Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by martey 5852 days ago
In the short term, I am not sure that this is that big of a deal. My data use would be 3 to 4 times higher than it is now (and thus approaching the author's) were it not for the fact that most of the time I am using my phone on a day-to-day basis, it is in areas with wifi (since I live in Cambridge MA, it is conceivably possible that I have wifi coverage 90-100% of the time; to save battery, my radio is off unless I think I explicitly need it). I do not think that AT&T and Apple are trying to cause people to use their phones less, but rather to improve the cellular networks by causing people to use wifi - be it at home, work, or Starbucks - as opposed to AT&T's overwhelmed towers. I think there is plenty of evidence to support this, from the fact that the $15 200 MB plan explicitly allows you to temporarily switch to the $25 2 GB plan during months when you would experience overages, to the technical limitation of Apple's video calling only working over wifi.

Since I cannot tell the future, I have no idea if this will have a chilling effect on data-intensive apps or workflows yet to be developed or envisioned. If AT&T increases the amount of data included in its plans at some point in the near future (which would be reasonable, although possibly less profitable), this would be a moot point.

1 comments

Your suggestion that people need to curb their 3G usage to help AT&T's poor towers is precisely the logic they're employing. It isn't valid, though. The capacity of AT&T's network is not a finite resource. They can make more. In fact, the government gave them money to improve their network, but they just pocketed it and opted to create artificial scarcity instead.

In other words, AT&T's towers are overwhelmed because AT&T didn't build enough capacity. That's not my fault and I shouldn't be paying for it.

The article claimed that the new data plans would cause people to use their phones less. I do not believe this is true, but I do think it will either cause people to use wifi more and cellular data less (if they are heavy data users like the authors) or not make any changes (if they are "normal" users). Nothing in my original writing was meant to suggest that AT&T subscribers with data plans (like myself) should use wifi more.
A few insane overage charge stories in the media will definitely cause people to avoid using their phone as much. It's not something people should be thinking about when they use the phone, it's counterproductive.
> In other words, AT&T's towers are overwhelmed because AT&T didn't build enough capacity. That's not my fault and I shouldn't be paying for it.

Who exactly is supposed to pay for it, if not the people using it?

Please link to something about how AT&T got money from the government.