Where’s the Map for That?

It appears that at&t doesn’t like Verizon’s snarky “There’s a Map for That” commercials.  You know, the ones that somewhat inaccurately equate Apple’s “There’s an App for That” slogan with at&t’s native 3G service.  (Kinda shows you just how important the iPhone is to at&t’s viability, doesn’t it? Once that exclusivity is gone, I wonder what will happen to at&t…)

Anyway, at&t has filed suit against Verizon, in Georgia of all places, alleging false and deceptive trade practices. (source)  The ads are pretty aggressive, really, showing that at&t has pretty anemic 3G coverage while Verizon’s is quite extensive.  What at&t doesn’t like is the insinuation that somehow at&t customers aren’t able to access voice and data in the areas not covered by the 3G map.  at&t’s 3G implementation isn’t quite as robust as Verizon’s, but it does have the EDGE network in many places, so at&t customers get a sort of half-fast data network in the places where 3G isn’t available.

That’s why at&t is suing Verizon, because it feels that Verizon is insinuating that at&t customers don’t get any service in the areas where 3G has not been implemented.  Verizon is having none of it, saying that the ads are accurate because they clearly state that they are talking about 3G technology and that at&t data and voice access are still available in many places.

What’s funny is that the whole case has the potential to be completely moot if it actually goes to trial.  By the time that happens, 4G will be the new standard, and 3G probably won’t matter one whit.

Hold the Fries, Please

Time has an article about how McDonald’s is doing relatively gangbuster business with its McCafé line of coffee drinks.  Now, I’ve never tried one, but I have heard one person describe a vanilla latte from McDonald’s as tasting like one of those cappuccinos you get from the gas station; fine if you’re looking for something incredibly sweet and vaguely coffee-tasting, but not really a latte.  But that’s anecdotal and based on an incredibly tiny sample size, and that’s not really the point.

The point is, profits at McDonald’s are up 4%, which is pretty impressive.  And the other point is that Starbucks’ earnings are down 77%.  Correlation? That’s certainly what seems to be implied.

But not necessarily.  For one thing, it appears that the lower earnings at Starbucks are due to, as Time puts it, “charges related to store closures and falling real estate values.”  Which doesn’t necessarily mean that people are ditching a somewhat relaxing time at Starbucks in favor of a trip to McDonald’s, despite what those irritating McDonald’s ads saying that drinking a latte from Starbucks turns you into a pretentious intellectual want you to think….  Wait what’s wrong with being a pretentious intellectual?

In any event, looking at Starbucks’ quarterly report, you can see that it had revenue of $2.3bn in Q2 of 2009, versus revenue of $2.5bn in Q2 of 2008.  That is down, no doubt, but “only” by about 7.6%.  By comparison, McDonald’s had revenues of $5.1bn in Q2 of 2009, compared to revenues of $5.6bn in Q2 of 2008, which is a decrease of about 10%.  So, while Starbucks pulls in about half the money McDonald’s does, I think it’s too much to say that McDonald’s is having Starbucks’ lunch.  Pardon the pun.

Now, I should make it clear that I frequent neither establishment regularly.  I will occasionally stop in to McDonald’s during a trip, but I don’t generally visit.  And I have no desire to drink one of their new McCafé things.  Mainly because of the afore-mentioned advertising campaign.  By the same token, however, I don’t regularly visit Starbucks.  This doesn’t really have anything to do with the price, as the price of drip coffee (my preference) is pretty much the same across the board: about $2.00 for a large.  It primarily has to do with the lack of free wireless internet connectivity.  I do a lot of work at coffeeshops, and having access to the internet is essential.  Now, I know that there are certain solutions available, such as signing up for a Starbucks Gold Card for $25.00 a year, that’ll give you two “free” hours of wireless a day, and I know if you sign up for new service with AT&T DSL Elite and Pro,  you can get free access to the AT&T hotspots.  But I’ve found a place I like, that doesn’t make me jump through hoops to get on the internet, and I’m sticking with it.  (So, in other words, I don’t have a dog in the fight.)

Bandwidth Conclusions

A couple of weeks ago, I posted some updated discoveries regarding bandwidth usage when streaming content.  My totals are, unfortunately, not much higher than they were when I posted that update.  I say “unfortunately” because the recent flooding in Houston really disrupted things for a while.

In any event, what did I learn?  Well, first of all, one should never expect constant throughput at maximum speeds.  For example, my DSL connection is through AT&T, and it is the “Elite” level, which is touted as having speeds “up to 6.0 Mbps.”  “Up to” is key here, as I have never once achieved that speed when testing it through tools like speedtest.net.  Usually it’s in the mid-fours.  And often much slower than that. And latency in Houston is usually absolutely terrible.  (I suppose it’s fortuitous, then, that I’m not really into on-line gaming, preferring the solitary experience…)

Second, I think there’s a limit to the speed levels offered by ISPs, and what my computer can actually handle.  I have no slouchy desktop machine; it’s got an AMD triple-core processor (64-bit), 4 Gigs of RAM, and even half a Gig of dedicated video memory.  I mean, it’s not a Falcon Northwest Mach 5 or anything like that (I don’t know if it’ll run Crysis, but I’m thinking probably not at full resolution), but it also didn’t cost 2100 bucks, either.  Anyway, I monitored throughput while downloading some Linux distros, and I noticed that as the throughput went above 500 KBps, my machine got sluggish.  I’m not certain why this is, but there you go.  (Also, this forum thread explains the whole “I have 6 Mbps service, why do I only get 500KBps?” question.  Hint:  capitalization matters.)

Third, streaming movies via Netflix does indeed gobble up bandwidth.  A month ago, I asked the question “Is that right?  Really? You could blow through even your Comcast bandwidth in less than 20 hours?  That doesn’t seem right…”  The answer is: Yes.  Sort of.  Netflix movies that stream with pretty good video quality do eat up about 1.5 Gigs of bandwidth per hour.  But my math was off by a power of ten.  (20 x 1.5 = 30, not 300!)

So, there you go.  As ISPs implement bandwidth caps, stream judicisously!