Now that they have been neglecting the backbone too long, they are trying to catch up, and spending money. AT&T gripes about $18 billion spent to upgrade. What's to say they shouldn't have been spending $5 billion per year over 10 years to keep up with innovation?
In my reading, every other country that has surpassed the US in throughput both wired and wirelessly has legislated the separation of content from the backbone. This would mean AT&T could focus on new technology, 100Gb+ routers, Tbps links and such, and not have to worry about selling someone voice service.
You just hit the nail on the head
Gee wiz...American greed at its worst.
Where is the FCC on all of this. One of the biggest problems in the U.S. not being able to move forward and move progressively on many fronts. Business in America has enjoyed too much protection and now some of these companies take advantage of that. It gets in the way of progress and only ruins it for the consumer in the end. We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes! What a novel idea! Collect the proper amount of taxes from big business and the economy may be able to sustain itself better.
Where is the FCC on all of this. One of the biggest problems in the U.S. not being able to move forward and move progressively on many fronts. Business in America has enjoyed too much protection and now some of these companies take advantage of that. It gets in the way of progress and only ruins it for the consumer in the end. We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes! What a novel idea! Collect the proper amount of taxes from big business and the economy may be able to sustain itself better.
Gee wiz.
C'mon, that's a ridiculous rant. The reality is more complicated. Here are some facts: (i) US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world. If you look at only Federal tax rates, only two (major) countries have higher tax rates: Japan and Germany. If you include the state and local taxes as well, the US is the highest in the world; (ii) We have a dysfunctional corporate tax collection system because we subscribe to the backward 'worldwide taxation system' (i.e., all income from anywhere in the world is taxed) while much of the rest of the world relies on a 'territorial taxation system' (i.e., if you've paid your taxes abroad, that is considered good enough). As a result, we have companies keeping their incomes abroad and not repatriating it to the US.
There has to be rather fundamental reform, going beyond cliches such as "We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes!" The point is, you can't start; no one can, given the crazy quilt that it has become.
Either AT&T should state that you have a 5GB cap and aren't allowed to go over it, OR make it unlimited. And if it is unlimited, you shouldn't complain that people are using too much bandwidth. It's like saying someone is eating too much food at a buffet. If you can't serve that much, DON'T CALL IT A BUFFET!
that's probably the best analogy for what's going on. it is a buffet, but the food was planned with X amount per person and Y people. but if some people eat 3X in food, there's not enough to go around. some folks have to get less or even none. and if everyone is paying the same amount that's not fair.
most of my friends don't like me cause I support the idea of capping. I say that a teleco/ISP should be allowed to put a limit on how much use each person has. the trick, i say, is to make the limit a daily one (rather than weekly or monthly) AND to set the limit at a level that the average person won't hit it but someone doing something like tethering a laptop all day through a cell phone or running a dozen torrent up/downloads etc might. thus you cut off those that are stuffing themselves with plates upon plates, perhaps even trying to sneak food out for later and ensuring enough for everyone.
I also support the idea of tiered limits. I watch a lot of hulu but my mother merely checks her email once a day. I say it is fair that I might have to pay more for my internet service than she does, and with the higher amount I have a higher daily limit.
What BS! AT&T has made a ton of money from all the new subscribers the iPhone has bought in and is part of the reason AT&T is still afloat. They decided to sit back and pocket the cash for two years and only decided recently to really upgrade their network.
I'd never trust the telcos with anything. Didn't the gov't give them $15 billion earlier this decade to build out their networks? From what I understand try did nothing and pocketed the cash. Let them be the dumb pipes they were meant to be. I hope that Comcast/NBC deal never goes through.
They were given that money like 10 yrs ago so they can all build fiber optic networks and all of them squandered the cash. FIOS should've been up years ago. Korea and Japan have 100 mbps for over 10 yrs now and pay app. $40 for it today.
When the 2G iPhone was intro'd AT&T raised their rates, so don't give me the sob story about them not making any money. People are under contract to AT&T for 2 years and AT&T has plenty of opportunity to make money off of those people.
When the 2G iPhone was intro'd AT&T raised their rates, so don't give me the sob story about them not making any money.
That phone had a $20/month unlimited data fee. The average fee for unlimited data was $40-$55. The next year when Apple introduced the iPhone 3G they raised it to $30, which is still lower than the unlimited data average from a year prior. I have to wonder if that would have been lowered if the iPhone didn?t come in with such a low data fee to begin with.It
seems that the required data plan being lower than others could easily offset the then higher data plans for phones being an option, but with so much data obviously being used by the iPhone and the new 3G access logically even allowing for more data usage in the same time frame it doesn?t seem unreasonable that they raised their rates.
We now seem to have a lower average across carriers and the highly subsidized phones requiring the data plan. Pros and cons, but looking at the market than and now I wouldn?t have traded not having the iPhone enter the market simply to keep things the way they were in 2007.
Where I was last employed we leased a back room and some roof space for cell towers to AT&T directly. When they finally upgraded another site to 3G our lease was ended, and they dismantled the equipment and removed the antennas.
I'm assuming, with AT&T's upgrades, they do in fact own most of their towers, and lease time to others. They are one of the biggest providers, so I assume they do leasing to others as well. I do know that the people doing the upgrades and removals are independent contractors working contracts for AT&T, but as far as I know in the NY area AT&T owns the equipment. They do lease the land or building space, though.
I remember reading somewhere about the big four "sharing" towers in areas such as the Sprain Brook Parkway, to keep service consistent and the amount of towers to a minimum. In those cases I'm not sure who owns what.
We now seem to have a lower average across carriers...
We've had this discussion before I think...
I'm pretty sure the price for Verizon's data plans look lower, but in fact they cost roughly the same (a smidge higher) than they were in 2005-6 when I was using them for my not so smart Treo.
I'm still coming up with around $132 before taxes and fees for a Droid on Verizon. If I remember right I was about $110-120 with my Treo (I'm honestly guessing but I'm sure it was over $100.)
The carriers are stuck in the mentality that their prices can just continue to rise every year. I really am disgusted with that, considering they are using copper links that were installed in the 70's and 80's.
Reminds me of our friends in the government who love to put tolls on our bridges to pay for the construction of the bridge. "When it has paid for itself, we'll remove the tolls". MMMmmm hmmmm. They just find some place else to spend the money, and continue to hike up the fees. At least with roads and bridges they spend the money on infrastructure.
Where is the FCC on all of this. One of the biggest problems in the U.S. not being able to move forward and move progressively on many fronts. Business in America has enjoyed too much protection and now some of these companies take advantage of that. It gets in the way of progress and only ruins it for the consumer in the end. We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes! What a novel idea! Collect the proper amount of taxes from big business and the economy may be able to sustain itself better.
Gee wiz.
Where I see what you mean that they are greedy, and squandered their tax breaks and incentives, taxes suck for everyone. Taxes just make companies stop/slow all capital investments, including hiring people. Without people, no R+D, no infrastructure upgrades, etc. The best thing to do for everyone is keep taxes as low as possible. For everyone.
There are a myriad of reasons taxes keep going up, but the foremost is that the government thinks it knows how to spend everyone's money better than the people. The government has come to the idea that they actually deserve this money and it's theirs in Congress to spend. Not only do AT&T need a kick in the ass, so does our government.
I'm pretty sure the price for Verizon's data plans look lower, but in fact they cost roughly the same (a smidge higher) than they were in 2005-6 when I was using them for my not so smart Treo.
I'm still coming up with around $132 before taxes and fees for a Droid on Verizon. If I remember right I was about $110-120 with my Treo (I'm honestly guessing but I'm sure it was over $100.)
The carriers are stuck in the mentality that their prices can just continue to rise every year. I really am disgusted with that, considering they are using copper links that were installed in the 70's and 80's.
Reminds me of our friends in the government who love to put tolls on our bridges to pay for the construction of the bridge. "When it has paid for itself, we'll remove the tolls". MMMmmm hmmmm. They just find some place else to spend the money, and continue to hike up the fees. At least with roads and bridges they spend the money on infrastructure.
Going by the total monthly cost, especially with taxes is really fair to to carriers. They don?t set the taxes. It?s their job to get as much money from you as possible, within reason, so I don?t have a problem when I willing agree to pay $30/month for data and $39/month for voice.
I think people are complaining about the wrong costs here. I think the increase in SMS across all the carriers has needed some serious looking into for sometime. I see it as oligopoly and can?t see a valid reason why unlimited SMS should be 66% the cost of unlimited data when my email data usage in an hour is likely well above even the most zealous teenager?s SMS data usage for a month.
Going by the total monthly cost, especially with taxes is really fair to to carriers. They don?t set the taxes. It?s their job to get as much money from you as possible, within reason, so I don?t have a problem when I willing agree to pay $30/month for data and $39/month for voice.
I think people are complaining about the wrong costs here. I think the increase in SMS across all the carriers has needed some serious looking into for sometime. I see it as oligopoly and can?t see a valid reason why unlimited SMS should be 66% the cost of unlimited data when my email data usage in an hour is likely well above even the most zealous teenager?s SMS data usage for a month.
I'm not arguing that the price for data is exorbitant, I'm just saying I don't see the costs ever going down. To emphasize your point as well as mine, data is exactly that: data. The need to charge for SMS and MMS is totally absurd at all when you pay for a data plan anyway. Isn't SMS exactly the same thing as the voicemail notifications you get on non-visual voicemail phones?
Regardless, that's my whole argument anyway about the carriers being separate from the pipes, is that a "pipe" provider shouldn't know or care if it's you tethering your phone or me sending a text...they should just be concerned with getting our data where it needs to go, as fast and cost effective as possible.
In my mind, this is what net neutrality means. I have written Congress asking them to legislate separation of the content from the pipes. That would be true neutrality. A company like Comcast wouldn't then care what data was being passed around on their cable, they would just have to worry abut enough lanes to get it from A to B.
And a wise operator would certainly charge more to high level consumers. Is that what you're hoping for? If ATT can't make money back from those high data users by charging for other things, they will simply charge more for the data.
I'm not arguing that the price for data is exorbitant, I'm just saying I don't see the costs ever going down. To emphasize your point as well as mine, data is exactly that: data. The need to charge for SMS and MMS is totally absurd at all when you pay for a data plan anyway. Isn't SMS exactly the same thing as the voicemail notifications you get on non-visual voicemail phones?
Regardless, that's my whole argument anyway about the carriers being separate from the pipes, is that a "pipe" provider shouldn't know or care if it's you tethering your phone or me sending a text...they should just be concerned with getting our data where it needs to go, as fast and cost effective as possible.
I disagree with you areas?
If they price the data for phone use only, which is what they do, then it?s not priced for tethering, too. Data does cost money and if you want a tethered device the average rate is $60, either from a USB or EC/34 wireless card or through the additional cost over and above the regular unlimited data.
If you don?t want them to care if you are connecting your 7.2Mbps phone to a router and then connecting several machines doing 100s of GBs per month (my record for AT&T is 45GB with tethering and >1TB with Comcast cable) then expect to have a much high base rate for data.
I recall that least one carrier had unlimited data but when you paid extra for the tethering they capped it at 5GB. This tells me that they advertise unlimited for phones because it wasn?t remotely possible to get close to 5GB per month. The iPhone and subsequent phones with modern mobile OSes, browsers and apps seems to have changed that so I dont? see why a business shouldn?t be allowed to change the way to do business.
SMS is data is the strictest sense, but so is voice from a call or voicemail. From the carriers? PoV neither is data as it?s not using an IP address like we think of data for a phone or computer. SMS uses the always on control channel that your phone uses to constantly talk to the tower so it?s not even costing the carrier any actual data usage, but it does cost them for the SMSC for the server to store these short messages. My argument is that it can?t possibly be close enough to incur such a high fee that is increasing.
I highly doubt any carrier would refuse the iPhone. If they demanded a cut from the app store, Apple would simply refuse. The amount of subscribers the iPhone can bring in is far too appealing for anyone to refuse, even with its now legitimate competitors.
Sprint is going to disappear or be bought out, and you shouldn't discount T-Mobile. They are a prime candidate for the iPhone. Their 3G network is new, but expanding rapidly, and they could possibly buy Sprint. They may be the smallest carrier, but they have a lot of money to invest from their German parent.
And for any of you who think Apple wouldn't be willing to produce a CDMA iPhone, I think that's just not the case.
Verizon has control issues, but they have the Droid, which has free turn-by-turn directions (competing directly with $5/month VZNavigator) and if I'm correct its own Android app store.
It's not about refusing the iPhone or any other smart app phone. It's about who should pay for the increase costs associated with a phone that the carriers have no input in and no profit from regarding the sale of apps that, with some of the apps at least, the phone carriers have to support on their network to make them work? Will it be the carrier that has no financial gain over the apps, or the owner of the app store?
I'm just saying, if I were the carrier, I wouldn't have an outside hardware phone maker telling me what pricing plans to submit or data rate plans to tier, since companies like Apple have no skin in the game regarding the additional load placed on the network with no compensation. People can say that the 30 bucks a month they pay for data is more than enough. According to who? Them?! Want to hear the naysayers squeal? Look at their paycheck and say they are getting more then enough, in fact too much.
Why am I paying a monthly cable bill and then have to pay extra if I want HBO or STARZ etc. The carrier 30 bucks data covers your e-mail and web basics before app stores. The app stores apps are like HBO and STARZ and shouldn't cost the network. And if I were a network and couldn't get justification for the increase in demand and lack of financial reward for my company, I'd say, see ya! Again, that is just me and like I said, if the shoe were on the other foot, Steve Jobs would be demanding it. Just look at MobileMe. What is truly there that one can't get for free in some shape, way or form from somewhere else. If they can get it for free someplace else, why is Apple charging $99 bucks a year? Simple, they charge so the company is not out anything and if possibly, add another small revenue stream for the company to make money and add to its bottom line, which is what the company is supposed to do!
If ALL cellular carriers agree, regarding lack of input on phones and lack of reward on app stores, where will those that have phones that can be enhanced by purchasing apps like Apple's app store, MS app store, droid app store, google app store, where are they going to go? What are they going to do? It's all about leverage. If airline baggage handlers go on strike, they can delay departure. If the pilots go on strike, they can cancel the flight. When each has what the other side needs, is the time to agree to just terms and just rewards for all. PEACE!
And a wise operator would certainly charge more to high level consumers. Is that what you're hoping for? If ATT can't make money back from those high data users by charging for other things, they will simply charge more for the data.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of more than three or four network operators leasing lines to more content providers. The content providers would then pay for what their subscribers use. If AT&T were the backbone, for example, and you got cell service through Sprint, Sprint would lease throughput from AT&T. It's Sprint's job to create something interesting to attract subscribers. As their customer base would grow, (say by offering streaming video or tethering) they could lease more and more data throughput from AT&T.
If AT&T's infrastructure began to wane, and Sprint's customers started getting upset, they could turn to another backbone provider and lease more throughput, concurrently with what they already get through AT&T. AT&T would then be competing with another pipe provider, and those two companies would be driving each other's costs to lessees down.
This would allow more competition amongst content providers, at a minimum, by allowing startups and such to get into the game. Someone could offer something new and innovating, and have a very small subscriber base at first. So they would lease a set amount of throughput to start, at a nominally higher cost per byte (due to the lower data demand).
Instead of being so damn long-winded....it kind of works like that for web-hosting. I have a Dreamhost account. As the years have worn on, they have upped my storage, my bandwidth, my services, all while keeping the cost exactly the same as when I signed on. That was 2004. The reason is the hardware costs for them have come down, so they can provide more for the same cost to me. If they decided to whack me over the head with rate increases, I'll take my business somewhere else. Imagine if there were only four web-hosting companies in the US.
All iPhone users pay extra every month to AT&T just cause it's an iPhone. In my opinion they can just deal with it. Unlimited is unlimited. If they wanna offerlower prices for limited accounts that's fine but don't charge me for unlimited then send me an overage bill.
Not true. iPhone users pay no more than any other smartphone user on ATT.
the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone[/QUOTE
like I said. I don't think it's that at all. I just think they have no way of monitoring their soon to be $30 a month teethering program ao will go after anyone that uses a lot of bandwidth. Case in point. Apple apps has a programI called MLB and you van stream live games for $99 case in point the stream game. That would take a lot of bandwidth but you
pat 0.99'crnys per game. I font thong they can track it ao if this happens I hope we all vet a $30'discount.
The service is allready shaddy in some areas Nd now they will charge for even more. Google how texting uses NO bandwidth.
I hope there isna class action law suit. Enough is enough. You van jailbreak and teethering but I have done it twice, just to see. Tired of getting raped by these companies that can't even provide streaming tv
Comments
Now that they have been neglecting the backbone too long, they are trying to catch up, and spending money. AT&T gripes about $18 billion spent to upgrade. What's to say they shouldn't have been spending $5 billion per year over 10 years to keep up with innovation?
In my reading, every other country that has surpassed the US in throughput both wired and wirelessly has legislated the separation of content from the backbone. This would mean AT&T could focus on new technology, 100Gb+ routers, Tbps links and such, and not have to worry about selling someone voice service.
You just hit the nail on the head
Gee wiz...American greed at its worst.
Where is the FCC on all of this. One of the biggest problems in the U.S. not being able to move forward and move progressively on many fronts. Business in America has enjoyed too much protection and now some of these companies take advantage of that. It gets in the way of progress and only ruins it for the consumer in the end. We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes! What a novel idea! Collect the proper amount of taxes from big business and the economy may be able to sustain itself better.
Gee wiz.
You just hit the nail on the head
Gee wiz...American greed at its worst.
Where is the FCC on all of this. One of the biggest problems in the U.S. not being able to move forward and move progressively on many fronts. Business in America has enjoyed too much protection and now some of these companies take advantage of that. It gets in the way of progress and only ruins it for the consumer in the end. We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes! What a novel idea! Collect the proper amount of taxes from big business and the economy may be able to sustain itself better.
Gee wiz.
C'mon, that's a ridiculous rant. The reality is more complicated. Here are some facts: (i) US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world. If you look at only Federal tax rates, only two (major) countries have higher tax rates: Japan and Germany. If you include the state and local taxes as well, the US is the highest in the world; (ii) We have a dysfunctional corporate tax collection system because we subscribe to the backward 'worldwide taxation system' (i.e., all income from anywhere in the world is taxed) while much of the rest of the world relies on a 'territorial taxation system' (i.e., if you've paid your taxes abroad, that is considered good enough). As a result, we have companies keeping their incomes abroad and not repatriating it to the US.
There has to be rather fundamental reform, going beyond cliches such as "We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes!" The point is, you can't start; no one can, given the crazy quilt that it has become.
Either AT&T should state that you have a 5GB cap and aren't allowed to go over it, OR make it unlimited. And if it is unlimited, you shouldn't complain that people are using too much bandwidth. It's like saying someone is eating too much food at a buffet. If you can't serve that much, DON'T CALL IT A BUFFET!
that's probably the best analogy for what's going on. it is a buffet, but the food was planned with X amount per person and Y people. but if some people eat 3X in food, there's not enough to go around. some folks have to get less or even none. and if everyone is paying the same amount that's not fair.
most of my friends don't like me cause I support the idea of capping. I say that a teleco/ISP should be allowed to put a limit on how much use each person has. the trick, i say, is to make the limit a daily one (rather than weekly or monthly) AND to set the limit at a level that the average person won't hit it but someone doing something like tethering a laptop all day through a cell phone or running a dozen torrent up/downloads etc might. thus you cut off those that are stuffing themselves with plates upon plates, perhaps even trying to sneak food out for later and ensuring enough for everyone.
I also support the idea of tiered limits. I watch a lot of hulu but my mother merely checks her email once a day. I say it is fair that I might have to pay more for my internet service than she does, and with the higher amount I have a higher daily limit.
What BS! AT&T has made a ton of money from all the new subscribers the iPhone has bought in and is part of the reason AT&T is still afloat. They decided to sit back and pocket the cash for two years and only decided recently to really upgrade their network.
I'd never trust the telcos with anything. Didn't the gov't give them $15 billion earlier this decade to build out their networks? From what I understand try did nothing and pocketed the cash. Let them be the dumb pipes they were meant to be. I hope that Comcast/NBC deal never goes through.
They were given that money like 10 yrs ago so they can all build fiber optic networks and all of them squandered the cash. FIOS should've been up years ago. Korea and Japan have 100 mbps for over 10 yrs now and pay app. $40 for it today.
When the 2G iPhone was intro'd AT&T raised their rates, so don't give me the sob story about them not making any money.
That phone had a $20/month unlimited data fee. The average fee for unlimited data was $40-$55. The next year when Apple introduced the iPhone 3G they raised it to $30, which is still lower than the unlimited data average from a year prior. I have to wonder if that would have been lowered if the iPhone didn?t come in with such a low data fee to begin with.It
seems that the required data plan being lower than others could easily offset the then higher data plans for phones being an option, but with so much data obviously being used by the iPhone and the new 3G access logically even allowing for more data usage in the same time frame it doesn?t seem unreasonable that they raised their rates.
We now seem to have a lower average across carriers and the highly subsidized phones requiring the data plan. Pros and cons, but looking at the market than and now I wouldn?t have traded not having the iPhone enter the market simply to keep things the way they were in 2007.
Most towers are already owned by other companies
Where I was last employed we leased a back room and some roof space for cell towers to AT&T directly. When they finally upgraded another site to 3G our lease was ended, and they dismantled the equipment and removed the antennas.
I'm assuming, with AT&T's upgrades, they do in fact own most of their towers, and lease time to others. They are one of the biggest providers, so I assume they do leasing to others as well. I do know that the people doing the upgrades and removals are independent contractors working contracts for AT&T, but as far as I know in the NY area AT&T owns the equipment. They do lease the land or building space, though.
I remember reading somewhere about the big four "sharing" towers in areas such as the Sprain Brook Parkway, to keep service consistent and the amount of towers to a minimum. In those cases I'm not sure who owns what.
We now seem to have a lower average across carriers...
We've had this discussion before I think...
I'm pretty sure the price for Verizon's data plans look lower, but in fact they cost roughly the same (a smidge higher) than they were in 2005-6 when I was using them for my not so smart Treo.
I'm still coming up with around $132 before taxes and fees for a Droid on Verizon. If I remember right I was about $110-120 with my Treo (I'm honestly guessing but I'm sure it was over $100.)
The carriers are stuck in the mentality that their prices can just continue to rise every year. I really am disgusted with that, considering they are using copper links that were installed in the 70's and 80's.
Reminds me of our friends in the government who love to put tolls on our bridges to pay for the construction of the bridge. "When it has paid for itself, we'll remove the tolls". MMMmmm hmmmm. They just find some place else to spend the money, and continue to hike up the fees. At least with roads and bridges they spend the money on infrastructure.
You just hit the nail on the head
Gee wiz...American greed at its worst.
Where is the FCC on all of this. One of the biggest problems in the U.S. not being able to move forward and move progressively on many fronts. Business in America has enjoyed too much protection and now some of these companies take advantage of that. It gets in the way of progress and only ruins it for the consumer in the end. We can start by making these f****** pay full taxes! What a novel idea! Collect the proper amount of taxes from big business and the economy may be able to sustain itself better.
Gee wiz.
Where I see what you mean that they are greedy, and squandered their tax breaks and incentives, taxes suck for everyone. Taxes just make companies stop/slow all capital investments, including hiring people. Without people, no R+D, no infrastructure upgrades, etc. The best thing to do for everyone is keep taxes as low as possible. For everyone.
There are a myriad of reasons taxes keep going up, but the foremost is that the government thinks it knows how to spend everyone's money better than the people. The government has come to the idea that they actually deserve this money and it's theirs in Congress to spend. Not only do AT&T need a kick in the ass, so does our government.
We've had this discussion before I think...
I'm pretty sure the price for Verizon's data plans look lower, but in fact they cost roughly the same (a smidge higher) than they were in 2005-6 when I was using them for my not so smart Treo.
I'm still coming up with around $132 before taxes and fees for a Droid on Verizon. If I remember right I was about $110-120 with my Treo (I'm honestly guessing but I'm sure it was over $100.)
The carriers are stuck in the mentality that their prices can just continue to rise every year. I really am disgusted with that, considering they are using copper links that were installed in the 70's and 80's.
Reminds me of our friends in the government who love to put tolls on our bridges to pay for the construction of the bridge. "When it has paid for itself, we'll remove the tolls". MMMmmm hmmmm. They just find some place else to spend the money, and continue to hike up the fees. At least with roads and bridges they spend the money on infrastructure.
Going by the total monthly cost, especially with taxes is really fair to to carriers. They don?t set the taxes. It?s their job to get as much money from you as possible, within reason, so I don?t have a problem when I willing agree to pay $30/month for data and $39/month for voice.
I think people are complaining about the wrong costs here. I think the increase in SMS across all the carriers has needed some serious looking into for sometime. I see it as oligopoly and can?t see a valid reason why unlimited SMS should be 66% the cost of unlimited data when my email data usage in an hour is likely well above even the most zealous teenager?s SMS data usage for a month.
Going by the total monthly cost, especially with taxes is really fair to to carriers. They don?t set the taxes. It?s their job to get as much money from you as possible, within reason, so I don?t have a problem when I willing agree to pay $30/month for data and $39/month for voice.
I think people are complaining about the wrong costs here. I think the increase in SMS across all the carriers has needed some serious looking into for sometime. I see it as oligopoly and can?t see a valid reason why unlimited SMS should be 66% the cost of unlimited data when my email data usage in an hour is likely well above even the most zealous teenager?s SMS data usage for a month.
I'm not arguing that the price for data is exorbitant, I'm just saying I don't see the costs ever going down. To emphasize your point as well as mine, data is exactly that: data. The need to charge for SMS and MMS is totally absurd at all when you pay for a data plan anyway. Isn't SMS exactly the same thing as the voicemail notifications you get on non-visual voicemail phones?
Regardless, that's my whole argument anyway about the carriers being separate from the pipes, is that a "pipe" provider shouldn't know or care if it's you tethering your phone or me sending a text...they should just be concerned with getting our data where it needs to go, as fast and cost effective as possible.
...Best reputation...
In my mind, this is what net neutrality means. I have written Congress asking them to legislate separation of the content from the pipes. That would be true neutrality. A company like Comcast wouldn't then care what data was being passed around on their cable, they would just have to worry abut enough lanes to get it from A to B.
And a wise operator would certainly charge more to high level consumers. Is that what you're hoping for? If ATT can't make money back from those high data users by charging for other things, they will simply charge more for the data.
I'm not arguing that the price for data is exorbitant, I'm just saying I don't see the costs ever going down. To emphasize your point as well as mine, data is exactly that: data. The need to charge for SMS and MMS is totally absurd at all when you pay for a data plan anyway. Isn't SMS exactly the same thing as the voicemail notifications you get on non-visual voicemail phones?
Regardless, that's my whole argument anyway about the carriers being separate from the pipes, is that a "pipe" provider shouldn't know or care if it's you tethering your phone or me sending a text...they should just be concerned with getting our data where it needs to go, as fast and cost effective as possible.
I disagree with you areas?
I highly doubt any carrier would refuse the iPhone. If they demanded a cut from the app store, Apple would simply refuse. The amount of subscribers the iPhone can bring in is far too appealing for anyone to refuse, even with its now legitimate competitors.
Sprint is going to disappear or be bought out, and you shouldn't discount T-Mobile. They are a prime candidate for the iPhone. Their 3G network is new, but expanding rapidly, and they could possibly buy Sprint. They may be the smallest carrier, but they have a lot of money to invest from their German parent.
And for any of you who think Apple wouldn't be willing to produce a CDMA iPhone, I think that's just not the case.
Verizon has control issues, but they have the Droid, which has free turn-by-turn directions (competing directly with $5/month VZNavigator) and if I'm correct its own Android app store.
It's not about refusing the iPhone or any other smart app phone. It's about who should pay for the increase costs associated with a phone that the carriers have no input in and no profit from regarding the sale of apps that, with some of the apps at least, the phone carriers have to support on their network to make them work? Will it be the carrier that has no financial gain over the apps, or the owner of the app store?
I'm just saying, if I were the carrier, I wouldn't have an outside hardware phone maker telling me what pricing plans to submit or data rate plans to tier, since companies like Apple have no skin in the game regarding the additional load placed on the network with no compensation. People can say that the 30 bucks a month they pay for data is more than enough. According to who? Them?! Want to hear the naysayers squeal? Look at their paycheck and say they are getting more then enough, in fact too much.
Why am I paying a monthly cable bill and then have to pay extra if I want HBO or STARZ etc. The carrier 30 bucks data covers your e-mail and web basics before app stores. The app stores apps are like HBO and STARZ and shouldn't cost the network. And if I were a network and couldn't get justification for the increase in demand and lack of financial reward for my company, I'd say, see ya! Again, that is just me and like I said, if the shoe were on the other foot, Steve Jobs would be demanding it. Just look at MobileMe. What is truly there that one can't get for free in some shape, way or form from somewhere else. If they can get it for free someplace else, why is Apple charging $99 bucks a year? Simple, they charge so the company is not out anything and if possibly, add another small revenue stream for the company to make money and add to its bottom line, which is what the company is supposed to do!
If ALL cellular carriers agree, regarding lack of input on phones and lack of reward on app stores, where will those that have phones that can be enhanced by purchasing apps like Apple's app store, MS app store, droid app store, google app store, where are they going to go? What are they going to do? It's all about leverage. If airline baggage handlers go on strike, they can delay departure. If the pilots go on strike, they can cancel the flight. When each has what the other side needs, is the time to agree to just terms and just rewards for all. PEACE!
And a wise operator would certainly charge more to high level consumers. Is that what you're hoping for? If ATT can't make money back from those high data users by charging for other things, they will simply charge more for the data.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of more than three or four network operators leasing lines to more content providers. The content providers would then pay for what their subscribers use. If AT&T were the backbone, for example, and you got cell service through Sprint, Sprint would lease throughput from AT&T. It's Sprint's job to create something interesting to attract subscribers. As their customer base would grow, (say by offering streaming video or tethering) they could lease more and more data throughput from AT&T.
If AT&T's infrastructure began to wane, and Sprint's customers started getting upset, they could turn to another backbone provider and lease more throughput, concurrently with what they already get through AT&T. AT&T would then be competing with another pipe provider, and those two companies would be driving each other's costs to lessees down.
This would allow more competition amongst content providers, at a minimum, by allowing startups and such to get into the game. Someone could offer something new and innovating, and have a very small subscriber base at first. So they would lease a set amount of throughput to start, at a nominally higher cost per byte (due to the lower data demand).
Instead of being so damn long-winded....it kind of works like that for web-hosting. I have a Dreamhost account. As the years have worn on, they have upped my storage, my bandwidth, my services, all while keeping the cost exactly the same as when I signed on. That was 2004. The reason is the hardware costs for them have come down, so they can provide more for the same cost to me. If they decided to whack me over the head with rate increases, I'll take my business somewhere else. Imagine if there were only four web-hosting companies in the US.
Gee wiz...American greed at its worst.
Hey, we voted in those politicians?!...
All iPhone users pay extra every month to AT&T just cause it's an iPhone. In my opinion they can just deal with it. Unlimited is unlimited. If they wanna offerlower prices for limited accounts that's fine but don't charge me for unlimited then send me an overage bill.
Not true. iPhone users pay no more than any other smartphone user on ATT.
the 3% are jail breakers who tether. there is even a thread on howard forums with someone claiming they used 30GB per month over a few months by tethering multiple PC's to his iphone[/QUOTE
like I said. I don't think it's that at all. I just think they have no way of monitoring their soon to be $30 a month teethering program ao will go after anyone that uses a lot of bandwidth. Case in point. Apple apps has a programI called MLB and you van stream live games for $99 case in point the stream game. That would take a lot of bandwidth but you
pat 0.99'crnys per game. I font thong they can track it ao if this happens I hope we all vet a $30'discount.
The service is allready shaddy in some areas Nd now they will charge for even more. Google how texting uses NO bandwidth.
I hope there isna class action law suit. Enough is enough. You van jailbreak and teethering but I have done it twice, just to see. Tired of getting raped by these companies that can't even provide streaming tv
We were #3 a few years ago
in speed globally. Now we ate 29th.
Other countries watch TV live. We can hardly stream.
What a joke.
Time will tell.
Peace. Be sage and well all.