# Too much data?



## calripkenturner (Feb 9, 2012)

Eight days into the cycle....you guys think 56 gigs is too much? Hahaha


----------



## gigatopiloto (Nov 11, 2011)

I use that in 2 years

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## DrPepperLives (Aug 2, 2011)

Dang. What have you been doing? Haha

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## _Gir_ (Dec 21, 2011)

calripkenturner said:


> Eight days into the cycle....you guys think 56 gigs is too much? Hahaha


I'll know who to blame if they crush wifi tethering.


----------



## zombiebot (Sep 12, 2011)

_Gir_ said:


> I'll know who to blame if they crush wifi tethering.


+1


----------



## DrMacinyasha (Jun 6, 2011)

Seriously, what have you been doing that eats that much data in just over a week? I don't think I use that much at home, nevermind that much on my cellphone in six months.


----------



## NatemZ (Jun 13, 2011)

Don't think you will be laughing when vzw flags your account. Unless you are paying for tethering.


----------



## cdkg (Jul 1, 2011)

Keep it up. I use around 20-30 gb a month, never been an issue. As of now there is no throttling of vzw 4g devices so I say live it up!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## skaforey (Aug 1, 2011)

cdkg said:


> Keep it up. I use around 20-30 gb a month, never been an issue. As of now there is no throttling of vzw 4g devices so I say live it up!
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


It's people like him that will CAUSE vzw to throttle if they aren't already.


----------



## mKiller82 (Jun 15, 2011)

Pics or it didn't happen!

And I thought my 26 in a month was crazy usage.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## admorris (Dec 19, 2011)

skaforey said:


> It's people like him that will CAUSE vzw to throttle if they aren't already.


Yep...100% agree

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Rodeojones (Jun 13, 2011)

Holy crap. I'd be hard pressed to use that much data in a year.


----------



## NatemZ (Jun 13, 2011)

cdkg said:


> Keep it up. I use around 20-30 gb a month, never been an issue. As of now there is no throttling of vzw 4g devices so I say live it up!
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


he's on track to use 150+ gb this month. 20-30 is safe. 150? Not so much.


----------



## Barf (Sep 26, 2011)

I smell trollz


----------



## fcisco13 (Jul 26, 2011)

Now we know why they canceled unlimited data, thankx allot!

G Nexus


----------



## nunyazz (Jun 6, 2011)




----------



## Coderedpl (Nov 21, 2011)

I had like 13 last month and I thought that was a lot!


----------



## ERIFNOMI (Jun 30, 2011)

"Too much?"
Yes...


----------



## ddarvish (Jul 22, 2011)

everyone stfu... he has unlimited, he pays for unlimited, and so he can use unlimited. everyone else who says otherwise go jump off a bridge!


----------



## Getsome122 (Jun 10, 2011)

ddarvish said:


> everyone stfu... he has unlimited, he pays for unlimited, and so he can use unlimited. everyone else who says otherwise go jump off a bridge!


If he is using that just on his phone then yes I agree. If he is tethering and not paying for it then I agree with everyone else. And the only people who post a useless ass thread like this are ones who are tethering and doing it just because it gives them some sense of worth to brag that they are temporarily beating the system.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## oz0ne (Jun 19, 2011)

Getsome122 said:


> If he is using that just on his phone then yes I agree. If he is tethering and not paying for it then I agree with everyone else. And the only people who post a useless ass thread like this are ones who are tethering and doing it just because it gives them some sense of worth to brag that they are temporarily beating the system.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


This! My thoughts exactly.


----------



## calripkenturner (Feb 9, 2012)

mKiller82 said:


> Pics or it didn't happen!
> 
> And I thought my 26 in a month was crazy usage.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


I used 20 more yesterday


----------



## ERIFNOMI (Jun 30, 2011)

ddarvish said:


> everyone stfu... he has unlimited, he pays for unlimited, and so he can use unlimited. everyone else who says otherwise go jump off a bridge!


Unlimited does not mean screw everyone else out of good speeds. If he's not negatively affecting anyone else, that's fine. But I'm going guess that's not the case. When you have unlimited data on your phone, that doesn't mean unlimited data for all the devices in your house that you tether.

I hate data caps and throttling, but when people ABUSE the network, something has to be done. You have unlimited for your PHONE. I can understand occasional tethering for some web browsing on a tablet or laptop. Tethering to download movies, games, Linux distros, or whatever is just ridiculous.

Unlimited means no data caps. It doesn't mean rape the network so you can brag on internet forums.


----------



## hugapunk (Aug 17, 2011)

(Warming up my legs by running in place) In preparation for the bridge I'm about to jump off of


----------



## velocity92c (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't tether and I use a minimum of 50gb a month, even before I got my Nexus. I'm on my phone a lot, and take advantage of things like Netflix/Pandora. I also automatically backup all pictures, videos, SMS, etc in case anything ever happens to my phone. I just recently moved back into a place that has wifi so I'm sure my data usage will plummet, but to assume that anyone that uses a lot of data is tethering is asinine. If I were tethering I could easily use 500gb in a month.


----------



## yarly (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm not defending choose to abuse data, but I really don't believe bandwidth is as much of a scarcity as many people think. It's in the best interest of a company to make people think it is as they do not get more $$ when a user uses more on unlimited and also justifies when they stick caps/throttles on it. The fact that companies like at&t are now going to try to extort money out of developers to pay for bandwidth in place of the customer only makes it more apparent that the issues they had with too much data being used were mostly artificially created by them. Even the slowness of the network could be attributed to them trying to make evidence of their need to cap/throttle.

http://www.readwrite...e-is-bad-fo.php

http://www.publickno...-double-dipping

http://www.bgr.com/2...est-group-says/


----------



## ddarvish (Jul 22, 2011)

oz0ne said:


> This! My thoughts exactly.


btw you are allowed to tether on 4G. and there isn't a damn thing verizon can do about it. Just because their TOS says you can tether doesnt make that an enforcable clause. Go educate yourself on the rules and regulations of the 700MHz C block that VZW purchased for use of their LTE network during the spectrum license auctions. They can not tell you how, to use your data, or what apps or methods to use your data. NOW i would TOTALLY agree with you if this tethering was occurring over 3G where verizon can control everything


----------



## NatemZ (Jun 13, 2011)

Let's not let this thread turn ugly please. And name calling is not allowed here. Save that stuff for the playground.


----------



## oz0ne (Jun 19, 2011)

ddarvish said:


> btw you are allowed to tether on 4G. and there isn't a damn thing verizon can do about it. Just because their TOS says you can tether doesnt make that an enforcable clause. Go educate yourself on the rules and regulations of the 700MHz C block that VZW purchased for use of their LTE network during the spectrum license auctions. They can not tell you how, to use your data, or what apps or methods to use your data. NOW i would TOTALLY agree with you if this tethering was occurring over 3G where verizon can control everything


Not sure if trolling or incredibly misguided...


----------



## yarly (Jun 22, 2011)

oz0ne said:


> Not sure if trolling or incredibly misguided...


Could go either way since the FCC has yet to officially rule on what he is claiming.


----------



## ddarvish (Jul 22, 2011)

oz0ne said:


> Not sure if trolling or incredibly misguided...


bro check out my profile here on or android central or on xda. i am no troll..

so now lets back it up with some info if i must

*"Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;*

*Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;"*

and the real kicker here...
*(c)(1)... The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network. 47 CFR §27.16*


----------



## ERIFNOMI (Jun 30, 2011)

ddarvish said:


> and the real kicker here...
> *©(1)... The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network. 47 CFR §27.16*


Welcome to the bizarre would of US law. That basically means nothing until it comes up in a court and is proved one way or another. That said, it could easily be argued that "excessive bandwidth" is not the same as hogging all the bandwidth and preventing others from getting the service they pay for. You should be able to pull as much data as you can possible want right up until it prevents someone else from getting the service they paid for. You have every right to use the service that you paid for, but so does everyone else.


----------



## ddarvish (Jul 22, 2011)

ERIFNOMI said:


> Welcome to the bizarre would of US law. That basically means nothing until it comes up in a court and is proved one way or another. That said, it could easily be argued that "excessive bandwidth" is not the same as hogging all the bandwidth and preventing others from getting the service they pay for. You should be able to pull as much data as you can possible want right up until it prevents someone else from getting the service they paid for. You have every right to use the service that you paid for, but so does everyone else.


listen i totally agree with you. but lets be honest that the carriers are exaggerating their situation to get sympathy from the FCC and that also allows them to do things that ultimately increases their profits. There is plenty of bandwidth for all right now and so im not really concerned .


----------



## oz0ne (Jun 19, 2011)

ddarvish said:


> bro check out my profile here on or android central or on xda. i am no troll..
> 
> so now lets back it up with some info if i must


While I appreciate your citation and respect your opinion, that code section has been grossly misinterpreted since last year.


----------



## trapntan (Jul 16, 2011)

I don't normally participate in this discussion, as it has never ended in a resolution and therefore seems to be nothing but an endless disagreement, at least for now. Hopefully more clearly defined language will be used to define future customer agreements. I think what most people miss on this issue is the commercial side, not the legal one. This is not about laws and regulations, it's about that same thing every company runs on: supply and demand. If the speed and bandwith were available for every carrier to offer as much as every consumer wanted, they would. The cost of a product will always be the determining factor in the price. Some costs we see, some we don't.
Oil companies don't sit on billion-barrel reserves in order to jack up prices any more than the Quick-e-mart sits on a cache of Twinkies to jack up prices. If you think the carriers restrict data access for the purpose of charging people more, you're crazy. If they really could offer all the data we wanted, they would, and if that took the form of a $100/mo for truly, unrestricted data, they would do it. But if VZW or anyone else could do it for $50, or $30, they would; and take all the business from the ones charging more. Business is all about offering the consumers what they want at a price they are willing to pay. Why hold it back if you don't have to?


----------



## michianamcr (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm a truck driver, and between video & audio podcasts, netflix streaming and general data usage, I consume about 30 gigs a month. I also have a MiFi for my laptop and use about 7-8 gigs a month on it.

The first month of having my new Nexus, I used about 43 gigs including my regular usage and downloading all of my apps three times. (I was a titanium backup noob and didn't know about batch restore when I switched from stock to axiom and then to aokp),

The way that Verizon throttles data for excessive users is much different than AT&T, fortunately. AT&T will throttle everything you do everywhere after you've hit their cap. Verizon will only throttle you for the duration of time that you are on a tower or node that is being hit hard. When you move on to another tower or when high data usage at that tower has fallen off, they open your pipes up again.


----------



## yarly (Jun 22, 2011)

trapntan said:


> Why hold it back if you don't have to?


Artificial demand and scarcity = more money = higher profits = happier investors.

You can't compare intangible assets and items to a tangible resource like oil as you cannot just create more oil in any fashion that is as easy as adding a few more nodes to a network to handle traffic. That argument you made starts to border on former Senator Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" analogy with the Internet.


----------



## trapntan (Jul 16, 2011)

Artificial demand is the work of fictional evil corporations on TV and bad political shows. You can't sell the lack of a resource. In real life, companies with a product sell it to anyone who will buy it.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Xparent Blue Tapatalk


----------



## yarly (Jun 22, 2011)

Maybe for oil, but bits of data are not oil. Verizon will also happily "sell" you more data if you happen to have a cap for a very inflated price. They already convinced everyone long ago that SMS messages should cost money when they don't pay a dime to send them (thus artificial scarcity):

http://www.nytimes.c...8digi.html?_r=1

From the article:



> US wireless carriers don't want anyone to know the actual cost structure of text message services to avoid public outrage over the doubling of a-la-carte per-message fees over the last three years. The truth is that text messages are 'stowaways' inside the control channel - bandwidth that is there whether it is used for texting or not - and 160 bytes per message is a tiny amount of data to store-and-forward over tower-to-tower landlines. In essence it costs carriers practically nothing to transmit even trillions of text messages. When text usage goes up, the carriers don't even have to install new infrastructure as long as it is proportional to voice usage.


----------



## samsuck (Jul 5, 2011)

ddarvish said:


> everyone stfu... he has unlimited, he pays for unlimited, and so he can use unlimited. everyone else who says otherwise go jump off a bridge!


You obviously have never read a TOS agreement









Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## ERIFNOMI (Jun 30, 2011)

yarly said:


> Maybe for oil, but bits of data are not oil. Verizon will also happily "sell" you more data if you happen to have a cap for a very inflated price. They already convinced everyone long ago that SMS messages should cost money when they don't pay a dime to send them (thus artificial scarcity):
> 
> http://www.nytimes.c...8digi.html?_r=1
> 
> From the article:


You keep bringing up price more than congestion. As a whole, there is plenty of bandwidth for everyone. The problem is, large amounts of people demanding this data are in stuck on top of each other in (relatively) small areas. There is a limit on the amount of data a single tower can handle. For instance, my town is tiny with plenty of towers. Draw all the data you want here and no one is likely to notice. Go to New York City, and things change. It's physically impossible to get enough towers in that area to get the same ratio of people:towers as in my hometown.

And that quote is about text messages. We all know it costs virtually nothing to transmit a 160 character text. This whole message is less than a KB. When we switch to full IP networks, they'll still charge us for data, texts, and minutes. You know they will. But to them, it's all the same. I know carriers are dishonest but I don't think everything you're saying is particularly accurate or relevant.


----------



## yarly (Jun 22, 2011)

ERIFNOMI said:


> You keep bringing up price more than congestion. As a whole, there is plenty of bandwidth for everyone. The problem is, large amounts of people demanding this data are in stuck on top of each other in (relatively) small areas. There is a limit on the amount of data a single tower can handle. For instance, my town is tiny with plenty of towers. Draw all the data you want here and no one is likely to notice. Go to New York City, and things change. It's physically impossible to get enough towers in that area to get the same ratio of people:towers as in my hometown.
> 
> And that quote is about text messages. We all know it costs virtually nothing to transmit a 160 character text. This whole message is less than a KB. When we switch to full IP networks, they'll still charge us for data, texts, and minutes. You know they will. But to them, it's all the same. I know carriers are dishonest but I don't think everything you're saying is particularly accurate or relevant.


Well yeah, I don't think everything I say always applies to every case and it can't really be proven anymore than the counterpoint as the whole debate is just another argument from ignorance as we don't have all the facts and probably never will unless it goes to court. It's also why the issue keeps getting dragged up on nearly every Android subforum every month or so.


----------



## ERIFNOMI (Jun 30, 2011)

yarly said:


> Well yeah, I don't think everything I say always applies to every case and it can't really be proven anymore than the counterpoint as the whole debate is just another argument from ignorance as we don't have all the facts and probably never will unless it goes to court. It's also why the issue keeps getting dragged up on nearly every Android subforum every month or so.


The only thing we've established through this whole argument is that this guy likes to flaunt the fact that he has unlimited data by racking up as much usage as he can. It's ridiculous. Whether or not it causes issues or a significant loss for Verizon doesn't change the fact that people abusing their unlimited data is one of the reasons we no longer have unlimited data.

A little disclaimer: I have unlimited data. I will keep it for as long as possible because I believe we should have unlimited data and the prices they charge for going over your limit are ludicrous. Last month I used around 256MB. I don't have LTE in my area but even if I did, I'm at home a lot where I have WiFi and I'd rather be on that then LTE for numerous reasons.


----------



## calripkenturner (Feb 9, 2012)

I don't like to "flaunt" my data usage. I don't have wifi at my house. I do have unlimited data and I use it. I pay for it so I'll use it. I posted that because I thought it was amusing that I used that much data and had no idea. I normally don't use that much but downloaded a few seasons of a T.V. show....that I also payed for on Amazon.


----------



## WhataSpaz (Feb 20, 2012)

calripkenturner said:


> I don't like to "flaunt" my data usage. I don't have wifi at my house. I do have unlimited data and I use it. I pay for it so I'll use it. I posted that because I thought it was amusing that I used that much data and had no idea. I normally don't use that much but downloaded a few seasons of a T.V. show....that I also payed for on Amazon.


No worries if you're on 4G...I don't think it's being throttled on any network


----------



## michianamcr (Jan 6, 2012)

trapntan said:


> Oil companies don't sit on billion-barrel reserves in order to jack up prices any more than the Quick-e-mart sits on a cache of Twinkies to jack up prices. If you think the carriers restrict data access for the purpose of charging people more, you're crazy. If they really could offer all the data we wanted, they would, and if that took the form of a $100/mo for truly, unrestricted data, they would do it. But if VZW or anyone else could do it for $50, or $30, they would; and take all the business from the ones charging more. Business is all about offering the consumers what they want at a price they are willing to pay. Why hold it back if you don't have to?


In the purpose of clarifying facts, controlling the amount of oil produced by the dozen participating countries to stabilize and control the price is the purpose of OPEC. That is what their publicly stated purpose is. All of the member countries agree to abide by the production limits set by OPEC, so that all of the members gain the advantage of controlled prices and no individual member can greatly overproduce and lower the overall prices.

I don't know if any of us can truly know what the capabilities and limits of the networks are, except for employees directly involved in oversight of the networks. To imply that the companies would want to give unfettered access to their resources at the lowest price is incompatible with the responsibilities of a publicly traded company. Their primary responsibility is to the shareholders to maximize profits, which involves keeping customers reasonably happy and a demand for their products. Historically, when a business has undercut it's competition it has been for the purpose of building a customer base as a newer company or in an effort to subvert the competition and attempt to eliminate them. Also historically, after these two temporary undercutting operations, their prices are generally on par with previous levels or, after the elimination of competition, been drastically higher.

The purpose of a business is to make money. For-profit businesses are rarely altruistic.


----------

