I am not defending the FCC for one second here, rather thinking out loud ... We are also have the original grandfathered unlimited data plan with AT&T and keep wondering if the apparent high cost is worth the 'unlimited. The reason we have not bailed is it's nice to look at the monthly $180 bill (for two iPhones) and see $00.00 next to every single data entry whether full speed or slowed ... (I have not experienced any slowing but then we don't watch Netflix on our phones). I shudder to think of not having the plan to be honest. When, once a year, we are driving from Florida to New England, or flying on vacation (in the USA), we can use the iPhones to stream maps, music whatever ... all for free. I am pretty sure it is still worth the higher base rate for the plan. Not having ever had any other plans we are believing this on faith to some extent. Does anyone think we are crazy to keep the plans when there are cheaper plans with paid data? I realize the question is almost impossible to answer without serious data analysis but my gut says it is worth keeping.
I bailed on the AT&T grandfathered plans as soon as they started throttling the data and I've never regreted it. If you're paying $180 for two iPhones your not paying attention. I have four iPhone with unlimited talk, unlimited texting, and 15GB of unthrottled data per month. I pay less than $200 per month. I have never come close to using the 15GB of data even though one of the users is my 17 year old daughter. None of us feels like we need to change our usage patterns. With the preponderance of wifi hotspots that available the days of needing huge data plans are not either. Better check your plan. You're spending way too much.
Because that’s what the contract says. Try reading it sometime.
Or, you know, ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING OUT MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I've been reading this site and the comments for well over 2 years now and your name is familiar to me. I've found myself nodding in agreement with about 90% of your posts. But certainly not this one...
I don't have a copy of the contract to read. I wish I did. I'd be willing to bet that there are multiple safeguards, loopholes, etc in the fine print of the contract that allow the carriers to do exactly this - and whatever else they want.
If you choose to interpret the phrase "unlimited data" as literally as you appear to - you should have been up in arms when the contracts were first introduced since the plans have been "effectively" limited from day 1 due to the maximum speed of the network. So if it wasn't a big deal then, it shouldn't be now - especially when people are receiving speeds that are so much faster now anyhow!
Also - if you want to be so literal, manipulating the speed does not break their promise of unlimited data. They are not limiting the amount of data they will allow you to use. They are limiting the speed with which you can access it. Sure, we can all do the math and see that by reducing the maximum speed you can pull data has an effect on reducing the overall number of bytes you can pull in month - but technically and literally, you still have unlimited data - by using the same definition of "unlimited" that has been "accepted" since the contracts first came out!
The really ridiculous part of your stance on this particular issue is that support those that feel entitled to all of the speed advances that the newer technology makes possible - but when that technology becomes so popular that parts of the network become saturated, the only viable solution is to temporarily reduce the speeds a little bit to make sure that there is enough availability for everyone. It may be a little bit slower than the "maximum possible speed" but it's still a hell of a lot faster than they originally signed up for!
In the days when the unlimited plans first came out, bandwidth throttling did not work very well or was not implemented very well. Network access was first come first serve. Web-pages would time out while loading and you'd have to repeatedly click refresh to finally get the page to load. But today, the carriers have the ability to throttle the speeds for everyone when a tower becomes saturated which greatly reduces the number of timeouts and allows ALL to access the internet.
Building out additional capacity is an awesome idea - but I think you're smart enough to know that it can't happen overnight and in some cases/areas it may be limited by spectrum. I don't think any of the major carriers have claimed "we have enough!" and have stopped working on upgrades and expansions. They're all consistently working on network upgrades. Until they're in place, it would be nice if people would learn to share and appreciate what they've got!
If you choose to interpret the phrase “unlimited data” as literally as you appear to - you should have been up in arms when the contracts were first introduced since the plans have been “effectively" limited from day 1...
Yep, I was. That’s why if T-Mobile isn’t lying and actually doesn’t throttle (or cap) its “unlimited” plans... well, I won’t switch to them because their coverage is garbage, but at least that’s pressure on the other three morons to stop lying.
...due to the maximum speed of the network.
No, that’s not a problem. “Unlimited” does not mean “instantaneous”.
Also - if you want to be so literal, manipulating the speed does not break their promise of unlimited data. They are not limiting the amount of data they will allow you to use. They are limiting the speed with which you can access it.
Which is explicitly a limit on the quality of service for which you are paying.
...by using the same definition of “unlimited” that has been “accepted" since the contracts first came out!
I’m very glad you put accepted in quotation marks.
The really ridiculous part of your stance on this particular issue is that support those that feel entitled to all of the speed advances that the newer technology makes possible...
Um... no. If you have a 3G device, you are not entitled to a free 4G device. But if you buy a new 4G device on the same contract, you’re certainly entitled to whatever speed the network is 1. advertised to be 2. exists to be. Again, the carriers agree.
...but when that technology becomes so popular that parts of the network become saturated, the only viable solution is to temporarily reduce the speeds a little bit to make sure that there is enough availability for everyone.
Which, again, is not the same argument in regard to “unlimited” on a contract. There’s...
Throttling anyone after a set amount of data because they are lying about “unlimited” data
Throttling high-use subscribers because they happen to use the most, regardless of what that amount is, and
Throttling everyone in a certain area when it is being used to capacity.
The latter is the only acceptable use.
Building out additional capacity is an awesome idea - but I think you're smart enough to know that it can't happen overnight and in some cases/areas it may be limited by spectrum.
Of course. My real complaint is with people who refuse to accept it as a viable solution to the problem.
Singling out users based on the amount of money they are paying is what is wrong with the "network optimization". Verizon will glady let me affect their network performance using 100GB per month if I pay them $750 per month. An to those who still think "network optimization" is fair, is it still fair when they are throttling those over 10MB per month, what line do you think is fair?
Comments
I am not defending the FCC for one second here, rather thinking out loud ... We are also have the original grandfathered unlimited data plan with AT&T and keep wondering if the apparent high cost is worth the 'unlimited. The reason we have not bailed is it's nice to look at the monthly $180 bill (for two iPhones) and see $00.00 next to every single data entry whether full speed or slowed ... (I have not experienced any slowing but then we don't watch Netflix on our phones). I shudder to think of not having the plan to be honest. When, once a year, we are driving from Florida to New England, or flying on vacation (in the USA), we can use the iPhones to stream maps, music whatever ... all for free. I am pretty sure it is still worth the higher base rate for the plan. Not having ever had any other plans we are believing this on faith to some extent. Does anyone think we are crazy to keep the plans when there are cheaper plans with paid data? I realize the question is almost impossible to answer without serious data analysis but my gut says it is worth keeping.
I bailed on the AT&T grandfathered plans as soon as they started throttling the data and I've never regreted it. If you're paying $180 for two iPhones your not paying attention. I have four iPhone with unlimited talk, unlimited texting, and 15GB of unthrottled data per month. I pay less than $200 per month. I have never come close to using the 15GB of data even though one of the users is my 17 year old daughter. None of us feels like we need to change our usage patterns. With the preponderance of wifi hotspots that available the days of needing huge data plans are not either. Better check your plan. You're spending way too much.
Talk about completely idiotic.
Because that’s what the contract says. Try reading it sometime.
Or, you know, ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING OUT MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I've been reading this site and the comments for well over 2 years now and your name is familiar to me. I've found myself nodding in agreement with about 90% of your posts. But certainly not this one...
I don't have a copy of the contract to read. I wish I did. I'd be willing to bet that there are multiple safeguards, loopholes, etc in the fine print of the contract that allow the carriers to do exactly this - and whatever else they want.
If you choose to interpret the phrase "unlimited data" as literally as you appear to - you should have been up in arms when the contracts were first introduced since the plans have been "effectively" limited from day 1 due to the maximum speed of the network. So if it wasn't a big deal then, it shouldn't be now - especially when people are receiving speeds that are so much faster now anyhow!
Also - if you want to be so literal, manipulating the speed does not break their promise of unlimited data. They are not limiting the amount of data they will allow you to use. They are limiting the speed with which you can access it. Sure, we can all do the math and see that by reducing the maximum speed you can pull data has an effect on reducing the overall number of bytes you can pull in month - but technically and literally, you still have unlimited data - by using the same definition of "unlimited" that has been "accepted" since the contracts first came out!
The really ridiculous part of your stance on this particular issue is that support those that feel entitled to all of the speed advances that the newer technology makes possible - but when that technology becomes so popular that parts of the network become saturated, the only viable solution is to temporarily reduce the speeds a little bit to make sure that there is enough availability for everyone. It may be a little bit slower than the "maximum possible speed" but it's still a hell of a lot faster than they originally signed up for!
In the days when the unlimited plans first came out, bandwidth throttling did not work very well or was not implemented very well. Network access was first come first serve. Web-pages would time out while loading and you'd have to repeatedly click refresh to finally get the page to load. But today, the carriers have the ability to throttle the speeds for everyone when a tower becomes saturated which greatly reduces the number of timeouts and allows ALL to access the internet.
Building out additional capacity is an awesome idea - but I think you're smart enough to know that it can't happen overnight and in some cases/areas it may be limited by spectrum. I don't think any of the major carriers have claimed "we have enough!" and have stopped working on upgrades and expansions. They're all consistently working on network upgrades. Until they're in place, it would be nice if people would learn to share and appreciate what they've got!
If you choose to interpret the phrase “unlimited data” as literally as you appear to - you should have been up in arms when the contracts were first introduced since the plans have been “effectively" limited from day 1...
Yep, I was. That’s why if T-Mobile isn’t lying and actually doesn’t throttle (or cap) its “unlimited” plans... well, I won’t switch to them because their coverage is garbage, but at least that’s pressure on the other three morons to stop lying.
No, that’s not a problem. “Unlimited” does not mean “instantaneous”.
Which is explicitly a limit on the quality of service for which you are paying.
I’m very glad you put accepted in quotation marks.
Um... no. If you have a 3G device, you are not entitled to a free 4G device. But if you buy a new 4G device on the same contract, you’re certainly entitled to whatever speed the network is 1. advertised to be 2. exists to be. Again, the carriers agree.
Which, again, is not the same argument in regard to “unlimited” on a contract. There’s...
Throttling anyone after a set amount of data because they are lying about “unlimited” data
Throttling high-use subscribers because they happen to use the most, regardless of what that amount is, and
Throttling everyone in a certain area when it is being used to capacity.
The latter is the only acceptable use.
Of course. My real complaint is with people who refuse to accept it as a viable solution to the problem.
Singling out users based on the amount of money they are paying is what is wrong with the "network optimization". Verizon will glady let me affect their network performance using 100GB per month if I pay them $750 per month. An to those who still think "network optimization" is fair, is it still fair when they are throttling those over 10MB per month, what line do you think is fair?