Computerworld Article on Tiered versus Unlimited Data Plans--TieredMay be Coming to Verizon this Summer According to CFO

<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215468/Data_caps_How_long_can_Verizon_Sprint_offer_unlimi ted_plans_?taxonomyId=16>

"Many smartphone users might respond to data caps (and threats of data
throttling) by resorting to heavy media downloads over their fast
Ethernet-based networks while at work or working at home over a
connection with fiber optic, DSL or cable modem. A smartphone on a home
Wi-Fi network connected to DSL or cable modem would only be governed by
the data limits, if any, of those wired services."

Of course if they would do this even without caps and throttling, the
carriers would not have to impose caps and throttling!

Maybe the carriers should try a carrot instead of a stick. Offer a
rebate for every GB under x GB used per month. Put limits on data but
offer "rollover."

SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:48:24 -0700]:
> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215468/Data_caps_How_long_can_Verizon_Sprint_offer_unlimi ted_plans_?taxonomyId=16>
>
> "Many smartphone users might respond to data caps (and threats of data
> throttling) by resorting to heavy media downloads over their fast
> Ethernet-based networks while at work or working at home over a
> connection with fiber optic, DSL or cable modem. A smartphone on a home
> Wi-Fi network connected to DSL or cable modem would only be governed by
> the data limits, if any, of those wired services."

if any? AT&T is imposing caps, Time warner has caps, Comcast has caps

On 4/13/2011 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:48:24 -0700]:
>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215468/Data_caps_How_long_can_Verizon_Sprint_offer_unlimi ted_plans_?taxonomyId=16>
>>
>> "Many smartphone users might respond to data caps (and threats of data
>> throttling) by resorting to heavy media downloads over their fast
>> Ethernet-based networks while at work or working at home over a
>> connection with fiber optic, DSL or cable modem. A smartphone on a home
>> Wi-Fi network connected to DSL or cable modem would only be governed by
>> the data limits, if any, of those wired services."
>
> if any? AT&T is imposing caps, Time warner has caps, Comcast has caps

That's true. But the reason for those caps is not because of network
capacity, it's that these companies want to sell customers TV service,
not have them use DSL or cable for downloading video instead of paying
big bucks for television services.

Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

<http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/03/23/drilling-through-the-caps/>.

It's an interesting article, especially the part about what Bell Canada
is proposing; the quote by their CEO is priceless: “…as we see a growth
in video usage on the internet, making sure we’re monetizing that for
our shareholders through the bandwidth usage charges.”

SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:12:20 -0700]:
> On 4/13/2011 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
>
> Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
> that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
> expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.

We are about one block away from being within the local Fibre network
that would be faster and cheaper and better TV selection than the comcast
service have

On 4/13/2011 12:16 PM, Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:12:20 -0700]:
>> On 4/13/2011 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
>>
>> Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
>> that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
>> expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.
>
> Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.
>
> We are about one block away from being within the local Fibre network
> that would be faster and cheaper and better TV selection than the comcast
> service have


So the wireless Data Hog won't move in range of fiber? With all you're
saving?

On 4/13/2011 9:16 AM, Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:12:20 -0700]:
>> On 4/13/2011 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
>>
>> Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
>> that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
>> expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.
>
> Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.

Depends how far you are from the c.o.. My ISP offers DSL at up to 20
mbps for $40/month (including landline phone service with unlimited LD)
or up to 40 mps for $70 a month (w/landline). The faster speed DSL is
"bonded" using two pairs.

The single line service is equivalent to Comcast's "Blast" service at
$69 per month (without phone service), and the bonded service is
comparable to Comcast's Extreme 50 service at $115 per month.

Of course you could be far from the c.o. and get slower speeds on DSL.
For me, the comparable (in terms of speed) Comcast service would be
their $50/month "Performance Starter" level package.

SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:38:15 -0700]:
> On 4/13/2011 9:16 AM, Justin wrote:
>> SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:12:20 -0700]:
>>> On 4/13/2011 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
>>>
>>> Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
>>> that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
>>> expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.
>>
>> Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.
>
> Depends how far you are from the c.o.. My ISP offers DSL at up to 20
> mbps for $40/month (including landline phone service with unlimited LD)
> or up to 40 mps for $70 a month (w/landline). The faster speed DSL is
> "bonded" using two pairs.
>
> The single line service is equivalent to Comcast's "Blast" service at
> $69 per month (without phone service), and the bonded service is
> comparable to Comcast's Extreme 50 service at $115 per month.

That's great for you, all we have here is AT&T
and their pricing is crap

and they offer speeds up to 18Mbps at 40 a month on a promo rate. yay

Thus spake SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> :

>On 4/13/2011 8:56 AM, Justin wrote:
>> SMS wrote on [Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:48:24 -0700]:
>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215468/Data_caps_How_long_can_Verizon_Sprint_offer_unlimi ted_plans_?taxonomyId=16>
>>>
>>> "Many smartphone users might respond to data caps (and threats of data
>>> throttling) by resorting to heavy media downloads over their fast
>>> Ethernet-based networks while at work or working at home over a
>>> connection with fiber optic, DSL or cable modem. A smartphone on a home
>>> Wi-Fi network connected to DSL or cable modem would only be governed by
>>> the data limits, if any, of those wired services."
>>
>> if any? AT&T is imposing caps, Time warner has caps, Comcast has caps
>
>That's true. But the reason for those caps is not because of network
>capacity, it's that these companies want to sell customers TV service,
>not have them use DSL or cable for downloading video instead of paying
>big bucks for television services.
>
>Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
>that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
>expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.
>
><http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/03/23/drilling-through-the-caps/>.
>
>It's an interesting article, especially the part about what Bell Canada
>is proposing; the quote by their CEO is priceless: “…as we see a growth
>in video usage on the internet, making sure we’re monetizing that for
>our shareholders through the bandwidth usage charges.”

Even as the telcos and cable companies advertise downloading that very
same content. Of course (if you watch the idiot in the TW ads), it's
all from their services.

Lots of folks have been proclaiming WiMax & 4G (well, 4G LTE) as
"saviors". Of course, 3G was the savior. As long as there weren't
very many people actually using it.

The AT&T rep told us that as long as we're sending them a check every
month, we're grandfathered under the unlimited plan, even if we go off
contract, which is what we usually do until they make us an absurd
offer.

Of course, we all know that sooner or later grandfather dies.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2p5iq6l4i3s0s7bntg1ei5j74h1jmin3ap@4ax.com...
> The AT&T rep told us that as long as we're sending them a check every
> month, we're grandfathered under the unlimited plan, even if we go off
> contract, which is what we usually do until they make us an absurd
> offer.
>
> Of course, we all know that sooner or later grandfather dies.

At least with Sprint, what usually happens is that the phone dies; while they
really will keep a grandfathered plan around forever, it seems, as soon as you
want or need (due to breakage) a new phone, unless it's a phone that's 100%
identical to the one you're replacing, they may simply not allow you to
transfer your current plan to your new phone.

E.g., data plans for Windows Mobile phones couldn't be used with Android
phones, nor could data plans for 3G phones be used with 4G phones (...without
the $10/mo 4G surcharge).

---Joel

In article <wf5rp.27754$qz1.9143@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>, Joel
Koltner <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

> At least with Sprint, what usually happens is that the phone dies; while they
> really will keep a grandfathered plan around forever, it seems, as soon as you
> want or need (due to breakage) a new phone, unless it's a phone that's 100%
> identical to the one you're replacing, they may simply not allow you to
> transfer your current plan to your new phone.

nope. they'll do an esn swap without affecting an existing plan and the
phone need not be identical.

however, they will probably not go for a smartphone to replace a
dumbphone.

> E.g., data plans for Windows Mobile phones couldn't be used with Android
> phones, nor could data plans for 3G phones be used with 4G phones (...without
> the $10/mo 4G surcharge).

that's an add-on.

Hi,

We have mitel 5320 IP phone.we are not able to access Voice Mail and calls sometimes goes directly to voice mail.i am new mitel administrator can someone help me please.

At 18 Apr 2011 21:29:36 -0700 nospam wrote:
> In article <wf5rp.27754$qz1.9143@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>, Joel
> Koltner <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > At least with Sprint, what usually happens is that the phone dies;
while they
> > really will keep a grandfathered plan around forever, it seems, as
soon as you
> > want or need (due to breakage) a new phone, unless it's a phone
that's 100%
> > identical to the one you're replacing, they may simply not allow you
to
> > transfer your current plan to your new phone.
>
> nope. they'll do an esn swap without affecting an existing plan and the
> phone need not be identical.
>
> however, they will probably not go for a smartphone to replace a
> dumbphone.

Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
smartphone with an Android.

On 4/19/2011 4:48 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
> smartphone with an Android.

You would think that Sprint would be anxious to keep those SERO
customers, but apparently that is not the case. Clearly none of the
carriers want Android smart phones on plans that don't include a $15-30
data plan, even if it means losing some customers completely.

It's amazing that Page Plus is allowed to continue offering their plans
on any Verizon compatible phone other than the iPhone. The only thing
protecting Page Plus is that so few consumers have ever heard of them.

On 4/25/2011 7:01 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 4:48 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
>> smartphone with an Android.
>
> You would think that Sprint would be anxious to keep those SERO
> customers, but apparently that is not the case. Clearly none of the
> carriers want Android smart phones on plans that don't include a $15-30
> data plan, even if it means losing some customers completely.
>
> It's amazing that Page Plus is allowed to continue offering their plans
> on any Verizon compatible phone other than the iPhone. The only thing
> protecting Page Plus is that so few consumers have ever heard of them.
>

Not really. Clearly you are very enthusiastic (some would say a fanboi)
about Pageplus and somehow believe all of the stuff you write totally
disregarding that there are lots of folks who are knowledgeable and
would welcome paying less and maintaining usability but know that free
WiFI doesn't exist as you describe.

On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:

> Not really. Clearly you are very enthusiastic (some would say a fanboi)
> about Pageplus and somehow believe all of the stuff you write totally
> disregarding that there are lots of folks who are knowledgeable and
> would welcome paying less and maintaining usability but know that free
> WiFI doesn't exist as you describe.

Sprint's policy on SERO customers activating Android devices means that
many of those price-sensitive SERO customers will simply find another
low-cost carrier. Sprint did (belatedly) offer SERO customers the
"opportunity" to pay $10 more per month to use an Android or Palm device
on a SERO plan, and forced Blackberry users to do so (or leave).

What really sucked is that the Sprint policy of allowing Android devices
came after many SERO customers had left Sprint because they would not
allow Android activations. Clearly Sprint panicked over the churn
(mistakenly believing that most SERO customers would simply become
full-price customers), but did not let those that had left, because they
couldn't activate an Android, come back onto SERO.

What's working in favor of Page Plus at this time is the increased
availability and decline in price of smart phones with Wi-Fi. A
price-sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of 3G
data can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since
Wi-Fi has become so ubiquitous.

A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

That same study showed that the average monthly data usage for Android
phones was 209MB/month in 2010. Break it down by percentages and 84MB
was used at home and 52MB was used at work, two places where it's highly
likely that there is other internet access available, but for someone
with an unlimited data plan there's no incentive to be frugal and use
Wi-Fi. 73MB was used away from home or work, and of that 73MB much of it
was probably used in places where Wi-Fi was available (Airports,
Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops, Car
Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut Shops,
Fwy Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical Centers,
Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants, Shopping Malls,
Friend’s Homes, Frozen Yogurt Shops, etc.).

The bottom line is that the vast majority of 3G/4G data is used by
subscribers that rightfully see no need to be frugal with 3G/4G data
usage since they are paying for an unlimited data plan. All studies show
that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users willing
to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet access
available. AT&T stated that 65% of their smart phone users use less than
200MB per month (their smallest data plan for $15 extra per month). If
you used 200MB on Talk N Text 1200 it would be $45 per month ($30 plus
$15 for the 2nd 100M while the closest AT&T voice/text/data plan with
200MB per month would have a total cost of about $75 per month.

If you a) Use Wi-Fi When Available, b) Don’t Stream Movies & TV over 3G,
c) Don't Transfer Huge image/video files over 3G, d) Don’t Use a 3G
Based GPS (use an app that stores maps on the phone), e) Don’t Use Push
e-mail (use web-based e-mail), and f) Don’t be Stupid, you can use a lot
less data while not really negatively impacting your life.

Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number
of those people is relatively small.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>A price-sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of
>3G data can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since
>Wi-Fi has become so ubiquitous.
>
>A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
>was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
>35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
>likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
>available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

--
Paul Miner

At 25 Apr 2011 16:01:50 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 4:48 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
> > smartphone with an Android.
>
> You would think that Sprint would be anxious to keep those SERO
> customers, but apparently that is not the case. Clearly none of the
> carriers want Android smart phones on plans that don't include a $15-30
> data plan, even if it means losing some customers completely.


This wasn't the first time Sprint tossed "dead weight" customers overboard.
I've got a friend who's in Sprint management that told me long ago that
Sprint was cutting loose a bunch of low-usage customers on low-fee (sub
$15/month) plans because the cost of keeping them just wasn't worth it.
I suspect the same was true of SERO. SERO users got a lot of value for
their $30, and Sprint took the gamble that enough would convert for the
shiny device of the moment to justify churning the others. Sprint
already offers the best "unlimited" deal of the major carriers (that
include a phone subsidy,) so it's not like those SERO customers would
find a better deal elsewhere.


> It's amazing that Page Plus is allowed to continue offering their plans
> on any Verizon compatible phone other than the iPhone. The only thing
> protecting Page Plus is that so few consumers have ever heard of them.


That and the contract they have with Verizon. You act as if PagePlus is
sneaking something past Verizon. If that were true, PP would offer plans
with more data (at higher cost, of course) to attract higher-use customers.

At 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>
> > Not really. Clearly you are very enthusiastic (some would say a
> > fanboi) about Pageplus and somehow believe all of the stuff you write
> > totally disregarding that there are lots of folks who are
> > knowledgeable and would welcome paying less and maintaining usability
> > but know that free WiFI doesn't exist as you describe.
>
> Sprint's policy on SERO customers activating Android devices means that
> many of those price-sensitive SERO customers will simply find another
> low-cost carrier. Sprint did (belatedly) offer SERO customers the
> "opportunity" to pay $10 more per month to use an Android or Palm
> device on a SERO plan, and forced Blackberry users to do so (or leave).


And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for? Oh,
that's right, SPRINT! The best deals in unlimited right now come from
Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining Taco
Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for lunch!
There's nowhere to go but up.


> What really sucked is that the Sprint policy of allowing Android
> devices came after many SERO customers had left Sprint because they
> would not allow Android activations. Clearly Sprint panicked over the
> churn (mistakenly believing that most SERO customers would simply
> become full-price customers), but did not let those that had left,
> because they couldn't activate an Android, come back onto SERO.


I doubt it was panic. They took a risk, weighed the results, and changed
strategy. Personally, I'm limited in my phone selections on T-Mobile
because they won't allow Android phones on my grandfathered data plan,so
I use other devices.

If I liked Android enough, I'd consider changing plans or carriers, but
frankly I don't get the attraction. (It's mediocre at everything- it's
UI and app selection is mediocre compared to iOS, it's less configurable
than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
(sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
config) and I rarely use them.


> What's working in favor of Page Plus at this time is the increased
> availability and decline in price of smart phones with Wi-Fi. A price-
> sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of 3G data
> can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since Wi-Fi
> has become so ubiquitous.


I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.
It suggested WiFi and QNC as alternatives to pricey 3G, and suggested
several good but "obsolete" smartphones (in this case WinMo-based,) for
salespeople who wanted more experience with smartphones but couldn't
personally justify the monthly cost of forced dataplans.


> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

"Becoming?" "Nearly?" You're really downgrading your mantra. Two weeks
ago WiFi was already ubiquitous to hear you tell it. Did this last trip
you took change your outlook at all? Your posting level was way down.
Couldn't find much WiFi to login to?

And frankly, IMO, it'll only get worse. The ubiquity of smartphones is
making free WiFi redundant for so many people, I can't imagine many
businesses who haven't already offered it to start now. They might as
well install telegraphs or those wooden poles John Wayne would tie his
horse to when he stopped at the saloon or general store!

That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned average
Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
year between now and 2015, IIRC.

So unless you expect PP's 100MB allotment to also double annually to keep
pace, your advice won't be very worthwhile for long. 35% of the 500MB-
600MB average monthly use in 2011 or 900MB in 2012 won't fit in your
100MB plan.



> That same study showed that the average monthly data usage for Android
> phones was 209MB/month in 2010. Break it down by percentages and 84MB
> was used at home and 52MB was used at work, two places where it's
> highly likely that there is other internet access available, but for
> someone with an unlimited data plan there's no incentive to be frugal
> and use Wi-Fi. 73MB was used away from home or work, and of that 73MB
> much of it was probably used in places where Wi-Fi was available
> (Airports, Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops,
> Car Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut
> Shops, Fwy Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical
> Centers, Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants, Shopping
> Malls, Friend’s Homes, Frozen Yogurt Shops, etc.).


For a good number of people, that's probably true. And most of those
people use iPod Touches, and wish they had a smartphone when they're
Everywhere Else.


> The bottom line is that the vast majority of 3G/4G data is used by
> subscribers that rightfully see no need to be frugal with 3G/4G data
> usage since they are paying for an unlimited data plan.


Even those on metered plans see no reason to be particularly careful.
Avoid excessive streaming and large downloads (which most mobile OSes
forbid anyway) and you can live comfortable in most tiered plans.


> All studies
> show that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users
> willing to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet
> access available.


"All studies" now equals "one study by Cisco"? This problem you seem to
have with quantities might explain why you equate a few dozen hotspotsin
a couple of square miles with "ubiquitous."


> AT&T stated that 65% of their smart phone users use
> less than 200MB per month (their smallest data plan for $15 extra per
> month).


Very disingenous on both AT&T's part and yours. I would venture that the
vast bulk of that "65%" are Blackberry users, who have the advantage of
RIM's server-side compression reducing their email and browsing bandwidth
by up to 90%.


> If you used 200MB on Talk N Text 1200 it would be $45 per month
> ($30 plus $15 for the 2nd 100M while the closest AT&T voice/text/data
> plan with 200MB per month would have a total cost of about $75 per month.



True. I'm not suggesting it isn't a good value. I'm suggesting fewer
people can make use of it than you claim. (Without impacting their
productivity and convenience.)


> If you a) Use Wi-Fi When Available, b) Don’t Stream Movies & TV over
> 3G, c) Don't Transfer Huge image/video files over 3G, d) Don’t Usea 3G
> Based GPS (use an app that stores maps on the phone), e) Don’t UsePush
> e-mail (use web-based e-mail), and f) Don’t be Stupid, you can usea
> lot less data while not really negatively impacting your life.


That's not your call to make for anyone but yourself. Of your list,
"don't use 3G based maps" and "don't use push email" WOULD "negatively
impact my life." Those, IMO, are two of the "killer apps" for smartphones,

and probably represent half of my data usage. Without those, I could go
back to using a dumbphone and a Palm Pilot.


> Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
> per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number
> of those people is relatively small.


There are those for whom streaming media is a killer app, and several
companies base their model around it- not just small media compaies like
Pandora, but big companies in the mobile business themselves. Microsoft
is pushing Zune Pass (streaming/downloading any availalbe song in their
catalog on demand) as a differentiating feature of WP7, Apple gets major
revenue from the iTunes Store from both apps and media, many of which are
purchased on impulse, which requires data ubiquity, and they're getting
ready to release a cloud media service. Amazon's new music cloud service
is obviously banking on mobile usage to help sell it- none of us need a
cloud service to enjoy our media at home, do we?

There is no shortage of bits and bytes. There IS a finite amount of
3G/4G bandwidth available without additional capital investment, and
mobile companies are trying to monetize it the best way possible for
THEM. Trust me- AT&T, Verizon, et al, will be happy to supply as muchas
you want, as long as something is in it for them. They just don't want
to be selling unlimited data for only $30/month that is facilitiating
revenue for MS, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, Hulu, Netflix, and every other
company but the carriers themselves.

On 4/26/2011 10:28 AM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A price-sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of
>> 3G data can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since
>> Wi-Fi has become so ubiquitous.
>>
>> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
>> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
>> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
>> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
>> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.
>
> Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
> ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
> repeating it.
>

Not to mention that he seems to think everyone is stupid with his
incessant "Cisco study said".

As was pointed out to him companies do studies to advance their position
not because they are philanthropic and are doing a public service.

Cisco is a big vendor of wireless gear and telephony equipment. They
likely perceive that the need for their equipment could evaporate if
more users simply used the cell carrier systems. So they have to deliver
FUD to keep themselves needed.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconec@anoospaml.com> wrote:

> I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
> now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
> mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
> that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd, would
you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or outdated,
yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?

TIA! And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On 4/26/2011 10:27 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for? Oh,
> that's right, SPRINT! The best deals in unlimited right now come from
> Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining Taco
> Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for lunch!
> There's nowhere to go but up.

That assumes that they actually were on an unlimited data plan because
they use vast amounts of data, rather than because the unlimited plan
was the only data plan available. If they fit the profile of the
"average" user, then their data usage was such that a non-unlimited data
plan would work just as well.

The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network. MetroPCS is
increasingly attractive with their "TravelTalk®" extra-cost roaming, and
$40 for unlimited talk, text, and data, and the ability to use Verizon
phones flashed to MetroPCS. Supports 4G LTE too.

> I doubt it was panic. They took a risk, weighed the results, and changed
> strategy. Personally, I'm limited in my phone selections on T-Mobile
> because they won't allow Android phones on my grandfathered data plan, so
> I use other devices.

Perhaps "panic" was too strong of a word. They were likely "concerned"
that part of the reason they were hemorrhaging customers was their
policy regarding Android phones on SERO.

> If I liked Android enough, I'd consider changing plans or carriers, but
> frankly I don't get the attraction. (It's mediocre at everything- it's
> UI and app selection is mediocre compared to iOS, it's less configurable
> than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
> client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
> (sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
> config) and I rarely use them.

I expect that most Android users are using Android because they could
not get an iPhone on their carrier. I find the Android acceptable. The
web browser works fine and I may be one of the few users that appreciate
the MicroSD card slot for more than just additional storage capacity.
There are a few aps not available on Android yet, but as Android devices
continue to increase their market share the app difference will go away.

For an e-mail client, use MailDroid Pro (not the free version).

> I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
> now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
> mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
> that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.
> It suggested WiFi and QNC as alternatives to pricey 3G, and suggested
> several good but "obsolete" smartphones (in this case WinMo-based,) for
> salespeople who wanted more experience with smartphones but couldn't
> personally justify the monthly cost of forced dataplans.

I've been asked to give a presentation on low-cost smart phone options,
and have prepared a Powerpoint presentation. I only have 45 minutes and
have prepared 12 slides. I like your title better than my "Smart Phones
on the Cheap" title.

> That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned average
> Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
> year between now and 2015, IIRC.

And _why_ is it increasing? It's not because of bill paying or e-mail,
or even normal web browsing. It's mainly because of streaming audio and
video.

> There are those for whom streaming media is a killer app, and several
> companies base their model around it- not just small media compaies like
> Pandora, but big companies in the mobile business themselves.

Those users would obviously not be happy with a metered data plan, not
even 2GB, let alone 100MB.

At 26 Apr 2011 14:28:45 -0400 tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock
<elecconec@anoospaml.com> wrote:
>
> > I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
> > now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
> > mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb
Prices"
> > that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using
PagePlus.
>
> As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd,
would
> you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or outdated,
> yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
> And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?


Given that Page Plus is a Verizon reseller, I limited the discussion to
Verizon phone models from 2005-2008 or so (old enough to be plentiful and
cheap second-hand) IIRC, I suggested phones like the Samsung i730 and i760,
and the HTC 6600 and 6700.

None of them are really great phones, but met the criteria for the
article- they were similar enough to (then) modern Windows-based
smartphones to provide hands-on experience for salespeople to better
understand the product they sold.

At 26 Apr 2011 12:05:14 -0700 SMS wrote:

> On 4/26/2011 10:27 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>

> > And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for?

Oh,

> > that's right, SPRINT! The best deals in unlimited right now come

from

> > Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining

Taco

> > Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for

lunch!

> > There's nowhere to go but up.

>
> That assumes that they actually were on an unlimited data plan because
> they use vast amounts of data, rather than because the unlimited plan
> was the only data plan available. If they fit the profile of the
> "average" user, then their data usage was such that a non-unlimited
> data plan would work just as well.


Probably, but Sprint's $69 "everything plan" is both competitive and
includes unlimted texting and data. It's not $35 (or was it $30?) SERO
cheap, but there's no better deal for unlimited users that includes phone
subsidies, not is there any real competiton from other "big 4" carriers
either even with tiered data. AT&T's minimum voice plan with a texting
add-on and only 200MB of data is barely cheaper than Sprint's unlimited
plan.



> The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
> for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
> that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network. MetroPCS is
> increasingly attractive with their "TravelTalk®" extra-cost roaming,
> and $40 for unlimited talk, text, and data, and the ability to use
> Verizon phones flashed to MetroPCS. Supports 4G LTE too.
>


That's pretty ironic that you slam Sprint's native coverage in one
breath, and suggest Metro as an alternative! Sure, Metro offers extra-
cost roaming, but you'll need it far more often than you would have if
Sprint offered the same. Metro's native coverage is but a fraction of
Sprint's. Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may
not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
MetroPCS is a bit insulting.



> > I doubt it was panic. They took a risk, weighed the results, and

changed

> > strategy. Personally, I'm limited in my phone selections on T-Mobile
> > because they won't allow Android phones on my grandfathered data

plan, so

> > I use other devices.

>
> Perhaps "panic" was too strong of a word. They were likely "concerned"
> that part of the reason they were hemorrhaging customers was their
> policy regarding Android phones on SERO.



I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
policies! I turned my neighbor on to SERO a few years back, and she
muddled through with an old Motorola smartphone that was practically
falling apart until Sprint finally allowed her to upgrade (for $10/month
more.)



> > If I liked Android enough, I'd consider changing plans or carriers,

but

> > frankly I don't get the attraction. (It's mediocre at everything-

it's

> > UI and app selection is mediocre compared to iOS, it's less

configurable

> > than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
> > client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
> > (sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
> > config) and I rarely use them.

>
> I expect that most Android users are using Android because they could
> not get an iPhone on their carrier.


That may be part of it, but I think the varied form factors help as well.
Some people want big phones, some want small, and many will not part
with a hardware keyboard. Android gives users those options, unlike the
one-size-fits-Apple form factor of the iPhone.



> I find the Android acceptable. The
> web browser works fine and I may be one of the few users that
> appreciate the MicroSD card slot for more than just additional storage
> capacity. There are a few aps not available on Android yet, but as
> Android devices continue to increase their market share the app
> difference will go away.


From your description of your smartphone usage, you don't need much more
than a web browser anyway, so I suspect Android is fine. For all of the
good press Android has received, I expected much more. The navigation
app is no better than MS' Bing for Mobile, (and much worse in some
respects, like voice clarity and UI) I've already bashed the horrible
email client, and for all of the "openness" and "customizability" (is
that a word?) there are no global text size/font settings and the
defaults are ridiculously tiny (does anyone over 30 years old code for
Google?) Honestly, I can't explain why Android is the darling OS of the
moment- it makes the old WinMo UI look positively intuitive by comparison!



> For an e-mail client, use MailDroid Pro (not the free version).


I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to use Android regularly. Every
time I boot into it on my HD2, I find myself running screaming back to
WinMo. I really only use Android for a few games to entertain the kids,
and for Google SkyMap- the best app I've seen on Android.



> > I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
> > now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
> > mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb

Prices"

> > that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using

PagePlus.

> > It suggested WiFi and QNC as alternatives to pricey 3G, and suggested
> > several good but "obsolete" smartphones (in this case WinMo-based,)

for

> > salespeople who wanted more experience with smartphones but couldn't
> > personally justify the monthly cost of forced dataplans.

>
> I've been asked to give a presentation on low-cost smart phone options,
> and have prepared a Powerpoint presentation. I only have 45 minutes and
> have prepared 12 slides. I like your title better than my "Smart Phones
> on the Cheap" title.


Go ahead and borrow the title. Don't forget to include the pathetic old
Samsung i600 (no touchscreen) and i730 (touchscreen) and their ability to
still use free QNC. Neat WinMo trick #243: you can configure the email
client to poll with a different data connection than other apps. This way,
the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Also recommend Opera Mini for any compatible phone there are versions for
Android, Blackberry and WinMo. It uses server-side compression courtesy
of Opera and uses "up to 90% less data" (aacording to Opera.) In my
experience it certainly cuts data usage quite a bit (about 1/2 to 3/4 less,
depending on what you browse, and how low-res you set the images.) The
latest WinMo version (5.1) can be set as the device default browser, so
links in emails will open up directly in Opera Mini rather than the
native browser, saving bandwidth. I even use it to browse over QNC.
It's still no picnic, but with the compression QNC's 14.4k seems more
like 56k dialup or EDGE than sub-dialup speed.


> > That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned

average

> > Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
> > year between now and 2015, IIRC.

>
> And _why_ is it increasing? It's not because of bill paying or e-mail,

or even normal web browsing. It's mainly because of streaming audio and
video.

Sure, that's part of it, but so is feature creep- the silent updating of
applications in the background, the large number of apps that sync data
with _something_, (Facebook, Twitter, Kindle, Evernote, etc. etc. etc.)
ridiculous 8-12MP phone cameras taking the same crappy, blurry pictures
the old 1-3MP cameras did with much larger file sizes, etc.

And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
crummy compared to the desktop version. By sound alone, I'd estimate it
only runs 40k or so- it works fine over EDGE, which on T-Mo tells me it's
certainly less than 90k (the average EDGE speed I seem to get in my
neighborhood.) BeatlesRadio.com offers a low bandwidth mono stream that
even works over GPRS (keeps me company on overnight drives out in the
boondocks where even EDGE is sometimes elusive.)



> > There are those for whom streaming media is a killer app, and several
> > companies base their model around it- not just small media compaies

like

> > Pandora, but big companies in the mobile business themselves.

>
> Those users would obviously not be happy with a metered data plan, not

even 2GB, let alone 100MB.

Again, if the streaming is handled effectively, it shouldn't be an issue
on 2GB plans. If companies like Pandora or Netflix want to pursue the
current mobile market, they need to be as leanas possible, and make sure
users and carriers know exactly how little (or how much!) bandwidth their
services use. In the days when dial up was still more prevalent than
broadband, remember how almost every web site with any type of audio or
video would have a dialog box asking what type of connection you have?
Where's that functionality on mobile apps and sites where it's even more
important? Netflix, for example, handles bandwidth dynamically on
iPhones and Windows Phones based on available connection speed alone, but
if I'm on a metered plan, I might _always_ opt for the lowest-bandwidth
feed even if I'm on 4G! I tend to stream the little audio I stream at as
low a bandwidth as possible, because that way I tend to build up a larger
buffer to get me through dead spots with fewer drop outs. If I was on a
metered plan, that'd be even more important.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:05:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
>for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
>that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network.

In other words, useful for most people?

--
Paul Miner

SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>
> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

> The bottom line is that the vast majority of 3G/4G data is used by
> subscribers that rightfully see no need to be frugal with 3G/4G data
> usage since they are paying for an unlimited data plan. All studies show
> that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users willing
> to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet access

Using the false assumption that everyone has wifi available at work

> Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
> per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number

I'm sorry, but over 200 MB of data is not a vast amount of data.

On 4/26/2011 4:01 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> Probably, but Sprint's $69 "everything plan" is both competitive and
> includes unlimted texting and data. It's not $35 (or was it $30?) SERO
> cheap, but there's no better deal for unlimited users that includes phone
> subsidies, not is there any real competiton from other "big 4" carriers
> either even with tiered data. AT&T's minimum voice plan with a texting
> add-on and only 200MB of data is barely cheaper than Sprint's unlimited
> plan.

It's a very good deal, plus there are corporate discounts of up to 25%
on top of it (I could get a 23% discount). Yet for some strange reason
there is no stream of customers heading to Sprint stores to take
advantage of this deal.

> That's pretty ironic that you slam Sprint's native coverage in one
> breath, and suggest Metro as an alternative! Sure, Metro offers extra-
> cost roaming, but you'll need it far more often than you would have if
> Sprint offered the same. Metro's native coverage is but a fraction of
> Sprint's.

Most urban areas are covered under Metro PCS. The coverage maps of Metro
PCS native coverage and Virgin (Sprint native coverage) look pretty
close, but with Metro PCS at least you have the option of coverage in
other areas at extra cost.

Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may
> not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
> extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
> MetroPCS is a bit insulting.

Read what I wrote again. I was slamming Virgin Mobile's coverage, not
Sprint's. Sprint's coverage, when you include roaming, is okay, though
you do run into the problem of Sprint phones not roaming even when the
Sprint signal is too weak to make or receive call; the workaround to
this problem used to be to force roaming, but Sprint doesn't offer this
anymore in newer phones because too many subscribers had figured out the
trick.

> I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
> mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
> policies!

Perhaps, we don't know how many people took advantage of Sprint's
desperation pricing when they offered SERO to everyone that wanted it.
But you probably are well aware that there are subscribers, on all
carriers, that search for the best prices and keep those grandfathered
plans for a very, very long time, often until they are forced off of
them in one way or another. I think both you and I fall (or fell) into
that category. I finally let my original "America's Choice 300" plan
lapse. It was $30 a month (total) after discounts, and had 8:00 p.m.
off-peak. For a while, one major advantage over America's Choice 2 was
that only the older plan allowed analog roaming, but that advantage is
largely gone (except in a very few places).

> I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to use Android regularly. Every
> time I boot into it on my HD2, I find myself running screaming back to
> WinMo. I really only use Android for a few games to entertain the kids,
> and for Google SkyMap- the best app I've seen on Android.

I don't understand why people hated WinMo so much. I liked it.

> Go ahead and borrow the title. Don't forget to include the pathetic old
> Samsung i600 (no touchscreen) and i730 (touchscreen) and their ability to
> still use free QNC. Neat WinMo trick #243: you can configure the email
> client to poll with a different data connection than other apps. This way,
> the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
> configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
> KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Most of the audience is not that sophisticated.

> Also recommend Opera Mini for any compatible phone there are versions for
> Android, Blackberry and WinMo. It uses server-side compression courtesy
> of Opera and uses "up to 90% less data" (aacording to Opera.) In my
> experience it certainly cuts data usage quite a bit (about 1/2 to 3/4 less,
> depending on what you browse, and how low-res you set the images.) The
> latest WinMo version (5.1) can be set as the device default browser, so
> links in emails will open up directly in Opera Mini rather than the
> native browser, saving bandwidth. I even use it to browse over QNC.
> It's still no picnic, but with the compression QNC's 14.4k seems more
> like 56k dialup or EDGE than sub-dialup speed.

Thanks, I'll add a slide with that.

> Sure, that's part of it, but so is feature creep- the silent updating of
> applications in the background, the large number of apps that sync data
> with _something_, (Facebook, Twitter, Kindle, Evernote, etc. etc. etc.)
> ridiculous 8-12MP phone cameras taking the same crappy, blurry pictures
> the old 1-3MP cameras did with much larger file sizes, etc.

One Android app, for rooted Droids, stops that sort of nonsense. It lets
you specify which apps are allowed data access.

> And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
> streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
> comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
> crummy compared to the desktop version.

I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality. There
are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage, and
those are the types of drives where I would most want something like
Pandora. I had a rental car with XM this past week and it was kind of
nice, but I was disappointed with the dropouts under overpasses and
trees, and the variety of content.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:01:40 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
>streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
>comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
>crummy compared to the desktop version. By sound alone, I'd estimate it
>only runs 40k or so- it works fine over EDGE, which on T-Mo tells me it's
>certainly less than 90k (the average EDGE speed I seem to get in my
>neighborhood.) BeatlesRadio.com offers a low bandwidth mono stream that
>even works over GPRS (keeps me company on overnight drives out in the
>boondocks where even EDGE is sometimes elusive.)

Good news! Forget EDGE, forget GPRS. I heard that WiFi is ubiquitous,
so all of our connectivity problems are solved. ;-)

--
Paul Miner

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:19:51 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
>use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality. There
>are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage, and
>those are the types of drives where I would most want something like
>Pandora.

Too many places with no data coverage? Well fortunately, we have
"ubiquitous WiFi" to the rescue! Right?

--
Paul Miner

On 4/26/2011 5:08 PM, Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
>> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>>
>> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
>> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
>> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
>> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
>> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.
>
> Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
> for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

What the Cisco study probably meant to imply is that people were using
their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.

I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of
company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
was not abused.

SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:04:18 -0700]:
> On 4/26/2011 5:08 PM, Justin wrote:
>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
>>> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>>>
> What the Cisco study probably meant to imply is that people were using
> their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
> Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
> wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.
>
> I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of

SOME?!?!?!? I'd argue most.

> company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
> companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
> supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
> officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
> was not abused.


Companies can monitor anything and everything you do on company
computers. Every company I have worked for has an acceptbale us policy
that all use of company equipment will be for business purposes only.
Using a company PC to send and receive email is stupid. Let alone facebook
or anything else of the sort.

Of course companies don't want you browsing unless it's work related
and there is a LOT of browing that IS work related. The best troubleshooting
you can do it by pasting an error message into google to see what it
actually means.

A lot of companies block access to sites they don't want you to see,
and I run into a lot of issues with this due to problem solutions
for many technical issues posted on personal blogs that are blocked.