At 06 May 2011 23:38:57 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 5/6/2011 10:02 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Actually the study wasn't similar at all. Unlike Cisco's, it didn't
> > breakdown usage by type of smartphone, so all of those 50-100MB
> > Blackberries are bringing down the average. At least Cisco separated
> > smartphones by OS. It's more than a little disingenuous to point at a
> > bunch if potential iPhone and Android users and say "65% of data users
> > manage to stay under 200MB" when the average user of those devices use
> > 1.5-2x that, depending on whose study you believe.
>
> Yes, The Cisco study (which appeared to be the most extensive) had
> slightly lower estimates than some other studies, but _none_ of the
> studies differed by anything close to an order of magnitude.


True, but the Cisco study was worldwide, where the others were US based.
It's possible that we Americans simply use more data on average.

More importantly for this discussion, you applied Cisco's data as "proof"
that the average user, by leveraging WiFi, could get by with a 100MB data
plan. Using Cisco's numbers (for both data use and home/workWiFi
availability) the average Android user was already uncomfortably close to
exceeding the bucket. Using the slightly higher numbers from the other
studies, the margin is even thinner or already blown.

> The
> designers of the Cisco study at least had the forethought to look at
> not only the amount of data being used on each platform, but _where_
> that data was being used. That data is of great importance to carriers
> trying to craft pricing and distribution schemes.

How lucky!

I can never tell when your joking. You do realize the point of the study
was to sell carriers on the idea of offloading the bulk off their
wireless data to carrier-owned/subsidized WiFi networks hopefully sold by
Cisco, right? (Much like T-Mobile attempted to do a few years ago with
their WiFi Hotspot network AT&T eventually acquired, except that T-
Mobile's impetus was offering customers more speed, rather than reducing
network load, since T-Mo had no 3G to compete with the other carriers at
the time.)