Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AT&T Wireless Data Still Growing At 1000%

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the big-and-bigger dept.

Businesses 137

jfruhlinger writes "AT&T's wireless network came under a microscope when it seemed unable to handle the massive data use boost that came when the iPhone arrived on the scene. The company has since put money into its infrastructure, and that growth rate has slowed somewhat, but it's still gone up 30 times over the past three years."

cancel ×

137 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Crap title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261556)

1000% per what? Second?

Re:Crap title (4, Funny)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261602)

"30 times over the past three years."

That would make it obviously 1000% per year.

Re:Crap title (0)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261652)

Can I get that in football fields or Libraries of Congress?

Re:Crap title (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261886)

Yes.

Seven of each.

I hope that clarifies things.

Re:Crap title (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261952)

Can I get that in football fields or Libraries of Congress?

Sure. If you took 1000% of football fields and covered them with 1000% of the books from the Library of Congress you would find the single book that had the secret formula on how AT&T calculated their increased data growth rate. Your mission is to find that book so you can decode the ISBN number to be used as an RSA key to decrypt the 11 herbs and spices of the original Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe so it could be posted without payment on Cooks Source.

Re:Crap title (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262682)

...decrypt the 11 herbs and spices of the original Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe...

Futurama has told us that the Colonel's secret recipe is:

Chicken
Grease
Salt

(And 11 is binary for 3.)

Re:Crap title (1)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261706)

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

What was that sound? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261786)

woooooooosh.

Re:What was that sound? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262030)

Ooh, ooh, was there a deadline?

Re:Crap title (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262208)

Actually, annual growth would be just over 200%. An increase of 200% is equivalent to tripling, just as an increase of 100% is equivalent to doubling.

Re:Crap title (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263004)

I get a growth rate of about 115.5% per year. Which means the size will multiply by 2.155x each year.

Think "rule of 70" to make this easy. Given that growth rate, the size will double every .6 years. In 3 years, the value will double nearly five times, for a total of 30x over 3 years.

We seriously need to be more precise with our terms, or we get confusion like this!

And we finally (almost) have a winner! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263696)

You're correct. I'm a bit surprised at how many posts it took Slashdotters to get this. Then again, not having a fucking clue what they're talking about rarely influences people here not to speak. ;-)

A multiple of 3.11 is correct, which wowbagger got. Except, he called 311% a percentage growth rate, which it's not. A multiple of 1 each year means a growth rate of 0%. A multiple of 2 each year means a growth rate of 100%. That's what the "1 + " term does: A = P (1 + i)^n

So, multiplying by 3.11 each year is a growth rate of 211% per year! Bunratty, you may garnish your prize from samzenpuss' paycheque.

Re:Crap title (1)

ThanatosMinor (1046978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262224)

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r)
You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state

.

Re:Crap title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262614)

No, 1000% per year compounded over 3 years would be an increase of 1000 (1000% is 10 times, year 0 = 1, year 1 = 10*1 = 10, year 2 = 10 times year 1 = 100, year 3 = 10 times year 2 = 1000);

For a 30x growth in 3 years that would be an annual growth of 310%.

To calculate a yearly increase of some initial amount A at a rate of r, you would use A(1+r) You don't just multiply the rate of increase by the initial value to get the value at the next iteration. A 100% yearly growth rate implies doubling each year, whereas in your calculation a 100% growth rate implies a static state

.

That's not what he was doing. He was multiplying each year by 1000% (10.00) to get the next year's total. In other words, f(x+1) = f(x) * 10.

Re:Crap title (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263614)

At least the moderators got the joke.

A woosh and a wrong correction all in one. How would you feel?

Re:Crap title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261708)

We get retarded stories when we have retarded editors.
That's 310% growth per year.

Re:Crap title (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262178)

Who has editors?

We have anyone who wants to scribble into a text box, and anyone else who wants to fumble-finger a fancy radio button, and a few people who get paid by the click to forward on the things that get fumble-fingered the most.

Re:Crap title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262412)

Nope. Let's say that 3 years ago their data was 100 units. First year it grew by 310% (310 units) meaning that after year 1 they would have been at 410 units. The second year data woudl grow by 310% of the 410 (thus by 1271 units) to 1681 units. The third year their data would grow by 310% of the 1681 units (thus, by 5211 units) meaning that 100 units growing by 310% a year for three years would end up as 6892,1 units or about 69 times the original.

You are entirely correct if you mean that after each year the amount of traffic is 310% of what it was the previous year. But if traffic goes from 100 to 310, it isn't 310% growth, it is 210% growth.

Re:Crap title (2, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261822)

Your sig makes your post even more awesome!

Re:Crap title (2, Insightful)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262662)

or they could just unload some of that data, you know, stop holding the iPhone as being exclusive to AT&T

Re:Crap title (4, Funny)

l33td00d42 (873726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261864)

30x in three years? That's 1000% every 2.031 years.

There are 2.71828 kinds of people in the world. The kind that understand exponential growth, and 1.71828 kinds that don't.

Re:Crap title (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262226)

1000% Per year. never compounded.

apple? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261564)

or crapple?

Fewer Bars in More Place (1)

Merpy (1475709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261568)

Still poor coverage out by me...

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261624)

Try removing the iPhone from your anus.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261710)

Try removing the iPhone from your anus.

Thanks! That worked great.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263344)

But you can't hear the commentary from Steve Jobs if you don't have your head & your phone up your ass.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place (1)

sound2man (1427737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262766)

I live in the LA area, and my friends on ATT drop calls and have slower bandwidth than I do on sprint - at a higher cost. The iPhone is great hardware, but as long as it is ATT only, my money is with Sprint. Besides, I love my HTC EVO with 4G.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262898)

Interesting..in most parts of New Orleans and area..I get almost full bars, and rarely a dropped call.

When I had sprint...post Katrina...I could hardly get a signal in most parts of the city.

Guess it is really location dependent.

Re:Fewer Bars in More Place (1)

sound2man (1427737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262960)

Like most things, YMMV. I have had both companies, and have had very little problems with either of them. I am glad to hear that ATT is upping their data capabilities though - their innovation and expansion can only lead to better service for all of us, regardless of carrier.

This might help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262870)

Instructions from Jobs himself [collegehumor.com]

The new iPhone bars (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261608)

Are more realistic, in that I have few bars and few signal.

I had an older edge-only, edition and I don't know how I could have ever used it, leading me to conclude that ATT data rates have fallen to edge levels.

Re:The new iPhone bars (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261804)

Perhaps your expectations have altered drastically over the years.

You were probably happy to get EDGE and were probably amazed by it. I once took a trip guided only by google maps on a Razr for pete sake!!

Dropped calls have gone virtually to ZERO per month for me on AT&T. Wep page dwnload speeds increased noticeably as well. I first noticed a dramatic drop back in April of 2010.

Perhaps AT&T made dramatic improvements in Network Reliability and speed in my area. That is the date my Android phone arrived and I retired my iphone. I never worry about bars any more.

Its still not "fast enough", and it probably never will be, because "fast enough" is a moving target. But for all the flak AT&T gets, in my area is pretty darn good.

Re:The new iPhone bars (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261948)

Interesting. As an edge-only iPhone user, I've noticed my dropped call increasing astronomically from an average of one drop every three or four weeks to often two or three drops per day. All since early 2010. My guess is they're robbing Peter to pay Paul rather than building out their infrastructure as they should.

Re:The new iPhone bars (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262400)

You are correct about that to a certain degree.

They (AT&T) have been shifting frequencies around and putting 3G services on the lower bands with better building penetration and shifting edge over to the higher bands.

Almost all Edge phones are quadband so you don't have to do anything at the headset, and may never notice this unless you live on the fringe of the Edge coverage zones.

Hope you have downloaded the Mark The Spot app and use it regularly.

Re:The new iPhone bars (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263584)

They (AT&T) have been shifting frequencies around and putting 3G services on the lower bands with better building penetration and shifting edge over to the higher bands.

They aren't just moving EDGE to 1900mhz, they've also moved voice services in many areas. All fine and dandy until you get out into the fringe of coverage and can't make or hold a voice call....

As much as I loathe Verizon I've never seen them make changes to their network that dicked over existing customers. AT&T has done so on numerous occasions.

Re:The new iPhone bars (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262470)

But for all the flak AT&T gets, in my area is pretty darn good.

I'm happy for you. Myself, I get 0-2 bars anywhere within two miles of my home. Our arguments are anecdotal though, look at a coverage map for AT&T and you'll see there are huge swaths they do not cover at all.

Re:The new iPhone bars (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262600)

To tell you the truth, once the calls stopped being dropped (because I got off the iPhone with its crappy Infinion radios), I haven't paid a bit of attention to bars.

Phone works when I need it, and calls don't drop. Data rate not as fast as I'd like.

I know people in NYC are bleeding. (Or at least complaining loudly). But I'm not seeing that in the Pacific Northwest.

Re:The new iPhone bars (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262524)

Dropped calls have gone virtually to ZERO per month for me on AT&T.

There must be some really strong cellular signals and efficient antennae in Fantasyland.

Perhaps AT&T made dramatic improvements in Network Reliability and speed in my area.

Yes, I think I read somewhere they were planning on service improvements there, in Fantasyland, where iPhone batteries never lose their ability to hold a charge and nobody's ever seen the bottom of the bottomless cup, and everyone at the coffee shop is a published author.

Re:The new iPhone bars (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262670)

FantasyLand, Or in the Android world, where I now dwell.

I'll just come out and say it, even tho the Apple Mod Nazis will mark it troll in no time flat:

At least 70% percent of AT&T's bad rap came from Infineon chip sets in Apple iPhones.

Since that was a huge percentage of the userbase, it made the carrier look much worse than it was. AT&T BB users had no where near the same percentage of complaints.

My problems went away with the iPhone. YMMV.

Re:The new iPhone bars (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263042)

I was just being a jerk, sorry. In fact, I barely knew what a dropped call for the years I had my RAZR on AT&T here in Chicago. I bought my daughter a gen2 iPhone and it was like we were on different networks. I still use a relatively cheap phone and ubiquitous wi-fi. I'm not interested in carrying a smartphone of any kind, so 3G and 4G don't really matter to me right now.

But you're right, I rarely get dropped calls, though I think I'm just lucky to live in an area with strong signals. I keep AT&T mostly because they supply my broadband at home and for my business and I can pay one big bill. My friends complain all the time, though. Plus, since my average phone call duration is about 10 seconds, maybe there's just not enough time for the call to get dropped. I hate talking on the phone.

Re:The new iPhone bars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263814)

Perhaps AT&T made dramatic improvements in Network Reliability and speed in my area. That is the date my Android phone arrived and I retired my iphone. I never worry about bars any more.

Occam's sledgehammer at its best.

Slash Dot Dash (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261616)

SLASHDOT DASHDOT SLASHDOT DASHDOT SLASH DOT COM vlad farted. don't use so many caps, it's like yelling!

Re:Slash Dot Dash (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261840)

vlad farted after removing the iphone from his anus

But has the number of devices changed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261634)

If the number of subscribers has not shot up, I don't blame them for raising rates.

AT&T (-1, Troll)

CptChipJew (301983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261638)

It's over 9000!

Apple's Achilles Heel (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261644)

This is Apple's Achilles Heel. When demand outstrips the AT&T bandwidth, an iXxx will no longer be as desirable.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262060)

This is Apple's Achilles Heel. When demand outstrips the AT&T bandwidth, an iXxx will no longer be as desirable.

Demand has already outstripped AT&T bandwidth. That happened two years ago. That's the whole point of the story.

With that as the historical base, we look at AT&T exclusivity ending just at the time when AT&T shows signs of catching up with demand.

Or is that iPhone new contracts actually tapering off. Even tho Apple is selling iPhones like crazy, it hasn't translated into that many new customers for AT&T. They activated a record 5.2 million of the devices last quarter, but gained a net of only 2.6 million new mobile customers. See. [businessweek.com] So clearly the bandwidth demand growth is starting to slow down.

No one else could have handled the iPhone bandwidth demand back in 2007-2009 period any better than AT&T did.

The Achilles heel of Apple may be when they release a CDMA iPhone for Verizon and people suddenly realize half the stuff they used to do on the iPhone does not work on CDMA where you get Talk OR Data. For that reason, I suspect Verizon does not get an iPhone till Verizon gets LTE.

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263602)

Or Sprint carries it instead/as well so it can use WiMax for data. Please, god, don't let it happen. I *like* having Sprint as a nice island of well-rooted Android sanity uninfected by the Apple Virus. ;-)

Re:Apple's Achilles Heel (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263628)

No one else could have handled the iPhone bandwidth demand back in 2007-2009 period any better than AT&T did.

Verizon could have handled it better than AT&T.

The Achilles heel of Apple may be when they release a CDMA iPhone for Verizon and people suddenly realize half the stuff they used to do on the iPhone does not work on CDMA where you get Talk OR Data.

Verizon is supposedly working on a way to rectify this problem. There was a story about it here or on BBR a few months ago. Here's one link [slashgear.com] that talks about the upgrade to CDMA.

I'm curious to know if this is really a big issue for a significant number of people? I've had my Android phone now for five months on Verizon and I really haven't had a problem with this. I do have the option to use wi-fi while I'm talking on the phone but I've rarely exercised it.

Red Flag (0, Troll)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261646)

Sounds like Enron to me.

Not surprised (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261678)

That's not surprising. Considering all of the new media streaming apps there are it will only grow. The official Netflix streaming app alone must use a significant amount of bandwidth if used regularly.

Not a problem (5, Funny)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261716)

I just asked my friend who works with Verizon, he says if AT&T data usage was at 1000 GB, 1000% more is just (1000GB + 1000GB/1000%) = 1001 GB, so I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Not a problem (0, Redundant)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261830)

you are so bad at math, i hope you don't code for a living 1000% more than 1000GB is 1000GB * 1/100*1000+1000GB so it is = 11000GB....

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261878)

Whoosh.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261880)

woosh on me !

Re:Not a problem (2, Informative)

wintermute000 (928348) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261890)

you obviously missed the joke
the famous verizon phone rep conversation where they can't do math.... google it

Re:Not a problem (2, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261896)

He's very, very good at Verizon Math. He also made it clear that he was practicing Verizon Math.

Do note that Verizon Math is very different from traditional math.

Re:Not a problem (1, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261976)

Whoosh [blogspot.com] .

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261978)

*woosh*

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261992)

Normally at this point I would say "that whooshing sound over your head was the joke", but in this case I don't think it even came close enough to your head that you would have heard anything.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Rijnzael (1294596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262010)

Parent's comment is a joke about Verizon's apparent inability to do math [blogspot.com] .

Re:Not a problem (0, Redundant)

Rijnzael (1294596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262032)

Parent's comment is a joke about Verizon's apparent inability to do math [blogspot.com] .

Re:Not a problem (1)

mikestew (1483105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262042)

you are so bad at math, i hope you don't code for a living

And I hope your ability to make a living is never reliant on being able to recognize somewhat subtle humor.

Re:Not a problem (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262094)

whoosh... [blogspot.com]

Oh, wait, you're metatrolling. My bad.

Re:Not a problem (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262152)

It seems you could use a math lesson from Verizon [consumerist.com] .
(The link is for a transcript of a phonecall of a guy trying to resolve a billing issue. He was quoted a data rate of 0.002 cents/kb, but billed at 0.002 dollars/kb.)

Re:Not a problem (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262222)

you are so bad at math, i hope you don't code for a living

Folks who are really bad at math don't code. They work in politics, or on Wall Street or for General Motors as a CEO. If you are bad at math, you get a job where you lose other people's money . . . like taxpayer's . . . and not your own money.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262256)

It's Verizon Math [slashdot.org] .

Re:Not a problem (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262280)

It was an amusing reference to the case where Verizon CSR's could not get the difference between 0.02$ and 0.02 cents...
To put it simply...
woooosh!

Re:Not a problem (1)

Digero (974682) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262284)

His comment is a reference to a case where a guy was overcharged for data because Verizon reps couldn't figure out the difference between 0.002 cents and 0.002 dollars.
Verizon Can't Do Math [slashdot.org]

Re:Not a problem (1)

melekzek (760668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262322)

swoooosh

The new New Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261834)

When did 1000 x 10 become equal to 1001?

Is that the verizon over there, or did the dragons move it just beyond that little sign in the disonance?

Re:The new New Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261898)

Remember - verizon thinks .002 cents = $.002

Re:The new New Math? (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262088)

GP is talking about a rather well known story about verizon's billing math. There is an entire blogspot about it. http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261908)

That woosh that this comment's siblings hear must be obnoxious.

Re:Not a problem (-1, Troll)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262036)

You are the reason America is failing.

Can we blame video/movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261760)

We are turning these net-devices into the new idiot box. Totally not interactive, it's almost like we're collectively thumbing our noses at cable and their failure to deliver without excessive rates. Must we watch video on smaller devices? Sure, have the video compressed all you want, and then what? It's almost like adding a new channel to your TV. Was this ever the intent?

Simple Solution: ( +3, Revolutionary ) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34261848)

Rewrite the wireless traffic from former U.S.A. through China [slashdot.org] .

I hope this breaks the iPhone AND the Android phones.

Yours In Osh,
Kilgore Trout, C.I.O.

Math (4, Informative)

ThanatosMinor (1046978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34261904)

Somebody forgot about compounded growth.

1000% growth over three years (compounded annually) would have them grown a thousandfold over three years. Compounded continuously would be ridiculously large.

If you assume continuous growth, the actual growth rate would be ln(30)/3, or about 113%. If you just want a number to quote as the annual growth rate that would give a thirtyfold increase over three years, go with 211% since (1+2.11)^3 is about 30.

Man customers suck. (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262002)

I mean imagine offering to sell people something, and then have them show up, give you money for it, and then expect to use it! What kind of crazy system IS that?

Can we stop reprinting AT&T press releases that show they continue to be completely baffled by market economics?

Re:Man customers suck. (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263514)

I'm pained there isn't a "+1 Depressingly correct" mod option.

Good to know (1)

wilgibson (933961) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262026)

It's good to know that AT&T is at least trying. I've avoided cancelling my service with them due to the fees and the fact I still have an unlimited data plan. On the flip side, you can probably count me as part of the problem too. My HTC Pure is currently running Dutty's ROM just so I can have an easier time using it as a wireless router for my netbook when out of the house.

All I know is... (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262038)

...we tolerate poorer and poorer cell service for more and more money. I switched from my KRAZR to an iPhone and my call quality went down by AT LEAST 30%. Now, for the princely added sum of $30 per month I can have dial-up internet response. Such a deal!

Why did I buy this thing? My wife and kids insisted!

It ain't just the wireless/data links (1)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262044)

We had an earthquake here in Central Oklahoma a couple of months ago. Not a biggie, just a "rattler". The cell lines (voice and data both) went down from overload, as did the AT&T *land lines*. I'd hate to see what happens when the next "Big One" hits (whatever that event is...).

Re:It ain't just the wireless/data links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262448)

Think "New Madrid".

Re:It ain't just the wireless/data links (1, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262554)

I would argue this because in 2012 I saw people using their phones all the time and they had to deal with extreme tectonic plate movements and tsunamis. Their cell coverage was fine, this was in India though, maybe their networks are better. Plus India uses CDMA.

Read the post (3, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262156)

The total data volume over the nationwide network went from 1 billion megabytes per year to 30 billion megabytes per year. Or from roughly 900TB/365days or 2.4TB/day to 28,610TB/365days or 78TB/day.

Divide that by their 100 million customers and on average each customer uses not even 1MB/day.

If you want to be an ISP and you cannot carry more than 1MB/day, you should not be an ISP.

Re:Read the post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262688)

Hate to point out the obvious, but 1MB/day isn't an accurate measurement. The real measurement is how much data each mobile switching center handles on average per day. Given the phone only has a finite frequency it can use, there's only so much data you can squeeze in. Transferring 1MB over the air per person is completely different than 1MB over fiber optics. Even if you add more cell towers, you're still using the same frequency range. You can't magically squeeze 10x more people in and not expect signal degradation. The only real solution is to open up more frequencies for cell service. That is controlled by the FCC, so they are partly to blame for the current crappy service across america. If the FCC licensed more bandwidth out, all the providers would have more room to work with.

Y'know... (1)

hsjserver (1826682) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262184)

If these jerks think they have the right to own the internet they should at least have the courtesy to give us all the wireless data we want.

Read the article to see how pathetic they are (0, Redundant)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262230)

They went from roughly 3TB/day to 78TB/day over their nationwide network and they can't handle it? That means that on average, each of their customers used barely 1MB/day. Even if 1% of their customer base uses the data network, that is still only 100MB/day.

An ISP that cannot handle their customers getting 100MB/day is not worth being named an ISP imho.

Re:Read the article to see how pathetic they are (4, Informative)

slonik (108174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262710)

An ISP that cannot handle their customers getting 100MB/day is not worth being named an ISP imho.
We are talking Wide Area Wireless Network here. You know, there are laws of physics that prevent you from achieving 100MB/day/user in a limited spectrum with cells covering 5 square kilometers.
Comparing mobile wireless network with fixed fiber or cable is simply silly.
Learn to use WiFi on top of a fast fiber/cable link.

And yes, I do wireless network engineering for living.

Let me get this straight : (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262244)

So, when ISPs invest in their infrastructure, they can offset even huge data transmission bottlenecks, like, in 3 years ?

then why the hell arent they just investing in the internet infrastructure, and just shutting their mouth about 'two tiered internet' and whatnot ?

And Yet.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262262)

Coverage and 3G data speeds in NYC and New jersey still SUCK HORRIBLY.

Heck even in Chicago, I had 5 bars of 3G and it still was like using a 56K modem..

Grew at 1000% in WHAT? Executive salaries?

This is only a little good for AT&T (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262446)

yes, they're making money from the iPhone. unquestionably.

but this massive increase in data is also a huge increase in cost, which they'll have to recoup over several years. the iPhone may actually have put them under water temporarily.

Must be that new math. (0, Troll)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262584)

A growth rate of 1000% per year would mean going up 1000 times over three years, not 30 times.

Increasing 30 times over three years is a growth rate of about 311% per annum.

Do not trust AT&T (5, Interesting)

straponego (521991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262858)

Or any telco, but especially ATT. When the iPhone/ATT first earned its reputation as a horribly unreliable phone, ATT said they were going to invest $15 billion in the next year to fix the issue. A year later, they boasted that they'd spent $2 Billion in the last year, yet somehow it still wasn't enough. Huh. Pretty sure the ball got dropped somewhere between engineering's requirements and yacht hookers for executive yachts. Just like when the US government handed out tens of billions for infrastructure upgrades that the telcos translated into record profits and third world Internet speeds. Telcos and cable companies enjoy taking the money, see, but the part about investing some of it seems pointless, given their government supported monopolies.

uhhh (1)

cuckundu (1934964) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262920)

Wait... why is this under the "Apple" category...?

not where I live (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262966)

I started my current job 3 years ago, about the exact same time I got my new phone, for those 3 years my phone has been sitting in a dead zone or as I like to call it, my office

They've had plenty of time (3, Insightful)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34264002)

Smartphones have been available for at least 10 years now. If AT&T and other carriers had started investing in their data networks then, they wouldn't be having this problem now.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>