Technology catch-all thread

[lostfan]

So will the FTC just come on out and direct AT&T to merge with Verizon? And just get it overwith?

[Balta1701]

Here's specific data on the spending increase I was referring to.

AT&T cited the U.S. Consumer Prices Index to show that wireless prices have declined 50% since 1999. In that time, Bell Atlantic and GTE formed Verizon, SBC and Bell South formed Cingular, Sprint bought Nextel, AT&T bought Cingular, and Verizon bought Alltel.

 

It's true that the cost of voice services has fallen over the past decade, and even in the past year: Sprint and T-Mobile both offered attractive rates, so Verizon and AT&T slashed the prices of their unlimited calling plans by $30 in early 2010.

 

But what that doesn't show is how much people are actually spending on their cell phone bills. For AT&T customers under contract, spending has gone up over the past four years. AT&T's average revenue per user for postpaid customers has increased by about 3% in each of the past several years as data services have driven up users' spending.

 

That's because customers with contracts are buying more smartphones and tablets. AT&T's revenue from accompanying data services is up a whopping 19.3% per user in 2010 and 23.7% in 2009.

 

Customers are undeniably getting more for their money than they were in the past. Tablets and smartphones are a big leap forward, and it's reasonable for customers to pay extra as their new gadgets suck up additional bandwidth.

 

But as data traffic increases, customers keep paying more for the data that they consume. AT&T's data plans are competitive with its rivals, but several of them offer unlimited plans. AT&T doesn't. It has put caps in place that slap heavy overage charges on additional usage.

 

Plus, wireless carriers are quietly hiking the prices customers pay for their mobile phone service. Three of the four major networks raised their rates or scrapped discount deals earlier this year.

 

AT&T claims that the cost per bit will come down as a result of its T-Mobile deal, but analysts are skeptical of that.

 

"This deal won't make prices come down, and I'd be surprised if it made an impact on pricing at all," said Philip Redman, analyst at Gartner.

 

The deal would also, very conveniently, knock T-Mobile out of the picture -- eliminating a carrier that has historically offered some of the cheapest available national wireless plans.

[Y2HH]

Here's specific data on the spending increase I was referring to.

 

The bottom line is people are getting more for less, however they're tending to use more and do more, thus why they pay more...as they should.

 

I have no issues with tiered data plans, to be perfectly honest, I don't see data usage/consumption as much different than any other consumer product/commodity. If you use a lot, you should pay more than the guy that hardly uses any. It's that simple. These one size fits all unlimited plans never made sense to me.

 

If a person uses 300 GIGAbytes of data per month, they SHOULD pay more than a person that uses 35 MEGAbytes. However, I feel that the data plans should be cheaper than they are, or have many more/better tiers. The fact that you can buy 200MEGAbytes, OR 2 GIGAbytes is silly to me...and kind of pigeon holes you into having to buy the more expensive 2gig plan. None of this is surprising to me, though.

 

Verizon said they aren't even going to bother contesting the AT&T-Mobile acquisition, either...and further, they have zero interest in Sprint.

[southsider2k5]

The bottom line is people are getting more for less, however they're tending to use more and do more, thus why they pay more...as they should.

 

I have no issues with tiered data plans, to be perfectly honest, I don't see data usage/consumption as much different than any other consumer product/commodity. If you use a lot, you should pay more than the guy that hardly uses any. It's that simple. These one size fits all unlimited plans never made sense to me.

 

If a person uses 300 GIGAbytes of data per month, they SHOULD pay more than a person that uses 35 MEGAbytes. However, I feel that the data plans should be cheaper than they are, or have many more/better tiers. The fact that you can buy 200MEGAbytes, OR 2 GIGAbytes is silly to me...and kind of pigeon holes you into having to buy the more expensive 2gig plan. None of this is surprising to me, though.

 

Verizon said they aren't even going to bother contesting the AT&T-Mobile acquisition, either...and further, they have zero interest in Sprint.

 

Yeah, I have a hard time saying that prices are increasing, when the reality is that apples to apples, prices have decreased. people are getting more service and paying more for it. To me, that isn' a price increase, that is an upgrade. Spending more for a bigger package isn't price increases. That is akin to saying going from basic cable to the full package is a price increase.

[Y2HH]

Yeah, I have a hard time saying that prices are increasing, when the reality is that apples to apples, prices have decreased. people are getting more service and paying more for it. To me, that isn' a price increase, that is an upgrade. Spending more for a bigger package isn't price increases. That is akin to saying going from basic cable to the full package is a price increase.

 

Especially when you can still get really crappy phones that can do nothing more than text and make calls for free and the server plans attached to them wouldn't cost much. It's just that nobody wants that garbage now heh.

[BigSqwert]

I am digging Firefox 4.0.

[Y2HH]

I am digging Firefox 4.0.

 

The only thing that makes Firefox good is the extension NoScript. Other than that, it's a decent browser with severe memory consumption issues. I'm not a fan of Google, but Chrome is the industries best browser right now, but on the other hand, doesn't have NoScript, which is a problem in and of itself.

 

Other than Chrome, Firefox is my #2 browser of choice.

[Iwritecode]

Especially when you can still get really crappy phones that can do nothing more than text and make calls for free and the server plans attached to them wouldn't cost much. It's just that nobody wants that garbage now heh.

 

That's all my phone does. I only pay $130/month for 4 phones.

[BigSqwert]

That's all my phone does. I only pay $130/month for 4 phones.

Do you write code for the Jitterbug?

 

[iamshack]

Do you write code for the Jitterbug?

 

Nope, for the pomegranate phone

[Iwritecode]

Do you write code for the Jitterbug?

 

 

I'm not old, just about 10 years behind in my technology.

[Steve9347]

I am digging Firefox 4.0.

It's boneriffic.

[RockRaines]

It's boneriffic.

help me out here. I dont like that the buttons and tabs have been moved, can I move them back?

[BigSqwert]

help me out here. I dont like that the buttons and tabs have been moved, can I move them back?

 

Right click the orange 'firefox' box in the upper left corner, select options, uncheck 'tabs on top'.

 

For the buttons do the same but go into 'toolbar layout' in options.

[southsider2k5]

Thanks for that. I like the layout, but not the movement of random things.

[BigSqwert]

The 'alt' shortcuts still show up (i.e., alt+F brings up "Files" or alt+B brings up "bookmarks").

Edited March 24, 2011 by BigSqwert

[RockRaines]

Right click the orange 'firefox' box in the upper left corner, select options, uncheck 'tabs on top'.

 

For the buttons do the same but go into 'toolbar layout' in options.

I dont have that orange box, is that a PC only feature? Nevermind

Edited March 24, 2011 by RockRaines

[Steve9347]

Well, I'll be God-damned, Chrome blows Firefox out of the water.

[Y2HH]

Well, I'll be God-damned, Chrome blows Firefox out of the water.

 

I told you. The only thing I liked about firefox was the plugin noscript, but the fact that firefox takes up hundreds of megs of memory is annoying. Chrome has plugins now, too, but they aren't as mature as firefox's...yet. Chrome is faster and more memory efficient, and every tab is its own process, so if that tab crashes, everything else is fine. Chrome also sandboxes plugins into their own process, too, so they also can't crash the entire browser.

[RockRaines]

I told you. The only thing I liked about firefox was the plugin noscript, but the fact that firefox takes up hundreds of megs of memory is annoying. Chrome has plugins now, too, but they aren't as mature as firefox's...yet. Chrome is faster and more memory efficient, and every tab is its own process, so if that tab crashes, everything else is fine. Chrome also sandboxes plugins into their own process, too, so they also can't crash the entire browser.

Reeeeaaally? I wasnt impressed with my first go-round of Chrome, but the memory thing is a big plus. Firefox's only downfall. With just this page open its taking over 400mb of memory

[Y2HH]

Reeeeaaally? I wasnt impressed with my first go-round of Chrome, but the memory thing is a big plus. Firefox's only downfall. With just this page open its taking over 400mb of memory

 

I felt the same way about early versions of Chrome, but their release schedule is relentless to the point nobody can keep up with them. Every 6 weeks, a new version of Chrome is issued...yes, 6 weeks. They're on version 10 now, and version 11 is due out soon. It's come a long way in a short period of time because of their programming/release schedule. Chrome 10 is awesome, and very mature for how young the browser actually is.

[nitetrain8601]

If Chrome had noscript and adblock plus, I'd be all over it. It doesn't though, unfortunately which is a no go for me.

[Y2HH]

If Chrome had noscript and adblock plus, I'd be all over it. It doesn't though, unfortunately which is a no go for me.

 

It has adblock+ and noflash, both work great. It doesn't, however, have noscript...but honestly, I dont need it that bad, I don't browse random sites blindly these days, so the protection is just overkill. Noscript is really only necessary if a person tends to browse to random links/sites, otherwise it can become an annoyance.

 

You can disable all JavaScript in Chrome, if you are that worried about it, and can whitelist certain sites...but you can't whitelist as granularly as noscript allows.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Y2HH

[kapkomet]

Okay, I'll throw this out there and I'm not sure if any of you can help me or not...

 

any of you ever use your andriod to hook up to an owa (outlook web access) application and it actually work? I cannot find a damn piece of software for the phone that actually works on my phone. The IT guy isn't seeing any settings on the exchange server that would block it.

 

We can't directly hook up to th exchange server because our IT f***ers in Canada won't let us, but I was trying the work around using the owa (browser) site.

[RockRaines]

Okay, I'll throw this out there and I'm not sure if any of you can help me or not...

 

any of you ever use your andriod to hook up to an owa (outlook web access) application and it actually work? I cannot find a damn piece of software for the phone that actually works on my phone. The IT guy isn't seeing any settings on the exchange server that would block it.

 

We can't directly hook up to th exchange server because our IT f***ers in Canada won't let us, but I was trying the work around using the owa (browser) site.

Do they have a proxy or web server set up for mobile devices? Do you have a webmail login for exchange? Usually that is the server that I use at work, I use my webmail credentials and the webmail server.