I've apparently hit some kind of magic bw limit. My 4G LTE is now magically
fixed at max 1.5mbps
Last month's usage was about 200gb.
cmon verizon seriously 
chris
Folks,
Is it possible/common for a non-facilities-based CLEC (we call them paper
based) to start getting loops pulled for themselves, and to start physically
handling the circuits without becoming a full fledged facilities based CLEC?
To clarify ... We have a new customer who is just that ... A non-facilities
based CLEC. They don't want to resell AT&T's network anymore as they want to
start building their own network, little bit at a time.
I was thinking .. Well, shoot .. If all they want to do is sell Internet T1s
(for example), then have them pulled back to a collo somewhere over a
channelized DS3 on the backend and an equivalent speed internet connection
the front - and they will be on their way ...
So the question remains ... will they still be able to capture the savings
of getting such loops because they are a CLEC, if indeed they are not
'facilities based' and just handling the loops as if they were the customer?
I believe they have no intentions on becoming a facilities based CLEC.
Make sense? This is somewhat new territory for me - as I never had (or
really wanted to) dive into how a CLEC operates before. But I want to
exploit that as much as possible if it means wicked cheap loops!
Thanks,
-graham
If I understand your question, yes. We did this some time ago. Colo in various ILEC and CLEC central offices, order T1 loops (but it's only half a loop...from customer to CO), so you're saving there, and because you're ordering it as a CLEC, most people would be shocked how cheap a T1 can be. Connect the various colos together with a network of T1's and T3's (especially if you can establish a relationship with a carrier who's on-net in all or most of the COs you want to be in), and you're set.
Someone looking to start this model now, I'd say is about 10 years late, 5 years too late.
To clarify ... We have a new customer who is just that ... A non-facilities
based CLEC. They don't want to resell AT&T's network anymore as they want to
start building their own network, little bit at a time.I was thinking .. Well, shoot .. If all they want to do is sell Internet T1s
(for example), then have them pulled back to a collo somewhere over a
channelized DS3 on the backend and an equivalent speed internet connection
the front - and they will be on their way ...So the question remains ... will they still be able to capture the savings
of getting such loops because they are a CLEC, if indeed they are not
'facilities based' and just handling the loops as if they were the customer?
I believe they have no intentions on becoming a facilities based CLEC.If I understand your question, yes. We did this some time ago. Colo in
various ILEC and CLEC central offices, order T1 loops (but it's only half
a loop...from customer to CO), so you're saving there, and because you're
ordering it as a CLEC, most people would be shocked how cheap a T1 can be.
Connect the various colos together with a network of T1's and T3's
(especially if you can establish a relationship with a carrier who's
on-net in all or most of the COs you want to be in), and you're set.
Yup, that is the model they are looking to do. The main question was that
if they were going to be able to cash in on the loops savings, etc if they
remain paper based. With that, could they locate in the LEC's CO? Sure there
is a fee for a paper based CLEC. I was thinking just in a regular collo
would be just fine.
Someone looking to start this model now, I'd say is about 10 years late, 5
years too late.
Well, I think they need to "move" to this model (from what I am
understanding the situation) as they need to expand their horizons.
Thanks Jon for the reply.
-graham
they've been fairly public about 'unlimited' != "unlimited"
cause basically you could be using it to download the pornz or the
warez or ... running an office network on a backup link... you know,
normal things.
-chris
If I understand your question, yes. We did this some time ago. Colo
in various ILEC and CLEC central offices,
Um. Doesn't colo in various ILEC/CLEC CO == facilities based CLEC?
order T1 loops (but it's only half a loop...from customer to CO), so
you're saving there, and because you're ordering it as a CLEC, most
people would be shocked how cheap a T1 can be. Connect the various
colos together with a network of T1's and T3's (especially if you can
establish a relationship with a carrier who's on-net in all or most of
the COs you want to be in), and you're set.
Interesting. Can't you just ride the existing network between the CO
locations? For a fee of course, but I would think it could be all
ethernet based and just pay per mb or something?
Someone looking to start this model now, I'd say is about 10 years
late, 5 years too late.
Yeah. Building ones own network is a bit... difficult. At least to serve
on a competitive basis.
In a message written on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:34:50PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I've apparently hit some kind of magic bw limit. My 4G LTE is now magically
> fixed at max 1.5mbps
>
> Last month's usage was about 200gb.
>
> cmon verizon seriouslythey've been fairly public about 'unlimited' != "unlimited"
I have no issues with a cap, however I have huge issues when a
company is allowed to call a capped service "unlimited". I think
it's straight up false advertising, and I really wish some state
AG's would take up the issue.
But what's more interesting is that Verizon's contract for LTE has
_the exact same cap as 3G service_, 5Gb. If Chris is really getting
200Gb before being capped, that is impressive.
PCMag did the math, you can use up the 5GB alotment in 32 minutes
with LTE. Seems like as the speeds get faster the cap should get
larger, doesn't it?
In a message written on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:34:50PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I've apparently hit some kind of magic bw limit. My 4G LTE is now magically
> fixed at max 1.5mbps
>
> Last month's usage was about 200gb.
>
> cmon verizon seriouslythey've been fairly public about 'unlimited' != "unlimited"
I have no issues with a cap, however I have huge issues when a
company is allowed to call a capped service "unlimited". I think
it's straight up false advertising, and I really wish some state
AG's would take up the issue.
ya see that little * next to the 'unlimited' in the ad, right? 
But what's more interesting is that Verizon's contract for LTE has
_the exact same cap as 3G service_, 5Gb. If Chris is really getting
200Gb before being capped, that is impressive.Verizon LTE Blows Through Monthly Data Cap in 32 Minutes | PCMag
PCMag did the math, you can use up the 5GB alotment in 32 minutes
with LTE. Seems like as the speeds get faster the cap should get
larger, doesn't it?
airtime is still the same price for the carrier...
-chris
(note that i believe almost all of these arguments are complete bs...
and said as much at the mic in denver)
As I understand it, data on a smartphone is "unlimited", but data on a non-phone device (called Broadband Access) is capped at 5GB.
At one time if you went over 5GB on a "broadband access" account they simply terminated your account. This happened to me.
Then a class action lawsuit happened. I got a check from VZ and they stopped terminating people for going over 5GB. Instead, they charged some huge overages fees. IIRC if you used a total of 10 GB (5GB over your allowance) it cost around $250.
Last time I checked, Verizon reduced their overage fees to something around $10/GB. Cellular data service such as 1xRTT, EVDO, LTE, etc is great when your only other options are dialup or consumer satellite internet service.
In a message written on Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:29:13AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> PCMag did the math, you can use up the 5GB alotment in 32 minutes
> with LTE. Seems like as the speeds get faster the cap should get
> larger, doesn't it?airtime is still the same price for the carrier...
Ah, but you're making my argument! I agree airtime * spectrum is
the limited quanity for the provider, and so should influence the
cap and pricing.
As far as I can tell, LTE can drive 8-10x the data in the same
spectrum over the same time period, as compared to HSDPA. If you're
really buying "spectrum-minutes" then you should be getting more
data with LTE for the same price.
Of course, I can't think of another industry where the service
provider complains when you use too much. They just bill you more
for using more, they don't cut off their own customer who uses the
service a lot!
--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableIn a message written on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:34:50PM -0400, Christopher =
Morrow wrote:
> > I've apparently hit some kind of magic bw limit. My 4G LTE is now magic=
ally
> > fixed at max 1.5mbps
> >
> > Last month's usage was about 200gb.
> >
> > cmon verizon seriously
>=20
> they've been fairly public about 'unlimited' !=3D "unlimited"I have no issues with a cap, however I have huge issues when a
company is allowed to call a capped service "unlimited". I think
it's straight up false advertising, and I really wish some state
AG's would take up the issue.But what's more interesting is that Verizon's contract for LTE has
_the exact same cap as 3G service_, 5Gb. If Chris is really getting
200Gb before being capped, that is impressive.Verizon LTE Blows Through Monthly Data Cap in 32 Minutes | PCMag
PCMag did the math, you can use up the 5GB alotment in 32 minutes
with LTE. Seems like as the speeds get faster the cap should get
larger, doesn't it?
So if he's used 200GB, and made his carrier ticked off at him that he
went over 5GB, they ... capped him at a speed which allows him maybe
as much as 452GB/month?
% expr 1500000 / 8 \* 30 / 1024 \* 86400 / 1048576
452
I must be doing the math wrong or maybe I messed up reordering the
expr to avoid integer overflows...
1500000 bits per second / 8 bits per byte * 30 days per month /
1024 bytes per KB * 86400 seconds per day / 1048576 KB per GB....
looks fine to me.
I don't get why they'd cap you at 1.5Mbps if they want your usage
to remain within 5GB/month. 
... JG
In a message written on Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:29:13AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> PCMag did the math, you can use up the 5GB alotment in 32 minutes
> with LTE. Seems like as the speeds get faster the cap should get
> larger, doesn't it?airtime is still the same price for the carrier...
Ah, but you're making my argument! I agree airtime * spectrum is
the limited quanity for the provider, and so should influence the
cap and pricing.
I did say I thought the argument was bs ...
As far as I can tell, LTE can drive 8-10x the data in the same
spectrum over the same time period, as compared to HSDPA. If you're
really buying "spectrum-minutes" then you should be getting more
data with LTE for the same price.
so... there's also the bw to the tower, which I think most carriers
actually lease as well (they don't own the tower, nor the link to the
tower) so it's possible that the whole setup just costs them more now.
anyway, they do these donkey things because they can people have no
real option (except not to play the game, ala war games).
Overall, IMO the trends are just seem to be going backwards. We have more
speed but we can use it less? What kind of technology advancement is that?
I've had "unlimited" gprs, edge, 3g, and never really seen any kind of
actual cap. Sure they were slower but I didn't have to worry about getting
surprised on my next bill. If my edge from 5+ years ago could 3gb/day and
90gb a month how is 4G at 5gb an improvement of the service?
chris
I think you're thinking of this the wrong way 'round ... the carriers
are doing better:) see, it's better.
My brother recently tried to get a smartphone without a data plan (as the
phone he wanted was also Wifi-capable, and he was *quite* willing to be able
to do data-type stuff only when in range of an access point because he's in
range of one 95% of the time he'd want to use data features). But at least
one vendor said they wouldn't activate a phone under those conditions.
Anybody got a good pairing of Android-based smartphone and vendor willing
to play that game?
In a message written on Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:29:13AM -0400,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
PCMag did the math, you can use up the 5GB alotment in 32 minutes
with LTE. Seems like as the speeds get faster the cap should get
larger, doesn't it?airtime is still the same price for the carrier...
Ah, but you're making my argument! I agree airtime * spectrum is
the limited quanity for the provider, and so should influence the
cap and pricing.I did say I thought the argument was bs ...
As far as I can tell, LTE can drive 8-10x the data in the same
spectrum over the same time period, as compared to HSDPA. If you're
really buying "spectrum-minutes" then you should be getting more
data with LTE for the same price.so... there's also the bw to the tower, which I think most carriers
actually lease as well (they don't own the tower, nor the link to the
tower) so it's possible that the whole setup just costs them more now.anyway, they do these donkey things because they can
real option (except not to play the game, ala war games).
On 8/16/2011 11:49 AM, chris wrote [as a top post - now moved to the bottom - k thx]:
Overall, IMO the trends are just seem to be going backwards. We have more
speed but we can use it less? What kind of technology advancement is that?I've had "unlimited" gprs, edge, 3g, and never really seen any kind of
actual cap. Sure they were slower but I didn't have to worry about getting
surprised on my next bill. If my edge from 5+ years ago could 3gb/day and
90gb a month how is 4G at 5gb an improvement of the service?chris
Demand truth in advertising. Write your representatives in congress and the FCC to ask them to put in place regulations requiring wireless data speeds advertised be based on the cap (if any) regardless of the technology used.
5GB = 5 * 8 * 1024^3 = 42,949,672,960 bits
42,949,672,960 / (86400 * 30) = 16570 b/s
16570 / 1024 = 16 Kb/s
So, Verizon LTE (with a 5GB cap) would be a 16Kb/s wireless data connection.
[my math may be off, but I get credit for showing my work]
NB: if someone wanted to be "clear" that unlimited != unlimited, then they would use the term limited instead. The term unlimited is used precisely because they want to be "UNclear" that unlimited != unlimited. We haven't exceeded the ability of the language to describe this, there are many synonyms for limited - confined, restricted, bound, caped, constricted, curbed, hindered, inhibited, rationed, restrained - any of these could be used to prevent the confusion of unlimited != unlimited.
...and after you have written these letters, copy the files, search and replace "wireless data provider" with "broadband data provider" and send another copy to your representatives
Just a thought... and not an original one at that...
-DMM
> anyway, they do these donkey things because they can
> real option (except not to play the game, ala war games).My brother recently tried to get a smartphone without a data plan (as the
phone he wanted was also Wifi-capable, and he was *quite* willing to be
able
to do data-type stuff only when in range of an access point because he's
in
range of one 95% of the time he'd want to use data features). But at
least
one vendor said they wouldn't activate a phone under those conditions.
Anybody got a good pairing of Android-based smartphone and vendor willing
to play that game?
If you pay full price for the phone, this should not be an issue. Many
carriers price in data plans to offset the handset hardware subsidy.
I would recommend the unlocked nexus s with a prepaid sim for voice minutes
... and wifi for data only. Really, any phone you buy free and clear without
subsidy and contract should work fine as a phone with a prepaid sim
<cough>except for the fact that mobile carriers CAN do these monkey
business moves</cough>
(note that tmo seems to NOT do these things, at least in my experience
so far, limited though it may be)
You are correct in this belief (about T Mobile). This is yet another reason to protest to your congress critters about the impending acquisition of them by AT&T. My daughter still uses her Android to tether when she needs to, and I'm pretty sure they and US Cellular are the only ones left that allow it.
Who said the goal was an improvement in /service/? Based on their
actions, it is quite clear that carriers are only interested technology
or contract terms that improve their /profits/, i.e. take more money out
of customers' wallets. And that's exactly what their shareholders want
them to do; it would be rather naïve to expect anything else.
S