<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;usage&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:28:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>Bad Reasoning: We Don't Need More High Speed Internet Because People Don't Use Fast Internet Now</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121109/23353421001/bad-reasoning-we-dont-need-more-high-speed-internet-because-people-dont-use-fast-internet-now.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121109/23353421001/bad-reasoning-we-dont-need-more-high-speed-internet-because-people-dont-use-fast-internet-now.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a lot of discussion lately about how far the US has fallen behind other countries when it comes to high speed broadband.  And many are taking it for granted that high speed broadband is important to economic growth and viability.  Yet Tim Worstall, over at Forbes, argues that <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/08/high-speed-broadband-doesnt-matter-a-darn/" target="_blank">"High Speed Broadband Doesn't Matter A Darn"</a> because a UK study showed that people don't use super high speeds.  He quotes <a href="http://www.go-on.co.uk/files/7313/5227/8439/Final_Booz_Embargoed_Nov7.pdf" target="_blank">a report</a> (pdf) from Booz &#038; Co.
<blockquote><i>
But speed in itself is not enough to encourage usage. Ofcom (an independent regulatory authority for U.K.
communications industries) has noted that in 2011 superfast coverage of the U.K. was at 60 percent, but only 6.6
percent of all connections were taking advantage of the top speeds. This suggests that focusing on availability is
no guarantee of deriving full benefit from the investment.
</i></blockquote>
Worstall then uses this to argue that speed isn't an issue and we shouldn't invest in faster broadband:
<blockquote><i>
As should be obvious, it&#8217;s not the speed of the internet that produces the economic growth. It&#8217;s the people using the internet that does. And if only 6.6% of the traffic is using the speeds we already have then there really isn&#8217;t much of a case for throwing billions at making it all faster. So that, presumably, only 6.6% of the traffic will use that higher speed.
<br /><br />
In fact, given the low numbers even bothering to use current speeds I&#8217;d say this is a very good argument for not spending a lot of money to roll out high speed broadband everywhere. The most important reason quite possibly being that I rather doubt that broadband is going to be the technology of choice for much longer.
</i></blockquote>
This reasoning is faulty on many, many levels.  First off, if you look at the full Booz report, almost every conclusion is exactly the opposite of what Worstall suggests.  He seems to take that one paragraph out of context, and assume that because only a small percentage of people were taking advantage of "top speeds" it means that there's no real demand for it and no economic benefit.
<br /><br />
That's making a big assumption.  He's right that "it's not the speed of the internet that produces the economic growth," and that it's the people, but he ignores that part of what brings in those people are the services online -- and new, better and more useful services are quite frequently enabled by higher speeds.  It's almost hard to imagine how much more can be done online as speeds pick up.  A decade ago, the idea of so much video online was <i>crazy</i>.  And yet, here we are.
<br /><br />
Second, the fact that only a small percentage of people are using full broadband capabilities is meaningless.  That's a snapshot, not a look at the trend.  What happens is that as more services offer up useful features that increase the number of things you can <i>do</i> with broadband, more people will use it.  The last thing you want to do is get caught waiting -- and then suddenly have all your users pissed off that the broadband can't handle the latest and greatest applications and use cases.
<br /><br />
Faster broadband doesn't immediately get soaked up, but it does lead to greater investment in bandwidth-intensive services, and that will increase usage and expand the economy.  Taking one quote out of context and then looking at a snapshot rather than a trend is not a particularly compelling reason to pull out on key infrastructure investment at a time when it's needed most.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121109/23353421001/bad-reasoning-we-dont-need-more-high-speed-internet-because-people-dont-use-fast-internet-now.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121109/23353421001/bad-reasoning-we-dont-need-more-high-speed-internet-because-people-dont-use-fast-internet-now.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121109/23353421001/bad-reasoning-we-dont-need-more-high-speed-internet-because-people-dont-use-fast-internet-now.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-point-is-way-over-yonder</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121109/23353421001</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:05:02 PDT</pubDate>
<title>AT&#038;T Threatens To Cut Off Phone Service For Guy Who Beat Them In Small Claims Court Over Throttling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you may have heard over the last couple months, AT&#038;T has gone to war with customers who bought its "unlimited" data plans.  While the company no longer offers such plans, existing users were grandfathered in.  And they like those plans.  AT&#038;T, however, would prefer to move them over to tiered plans under which they'll pay more.  So it began <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/118235" target="_blank">throttling</a> their connections.  If they were using a fair amount of data (really not that much), it slowed their connection down to the point of being basically useless.  This is a pure bait-and-switch tactic, where the company sold customers something that it then failed to deliver.
<br /><br />
A guy named Matt Spaccarelli felt that this was a clear breach of contract and sued in small claims court... <a href="http://business.time.com/2012/02/27/can-every-iphone-user-sue-att-for-850/" target="_blank">and won $850</a> ($85 is his monthly fee, and the judge felt that there were 10 months left on the contract that was violated... so, $850).   Spaccarelli then also <a href="http://taporc.com/" target="_blank">set up a website</a> with all the details, so that others could file their own lawsuits.  Apparently, AT&#038;T is none too pleased about this and is <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6NTGmVWWu09o9CowPfi36ILosNQ" target="_blank">playing hardball with the guy</a>, threatening to cut off his phone service after determining that he used the phone to tether.
<br /><br />
How nice, right?  Beat AT&#038;T in small claims court, and they'll potentially cut off your phone service.
<br /><br />
Separately, they're trying to "settle" with him, but are pissed off that he's been public about the settlement attempts so far, as the key thing in the mind of AT&#038;T lawyers and execs is getting a gag order in place to stop others from going down the same path.  Of course, there's no requirement that Spaccarelli settle or agree to any gag order, and it sounds like he's not planning to:
<blockquote><i>
Spaccarelli has posted online the documents he used to argue his case and encourages other AT&#038;T customers copy his suit. Legal settlements usually include non-disclosure agreements that would force Spaccarelli to take down the documents.
<br /><br />
In its letter, AT&#038;T asked Spaccarelli to be quiet about the settlement talks, including the fact that it offered to start them, another common stipulation. Spaccarelli said he was not interested in settling, and forwarded the letter to The Associated Press.
</i></blockquote>
Good for him.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>playing-dirty</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120314/04211918101</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Study Confirms What You Already Knew: Mobile Data Throttling About The Money, Not Stopping Data Hogs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Of the four national mobile operators, only Sprint still offers an "unlimited" data plan -- and most industry watchers expect that to go away soon.  When the operators talk about this stuff, they complain about how unlimited plans are abused and the amount of data being used by so-called "data hogs" is crippling network bandwidth.  Of course, the alternative story is that they just want to charge people higher rates, and putting a toll booth on data usage makes that possible.  A new study by Validas confirms that the latter theory seems to match with reality.  The company looked at 11,000 mobile phone bills of users on both throttled (tiered) plans and unlimited data plans and found... <a href="http://blog.validas.com/blog/2012/02/17/why_throttle/" target="_blank">data usage was effectively the same</a>.  In other words, for all the talk about how tiers and throttles are needed to stop bandwidth hogging... reality shows that these plans have little impact on actual data usage.  Or, to put it really simply: these plans are all about the mobile operators making more money and have nothing to do with network capacity.
<br /><br />
Of course, as I've argued in the past, this is a pretty short-sighted strategy by the mobile operators.  While they have every right to set up whatever business models they want in order to maximize profit, this might come back to haunt them.  The problem with a tiered or throttled data plan is that it actually <i>makes the mobile data service <b>less valuable</b></i>.  Not only does it cost more for the same usage, it adds <i>mental transaction costs</i> as users have to keep track of their usage.  That's only going to make people value <i>alternatives</i> much more.  The carriers can get away with that if there are no alternatives (as is the case some of the time), but as more alternatives hit the market, expect people to shift their usage to networks they can actually use without fear.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-all-about-the-$$$</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120224/10500217867</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:01:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100915/00450411023.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100915/00450411023.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Like many people, I recently got an Android-powered smartphone, and had plenty of fun seeking out various apps to make the phone "better."  It can be pretty cool at times, but even I've realized that I use a very small percentage of the apps I got, and I rarely go looking for new apps these days.  Nearly two years ago, we discussed a study highlighting how many iPhone apps <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/0032093877.shtml">were installed, but went unused</a>, and wondered if that might be an early warning sign that apps aren't quite as popular as people think they are.  Of course, these days, app hype has reached <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/itinnovation/articles/20100209/0300008093.shtml">ridiculous levels</a>, with many companies literally betting their business models on the success of apps.  There definitely is value in apps, but I do worry that the focus on apps is leading people to overestimate their importance.
<br /><br />
Some new evidence echoes that study from a couple years ago, and again suggests that those who are now obsessed with apps may wish to be at least a bit cautious about the opportunity.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=nrarmen">Nate</a> was the first of a few to point us to the latest Pew study, which also shows <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/09/report-relatively-few-people-use-cell-phone-apps/1" target="_blank">an awful lot of people with smartphones that have apps, just don't use them</a>.  Of course, some of it may be semantics.  The study notes that there may be confusion over whether or not pre-installed functionality is an app or not.  Still, it should remain at least a cautious warning sign that app downloads does not mean app usage...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100915/00450411023.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100915/00450411023.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100915/00450411023.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-get-swept-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100915/00450411023</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:24:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dear AP: The Point Behind A Data Format Is To Make The Data Easier To Use, Not Harder</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090710/1700115516.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090710/1700115516.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Associated Press continues its attempt to convince the world to pretend the past still exists, while trying to dress it up in a modern dress.  The latest move?  It's <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_ASSOCIATED_PRESS_ONLINE_FORMATTING?SITE=CADIU&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_new">releasing a new data format</a> to append metadata to news articles.  But, it's not to make that news <i>more useful</i> for others to build on, like most data formats.  Instead, it's an attempt to make the news <i>less useful</i>, by including different tags on how the content can be used.  This is backwards, of course.  Data feeds and metadata are designed to add value to users, not take it away.  This does the opposite.  On top of that, this seems to be based on the idea that people should just agree to follow the usage rules.  That probably won't fly.  The way most of their content is used now is <i>legal</i>, it's just that the AP <i>doesn't like</i> it.  But that doesn't mean anyone has to stop linking to them or quoting fair-use snippets from their articles, just because the AP says so.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090710/1700115516.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090710/1700115516.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090710/1700115516.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sigh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090710/1700115516</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:23:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Stating The Obvious: Unlimited Data Plans Increase Usage</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/225110793.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/225110793.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sometimes it's fascinating to see the type of research reports that analyst firms put out.  For example, one firm has put out a report supposedly warning all these wireless firms hyping up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/011924301.shtml">"unlimited"</a> plans that <a href="http://gigaom.com/2008/04/08/unlimited-plans-could-create-unlimited-trouble/" target="_new">unlimited plans tend to increase usage</a>.  You think?  Really?  One would have hoped, given the long history of unlimited usage plans in other fields, that the mobile operators would have understood the basic economics equation in moving to such plans.  Of course, what this also ignores is that the same "unlimited" usage often helps create much greater value because it opens up the possibility of new applications and services that simply weren't possible before.  If the internet had remained a pay-per-hour solution (as it was for many in the early years) it never would have become nearly as useful, and the value of having an internet connection would have been significantly lower.  So, yes, it can increase the strain on a network for providers who aren't prepared (or unwilling to understand the basic incentive structure), but it also tends to increase the overall value of having access.  And that should only mean good things for the firms that offer such access.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/225110793.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/225110793.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/225110793.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-think?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080408/225110793</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>