It costs AT&T about 10x as much for bandwidth to/from Alaska as it does in the Lower 48, because each of the main providers (ACS, GCI, ATT) have their own fiber running to Seattle. In the Lower 48, you can have 15+ companies sharing a fiber link and thereby splitting the cost instead of taking on the full cost of the pipe and bandwidth.
Hah, Anchorage is probably cheap compared to Barrow. Then again their EDGE goes out all the time up there.
And why do they each have their own fiber lines? I remember when it was a big deal when Juneau got fiber through GCI, but their internet is still capped way down from what we get down here in the lower 48.
Short story is that ATT, GCI, and ACS are in such competition with each other that they don't work together on anything. Because each provider only has one connection to the Lower 48, they can't provide speeds on par with what's available down there either. For example, in my hometown of Chattanooga, TN, I can get fiber to the home with 100 Mbps symmetrical internet, TV, and local phone for less than 22Mbps internet by itself in Anchorage...
I don't think AT&T and VZW know how much they really make. They definitely price adequately now that they've taken off unlimited data. The problem is the continuing cost of upgrades and pipeline expansions. Those 2 things cost a HUGE amount over the course of about 5 years or so. Tie in together all of the cost of maintenance, management, salaries, and commission, I'm surprised AT&T or VZW turning a profit easily and survive until next year.
I really want to know how much they get the data for and how much they make out of it?
Why cant they offer unlimited like before and now every company is following the same pattern.
Revenue is not profit. What that means is that they receive an average of $19.30 in data plan revenue for every phone on their network. That is on a per month basis if this link is to be believed and I think it is.
Method of Calculation: To calculate the ARPU, a standard time period must be defined. Most telecommunications carriers operate by the month. The total revenue generated by all units (paying subscribers or communications devices) during that period is determined. Then that figure is divided by the number of units. Because the number of units can vary from day to day, the average number of units must be calculated or estimated for a given month to obtain the most accurate possible ARPU figure for that month.
I think one perception the carriers have with unlimited data plans is that customers tend to use their data more frivolously than when they're limited to a certain number of GB/month.
I don't think any carriers will give out raw numbers (it's proprietary information), but one thing I do know is, the one service that they make an absolute KILLING on is SMS text messaging. People pay $5+/month for 200 inbound/outbound SMS messages or even $0.10/message when the cost to a carrier like Verizon is probably less than one tenth of a cent per SMS message sent.
... but one thing I do know is, the one service that they make an absolute KILLING on is SMS text messaging. People pay $5+/month for 200 inbound/outbound SMS messages or even $0.10/message when the cost to a carrier like Verizon is probably less than one tenth of a cent per SMS message sent.
No more resource intensive than sending a few bytes of data. As it is, everything that's transmitted and received on our phones nowadays is digital information, so whether it's a voice call, an SMS message, or a TCP/IP packet, it all boils down to 0's and 1's.People often think that texts must cost nothing. On the contrary, text messages are mini phone calls, which are resource intensive.
I'm surprised. GCI's network is crap, except for rural villages where they have coverage, and no one else does. They don't even have data at all between maybe Wasilla and Fairbanks, AT&T is EDGE all the way up. According to my cousin, who lives there, GCI is like the T-Mobile of Alaska (maybe partly because they both use PCS).
It sounds like they aren't investing in the fiber, as it's not like they can't get more bandwidth up there.
I'm surprised ACS is in real competition. To me it looks like much of their existence is as a roaming partner for Verizon and Sprint, mostly for the Verizon folks who expect their phone to work everywhere. It also looks like they are getting ready to either sell out to Verizon or do LTE in Rural America.
I was appalled when I learned that even Barrow doesn't have a real internet connection, apparently it would still be too expensive to build a microwave relay system from Deadhorse, although GCI and the state are building some microwave systems in the southwest corner of the state. In Barrow, their cable internet is 512/128 with a 5GB cap for $50. OUCH!!!
Whomever told you GCI uses PCS doesn't know what they're talking about. PCS is a CDMA technology that Sprint used to use (hence their old name of Sprint PCS). GCI's network is a GSM network (one that originally shared AT&T's towers in Alaska). Even the old Alaska Digitel network (which is a CDMA network GCI now operates) has nothing to do with PCS. Also, it was GCI that built cell towers all along the Parks Highway from Wasilla to Fairbanks, not ATT.