On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:34:32 -0600, in <IVOUn.790$RC5.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>At 24 Jun 2010 08:52:54 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>> I pretty much agree -- have been saying for a long time that metered
>> service works better for everyone, with the heavy (ab)users paying their
>> fair share instead of being subsidized by the majority.
>Agreed. The real problem historically is that users really haven't
>learned to think in KBs and MBs. We all know what a minute is, so
>counting voice usage is easy. How much is a 10 minute web browsing
>session, or a day's email retrieval? "Unlimited" was a way to take the
>worry from users. Most phones have no, or woefully inadequate, data
True, but at least carriers are now facing up to usage alerts, although
they could be much better as well.
>> The majority should care because it will result in better service and/or
>> lower rates.
>True, if they learn how to keep track of usage. For example, my T-Mo
>grandfathered "T-Mobile Web" plan doesn't track usage- every month my T-
>Mo bill (and the website) tells me I've used "0 MB" of data. Only a
>third-party app on my phone (or switching my phone to the alternate "EPC"
>T-Mo APN that does track it) tells me I use 250-300MB a month.
Yep, it's bad that actual data usage still isn't being displayed.
>> The blame actually goes to us, for falling for the seemingly attractive
>> packages instead of demanding fair and clear plans. As Pogo famously
>> said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." But the recent rapid growth
>> of low-cost prepaid plans suggests consumers are finally getting the
>I disagree- we consumers rejected data buckets in the past out of fear,
>forcing carriers to respond with unlimited data plans, protected (they
>thought) by the law of averages.
I think the bigger issue was the high cost of metered data.
The irony of AT&T ending unlimited data is that AT&T was the wireless
carrier that started it -- I can still remember the press release.
I signed up immediately.
Excellent segment on this in NPR On The Media
>I still think T-Mo has the best system-
>offer unlimited data, with a bandwidth throttle at a preset softcap.
>That way everyone still gets "unlimited data" with the disproportionate
>users dealt with effectively without incurring extra charges.
>> AT&T should be able to detect such ToS violations, and can terminate
>> heavy users if it chooses in any event.
>Terminating heavy users solely on usage volume without a ToS violation
>"smoking gun" would be a PR (and potential legal) nightmare if you
>offered and sold them an "unlimited" plan, same as kicking a buffet
>patron out of your restaurant for daring grab a third plate of crab legs
>after selling him "all you can eat." PR
, yes; legal, no -- the carrier has no obligation when the contract
has run its course.
>Data will eventually become a commodity just like voice has, and the
>market is in a downward pricing spiral. The carriers have to enjoy their
>current rate structures while they can. The slide to becoming simple
>mobile dumb pipes is slow but inevitable. How long before we see an
>Android device with a Google Voice/SIP client integrated into the
>cellular dialer offering full cellphone functionality on a data-only plan
>without clumsy third-party VoIP software? 12 months? 24 tops? That
>would give unlimited voice for the price of a data-only plan (currently
>$40 on T-Mo for unlimited, $30 for 2GB on AT&T.)
We do "live in interesting times."
"At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive
spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." -Maeterlinck