I don't have to lose anyone. Declaring you suck more doesn't mean we have to tolerate suckage as a general rule anywhere.
But you've got to understand the limitations of the laws of physics --- RF spectrum is a limited resource, and that means EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world will have 3-5 national carriers.
We don't live in the cartoon world (i.e. Lisa Simpson defying the laws of thermodynamics) --- so we ain't never going to see the US having 10 national carriers competiting for your dollar.
The US is pretty much close to wireless telecom paradise for the consumers in this practical world.
But you've got to understand the limitations of the laws of physics --- RF spectrum is a limited resource, and that means EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world will have 3-5 national carriers.
We don't live in the cartoon world (i.e. Lisa Simpson defying the laws of thermodynamics) --- so we ain't never going to see the US having 10 national carriers competiting for your dollar.
The US is pretty much close to wireless telecom paradise for the consumers in this practical world.
I understand those terms. The point of the FCC(in the U.S.) is to dictate behavior in the instances where the market is imperfect or limited.
No one need live in a cartoon world to pay for data on regular per unit terms with possible raising in rates or throttling for excessive users.
Also text messaging is just ridiculous. You could send 5000 text messages in a month and the total amount of data delivered is 782Kb. Not even one meg of data and most people are being charged $20-30 for that service.
The real problem phone providers have is that all the texting and talking most people do in a month likely didn't equal even 10 megs of data for the heaviest of users. Now for only a small bit more, they want data use that is 10-20 times harder on the same network.
It can be true that data does do that but if that really is the case, then charge each service as appropriate for the amount of data it uses. If you could get a $25 unlimited talk and text plan where people could attempt to blast through perhaps 20 megs of info a month via their voice and fingers then most people wouldn't complain about paying more for data? Having technological progress that is supposed to create efficiency gains instead cost much more just doesn't sit well with most people.
We've already read the claims from the Verizon CEO that LTE will have half to one third the cost of transporting that megabyte, so why should that megabyte cost more?
Also text messaging is just ridiculous. You could send 5000 text messages in a month and the total amount of data delivered is 782Kb. Not even one meg of data and most people are being charged $20-30 for that service.
But what has the cost of things got to do with price (which is determined by supply and demand)? You might as well complain about Coca-Cola prices because it cost more than gasoline.
Americans already use SMS more than basically everyone else on the planet (Philipines text more than Americans, but they also talk about 1/8 our voice minutes per month).
I've been debating whether I should opt for Sprint or AT&T, I'm not so sure about all these "changes" that are currently being made. However, with the soon-to-be release Apple iPhone 4G - it's going to be hard going to another carrier.
Does anyone really think AT&T would reduce their profits? Only 2-3% of people are using more then 2gb a month.
These new rate plans do nothing to reduce current usage of the network.
Because we are taking about a business that is in the business of making money.... you can bet that those that will drop plans to the lower plan will end up getting burned at some point. And many with the 2gb limit will also get burned. AT&T is not going to give up hundred of millions of dollars each month, and anyone that thinks they are... needs to wake up and smell the coffee!
So... with this new plan I can pay $25 (instead of the current $30), and add $20 for tethering, and use the tethering to get 3G service on my iPad, thus allowing me to avoid paying $30 per month for the iPad 3G service? Or am I missing something?
You are missing the fact that the iPad has tethering via bluetooth or USB disabled. And comments from Steve Jobs indicate this is not going to change. Apple want you to buy the 3G iPad and pay for connectivity.Your best choice for the iPad is a MiFi like device (or Palm Pre with mifi capabilities) and use an iPad with WiFi to connect to it.
The fact remains that anything and everything AT&T does is for the purpose of making money, and I guarantee that this move is no different. People will ultimately choose the wrong plan, and spend a lot for very little data in a month. AT&T will win, people will still lose, and in the meantime it undermines Apples technological efforts. These devices are meant to be USED, for data intensive activity, things like mobile streaming of audio and video. AT&T basically just put an end to all video streaming over 3G.
Seriously, Verizon and Apple need to work out a deal - I'm not too fond of AT&T at the moment. However, I will still be waiting in those long lines patiently waiting to pick up one of those beautiful devices. When people start changing their plans, you really should read and cover everything carefully. There's something quite fishy about this new "strategy" AT&T has implemented unexpectedly.
The fact remains that anything and everything AT&T does is for the purpose of making money, and I guarantee that this move is no different. People will ultimately choose the wrong plan, and spend a lot for very little data in a month. AT&T will win, people will still lose, and in the meantime it undermines Apples technological efforts. These devices are meant to be USED, for data intensive activity, things like mobile streaming of audio and video. AT&T basically just put an end to all video streaming over 3G.
GOOD POINT. While 2GB seems more than the norm it will be less than the average as NETFLIX, VIDEO CHAT, & Cloud server are introduced for the IPHONE. Apple apparently has no objections to this or at least not publicly.
The increased ETF, DATA CAP, and other new charges are all signs of a company in preparation of losing exclusivity of the IPHONE.
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended)
Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress.
The whole point of the "breakthrough" unlimited plan was that you could activate it or deactivate it without a contract.
Would people spend over 600 dollars (including a 130 dollar premium over the wi-fi version) on a 3G enabled device only to have the 3G service active for one month and then cancel it, with the intent to never enable it ever again?
If AT&T and Apple wanted to sell a 2GB plan with the iPad 3G, then they should have been forthcoming and done that from the outset when the pre-orders were placed.... and the outset means barely a month after the devices ship to consumers.
Think they would have sold as many iPad 3G devices with a 2GB capped data plan? Not a chance in hell.
One month is based on 30 consecutive days, and starts at the date and time of your purchase.
In the United States, 3G service is available through a breakthrough deal with AT&T. You choose the amount of data per month you want to buy ? 250MB or unlimited. If you choose the 250MB plan, you?ll receive onscreen messages as you get close to your monthly data limit so you can decide whether to turn off 3G or upgrade to the unlimited plan. Best of all, there?s no long-term contract. So if you have a business trip or vacation approaching, just sign up for the month you?ll be traveling and cancel when you get back. You don?t need to visit a store to get 3G service. You can sign up, check your data usage, manage your account, or cancel your service ? all from your iPad.
Now, just over 1 month after the iPad 3G ships to customers, AT&T eliminates that capability to add/remove the unlimited plan.
So now the people on the "unlimited" plan, have to stay on it and it becomes a "de facto" contract. If they ever let that "unlimited" plan lapse, then they can't get it back. That defeats the whole purpose of the iPad 3G as it was marketed and sold to customers from the outset.
Disgusting and deceitful by AT&T. This is the kind of thing that the FTC is supposed to prevent from occurring to consumers.
Was in an AT&T store today checking my upgrade status. Mgr was friendly and we started talking about new data plans and new IPHONE 4G. He said to me don't be surprised if AT&T has new pricing plans for the new iphones. He said he was talking about overall minute plans. He said it was only speculation but I wouldn't be surprised to see AT&T capitalize on the upcoming IPHONE.
But what has the cost of things got to do with price (which is determined by supply and demand)? You might as well complain about Coca-Cola prices because it cost more than gasoline.
Americans already use SMS more than basically everyone else on the planet (Philipines text more than Americans, but they also talk about 1/8 our voice minutes per month).
They use SMS more for one reason, it is the least expensive feature and unlimited within most family plans. Among all carriers most settle in on $30 for unlimited texting across up to five phones. That means as much information conveyed as you want for $6 per phone per month. The cost of minutes on the same basis is much higher.
Last I checked, Coca-Cola did not have to buy spectrum that would automatically preclude competitors in other instances. Likewise regardless of cost, I don't have to buy 6 Cokes per month at $15 or a case of Coke for $25 with no choices or selection anywhere in between. The per unit cost of the soda flexes very little and you can buy as much or little as you want. Expecting this for data isn't unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4
GOOD POINT. While 2GB seems more than the norm it will be less than the average as NETFLIX, VIDEO CHAT, & Cloud server are introduced for the IPHONE. Apple apparently has no objections to this or at least not publicly.
The increased ETF, DATA CAP, and other new charges are all signs of a company in preparation of losing exclusivity of the IPHONE.
They use SMS more for one reason, it is the least expensive feature and unlimited within most family plans. Among all carriers most settle in on $30 for unlimited texting across up to five phones. That means as much information conveyed as you want for $6 per phone per month. The cost of minutes on the same basis is much higher.
Last I checked, Coca-Cola did not have to buy spectrum that would automatically preclude competitors in other instances.
The fact is that Americans talk 3-4 times more than European countries and 2-3x more SMS as well.
Last I checked, there isn't unlimited amount of spectrum space --- so it is what it is. It is a natural oligopoly --- and the US system is the best for the consumers under these circumstances.
You can look at the other 100 countries --- and their voice plans are much more expensive which cause them to talk very little per month. So Europeans use SMS instead of talking on the cell phone --- BUT yet Americans SMS more than Europeans. You can tell that American voice and SMS rates are much lowered than every single country on this planet.
Does anyone really think AT&T would reduce their profits? Only 2-3% of people are using more then 2gb a month.
These new rate plans do nothing to reduce current usage of the network.
Because we are taking about a business that is in the business of making money.... you can bet that those that will drop plans to the lower plan will end up getting burned at some point. And many with the 2gb limit will also get burned. AT&T is not going to give up hundred of millions of dollars each month, and anyone that thinks they are... needs to wake up and smell the coffee!
Every business is in the business for the purpose of earning a profit for the owners/shareholders.
I am simply not inclined to take AT&T's statement at face value. It is self contradictory. If only 2% of users exceed 2 GB of data per month then it seems improbable that they can have a significant impact upon the network. Not only that, but we are talking about the particular cell (node) they are utilizing. AT&T is notorious for dropped (voice) calls (with phones other than an iPhone) which suggests a variety of problems on their end. (The iPhone 3G I had dropped calls several times more often than a non-iPhone in the same areas and so I hope the antennas on the iPhone 4 are actually better performing units.)
I suspect that this is simply price gouging compounding an already inadequate network build for the customers to whom they have sold service. Just look at the responses. Far too many people are blaming "data hogs" instead of AT&T without any examination of the situation at all.
AT&T doesn't care about improving especially when it's being FORCE FED customers thanks to Apple. Its shameful to see that the majority of us have not seen ANY improvement in service from AT&T. The sad part is that AT&T is busy trying to lock customers in and to charge extra fees to increase its revenue as opposed to improving service which would help people to migrate to AT&T.
This new Data scheme is just more proof of AT&T staying alive gimmicks.
I understand those terms. The point of the FCC(in the U.S.) is to dictate behavior in the instances where the market is imperfect or limited.
Did you really just say this? 'Cause I once wandered into Political Outside and ran away.
Quote:
No one need live in a cartoon world to pay for data on regular per unit terms with possible raising in rates or throttling for excessive users.
Also text messaging is just ridiculous. You could send 5000 text messages in a month and the total amount of data delivered is 782Kb. Not even one meg of data and most people are being charged $20-30 for that service.
In a free market you charge what the market will support. With luck and foresight, you're profitable. As a consumer I don't "text" anymore. I IM and twitter.
So for AT&T, texting not so profitable for this customer. When there are enough folks that do this, the market will even out.
Quote:
We've already read the claims from the Verizon CEO that LTE will have half to one third the cost of transporting that megabyte, so why should that megabyte cost more?
Because Verizon has to sink a huge amount of money into plant and backhaul build outs to support the LTE tower it's also paying for? They spent $55B in the last 10 years...and billions more will have to be spent to get to LTE.
They gotta earn billions just to break even before they're going to pass that 2/3 savings to the consumer...same with their competitors.
The alternative is for providers not to sink as much into capex and that would suck even more...VZW's 2009 capex was $7.1B. AT&T is adding $2B to their 2010 capex taking them to about the same as VZW numbers.
Did you really just say this? 'Cause I once wandered into Political Outside and ran away.
Well wander back. The cage doors were left open and the animals are wandering around.
Quote:
In a free market you charge what the market will support. With luck and foresight, you're profitable. As a consumer I don't "text" anymore. I IM and twitter.
As I noted above, cell service IS NOT a free market. The airwaves and frequencies assigned within them are public property, are limited and cannot be used without permission. This isn't a case of "I think the Big Mac sucks so I'll go down the street and make a Big Mark instead."
If someone tried to get into the cell service provider business without government consent, they would be shut down instantly.
So it isn't about what the market will bare. It is about determining a decent profit margin above what the providers paid to license the spectrum and then calling things above that wrong or inappropriate.
Quote:
So for AT&T, texting not so profitable for this customer. When there are enough folks that do this, the market will even out.
Possibly and you could have a point if not for the fact that cell companies see this coming and are working to thwart it. There are indeed plenty of providers popping up who have sub-leased bandwidth and are offering unlimited talk and text for $40-50 a month. However what is now happening, and this started somewhat with smartphones, is the main providers are now saying to the providers doing the sub-leasing that they cannot activate said phones on their network.
Now if your phone is unlocked, as for example iPhones are in many other countries, then when you come to the end of your agreed contract, you pop out the sim of the provider you are no longer entranced with and go grab some cheap talk and text packages from someone else.
In the U.S. you basically cannot do this and in the few instances where you can, they are being actively thwarted and shut down. For television, they have shut down the analog hole and the system that was created for allowing third parties access to cable and satellite feeds basically was made worthless. (Was it called cardbus?) So now in the U.S. if you want to record your programs, the DVR is going to be offered almost exclusively by the provider. You pay to "lease" your boxes even when done leasing them. You buy actually equipment upgrades, but are not the owner of said hardware and instead discover you are leasing it.
Such actions are exactly why I have an antenna on my house and nothing else.
The cell industry is doing the same thing right now and you can see the same backward reasoning on it. LTE is supposed to make it four-ten times less expensive to send the same amount of data over the same bandwidth. THAT is why they are sinking money in to it. If they were charging the same exact rates for the same exact data, they they would be making much more profit. Instead there is talk of and in the case of AT&T, actual implementation of tiered data plans. You now go from paying $6 per gig to $12.50 per gig all while the cost of those gigs transmitted is going down for the provider.
Nearly a million people have turned off their cable and satellite this year. The all or nothing choice has resulted in them choosing nothing in terms of paying the provider. I'm sure like in our household Netflix, Redbox and the local library all fill in the space just fine. However you're talking about us spending $15 or so a month for what the providers were demanding constant two year agreements and upwards of $120-130 a month to provide.
The cell bill is becoming the same way. Instead of packages of programming where they "conveniently" just happen to separate what you, the spouse and the kids all want to watch unless you go big, they are now going to be saying, want a phone with a keyboard of a camera above 1.3 mp, well then you MUST HAVE this amount of data, or agree to unlimited texting. Likewise when your equipment costs are done, you're still paying the subsidized cost of them even if taking no new equipment. If you don't like their terms, sorry can't take that equipment with you somewhere else. Too bad for you.
I'm currently on Tmobile where I get 1000 minutes unlimited text and data for $65. My wife is on PagePlus for $45 a month. The 10 and 8 year old boys cost us $5 a month to keep some minutes on their prepaid phones. That is $115 a month for a smartphone and three regular phones, all unsubsidized. That isn't unreasonable nor unprofitable for anyone.
Quote:
Because Verizon has to sink a huge amount of money into plant and backhaul build outs to support the LTE tower it's also paying for? They spent $55B in the last 10 years...and billions more will have to be spent to get to LTE.
They gotta earn billions just to break even before they're going to pass that 2/3 savings to the consumer...same with their competitors.
The alternative is for providers not to sink as much into capex and that would suck even more...VZW's 2009 capex was $7.1B. AT&T is adding $2B to their 2010 capex taking them to about the same as VZW numbers.
Me, I wanna see LTE...
The point is that all those actions need to have a decent cost to benefit analysis or else they shouldn't be done. If they don't have a return on the action, then no more stringent contact terms, bullshit fees, lies, spin or manipulation will change that fact. Most people, right or wrong, will jump on the family text plans for one reason, it allows them to tell the kids to text instead of talk and allows them to pay less for voice minutes. They see, understand and make the trade off. The parents would have spent $20 for two limited text plans or they can spend $30 unlimited and tell the kids they aren't adding any more minutes (at $20 per increment increase) They spend $10 to save $20. It makes total sense from their perspective.
However now telling those same families that the kid phone with the keyboard needs a $10 data plan, forever, whether they want it or use it or not, and btw even if you take that phone somewhere else to a sub-leasee, we won't let them put it on our network without that cost....
That is something else entirely and people shouldn't be surprised when people find a way around it because they can and will.
Comments
I don't have to lose anyone. Declaring you suck more doesn't mean we have to tolerate suckage as a general rule anywhere.
But you've got to understand the limitations of the laws of physics --- RF spectrum is a limited resource, and that means EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world will have 3-5 national carriers.
We don't live in the cartoon world (i.e. Lisa Simpson defying the laws of thermodynamics) --- so we ain't never going to see the US having 10 national carriers competiting for your dollar.
The US is pretty much close to wireless telecom paradise for the consumers in this practical world.
But you've got to understand the limitations of the laws of physics --- RF spectrum is a limited resource, and that means EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world will have 3-5 national carriers.
We don't live in the cartoon world (i.e. Lisa Simpson defying the laws of thermodynamics) --- so we ain't never going to see the US having 10 national carriers competiting for your dollar.
The US is pretty much close to wireless telecom paradise for the consumers in this practical world.
I understand those terms. The point of the FCC(in the U.S.) is to dictate behavior in the instances where the market is imperfect or limited.
No one need live in a cartoon world to pay for data on regular per unit terms with possible raising in rates or throttling for excessive users.
Also text messaging is just ridiculous. You could send 5000 text messages in a month and the total amount of data delivered is 782Kb. Not even one meg of data and most people are being charged $20-30 for that service.
The real problem phone providers have is that all the texting and talking most people do in a month likely didn't equal even 10 megs of data for the heaviest of users. Now for only a small bit more, they want data use that is 10-20 times harder on the same network.
It can be true that data does do that but if that really is the case, then charge each service as appropriate for the amount of data it uses. If you could get a $25 unlimited talk and text plan where people could attempt to blast through perhaps 20 megs of info a month via their voice and fingers then most people wouldn't complain about paying more for data? Having technological progress that is supposed to create efficiency gains instead cost much more just doesn't sit well with most people.
We've already read the claims from the Verizon CEO that LTE will have half to one third the cost of transporting that megabyte, so why should that megabyte cost more?
Also text messaging is just ridiculous. You could send 5000 text messages in a month and the total amount of data delivered is 782Kb. Not even one meg of data and most people are being charged $20-30 for that service.
But what has the cost of things got to do with price (which is determined by supply and demand)? You might as well complain about Coca-Cola prices because it cost more than gasoline.
Americans already use SMS more than basically everyone else on the planet (Philipines text more than Americans, but they also talk about 1/8 our voice minutes per month).
These new rate plans do nothing to reduce current usage of the network.
Because we are taking about a business that is in the business of making money.... you can bet that those that will drop plans to the lower plan will end up getting burned at some point. And many with the 2gb limit will also get burned. AT&T is not going to give up hundred of millions of dollars each month, and anyone that thinks they are... needs to wake up and smell the coffee!
So... with this new plan I can pay $25 (instead of the current $30), and add $20 for tethering, and use the tethering to get 3G service on my iPad, thus allowing me to avoid paying $30 per month for the iPad 3G service? Or am I missing something?
You are missing the fact that the iPad has tethering via bluetooth or USB disabled. And comments from Steve Jobs indicate this is not going to change. Apple want you to buy the 3G iPad and pay for connectivity.Your best choice for the iPad is a MiFi like device (or Palm Pre with mifi capabilities) and use an iPad with WiFi to connect to it.
The fact remains that anything and everything AT&T does is for the purpose of making money, and I guarantee that this move is no different. People will ultimately choose the wrong plan, and spend a lot for very little data in a month. AT&T will win, people will still lose, and in the meantime it undermines Apples technological efforts. These devices are meant to be USED, for data intensive activity, things like mobile streaming of audio and video. AT&T basically just put an end to all video streaming over 3G.
GOOD POINT. While 2GB seems more than the norm it will be less than the average as NETFLIX, VIDEO CHAT, & Cloud server are introduced for the IPHONE. Apple apparently has no objections to this or at least not publicly.
The increased ETF, DATA CAP, and other new charges are all signs of a company in preparation of losing exclusivity of the IPHONE.
https://www.FTCComplaintAssistant.go...d.aspx?Lang=en
This definitely falls within the realm of the FTC.
www.ftc.gov/ogc/stat1.shtm
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended)
Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress.
The whole point of the "breakthrough" unlimited plan was that you could activate it or deactivate it without a contract.
Would people spend over 600 dollars (including a 130 dollar premium over the wi-fi version) on a 3G enabled device only to have the 3G service active for one month and then cancel it, with the intent to never enable it ever again?
If AT&T and Apple wanted to sell a 2GB plan with the iPad 3G, then they should have been forthcoming and done that from the outset when the pre-orders were placed.... and the outset means barely a month after the devices ship to consumers.
Think they would have sold as many iPad 3G devices with a 2GB capped data plan? Not a chance in hell.
Here's what Apple says on their website:
www.apple.com/ipad/3g/
No-contract 3G service.
AT&T 3G Data Plans for iPad
Data per month\tPrice per month
250MB\t$14.99
Unlimited\t$29.99
One month is based on 30 consecutive days, and starts at the date and time of your purchase.
In the United States, 3G service is available through a breakthrough deal with AT&T. You choose the amount of data per month you want to buy ? 250MB or unlimited. If you choose the 250MB plan, you?ll receive onscreen messages as you get close to your monthly data limit so you can decide whether to turn off 3G or upgrade to the unlimited plan. Best of all, there?s no long-term contract. So if you have a business trip or vacation approaching, just sign up for the month you?ll be traveling and cancel when you get back. You don?t need to visit a store to get 3G service. You can sign up, check your data usage, manage your account, or cancel your service ? all from your iPad.
Now, just over 1 month after the iPad 3G ships to customers, AT&T eliminates that capability to add/remove the unlimited plan.
So now the people on the "unlimited" plan, have to stay on it and it becomes a "de facto" contract. If they ever let that "unlimited" plan lapse, then they can't get it back. That defeats the whole purpose of the iPad 3G as it was marketed and sold to customers from the outset.
Disgusting and deceitful by AT&T. This is the kind of thing that the FTC is supposed to prevent from occurring to consumers.
STAY TUNED!
But what has the cost of things got to do with price (which is determined by supply and demand)? You might as well complain about Coca-Cola prices because it cost more than gasoline.
Americans already use SMS more than basically everyone else on the planet (Philipines text more than Americans, but they also talk about 1/8 our voice minutes per month).
They use SMS more for one reason, it is the least expensive feature and unlimited within most family plans. Among all carriers most settle in on $30 for unlimited texting across up to five phones. That means as much information conveyed as you want for $6 per phone per month. The cost of minutes on the same basis is much higher.
Last I checked, Coca-Cola did not have to buy spectrum that would automatically preclude competitors in other instances. Likewise regardless of cost, I don't have to buy 6 Cokes per month at $15 or a case of Coke for $25 with no choices or selection anywhere in between. The per unit cost of the soda flexes very little and you can buy as much or little as you want. Expecting this for data isn't unreasonable.
GOOD POINT. While 2GB seems more than the norm it will be less than the average as NETFLIX, VIDEO CHAT, & Cloud server are introduced for the IPHONE. Apple apparently has no objections to this or at least not publicly.
The increased ETF, DATA CAP, and other new charges are all signs of a company in preparation of losing exclusivity of the IPHONE.
Exactly....
They use SMS more for one reason, it is the least expensive feature and unlimited within most family plans. Among all carriers most settle in on $30 for unlimited texting across up to five phones. That means as much information conveyed as you want for $6 per phone per month. The cost of minutes on the same basis is much higher.
Last I checked, Coca-Cola did not have to buy spectrum that would automatically preclude competitors in other instances.
The fact is that Americans talk 3-4 times more than European countries and 2-3x more SMS as well.
Last I checked, there isn't unlimited amount of spectrum space --- so it is what it is. It is a natural oligopoly --- and the US system is the best for the consumers under these circumstances.
You can look at the other 100 countries --- and their voice plans are much more expensive which cause them to talk very little per month. So Europeans use SMS instead of talking on the cell phone --- BUT yet Americans SMS more than Europeans. You can tell that American voice and SMS rates are much lowered than every single country on this planet.
Does anyone really think AT&T would reduce their profits? Only 2-3% of people are using more then 2gb a month.
These new rate plans do nothing to reduce current usage of the network.
Because we are taking about a business that is in the business of making money.... you can bet that those that will drop plans to the lower plan will end up getting burned at some point. And many with the 2gb limit will also get burned. AT&T is not going to give up hundred of millions of dollars each month, and anyone that thinks they are... needs to wake up and smell the coffee!
Every business is in the business for the purpose of earning a profit for the owners/shareholders.
I am simply not inclined to take AT&T's statement at face value. It is self contradictory. If only 2% of users exceed 2 GB of data per month then it seems improbable that they can have a significant impact upon the network. Not only that, but we are talking about the particular cell (node) they are utilizing. AT&T is notorious for dropped (voice) calls (with phones other than an iPhone) which suggests a variety of problems on their end. (The iPhone 3G I had dropped calls several times more often than a non-iPhone in the same areas and so I hope the antennas on the iPhone 4 are actually better performing units.)
I suspect that this is simply price gouging compounding an already inadequate network build for the customers to whom they have sold service. Just look at the responses. Far too many people are blaming "data hogs" instead of AT&T without any examination of the situation at all.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...Area.0#addcomm
Sure looks like T-Mobile is ramping up speeds faster than AT&T!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...Area.0#addcomm
AT&T doesn't care about improving especially when it's being FORCE FED customers thanks to Apple. Its shameful to see that the majority of us have not seen ANY improvement in service from AT&T. The sad part is that AT&T is busy trying to lock customers in and to charge extra fees to increase its revenue as opposed to improving service which would help people to migrate to AT&T.
This new Data scheme is just more proof of AT&T staying alive gimmicks.
Apple and AT&T have been hit with a class action lawsuit over the iPad 3G unlimited data plan bait and switch...
I understand those terms. The point of the FCC(in the U.S.) is to dictate behavior in the instances where the market is imperfect or limited.
Did you really just say this? 'Cause I once wandered into Political Outside and ran away.
No one need live in a cartoon world to pay for data on regular per unit terms with possible raising in rates or throttling for excessive users.
Also text messaging is just ridiculous. You could send 5000 text messages in a month and the total amount of data delivered is 782Kb. Not even one meg of data and most people are being charged $20-30 for that service.
In a free market you charge what the market will support. With luck and foresight, you're profitable. As a consumer I don't "text" anymore. I IM and twitter.
So for AT&T, texting not so profitable for this customer. When there are enough folks that do this, the market will even out.
We've already read the claims from the Verizon CEO that LTE will have half to one third the cost of transporting that megabyte, so why should that megabyte cost more?
Because Verizon has to sink a huge amount of money into plant and backhaul build outs to support the LTE tower it's also paying for? They spent $55B in the last 10 years...and billions more will have to be spent to get to LTE.
They gotta earn billions just to break even before they're going to pass that 2/3 savings to the consumer...same with their competitors.
The alternative is for providers not to sink as much into capex and that would suck even more...VZW's 2009 capex was $7.1B. AT&T is adding $2B to their 2010 capex taking them to about the same as VZW numbers.
Me, I wanna see LTE...
Did you really just say this? 'Cause I once wandered into Political Outside and ran away.
Well wander back. The cage doors were left open and the animals are wandering around.
In a free market you charge what the market will support. With luck and foresight, you're profitable. As a consumer I don't "text" anymore. I IM and twitter.
As I noted above, cell service IS NOT a free market. The airwaves and frequencies assigned within them are public property, are limited and cannot be used without permission. This isn't a case of "I think the Big Mac sucks so I'll go down the street and make a Big Mark instead."
If someone tried to get into the cell service provider business without government consent, they would be shut down instantly.
So it isn't about what the market will bare. It is about determining a decent profit margin above what the providers paid to license the spectrum and then calling things above that wrong or inappropriate.
So for AT&T, texting not so profitable for this customer. When there are enough folks that do this, the market will even out.
Possibly and you could have a point if not for the fact that cell companies see this coming and are working to thwart it. There are indeed plenty of providers popping up who have sub-leased bandwidth and are offering unlimited talk and text for $40-50 a month. However what is now happening, and this started somewhat with smartphones, is the main providers are now saying to the providers doing the sub-leasing that they cannot activate said phones on their network.
Now if your phone is unlocked, as for example iPhones are in many other countries, then when you come to the end of your agreed contract, you pop out the sim of the provider you are no longer entranced with and go grab some cheap talk and text packages from someone else.
In the U.S. you basically cannot do this and in the few instances where you can, they are being actively thwarted and shut down. For television, they have shut down the analog hole and the system that was created for allowing third parties access to cable and satellite feeds basically was made worthless. (Was it called cardbus?) So now in the U.S. if you want to record your programs, the DVR is going to be offered almost exclusively by the provider. You pay to "lease" your boxes even when done leasing them. You buy actually equipment upgrades, but are not the owner of said hardware and instead discover you are leasing it.
Such actions are exactly why I have an antenna on my house and nothing else.
The cell industry is doing the same thing right now and you can see the same backward reasoning on it. LTE is supposed to make it four-ten times less expensive to send the same amount of data over the same bandwidth. THAT is why they are sinking money in to it. If they were charging the same exact rates for the same exact data, they they would be making much more profit. Instead there is talk of and in the case of AT&T, actual implementation of tiered data plans. You now go from paying $6 per gig to $12.50 per gig all while the cost of those gigs transmitted is going down for the provider.
Nearly a million people have turned off their cable and satellite this year. The all or nothing choice has resulted in them choosing nothing in terms of paying the provider. I'm sure like in our household Netflix, Redbox and the local library all fill in the space just fine. However you're talking about us spending $15 or so a month for what the providers were demanding constant two year agreements and upwards of $120-130 a month to provide.
The cell bill is becoming the same way. Instead of packages of programming where they "conveniently" just happen to separate what you, the spouse and the kids all want to watch unless you go big, they are now going to be saying, want a phone with a keyboard of a camera above 1.3 mp, well then you MUST HAVE this amount of data, or agree to unlimited texting. Likewise when your equipment costs are done, you're still paying the subsidized cost of them even if taking no new equipment. If you don't like their terms, sorry can't take that equipment with you somewhere else. Too bad for you.
I'm currently on Tmobile where I get 1000 minutes unlimited text and data for $65. My wife is on PagePlus for $45 a month. The 10 and 8 year old boys cost us $5 a month to keep some minutes on their prepaid phones. That is $115 a month for a smartphone and three regular phones, all unsubsidized. That isn't unreasonable nor unprofitable for anyone.
Because Verizon has to sink a huge amount of money into plant and backhaul build outs to support the LTE tower it's also paying for? They spent $55B in the last 10 years...and billions more will have to be spent to get to LTE.
They gotta earn billions just to break even before they're going to pass that 2/3 savings to the consumer...same with their competitors.
The alternative is for providers not to sink as much into capex and that would suck even more...VZW's 2009 capex was $7.1B. AT&T is adding $2B to their 2010 capex taking them to about the same as VZW numbers.
Me, I wanna see LTE...
The point is that all those actions need to have a decent cost to benefit analysis or else they shouldn't be done. If they don't have a return on the action, then no more stringent contact terms, bullshit fees, lies, spin or manipulation will change that fact. Most people, right or wrong, will jump on the family text plans for one reason, it allows them to tell the kids to text instead of talk and allows them to pay less for voice minutes. They see, understand and make the trade off. The parents would have spent $20 for two limited text plans or they can spend $30 unlimited and tell the kids they aren't adding any more minutes (at $20 per increment increase) They spend $10 to save $20. It makes total sense from their perspective.
However now telling those same families that the kid phone with the keyboard needs a $10 data plan, forever, whether they want it or use it or not, and btw even if you take that phone somewhere else to a sub-leasee, we won't let them put it on our network without that cost....
That is something else entirely and people shouldn't be surprised when people find a way around it because they can and will.