Free data for four years!

[contaygious]

Yay! So slacker too right? Does that mean i can get the user info to setup my phone and pc? I had the login once but lost it.

Also does that mean if you didnt get the tech package you are missing out at all? I have tech so i dunno

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

I'm surprised Tesla is taking this kind of revenue hit, not that I'm complaining. Put it this way, assuming they eventually charge $20 per month (low end), that means this 4 years of free service saves us $960! If they charge $30 (more likely), then we are now saving $1,440! This makes me one very happy customer!

I'd actually expect the monthly charge to be closer to $10, which is what Verizon charges me for a tablet or notebook computer on my plan... and those devices probably (speculation) suck down much more data than my car does. Still, that's $480 I don't need to spend and it's great customer service, so I'm both happy and grateful.

What I'd like to know is what the implications are for the concept of using the car as a WiFi hotspot that supplies its occupants, which is something I'm very much anticipating. I hope that having the car be a hotspot is still something we can expect to see, and I further hope that Tesla simply uses this as an upselling opportunity: you get basic data service in your car for free, but hotspot functionality costs an extra $10 or $15 a month. I'd be extremely disappointed if hotspot functionality went the way of in-car music storage (which I don't miss).

 

[liuping]

This helps the TCO calculations as well. Tesla like using that to lower the effective cost of the car to something around $610 a month. Charging $30 a month for data would increase the "effective" cost by 5%.

 

[howardc64]

It's definitely not this...the car (well, the cellular equipment) is designed to be able to split off telemetry and other Tesla-paid data (before they decided to make our data free!) so that customers could choose not to buy a data plan and Tesla would still have access to our logs and other key data, and could still push updates. I would guess two things are involved here: 1) Billing may have been too hard/expensive/not worthwhile for so few US cars, and 2) If Tesla buys in bulk for 20,000-40,000 cars, they probably get a much better rate than making it optional...otherwise it's a risk for AT&T to put in the billing effort; what if only 5k people signed up, for example? And can you imagine the hassle of people wanting to "add a device" where that device is a Tesla? I imagine AT&T would rather send one bill to Tesla and cut them a very nice deal. And folks, let's just establish that Tesla and AT&T have said that for current cars it will be 4G HSPA+, which is far faster than what we need for what the car can do today. I know LTE is much faster, but people, we are browsing the web without video and listening to compressed internet audio while downloading some maps...do you really think 2, 3, 4, or 5 mbps isn't enough?!?!

Billing headache is sensible reason. I still think 3G is likely very cheap being old tech and probably have better coverage during the Model S release cycle.

On 4G HSPA+, are we there yet? or still on 3G?

I do think and agree getting LTE is probably unnecessary and won't be beneficial for a number of reasons

- music+maps+telemetry don't need it. These are the primary functions in a car.
- browser is the only one that can use it and maybe video streaming if Tesla were to add it. I can think of 2 factors that prevents this area from improving.

A. smartphone/Tablet/computers's fast browsers comes from a ton of software tuning work by the browser developer. I doubt Tesla software team will dedicate the necessary effort to tune up the browser. Browser is also a constantly evolving standard with lots of plugins which all requires tuning as well. Takes a lot to keep up. I would guess the "browser" feature on Tesla will fade into the sunset (probably have already given its current capability) unless they piggy back onto standard products like Apple or Android. And its reasonable for Tesla to say "just leave that complicated browser function to mobile tablets". We all have used Tesla's browser, compatibility doesn't seem very good and speed is very poor. At first glance, the reason doesn't appear to be hardware or 3G. Apple and Google's browsers are constructed from open source these days (webkit) Just building this browser without a heavy tuning effort can not reach competitive performance or compatibility (flash etc...)

Making video go fast require dedicated hardware for video playback. The reason our latest smartphones+tablets do video so well is because they put great video hardware in it. The evolution was really fast. Video hardware improved by at least 2X/year in the last few years. Not sure what is the vintage of Tesla's entertainment computer but surely <= 2011 hardware given the car's design cycle. In addition, Tesla has no business evolving the entertainment computer rapidly as they should be focused on building great cars. It is impossible to keep up the smartphone/tablet's improvement rate anyway.

So while Tesla teases the world with that huge infotainment screen and leads everyone to believe "it can be a great newest generation tablet with 17" screen". There is neither the hardware revision effort or software effort necessary to match tablet's progress. It is a big screen but behind it is old hardware and minimal common web software efforts.

Even if we get LTE, Tesla's browser is likely still slow unless they put a lot more software work into it.

B.. Carriers fundamentally wants to see additional revenue streams for bigger mobile screens such as tablets. They probably don't want to give it away for cheap in cars.

C. Bigger bandwidth means richer data to that big screen and likely wants to grab attention. Drivers will likely not be able to use it while driving so will not be primary function.

I'd imagine A is a lot bigger deterrent than B. Tesla's software engineers have lots primary car feature work to do before getting to a world class browser which is quite an effort. They probably also became wowed by the 17 inch screen at the beginning and put the browser in. But surely have seen the development cost now and have already backed off on this goal.

 

[techMology]

Carriers usually seek second life use for older wireless technology. The infrastructure is already deployed and paid for.

I'd imagine smartphone's rapid LTE migration means there is probably excess 3G capacity. Just a guess but this is probably the reason Tesla is sticking with 3G and I'd imagine it is very cheap. Tesla's silicon valley computer trained engineers probably wants everyone to have live connection to continue collecting in field car's telemetry for feedback on product improvement.

Moving up to LTE would increase cost and likely have to pass cost onto the end users.

It's pretty much the opposite of this. Wireless carrier's actually *want* customers off older infrastructure as quick as possible, especially in the case of heavy data users (I would classify a mobile Tesla in this category, if Google maps are running and Slacker or TuneIn is streaming). Older networks hog available spectrum. Those using it are making inefficient use of spectrum. It's in a carrier's best interest to move users to technologies (such as LTE) which make more efficient use of their spectrum. If AT&T and Verizon could shut down their 3G (and 2.5G) networks without causing an uproar, they would in a heartbeat. The quicker you can deliver data to user equipment (a car, a phone, a tablet, etc...) the more available the network is for other users.

My guess is Tesla is sticking with 3G (HSPA+) because their component costs are lower (there are some antenna changes required too), and/or they have committed to X number of modules and haven't hit that run yet. Few carriers are charging extra for 4G (LTE) access (and none in developed markets that I can think of), so it's highly unlikely there would be an additional "cost" to Tesla if they provided LTE.

It's definitely not this...the car (well, the cellular equipment) is designed to be able to split off telemetry and other Tesla-paid data (before they decided to make our data free!) so that customers could choose not to buy a data plan and Tesla would still have access to our logs and other key data, and could still push updates. I would guess two things are involved here: 1) Billing may have been too hard/expensive/not worthwhile for so few US cars, and 2) If Tesla buys in bulk for 20,000-40,000 cars, they probably get a much better rate than making it optional...otherwise it's a risk for AT&T to put in the billing effort; what if only 5k people signed up, for example? And can you imagine the hassle of people wanting to "add a device" where that device is a Tesla? I imagine AT&T would rather send one bill to Tesla and cut them a very nice deal. And folks, let's just establish that Tesla and AT&T have said that for current cars it will be 4G HSPA+, which is far faster than what we need for what the car can do today. I know LTE is much faster, but people, we are browsing the web without video and listening to compressed internet audio while downloading some maps...do you really think 2, 3, 4, or 5 mbps isn't enough?!?!

From AT&T's perspective, it's not #1. The billing infrastructure is identical, and it's already set-up. There is no difference between billing a 4G LTE customer and a 3G HSPA customer. Billing from a Tesla perspective? Different story. Tesla may not want to bother dealing with it right now. It's doubtful Tesla would ask customers to sign up with AT&T directly, so they would have to juice their current systems to bill for wireless services on a recurring basis (or outsource it, which would be more likely).

#2. The number of units Tesla produces is largely irrelevant; it's the amount of data that's consumed that matters. Yes, having more customers gives you more leverage in pricing discussions, but those numbers are widely circulated by Tesla and would have been part of the discussion. The technical and administrative aspects of billing are a no-brainer, and a non-issue.

...and as far as "HSPA+ being enough", when it comes to throughput, sure. It's fine. The biggest difference between LTE and HSPA is real latency vs. theoretical latency. With LTE, it's less than 1/2 HSPA in real use. With downlink throughput being equal, LTE will outperform HSPA significantly. The end result is a better user experience. Also, it's 2014. I plan on having my car for at least 8 years. With the SDK being released next year (hopefully), the number and type of applications that will be around in 2 or 3 years could have massive bandwidth requirements that is unsuitable for HSPA (or whatever is left of the HSPA network after AT&T migrates more spectrum to LTE because consumer handsets are 100% LTE capable and use of HSPA has declined significantly).

Having LTE is less about today, and more about tomorrow. I don't plan on replacing my car every 2 years like I do my smartphone. Due to antenna requirements, it may not be a simple module swap to upgrade to LTE either.

What I'd like to know is what the implications are for the concept of using the car as a WiFi hotspot that supplies its occupants, which is something I'm very much anticipating. I hope that having the car be a hotspot is still something we can expect to see, and I further hope that Tesla simply uses this as an upselling opportunity: you get basic data service in your car for free, but hotspot functionality costs an extra $10 or $15 a month. I'd be extremely disappointed if hotspot functionality went the way of in-car music storage (which I don't miss).

My guess is that as the whole family plan sharing thing catches on (carriers are heavily promoting it now), there will be little demand for this, so I'm guessing it will be low priority. Want to give your kid with the iPod Touch Internet access? Tether to one of the other 3 phones in the car that have connectivity. Agreed, it would be a nice option, but I don't see it happening. Maybe in 4 years when Tesla finally starts charging people for wireless.

 

[techMology]

Billing headache is sensible reason. I still think 3G is likely very cheap being old tech and probably have better coverage during the Model S release cycle.

On 4G HSPA+, are we there yet? or still on 3G?

Yes. Depending on your definition of 4G.

Based on some sleuthing on TM's forums, the chipset Tesla is using is the Sierra Wireless AR8550 (or at least was/is in North America). It supports HSPA+, HSDPA, EDGE, GPRS, and GSM. There is some conflicting information online with regards to what bands it supports; one source says 1700 (AWS) and AT&T itself says it supports 2100 MHz. This is important because the majority of HSPA networks outside of the Americas support 2100 MHz. (sometimes, AWS is known as 2100 because it technically operates in 1700/2100 paired spectrum, making things more confusing). I'm assuming they are using the ROW (rest of world) version of the chipset for Europe, the AR8552.

As far as speeds go, "HSPA" can be as misleading as "4G". The chipset above (if it's what they are still using) supports 14.4 Mbps on the downlink, and 5.76 Mbps on the uplink. Those are maximum speeds. Real speeds on a congested network will most likely be in the 1 to 3 Mbps range on the downlink, peaking at 6 Mbps is you're lucky.

So, it may be "4G" at it's maximum theoretical rate, but not in real use.

I do think and agree getting LTE is probably unnecessary and won't be beneficial for a number of reasons

- music+maps+telemetry don't need it. These are the primary functions in a car.
- browser is the only one that can use it and maybe video streaming if Tesla were to add it. I can think of 2 factors that prevents this area from improving.

I don't have my car yet, but I've read a lot of complaints about map tiles loading slowly. This is caused by network latency (see my other post) more than throughput. Google Maps uses a series of tiles images to display maps. I'd argue that LTE is necessary to improve this performance in any meaningful way. I personally don't care about video streaming, but I'm sure some others do (maybe while stationary/parked I could see this being handy).

As I said in my other post, LTE is less about today, and more about tomorrow.

A. smartphone/Tablet/computers's fast browsers comes from a ton of software tuning work by the browser developer. I doubt Tesla software team will dedicate the necessary effort to tune up the browser. Browser is also a constantly evolving standard with lots of plugins which all requires tuning as well. Takes a lot to keep up. I would guess the "browser" feature on Tesla will fade into the sunset (probably have already given its current capability) unless they piggy back onto standard products like Apple or Android.

Tesla is utilizing WebKit, which, is an open sourced project Apple's Safari browser is built on (and Chrome, previously - Google has since forked WebKit). So, Tesla is basically doing what you said: piggybacking on a standard product.

At first glance, the reason doesn't appear to be hardware or 3G

I'd argue that it's exactly hardware and 3G that is causing the poor performance (that, and as you mention, any "tuning" of their implementation of WebKit).

Making video go fast require dedicated hardware for video playback. The reason our latest smartphones+tablets do video so well is because they put great video hardware in it. The evolution was really fast. Video hardware improved by at least 2X/year in the last few years. Not sure what is the vintage of Tesla's entertainment computer but surely <= 2011 hardware given the car's design cycle. In addition, Tesla has no business evolving the entertainment computer rapidly as they should be focused on building great cars. It is impossible to keep up the smartphone/tablet's improvement rate anyway.

Tesla is using nVidia's Tegra VCM SoC to drive infotainment functions. The Tegra system-on-a-chip (SoC) integrates eight specialized processors, including a multi-core ARM CPU, a GPU, and dedicated audio, video, and image processors. So, the system has the dedicated hardware you speak of.

Even if we get LTE, Tesla's browser is likely still slow unless they put a lot more software work into it.

I agree 100% with this statement!

B.. Carriers fundamentally wants to see additional revenue streams for bigger mobile screens such as tablets. They probably don't want to give it away for cheap in cars.

Tesla is AT&T's customer in this case. AT&T is just providing a pipe, and have no interest in building additional revenue streams given the current model (although I'm sure they'd love to). Tesla's focus is different than AT&T's, and it's clear they're not overly interested in value added services in this realm - at least not yet. Maybe in 4 years time. I'm glad Tesla has abstracted the network provider from us. It shows their focus is in the right place, at least at the moment.

 

[howardc64]

It's pretty much the opposite of this. Wireless carrier's actually *want* customers off older infrastructure as quick as possible, especially in the case of heavy data users (I would classify a mobile Tesla in this category, if Google maps are running and Slacker or TuneIn is streaming). Older networks hog available spectrum. Those using it are making inefficient use of spectrum. It's in a carrier's best interest to move users to technologies (such as LTE) which make more efficient use of their spectrum. If AT&T and Verizon could shut down their 3G (and 2.5G) networks without causing an uproar, they would in a heartbeat. The quicker you can deliver data to user equipment (a car, a phone, a tablet, etc...) the more available the network is for other users.

My guess is Tesla is sticking with 3G (HSPA+) because their component costs are lower (there are some antenna changes required too), and/or they have committed to X number of modules and haven't hit that run yet. Few carriers are charging extra for 4G (LTE) access (and none in developed markets that I can think of), so it's highly unlikely there would be an additional "cost" to Tesla if they provided LTE.

Good point, I don't know the frequency spectrum utilization between 3G and LTE. If it is same, make sense to shift to more bits/Mhz I guess my reference comes from very old technology like PHS and pager network

Another reason to stick with 3G is design cycles. LTE component infrastructure was likely not as ready at Model S's design/integration phase.

Tesla is utilizing WebKit, which, is an open sourced project Apple's Safari browser is built on (and Chrome, previously - Google has since forked WebKit). So, Tesla is basically doing what you said: piggybacking on a standard product.

Just a note having done a webkit project recently. Webkit is commonly use by most device that wants to be on web these days. Just getting the open source code, building it and do a basic integration will leave a lot of performance on the table. There are careful tuning efforts necessary to handle Java code and plug-ins like flash to a specific piece of hardware.

So yes, Tesla uses the same open source webkit infrastructure as Apple/Google. but they probably quickly discovered the size of the effort for a competitive browser and the never ending large scale effort to track the browser updates.

BTW, most open source projects are like this. Can't be competitive just grabbing code, build and release. Quite a bit of work has to go into it.

I'd argue that it's exactly hardware and 3G that is causing the poor performance (that, and as you mention, any "tuning" of their implementation of WebKit).

And yes, circa 2008/9/10/11 hardware probably has lot to do with the browser performance as well

 

[techMology]

Good point, I don't know the frequency spectrum utilization between 3G and LTE. If it is same, make sense to shift to more bits/Mhz I guess my reference comes from very old technology like PHS and pager network

They want faster networks so they can squeeze more people on them! :smile:

Another reason to stick with 3G is design cycles. LTE component infrastructure was likely not as ready at Model S's design/integration phase.

Completely. Also, automotive applications are very different than personal applications. The requirements are more stringent for good reason. Reliability, environment, and performance requirements are totally different. LTE is still very much a mess with different frequencies (hence why an AT&T iPhone won't work on LTE on Verizon's network). LTE-Advanced will solve a lot of this, but the terminals are not available - yet. I'm going to Mobile World Congress in Barcelona next week; it will be interesting to see who launches what in this area. The network equipment is already available from the infrastructure vendors (and they are more than happy to sell their customers on it).

Just a note having done a webkit project recently. Webkit is commonly use by most device that wants to be on web these days. Just getting the open source code, building it and do a basic integration will leave a lot of performance on the table. There are careful tuning efforts necessary to handle Java code and plug-ins like flash to a specific piece of hardware.

Oh, totally. And you're right, it's doubtful Tesla has the bandwidth or focus to really hone things in this area. They sound pretty resource constrained. Also, there would be a limited return on investment if they really optimized the browser. Customers aren't buying a car based on web browser performance. Yet. :smile:

BTW, most open source projects are like this. Can't be competitive just grabbing code, build and release. Quite a bit of work has to go into it.

Yep. Agreed.

 

[neroden]

"To further enhance the driver experience, new Model S customers will now receive free data connectivity and
Internet radio for four years. As an added benefit to our existing Model S customers, the free four year period
starts on January 1, 2014. To be fair to all, in rare cases a customer may be charged for extreme data use."

Aha. I was correct: it's not worth Tesla's time to bill for it because almost everyone uses the data connectivity so little. They're hedging their bets by charging anyone for "extreme" data use.

I'm going to betcha that the data continues to be free for four more years after that, because it still won't be worth billing for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I would guess the "browser" feature on Tesla will fade into the sunset (probably have already given its current capability) unless they piggy back onto standard products like Apple or Android. And its reasonable for Tesla to say "just leave that complicated browser function to mobile tablets". We all have used Tesla's browser, compatibility doesn't seem very good and speed is very poor.

Think about the use case for the browser in the car. I've used it to look up the address and phone number of restaurants or shops or businesses on their website. Some people put a clock up in the browser. I've used it to check the weather report. For all of this, a browser doesn't need to be very fast.

 

[Rodolfo Paiz]

Think about the use case for the browser in the car. I've used it to look up the address and phone number of restaurants or shops or businesses on their website. Some people put a clock up in the browser. I've used it to check the weather report. For all of this, a browser doesn't need to be very fast.

For all of this, a browser doesn't need to be very fast... but having it is a godsend. My greatest use of the browser is to pay for parking since many places in Miami allow you to do this via an app/web... passenger jaws drop when I pull up the browser, pay for the parking, and I'm on my way. Also, going to a business's website to find its locations, phone numbers, and hours has proven invaluable a few times. And while stopped and waiting for someone, my kids love pulling up song lyrics on "the big screen" so they can follow along with the song. Love the browser.

- - - Updated - - -

My guess is that as the whole family plan sharing thing catches on (carriers are heavily promoting it now), there will be little demand for this, so I'm guessing it will be low priority. Want to give your kid with the iPod Touch Internet access? Tether to one of the other 3 phones in the car that have connectivity. Agreed, it would be a nice option, but I don't see it happening. Maybe in 4 years when Tesla finally starts charging people for wireless.

I disagree. I have a family plan with a high data quota. Adding mobile data to a tablet increases its cost from $269 to $349 (Nexus 7), a rather significant 30% increase, plus the $10/month charge for that device. Plus, I just don't want my kids' tablets to have mobile data at that age. And tethering to my phone creates immediate battery concerns... I want my phone to be useful as a phone and be fully charged at the end of the trip, and I want the hotspot available for all users in the car at all times without having to turn on my phone's hotspot every single time someone wants to use it that way. What you propose is, frankly, a usability nightmare in my eyes. Which is why I hope that Tesla says "free data for your car, and $10-$20/month if you want hotspot functionality."

 

[paco3791]

So this is great news, but I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the internet radio portion of the announcement. Does this mean that I get premium slacker access again so I can look up any specific song? Since my initial 3-month slacker premium trial expired I've lost that functionality. Granted I used it pretty rarely, but it was nice to have when the mood struck me for a specific song.

 

[techMology]

I disagree. I have a family plan with a high data quota. Adding mobile data to a tablet increases its cost from $269 to $349 (Nexus 7), a rather significant 30% increase, plus the $10/month charge for that device. Plus, I just don't want my kids' tablets to have mobile data at that age. And tethering to my phone creates immediate battery concerns... I want my phone to be useful as a phone and be fully charged at the end of the trip, and I want the hotspot available for all users in the car at all times without having to turn on my phone's hotspot every single time someone wants to use it that way. What you propose is, frankly, a usability nightmare in my eyes. Which is why I hope that Tesla says "free data for your car, and $10-$20/month if you want hotspot functionality."

I never said I agreed with it. It's just my take on what's going to happen. I agree, it's a total usability nightmare, and also, I wouldn't want my kids to have mobile data either, but that doesn't really change my guess on what's going to happen.

If Tesla is prepared to charge us zero for monthly access now, I'd venture to guess that they're not going to put any effort into enabling a hotspot feature on the car which would require a recurring monthly fee. Besides, with the current hardware, sharing multiple devices on a 14.4 Mbps connection will be painfully slow. I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement with AT&T prohibits using the car as a mobile hotspot.

A friend of mine a couple of years ago picked up a mobile hotspot for his family to share while they were taking a 20+ hour road trip; same speed as the hardware in the MS. Three kids, one wife. He was driving. Their elation at being "connected" to the Internet was short lived. Even as two of them tried to use it (remember, the MS itself is another user of that connection), they quickly complained that it was unusable for what they wanted to do (Facebook, even). They complained the entire 20+ hours. He said it would have been better if he didn't have it available at all.

For your sake, I hope I'm wrong and I hope Tesla enables it. I think it would be a great feature.

 

[HankLloydRight]

A friend of mine a couple of years ago picked up a mobile hotspot for his family to share while they were taking a 20+ hour road trip; same speed as the hardware in the MS. Three kids, one wife. He was driving. Their elation at being "connected" to the Internet was short lived. Even as two of them tried to use it (remember, the MS itself is another user of that connection), they quickly complained that it was unusable for what they wanted to do (Facebook, even). They complained the entire 20+ hours. He said it would have been better if he didn't have it available at all.

I think it depends on if one knows what they're doing. 5 years ago, my family (2 adults, 2 teenagers) took a road trip from Connecticut to Chicago. I had an AT&T USB 3G Data adapter, connected to a Cradlepoint mobile hotspot -- essentially identical in function to any "mobile hotspot" on the market at the time. Except for some cold spots where it dropped to 2G/Edge, we had no problems with 3 or 4 of us accessing the internet at the same time during the trip (of course, not the driver while driving, but surely at rest stops, etc). It was quite robust and a great option to have. We did have to have some rules, like no video streaming, but other than that, it worked great.

Would Tesla offer a 3G mobile hotspot option using bandwidth they're paying for? I highly doubt it. Would the offer a billing option to unlock it? I also doubt that, since there are so many other options available (like phone hotspot/tethering, etc). I'd also expect Tesla not to put something in place that could overload the bandwidth, interfering with the telemetry.

 

[techMology]

I think it depends on if one knows what they're doing. 5 years ago, my family (2 adults, 2 teenagers) took a road trip from Connecticut to Chicago. I had an AT&T USB 3G Data adapter, connected to a Cradlepoint mobile hotspot -- essentially identical in function to any "mobile hotspot" on the market at the time. Except for some cold spots where it dropped to 2G/Edge, we had no problems with 3 or 4 of us accessing the internet at the same time during the trip (of course, not the driver while driving, but surely at rest stops, etc). It was quite robust and a great option to have. We did have to have some rules, like no video streaming, but other than that, it worked great.

Would Tesla offer a 3G mobile hotspot option using bandwidth they're paying for? I highly doubt it. Would the offer a billing option to unlock it? I also doubt that, since there are so many other options available (like phone hotspot/tethering, etc). I'd also expect Tesla not to put something in place that could overload the bandwidth, interfering with the telemetry.

It's totally a YMMV (your mileage may vary) thing. I suspect his kids were all trying to hit YouTube also. Coverage and speed also play a factor.

Tesla would QoS the telemetry, for sure. It's easy enough to do.

 

[Aussie]

No one is angry about this? They promised us they'd start charging us already.

Maybe not angry but surprised. i purchased a car with advertised features, benefits explained to me in the store an in no paperwork can I find a reference to these fetures costing extra. So my expectation is and always has been that data will be free for life.

 

[jerry33]

Maybe not angry but surprised. i purchased a car with advertised features, benefits explained to me in the store an in no paperwork can I find a reference to these fetures costing extra. So my expectation is and always has been that data will be free for life.

It's always been known that there would eventually be a charge. One of the perks advertised for the Signature cars was free data for one year.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Did some experiments yesterday. I did a speed test (using TestMy.net Broadband Internet Speed Test) in the browser connected to the onboard 3G connection and got 2.11mbps download speed.

I then tethered my car to my iPhone 5 via personal wifi hotspot -- my phone was connected to AT&T LTE. On the phone itself, a speed test app resulted in about 15mbps download speed. But when tethered to the car, the browser only did 3mbps download. I repeated these tests a few times all with similar results.

So I don't know where the bottleneck is in the MS -- is it the wi-fi chipset, the OS, the browser, etc. But I can't get faster than 3mbps when tethered. So even if LTE were to be available in the future, there's more that needs to be upgraded to really see the difference (and my guess is that it's the browser/OS platform which is just not optimized for web browsing/large data streams).

 

[tomas]

Maybe not angry but surprised. i purchased a car with advertised features, benefits explained to me in the store an in no paperwork can I find a reference to these fetures costing extra. So my expectation is and always has been that data will be free for life.

Interesting. So interesting that I re-read my purchase agreement! I agree that it says nothing about charges for connectivity. Actually, there are a lot of clauses limiting owner's rights with regard to Tesla's relationship with its telecommunications carriers etc, and granting Tesla rights to change carriers etc., etc., etc.

Also, tho not so pertinent to this thread but for those griping in the release threads, it says the following:

7. Your Responsibilities. ... Services involves software that we
may change from time to time. We may do this
remotely without notifying you first. Such changes may
affect or erase data.

Don't complain if you signed it!!!!! Don't complain if you have to toggle to reset some personal settings!!!! OR re-do your Slacker searches!!!!

 

[brianman]

No one is angry about this? They promised us they'd start charging us already

Since nobody mentioned it, I guess it's my duty to do so...

"I think Sigs should get 5+ instead of 4+ so they get the extra year that was promised as a Sig benefit."

 

[pilotSteve]

Since nobody mentioned it, I guess it's my duty to do so...

"I think Sigs should get 5+ instead of 4+ so they get the extra year that was promised as a Sig benefit."

naah we should just get free upgrades to "C" 100kW batteries