Results 1 to 5 of 5
- 09-25-2008, 12:24 PM #1Steve SobolGuest
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10050381-94.html
--
Steve Sobol / Victorville, CA, USA
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
› See More: T-Mo decides not to cap G1 bandwidth, for now.
- 09-25-2008, 01:57 PM #2Todd AllcockGuest
Re: T-Mo decides not to cap G1 bandwidth, for now.
At 25 Sep 2008 18:24:02 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10050381-94.html
Yeah, but in baseball terms, they really just traded "1GB" for "a bandwidth
limit to be named later," which is just delaying the inevitable grousing
until later.
If it were me calling the shots for T-Mo, I'd have claimed it was a typo,
said "we meant to say 10GB" and pointed out that was twice the capacity
most competitors offer for more money than T-Mo charges. That would leave
people with a good taste in their mouth about the new 3G kid on the block,
instead of leaving it nebulous. Besides, 95% of users won't ever pull
anything like 1GB on their phones in a month, and the few "Larrys" out
there trying to archive every media file ever produced will be as unhappy
with a 10GB cap as they are with 1GB, and look elsewhere.
On the bright side, if there is one, I like T-Mo's limit idea in theory
compared to other providers- speed throttling, IMO, is a nicer way to
handle heavy users than threatening to terminate service (like AT&T and
Sprint,) or charging $0.49/MB for overages (like Verizon.)
- 09-25-2008, 07:49 PM #3LarryGuest
Re: T-Mo decides not to cap G1 bandwidth, for now.
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:gbgqjk$hol$1
@aioe.org:
> Besides, 95% of users won't ever pull
> anything like 1GB on their phones in a month, and the few "Larrys" out
> there trying to archive every media file ever produced will be as unhappy
> with a 10GB cap as they are with 1GB, and look elsewhere.
>
>
Larry would be fine with 10GB/month on a device so limited in bandwidth
usage as the G1. 1GB IS just too stingy. 10GB/mo would allow you to
stream some TV, radio, YouTube movies, etc.....
Way too much bad publicity is the reason for the backpedaling. Users and
pundits must keep up the pressure to keep them from faltering back to their
"telephone company ways"....
- 09-29-2008, 11:42 PM #4Todd AllcockGuest
Re: T-Mo decides not to cap G1 bandwidth, for now.
At 27 Sep 2008 23:58:32 -0400 Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> >Yeah, but in baseball terms, they really just traded "1GB" for "a
bandwidth
> >limit to be named later," which is just delaying the inevitable grousing
> >until later.
>
> Right, but everyone's always had terms of service similar to this,
> even if they didn't put any kind of limit or suggested limit in the
> terms.
Actually T-Mo was a bit unique in that they had no similar restrictions in
their TOS, but that was probably because without 3G there was little need
for bandwidth restrictions- the slow speed was a self-imposed restriction!
;-)
- 09-30-2008, 08:01 AM #5LarryGuest
Re: T-Mo decides not to cap G1 bandwidth, for now.
Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> There are actually much better technical reasons to put in these
> policies when it comes to wireless "broadband" than wireline broadband
> access.
>
......and those reasons are?
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Similar Threads
- General Cell Phone Forum
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
Bitcoin Wallet Recovery Services - Contact iBolt Cyber Hacker
in Sony Ericsson