Does heavy 3G data use account for dropped calls or poor reception?
What is AT&T going to spend $17 billion on? More 850Mhz towers?
Upgrading existing tower/base station sites? More backhaul bandwidth?
And $17 billion to upgrade existing 3G (HSDPA?) infrastructure? Weren't
they going to deploy LTE soon?
So if iPhone users on average use 5 times more data than other
smartphone users, would making iPhone available on other carriers
alleviate that? Well it might lead to price competition and a tiered
pricing scheme which might result in lower monthly costs could make one
carrier more attractive than another.
Article is right though that adding more capacity just encourages more
use -- induced traffic -- so the congestion problem returns.
poldy wrote:
> http://www.slate.com/id/2231646/
>
> Does heavy 3G data use account for dropped calls or poor reception?
>
> What is AT&T going to spend $17 billion on? More 850Mhz towers?
> Upgrading existing tower/base station sites? More backhaul bandwidth?
>
> And $17 billion to upgrade existing 3G (HSDPA?) infrastructure? Weren't
> they going to deploy LTE soon?
>
> So if iPhone users on average use 5 times more data than other
> smartphone users, would making iPhone available on other carriers
> alleviate that? Well it might lead to price competition and a tiered
> pricing scheme which might result in lower monthly costs could make one
> carrier more attractive than another.
>
> Article is right though that adding more capacity just encourages more
> use -- induced traffic -- so the congestion problem returns.
What's more likely to happen is that other smart phones, Android and
Windows Mobile based, will be offered by other carriers and will begin
to equalize the 3G usage among all four carriers, rather than the way it
is now with one carrier, with one extremely popular device, being bogged
down. The new HTC Touch Pro 2 is a great product (works on Verizon's far
better 3G network with much greater coverage as well as European and
Asian GSM and W-CDMA networks), but HTC doesn't have a clue as to how to
market it so it will likely fail like other HTC products.
Android has the most potential, especially in terms of creating a base
of new applications that can compete against the Apple Apps store. The
Apps store was a brilliant marketing move that Android will have to
duplicate, and Google has the resources to do something similar. With
WinMo and Palm there were thousands of applications, but finding them
and buying them was a pain in the butt, and the developers were pricing
them based on the expectation of low volume sales.
The Gartner analyst recently evaluated the smart phone market three
years from now. Symbian will be #1, Android #2, iPhone #3, Windows
Mobile #4, and Blackberry #5.
Apple has probably locked up most of the iPhone users for life; they
aren't going to switch to a different platform unless there's a very
good reason to do so, so they'll struggle along on AT&T's network until
the iPhone LTE that works on multiple networks is introduced.
In article <poldy-438C5E.08443808102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote:
> Does heavy 3G data use account for dropped calls or poor reception?
No. Data does not use channels set aside for voice.
> Article is right though that adding more capacity just encourages more
> use -- induced traffic -- so the congestion problem returns.
Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
If people need to use more data, then capacity should be increased.
Otherwise, why don't we just go back to dialup modems and be done with
it?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
John Higdon wrote:
> In article <poldy-438C5E.08443808102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
> poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote:
>
>> Does heavy 3G data use account for dropped calls or poor reception?
>
> No. Data does not use channels set aside for voice.
But voice is still carried on 3G if you have a 3G handset. Is there any
way of forcing a 3G handset to drop back from W-CDMA to GSM for voice?
Maybe the solution to problems with voice by 3G users is to use a non-3G
handset for voice so they aren't competing with iPhone 3G/3Gs users.
It'd be interesting to compare the dropped call experience of iPhone
3G/3Gs users to that of original iPhone users that aren't on 3G.
> Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
> infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
> building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
> roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
It's always amusing to see a new freeway open, immediately become
gridlocked, and then see the anti-car people proclaim "see, we built a
new freeway and we still have gridlock, that proves we didn't need it."
When 85 was completed, yes it quickly became gridlocked, but much of the
traffic was removed from city streets. OTOH there is some truth to the
idea that additional capacity spurs additional suburban housing growth
that would otherwise not occur because without adequate transportation
no one would buy the properties.
> If people need to use more data, then capacity should be increased.
> Otherwise, why don't we just go back to dialup modems and be done with
> it?
I know one person that would be thrilled if dial-up came back because he
knew a lot about it, and he's been unable to keep up with newer
technologies.
In article <4ace2cb1$0$1628$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> When 85 was completed, yes it quickly became gridlocked, but much of the
> traffic was removed from city streets. OTOH there is some truth to the
> idea that additional capacity spurs additional suburban housing growth
> that would otherwise not occur because without adequate transportation
> no one would buy the properties.
Adding one lane to the San Mateo bridge literally transformed the route
from a living joke to something that actually works.
Also, your point is well-taken. Traffic migrates to the easiest, fastest
route. Opening up more capacity on wireless routes, will result in
people using them instead of banging around looking for a usable WiFi
connection, or just waiting until getting back into the office.
> I know one person that would be thrilled if dial-up came back because he
> knew a lot about it, and he's been unable to keep up with newer
> technologies.
Almost like those (who post here, even) who are locked in time,
proclaiming that people don't "need" so much bandwidth.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
On 2009-10-08, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I know one person that would be thrilled if dial-up came back because he
> knew a lot about it, and he's been unable to keep up with newer
> technologies.
2400bps ought to be enough for anybody? ;-)
--keith
-- kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
In article <higgy-460B2F.10503808102009@news.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
> infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
> building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
> roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
"Attempting to reduce highway congestion by adding more lanes
is exactly like attempting to solve your overweight problems by
buying larger size clothing"
[My son, the traffic engineer and livable community planner.]
In article <4ace2cb1$0$1628$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> OTOH there is some truth to the
> idea that additional capacity spurs additional suburban housing growth
> that would otherwise not occur because without adequate transportation
> no one would buy the properties.
It's much worse than that: It delays people, and governments, from
facing up to the unpopular but ultimately essential changes in zoning,
community planning, and real-cost pricing, and the unpopular but
ultimately essential investments in community facilities and real rapid
transit, that will ultimately make _everyone's_ lives actually better,
and cheaper.
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:18:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ace2cb1$0$1628$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>John Higdon wrote:
>> No. Data does not use channels set aside for voice.
>
>But voice is still carried on 3G if you have a 3G handset. Is there any
>way of forcing a 3G handset to drop back from W-CDMA to GSM for voice?
Meaningless and irrelevant -- learn how 3G works.
>> If people need to use more data, then capacity should be increased.
>> Otherwise, why don't we just go back to dialup modems and be done with
>> it?
>
>I know one person that would be thrilled if dial-up came back because he
>knew a lot about it, and he's been unable to keep up with newer
>technologies.
You must be looking in a mirror.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
In article <siegman-899C8C.12084408102009@news.stanford.edu>,
AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> "Attempting to reduce highway congestion by adding more lanes
> is exactly like attempting to solve your overweight problems by
> buying larger size clothing"
Well, I guess you can stay in your house until be get back to the
"right" size, or you can buy new clothes so you can get to work. We can
have cars sitting in traffic, polluting the air for yet another fifty
years while we *talk* about how there are better alternatives, or we can
fix the immediate problem and at least enjoy a better quality of life.
> [My son, the traffic engineer and livable community planner.]
I prefer to plan my own living arrangements, thank you.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
AES wrote:
> In article <higgy-460B2F.10503808102009@news.announcetech.com>,
> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
>> infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
>> building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
>> roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
>
>
> "Attempting to reduce highway congestion by adding more lanes
> is exactly like attempting to solve your overweight problems by
> buying larger size clothing"
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:55:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ace5187$0$1603$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>AES wrote:
>> In article <higgy-460B2F.10503808102009@news.announcetech.com>,
>> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
>>> infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
>>> building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
>>> roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
>>
>> "Attempting to reduce highway congestion by adding more lanes
>> is exactly like attempting to solve your overweight problems by
>> buying larger size clothing"
>
>It's actually nothing like it at all.
On the contrary (as usual) -- unlike wired (fiber) spectrum, wireless
spectrum is finite.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:53:43 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-70ABB8.12534208102009@news.announcetech.com>:
>In article <siegman-899C8C.12084408102009@news.stanford.edu>,
> AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Attempting to reduce highway congestion by adding more lanes
>> is exactly like attempting to solve your overweight problems by
>> buying larger size clothing"
>
>Well, I guess you can stay in your house until be get back to the
>"right" size, or you can buy new clothes so you can get to work. We can
>have cars sitting in traffic, polluting the air for yet another fifty
>years while we *talk* about how there are better alternatives, or we can
>fix the immediate problem and at least enjoy a better quality of life.
Tesla
Hypercar
--
Best regards,
John Navas "We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo
>On the contrary (as usual) -- unlike wired (fiber) spectrum, wireless
>spectrum is finite.
I suppose both are finite, but you can arbitrarily increase the
capacity of a given amount of wireless specturm by going to
smaller and smaller femtocells.
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:37:23 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve
Pope) wrote in <halpj3$4fl$1@blue.rahul.net>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On the contrary (as usual) -- unlike wired (fiber) spectrum, wireless
>>spectrum is finite.
>
>I suppose both are finite, but you can arbitrarily increase the
>capacity of a given amount of wireless specturm by going to
>smaller and smaller femtocells.
Current technology and the Law of Diminishing Returns quickly make that
impractical. The differences are orders of magnitude. Fiber capacity
is essentially unlimited (for the foreseeable future at least).
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
> I suppose both are finite, but you can arbitrarily increase the
> capacity of a given amount of wireless specturm by going to
> smaller and smaller femtocells.
Indeed. Look what individuals (ordinary users) are able to do with two
tiny slices of spectrum. The amount of spectrum space allocated to WiFi
is microscopic, yet WiFi is one of the most popular uses of the RF
spectrum for the transport of data.
Imagine if the huge swaths of spectrum held by the so-called wireless
companies, who sell it to us by the byte and by the minute, were instead
made public just like 2.4 and 5.6 GHz! Can you imagine a mesh of truly
open data that covered the nation over which you could put just about
anything you could possibly conjure?
I remember back in the mid-eighties and how the 600 phone channels used
by AMPS would be all that we would ever need. That's the same sort of
nonsense, only on a different scale, that we are being fed today. As
someone who's livelihood is involved working with the RF spectrum, let
me tell you that if anyone suggests that we have done anything other
than scratch the surface of the capabilities of wireless, you can
classify him as an ignoramus.
The RF spectrum is a lot more capable than what we see of the little
teensy pieces we use from companies who charge us an arm and a leg for a
sniff. Putting a halt to the auction of spectrum space to the
conglomerates who vacuum our pockets is a good first step to seeing some
of that capability.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:34:24 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-C39C1E.17341708102009@news.announcetech.com>:
>The RF spectrum is a lot more capable than what we see of the little
>teensy pieces we use from companies who charge us an arm and a leg for a
>sniff.
True in the case of ham radio, the military, AM and FM radio, and analog
TV, but not of current technologies like UMTS, which make very efficient
use of the available spectrum.
>Putting a halt to the auction of spectrum space to the
>conglomerates who vacuum our pockets is a good first step to seeing some
>of that capability.
Just the opposite, as in the case of ham radio -- spectrum auctions are
an efficient market mechanism for insuring highest value use.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
"John Higdon" <higgy@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-C39C1E.17341708102009@news.announcetech.com...
> I remember back in the mid-eighties and how the 600 phone channels used
> by AMPS would be all that we would ever need...
It would've been if airtime was still $1.25/minute!
In article <higgy-460B2F.10503808102009@news.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> > Article is right though that adding more capacity just encourages more
> > use -- induced traffic -- so the congestion problem returns.
>
> Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
> infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
> building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
> roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
>> I suppose both are finite, but you can arbitrarily increase the
>> capacity of a given amount of wireless specturm by going to
>> smaller and smaller femtocells.
>Indeed. Look what individuals (ordinary users) are able to do with two
>tiny slices of spectrum. The amount of spectrum space allocated to WiFi
>is microscopic, yet WiFi is one of the most popular uses of the RF
>spectrum for the transport of data.
I had no idea when I wrote the above that this exact subject
was hitting the newswires:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 03:46:15 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve
Pope) wrote in <hambm7$9t1$1@blue.rahul.net>:
>John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>
>> spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>> I suppose both are finite, but you can arbitrarily increase the
>>> capacity of a given amount of wireless specturm by going to
>>> smaller and smaller femtocells.
>
>>Indeed. Look what individuals (ordinary users) are able to do with two
>>tiny slices of spectrum. The amount of spectrum space allocated to WiFi
>>is microscopic, yet WiFi is one of the most popular uses of the RF
>>spectrum for the transport of data.
>
>I had no idea when I wrote the above that this exact subject
>was hitting the newswires:
>
>http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...comm_says.html
"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
radio spectrum more efficiently..."
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 03:46:15 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve
> Pope) wrote in <hambm7$9t1$1@blue.rahul.net>:
>
>> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>>> I suppose both are finite, but you can arbitrarily increase the
>>>> capacity of a given amount of wireless specturm by going to
>>>> smaller and smaller femtocells.
>>> Indeed. Look what individuals (ordinary users) are able to do with two
>>> tiny slices of spectrum. The amount of spectrum space allocated to WiFi
>>> is microscopic, yet WiFi is one of the most popular uses of the RF
>>> spectrum for the transport of data.
>> I had no idea when I wrote the above that this exact subject
>> was hitting the newswires:
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...comm_says.html
>
> "The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
> radio spectrum more efficiently..."
>
The complete quote is
"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
radio spectrum more efficiently and needs to move on to making networks
more dense through tools such as femtocells, the cofounder and the
current CEO of Qualcomm said Thursday."
>The complete quote is
>
>"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
>radio spectrum more efficiently and needs to move on to making networks
>more dense through tools such as femtocells, the cofounder and the
>current CEO of Qualcomm said Thursday."
> Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>
> >The complete quote is
> >
> >"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
> >radio spectrum more efficiently and needs to move on to making networks
> >more dense through tools such as femtocells, the cofounder and the
> >current CEO of Qualcomm said Thursday."
>
> Thank you, Roy. ;-)
>
> Steve
'Only Six computers will ever be sold in the commercial market'
Howard Aiken (The designer of the first IBM computer)
This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as
a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
Western Union internal memo (1876)
I think there's a world market for maybe five computers.
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM (1943)
It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two
or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying
machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
Thomas Edison (1895)
We'll see a few years down the road if Mr. Jacob's quote belongs with
this group.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:50:55 -0700, Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>The complete quote is
>
>"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
>radio spectrum more efficiently and needs to move on to making networks
>more dense through tools such as femtocells, the cofounder and the
>current CEO of Qualcomm said Thursday."
and, analyst Jack Gold sez... "Technology alone won't get us out of
the looming problem we've got. Femtocells are one possible solution,
but if everyone uses femtocells that can carry data, that will put a
lot more traffic on DSL (digital subscriber line) and cable modem
networks. The networks behind those wired services, both of which use
shared capacity at some point behind the customer's modem, are already
strained in some cases."
> >"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
> >radio spectrum more efficiently and needs to move on to making networks
> >more dense through tools such as femtocells, the cofounder and the
> >current CEO of Qualcomm said Thursday."
>
> Thank you, Roy. ;-)
Qualcomm certainly has no investment of maintaining the status quo of
selling spectrum by the byte. I'll certainly want to hear what they have
to say! :-)
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
In article <poldy-ECF3AF.20100208102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
poldy <poldy@kfu.com> wrote:
> In article <higgy-460B2F.10503808102009@news.announcetech.com>,
> John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>
> > > Article is right though that adding more capacity just encourages more
> > > use -- induced traffic -- so the congestion problem returns.
> >
> > Do you feel that data traffic should be arbitrarily limited by squeezing
> > infrastructure capacity? The anti-car people use this argument against
> > building and improving highways, as if cars reproduce and occupy the
> > roadways independent of the needs of their owners.
>
> No just saying it's not a panacea.
Nothing is a "panacea". I'm for blowing up the entire way we handle
wireless data and starting over. What we've got right now is the most
inefficient mess possible. I'd start by giving the spectrum back to the
people from whence it came.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
In article <AOwzm.12540$QG1.2068@newsfe23.iad>,
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> "John Higdon" <higgy@kome.com> wrote in message
> news:higgy-C39C1E.17341708102009@news.announcetech.com...
> > I remember back in the mid-eighties and how the 600 phone channels used
> > by AMPS would be all that we would ever need...
>
> It would've been if airtime was still $1.25/minute!
I would have thought that by now, we would have been looking back at
phone calls charged by the minute and data charged by the byte and
depending upon its use the same way we look at horse-drawn carriages.
The day is coming despite the desperate thrashing about by conglomerates
who deep down realize that the structure is on its way out.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:56:28 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-9A2BE3.00561909102009@news.announcetech.com>:
>In article <AOwzm.12540$QG1.2068@newsfe23.iad>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Higdon" <higgy@kome.com> wrote in message
>> news:higgy-C39C1E.17341708102009@news.announcetech.com...
>> > I remember back in the mid-eighties and how the 600 phone channels used
>> > by AMPS would be all that we would ever need...
>>
>> It would've been if airtime was still $1.25/minute!
>
>I would have thought that by now, we would have been looking back at
>phone calls charged by the minute and data charged by the byte and
>depending upon its use the same way we look at horse-drawn carriages.
>
>The day is coming despite the desperate thrashing about by conglomerates
>who deep down realize that the structure is on its way out.
I seriously doubt it -- the apparent trend is away from all-you-can-eat
("unlimited") pricing and toward tiered pricing, which makes much more
economic sense, since that way heavy (ab)users aren't subsidized by
everyone else.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:50:55 -0700, Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
<4ACECF3F.3010101@aa4re.ampr.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 03:46:15 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve
>> Pope) wrote in <hambm7$9t1$1@blue.rahul.net>:
>>> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...comm_says.html
>>
>> "The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
>> radio spectrum more efficiently..."
>
>The complete quote is
>
>"The wireless industry has reached the limits of what it can do to use
>radio spectrum more efficiently and needs to move on to making networks
>more dense through tools such as femtocells, the cofounder and the
>current CEO of Qualcomm said Thursday."
Which means the mobile wireless has run out of capacity, and now must
turn to desperate measures to stay ahead of demand.
I guess you missed the "such as" part. Femtocels aren't a solution to
typical cellular coverage issues -- they're only useful for spot indoor
coverage like a home or business, and haven't been shown to be practical
even for those applications due to issues like severe interference,
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Tiered pricing for mobile data? 
Linear Mode
