Navigation
Advertisement

Entries in AT&T (3)

Wednesday
Jul282010

AT&T FastAccess DSL vs. Comcast High-Speed Internet

If you want high-speed Internet for your home or business in the Atlanta area, there are basically two major players--AT&T and Comcast. Sure, if you're lucky enough to live in the right area, you might get by with and 4G cellular connection or even 3G alone, but those options are best for lite or individual users.

So what are the pros and cons of each service? AT&T's entry level services start pretty cheap at about $20. Even at the high-end the service is still less than $50. And my experience has been that FastAccess DSL is both consistent and reliable. The reliability means that you'll have nearly 100% uptime and that your Internet access won't be affected by storms and the like. If your POTS phone is operative, your DSL likely will be too. And the consistency means that you can expect to get roughly the same speeds from your service around the clock regardless of what your neighbors are doing online at the time.

On the other hand, Comcast High-Speed Internet is wicked fast. It may be the fastest Internet service that I've ever personally used, commercial or residential. By eliminating several analog television channels (which has it's own drawbacks) Comcast has been able to free up bandwidth for more digital and high-definition channels. They've also been able to increase their top tier speeds to an advertised 50 Mbps downstream and 10 Mbps upstream using DOCSIS 3.0. They have branded this service xfinity.

Using speedtest.net, I was able to clock xfinity downloads at over 61 Mbps down, although I only got about 4.6 Mbps up.  Of course this is still an order of magnitude faster than the same test on FastAccess DSL which got 5.74 down and 0.43 up. Interestingly, the two services were far more even on pingtest.net, with both having ping times of around 25 ms and jitter in the 10 ms range. Again, the DSL scores showed far less variance than the cable scores.

So what's the downside of xfinity? Well, for starters it's expensive. Outside of the introductory rate, the top tier service will cost you $90-$100 per month. And with 100 Mbps downstream in the works, that top tier will only get more expensive (though I suspect very few people will need it). Also, the cable Internet service was not quite as reliable as the DSL connection. Not only do the speeds vary a lot above and below what's advertised, but the connection drops during the day for a few minutes at a time. It's a minor nuisance depending on what you're doing at the time, but it seems that it is a common occurrence among cable modem users.

Finally, Comcast has a fixed bandwidth cap of 250 MB per month regardless of which plan you use. That may be fine when you're surfing along the Internet at 8 Mbps, but at 60+ Mbps it's possible to eat up 250 GB in about a week of consistent use. Telling people that their limits don't increase with their speeds is like telling a 16-year-old that you're upgrading him from a bicycle to a car but that he can still only ride around the neighborhood. In contrast, AT&T has no monthly limit that I've seen. I suspect that AT&T's infrastructure is less prone to one heavy user consuming all the bandwidth.

Comcast gave me a call and warned me that my use was excessive this past month and that another infraction could get my service terminated. Now I'll have to decide whether to upgrade to a more expensive business class service which has no caps but includes a number of extras that I'm not interested in or to just downgrade to a slower speed or DSL. Admittedly, I think it would be hard to leave sustained speeds that are 10x what I've been accustomed to, but unless Comcast realizes that 250 GB was an adequate cap back in 2007 but now needs updating, I may have little choice but to go back to DOCSIS 2 or DSL.

Thursday
Feb042010

Google Voice Web App for iPhone

After the dustup between AT&T, Apple, and Google over the rejection of an official Google Voice app for the iPhone, there was little reason to hope that such an app would ever appear on the iPhone. Even an investigation by the FCC didn't change Apple's position, and it even led them to remove all the unofficial Google Voice apps from the app store. So what did an undeterred Google do? They wrote a web app.

Ironically, before Apple created an SDK an officially allowed applications to run on their iPhone and iPod, they tried to convince developers that the way to get their content on the iPhone was through the web browser. Needless to say, back in 2007 that idea flew about as high as a lead balloon, but Google returned to that approach to create their Google Voice client for the iPhone. As a result, there was no submission needed and nothing for Apple or AT&T to reject.

The "app" in this case is accessed by directing the Safari mobile web browser to the appropriate web site.  At this point, Google's HTML 5 code takes over and presents a screen that is virtually indistinguishable from an app running natively on the system.  It is intuitive and responsive, and save for the Safari toolbar at the bottom, it occupies the whole screen.  If you pull down on the screen, you will see the browser URL bar at the top, but other than that, the illusion is nigh flawless.

Google Voice has all the features you've come to know and love with sections for your Inbox, your contact list, your text messages, and your calls.  Interestingly, the calls are handled differently from the way they are when using GV on a computer.  Instead of having GV ring a designated phone number and then connect you to the party you requested, you will receive a prompt asking for permission to have your phone dial a Google designated number.  Say yes, and your phone will dial and from there you will be connected to the requested party.  Some people have complained about having Google's numbers appearing in their call log or on their phone bills, but it isn't a problem from my perspective.  In fact, some people may even appreciate the added privacy.

Google's solution to this problem works so well that it begs the question of whether Apple wasn't right to suggest that web apps were the way to go. And for those companies who have had apps rejected, is HTML 5 the solution? I suspect that while there may be some apps that could find improved life as web apps, that approach presents its own hurdles.  First, it requires the expertise to write such an app using web techniques. After an investment in learning Objective-C, this might be prohibitive. Then it needs to be hosted somewhere, meaning bandwidth will be a cost. Finally, it will probably be harder to monetize. Sure you can present advertisements, but you probably won't be able to collect an up-front payment as easily as selling through the App Store. These obstacles might be easy enough for a behemoth like Google to overcome, but they could be prohibitive for a smaller developer. And I doubt that apps like games would translate very well to a web format, but a proficient coder could prove me wrong there.

In the meantime, I have not only bookmarked the Google Voice web page, but I have added an icon for the bookmark to my home screen.  So now not only does the web app feel like a native app, but it gets executed like one too. I can't recommend this one highly enough.

Thursday
Oct292009

My Problem With Cellular Providers

Remember when the typical cellular phone advertisement showed a woman with a small child near a broken down car on a dark highway?  Cell phone in hand, she would call a tow truck and be on her way.  The message--don't let this be you or your wife/mother stuck out here on the road without a cell phone for emergencies.

Back in that time, expansion was easy for the cellular providers.  All they had to do was set up a few kiosks in the mall or a local retailer and wait for people to approach and sign up for new service.  Contracts were typically one year long, and growth was simply made by adding new subscribers.

Fast forward to today, and the situation couldn't be more different.  The two-year contract is the new industry standard.  Today's cellular phone advertisements often tout the GPS or data access capabilities of modern smartphones.  Many seem to have little to do with the cellular phone at all.  But now that the market for cellular phone subscribers has been saturated, the way to expansion has been to add more services.  The big four cellular providers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile) all offer a bevy of services outside of traditional voice communications--email, web browsing, GPS, apps, and more.  In the US, text messaging has taken off driven largely by a young audience who use it as a cheaper, unlimited alternative to the constraints created by the limits on voice minutes in most plans.  The reaction of the cell companies to the popularity of text messaging?  They increased the average cost of text messages fourfold over two years.

Today's cellular phone plans are a complex mishmash of rate plans and options that are too complicated for most consumers to understand.  And the cell companies are in no rush to change that since it creates a good chance that you'll end up spending more on your service than necessary.  To add insult to injury, certain changes will automatically trigger increases to your plan, but the reverse is not true.  For example, if you go from a feature phone to a smartphone, your provider will automatically add a data option to your rate plan with no intervention required on your part.  Trade from that smartphone back to a feature phone, however, and there will be no decrease in your plan unless you request to have the data option removed.

Several years ago, the transition from digital cell phones to GSM was supposed to change the way we managed information on our phones.  Rather than losing our contacts and calendars every time we changed phones, we would store that information on SIM cards that switched between phones.  We would be able to switch phones without switching numbers, a common problem at that time.  But the cellular companies locked their phones to their networks, rendering them useless with SIM cards from another provider.  The claim was that they did it to enforce the contracts on the subsidized phones that were sold well below cost.  But even after the contract terms have been fulfilled, the Big Three still will not provide the codes required to unlock the phone, nor do they reduce the monthly service rates which are supposed to include the cost of the subsidy after the phone has been paid.  It was only after the threat of government intervention that they put the fee for early contract termination on a sliding scale; previously it cost just as much to end your contract after one month as it did after twenty-three months.

Finally, the rate plans themselves have crept up over the years, and when the prices haven't increased, the number of minutes allowed with each plans has decreased.  As indicated earlier, text messaging has gone up from five cents to twenty or more.  And other options like data, GPS, or calling circles can easily add $20 or $30 a pop to the base plan.  But more insidious than the increases in the rate plans are the increases to the supplementary fees that all providers charge.  For example, every cellular service provider has a rate plan of $59.99.  But after government-mandated taxes and provider-instituted fees, such a plan would probably cost well over $70 in practice.  In a four-way horse race for subscribers, nobody wants to step out of line and advertise a plan costing $62.49 when everyone else's is $59.99, so they hold the base rate the same and add the increase to the "regulatory fees" that are only revealed after the consumer receives a bill.

The cellular service providers should be made to abide by the following rules:

  • They should be required to provide the unlock codes for any phone that is not under contract.
  • They should discount the rate plan for those who are not under contract to reflect the end of the "subsidy."
  • There should be no additional fees in the bill besides those required by the government.  Any provider-generated fees should be folded in to the main rate plan.
  • They should automatically remove options that are not applicable to a particular user's situation.
Of course, I know that this is all a long shot (particularly that last point).  Cellular providers continue to lobby against any additional regulation, and the FCC has been slow to intervene for fear of triggering even higher costs to consumers.  Still, a guy can dream, right?