Those upgrading or buying a new iPhone 4S should re-consider the data plans they are buying and ultimately the carrier they choose or else possibly face some ugly overage charges.  If you send many txts with iMessage or plan to use Siri, the new voice assistant, make sure your carrier’s data plan (Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint) has room for the data used by these apps in addition to your normal data usage patterns with previous devices.

 The new iMessage iOS5 app uses the cellular data connection for transmitting text and media messages to other Apple devices.  It does not use traditional SMS and MMS, which means that text plan you’re paying for is unused for iMessage.  We don’t have estimates on data used per message yet - text messages are likely very small but photo or video messages could be a factor even if compressed (checking on this).  Consider the quantity of messages as a multiplier and as big a factor.

 Siri is one of the big features of the iPhone 4S and is receiving raves so far.  Siri also uses the data connection to transmit your questions, and Siri’s responses, to and from Apple’s servers.  Every time you ask, “Do I need an umbrella tomorrow”, that question and answer uses data against your plan.

We are seeking values on the average data usage of these two new apps for the iPhone 4S. In any case, when buying the iPhone 4S and accompanying data plan it may be wise to think about bumping up to the next tier.  Average US smartphone data usage is climbing rapidly. Beyond these two apps, iMessage and Siri, all of the new and great features in iOS 5 will require more data usage as well.  

For a comparison of the three carriers, if you use 2GB or more of data usage per month, the obvious choice from a cost perspective becomes the carrier with an unlimited data plan (Sprint).  The last thing you want to be on the hook for are those costly overage charges.

yeuxdunoisette:

parislemon:

Now that that iPhone 4S is out there, the biggest question seems to be: which carrier to go with in the U.S.?

AT&T gives you speed — they’re the only network currently supporting the 14.4 down that Apple mentioned on stage yesterday. But AT&T blows in big cities like San Francisco and New York. It’s hard to vote for speed when you can’t even get a connection at all.

Sprint gives you unlimited. Their plans are clearly going to be the best from a cost perspective. And, as the new kid on the block, they will likely have the least congested network. But they’re also the third-place carrier.

Verizon gets you reliability. They’re the most expensive and don’t offer speed or unlimited. But you pay for the quality of their network.

Right now, I’m torn. I won’t go back to AT&T because of my awful experience the last time. But Verizon versus Sprint seems to be a toss-up.

I think having the iPhone on three carriers in the U.S. is ultimately going to be a very good thing for consumers. Instead of taking features away and raising prices as AT&T and Verizon have been doing for years, they may be forced to actually compete with incentives for users. 

Verizon vs. Sprint is a toss up? OH PLEASE.

Cost efficiency, versus the fastest and most widespread 4G network in the United States? WiMAX is a terrible excuse for 4G, barely operating at what Verizon’s CDMA (3G) network operates on. That said, Verizon’s 4G is an LTE based signal. LTE is a worldwide project that is still under construction, especially where I am in the Southeastern United States. However, it is a global network- so one day you will have it everywhere in the continental US, and worldwide.

Can Sprint offer you that? Verizon spends $61 billion dollars a year on the network. That’s over $100,000,000 a day. I kid you not. 

Yes, I am aware that paying for data (if you aren’t grandfathered into the system) absolutely blows. I hate telling customers that they have to pay now. But you pay for what you get, and Verizon is the best and has the best. Period. Whether device or service, even customer service is top rated. The thought that someone tries to put a second-rate carrier with shitty service nationwide (3 and 4 G) next to the best and hardest working network makes me a little heated and offended. 

Apologies! As some of you may (or may not) know, I work for Verizon and love what I do. If that’s an explanation for the above.

The iPhone 4S is not a 4G device so I don’t see the relevancy of LTE.  But to play along, Sprint is announcing LTE as well and has 3 times the spectrum of VZ.  Sprint is also right there at the top with VZ in customer service - check the stats.  So what now? Cost is king, and for that Sprint wins.

(via oliviaandthewhale)

I’m sure I’m not the only who has thought:  Could the Internet be shutdown in the US?  The effect would be huge and by far much more global, as compared to other recent shutdowns including the one in Egypt.  As this article from the Atlantic alludes, Verizon is taking one step closer to that possibility.  The NAP of Americas is truly pivotal.  Peering points also play an important role.  US to Verizon: ‘shut er down’ ..and the Internet is off.

The news Thursday evening that Egypt had severed itself from the global Internet came at the same time as an ostensibly far less inflammatory announcement closer to home. Verizon, the telecom giant, would acquire “cloud computing company” Terremark for $1.4 billion. The purchase would “accelerate Verizon’s ‘everything-as-a-service’ cloud strategy,” the press release said.

The trouble is that Terremark isn’t merely a cloud computing company. Or, more to the point, the cloud isn’t really a cloud.

Among its portfolio of data centers in the US, Europe and Latin America, Terremark owns one of the single most important buildings on the global Internet, a giant fortress on the edge of Miami’s downtown known as the NAP of the Americas.

The Internet is a network of networks. But what’s often forgotten is that those networks actually have to physically connect — one router to another — often through something as simple and tangible as a yellow-jacketed fiber-optic cable. It’s safe to suspect a network engineer in Egypt had a few of them dangling in his hands last night.

Terremark’s building in Miami is the physical meeting point for more than 160 networks from around the world. They meet there because of the building’s excellent security, its redundant power systems, and its thick concrete walls, designed to survive a category 5 hurricane. But above all, they meet there because the building is “carrier-neutral.” It’s a Switzerland of the Internet, an unallied territory where competing networks can connect to each other. Terremark doesn’t have a dog in the fight. Or at least it didn’t.

Verizon insists there’s nothing to worry about. Terremark will be set up as a wholly owned subsidiary. Its carrier-neutral status will remain. “We’re not going to try to cramp their style at all,” said Lowell McAdam, President and COO of Verizon. “There will be no moves to take certain customers out of play.”

I can’t help but think of it in the context of another recent purchase. Earlier this month, Google bought its New York office building, 111 8th Avenue, for a reported $1.9 billion. As the Wall Street Journal described, “about one third of the space is occupied by telecommunications companies.” But that’s severely understating the situation: 111 8th is another of the most important buildings on the Internet, on a short list of fewer than a dozen worldwide. Like the NAP of the Americas, it houses hundreds of independent networks, scattered across the office spaces of multiple independently owned sub-landlords. And now Google owns the whole thing. One assumes that they’re not going to cramp their style either.

“It’s not about the ‘carrier hotel’ space,” said Google Senior Vice President Jonathan Rosenberg. “We have 2,000 employees on site. It’s a big sales center, but also a big engineering center. With the pace at which we’re growing, it’s very difficult to find space in New York. There are very few buildings in New York that can accommodate our needs. This gives us a lot of control over growing into the space.”

But on a day when the government to 80 million people managed to throw the Internet’s “kill switch,” it’s worth remembering that the Internet is a physical network. It matters who controls the nodes. With these two deals, Google and Verizon may have chipped away at the foundation walls of an open, competitive—and therefore free — Internet.

source: the Atlantic