AT&T Wireless Data Still Growing At 1000% 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."
Re:Crap title (Score:5, Funny)
"30 times over the past three years."
That would make it obviously 1000% per year.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes.
Seven of each.
I hope that clarifies things.
Re:Crap title (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
...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: (Score:2)
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%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? This is a trivial exponentiation problem and you're coming up with some crazy, imprecise and dead wrong solution.
Growth rate of 115.5% per year gives growth over 3 years of: (1 + 1.1155)^3 = 9.46
We want 30-fold growth in 3 years. That's 211% per year, since (1 + 2.11)^3 = 30.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, continuous growth is a much more useful model for this sort of thing, but calling is "115% growth per year" is nonsensical in that case.
I still maintain that this whole mess is due to the fact that people assume percentage growth to be nearly linear (because it's so often used to describe low growth rates like 1-10% where there's no confusion), and often forget to add the initial 100% contribution (pretty much for the same reason).
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
At least the moderators got the joke.
A woosh and a wrong correction all in one. How would you feel?
Re: (Score:2)
Growth rate percentages over 100% are often confusing, because it's ambiguous whether they refer to the change from the original value or the total final value.
In the usual convention, 310% growth per year would mean a quantity that increases by a factor of (1+3.10)=4.10 per year. So 30x growth in 3 years would actually be an annual growth rate of 210% per year (because (1+2.10)^3 is about 30).
For this and other reasons, percentages are a horribly confusing and unintuitive way to describe high growth rates
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Your sig makes your post even more awesome!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would make it obviously 1000% per year.
Actually, not quite. 30 times in 3 years is a growth rate of about 310% per year. Conversely, a growth rate of 1,000% percent for three years would result in 1,000 times as much data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Crap title (Score:4, Funny)
There are 2.71828 kinds of people in the world. The kind that understand exponential growth, and 1.71828 kinds that don't.
Re: (Score:2)
30x in three years? That's 1000% every 2.031 years.
Funny indeed, but you've made the same off-by-one error as nearly every other posters here. 1000% growth every 2.031 years... what does that give us in 3 years?
(1 + 10) ^ (3/2.031) = 11 ^ (3/2.031) = 34.5
30x in three years is actually 1000% every 2.115 years, because:
(1 + 10) ^ (3/2.115) = 30
There are 2.71828 kinds of people in the world. The kind that understand exponential growth, and 1.71828 kinds that don't.
As far as I can tell, when I entered this thread, the number of people who actually understand that percentage growth represents the difference between the initial and final values rather than a multiplicative factor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another math fail. It's actually 966% per year, never compounded, because (1 + 3×9.66) ~= 30. It's incredible how many people make this simple off-by-one mistake.
Furthermore, non-compound interest has no bearing on any real-world financial or scientific calculation. It's a simplification that's just used to introduce students to the power of exponential growth and compounding, by way of comparison with linear growth.
Can you imagine a bank that offered 10% interest per year on savings accounts, b
Re: (Score:2)
In case you couldn't tell I'm playing devils advocate, no need to get worked up about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wellll... sorta. Significant digits are not magic. They express the relative uncertainty in a quantity.
The relative uncertainty does not propagate equally under all types of arithmetic operations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_arithmetic [wikipedia.org] for addition and multiplication).
This is especially true for exponentiation. If we start with the premise that AT&T's data usage grew 30x over 3 years, to one significant digit, that means that the real value is somewhere in the 25-35x range. That gi
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If something grows 30-fold in 3 years, it's growing at an average rate of about 211% per year, because (1+2.11)^3 = 30.
Apparently the author doesn't understand the difference between linear and exponential growth or the terminology used to describe them. I think that percent-per-year growth is almost always a confusing way to describe growth when the percentage is more than 10-20%. That's because people assume x% growth in one year corresponds to 2x% growth in two years. Which is pretty close to
Fewer Bars in More Place (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My votes with you. I ditched my 2nd Gen iPhone for an EVo three months ago.
Had it not been for financial restraints I would have ditched it for a Nexus One much earlier.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
The new iPhone bars (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
"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."
Absolutely. Here's some examples:
Analog -- the phone cos (that had 850mhz spectrum) were required to keep analog running until recently. AT&T would keep the *bare minimum* 1 channel running, even in areas where that channel was consistently busy from either analog roamers or TDMA phones still in service. They also didn't maintain the equipment so some of these channels actually didn't work, didn't have the proper transmit power, or were noisy. Verizon tried to maintain the same level of service for analog as for their current services -- if an area had heavy usage they'd run more analog channels, they kept the equipment maintained, and so on, up until the shutoff point.
EVDO -- they made a point of not compromising voice service. In areas where they need plenty of 850mhz voice (CDMA 1X) channels for reliable service, it means they'll have like 1 850 EVDO channel and the rest at 1900 -- it's better to have data slow down at the fringe than to have calls start dropping constantly.
LTE -- they've publicly said they'll keep 1X running until at least 2020, even though LTE will be completed by 2013-2014. (They haven't said anything about EVDO, but once a lot of traffic shifts to LTE they could probably keep 1 channel of EVDO going and it'd be plenty for the remaining EVDO devices) This gives 6 to 7 years for people to switch.
Contrast this to (pre-merger) AT&T Wireless and Cingular, which BOTH quit selling TDMA phones (switching to GSM exclusively) BEFORE they had even finished building out their GSM network. And contrast it to the current situation, where they keep reducing the service levels for GSM-only customers to improve 3G (reducing number of GSM channels, and moving them to 1900 to free up 850 for 3G), while continuing to offer numerous models of GSM-only (i.e. *non*-3G) phones. When I looked a month or so ago, 50% of the models they had on the web site didn't have 3G! THIS is the root of AT&T's present problems -- it's like, if you want people to use 3G, quit selling non-3G phones! Cost isn't an issue any more, there are cheap and basic 3G phones for those who don't want something fancy.
I should note, AT&T's excuses really are excuses -- Verizon's data traffic has been increasing FASTER than AT&T's, to the point that it's predicted VZW will carry MORE traffic than AT&T by sometime in early 2011. Android phones use more data than IPhones, and due to huge Android phone sales, there's more of them too.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Speaking of the Northwest, I was in Alaska and encountered 2 areas where iPhones worked and my Sprint Android phone did not.
I asked one dude (whose phone was working) whether it was GSM or CDMA. He said it was an iPhone. I didn't even try to explain...
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint = CDMA.
Iphone = GSM
There are lots of places in Alaska where there is only one real carrier choice, and many of these places only get GSM.
There is even one large state carrier up there that won't let anyone roam onto their network. How dumb is that! Roaming money is pure gravy for carriers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There must be some really strong cellular signals and efficient antennae in Fantasyland.
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
Re:The new iPhone bars (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
a.fsdn.com is REAL SLOW!! FIX IT (Score:1)
slashdot, fix a.fsdn.com
or do i have to map it to google.com or something that WORKS!!!
40 second replies is lame.
Apple's Achilles Heel (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Apple's Achilles Heel (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 exercise
Re: (Score:1)
But can the other networks handle it?
Because maybe AT&T can offer better plans rates/more GB to keep customers, even with the loss of exclusivity.
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia were gsm but no problems with our new fangled gizmos. Get over 1mb most places. Of course our telcos charge through the nose
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Remember, it's only in America that the iPhone is tied to a single (and hence, over-congested) network. iThings are sold in dozens of countries and in most of them, are used on whatever network the purchaser wishes.
Having said that, the implication that iDevices are responsible for the bulk of traffic on phone networks isn't really true these days. It was true initially when the iPhone was one of the first popular consumer devices that encouraged mobile data use, but now there are many good alte
Red Flag (Score:1, Troll)
Not surprised (Score:2)
Not a problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you obviously missed the joke
the famous verizon phone rep conversation where they can't do math.... google it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoosh [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
whoosh... [blogspot.com]
Oh, wait, you're metatrolling. My bad.
Re: (Score:2)
(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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The American system dictates and shapes that "successful" politicians and executives don't go to school, esp to learn math.
Probably explains why they continuously defund public education over military spending.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Math (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
10% growth per year, compounded over three years is 3 x 10% growth. 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000, so it's obviously 1000%.
I thought this was a nerd site...!
Man customers suck. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I'm pained there isn't a "+1 Depressingly correct" mod option.
Good to know (Score:1)
All I know is... (Score:2)
...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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Read the post (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Y'know... (Score:1)
Let me get this straight : (Score:2)
then why the hell arent they just investing in the internet infrastructure, and just shutting their mouth about 'two tiered internet' and whatnot ?
This is only a little good for AT&T (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Commonly called BS because they were already negligent in their infrastructure buildup when at least 70% composed of old-guard AT&T vs Cingular after the merger. This is backed up by their quarterly reports where they were making making massive profits and executive bonuses instead of sinking it into infrastructure.
OTOH, T-Mobile's recent quarterly report shows they are building out heavily hence the pretty lean profits -- ignoring the flat subscriber growth.
Do not trust AT&T (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What I really don't like is the 2 GB cap for new customers. Ugh :-(
uhhh (Score:1)
not where I live (Score:1)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the old smartphones weren't like today's smartphones. They were useable only by hardcore business people and geeks, which as you should know represent a miniscule percentage of the actual public.
Back then, 1 frame a second was great. Today, 24fps is the new black.
Lies (Score:5, Informative)
I'm just not able to trust AT&T on anything after seeing these stats:
http://gizmodo.com/5428717/att-has-spent-less-on-network-construction-and-capital-expenditures-every-quarter-since-the-q4-2007 [gizmodo.com]
Same crap, different day (Score:2)
so what? (Score:1)
Like the oil industry, if you are cheap at the beginning, and later do not want to reinvest, then of course you will create a bottleneck for those using your services. The oil industry could easily use those TRILLIONS of dollars declared as profit from 1 year, and create 5 new oil refineries, so that next time a hurricane or tornado hits in texas, we are not hit with price hikes because they supposedly can not provide for us (BS if you ask me).....now the cell cos are following suit. Of course, they could
The AT&T Network Still Lacks (Score:1)
Our collective experience at work, as it relates to the iPhone in Cambridge, MA (and surrounding region) is that the AT&T network still lacks (put politely). I get dropped calls, spotty coverage and customer service doesn't really care about responding to complaints.
I realize that some of this is infrastructure related and that every carrier has issues -- but really, I'm so tired of the problems that even the glitter of a iPhone doesn't appeal much anymore. I'd rather have great coverage than a fanc
Re:Read the article to see how pathetic they are (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, you don't read so well, do you?
Here's my quote: "A growth rate of 1000% per year would mean going up 1000 times over three years, not 30 times."
Let's dissect:
"A growth rate of 1000% per year" means it grows 10 times every year.
"would mean going up 1000 times over three years" means that, after three years, growing at 10 times per year, the original number would increase by a factor of 1000.
Let's say the initial value is 5.
After 1 year, it goes up 1000%, so 5 becomes 50.
In the second year, the value sta