and other data phones.
The carriers didn't want to charge you a few cents every time you checked your email. (remember accidentally pressing the "Web" button on your old flip-phone?)
It was easier for them to give you "always on" internet access for a flat fee... in addition to your voice plan and text messaging plan.
But back in those days... data was slow. It was only good for a few emails here and there.
Fast forward to today... the network is faster... phones are more capable... it's a whole new world.
You might blame the iPhone for that... but I had a Verizon Blackberry with flat-fee unlimited data long before Verizon got the iPhone.
LOL, You dont even know why GB's are $15 do ya? It sure isn't supply and demand....sure I'll get lost as I laugh at you and your data plan.$15 for a GB that can be downloaded in less than 30 minutes of watching an HD movie. Your carrier is laughing at you as they rape you!
People are paying for it and cell companies have beyond tons of subscribers. Seems like market in action.
S.Korea
South Korea has blinding Internet connection speed's everywhere in the country, even on the trains...and its free on the train too. USA ISP's rates are among the highest in the world, and among the worst service in the world and its not an accident.
South Korea has blinding Internet connection speed's everywhere in the country, even on the trains...and its free on the train too. USA ISP's rates are among the highest in the world, and among the worst service in the world and its not an accident.
Ah, the size of South Korea compared to US? The density of population and the variability of terrain? And there you go. It's fun comparing a lake to an ocean trying to come up with comparisons as to how easy it is to manage a lake and therefore it's all so simple since it's all just water after all.
Correct. Everyone signed a contract that said the carrier could terminate the plan at any time for any reason
Geez. This is not difficult...
Your discredit yourself with your attempts to mock and ridicule. People with strong arguments don't need to resort to the demeaning of others. Below I've listed the profit margins of AT&T and Verizon, along with a sampling of several other large US corporations. You'll see that Verizon and AT&T have margins that are far below many other industries. If they're attempting to "rape" anyone, they're doing a really poor job of it.
http://ycharts.com/companies/VZ/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/T/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/IBM/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/CVX/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/CMCSA/profit_margin
----------
You're welcome to move to S. Korea at any time. Although I think you'll find their censored internet less to your liking than you imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_Korea
Uh no
It was not a comparison, it was a simple statement of facts.it applies to quite a few countries ISP's.In the USA for example,they need to be recategorized into 'PUBLIC UTILITIES' and the monopoly has got to be broken.1912 all over again(S.A.T. Act)....AND $15/GB is an outrage.Telecomms cry poverty and are making Billions of $$$$.
Citizens in many countries should be outraged.
It was not a comparison, it was a simple statement of facts.it applies to quite a few countries ISP's.In the USA for example,they need to be recategorized into 'PUBLIC UTILITIES' and the monopoly has got to be broken.1912 all over again(S.A.T. Act)....AND $15/GB is an outrage.Telecomms cry poverty and are making Billions of $$$$.
Citizens in many countries should be outraged.
Please help me understand your analogy - do they only throttle the gas guzzlers, the more expensive cars, the fastest cars, the heaviest highway users, any other subset of cars, or is everyone equally throttled by the on-ramp meter lights during periods of heavy traffic, regardless of any envy one may have for the Ferrari in the neighboring lane?
Wasn't exactly making an analogy there as much as replying someone who thought it would be interesting to see throttling (as a general concept) when it came to driving...somehow pretty much completely overlooking or ignoring it happening all the time in many places for many years.
However, if you do want to draw a parallel, in a lot of places carpool lanes on on-ramps are separate and have a faster meter light. So in essence the cars with single occupants are getting more throttled in comparison since those that are in a carpool can often go through a metered on-ramp much faster. So, yeah, not everyone by far is equally metered at many on-ramps.
I agree they should not be throttling it that hard.
Given the way most of the older people are driving these days, I think that may already be true. There are two speeds on the freeway. 40 and 85. 65 is unheard of.
Throttle me to .50 mbps Thanks alot..!! You Might as Well shut me completely OFF!!!
Verizon responded, suggesting its throttling plans were both fair and legal, and likely to impact only a small subset of customers. Verizon also noted that several other carriers, like Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have unlimited data restrictions in place.
This is a B.S. Statement...gee there's only a Few unlimited left? You ,mean you squeezed us down to a FEW..? Then let us get what we Paid for in the beginning...UNLIMITED DAM IT...!!!
It Cant possibly hurt you Now that you got everyone else to switch....
COME ON..!!!!
I,m AN AT&T UNLIMITED
Verizon responded, suggesting its throttling plans were both fair and legal, and likely to impact only a small subset of customers. Verizon also noted that several other carriers, like Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile all have unlimited data restrictions in place.
This is a B.S. Statement...gee there's only a Few unlimited left? You ,mean you squeezed us down to a FEW..? Then let us get what we Paid for in the beginning...UNLIMITED DAM IT...!!!
It Cant possibly hurt you Now that you got everyone else to switch....
COME ON..!!!!
I,m AN AT&T UNLIMITED