Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Requiring a data plan
Requiring a data plan
by DangMI - 8/25/09 2:44 PMI agree that people who want a smart phone without a data plan are a small minority, but they sure should be able to do so. My wife--who is semi-determinedly non-geek--just wants something that would easily synch her calendar and contacts. She doesn't want to have to paste over into some proprietary phone book app every time she changes something, especially as far as appts and the like. And we're willing to pay a few bucks more for the features, even tho we'd be buying some capabilities that she won't use. But Verizon insists. Why don't they want our money? Now they're getting nothing!
I think Apple said it best...
by robstak - 8/25/09 2:58 PM In reply to: Requiring a data plan by DangMI...or at least Apple admitted it first, and I am compelled to agree.
When a company makes a product, they have some ideal about how they'd like it to work. if you cripple features by not getting a data plan then you wont think the product is as cool as it could be.
i believe that is the argument they try to make, although the extra 30-50 bucks a month im sure they arent not happy about lol
You've opened my eyes!
by DangMI - 8/26/09 3:21 AM In reply to: I think Apple said it best... by robstakI bought a computer with Office pre-installed, but I really never used PowerPoint. Since they intended that to be part of the whole Office experience, I am crippling their product and must make amends. And it's even worse--I'm using Thunderbird instead of Outlook! My sins multiply.
OMG, now that I think of it--I'm using Firefox instead of Explorer. My Lord--that was specifically built into Windows just to enhance my user experience and I'm not spitting in the face of their generosity.
Sorry, got to go now--need to make sure the doors and windows are locked--I'm pretty sure they can come repossess the computer now, due to my abusive behavior. <g>
Kidding aside, I think I understand your point, but I do feel that not using something is WAY different than crippling it. And, they don't actually care if you use the data plan--they're don't, I'm sure, send you nagging notices that you aren't surfing enough--they just want you to PAY for the plan. And they take away the chance that once it's in our hands, we'll be tempted to use the additional features and giver them more money later. Studies show that over 90% of the time, if you don't let someone buy your product, you make less money, money either then or in the future. 
the point is about control of an experience.
by robstak - 11/21/09 8:53 AM In reply to: You've opened my eyes! by DangMIrealize this post is old sry, lol, but the point is that they want to control the experience so they can be assured its what they wanted- and they are saying that what they wanted is the smoothest experience..
again not saying i agree but i believe thats the argument.
But....
by Nicholas Buenk - 11/21/09 9:19 PM In reply to: the point is about control of an experience. by robstakThey should give you some control over that experience yourself, like they do on the mac and OS X, it's as open as windows if not more open... The EULA may suck, but the kernel of the OS is open sourced and nothing is locked down.
Seems like it's for the $s
by DangMI - 11/22/09 4:49 AM In reply to: the point is about control of an experience. by robstakI would better believe in their commitment to improving the customer's experience, if they didn't charge for it.
"I'm doing this for your own good, now give me $50 a month." So, who's good is it REALLY for?
Companies are good at double-speak. And governments. Did you see the last "Clean Air Act" (don't remember the exact title) that dropped lots of regulations and increased pollution? It WAS about clean air, just not about IMPROVING it!
good point
by rnauth1418 - 11/23/09 2:24 PM In reply to: the point is about control of an experience. by robstakgood point. I was on the ATT forums having a heated debate against att defenders. This argument is the only one in favor of att that makes sense.
I agree with the people who say the FCC should get involved
by minimalist - 8/25/09 5:21 PM In reply to: Requiring a data plan by DangMIThe carriers abuse the half-monopolies they are given by the FCC to hoist policies like this on consumers. They are being handed a platform for business which automatically limits competition (the auctioning of available frequencies). Because of this these need to be held to certain standards of behavior. If this were the free market, another carrier could come along and serve this demand in the market.
That said, there may be something about the way these carriers subsidize the smart phones that means they need that data plan money to make back their upfront costs for the hardware. If that's the case then I sort of understand their position, but even then its not quite fair. If the subsidy payback is built into the data and call plan costs why don't those of us who bring our own hardware to the table get a better deal? We pay the same thing as the subsidized customers and the carriers are laughing all the way to the bank.
The whole subsidization system is rotten and crooked if you ask me.
We've talked earlier
by Nicholas Buenk - 8/25/09 9:08 PM In reply to: I agree with the people who say the FCC should get involved by minimalistAbout how subidisation and phone exclusivity is really collusion designed to limit competition for a phone and keep up prices, iPhone costs more than double in the US than what it costs here in Australia for example, where it's on all 4 carriers and sold in an unlocked state by apple stores!. Point is, the FCC isn't required to create a monopoly situation, this industry can do it quite well on their own.
But about subisation, what if you bought the phone outright an just want a plan, why should you be forced to pay rates designed for subidised users. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep that voice and data plan at a lower rate, and specify handset repayment fee as a seperate item on the bill. It's what Aussie carriers do. 
Perhaps they fear American consumers getting upset and demanding they not be charged twice for the phone, as they've Bern continuing the illusion that the real cost of a smartphone phone is only around $200 for so long.
We've also talked about how that money you think
by minimalist - 8/26/09 11:18 AM In reply to: We've talked earlier by Nicholas Buenkyou are saving on the cost of the phone is actually being made up in data limits, something that will never fly in the US. We are an all you can eat culture. Australian phone companies aren't getting the iPhone any cheaper then US carriers and they sure as hell aren't losing money on the deal. So they make it up through being miserly with the service they provide.
Since data limits aren't an popular option here, the phone costs have to be made up via upfront costs or subsidization. And people wont pay the upfront costs unless it gives them cheaper service. This has to change for us to move forward. More transparency in how subsidies are recouped would be a good start.
Not that I hate subsidization. Its a perfectly legitimate idea as long as there is a a viable alternative. But here in the US there is not really an alternative that makes economic sense (and I suspect the carriers like it that way). They don't want people to buy their phones unsubsidized because it means they may go to a competitor for service or some other retailer will make a profit off the hardware sale. They want to keep it all in the family. So you pay the same for your service either way, which means if you bring your own phone to the table they make even more profit off of you which is really perverted.
But this wont change through market forces because there just isn't enough competition here (there's only two GSM carriers and one has a sucky data network). I think the FCC will need to give the carriers a swift kick in the butt to get them to budge from the status quo or allow more carriers into the playing field to force them to go where they fear to tread. Thse carriers have become far too complacent with the status quo of lock-in contracts and overpriced SMS messages.
Actually
by Nicholas Buenk - 8/26/09 9:35 PM In reply to: We've also talked about how that money you think by minimalistIt's actually quite hard to use more than about 300MB on a smart phone, unless you do audio or video streaming, most people I speak to seem to be below 200MB and to their surprise found they over-spent on a larger data plan than what they need. And wouldn't data caps be preferable to carriers selectively banning data intensive app?
I think that even if you take the data cap into account, AT&T still massively overcharges for the iPhone.
Subsidisation here works differently. On Optus for iPhone 32GB for example, for voice plans, $19($16USD), about 50 minutes and 100MB, for $49($40USD) about 400 minutes and 250M. They don't charge for the handset upfront but it comes out of your bill monthly $34($28USD) for the $19 plan, $19($16USD) for the $49 plan, that doesn't quite cover the cost of the phone though it's still subsidised by the voice plan. They also have an all you can eat plan for $99 ($82USD), which contains unlimited call minutes, $0 for the phone entirely subsidised and 1.5GB of data, hardly any iPhone user is going to exceed that much data, and this is only $12 more than AT&T's least expensive plan, hehe.
If the voice plan doesn't contain enough free data for you, they offer additional data plan, $20($16USD) for 1GB, $45($37USD) for 6GB, and these plans will also enable tethering on the phone. 6GB on a smart phone is practically unlimited! It's not realistic that you could pass that unless you use tethering.
Of course this is Optus, their network drives people crazy with it's dropped calls and how often it drops to GPRS because their 3G sucks. But with these prices, they have the largest market share with iPhone users.
Telstra has an awesome network with 21mbit 3G, 99% of the population covered, that is a ground area of 3 times the size of texas. But they sure make you pay for it. Lets see, Telstra, $49($40USD) for 250 minutes and $550($454USD) for the phone upfront cost. Hardly any data is included in the voice plan. Their data plans, 300MB $30($24USD), $60($49USD) 1GB, $90($74USD) 5GB. Yikes! Sure with them you can get 3G in the middle of no where with nothing but kangaroos to share the experience with, but at this price, well most people are picking Optus. They're offering these absurd prices, not because they have a monopoly on the product like AT&T, but because they have a far superior network that's 5 bars 3G pretty much all the time and hardly ever drops a call. (which, on a different topic, it's performance on telstra is good evidence that nothing is wrong with the iPhone's radio).
No doubt it wouldn't be so cheap here, if not for the fact that Apple sold the phone unlocked in Apple stores, and that the 4 main carriers offer the iPhone on contract, so there is real competition. The main reason this situation occurred, is because Telstra, being the arrogant and pig headed company they are, was the only carrier to have EDGE back in 2007, rejected the iPhone as they were upset that Apple wouldn't allow them to put their software and services on the phone. And famously publicly told Apple to stick to their knitting! (an expression, basically saying, they should stick to making iPods and not mess around in markets they have no idea about).
Neither is acceptable
by minimalist - 8/27/09 8:34 AM In reply to: Actually by Nicholas Buenk<i>It's actually quite hard to use more than about 300MB on a smart phone, unless you do audio or video streaming, most people I speak to seem to be below 200MB and to their surprise found they over-spent on a larger data plan than what they need.</i>
Nonsense. I use 750MB to 1.5 GB of data a month and as this sector grows we will all continue to use more. Quotas are just not good for growth. They are not forward thinking at all. All they are good for is preserving the status quo for the carrier. Data caps are an easy way for the carriers to avoid upgrading their infrastructure. They don't belong on land based networks or cellular ones. If the carriers want to have tiered pricing plan then fine for different amounts of data then fine (actually the people who want to use data heavy apps like sling player etc would likely have move up to more expensive plans just because of the amount of data they use), but capping with ridiculous overages (or worse, just being cut off) is a horrible idea.
</i>And wouldn't data caps be preferable to carriers selectively banning data intensive app?</i>
Neither are acceptable and AT&T would still not accept heavy bandwidth apps. If they don;t have enough bandwidth for their current users, putting a monthly data cap on them would do nothing to change the bandwidth hogging effects of apps like sling player.
Some network management technique is required
by Nicholas Buenk - 8/27/09 8:28 PM In reply to: Neither is acceptable by minimalistWireless, is shared bandwidth. All the devices are sharing the same spectrum and bandwidth, in the air. There has to be some sort of rationing or service, or the network performance will degrade dramatically for everybody. Not just in terms of speed, but the way 3G networks work, the coverage area shrinks with high usage.
Data caps put some of the responsibility on the users, so they can manage their own usage, or pay more, they are a way to enable network management without violating principles of network neutrality.
And how on earth are you using 1.5GB of data on an iPhone? You streaming video to your device? Using an internet radio app? If just doing web browsing, to achieve 1.5GB would require something like 3 hours of mobileSafari use a day. Remember it's not a computer, you don't use it for downloading files.
Cell phone carriers charge you per MB here if you go over the limit. But cable/DSL providers rather will throttle your service to around 128kbit if you exceed a data cap.
Oh come on now....
by minimalist - 8/28/09 9:03 AM In reply to: Some network management technique is required by Nicholas Buenk<i>And how on earth are you using 1.5GB of data on an iPhone? You streaming video to your device? Using an internet radio app?</i>
The more apps you install the more data you use. Its a simple equation. And there is no need for judgment and snark just because you don;t currently use that much data. As streaming apps get added (radio, simplify music, video, etc) obviously data usage will go up. This only moves in one direction and it isn't downward.
The SMART thing for companies to do is to offer more options and plans. Charge more for more bandwidth or more data for those who WANT to use it. The market will grow as more compelling apps are released to take advantage of this ever increasing bandwidth.
The thing NOT to do is for these companies to rest on their laurels and just put up quotas. Do you really think that Netflix streaming or Hulu would have ever gotten to where it is if cable companies said "we don;t think anybody ever needs more than 1GB of data a month nor do they need more than 1Mbps). Of course not. They realized that people would pay more for higher speed plans.
Well
by Nicholas Buenk - 8/28/09 10:53 PM In reply to: Oh come on now.... by minimalistI do use simplify media and VPN. Regular web use, infact I'm typing this on the iPhone and posting over 3G. I usually get up to around 400MB which is certainly above average. I've gotten past that only with tethering, I have 1.1GB.
But AT&T or any phone company, simply can't afford to have large numbers of users downloading gigabytes of data without overloading the networks. Cellular networks are very limited in capacity. There is a limited amount of spectrum shared around every device in a cell and only way to deal with this if capacity rus out, build more cells so each cell covers less area. Another problem is, cell tower is usually connected by a line of sight microwave link which tends to not be that high in bandwidth. Or you could lay fibre to each cell tower, expensive.
So what can they do? They can lock down the device an prevent data hungry apps. Or have quotas.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
