NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: T-Mobile UK: Don't Download, Stream, or Watch Video On Your Phone!
This is a perfect description of how mobile broadband networks should be used. Kudos to T-Mobile for coming up with an excellent description of the problem and a fair resolution.This is far from a ridiculous generalization. Being able to transmit broadband data services requires a very high signal to noise ratio, and mobile wireless networks have far too many variables introduced into their systems to be able to meet the data demands that are being placed on them. By advertising unlimited data plans, promising speeds that are essentially unattainable in the field and promoting things like streaming video downloads that consume tremendous amounts of bandwidth, the US cell providers have put the noose around their necks. Mobile data networks are "toy broadband" and will never be able to come close to the speed and reliability of cable, fiber or fixed wireless networks. Especially considering the exponential increase in demand for bandwidth that is being placed on these networks. T-Mobile is doing it the right way, at least in the UK.
If only the domestic carriers would be this honest with their customers. I much prefer this to the US approach of advertising access to everything and ending up with totally overloaded networks that are barely usable.
Matt Larsen www.wirelesscowboys.com
[ Matt, you're making a frankly ridiculous generalization. It reminds me of AT&T's reaction to dial-up modems in the beginning, where they claimed that you should only run data over their special, super-expensive data circuits, that the voice network wasn't designed for data so could not "safely" be used for data, and that using dial-up modems would take too many lines and interfere with other subscribers. All hogwash.
[ "Toy broadband," eh? Tut tut. As I recall, Western Union said something very similar about the telephone when they were offered the key Bell patents for a song. Broad (no pun intended) generalizations about technology limitations are among the most likely ones to be proven wrong over time. I remember how people laughed decades ago when I speculated that it might be possible to send full-motion video TV channels to telephone subscribers over the same physical copper wire pairs that were providing their phone service. "Yeah, right Lauren. And maybe you'll be able to call around the world for a penny a minute too! Get real!"
But to assume that this means it is impossible to provide enough bandwidth to serve expected applications at service levels that subscribers will find adequate (as you seem to assume) is a gross and inaccurate generalization. Obviously, keeping up in the bandwidth battles requires both capital and *access* to bandwidth and backhauls at reasonable prices. That's where smaller operators have been given the shaft, at the hands of the massive dominants. And that's another area where regulation could be a big help. Without it, the smaller operators will be at an ever greater disadvantage, to the glee of the big telco and cable boys in ISP-land.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]Your analogy is almost perfectly backwards. In one spot at one moment - most likely in the middle of the night when the fewest number of people are trying to use the system and during the first six months after the newest "G" has been deployed in that particular area and you are at a location within one mile of the nearest tower with no obstructions - you might get something close to broadband speeds on a mobile network. The rest of the time, its probably going to suck. And it is going to get worse because the demand for data completely outstrips the ability for the operators to upgrade the network.At any given moment, at any given locale, wireless performance will be a function of available bandwidth, number of users, type of RF and modulation/encoding in use, backhaul capacity, and so on. In one spot at one moment, there may be so many users running their various applications that the performance suffers for everyone. At other times, there may be oodles of bandwidth and backhaul capacity to spare.
I agree with you on the bait and switch. But like I said earlier, the cellcos have put the noose around their necks by promising things that they can't deliver. It would be better from my perspective if they followed T-Mobile's UK practice,l because throttling users over certain thresholds would greatly improve overall network performance and reduce the amount of congestion.I won't address the UK legal situation, but I suspect that a similar attempt to so drastically cut allocations for already contracted users would meet stiff legal challenges in the U.S. And let's face it, the carriers have made "video on your cell phone" one of their big selling points! To suddenly say, "Oh, golly, now that you've signed up, don't do any of that stuff any more!" is directly akin to "bait and switch." It would be like an auto manufacturer hiding in the fine print that the warranty is void if you exceed 25 miles per hour.
Unacceptable.
It might be unacceptable, but it is what it is.
Matt Larsen www.wirelesscowboys.com
-- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator] - - -
On 1/11/2011 1:00 PM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:T-Mobile UK: Don't Download, Stream, or Watch Video On Your Phone!
http://bit.ly/gE9ATC (T-Mobile UK)
"If you want to download, stream and watch video clips, save that stuff for your home broadband."
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz