iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

"nospam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:101220081704350531%[email protected]...
> In article <hZY%[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Well, if they're anything like my wife, they may have turned off WiFi
>> > to
>> > increase battery life, and to avoid the continual bombardment of
>> > messages
>> > telling them WiFi is available everytime the phone sees a new hotspot.
>>
>> Yes, it gets really annoying to be constantly reminded that a WiFi
>> network is available, when you really don't care.
>
> that's why there's a toggle.
>
>> Also the WiFi sucks
>> more power for no good reason if 3G is available.
>
> what tests have you done?

What tests do you need? Two radios consume more power than one. Shut one
off, you save power. Now the question is which one to turn off- the one
that offers ubiquitous connectivity, albeit a little slower, or the one that
works at home, perhaps at work, and at a few cafes, libraries, and
bookstores in-between. Hmmmm....

>> > Not necessarily. Obviously a faster WiFi connection will be noticible
>> > when
>> > downloading large apps from the app store, but using Safari, for
>> > example,
>> > the phone's major bottleneck will be it's page rendering speed, rather
>> > than
>> > the difference between 3G and a fast WiFi connection.
>>
>> It's not just that, it's that many DSL subscribers opted for the
>> el-cheapo DSL. AT&T is offering $10/month DSL in my area to new
>> subscribers, but it's comparable in speed to AT&T 3G, maybe a bit slower.
>
> so someone who gets the cheapest dsl possible then runs out and buys an
> iphone? hardly likely.

Why not? For browsing the web and using email- the two primary functions
most people use the web for, 768k DSL is plenty adequate.

This is late 2008, not June 2007- sorry, your iPhone is no longer an
"affinity product." At $199 it's the new RAZR, baby- everyone who wants
one, has one. And at $30/month for mandatory data fees, I'd choose 3G over
WiFi just to p-ss off AT&T.

> 3g may be faster than the rock bottom dsl but it's slower than what
> most people have, particularly cable and fios users.

And again, given the slow processors in mobile phones, the connection speed
isn't the bottleneck.

>> Yes, that's the issue. Most users can't be bothered to turn on WiFi for
>> a marginal, if any, increase in speed, unless there is no 3G (or even
>> EDGE) available, which is really only the case in rural areas these days.
>
> there's nothing to turn on. it connects automatically. also, at&t's
> 3g network is not very widely deployed, with a lot of holes even in
> major cities.

If you leave WiFi off to save the battery, there certainly is something to
turn on, and it takes a few steps.

>> > While that's a side benefit, the primary objective of T-Mobile's
>> > Hotspot@Home service is to compensate for lousy signal penetration in
>> > homes.
>>
>> LOL, I know how that goes.
>
> right, just like you know about everything else.

Why are his assumptions (i.e. most people won't bother to turn on WiFi) any
less valid than yours (i.e. people with cheap DSL wouldn't own iPhones)?

>> Tethering is very dicey. They have the potential to piss off a lot of
>> customers that really don't understand about the monthly limits that
>> will apply for tethering but not for direct use.
>
> or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the true
> bandwidth hogs.

The limit's been picked, most likely- it'll probably be the same 5GB every
other AT&T smartphone tethering plan has. I'm just waiting to see how AT&T
and/or Apple cripples iPhone tethering to ensure compliance ("you can only
tether to a computer running iTunes with the same account as the connected
iPhone, and must connect using the new iTunes iConnect feature available in
the new iTunes 8.5 blah, blah...") I find it hard to believe the same two
companies that won't let you download media or apps > 10MB on the phone
itself will allow unfettered 3G access to a PC connected to that same phone.

---

› See More: iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Why are his assumptions (i.e. most people won't bother to turn on WiFi)
> any less valid than yours (i.e. people with cheap DSL wouldn't own
> iPhones)?

LOL, he is just trying to be as obnoxious as possible by contradicting
everything you or I say, even though he is well aware we're right.

Best option is to add him to your kill file as most others have already
done.

"Applied filter "[email protected]" to message from nospam
<[email protected]> - iPhone to get in-home Booster from AT&T at.....

In article <H8%%[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Also the WiFi sucks
> >> more power for no good reason if 3G is available.
> >
> > what tests have you done?
>
> What tests do you need? Two radios consume more power than one. Shut one
> off, you save power. Now the question is which one to turn off- the one
> that offers ubiquitous connectivity, albeit a little slower, or the one that
> works at home, perhaps at work, and at a few cafes, libraries, and
> bookstores in-between. Hmmmm....

the question is which one uses more power. so far, you and sms said
that wifi uses more than 3g. from what i've seen, i don't think that's
the case. i'd like to see actual tests that show how much power each
feature uses.

> > so someone who gets the cheapest dsl possible then runs out and buys an
> > iphone? hardly likely.
>
> Why not? For browsing the web and using email- the two primary functions
> most people use the web for, 768k DSL is plenty adequate.

if all they do is that would they be likely to buy an iphone? not
everyone cares about having internet in their pocket. they can get
their email and browse the web when they're at home (or at work).

i'm not convinced that someone who gets the bottom tier of dsl is going
to get a high end phone instead of the usual data capable phone, or
even something past the basic one.

> This is late 2008, not June 2007- sorry, your iPhone is no longer an
> "affinity product." At $199 it's the new RAZR, baby- everyone who wants
> one, has one. And at $30/month for mandatory data fees, I'd choose 3G over
> WiFi just to p-ss off AT&T.

if everyone who wanted one had one, then sales would now be 0

> > 3g may be faster than the rock bottom dsl but it's slower than what
> > most people have, particularly cable and fios users.
>
> And again, given the slow processors in mobile phones, the connection speed
> isn't the bottleneck.

not everything is cpu bound. for an app that downloads some data and
processes it directly rather than render html as what safari does, the
network speed might turn out to be the bottleneck.

> >> > While that's a side benefit, the primary objective of T-Mobile's
> >> > Hotspot@Home service is to compensate for lousy signal penetration in
> >> > homes.
> >>
> >> LOL, I know how that goes.
> >
> > right, just like you know about everything else.
>
> Why are his assumptions (i.e. most people won't bother to turn on WiFi) any
> less valid than yours (i.e. people with cheap DSL wouldn't own iPhones)?

fair enough.

i'm biased because he frequently makes a number of unsubstantiated
posts in other newsgroups (namely rec.photo.*), and despite very clear
proof to the contrary, he still continues with his claims.

> >> Tethering is very dicey. They have the potential to piss off a lot of
> >> customers that really don't understand about the monthly limits that
> >> will apply for tethering but not for direct use.
> >
> > or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the true
> > bandwidth hogs.
>
> The limit's been picked, most likely- it'll probably be the same 5GB every
> other AT&T smartphone tethering plan has.

it probably will be 5g since that's what everyone else has.

> I'm just waiting to see how AT&T
> and/or Apple cripples iPhone tethering to ensure compliance ("you can only
> tether to a computer running iTunes with the same account as the connected
> iPhone, and must connect using the new iTunes iConnect feature available in
> the new iTunes 8.5 blah, blah...")

i doubt it's going to be that onerous. however, i do think it's going
to be priced higher than what people would like (then again, most
things are).

> I find it hard to believe the same two
> companies that won't let you download media or apps > 10MB on the phone
> itself will allow unfettered 3G access to a PC connected to that same phone.

downloading music on the cellphone network (versus wifi) is more than
likely (stupid) licensing restrictions from the music companies rather
than at&t.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> LOL, he is just trying to be as obnoxious as possible by contradicting
> everything you or I say, even though he is well aware we're right.

if that's the case, it should be easy to provide proof showing the
error of my ways.

At 10 Dec 2008 20:46:06 -0800 nospam wrote:

> > What tests do you need? Two radios consume more power than one. Shut
one
> > off, you save power. Now the question is which one to turn off- the
one
> > that offers ubiquitous connectivity, albeit a little slower, or the one
that
> > works at home, perhaps at work, and at a few cafes, libraries, and
> > bookstores in-between. Hmmmm....
>
> the question is which one uses more power. so far, you and sms said
> that wifi uses more than 3g.

I didn't say that- I just said WiFi uses more power than no WiFi. Since
WiFi and no 3G would give less connectivity, (unless you never leave your
house or Starbucks) I wouldn't consider that a viable option for most people.



> > > so someone who gets the cheapest dsl possible then runs out and buys
an
> > > iphone? hardly likely.
> >
> > Why not? For browsing the web and using email- the two primary
functions
> > most people use the web for, 768k DSL is plenty adequate.
>
> if all they do is that would they be likely to buy an iphone? not
> everyone cares about having internet in their pocket. they can get
> their email and browse the web when they're at home (or at work).

Mobile email is a powerful drug. T-Mobile even sells email-only internet
plans with no web browsing access at all. Web browsing and email are still
the internet's "killer apps." Besides, the iPhone is the "best iPod ever."


> i'm not convinced that someone who gets the bottom tier of dsl is going
> to get a high end phone instead of the usual data capable phone, or
> even something past the basic one.


So the millions of iPhone owners are techies? Not in my neck of the woods.
The vast majority of iPhone users I run into are "Desparate Housewives"
and soccer moms.

> > This is late 2008, not June 2007- sorry, your iPhone is no longer an
> > "affinity product." At $199 it's the new RAZR, baby- everyone who
wants
> > one, has one. And at $30/month for mandatory data fees, I'd choose 3G
over
> > WiFi just to p-ss off AT&T.
>
> if everyone who wanted one had one, then sales would now be 0

You're right- sales won't be zero until after Christmas. Just like with
last year's iPhone. ;-)

> > > 3g may be faster than the rock bottom dsl but it's slower than what
> > > most people have, particularly cable and fios users.
> >
> > And again, given the slow processors in mobile phones, the connection
speed
> > isn't the bottleneck.
>
> not everything is cpu bound. for an app that downloads some data and
> processes it directly rather than render html as what safari does, the
> network speed might turn out to be the bottleneck.


But what app besides Safari (that the iPhone is allowed to run) would use
that much data for the speed difference to be that noticeable? Shazam
might ID a song in 8 seconds instead of 11? Downloading large apps or
media files would be faster, but those generally require WiFi anyway.


> > >> Tethering is very dicey. They have the potential to piss off a lot of
> > >> customers that really don't understand about the monthly limits that
> > >> will apply for tethering but not for direct use.
> > >
> > > or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the true
> > > bandwidth hogs.
> >
> > The limit's been picked, most likely- it'll probably be the same 5GB
every
> > other AT&T smartphone tethering plan has.
>
> it probably will be 5g since that's what everyone else has.
>
> > I'm just waiting to see how AT&T
> > and/or Apple cripples iPhone tethering to ensure compliance ("you can
only
> > tether to a computer running iTunes with the same account as the
connected
> > iPhone, and must connect using the new iTunes iConnect feature
available in
> > the new iTunes 8.5 blah, blah...")
>
> i doubt it's going to be that onerous.

Nor do I- I was (mostly) kidding around.

> however, i do think it's going
> to be priced higher than what people would like (then again, most
> things are).

I'd guess it'll be in line with other AT&T tetheringplans. AT&T seems to
have tried to streamline data pricing with the iPhone 3G, matching the same
$30 price point their other smartphones pay. I suspect the tethering add-
on will also be priced the same.

> > I find it hard to believe the same two
> > companies that won't let you download media or apps > 10MB on the phone
> > itself will allow unfettered 3G access to a PC connected to that same
phone.
>
> downloading music on the cellphone network (versus wifi) is more than
> likely (stupid) licensing restrictions from the music companies rather
> than at&t.


Doubtful- other carriers have their own song download services. My guess
is it was either a negotiated strategy not to directly compete with AT&T's
own music download service, or an attempt to keep bandwidth usage down.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > i'm not convinced that someone who gets the bottom tier of dsl is going
> > to get a high end phone instead of the usual data capable phone, or
> > even something past the basic one.
>
> So the millions of iPhone owners are techies? Not in my neck of the woods.
> The vast majority of iPhone users I run into are "Desparate Housewives"
> and soccer moms.

and do these people have $10 dsl?

the people i see with iphones tend to be mostly geeks or business
executives.

in any event, around here there is no $10 dsl plan. the cheapest and
slowest dsl plan is 1.5 megabit for about $20/mo. cable companies are
pitching faster plans and verizon is pushing fios where it's available.

> > not everything is cpu bound. for an app that downloads some data and
> > processes it directly rather than render html as what safari does, the
> > network speed might turn out to be the bottleneck.
>
> But what app besides Safari (that the iPhone is allowed to run) would use
> that much data for the speed difference to be that noticeable? Shazam
> might ID a song in 8 seconds instead of 11? Downloading large apps or
> media files would be faster, but those generally require WiFi anyway.

ones that come to mind include streaming radio, streaming video, vnc
and weather maps. there's not much to those apps but transfer data and
play or display it.

> > however, i do think it's going
> > to be priced higher than what people would like (then again, most
> > things are).
>
> I'd guess it'll be in line with other AT&T tetheringplans. AT&T seems to
> have tried to streamline data pricing with the iPhone 3G, matching the same
> $30 price point their other smartphones pay. I suspect the tethering add-
> on will also be priced the same.

it probably will, unless they have different bandwidth limits.

> > > I find it hard to believe the same two
> > > companies that won't let you download media or apps > 10MB on the phone
> > > itself will allow unfettered 3G access to a PC connected to that same
> >
> > downloading music on the cellphone network (versus wifi) is more than
> > likely (stupid) licensing restrictions from the music companies rather
> > than at&t.
>
> Doubtful- other carriers have their own song download services. My guess
> is it was either a negotiated strategy not to directly compete with AT&T's
> own music download service, or an attempt to keep bandwidth usage down.

i doubt it's the bandwidth since there's a zillion other things one can
do to waste bandwith. it's probably due to licensing and/or competing
with existing deals.

At 11 Dec 2008 03:13:55 -0800 nospam wrote:

> > > i'm not convinced that someone who gets the bottom tier of dsl is
going
> > > to get a high end phone instead of the usual data capable phone, or
> > > even something past the basic one.
> >
> > So the millions of iPhone owners are techies? Not in my neck of the
woods.
> > The vast majority of iPhone users I run into are "Desparate Housewives"
> > and soccer moms.
>
> and do these people have $10 dsl?

I doubt they know what level of service they have. Whatever came with
their phone/internet/TV "bundle" I suspect. (Although, where in live, NO
one has "$10 DSL"- our internet pricing isn't that competitive. They may
have $26 DSL, however... I do.)

> the people i see with iphones tend to be mostly geeks or business
> executives.
>
> in any event, around here there is no $10 dsl plan. the cheapest and
> slowest dsl plan is 1.5 megabit for about $20/mo. cable companies are
> pitching faster plans and verizon is pushing fios where it's available.


I have a 1.5MB DSL plan- the cheapest now available in my area. I'm a
geek, but paying more money for idle bandwidth I wouldn't use makes little
sense to me. 1.5 is "good enough." (Two years ago I even dropped down to a
256k plan when no good promotional deals were available. Now 1.5 is the
slowest my telco offers.)

> > what app besides Safari (that the iPhone is allowed to run) would use
> > that much data for the speed difference to be that noticeable? Shazam
> > might ID a song in 8 seconds instead of 11? Downloading large apps or
> > media files would be faster, but those generally require WiFi anyway.
>
> ones that come to mind include streaming radio, streaming video, vnc
> and weather maps. there's not much to those apps but transfer data and
> play or display it.


Each of those apps (other than VNC) only require a certain amount of
bandwidth to work, however, and "extra" goes unused.

> > AT&T seems to
> > have tried to streamline data pricing with the iPhone 3G, matching the
same
> > $30 price point their other smartphones pay. I suspect the tethering
add-
> > on will also be priced the same.
>
> it probably will, unless they have different bandwidth limits.


Agreed.


> > other carriers have their own song download services. My guess
> > is it was either a negotiated strategy not to directly compete with
AT&T's
> > own music download service, or an attempt to keep bandwidth usage down.
>
> i doubt it's the bandwidth since there's a zillion other things one can
> do to waste bandwith. it's probably due to licensing and/or competing
> with existing deals.


Could be. Either way, they aren't going to tell us! ;-)

At 10 Dec 2008 09:05:53 -0600 Ron wrote:

> I donb't need no boost to my cell service at home anymore.
>
> I just use my magicJack with my dsl for all local and long distance
> calls.
>
> http://mgaicJack.com


Hmmm... that's two MJ posts in two days. Did you buy stock in YMAX or
something?

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 Dec 2008 03:13:55 -0800 nospam wrote:
>
>>>> i'm not convinced that someone who gets the bottom tier of dsl is
> going
>>>> to get a high end phone instead of the usual data capable phone, or
>>>> even something past the basic one.
>>> So the millions of iPhone owners are techies? Not in my neck of the
> woods.
>>> The vast majority of iPhone users I run into are "Desparate Housewives"
>>> and soccer moms.
>> and do these people have $10 dsl?
>
> I doubt they know what level of service they have. Whatever came with
> their phone/internet/TV "bundle" I suspect. (Although, where in live, NO
> one has "$10 DSL"- our internet pricing isn't that competitive. They may
> have $26 DSL, however... I do.)

The basic DSL is extremely popular for non-techies. For e-mail and web
browsing it's just fine. Apparently the $10 introductory offer
("http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=7681")was some sort of requirement
for AT&T related the merger that brought together SBC and BellSouth.

I'm still sad about the name change to BellSouth. The original name,
Southern Bell, was so great.

> I have a 1.5MB DSL plan- the cheapest now available in my area. I'm a
> geek, but paying more money for idle bandwidth I wouldn't use makes little
> sense to me. 1.5 is "good enough." (Two years ago I even dropped down to a
> 256k plan when no good promotional deals were available. Now 1.5 is the
> slowest my telco offers.)

Unless you're planning on doing massive downloads of videos or
something, the slower speed is adequate for most users.

One thing that AT&T is planning for is future iPhones with faster
processors. Right now, the iPhone is the bottleneck, not the 3G speed.
Other smart phones are already faster than the iPhone in rendering web
pages. Apple is sure to have faster processors in future iPhone models,
and then 3G becomes the bottleneck and they have a better case for
encouraging their customers to get the femto cells.

At 11 Dec 2008 08:29:47 -0800 SMS wrote:

> The basic DSL is extremely popular for non-techies. For e-mail
> and web browsing it's just fine. Apparently the $10 introductory
> offer ("http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=7681")was some
> sort of requirement for AT&T related the merger that brought
> together SBC and BellSouth.

In my case it's about controlling costs. Qwest's basic (now 1.5M) service
is "fast enough," and bundled with basic landline service is about the same
price as (admittedly faster) cable internet alone.

> I'm still sad about the name change to BellSouth. The original name,
> Southern Bell, was so great.


Agreed- the name belied the ruthless monopolistic corporation hiding under
it's skirt! ;-)

> > I have a 1.5MB DSL plan- the cheapest now available in my area. I'm a
> > geek, but paying more money for idle bandwidth I wouldn't use makes
little
> > sense to me. 1.5 is "good enough." (Two years ago I even dropped down
to a
> > 256k plan when no good promotional deals were available. Now 1.5 is the
> > slowest my telco offers.)
>
> Unless you're planning on doing massive downloads of videos or something,
the slower speed is adequate for most users.

Agreed. Even a large download, like an XP or Vista service pack can be set
in motion when you're about to walk away from the PC anyway. The 22 hours
no one sits in front of it it needs nearly 0k bandwidth!

> One thing that AT&T is planning for is future iPhones with faster
> processors. Right now, the iPhone is the bottleneck, not the 3G
> speed. Other smart phones are already faster than the iPhone in
> rendering web pages.

Maybephones I haven't played with. My wife's keeps up with my WinMo
phone's native IE mobile browser, but I can beat it if I use Opera Mini.
It seems to me the rendering engine is more critical than the processor.
Iris Browser from Torch software is a WinMo browser that is based on the
same Webkit "engine" as Safari, and it's dog slow (which the developers
acknowledge- it IS in beta) so like with all software, a little
optimization can go a long way. The fsct t at the iPhone can render a full
webpage as fast as it does is a testament to the device.

> Apple is sure to have faster processors in future iPhone models,
> and then 3G becomes the bottleneck and they have a better case
> for encouraging their customers to get the femto cells.

Again, why not just turn WiFi on, in the case of the iPhone? Why connect
to your own broadband via a "3G-to-cable/DSL" converter? I see the point
for voice, but for data, it's just silly.


I still think T-Mo's UMA (Unlicensed Mobile Access) system is better going
forward as more phones add WiFi. Why screw with a femtocell when you can
put the GSM-to-IP conversion right into the phone, allowing the phone to
use it's "built-in femtocell" anywhere there's WiFi. Femtocells have to
reside in the carrier's licensed area due to their usage of licensed
frequencies, while UMA works anywhere in the world you can find access to
WiFi. Forget absurd roaming charges, on-phone VoIP clients, or even
international SIMs- UMA lets you make non-roaming calls on your home
network from halfway around the world.

If a carrier is exploring this technology primarily to offload traffic
rather than increase coverage, building UMA into the majority of phones
makes more sense than hoping to convince folks to buy, or even take for
"free", a weird box that gives them little direct benefit, or hoping enough
customers hop on to femtocells to create as secondary "AT&T mesh" in
congested areas.

However, if the strategy is simply to address potential churn from
customers with lousy coverage at home, as I suspect it is, the femtocell
idea makes perfect sense, since it doesn't limit handset selection like UMA
does.

nospam <[email protected]> wrote in news:101220082046067977%
[email protected]lid:

> the question is which one uses more power. so far, you and sms said
> that wifi uses more than 3g. from what i've seen, i don't think that's
> the case. i'd like to see actual tests that show how much power each
> feature uses.
>
>

The 3G works on the PCS transmitter, which is either 120 or 150mw. The
wifi operates on 20mw, at the most 10% of the sellphone's transmitter load.

Wifi hardly uses any power at all with its powerful 20mw transmitter.....

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> > > or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the
>> > > true bandwidth hogs.
>

Hey, WATCH IT! I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

On 2008-12-11, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> nospam <[email protected]> wrote in news:101220082046067977%
> [email protected]lid:
>
>> the question is which one uses more power. so far, you and sms said
>> that wifi uses more than 3g. from what i've seen, i don't think that's
>> the case. i'd like to see actual tests that show how much power each
>> feature uses.
>>
>
> The 3G works on the PCS transmitter, which is either 120 or 150mw. The
> wifi operates on 20mw, at the most 10% of the sellphone's transmitter load.
>
> Wifi hardly uses any power at all with its powerful 20mw transmitter.....

That's sort of correct as far as it goes, I'd only note that the
3G transmitter is power-controlled so it is likely to be closer
to the WiFi output power than you suggest at least some of the time.
I'd agree, however, that 3G is likely more expensive per bit transmitted
than WiFi, but would also point out that most people receive a lot
more bits than they transmit and the power consumed by the receivers
per bit is likely to be closer still.

I'd also note that actually moving data isn't the only way
those transceivers consume power, and for the average user (that
might exclude those doing 27 GB/month) what the transceiver consumes
when it isn't transfering data probably ends up being more important
than what it does when it is actually being used. There are two
idle states that may matter. First, both 3G and WiFi consume a lot
of power when scanning for service (3G seems particularly bad, my
Motorola 3G phone will go 2 or 3 days between charges if it has
service but will run the battery down in an hour when it is looking
for service) but, assuming decent 3G coverage, most phones on the
move probably spend a lot more time scanning for WiFi service than
for cell phone service. Once the phone finds service, however, the
cell phone protocols, both 2G and 3G, are really very efficient at
maintaining their connection to the network in terms of power while
WiFi requires very frequent transmissions to keep the connection up
(this is why the T-Mobile-at-home access points violate the WiFi
protocol, to lessen the phone's power consumption when connected
via WiFi). On balance I suspect that in a phone with both the
3G and WiFi transceivers operating, the WiFi would typically consume
more power while idle than the 3G, and that for most users idle
power consumption by the radios is most of their power consumption.
I hence think that if you have both the 3G and the WiFi radios on
the WiFi radio will consume more of the battery.

The fact is, however, that 3G and WiFi aren't equal alternatives.
Most people won't ever turn the cell phone transceiver off since
their voice service depends on it, so really only the WiFi
radio is optional and what we're comparing is 3G+WiFi to 3G
alone. Here the comparison is clear. You'll use less power
if you turn the WiFi off when you aren't using it than if you
leave it running.

Dennis Ferguson

On Dec 11, 2:50*pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> >> > > or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the
> >> > > true bandwidth hogs.
>
> Hey, WATCH IT! *I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

And next month in 2009 as part of Verizon?

At 11 Dec 2008 19:50:34 +0000 Larry wrote:

> or they pick a limit that is high enough that it only affects the
> true bandwidth hogs.
>
>
> Hey, WATCH IT! I only used 27GB last month on Alltel!

T-Mobile just starting tracking data usage ulling six email accounts, a
dozen or so text Usenet groups, some web browsing, and quite a bit of
Windows Live Search (a server-based navigation program) on my WinMo phone,
I came in at just under 200MB for an entire month.