Article re CELCOs clamping down on 'unlimited'

http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664

---

› See More: Article re CELCOs clamping down on 'unlimited'

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:46 -0500, "Thurman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664

Cellular operators may advertise that they are offering "unlimited"
3G cellular data service, but they apparently don't mean it.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Verizon Wireless has
been sending out service cancellation notices to high-speed EV-DO
cellular data customers who the operator claims over-use the service.
The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
additional fees to heavy 3G users.

The Journal quoted a Verizon executive as saying that it is only
taking action against those who use "thousands of times the average"
amount of network capacity.

A spokesperson for Verizon Wireless said confirmed Friday afternoon
that the company is concerned about the issue but has yet to
terminate anybody.

"We've notified about 100 people or so, but we haven't terminated
anybody yet," the spokesperson said. She said that, typically,
abusers use a cellular router to spread the connection to multiple
people. However, she added that a number of applications, including
voice-over-IP, are expressly prohibited by the user agreement because
of how much bandwidth they use.

[MORE]

Why 3G Isn't Wi-Fi: Bandwidth Limits
<http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006562.html>

Verizon cuts off big 3G users: Last November, I wrote an article
about the terms of service for Cingular, Sprint Nextel, and Verizon’s
3G service. All three restrict what you can do, with Verizon having
the strictest policies requiring you to only surf, read email, and
use intranet applications. All other uses strictly prohibited.

The Wall Street Journal covers this issue today because the three
domestic 3G carriers--T-Mobile isn’t up to their speeds yet--are
starting to cancel 3G subscriptions (Verizon) or bill heavy users
(the other two). Verizon has apparently killed 100 user accounts for
people using "thousands of times the average" network usage. And,
holy net neutrality, Batman, Verizon will eventually detect protocol
types so it can ban specific kinds. Of course, this means that
virtual private network (VPN) users will be able to hide their
particular habits, but not overall usage. The Journal notes that
wireless data hasn’t yet been part of the neutrality discussions.

Fundamentally, we all know the dirty little secret is that not that
carriers have per-megabyte costs that they need to recover, but that
they have extremely limited spectrum for these services, and that
heavy users dampen the availability of 3G services for adjacent
users. Heavy users also tax the cell backhaul connections, which, I
have been told my multiple sources, is generally a relatively
low-speed digital service line, like a T-1 or equivalent. Carriers
have been eyeing fixed WiMax as a way to reduce their backhaul
bottleneck.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664
>
> Cellular operators may advertise that they are offering "unlimited"
> 3G cellular data service, but they apparently don't mean it.
>
> The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Verizon Wireless has
> been sending out service cancellation notices to high-speed EV-DO
> cellular data customers who the operator claims over-use the service.
> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>
> The Journal quoted a Verizon executive as saying that it is only
> taking action against those who use "thousands of times the average"
> amount of network capacity.



In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006
06:58:08 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

> >On a side note, there have been several users in this market that have
> >had their data access cut off and had to upgrade to the PDA plan.

> There is no real evidence of that.


Well, there's your *"real evidence"*, John.

I said it was happening and you wanted to argue otherwise.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 May 2006
05:34:31 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664
>>
>> Cellular operators may advertise that they are offering "unlimited"
>> 3G cellular data service, but they apparently don't mean it.
>>
>> The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Verizon Wireless has
>> been sending out service cancellation notices to high-speed EV-DO
>> cellular data customers who the operator claims over-use the service.
>> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
>> additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>>
>> The Journal quoted a Verizon executive as saying that it is only
>> taking action against those who use "thousands of times the average"
>> amount of network capacity.
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006
>06:58:08 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >On a side note, there have been several users in this market that have
> > >had their data access cut off and had to upgrade to the PDA plan.
>
>> There is no real evidence of that.
>
>Well, there's your *"real evidence"*, John.
>
>I said it was happening and you wanted to argue otherwise.

What real *"real evidence"*?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 May 2006
> 05:34:31 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>>
>>Well, there's your *"real evidence"*, John.
>>
>>I said it was happening and you wanted to argue otherwise.
>
> What real *"real evidence"*?
>
> --

Here, Johnny- I'll help refresh your memory. It sounds like your dementia
may be kicking up again.

Cowboy reported this activity over a month ago. In typical Navas fashion,
you tried to disclaim the post as anecdotal, because there was no 'real
evidence' of it. The article referenced in this thread would constitute the
evidence you said doesn't exist and would disprove your claim that no such
action was being taken.

All of this would mean that you were wrong.

Again.

Continuing your long streak of it.

With no end in sight.

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 May 2006
> 05:34:31 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664
>>> Cellular operators may advertise that they are offering "unlimited"
>>> 3G cellular data service, but they apparently don't mean it.
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006
>> 06:58:08 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On a side note, there have been several users in this market that have
>>>> had their data access cut off and had to upgrade to the PDA plan.
>>> There is no real evidence of that.
>> Well, there's your *"real evidence"*, John.
>>
>> I said it was happening and you wanted to argue otherwise.
>
> What real *"real evidence"*?

OK, let me translate it to your AOL level of understanding.

Dot #1 - I stated a month ago that Cingular was cutting off data access.

Dot #2 - You stated there was no real evidence.

Dot #3 - The article you quoted states carriers are cutting back data
access.

Now take a big crayon and connect the dots.


Life must be dim in your Shirley Maclaine universe.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 25 May 2006
02:21:04 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 May 2006
>> 05:34:31 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664
>>>> Cellular operators may advertise that they are offering "unlimited"
>>>> 3G cellular data service, but they apparently don't mean it.
>>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 15 May 2006
>>> 06:58:08 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On a side note, there have been several users in this market that have
>>>>> had their data access cut off and had to upgrade to the PDA plan.
>>>> There is no real evidence of that.
>>> Well, there's your *"real evidence"*, John.
>>>
>>> I said it was happening and you wanted to argue otherwise.
>>
>> What real *"real evidence"*?
>
>OK, let me translate it to your AOL level of understanding.

How nice of you. Translation: rude as always.

>Dot #1 - I stated a month ago that Cingular was cutting off data access.

On MEdia Net, which was EGPRS(EDGE).

>Dot #2 - You stated there was no real evidence.

Indeed.

>Dot #3 - The article you quoted states carriers are cutting back data
>access.

Nope. What it actually says is:

The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
additional fees to heavy 3G users.

1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
not EGPRS(EDGE) service.

2. That's not "cutting off data access."

3. There's too little information to know what's really going on, if anything.

>Now take a big crayon and connect the dots.

Now read more carefully.

>Life must be dim in your Shirley Maclaine universe.

Got that backwards. Again.

Have a nice day.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
>> Dot #3 - The article you quoted states carriers are cutting back data
>> access.
>
> Nope. What it actually says is:
>
> The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are assessing
> additional fees to heavy 3G users.

What it ALSO says is "Verizon Wireless has been sending out *service
cancellation* notices "

> 1. The key word there is "3G", which presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service,
> not EGPRS(EDGE) service.

The other key word in the article is "bandwidth"

The key driving issue is using bandwidth. A bandwidth consuming hog like
VoIP doesn't care what technology is carrying it - EDGE or 3G. You are
assuming this is exclusively a 3G issue, to quote you - "which
presumably refers to UMTS/HSDPA service."

You can't make that assumption, as you said - "3. There's too little
information to know what's really going on"

The article CLEARLY states there is a bandwidth issue. You can use VoIP
on EDGE, aka Medianet.

> 2. That's not "cutting off data access."

Reread your article.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Verizon Wireless has
been sending out *service cancellation* notices to high-speed EV-DO
cellular data customers who the operator claims over-use the service.

How do you read a service cancellation is different than "cutting off
data access." Actually its worse...not just data access, but voice
service as well.

> 3. There's too little information to know what's really going on, if anything.

ROFL...Nice try at ducking the issue. I know you can do better than
that! <wink>

Sure looks like REAL EVIDENCE there *IS* something going on.

1. Users are using too much bandwidth. Let me see you deny that.
2. Users are getting service canceled. Let me see you deny that.

And please, use a dictionary to play Scrabble next time....

John Navas wrote:
>> Life must be dim in your Shirley Maclaine universe.
>
> Got that backwards. Again.


The actual quote is:

"your Shirley Maclaine universe must be dim." <- James Randi


Do have a nice day, assuming you have days on your planet.

Thurman wrote:
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664

The carriers should tread lightly. For many people, the $60 per month is
not a necessity, they're paying 2x the price of DSL for slower speed,
just so they can have occasional use outside the home.

I considered dropping DSL in favor of EV-DO, but I definitely would be
using a cellular router to share the connection at home if I got it, and
would likely want to do VOIP.

With free WiFi becoming more and more widespread, limiting the use of
cellular data services may be a bad move in terms of going beyond early
adopters.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> With free WiFi becoming more and more widespread, limiting the use of
> cellular data services may be a bad move in terms of going beyond early
> adopters.

Especially with the Verizon TV advertisements touting EVDO as being
available everywhere as opposed to those pesky little wifi hotspots that
are so sporadically available.

The article mentions people using "thousands" of times as much bandwidth as
normal users. What's up with that? That's the same order of magnitude of
fluctuation that applies to my personal usage of the network.

I downloaded 6 ISO images yesterday, which is thousands of times my normal
usage. Amortized over several months, it's a different story.

Redistributing the signal, becoming a wilderness ISP, should be prohibited
under some other clause, but purely usage based is something that should be
capped or controlled, not lead to service cancellations from an "unlimited"
service.

I think the same "bandwidth" thoughts every time I use Google Maps on my
phone. That should look suspicious to someone watching a daily usage, but
pales when diluted over many weeks of no data usage at all.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thurman wrote:
>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664
>
> The carriers should tread lightly. For many people, the $60 per month is
> not a necessity, they're paying 2x the price of DSL for slower speed, just
> so they can have occasional use outside the home.

You have to compare the customer and delivery 'density'. The number of
customers in the footprint of a tower I would imagine is far less than wired
homes in an urban area. Someone with more info than I would have to tell you
how many 'connections' a cell tower can provide. The last figures I saw for
tower costs were ~$50K plus maintenance.

I design and sell mobile solutions. The amount of data sent over cellular is
not the motivating factor. The compelling reason is access over large areas,
in most cases, while moving.

> I considered dropping DSL in favor of EV-DO, but I definitely would be
> using a cellular router to share the connection at home if I got it, and
> would likely want to do VOIP.

The new Linksys PC Card router creates a new paradigm the cellular carriers
will have to live with. It accepts a connection card, then works as a
router.


> With free Wi-Fi becoming more and more widespread, limiting the use of
> cellular data services may be a bad move in terms of going beyond early
> adopters.

At this stage of build-out, I'd say they are complementary. It's surprising
where you find Wi-Fi in remote areas.

SMS wrote:
> The carriers should tread lightly. For many people, the $60 per month is
> not a necessity, they're paying 2x the price of DSL for slower speed,
> just so they can have occasional use outside the home.
>
> I considered dropping DSL in favor of EV-DO, but I definitely would be
> using a cellular router to share the connection at home if I got it, and
> would likely want to do VOIP.
>
> With free WiFi becoming more and more widespread, limiting the use of
> cellular data services may be a bad move in terms of going beyond early
> adopters.

With the carriers rolling out WiMAX as an alternative to dialup, they
will most certainly need to tread lightly. Especially in cities they
heavy handed lobby against municipals WiFi.

Then you have the half dozen or so units that accept a PC connection
card. Basically, they are "appliances" that can be duplicated using a
laptop with an ethernet connection.

I have looked at them as a way of getting an internet connection for a
WiFi access point to far out to backhaul a signal. They are priced in
line with a low end laptop and likely more durable, i.e. tolerate the
outside heat.

I suppose we will eventually see a new disclaimer prohibiting or
limiting your access. That would put a wet blanket over the WiMAX sales
pitch. Oh wait...we already ARE seeing that!

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> ROFL...Nice try at ducking the issue. I know you can do better than
> that! <wink>
>
> Sure looks like REAL EVIDENCE there *IS* something going on.
>
> 1. Users are using too much bandwidth. Let me see you deny that.
> 2. Users are getting service canceled. Let me see you deny that.

Well, looks like Navas took his usual way out and is ducking the issue
by hiding, instead of backing up his assertions.

I knew that my challenge to his reality was too much for him.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>>> Life must be dim in your Shirley Maclaine universe.
>>
>> Got that backwards. Again.
>
>
> The actual quote is:
>
> "your Shirley Maclaine universe must be dim." <- James Randi
>
>
> Do have a nice day, assuming you have days on your planet.

Decatur, you have no irrefutable evidence that John Navas lives on a
planet, much less one that has days.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.