Vision Problem with SonyEricsson T608

Chris Taylor Jr wrote:

> Incorrect analogy.
>
> free gas is free gas. if they offer you 10gallons of gas a day or something
> what do they care WHAT you are putting that gas in. they are not giving you
> any more or less.
>
> If I am using xbandwidth a month now why do you think that this will change
> when I change phones ?
>
> if they are ok with my usage now why would they NOT be ok with the same
> usage on a different phone.
>
> so NO your analogy is NOT correct.
>
> Chris Taylor
> http://www.nerys.com/
>
>

All you can eat buffet - $8.99. = Unlimited Vision $15

No sharing or doggie bags please = Only when using your phone as an
access device

Per pound takeout rate $3.95/lb = "Casual Usage" charges with other data
access devices

You see, sometimes unlimited has strings. If you have an all you can eat
buffet, you can price the buffet for an average consumer's eating
habits. The price for the buffet would have to go up if you start to
need more food. If you can limit "all you can eat" to just the amount
your patrons can eat at that visit, you can limit the overall amount of
food consumed across your business without limiting your individual patrons.

The same applies to phones. Because the bluetooth phone has the ability
to be used as a modem with any arbitrary network capable computing
device, there's no way to ensure that only the phone is getting the
bandwidth. Phone browsers are very limited in their media consumption,
and as a result, their bandwidth consumption. Sprint knows that these
browsers are not going to consume too much, just like our buffet owner
knows that there is a limit to the amount consumed at a single sitting
by a patron.

Now back to the buffet. The place is well known for its food, and the
owners wish to allow people to take food home. They won't allow people
to take as much as they want and leave - any customer with an idea in
their head would get enough food to fill their pantry, freezer, fridge
and ice chest. Paying $8.99, the patrons would have food for a week or
more, and our owners would become bankrupt, between their sated customer
base and their losses on each buffet.

The solution, of course, is to charge each customer for what they take
home. The buffet may even come to charge different rates for different
classes of diner. Children (phones) may get a different rate than adults
(PocketPC devices) for the buffet, even though they both get "all you
can eat."

You want a bluetooth phone with an unlimited rate plan for the same
price as a standard phone. What you want is a buffet that lets you take
as much food as you want home. For Sprint, this is a losing proposition,
and I, for one, cannot blame them for making the decision to limit the
usage. I still think the limit should be somewhere higher. With services
like MobiTV, RealONE, 1KTV and their ilk, the average phone user's
consumption is starting to go up dramatically. I'd have felt better
about an 8-10MB limit. That would be in line with their data card
offerings. Either that, or make the data card service plans available to
the phone.
-mike

---

› See More: Vision Problem with SonyEricsson T608

Again incorrect analogy.

I want a bluetooth (well ok I do not but think in the picture for a moment
here as I personally have no real interest in BT)

"I" want a bluetooth phone that will let me continue to do what I am already
doing now.

Let me show you the analogy YOUR painting.

A 200 pound guy walks into a all you can eat buffet and pays $8.99 for all
you can eat dinner.

A 300 pound guy walks in and all of a sudden for him and only him the price
is $20 or a limit of 1 plate.

THAT is a more accurate analogy.

not only are they changing the rules for this phone but they are placing
VERY steep limitations on that new set of rules.

if they set it up to stop people from using it as an ISP that is one thing.
3mb a month is WAY WAY more than "just stopping use as an isp"

I can EASILY use up 3mb on a palm color screen with net access even if I
NEVER connect it to a PC. I could use up 3meg in a few days on that little
palm screen.

3mb is NOT MUCH. that is what ?? a 6 or 7 minute conversation ?

I connect my sanyo 6400 to my laptop all the time. now granted I am actively
respectful of the network. I never force the connection to stay "active" and
I never use program that do this (IRC or IM etc..)

I use it for 2 purposes. Web Browsing and E-Mail. same as a PDA Phone user
would use it.

In the summer I do some uploading with it for my website (live rocketry site
where I upload pictures daily) but even then we are are talking under 2mb
per night and only LATE like after midnight etc.. (that is what time it is
by the time I get back to the hotel room and have finished my update for the
day)

How many megs per minute does "talking" use.

I can download a meg in about 30-40 seconds on a good day with my sprint
phone (tried it one time to see how "fast" it was. I got around 11k/s not
bad.

if TALKING is 10 to 1 that means 1 meg is a 5 minute conversation.

so basically they are saying at night you can talk ALL YOU WANT. I know
people who USE 3000-4000 minutes of NIGHT and WEEKEND TIME.

that is 800 megs of DATA usage by that person at 4000 minutes.

My brother and his girlfriend EASILY blow 4000 minutes EACH of them. just
night and weekend minutes !!! that is not counting the 1000 anytime minutes
and mobile to mobile they have.

I would wadger he uses something like 6 to 8 THOUSANDS minutes a month on
that phone.

but lets be reasonable and say a medium to heavy user uses 4000 minutes
total bandwidth a month or 800 MB of data consumed.

I have 400 anytime unlimited n/w I NEVER go over my minutes. and when I had
2650 n/w I could not use more than 500-700 if I TRIED really hard. I use
well under 1000 minutes a month. Probably closer to 700 or so minutes of
total airtime. but lets use 1000 minutes.

that is 200megs of data usage for talking. add my laptop usage (WELL under
100 meg a month) but lets be UBER generous and say 100meg.

thats 300meg a month of network usage.

verses my brothers 800meg MINIMUM Usage JUST talking a month. that is not
even counting the usage for his TM's and picture taking sending etc..

Now if they said for example 10 meg per day peak time unlimited (with
limits) non peak OK that would be cool.

that eliminates people who use it as an "ISP" and it should be flexible. IE
not a strict daily limit. but if you make a patter of going over. or
"average" it out to say 3mb a day over a month. say 30meg peak unlimited non
peak (with limitations) per month average.

THAT would be VERY acceptable to me and be much more than I use per month.

the (with limitations) would be people abusing it. IE using it as an ISP
etc..

I use FAR less network bandwidth than most users on sprint. I pay a LOT of
money for this "ability" I pay when all i said and done $62 to $65 PER
MONTH.

Now BT is not an issue for me as I will never give up my 6400 without a
fight. when I got a cellular phone I did not sign up for a provider and then
get a phone.

I went out plunked down $250 for my phone and then said OK who do I get
service for this phone with.

I almost never call support and I have never "traded" up my phone and likely
never will.

I do NOT cost sprint a lot to be their customer. I PAY them a lot and abuse
nothing.

they are punishing EVERYONE (at least those that desire BT etc..) for the
FEW that abuse it.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/


> You want a bluetooth phone with an unlimited rate plan for the same
> price as a standard phone. What you want is a buffet that lets you take
> as much food as you want home. For Sprint, this is a losing proposition,
> and I, for one, cannot blame them for making the decision to limit the
> usage. I still think the limit should be somewhere higher. With services
> like MobiTV, RealONE, 1KTV and their ilk, the average phone user's
> consumption is starting to go up dramatically. I'd have felt better
> about an 8-10MB limit. That would be in line with their data card
> offerings. Either that, or make the data card service plans available to
> the phone.
> -mike
>

No it would not.

In fact I wadger that Data usage done respectfully uses LESS bandwidth than
Voice calls do.

Remember when those "arrows" for vision (well it might be different icons on
other phones) go dim you are NOT using any network badnwidth.

Most of the time BROWSING the internet is "spurty" load a page and then
nothing while you read the page. CLick a link load a page nothing while you
read it.

Cellular this way is actually BETTER for the internet (in regards to
resource usage) than dial up modems even !!

Dial up modems are like voice calls and similarly like cell phone voice
calls you are using bandwidth AND a socket 100% of the time from the moment
you connect to the moment you disconnect even when NOT doing anything.

that is why I NEVER use IRC or IM on my sprint connection. those programs
would try to maintain CONTINIOUS back and forth traffic which to me would be
abusing the network.

Voice talking uses 1 meg per 5 minutes of talking of the roughly 10 to 1
ratio applies that someone else mentioned.

I looked over my logs and I have never used more than 3 meg in a session in
the last 3 weeks (that is as far back as it goes)

even at HOME on my CABLE connection I do not usually use more than 4 or 5
meg PER HOUR on average usually under 2 meg an hour.

Voice Calling uses 12 meg per hour and its CONTINIOUS so long as your are
connected to someone else.

My data usage is "broken up" ie the connection is only active WHEN my
computer makes a request.

inbetween usage is NOTHING ZILCH.

the problem for sprint is not bandwidth usage. it is a matter of
enforcement. IE how do you enforce against users who disrespect the network.

the other problem is they appear to be making blanket changes that leave NO
PATH of resolution for legitimate "respectful" users. especially users like
me who, use voice and data combined, FAR less bandwidth than the average
user.

This is not fair.

So far I am ok since it does not affect me but it still does not make it
right. and saying nothing "just" because it does not yet effect me is how
crap is allowed to happen.

If they want to limit they can impose REASONABLE limits.

Block IM and IRC ports. bump users who bypass that. IE abuse it.

just a few of many ideas.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/


>
> Yea, that's like yours truly, only not as often, maybe once every couple
of
> weeks or so and two hours max, more like 1-2 hours. Now, in staying that,
> think about even my limited usage, and then all the other users out there
in
> my area. If one in 100 did what I did, it would snatch up so much
bandwidth,
> that the towers would be maxed out ...
>
> Bob
>
>

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "SprintPCS Sucks!!!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Look, 100% of what their network carries is data. Why do they care if
> > someone uses "data" over bluetooth?
>
> They don't. However, they do care how much data!

That's fine, but the average voice all is using more that 3MB to
begin with. They're just stuck in the 20th Century.

> >
> > I'd be happy with an unlimited plan for $20 or $30 on top of my
> > current $75/mo bill. They should not be capping this service.
>
> They can't afford to offer you a plan for $20 or $30 / month for unlimitted
> service. If that doesn't make you happy, you should go with the company
> that can offer this to you (I am not sure anybody really can, T-Mobile is
> known to be both congested and slow).

Sure they can. Most people will only use this when they are away from
any other interenet connectivity. This amounts to the car (I reallly
can't use it while driving), airports, and really lame hotels.

I probably would go months with 0-bytes and then have less than 100-MB
in a month. This stupid monthly limit if the problem. If I need to
download one PDF file, like a software manual, then I've blown my
monthly cap already.

> >
> > I don't think the need to necessarily offer it again. Competitors
> > offer it for free (T-mobile), so they should be competitive.
>
> T-Mobile offers it for either $19.99 or $29.99 / month [for data usage].

It's free as long as it's over ports 80 and 25. You can tunnel
whatever you want over those ports with an appropriately configured
server on the other end.


> >
> > They should let people who have the $10/mo Vision plan already move it
> > to their new T608s.
> >
>
> No, they shouldn't. That is like winning free gasonline on your Pinto and
> then buying a Excursion and expecting them to continue giving your free gas
> ... to use your automobile analogy.

Your analogy is strawman. These customers have a an agreement with
SprintPCS for SprintPCS to provide service. SprintPCS needs to honor
these agreements. They appear to be doing this from what I have heard
so far.

Again, this shows your ignorance, since anyone with a data cable can
do the same thing with their existing phone.

> >
> > Yes, well, what I have heard so far (and maybe they will relent) is
> > that no customer will be able to move unlimited Vision service to
> > their new T608.
> >
>
> I addressed that one a second ago. You have far more capability to draw
> data with the bluetooth phone than you do with a $10 Vision plan. Again,
> they don't offer the plan anymore because many people [like yourself?]
> abused the unlimitted Vision using a cable because they knew Sprint had no
> way to monitor it.

No, you talked about things completely unrealated to the point. Let me
try and restate it more clearly.

Why should the medium for carrying the data between the handset and a
computer matter? People with data cables can use and/or abuse the
unlimited vision as much as the person with bluetooth. SprintPCS needs
to be consistent with their policies.



> > Are they not getting bent over here?
> >
>
> No, if you have a problem and you have the $10 Vision plan, stick with your
> old phone. If you want the BT functionality, you need to maintain the
> contract that goes with it ... and in this case, it is with a 3MB Vision
> data cap. Take it or leave it.


Yes, they are.

The medium for carrying the data between the handset and a computer
does not matter. This is a matter of pure prejuidce on SprintPCS's
behalf. SprintPCS is simply screwing the T608 owners.

Maybe I'll write a nice FAQ on data cables and SprintPCS PPP service
(dial #777)
and SprintPCS can worry about the data cable owners rather than the
bluetooth owners.


> > I can't imagine anyone would not think SPCS was srcewing those
> > customers over.
>
> You should try harder ... because I don't. BT is still a niche market,
> although there are some vocal enthusiasts. If Sprint gives you the ability
> to screw them (i.e. cost them more in data delivery than they charge you
> for), are you saying you don't plan to do it?

No, I for one don't plan to screw them.

I think your belief of not thinking that SprintPCS is scrwing the t608
is one simply meant to be arguementative, rather than one of
intellectual integrity. You may work for SprintPCS, or you may be a
senior citizen that thinks voice is the only thing that's important. I
don't know. But in any case you simply fail to grasp the realities of
the problem here. I am not surprised non-technical people can't
understand this.


> >
> >
> > > > Why is SprintPCS always trying to rape it's customers like this?
> > >
> > > They probably have it in for you ... or they just like the way you walk.
> >
> > That's amusing, but they don't just have it in for me. There's
> > millions of customers that they are screwing over and thousands who
> > are being screwed on the bluetooth-vision issue.
>
> You missed it ... that was a slam on your paranoia I assure you that
> there are not millions of BT (or potential BT) customers out there ...
> probably not in all providers combined. I doubt there is a single million
> amongst all the current providers.

I'm the least paranoid guy you'll meet. Please do a web search and
educate yourself on bluetooth device shipments. Please bring facts to
the discussion.


SprintPCS sucks

NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-209-205-187-169.i-55.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.datasync.com 1072283322 8892 209.205.187.169 (24 Dec 2003 16:28:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:28:42 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.sprintpcs:128950

Sprint PCS Sucks!!! wrote:
> The medium for carrying the data between the handset and a computer
> does not matter. This is a matter of pure prejuidce on SprintPCS's
> behalf. SprintPCS is simply screwing the T608 owners.
>
> Maybe I'll write a nice FAQ on data cables and SprintPCS PPP service
> (dial #777)
> and SprintPCS can worry about the data cable owners rather than the
> bluetooth owners.
>

Of course the medium for carrying the data between the handset and a
computer does not matter! Of course!

That's not the point.

The handsets used with a data cable aren't supported connection methods.
Therefore the Sprint PCS pricing is drawn up as if they do no exist. You
don't come up with pricing on unsupported configurations. When you start
pricing stuff, BOOM - it's supported. Sure, you could write a
disclaimer, but then you have a customer that's very pissed, but can't
do much in court. "Sprint has no problem taking my money for this damned
phone, but when I call for support the damn loser CSRs tell me that they
won't help me!" Hell, from what I've been hearing Futuredial barely
supports it, and that's their stock and trade.

The T608 phone is the only Vision phone that is supported for accessing
data with external devices like laptops and PDAs. Because of this, it is
reasonable for Sprint to develop new pricing.

In a different part of the thread, you, in response to another one of my
messages, seemed to move near one of my points, and on that point, I
suspect we agree. The Vision offering for this phone is rather tiny.
Sprint, I suspect, is worried about making the data cable mistake again.
They know that they might be opening the floodgates with this phone
release - cannibalizing their data card business, and stressing their
network. 3MB will likely not stand. It's a little silly, actually, and I
wouldn't be surprised if there is either a 10MB plan released, or the
option to throw the data card plans, or at least, plans similar to the
data card, at the phone.

-mike

In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.230.142.76
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Trace: rutgers.edu 1073149568 165.230.142.76 (3 Jan 2004 12:06:08 -0400)
Lines: 30
Path: news.newshosting.com!dartmaster!66.250.146.50.MISMATCH!s02-b01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!nntp.abs.net!attws2!att542!att541!ip.att.net!rutgers.edu!not-for-
mail
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.sprintpcs:129980

SprintPCS Sucks!!! wrote:

> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> That's fine, but the average voice all is using more that 3MB to
> begin with. They're just stuck in the 20th Century.

Yes, they are, as is the rest of North America's circuit switched phone
network. And that's why your analogy doesn't work.

You're treating voice as data, and if the CDMA network were a VoIP
network (it isn't, yet), then maybe your analogy would hold water. But
it doesn't. For now, voice channels are circuit-switched, and SPCS can
very easily predict how much bandwidth that voice channel will take up:
a constant 13kbps if you have a very old 2G phone... or a MAXIMUM (often
less) of 8kbps if you have phone three years old or newer.

Data, however, is not so predictable. Maybe it'll take up only
14.4kbps... or it could burst to 144kbps, far exceeding the bandwidth of
a voice channel. So, while a voice call can conceiveably take up more
than 3MB, how quickly that call reaches 3MB is the issue. Data will
outstrip voice every time.



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