Bloomberg Businessweek Article on "Data Hogs"

On 4/12/2011 2:47 PM, Justin wrote:
> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:14 -0400]:
>> On 4/12/2011 2:33 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:49 -0400]:
>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400]:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
>>>>>>>>>> has caused, and the solution:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
>>>>>>>>>> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
>>>>>>>>>> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
>>>>>>>>>> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
>>>>>>>>>> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
>>>>>>>>>> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
>>>>>>>>>> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
>>>>>>>>> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
>>>>>>>>> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
>>>>>>>>> on the table.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So STFU pig out, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
>>>>>>> paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
>>>>>>> a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
>>>>> glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
>>>>> flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
>>>>
>>>> Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
>>> your solution?
>>>
>>> If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
>>> downloading.
>>
>>
>> Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
>
> Irrelevant


Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?

---

› See More: Bloomberg Businessweek Article on "Data Hogs"

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:04 -0400, News <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 4/12/2011 2:21 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400, News<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
>>>>>>> has caused, and the solution:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As traffic increases on mobile networks�it nearly tripled this year,
>>>>>>> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015�consumers will be
>>>>>>> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
>>>>>>> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
>>>>>>> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
>>>>>>> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
>>>>>>> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
>>>>>> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
>>>>>> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
>>>>>> on the table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So STFU pig out, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
>>>> paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
>>>> a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
>>
>> Bad analogy. Try again.
>>
>
>Why not give it a try yourself. Make sure to be the apologist.

Nope, not my job. I was just pointing out a mistake. Carry on.

--
Paul Miner

News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:54:20 -0400]:
> On 4/12/2011 2:47 PM, Justin wrote:
>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:14 -0400]:
>>> On 4/12/2011 2:33 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:49 -0400]:
>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400]:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
>>>>>>>>>>> has caused, and the solution:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
>>>>>>>>>>> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
>>>>>>>>>>> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
>>>>>>>>>>> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
>>>>>>>>>>> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
>>>>>>>>>>> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
>>>>>>>>>> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
>>>>>>>>>> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
>>>>>>>>>> on the table.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So STFU pig out, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
>>>>>>>> paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
>>>>>>>> a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
>>>>>> glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
>>>>>> flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
>>>> your solution?
>>>>
>>>> If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
>>>> downloading.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
>>
>> Irrelevant
>
>
> Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?

I don't use 4.99GB, but who are you to judge what is important and what isn't?
Is my work email more important than someone else's dog skateboarding video?

It's all because I can, because you know what, I CAN check facebook at the
grocery store. I can send and receive email at lunch.

On 4/12/2011 2:58 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:04 -0400, News<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2011 2:21 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400, News<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
>>>>>>>> has caused, and the solution:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "As traffic increases on mobile networks�it nearly tripled this year,
>>>>>>>> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015�consumers will be
>>>>>>>> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
>>>>>>>> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
>>>>>>>> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
>>>>>>>> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
>>>>>>>> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
>>>>>>> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
>>>>>>> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
>>>>>>> on the table.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So STFU pig out, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
>>>>> paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
>>>>> a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
>>>
>>> Bad analogy. Try again.
>>>
>>
>> Why not give it a try yourself. Make sure to be the apologist.
>
> Nope, not my job. I was just pointing out a mistake. Carry on.
>



Your "job" is apparently throw-away critique without basis.

Carry on, fool, you're acing it.

On 4/12/2011 9:24 AM, Justin wrote:

> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
> on the table.

That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
the table too.

On 4/12/2011 11:10 AM, News wrote:

> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for
> it"?

That's really not a good analogy. Few hotel guests would intentionally
leave the water running for no valid reason, but there are lots of ways
to use massive amounts of 3G/4G data that are entirely reasonable.

The carriers that offer unlimited data have attempted to redefine the
meaning of "unlimited" because they are terrified of actually doing data
tiers.

If an AT&T unlimited customer reads AT&T's web site which states 65% of
customers use less that 200MB of data a month, they might go back and
look at their data usage over the past few months and determine that
maybe they should be giving AT&T $180 less per year.

Ultimately analysts believe that all carriers will have to go to tiered
data plans because the unlimited plans cause some users to feel that
they have both a right and an obligation to use as much data as humanly
possible.

On 4/12/2011 1:25 PM, Hachiroku ハチ�*ク wrote:

<snip>

> No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!

I had a teeth cleaning this morning and the hygienist had a tiny camera
connected to the laptop in the office. She said it cost $5000. Maybe I
should have asked if it were possible to get some photos of the inside
of my mouth to post on Facebook.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700, SMS wrote:

> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>
> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data" has
> caused, and the solution:
>
> "As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"


No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!

On 4/12/2011 4:04 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 9:24 AM, Justin wrote:
>
>> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
>> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
>> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
>> on the table.
>
> That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
> leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
> the table too.
>


No doubt the OP would see it that way.

On 4/12/2011 4:14 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 11:10 AM, News wrote:
>
>> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for
>> it"?
>
> That's really not a good analogy. Few hotel guests would intentionally
> leave the water running for no valid reason

Although in the OP's case...

On 4/12/2011 2:59 PM, Justin wrote:
> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:54:20 -0400]:
>> On 4/12/2011 2:47 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:14 -0400]:
>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:33 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:49 -0400]:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400]:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
>>>>>>>>>>>> has caused, and the solution:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
>>>>>>>>>>>> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
>>>>>>>>>>>> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
>>>>>>>>>>>> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
>>>>>>>>>>> may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
>>>>>>>>>>> phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
>>>>>>>>>>> on the table.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So STFU pig out, eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
>>>>>>>>> paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
>>>>>>>>> a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
>>>>>>> glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
>>>>>>> flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
>>>>> your solution?
>>>>>
>>>>> If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
>>>>> downloading.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant
>>
>>
>> Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
>
> I don't use 4.99GB, but who are you to judge what is important and what isn't?
> Is my work email more important than someone else's dog skateboarding video?
>
> It's all because I can, because you know what, I CAN check facebook at the
> grocery store. I can send and receive email at lunch.
>


Go for it. Waste some more. Degrade others' online experience.

You're probably one of those whose time is so valuable you drive in the
breakdown lane, run "pink-ish" lights, talk on your cell phone while
driving, and refuse to shut off your electronic devices when the
aircraft door is closed, as and when commanded.

Carry on, oh self-important one!

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

> > Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
>
> No, because that is an actual limited resource.

cellular bandwidth is a *lot* more limited than water in a hotel.

On 4/12/2011 2:54 PM, News wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 2:47 PM, Justin wrote:
>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:14 -0400]:
>>> On 4/12/2011 2:33 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:49 -0400]:
>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400]:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
>
>
> Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?

How about taking this "discussion" to e-mail. It's not terribly
interesting to most of us!

On 4/12/2011 5:29 PM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 2:54 PM, News wrote:
>> On 4/12/2011 2:47 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:14 -0400]:
>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:33 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:31:49 -0400]:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:10:47 -0400]:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 2:00 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> News wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:57 -0400]:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2011 12:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:11:51 -0700]:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
>
> How about taking this "discussion" to e-mail. It's not terribly
> interesting to most of us!


Sorry for using up your 5G...

On 4/12/2011 11:11 AM, SMS wrote:
> <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
>
> I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
> has caused, and the solution:
>
> "As traffic increases on mobile networks�it nearly tripled this year,
> and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015�consumers will be
> forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
> parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
> home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
> markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
> about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"

Its the networks' own fault. If they tell me I can stream video and
make video conference calls on their network, why should I be labeled a
data hog when I actually do these things?

What's the point of paying the premium data fee if the only thing they
really want me to do is check my email?