I commute via rail, and so I've always been interested in adding tethering to my cell phone plan. I figure it'd be a good way to spend my commute other than, um, reading literature.
And now that the iPhone has tethering capabilities, I figured its my perfect opportunity to get more by spending more. Sadly, AT&T hasn't announced its tethering plan yet, but I decided I can infer some information from their existing plans.
I did some research today on AT&T's website, looking into the tethering options for devices they sell now, such as the BlackBerry. I "made" a 450 minute voice plan and added tethering... and the total monthly fee came to $99.99 per month. Certainly more than the $69.99 plan, but clearly tethering will use lots more bandwidth. I also noted that AT&T has a 5 GB cap on their tethering plan.
As a cost comparison, I went to Verizon's online store. They didn't have a tethering option readily visible, so I just made a $450 smartphone plan, and it came to $69.98 per month. Then, I located the Broadband Connect page ... and it suggested that adding tethering to the $69.99 smartphone plan would cost an additional $15.00 per month.
So, if all my math is correct, it seems like for a 450 minute smartphone plan with 5 GB of tethering, the score is: Verizon: $85/mo. AT&T: $100/mo.
One reason why I've liked AT&T is that I knew they were a better deal for the money. Hopefully they'll address this major pricing discrepancy with their competitors. Otherwise, for $15 per month, I may as well go back to Verizon and use my jailbroken iPhone as a client ;-)
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Upgrading from the iPhone 3G to the new iPhone 3GS
I have been very interested in the new iPhone 3GS, and so I decided to take a look to see if it'd be possible to upgrade. I made a few phone calls and did some research.I learned that AT&T will allow me to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS without special charges after 1 year and 8 months under contract... so, happily I don't have to wait the full 2 years to get my hands on the new iPhone. But since I somewhat recently bought my iPhone, I still have to wait another year before I can upgrade.
However, since I can't wait, I can upgrade to the new iPhone 3GS for a fee - they'll let me upgrade to the new phone if I pay a $200 premium. That means that I'd pay $399 for a phone that usually goes for $199. The $200 "surcharge" is a number that's comparable to the "contract early termination" fee.
I bought my 16 GB iPhone 3G for $299. If I sell it now, I'll have a newer battery and a newer warranty. I feel those improvements are worth $50 to me. And therefore, I feel that IF I can sell my used iPhone for $350, it'd be an easy decision.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Next Great Thing: iPhone, Google, and VoIP
This spring Google is transitioning its telecom service "Grand Central" to "Google Voice", a service that promises to tie together telephone, voicemail, email, video, and chat into a single service. It promises to be like Skype, GMail, Video Mail and traditional telecom all rolled into one.
It just also happens that Apple is working on iPhone OS v3.0. iPhone 3.0 offers a lot of new internals to the iPhone, but with no single "huge, new" feature. Rumor also has it that Apple is planning for the next generation of iPhones and perhaps new iPods.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that these events are coupled. The seamless convergence of a modern, comprehensive telecom service coupled with an internationally available handset will be a killer app. And AT&T will be on board, as this will sell tons of service.
Imagine the features:
So there you have it - convergence of telecom on a grand scale, and dragging the big telecom providers into the 21st century by level-setting voice with video and internet services.
It just also happens that Apple is working on iPhone OS v3.0. iPhone 3.0 offers a lot of new internals to the iPhone, but with no single "huge, new" feature. Rumor also has it that Apple is planning for the next generation of iPhones and perhaps new iPods.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that these events are coupled. The seamless convergence of a modern, comprehensive telecom service coupled with an internationally available handset will be a killer app. And AT&T will be on board, as this will sell tons of service.
Imagine the features:
- One device for all communications.
- A single mailbox.
- Voicemail is just another type of mail.
- Videomail is just another type of mail.
- SMS is just another type of mail.
- Labeling rules, as seen on Gmail, organizes your mail, can trigger alerts, etc.
- VoIP is on-par with traditional telecom voice services, with one difference: incredibly low price per call and no need for a traditional telephone number.
- Location-awareness mail
- Voice-to-text and text-to-voice services for all mail, as already seen in several Google services.
So there you have it - convergence of telecom on a grand scale, and dragging the big telecom providers into the 21st century by level-setting voice with video and internet services.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Average iPhone user accesses web 40x more than BlackBerry
I have heard that users of the iPhone aren't as happy with their battery life when compared with BlackBerry owner experiences. Since both devices use the same battery technology, it seems that either the devices have substantially different power efficiency numbers, or that iPhone owners make more use of their device.
So I've looked at some commonly available statistics to see if I can determine if people use the iPhone more than the BlackBerry. The results are astounding.
NetApps has recently published their "Mobile Web Browser" statistics, and it looks like the iPhone accounts for roughly 64% of all mobile web sessions (April 2009). In contrast, the BlackBerry accounts for 3.1% of mobile web sessions.
So we know out of the gate the people use their iPhones more than BlackBerry users. But this simple statistic doesn't show everything: According to ChangeWave Research's December 2008 market share numbers, the iPhone acounts for 23% of the smartphone marketplace, while the BlackBerry accounts for 41%. That means there are about 1.7 BlackBerrys in use for each iPhone in use.
So people use their iPhones much more than the NetApps statistics suggest!
Chugging through these two sets of numbers, it seems like the typical iPhone user accesses the web through their primary browser roughly 40 times more than the typical BlackBerry user. If a BlackBerry user accesses the web from their device for 5 minutes a week, the typical iPhone user accesses it for 200 minutes.
So when reading statistics that compare battery life between the BlackBerry and the iPhone from the user's perspective, remember: iPhone owners access the web 40 times more frequently than BlackBerry users. And accessing the web drives the screen, the CPU, and the radio circuitry more heavily than a simple voice call.
And I haven't even started to estimate how many optional "app store" applications are used on the iPhone versus the BlackBerry.
Oh, and for my iPhone's battery life? With 3G, Wifi, and Bluetooth all "on", I get about 5 ½ hours of activity. And I can charge it full, from empty, in under 90 minutes. That's better than any other cell phone I've ever owned.
So I've looked at some commonly available statistics to see if I can determine if people use the iPhone more than the BlackBerry. The results are astounding.
NetApps has recently published their "Mobile Web Browser" statistics, and it looks like the iPhone accounts for roughly 64% of all mobile web sessions (April 2009). In contrast, the BlackBerry accounts for 3.1% of mobile web sessions.
So we know out of the gate the people use their iPhones more than BlackBerry users. But this simple statistic doesn't show everything: According to ChangeWave Research's December 2008 market share numbers, the iPhone acounts for 23% of the smartphone marketplace, while the BlackBerry accounts for 41%. That means there are about 1.7 BlackBerrys in use for each iPhone in use.
So people use their iPhones much more than the NetApps statistics suggest!
Chugging through these two sets of numbers, it seems like the typical iPhone user accesses the web through their primary browser roughly 40 times more than the typical BlackBerry user. If a BlackBerry user accesses the web from their device for 5 minutes a week, the typical iPhone user accesses it for 200 minutes.
So when reading statistics that compare battery life between the BlackBerry and the iPhone from the user's perspective, remember: iPhone owners access the web 40 times more frequently than BlackBerry users. And accessing the web drives the screen, the CPU, and the radio circuitry more heavily than a simple voice call.
And I haven't even started to estimate how many optional "app store" applications are used on the iPhone versus the BlackBerry.
Oh, and for my iPhone's battery life? With 3G, Wifi, and Bluetooth all "on", I get about 5 ½ hours of activity. And I can charge it full, from empty, in under 90 minutes. That's better than any other cell phone I've ever owned.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Cheapest smartphone plans
Well today I looked at Smart Phone plans to decide which one is the best deal for me. I'd like complete internet access with a full browser, email, decent performance, plus roughly 400 minutes per month. I'm not a big text messager.
So I went to all the web sites of all the major American mobile phone providers to check out their pricing. In short, all their devices are roughly $200, and their plans are $70 per month. The ONLY exception is T-Mobile G1, which is slightly less expensive at $180 for the device and $65 per month.
Of course, all the plans have little wrinkles that can have benefits (or detriments):
1. The T-Mobile plan only comes with 300 minutes of prime-time talk. That's pretty bare-bones for $65 per month. But it does have the "Fav 5" capability, which means that you can choose 5 numbers with unlimited talk. And it does come with 400 free text messages a month. The addition of the Fav 5 makes this a reasonable option for me, despite the lousy base talk time.
2. The Sprint plan comes with 450 minutes, like all the others except T-Mobile. But it also has 7 PM nights, which means two more waking hours of free talk time. Most other providers kick in off-peak at 9 PM. Plus, they have unlimited texting.
3. The AT&T plan also has 450 minutes, and nights start at the standard 9 PM. But AT&T has roll-over, which effectively increases your minutes - as your unused minutes in one month are still yours to use later. Plus AT&T lets you call anyone on the AT&T mobile network for free. And since "Visual Voicemail" is included, listening to voicemail doesn't cost you minutes. In all, this means substantially more general purpose talking minutes than any other plan. No text messaging is included.
4. The Verizon plan is the most simple to understand. 450 minutes per month, nights at 9 PM.
Of course, all these plans could be impacted by hidden fees, set-up charges, and so-forth. Plus, you might be able to get discounts - you'll have to look around.
In short, I sum up the low-end smart phone plans like this:
Let me know if I've missed anything. All these plans are complicated, and which one is for you is highly dependent on how you plan to use your phone.
So I went to all the web sites of all the major American mobile phone providers to check out their pricing. In short, all their devices are roughly $200, and their plans are $70 per month. The ONLY exception is T-Mobile G1, which is slightly less expensive at $180 for the device and $65 per month.
Of course, all the plans have little wrinkles that can have benefits (or detriments):
1. The T-Mobile plan only comes with 300 minutes of prime-time talk. That's pretty bare-bones for $65 per month. But it does have the "Fav 5" capability, which means that you can choose 5 numbers with unlimited talk. And it does come with 400 free text messages a month. The addition of the Fav 5 makes this a reasonable option for me, despite the lousy base talk time.
2. The Sprint plan comes with 450 minutes, like all the others except T-Mobile. But it also has 7 PM nights, which means two more waking hours of free talk time. Most other providers kick in off-peak at 9 PM. Plus, they have unlimited texting.
3. The AT&T plan also has 450 minutes, and nights start at the standard 9 PM. But AT&T has roll-over, which effectively increases your minutes - as your unused minutes in one month are still yours to use later. Plus AT&T lets you call anyone on the AT&T mobile network for free. And since "Visual Voicemail" is included, listening to voicemail doesn't cost you minutes. In all, this means substantially more general purpose talking minutes than any other plan. No text messaging is included.
4. The Verizon plan is the most simple to understand. 450 minutes per month, nights at 9 PM.
Of course, all these plans could be impacted by hidden fees, set-up charges, and so-forth. Plus, you might be able to get discounts - you'll have to look around.
In short, I sum up the low-end smart phone plans like this:
- T-Mobile, best if you call 5 or fewer numbers very often, and talk to few others.
- AT&T, with the most effective minutes, is best if you call a lot of different numbers during the day.
- Sprint, with the early off-peak hour, is best if you call a lot after 7 PM, and not before.
Let me know if I've missed anything. All these plans are complicated, and which one is for you is highly dependent on how you plan to use your phone.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Cable Box Electricity Consumption and Cost
Today I got around to measuring the electricity consumption of the cable TV box that is in my home - a Comcast Motorola DCT-3412. It's an HDTV Cable TV box with DVR.
Is this "powered off" cable box costing American taxpayers hundreds of millions?
Electricity Cost
Is this "powered off" cable box costing American taxpayers hundreds of millions?I measured the box's consumption by plugging it into my Kill-O-Watt meter and measuring the wattage.
Surprisingly, I found that my cable box consumes just about as much power when "off" than when "on".
Here's what I measured with my Kill-O-Watt meter:
- "Power Off": 30 watts
- Watching TV: 31 watts
- Recording TV: 31 watts
- Playing back a recorded program: 31 watts
Why provide a power button when it makes so little difference in power consumption? Who knows!
Electricity Cost
So I did some math to figure out how much 30 watts of consistent power use costs, using recent prices for electricity around here:
(17¢ per kwh x 30 watts x 8760 hours per year ) / 1000 = $44.67 per year
Amazing - think about it - according to my analysis, perhaps 5 million people pay $44 per year for the electricity for a cable TV box that's mostly powered off! That's approaching a quarter of a BILLION dollars in electricity every year, thrown away!
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The new face of TV - DTV, that is.
If cable TV customers experienced over-the-air digital TV, the cable industry might lose a good chunk of their customers.
Here's the story:
A few weeks ago I decided that I was going to convert some old home VHS videos to DVD, and so I went shopping for a simple DVD recorder. I figure a DVD recorder would be more useful, less frustrating, and more fun that some video gadget for my PC.
SoI logged onto Amazon and I bought myself a DVD recorder. And just for fun, I bought a model with a modern digital TV tuner inside. I've never played with over-the-air digital TV, so this was my chance.
Well, the DVD burner works pretty well (more on that in a subsequent post). But I really want to talk about the Digital TV tuner.
In short, over-the-air digital TV is something that the cable TV companies must have a lot of fear of. When I was a kid, we watched all 7 local channels - Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 25, 38 and 56. Yeah, there were other channels, but they were totally unwatchable. And even the "local" channels that looked good looked like crap, despite our enormous rooftop aerial antenna . But we were happy.
Now, with my digital TV tuner and simple set-top rabbit ear antenna, I get about 25 picture-perfect channels over the air. And thats with my crappy 15 year old, 20-inch tube TV.
No wonder the cable TV industry tells their customers that people don't need to worry about digital TV tuners - 25 channels of free digital TV is very compelling for me. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of cable TV customers feel the same way.
Here's the story:
A few weeks ago I decided that I was going to convert some old home VHS videos to DVD, and so I went shopping for a simple DVD recorder. I figure a DVD recorder would be more useful, less frustrating, and more fun that some video gadget for my PC.
SoI logged onto Amazon and I bought myself a DVD recorder. And just for fun, I bought a model with a modern digital TV tuner inside. I've never played with over-the-air digital TV, so this was my chance.
Well, the DVD burner works pretty well (more on that in a subsequent post). But I really want to talk about the Digital TV tuner.
In short, over-the-air digital TV is something that the cable TV companies must have a lot of fear of. When I was a kid, we watched all 7 local channels - Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 25, 38 and 56. Yeah, there were other channels, but they were totally unwatchable. And even the "local" channels that looked good looked like crap, despite our enormous rooftop aerial antenna . But we were happy.
Now, with my digital TV tuner and simple set-top rabbit ear antenna, I get about 25 picture-perfect channels over the air. And thats with my crappy 15 year old, 20-inch tube TV.
No wonder the cable TV industry tells their customers that people don't need to worry about digital TV tuners - 25 channels of free digital TV is very compelling for me. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of cable TV customers feel the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
What kind of camera do you own?
