Thoughts from a cell/data revolutionary

[PixelHenge]

Ok guys, don't flame on this, but I've been thinking.. About the fears of the t-mobile data caps, the graphics available to the g1 and 3g in general.

Mods: if this is in the wrong spot, let me know :)

So here's my thought.

My first point is about the fact that t-mo had that 1gb data cap and then removed it. I've heard a lot of people getting very heated about the bandwidth hog debate.. a lot of them that would most likely use 3g to its full extent if they weren't worried about t-mo capping or restricting them. And still more who think every one ought to restrict themselves for for fear of tmo coming down even harder.

Further, i realize t-mo's 3g is still fairly new, but its not as if they don't know how to handle it. They have been handling it for a quite a little while now in Europe, and eventually wont have to many problems porting those same tactics to the US (minus out more difficult terrain layout over here for network expansion- but I'm talking about times to come).

So i have this theory- after reading t-mo's press releases and such. See, they say now that they will reserve the right to limit data usage to those people using disproportionatly to their customer base (basically). So i think instead of everyone being worried about the cap, or getting suspended for 'miss using' the data plan- or even hashing it out to people who would very much like to use the g1 for tethering...

What we need to do is create some demand.

Seriously. It would seem that all of the new t-mo 3g users, especially of the g1 are going to be setting the standard, here and now, of what is acceptable in terms of usage and thusly futures apps and TOS/contract addendums for at least a sizable amount of time to come.

Now, i'm not saying we need to all out abuse our services, but we, the customer base and users of this new device and technology need to set this 'proportion' that t-mo mentions. If even 65-70% of the new users wouldn't hold back on streaming music, shows, vids or even casual tethering (i don't mean P2P) when ever they feel rather than worrying about getting restricted, we would force the standard of whats "normal" to suit OUR uses rather than some executives that probably doesn't even have to worry about this sort of thing on a consumer level.

I for one, fully intend to put my 3g device to complete use and use 3g for what it is meant to be. I feel it a pity to get it and only load web pages faster via mobile rather than use all the streaming media available to me, download photos, music and even movies when i have nothing better to do and yes, even tether (when i can) for casual internet browsing and heck, some light downloading for game add-ons or computer up-dating.

I know I'm not the only one who dose this, but i know theres a lot more people who would if it wasn't for fear of being charged more, or worse, restrict.

We will be setting the standards. Will anybody join me in this? So that as even better and more data becomes available for use over 3g, the developers can even think on grander scales.

Yes, i know those of you who disagree with this are hating me right now.. but i want to go a step further with this. - this is mostly directed to those of us that LIKE to use our phones for gaming as well. If you don't, that's fine, to each their own. I for one like to strive towards having that one ultimate device that can be my pocket cam, psp, phone, office assistant and anything else..

I find it ironic that so many people spending the money that they have on this phone and others like it end up wanting to use it for games that can either be played on paper, were out 20-30 years ago or have been done over and over.

Now I'm not saying anything against you guys, i like mahjong and tetris as much as the next guy.. but i do think as a community we need to aim a little higher and push the mundane aside. The problem i have is that, again, we need to create the demand necessary to push this thing to and past its limits- for all future development on this (future generations) platform. I mean, the games like city slikkers, wifi army and parallel kingdoms are just freaking awesome revolutionary ideas.. and i would love to continue to see it move in this direction. Or further! I mean, it has open GL.. we need some super 3d, multi player, accelerometer action on this thing. I mean, some of the 3d ones I've seen on the iphone are very cool.. I hope to see things as good if not better on the g1- but i know there never will be if there's no demand for it.

The developers, the corporations and all the people in between HAVE to cater to the end user or there would be no customer base for their products. I think what we do right now, how we choose to use, exploit and perfect whats available to us, is going to set the standards for the direction this android can o' worms if going to move in.

It's just a thought and my opinion, but i think we need to look at the bigger picture some and think about how the consumer demand we make right now could effect the course of evolution on 3g, android and any of their incarnations.

Just a thought... Ok, start the flaming :o

[uga.buga]

100 % agree

[GrimShadows]

Flame on!!! never mind.. I'll just go burn stuff.. lol...

I pretty much agree, I purchased the G1 to use the internet, and use I will!!
I'm especially looking forward to see what games come out for this..
I already signed up to W2pi.com so I will be able to play Wifi Wars...

:D:D:D:D:D

[pinaytoy]

is that wifi army ever gonna come out? i heard they might not make it.

[New World]

No ones going to flame you ;)

It is a view point you have, You posted in the right section, and were respectful. :)

[uga.buga]

Is there a map on that website to see where theres like a wifi war in your area? Lol

[Darrell]

No, i agree with this and so do google, then see the mobile internet (both as in mobile devices and cloud based services that can be used anywhere) as the future. The Mobile phone companies have let the genie out of the bottle, it's too late to try and push it back.

[FrescoKID]

they should make duke nukem 3d for the g1 with multi player action, with the help of the key board of course....but i agree as welll

[PixelHenge]

Well thanks everyone! I appriciate it. I was getting the feeling from other posts here and on other forums that that wasnt the case. But its good to know i'm not the only one that dosent want this to go to waste - so to speak.

I also wanted to mention that the apps envolving location based data and the barcode reading is deffiniantly a step in a good direction in my book. I'm very glad to see those. Sadly, as the last time i coded was in 2000 on winNT, i think my knowlege is a little out of date, but i hope the developers today get wind of all of this and want to push it a step farther.

Also, anyone into the idea of those other games, show your support by registering via thier sites. They won't know that we want that if we don't show support.

w2pi.com
wifiarmy.com
parallelkingdom.com

Also, the original myst is being ported to the iphone as we speak (http://www.mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16131) if that intrests you, show support there too. And for anything else! They won't know we want itif we don't tell them. (and it has to be more than just me! :) )

[richard]

I'm not sure I understand your point really. If t-mobile decided that 1 GB a month is reasonable usage for $25, then thats what they built-out for. If they had a network that could supply all their users with however much bandwidth they wanted, I'm pretty sure they would sell it.

The problem doesn't lay with people that are "afraid" to use their service. It lays with the fact that the majority of consumers aren't willing to pay for wireless broadband bandwidth.

For now the carriers sell what they can which copmpared to landline broadband connections isnt a whole lot. This is changing rapidly, however, and along with this change, you will see a change in how wireless broadband plans are sold.

The $25 or $30 or whatever a month "unlimited" plan is going to very soon be a thing of the past. The way of the future, and the right way to handle it anyways, is pay-as-you go billing. Once the networks can handle the aggregate demand, that is exactly how wireless broadband will be sold.

Casual users will pay $10 a month for a GB, and those who stream music, download stuff etc. will pay $100 for 10GB or $250 for 25GB or whatever it might be.

In short, it doesn't matter how much you use your device. What matters is that the both the technology and the markets need to mature to the point where they can provide different service levels to the various types of users that are out there. Once that happens, it's mearly a question of how much you are willing to pay.

Cheers,
~richard

[PixelHenge]

Hi Richard, thank you for posting. Yes, i think you might have missed my point slightly. What i was getting at was that, we the users, can determine that "reasonable usage" that will be defined by t-mobile in future upgrades and contract revisions.

There are in fact a lot of people that fear being capped or restricted, but my point is that if t-mobile wants to do it based on disproportionate use then we can help define what that disproportion is. I think 3g can handle a lot more than what your giving it credit for, and more with every upgrade and expansion they add. If we continue to use it almost to capacity then the networks will be forced to upgrade for the load and continue to grow their services.

Yes, its true it may not be able to handle a whole lot now like in Europe, but it will.. oh yes it will, just so long as we give them a reason. If the usage is low, the network will remain what it is. I mean, there wouldn't be smart-phones if there hadn't been an ever increasing demand for them; there wouldn't be edge in the US if users hadn't demonstrated that we need the increased speeds and capacity. And I'm sure in the beginning edge was just as "fragile" as people thought.. but its not now. Dose t-mo get angry over usage of that in those ways? no, they cant, that would be like almost all their current edge users.

What I'm talking about is creating the demand and standard for these services for the future to come as determined by our current usage. This is the way companies decide what direction to go in with their products. I think if t-mobile turned around and started charging $10 a GB they would loose alot of customers to att and the big V and so on. I'd leave, and I'm sure a lot of other that use their smart phones would too.

I must disagree that pay as you go is the way of the future though. I mean, 10-15 years ago we were paying as we went with the internet, and as data and graphics in the web became more intensive people couldn't afford that anymore - then someone came up with the ingenious idea of "UNLIMITED INTERNET" for one low monthly fee. then everybody got on that band wagon, not just the phone companies, but cable too! No NO ONE pays as they go to use the internet on a device that they own in their homes. Sure, pay as you go basic voice is cool, because it eliminates the need for a contract - granted contracts are cheaper. But paying per megabyte is just kind of silly with today's technology and i don't think anyone would go for it. I could only see that working in it's current incarnation- as a month to month basis but the monthly fee entails unlimited usage. Everyone else, feel free to contradict me here as i don't speak for everyone, but i have a pretty good hunch.

Last point on that, europe has had 3g for quite a while now, and as their users increased and demand rose, the services only got cheaper and more available. Now, over there, if you don't have have that kind of phone and use it you look like a big dork :D

I really hate to say it, but i think that kind of mindset is what could ruin it for the rest of us. The big networks will gladly take your money if you hand it to them, but if we set our standards and payment limitations ourselves, the only thing well have to worry about is inflation and slight charge increases with manufacturing costs (ie: t-mo's texting from $14.99 to $19.99, not a $25 to $200 move)

[MattKilla]

The $25 or $30 or whatever a month "unlimited" plan is going to very soon be a thing of the past. The way of the future, and the right way to handle it anyways, is pay-as-you go billing. Once the networks can handle the aggregate demand, that is exactly how wireless broadband will be sold.

Casual users will pay $10 a month for a GB, and those who stream music, download stuff etc. will pay $100 for 10GB or $250 for 25GB or whatever it might be.
I cannot -disagree- more. Have you been, like, paying for IT services in the last 15 years? Remember when AOL charged by the hour, then flat-rate ISPs changed that standard? Now, flat-rate is all we have, and it's good. When costs become inexpensive enough to maintain, providers offer flat-rate services. When it comes to IT, things only get -cheaper-. That's the trend, and it's held-up for a long time. Services only get less expensive to maintain and provide, and by charging the same flat rate, businesses make more money and we pay the same.

Knock off the doom-saying, you're scaring the ignorant.

EDIT: Pixel and I said essentially the same thing at the same time. Talk about lolz..

[PixelHenge]

...

Knock off the doom-saying, you're scaring the ignorant.

haha! thanks! i am so stealing that from you! haha!

[MattKilla]

haha! thanks! i am so stealing that from you! haha!
Heh, feel free.

[RussianSolja]

i myself would also have to agree with you on this 101%.... WE ALL HAVE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND LET T-MOBILE KNOW HOW WE FEEL!!!! i bought the G1 phone for its Internet use and Gaming Like you said... it has Open GL give us games like quake and make them multi-player... i can promise you that i will be one of thoes people that will go over my internet use limit every month and get penalized for doing so... i agreed to pay $35 bucks a month for "UNLIMITED INTERNET" stop playing games with us and give us what we pay for!!!!! this G1 has so much POWER and you can do so much with it but T-Mobile wants to limit us on how much we can do! yes i understand i have 14 days to return the phone but that's not the point! i dont wanna return it... i wanna keep it and put it to good use like its suppose to be used and not get limited! RAWR YOU JUST PISSED ME OFF! by typing all that! im not pissed off at you im PISS OFF AT T-MOBILE!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[NetCom]

T-Mobile needs to make sure to define that UNLIMITED INTERNET statement. We all know that fine print is the one we should look for. At the same time, even cable internet that Comcast is selling is not unlimited. It was not stated what exactly monthly cap is until FCC stepped in and Comcast went with the 250GB cap (per month). Comcast charges for the internet about 60-70$ if you are not TV services customer. My point is avg users should not pay higher prices because someone wants to download the whole 4GB movie and watch it on his cell phone. So, having that in mind my suggestion would probably be we all have tha plans and if someone has desire for downloading movies to the mobile device, let him pay the prepaid bandwith for instance 10$ for additional 5GB IF the monthly cap has been fully used. If the person downloads whatever and does not use full bandwith allowed, then that's it. I think that unlimited data plans would still be very attractive to all of us. We would not be scared that carrier will raise up the prices because of someone downloading 4GB movie on the cell phone.
What do you think guys - would that work?

PS. This is written by a person who did not yet used data plan so - forgive my inexperienced suggestion - I guess I am just throwing it in the air for all to see if it would work :)

[Crashdamage]

First, I know that T-Mobile is building plenty of capacity into their 3G network, as much or more than any other carrier. Not a problem, at least not any more than for AT&T or Verizon.

Second, Richard wrote:

The $25 or $30 or whatever a month "unlimited" plan is going to very soon be a thing of the past. The way of the future, and the right way to handle it anyways, is pay-as-you go billing.MatKilla answered:

I cannot -disagree- more. Have you been, like, paying for IT services in the last 15 years? Remember when AOL charged by the hour, then flat-rate ISPs changed that standard? Now, flat-rate is all we have, and it's good. When costs become inexpensive enough to maintain, providers offer flat-rate services.In the past, yeah. For business use it'll likely continue. But it's been reported everywhere for months that Comcast, Time-Warner - many, if not most or all - of home internet providers are implementing or testing capping service or imposing speed restrictions after X number of GB. Pay-per-GB, not flat rate pricing by download speed clearly appears to be the future for home users. I see no reason to expect providers to look at mobile internet for personal use any differently.

Third, apparently some users here fell they should be able to tether their phones and get unlimited 3G access for laptops, whatever. Play online games 'till they turn green. Yeah, sure that would be a great deal, but let's be realistic. For example, I have 4 Verizon unlimited access 3G accounts for laptops used in my business. These are $79.95/mo each and do not include email or anything - just simple 3G internet, plus it cost $100.00/ea for hardware. That's a long way from $25.00. And Verizon absolutey refuses to discuss any discounts for multiple lines, etc.

IOW, T-Mobile's $25 plan is cheap, cheaper than AT&T's iPhone plans or Verizon. T-Mobile knows it, and pissed customers screaming they want everything for $25 are just gonna sound silly to them. Their attitude will likely be "Well, if our $25 deal isn't good enough, you're free to try to get a better deal with another carrier." Which of course, we can't. On my G1 I'll get 1500 voice minutes + around 10GB on 3G (possibly as much as 50GB, I've heard) + unlimited WiFi + good customer service for a total of about $65.00/mo. That's a consderably better deal than I can get anywhere else. $25.00 ain't bad. Get over it.

[PixelHenge]

Ok, ill go back on something i said earlier first off, ok, the mentioned $10/gb would actully be cheaper then t-mos mentioned 1gb cap- at that that would make 1gb worth $20.

But i think a lot of people agree that thats a VERY low limit.

I personaly have never heard of a DSL cap. Yes, i hear comcast kinda sucks.. but maybe it's just because i never hit my cable company's (brighthouse- tampa, baja- co springs) limit. But even with a 250gb "limit on unlimited", that leaves alot of wiggle room for the consumer level user. 1 or maybe 2 gb on 3g DOSE NOT.

Ok, for instance. I would consider myself the slightly above average user in that im good with my gadgets but i dont overclock my computers. my largest DL in a month on home net was 190gb and that was because my media player died taking my whole music library with it. So, 250 is meetable, but not to the point where you're going to have to keep checking your usage. (this suggests they made a fair limit based on their customer base).

Now, on my iphone 2g, my last month's usage was 700mb. If i had 3g, i should thing the faster speed would have me endup maybe doubling my usage to 1.5gb +/-. BUT, since streaming media will now be available to me, and i'll probably have to pay for that streaming media, it would turn into redunant chargin to be paying for that bandwidth and the media. I personly, would never end up useing the service at all then. Which would end up making 3g itself rather redundant.

I'm sorry the big V services kinda stink in that line.. but thats exactly why i didnt choose them, they tend to take a very anti-customer approach to their customers. Yes, t-mo is MUCH cheaper for something like this. But i dont think anyone here is screaming they want everything for $25.

My point is that, we, the first major group of users on this service will be setting the presedents for future data usage caps. So i think we should set the cap via un-selfrestricted usage and not be so worried about BEING capped in the begaining. Yes, i know you cant get everything for free.. i really do. But all of these major companies, when setting these limits will look at the average customer use and set that accordingly. If they displease to great a number they loose money, if they don't do anything they loose money.. they find the middle ground with the most profit. So if the average user uses say 3-4gb a month that will be the likly limit. Thats all i am really saying here. I AM NOT SAYING i want everything for free unlimited yada yada free lunch.

I'm talking about supply and demand on the new service. We are essentially the test group here, with android, with t-mo 3g.. all of it. What we choose to do with it will thread the needle in the evolution of these things. So yes, if enough users use tethering for internt OUTSIDE their homes, they eventully will have to allow it with blessings. Just like using motorolas as modems - t-mo helped me set mine up in the begaining.

Lastly though - 10-50gb would be WAAAYY more usable than 1-2gb and would practically FEEL like unlimited and would be very fair. But i for one am paying about $200 a month for my cell bill right now, have been for 4 years. Such a narrow restriction would be very disapointing. T-mo has always been fair to their customers, i see no reason for them to stop now. Agian, my point is simply that IF there is going to be a cap, we can help determine that cap by our usage NOW.

[fhsieh]

First post, so please excuse my sudden (and lengthy) interjection. ;)

In principle I agree with the idea that ultimately we want wireless connectivity that can provide the same transparency (ie: no arbitrary bandwidth limitation) that we get with traditional hardwired broadband connections. But I think the method as described by OP is a little short-sighted, though not wrong.


... we, the customer base and users of this new device and technology need to set this 'proportion' that t-mo mentions. If even 65-70% of the new users wouldn't hold back [...] we would force the standard of whats "normal" to suit OUR uses ...

Although Tmo 3G is in its infancy, I have no doubts that Tmo is competent enough to build a solid 3G network in time. But the problem is that 3G is inherently limited and simply cannot sustain "our" kinds of services across such a broad userbase. There are plenty of broadband applications that would just suck being limited to a 600kbps connection that drops from time to time; and even if Tmo completely removed any transfer penalty, that's something that 3G simply can't address very easily.


What we need to do is create some demand.

What we really need in order to achieve network transparency is to move towards 4G/LTE. Sprint, as another OHA member, is building its WiMAX (Pre-4G) network as we speak, which has so far achieved 11Mbps in Baltimore trials; other WiMAX networks are already running 14Mbps networks, and the technology has a theoretical ceiling at 80Mbps. Those are rates that are truly comparable to the average broadband connection, and those are the rates at which consumer-centric services can really flourish while artificial limitations begin to disappear.

It's true that we need to create demand, but we need to create demand of new services, and not just raw bandwidth.

I know this is not OP's original contention, but allow me use it to illustrate my point: Having desktop P2P on the handset would be an amazing service. But given 3G's limitations, it would be slow, and most people would continue to rely on their normal broadband connection for that kind service. That means real demand stays with broadband and doesn't truly move to wireless. If we artificially strain Tmo's 3G network to create that demand, we end up all together fighting an inherent limitation of 3G, not the fine print in Tmo's contracts. Worse, if the network suffers, Tmo will have a hard time competing with other US carriers -- and lack of competition means consumers lose (AT&T has already announced they have no plans to upgrade their network in the near future, and who knows if Verizon even has any plans for its CDMA network; but thank god Sprint is on the ball with WiMAX).

On the other hand, if we create high demand for services, and in particular services that cannot be had on traditional broadband, then carriers are more easily pursuaded into building out 4G/LTE networks that can truly support those services. It's not hard to imagine what those services might be like: location-aware P2P based on crowd-sourcing (think songs delivered to a torrent of handsets at arena concerts). And I think Android is the platform that can make it happen.

Once carriers realize consumers are willing to pay for bandwidth to run services that are only available on handsets, they will compete with each other to bring access to those same services at faster speeds/fewer caps/cheaper prices, just as we see in the broadband market. Sprint's WiMAX will in all likelihood be expensive at first, and most people wouldn't subscribe if they can get the same P2P performance on cheaper broadband. But design some killer applications that can take advantage of the bandwidth, and I'm sure lots of people would seriously consider it.

In reality this is already happening in other countries: Japan is a poignant example, with carriers launching 20Mbps+ networks next year, while 3G prices are steadily falling. Are people really using up all that bandwidth? No. But there are key services that are only available through handsets, and all four Japanese carriers are fiercely competing with each other to have customers connect to those services through their network.





Unfortunately for the US, the majority of people get by just fine with voice and SMS service (and with the recession it doesn't look like it will change very much), and 2G bandwidth is more than enough for that. This is why our carriers lag behind the rest of the world so much, because our lack of demand of next-gen services allows them to stay anti-competitive while still turning a profit. But create demand for new services, and the demand for bandwidth will follow right behind.

Don't get me wrong, I still think it's important to be vocal to Tmo about removing its arbitrary cap, but I think it's small beans in the bigger picture and doesn't really do much to guarantee our ideal transparent network.

[insight spinner]

First post, so please excuse my sudden (and lengthy) interjection. ;)

Hi and welcome!! I really appreciate your lengthy response and agree with it.

For me, this isn't an either or situation as much as a both and.

We are in a world and market where when a biz sees a service in demand that can be charged for, they find ways to charge for it. But that system is ineffective, especially in this area where new technologies change the dynamics of service provision.


<snip>
What we really need in order to achieve network transparency is to move towards 4G/LTE. ICAM. Android is at the leading edge but we can't imagine it will be the end. It's changed the vision of what it means to communicate on the fly. 4th generation transfer protocols will similarly change the landscape and while I am simply an enduser in this arena, that's where we should set our sights, IMO. But there are going to be subsequent generations as well. And new tech opens up new ways to think about tech and leads to new development. It opens up new avenues for services on mobile devices and services that carry the info to and from mobile devices and the cloud...what we are already seeing in terms of apps.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't USE our first gen Android phones to the ultimate. I agree we need to push them, press them. Because as first adopters we do create the demand and set the standards for use. We help determine what will be made available and in what way. But I don't think any of us need encouragement along these lines. I for one plan to be spending prime time using my baby Android and seeing what he can do. And I am no power user.

[richard]

I really hate to say it, but i think that kind of mindset is what could ruin it for the rest of us.

It's not a mindset. It costs BILLIONS just for the liceneses to create a 3G network, and no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish, you aren't going to get high-speed, high-usage broadband unless you are willing to pay what its worth. Broadband over 3G is an order of magnitude more expensive to provide than it is over any land-based distribution medium, and the usage penetration levels, both here and in europe, are so low that there's no way to provide iot profitably at the moment.

[mingkee]

it's easy to understand why some are worried about usage
as an experienced tethering user, I can say the worry is not necessary
G1 is out for couple of weeks, and I don't notice any noticeable slowdown or hiccup
not all tethering users are running streaming @600kbps, or running bittorrent, or share 1000 computers with a single 3G connection