"CHART OF THE DAY: You Probably Don't Need A Big Mobile Data Plan"

Another study of wireless data usage:

<http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-smartphone-data-plans-2011-6>

Mean data usage: 400MB/month
Median data usage: 100MB/month
60% of users using less than 200MB per month (varies slightly by carrier).

Unlike the Cisco study from last year, this one did not break down the
data usage by home, work, and other, but it's probably safe to say that
the percentages haven't changed much, and that much of the mobile data
could be transferred to wi-fi if the user is on a smaller data plan and
wants to conserve 3G data usage as free wi-fi hot spots continue to
proliferate.

What's interesting is that despite the fact that only AT&T has been
offering a 200MB plan, almost the same percentage of users on carriers
other than AT&T are using less than 200MB.

Verizon's switch to tiered data plans later this month probably won't
cause many users to switch to a lower tier in order to match their data
usage and save money because they could never go back to unlimited. As
one person wrote here (in response to "How much data per month do you
use?"): "Not very much, but I like have <sic> unlimited plans just in
case I decide to use more."

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:12:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Verizon's switch to tiered data plans later this month probably won't
>cause many users to switch to a lower tier in order to match their data
>usage and save money because they could never go back to unlimited.


I did not know this. My contract with V is already over, to
get the new 'free' phone, I must re-sign for +$30 a month..

"..unlimited Data..." I've decided to do it anyway, just no
rush..yet your post..after 6/29 or so, I won't have that option?

Do the 'xxx' MB a month cost plans that much less?

>... As
>one person wrote here (in response to "How much data per month do you
>use?"): "Not very much, but I like have <sic> unlimited plans just in
>case I decide to use more."

I bet once you hit the fan, data wise, the next bit cost ya big
flocking time. You signed for it. I remember once reading that
once you sign the contract, they must let you re-new it for
the next 2 yrs..and so on. Thats why they give away free phones.

I love 'V's reception, never a problem. Should I act NOW..?


PLEASE if you can, help me here. Thanx..


JJTj

SMS wrote on [Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:12:14 -0700]:
> Another study of wireless data usage:
>
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-smartphone-data-plans-2011-6>
>
> Mean data usage: 400MB/month
> Median data usage: 100MB/month
> 60% of users using less than 200MB per month (varies slightly by carrier).

What are they calling a smartphone?
And how many of that 60% is on AT&T where the 200MB data plan is the carrot?

> Unlike the Cisco study from last year, this one did not break down the
> data usage by home, work, and other, but it's probably safe to say that
> the percentages haven't changed much, and that much of the mobile data
> could be transferred to wi-fi if the user is on a smaller data plan and
> wants to conserve 3G data usage as free wi-fi hot spots continue to
> proliferate.

yes, let's make assumptions based on a chart that includes no actual data.

> Verizon's switch to tiered data plans later this month probably won't

Is there actual information on when and what these will be?

At 15 Jun 2011 23:59:37 +0000 Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:12:14 -0700]:
> > Another study of wireless data usage:
> >
> > <http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...artphone-data-
plans-2011-6>
> >
> > Mean data usage: 400MB/month
> > Median data usage: 100MB/month
> > 60% of users using less than 200MB per month (varies slightly by
carrier).
>
> What are they calling a smartphone?
> And how many of that 60% is on AT&T where the 200MB data plan is the
carrot?


Validas, the source of the data, recently published a Verizon and
platform specific breakdown, finding Verizon Android users average over
400MB/month. SMS deemed that one the "least scientific" of the studies
discussed here. Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming
from the same source, is more scientific.

Another data point, for whatever it's worth:
<http://gigaom.com/broadband/t-mobile...-on-speeds-in-
2011/>
T-Mo claims its "4G" smartphone customers use an average of 1GB/month.
They also note data use is doubling every seven months (total network
data use, not average use. This is also driven by the increase in the
number of smartphone users, not just the increased use by individuals.)

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming from the
> same source, is more scientific.

The only scientifically valid data is data that proves what we want to prove.

XS11E wrote on [Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:24:36 -0700]:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming from the
>> same source, is more scientific.
>
> The only scientifically valid data is data that proves what we want to prove.

In that case SMS failed, as there was zero data included at all.

At 16 Jun 2011 17:56:08 +0000 Justin wrote:
> XS11E wrote on [Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:24:36 -0700]:
> > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming from the
> >> same source, is more scientific.
> >
> > The only scientifically valid data is data that proves what we want
to prove.
>
> In that case SMS failed, as there was zero data included at all.


Nielsen's new report came out this morning:

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...-s-smartphone-
data-usage-up-89-as-cost-per-mb-goes-down-46/

And yes, it's broken down by OS.

Nielsen averaged data from 55,000 cell phone bills and found average Q1
2011 usage by OS:

Android: 582MB/month
iOS: 492MB/month
Windows Phone 7: 317MB/month
(Old) WinMobile: 174MB/month
Blackberry: 127MB/month

Apparently the new media-friendly Blackberries are even taking their
toll. Last year, Nielsen pegged BB average use at only 81MB.

Todd Allcock wrote on [Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:42:16 -0600]:
> At 16 Jun 2011 17:56:08 +0000 Justin wrote:
>> XS11E wrote on [Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:24:36 -0700]:
>> > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming from the
>> >> same source, is more scientific.
>> >
>> > The only scientifically valid data is data that proves what we want
> to prove.
>>
>> In that case SMS failed, as there was zero data included at all.
>
>
> Nielsen's new report came out this morning:
>
> http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...-s-smartphone-
> data-usage-up-89-as-cost-per-mb-goes-down-46/
>
> And yes, it's broken down by OS.
>
> Nielsen averaged data from 55,000 cell phone bills and found average Q1
> 2011 usage by OS:
>
> Android: 582MB/month
> iOS: 492MB/month
> Windows Phone 7: 317MB/month
> (Old) WinMobile: 174MB/month
> Blackberry: 127MB/month
>
> Apparently the new media-friendly Blackberries are even taking their
> toll. Last year, Nielsen pegged BB average use at only 81MB.

Wanna bet that iOS average goes up as soon as over the air updates start
happening, too?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:29:11 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote on [Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:42:16 -0600]:
>> At 16 Jun 2011 17:56:08 +0000 Justin wrote:
>>> XS11E wrote on [Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:24:36 -0700]:
>>> > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming from the
>>> >> same source, is more scientific.
>>> >
>>> > The only scientifically valid data is data that proves what we want
>> to prove.
>>>
>>> In that case SMS failed, as there was zero data included at all.
>>
>>
>> Nielsen's new report came out this morning:
>>
>> http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...-s-smartphone-
>> data-usage-up-89-as-cost-per-mb-goes-down-46/
>>
>> And yes, it's broken down by OS.
>>
>> Nielsen averaged data from 55,000 cell phone bills and found average Q1
>> 2011 usage by OS:
>>
>> Android: 582MB/month
>> iOS: 492MB/month
>> Windows Phone 7: 317MB/month
>> (Old) WinMobile: 174MB/month
>> Blackberry: 127MB/month
>>
>> Apparently the new media-friendly Blackberries are even taking their
>> toll. Last year, Nielsen pegged BB average use at only 81MB.
>
>Wanna bet that iOS average goes up as soon as over the air updates start
>happening, too?

I've entered most of the WiFi hotspots I frequent as well as my home
Wifi into my Droid so that when it is in range of any of them it
automatically switches over from Verizon 3G. I am on unlimited so
don't care about the amount of data I use, but do it because the WiFi
hotspots are usually much faster. But I imagine it also cuts down on
my Verizon data use so this scheme may be useful for those with
metered accounts. BTW I usually average around 250M/Mo so apparantly I
am way below the Android average.

AJL wrote on [Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:00 -0700]:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:29:11 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote on [Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:42:16 -0600]:
>>> At 16 Jun 2011 17:56:08 +0000 Justin wrote:
>>>> XS11E wrote on [Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:24:36 -0700]:
>>>> > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Apparently aggregated data with no explanations, coming from the
>>>> >> same source, is more scientific.
>>>> >
>>>> > The only scientifically valid data is data that proves what we want
>>> to prove.
>>>>
>>>> In that case SMS failed, as there was zero data included at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nielsen's new report came out this morning:
>>>
>>> http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/...-s-smartphone-
>>> data-usage-up-89-as-cost-per-mb-goes-down-46/
>>>
>>> And yes, it's broken down by OS.
>>>
>>> Nielsen averaged data from 55,000 cell phone bills and found average Q1
>>> 2011 usage by OS:
>>>
>>> Android: 582MB/month
>>> iOS: 492MB/month
>>> Windows Phone 7: 317MB/month
>>> (Old) WinMobile: 174MB/month
>>> Blackberry: 127MB/month
>>>
>>> Apparently the new media-friendly Blackberries are even taking their
>>> toll. Last year, Nielsen pegged BB average use at only 81MB.
>>
>>Wanna bet that iOS average goes up as soon as over the air updates start
>>happening, too?
>
> I've entered most of the WiFi hotspots I frequent as well as my home
> Wifi into my Droid so that when it is in range of any of them it
> automatically switches over from Verizon 3G. I am on unlimited so
> don't care about the amount of data I use, but do it because the WiFi
> hotspots are usually much faster. But I imagine it also cuts down on
> my Verizon data use so this scheme may be useful for those with
> metered accounts. BTW I usually average around 250M/Mo so apparantly I
> am way below the Android average.

Entering all the wifi hot spots has injured me more than it helped.
I went to starbucks and entered ATTWIFI and was online, no sweat right.
Now, any time I am anywhere near a non-starbucks ATTWIFI hotspot the phone
grabs onto the signal and becomes useless for internet because these
sites require a login and password from a browser interception. I don't
have a username and password and even if I did I would have to open
my browser and login, which is ridiculous on a smartphone where most
services are accessed via apps. Opening a browser and logging in defeats
the purpose of using the email apps and makes them almost useless until
you login with your browser.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>I went to starbucks and entered ATTWIFI and was online, no sweat right.
>Now, any time I am anywhere near a non-starbucks ATTWIFI hotspot the phone
>grabs onto the signal and becomes useless for internet because these
>sites require a login and password from a browser interception.

I've not had that problem. If I don't log in a browser site I've used
previously, my phone just uses the 3G even though the WiFi is showing
on the bar. Perhaps it's the paticular phone?

Also if I am radio streaming on the home WiFi and go for a walk, it
seamlessly switches to the 3G and then back to the WiFi when I return
home. Nothing needed from me - needless to say I was quite impressed
the first time I tried it.

>Opening a browser and logging in defeats the purpose of using the
>email apps and makes them almost useless until you login with
>your browser.

Agreed. I normally don't use the hotspots that need a browser to log
in except when I'm somewhere that the 3G is unavailable. But...if I
was being metered by Verizon (which is coming soon I hear) I might...

On 6/17/2011 10:29 PM, AJL wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> I went to starbucks and entered ATTWIFI and was online, no sweat right.
>> Now, any time I am anywhere near a non-starbucks ATTWIFI hotspot the phone
>> grabs onto the signal and becomes useless for internet because these
>> sites require a login and password from a browser interception.
>
> I've not had that problem. If I don't log in a browser site I've used
> previously, my phone just uses the 3G even though the WiFi is showing
> on the bar.

That's how it works on Android anyway.

> Also if I am radio streaming on the home WiFi and go for a walk, it
> seamlessly switches to the 3G and then back to the WiFi when I return
> home. Nothing needed from me - needless to say I was quite impressed
> the first time I tried it.

That's how Android works anyway. Can't speak for iPhone or Blackberry.

> Agreed. I normally don't use the hotspots that need a browser to log
> in except when I'm somewhere that the 3G is unavailable. But...if I
> was being metered by Verizon (which is coming soon I hear) I might...

A lot (most?) hotel wi-fi requires logging in, often with a code they
give you when you check in.

SMS wrote on [Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:08:33 -0700]:
> On 6/17/2011 10:29 PM, AJL wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I went to starbucks and entered ATTWIFI and was online, no sweat right.
>>> Now, any time I am anywhere near a non-starbucks ATTWIFI hotspot the phone
>>> grabs onto the signal and becomes useless for internet because these
>>> sites require a login and password from a browser interception.
>>
>> I've not had that problem. If I don't log in a browser site I've used
>> previously, my phone just uses the 3G even though the WiFi is showing
>> on the bar.
>
> That's how it works on Android anyway.

Not on my droid X

If I have connected to a wifi hotpsot that is a walled garden until I login
none of the services work over 3g

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:08:33 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>A lot (most?) hotel wi-fi requires logging in, often with a code they
>give you when you check in.

And (many, some, lots?) don't. Coincidentally, I'm staying at rhe
Beach Terrace Inn hotel in Carlsbad CA tonight and posting this over
an open, no password required, hotel WiFi.

On 6/20/2011 9:10 PM, AJL wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:08:33 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A lot (most?) hotel wi-fi requires logging in, often with a code they
>> give you when you check in.
>
> And (many, some, lots?) don't. Coincidentally, I'm staying at rhe
> Beach Terrace Inn hotel in Carlsbad CA tonight and posting this over
> an open, no password required, hotel WiFi.

I'd say about 70% of hotels I've stayed at in the past year have a code
you need.

This past weekend I was at Embassy Suites in Palm Desert and asked for
the wi-fi code. They said that it normally costs $9.95 per day but they
gave it to me free. I said I thought that Hilton Honors members got it
free all the time, but they said that this was only for the higher
levels. This was a terrible Embassy Suites (or as my son said, it must
have been an Embassy Suites Outlet), and I would have moved to another
hotel rather than pay for wi-fi.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>This past weekend I was at Embassy Suites in Palm Desert and asked for
>the wi-fi code. They said that it normally costs $9.95 per day but they
>gave it to me free.

I've not been to a hotel in recent years that didn't have free WiFi.
But then the hotels I usually stay at are tourist hotels in southern
CA and compete for the tourist dollar by offering free WiFi, free
parking, and free breakfasts (like the one I'm in now).

>I said I thought that Hilton Honors members got it
>free all the time, but they said that this was only for the higher
>levels.

The hotels I book have everything spelled out on the website so I've
never had any surprises.

AJL wrote on [Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:45:33 -0700]:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>This past weekend I was at Embassy Suites in Palm Desert and asked for
>>the wi-fi code. They said that it normally costs $9.95 per day but they
>>gave it to me free.
>
> I've not been to a hotel in recent years that didn't have free WiFi.
> But then the hotels I usually stay at are tourist hotels in southern
> CA and compete for the tourist dollar by offering free WiFi, free
> parking, and free breakfasts (like the one I'm in now).

There are hotels that don't have free breakfasts?

On 6/21/2011 8:45 PM, AJL wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:22 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This past weekend I was at Embassy Suites in Palm Desert and asked for
>> the wi-fi code. They said that it normally costs $9.95 per day but they
>> gave it to me free.
>
> I've not been to a hotel in recent years that didn't have free WiFi.
> But then the hotels I usually stay at are tourist hotels in southern
> CA and compete for the tourist dollar by offering free WiFi, free
> parking, and free breakfasts (like the one I'm in now).
>
>> I said I thought that Hilton Honors members got it
>> free all the time, but they said that this was only for the higher
>> levels.
>
> The hotels I book have everything spelled out on the website so I've
> never had any surprises.

Hilton's hotels seem to be moving in the opposite direction for other
hotels. I've always gotten free wi-fi without asking at all Hilton
properties with just the basic HHonors free membership. This is the
first time that they ever mentioned that it was supposed to cost $9.95,
so maybe they now do charge people that don't ask for it for free.

On 6/22/2011 12:28 AM, Justin wrote:
> AJL wrote on [Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:45:33 -0700]:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:22 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This past weekend I was at Embassy Suites in Palm Desert and asked for
>>> the wi-fi code. They said that it normally costs $9.95 per day but they
>>> gave it to me free.
>>
>> I've not been to a hotel in recent years that didn't have free WiFi.
>> But then the hotels I usually stay at are tourist hotels in southern
>> CA and compete for the tourist dollar by offering free WiFi, free
>> parking, and free breakfasts (like the one I'm in now).
>
> There are hotels that don't have free breakfasts?
>

TANSTAAFL.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Or a "free" breakfast. Your
room rate is increased by AT LEAST the cost of the "free" breakfast!

On 6/22/2011 4:34 AM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Or a "free" breakfast. Your
> room rate is increased by AT LEAST the cost of the "free" breakfast!

Usually not true. Hotel room rates are based on the market, not how much
it costs the hotel to provide the room and various amenities.

If a hotel doesn't offer the expected amenities it would not be able to
rent your rooms at all, unless they dropped the bottom out of their
pricing, to far below what providing simple amenities like wi-fi and a
light breakfast would cost, which of course would not make sense.

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

> TANSTAAFL.
>
> There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Or a "free" breakfast.
> Your room rate is increased by AT LEAST the cost of the "free"
> breakfast!

Not exactly, the hotel usually expenses the breakfast, free cable,
free WiFi, etc. as an advertising cost, part of the cost of doing
business.

To some extent it *may* raise the cost of a room but, as SMS pointed
out, it's the price of being competitive and most, if not all, of
the cost comes out of profit.

Example, back in my misspent youth my employer, a gas station, was
forced to offer S&H Green Stamps (anyone remember them?) in order to
stay competitive. We didn't raise the price of gas, it remained at
29.9 cents/gallon (anyone remember that?)

Just another "cost of doing business" which is really a reduction of
profit.

BTW, some "extras" are very inexpensive to the hotel, they must have a
computer and broadband internet for reservations, what's the cost of
adding a wireless router?


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

At 22 Jun 2011 09:06:11 -0700 XS11E wrote:

> Example, back in my misspent youth my employer, a gas station, was
> forced to offer S&H Green Stamps (anyone remember them?) in order to
> stay competitive. We didn't raise the price of gas, it remained at
> 29.9 cents/gallon (anyone remember that?)

I remember S&H Green Stamps- our local grocer handed them out, and there
was a redemption center next door. I don't remember 29-cent gas, though.
My earliest recollection is 33.9, shortly before the "gas crisis" in the
1970s, when your license plate number determined what days of the week
you were allowed to fill up on.

On 6/22/2011 10:05 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Jun 2011 09:06:11 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>
>> Example, back in my misspent youth my employer, a gas station, was
>> forced to offer S&H Green Stamps (anyone remember them?) in order to
>> stay competitive. We didn't raise the price of gas, it remained at
>> 29.9 cents/gallon (anyone remember that?)
>
> I remember S&H Green Stamps- our local grocer handed them out, and there
> was a redemption center next door. I don't remember 29-cent gas, though.
> My earliest recollection is 33.9, shortly before the "gas crisis" in the
> 1970s, when your license plate number determined what days of the week
> you were allowed to fill up on.

I remember 19.9¢ gasoline during one of the gas wars. In the 1970's I
used to get to drive to school just because a station near school always
had gasoline in the morning with no line. Our local gas station also had
a pump installed inside the garage area so regular customers could
pretend to have repairs done and get filled up.

SMS wrote on [Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:09:24 -0700]:
> On 6/22/2011 10:05 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Jun 2011 09:06:11 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>>
>>> Example, back in my misspent youth my employer, a gas station, was
>>> forced to offer S&H Green Stamps (anyone remember them?) in order to
>>> stay competitive. We didn't raise the price of gas, it remained at
>>> 29.9 cents/gallon (anyone remember that?)
>>
>> I remember S&H Green Stamps- our local grocer handed them out, and there
>> was a redemption center next door. I don't remember 29-cent gas, though.
>> My earliest recollection is 33.9, shortly before the "gas crisis" in the
>> 1970s, when your license plate number determined what days of the week
>> you were allowed to fill up on.
>
> I remember 19.9¢ gasoline during one of the gas wars. In the 1970's I
> used to get to drive to school just because a station near school always
> had gasoline in the morning with no line. Our local gas station also had
> a pump installed inside the garage area so regular customers could
> pretend to have repairs done and get filled up.

Back when a service station was a service station...

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3t-dncgAP8zNTpzTnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 6/22/2011 12:28 AM, Justin wrote:
>> AJL wrote on [Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:45:33 -0700]:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:45:22 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This past weekend I was at Embassy Suites in Palm Desert and asked for
>>>> the wi-fi code. They said that it normally costs $9.95 per day but they
>>>> gave it to me free.
>>>
>>> I've not been to a hotel in recent years that didn't have free WiFi.
>>> But then the hotels I usually stay at are tourist hotels in southern
>>> CA and compete for the tourist dollar by offering free WiFi, free
>>> parking, and free breakfasts (like the one I'm in now).
>>
>> There are hotels that don't have free breakfasts?
>>
>
> TANSTAAFL.
>
> There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Or a "free" breakfast. Your
> room rate is increased by AT LEAST the cost of the "free" breakfast!

In theory yes but if I stay at one with the free breakfast vs. one that does
not have a free breakfast and the bills the same just how do you figure that
my bill went up?

On 6/22/2011 1:48 PM, NotMe wrote:

> In theory yes but if I stay at one with the free breakfast vs. one that does
> not have a free breakfast and the bills the same just how do you figure that
> my bill went up?

There's a misconception that many people have that the retail cost of
product or service is directly related to how much it costs the reseller
to provide that product or service. In reality, the price of a product
or service is set by the market.

In the leisure hotel market, any property that decided to charge for
breakfast or wi-fi would quickly find its bookings to plunge unless they
had some other redeeming factor, like a price so extremely low that it
was clearly worth paying for the extras. That's not impossible, as
witnessed by companies like Spirit Airlines which boasts about its
pricing structure which includes charging for carry-on bags, and soon
charging for boarding passes obtained at the airport.

But no, the breakfast really isn't free, but you don't save any money by
booking a hotel without free breakfast.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4e0258b9$0$2132$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> On 6/22/2011 1:48 PM, NotMe wrote:
>
>> In theory yes but if I stay at one with the free breakfast vs. one that
>> does
>> not have a free breakfast and the bills the same just how do you figure
>> that
>> my bill went up?
>
> There's a misconception that many people have that the retail cost of
> product or service is directly related to how much it costs the reseller
> to provide that product or service. In reality, the price of a product or
> service is set by the market.
>
> In the leisure hotel market, any property that decided to charge for
> breakfast or wi-fi would quickly find its bookings to plunge unless they
> had some other redeeming factor, like a price so extremely low that it was
> clearly worth paying for the extras. That's not impossible, as witnessed
> by companies like Spirit Airlines which boasts about its pricing structure
> which includes charging for carry-on bags, and soon charging for boarding
> passes obtained at the airport.
>
> But no, the breakfast really isn't free, but you don't save any money by
> booking a hotel without free breakfast.

If there is no delta $ and I get a breakfast (all other issues being equal)
it's free to me.


>
>

"Justin" wrote in message news:slrnj04cje.2ds.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net...

SMS wrote on [Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:09:24 -0700]:
>
> I remember 19.9¢ gasoline during one of the gas wars. In the 1970's I
> used to get to drive to school just because a station near school always
> had gasoline in the morning with no line. Our local gas station also had
> a pump installed inside the garage area so regular customers could
> pretend to have repairs done and get filled up.

Back when a service station was a service station...
================================================

Yeah. Nowadays it's hard to find a *service* station even if you're willing
to pay the extra charges.
bj

On 6/17/2011 11:42 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

> Android: 582MB/month
> iOS: 492MB/month
> Windows Phone 7: 317MB/month
> (Old) WinMobile: 174MB/month
> Blackberry: 127MB/month

This is the mean, not the median. This study, like most others, have the
problem of a small number of extremely heavy data users pulling the mean
way up. That's why they bother at all to look at mode data.

The other chart is more telling: only at the 80% percentile does data
usage get to 500MB per month.

And of course the cost per MB is about to go way up on the country's
largest carrier, at least for new activations, as Verizon switches to
tiered data on July 6th.

Applying the percentages of usage at home/work versus other, even using
the mean data, you're at about 204MB for Android and 172 for iOS. And
again, remember than even away from home/work, wi-fi is often available
so you don't need 3G data the entire 35% of the time. Of course using
the mean data is not even meaningful, since it does not represent the
data usage levels of most smart phone users.

And yes, I acknowledge:

1. Not everyone has internet access at work
2. Not everyone lives in a city or country that has free wi-fi as
ubiquitous as what is available in most metro areas in the U.S.
3. There is a small percentage of users that use vastly more data than
the mode, mean, or median, for a good reason.

SMS wrote on [Sat, 25 Jun 2011 06:40:39 -0700]:
> On 6/17/2011 11:42 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> 2. Not everyone lives in a city or country that has free wi-fi as
> ubiquitous as what is available in most metro areas in the U.S.

No american has ubiquitous wifi in most metro areas of the US

If there is any spot whatsoever in a metro area that you cannot get
free wifi, free as in not in a special club or as a perk to your ISP
at home or any of that, then it's not ubiquitous. yes, ants are ubiquitous
but not in every spot in the universe, however if free wifi APs were
everywhere an ant was then wifi would blanket the land.


I have not been in a single metro area where that applies.