Verizon set to kill unlimited data and innovation

Rumors have been circulating that Verizon is about to take unlimited data out back and bury it next to Spike by the big Oak tree.  But now it seems that it’s all but a pretty much done deal as more information is surfacing, and it’s coming soon.

Engadget has been tipped off that the new data tiers will be starting as early as the end of this month and if history tells us anything (which it does quite frequently), then we should expect similar pricing to what AT&T has cultivated with its $25 for 2GB, $15 for 200MB.  If true, this will put a quick stop to any data intensive applications that you currently use, unless you're willing to pay a higher premium. 

While it is possible that Verizon could come out of left field and offer completely different packages, more than likely, they will be close, or possibly better, to remain competitive to what AT&T is currently providing. 

Verizon has stated on numerous occasions that they foresee data buckets instead of “unlimited data” as the future, especially with their upcoming rollouts of LTE.  So, say goodbye to data heavy applications if you enjoy putting food on the table as you can expect Verizon is only implementing this to increase revenue, not to save you money.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google signs wind energy agreement

Next Story

Facebook is now 500 million strong

118 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is rubbish. If they need prediction, they can already see how much bandwidth you're using. Eliminating that, it's all about capitalist reverse-competition. AT&T did it because they have a monopoly on iPhones, so the majority of their affected users can't go anywhere, and now Verizon's going to do it just because "they can". Unfortunately, today's consumers are so shackled with nonsense contracts and red tape that it's easier to just "shut up and pay" than to let your dollar vote for the idealistic model of capitalism they taught you in High School. Bottom line: They know they can get away with being greedy.

I don't use that much data but I like knowing that I don't need to worry if I just so happen to use more one month. I'd rather pay more for an unlimited plan any day.

Seems like with time, we always get less for more. just when i'm about to finally get a great phone and was expecting to stream music from it. I kind of hope google puts these c*cksuckers out of business, which it might, with google voice soon.

ArmedMonkey said,
Seems like with time, we always get less for more. just when i'm about to finally get a great phone and was expecting to stream music from it. I kind of hope google puts these c*cksuckers out of business, which it might, with google voice soon.

Except Google Voice uses....data

Canada has it worse. $25 is the entry level plan at Rogers and Bell (the big 2 wireless companies) and it only gives 500mb/mth bandwidth

Everyone (including myself) wondered why WP7 wasn't going to be able to do things like play Pandora/Slacker in the background. Now there might be a reason for that madness.

The funny thing is that while the United States have to cope with capped connections, poorer countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, etc. get UNLIMITED connections from most service providers operating in those countries )

I hope that they come out with something more competitive than what AT&T is offering. Honestly, I like the lower rate plans over the unlimited ones. I paid $30/month for unlimited data all last year, and averaged around 100MB/month of usage. For me, switching to $15 for 200MB/month was a no-brainer.

Now if they only offered something cheaper than their 450 min/month plan. For people like me who are texters/emailers, those minutes are wasted and the rollover minutes are never used.

someone must be crazy using of GBs over 3g/4g networks per month. Do you know, what amount of microwave radiation with a strong power goes through your body?

Personally, i use mobile phone only for calls. And with using of bluetooth, if it longer then minute or two.

cpu said,
someone must be crazy using of GBs over 3g/4g networks per month. Do you know, what amount of microwave radiation with a strong power goes through your body?

Probably not as much as standing right by your microwave oven.

cpu said,
someone must be crazy using of GBs over 3g/4g networks per month. Do you know, what amount of microwave radiation with a strong power goes through your body?
two.

So that's why my legs hurts? I should place the phone in the other pocket for a while and see where the hurt moves too..

My wife never even comes close to 200mb. and I rarely go above 1 GB. so the new AT&T prices actually save me $20 a month!

Now for people who use 10 GB a month this is really gonna hurt.

grockk said,
My wife never even comes close to 200mb. and I rarely go above 1 GB. so the new AT&T prices actually save me $20 a month!

Now for people who use 10 GB a month this is really gonna hurt.

I'm right there with you. I think that the principle of the matter between having something that is "unlimited" vs "capped" is what irks people. But, in the end, if you don't use over a certain amount, why pay more?

Shadrack said,

I'm right there with you. I think that the principle of the matter between having something that is "unlimited" vs "capped" is what irks people. But, in the end, if you don't use over a certain amount, why pay more?

Because if you do go over that amount, the overage charges are usually far worse than what you were paying for the unlimited plan. I much rather pay a little more for the peace of mind that my bill won't be what I expect and for the convenience of not having to constantly monitor my usage.

Feel bad for you Americans. Here in the UK on O2 I get Unlimited Data, 600m Calls, 1200txts for £20 a month.

McDave said,
Feel bad for you Americans. Here in the UK on O2 I get Unlimited Data, 600m Calls, 1200txts for £20 a month.

LOL cmon, you don't really feel bad for us

McDave said,
Feel bad for you Americans. Here in the UK on O2 I get Unlimited Data, 600m Calls, 1200txts for £20 a month.

And 70% of your income is taxed X) (/sarcasm)

I personally like this change. I've only used like 500-600 MB per month, so if they followed AT&T's data plans, I could save myself $5/month.
Tbh, half the time I'm near wifi (home) and during most of the year there is wifi at my school as well.
I see no point in paying extra if I don't need it.

OrangeFTW said,
I personally like this change. I've only used like 500-600 MB per month, so if they followed AT&T's data plans, I could save myself $5/month.
Tbh, half the time I'm near wifi (home) and during most of the year there is wifi at my school as well.
I see no point in paying extra if I don't need it.

Honestly, you would have to do some pretty heavy downloading to use the full 2GB off of a smartphone.

Shadrack said,

Honestly, you would have to do some pretty heavy downloading to use the full 2GB off of a smartphone.

Some streaming audio apps can eat through data fairly quickly.

"I foresee X as the future."

translation: I'm going to try to force X to be the future because it's what's best for my pocketbook.

I actually don't mind that the companies are allowing for lower priced data plans. I was forced to pay $30 a month for data with AT&T and i barely use any at all because I am on WIFI probably 95% of the time. I was happy to see the $15 a month plan for 200mb pop up as an option. There was absolutely no reason for me to be paying $30 a month. The most I have ever used in a 1 month is 190mb.

The real problem is they the lack of multiple solutions. For people like you, this is good if they lower the price. For people like me who are ok with things as they are, it will mean apps like pandora will inevitably cost us more due to insane overage charges. A buy per byte plan may work for some, but be punishing to others. If I can't get unlimited data on my phone, I will not get ANY data on my phone.

I (and I suspect most others here) don't have a problem with them offering lower priced plans for those like you who don't use data much, but what we have a problem with is the fact that they totally remove the option of an unlimited plan. It doesn't have to be an either-or situation.

Firethorne said,
The real problem is they the lack of multiple solutions. For people like you, this is good if they lower the price. For people like me who are ok with things as they are, it will mean apps like pandora will inevitably cost us more due to insane overage charges. A buy per byte plan may work for some, but be punishing to others. If I can't get unlimited data on my phone, I will not get ANY data on my phone.

Exactly. For those of us who use basically a Gig a month, these plans will be murder to our pocket books. I'll just sign completely out of data all together and buy some bad ass router with great wifi signal strength lol.

the problem is that the "big" cell phone companies almost do the same thing as each other to one up..in this case..to cost the consumer more to make more bang for their buck..seems to be similiar to a few years back when they stopped unlimited text..then a few years later it came back..

Lets hope the customers yell loud enough (or vote with their pockets) and this gets changed back after a while. On the bright side, If sprint and T-mobile decide to keep there plans unlimited, it gives them something to beat the larger companies over the head with in advertising.

Man, I would die using these plans. I am so glad I use Sprint.
My usage on data so far is 1,451,729 kb. I use my phone daily at work streaming pandora, sending picture mail to clients, and a lot of other things. If I don't get unlimited, I go broke

shakey said,
Man, I would die using these plans. I am so glad I use Sprint.
My usage on data so far is 1,451,729 kb. I use my phone daily at work streaming pandora, sending picture mail to clients, and a lot of other things. If I don't get unlimited, I go broke

Sprint is simply amazing. I'm not worried or bothered by this at all.

LiquidSolstice said,

Sprint is simply amazing. I'm not worried or bothered by this at all.

Me either. I don't see them switching away from unlimited data any time soon. They are really trying to push out their new lineup of smart phones, and unlimited data is right now the biggest + of it lol.

shakey said,

Me either. I don't see them switching away from unlimited data any time soon. They are really trying to push out their new lineup of smart phones, and unlimited data is right now the biggest + of it lol.

And they give you such easy to understand plans. No numerical limits on anything except minutes. I love it.

Along with the increased network usage and upgrade costs, I believe this is also driven by smart phone apps and free content. The Android and iPhone apps along with other free content offer things for which these carriers used to be able to charge a fee, such as GPS, ring tones, wallpapers, etc. Now, with a more open platform and standard content experience on these phones, there is much less demand for these "value add" services, so they charge for the bandwidth the 3rd party apps and content require.

Or be cheap like Verizon once was:

- Only allow the GPS on certain phones to be used by the VZ maps application which costs $10 a month
- Remove WiFi so everyone has to use 3g, earning you money (like they did with the BB Storm 1)

So whats the point of this new LTE system, that has a theoretical maximum 100mbps speed, if you're going to cap it at 2gb? It's like saying heres faster speed so you can browse faster, download files faster, but we'll only give you a 2gb limit sorry.

If other telecommunication companies around the world can set up more towers per area than, offer unlimited data with higher speed, and update their towers much more often in a far more competitive market with fewer customers and all for cheaper, I don't see why American carriers can't.

Take Hong Kong for example. There are currently at least 6 cell providers, all with HSDPA 21mbps, none of them require 2 year contracts, and there are hundreds of towers / repeaters (HKCSL has over 400 alone) and all for a population of 7-8million people.

With HKCSL I get charged $70 a month for unlimited mins, unlimited messages, and unlimited data. Here in America I was charged $80 for 500mins, unlimited texts, unlimited data (which isn't unlimited anymore)

Wow, you are seriously clueless, aren't you? Comparing Hong Kong with the entire US???? Do you even begin to understand how vast of an area the US takes up?


Considering the population density of most of the US (outside major cities like New York or Los Angles), its insane to think that a few hundred towers would even begin to serve 7-8 million people in the US. Hong Kong has an incredibly high population density, which means that fewer towers can serve many more people than in a place with low population density.

If I can assume you are in Germany from your avatar, let me point out that your entire country is smaller than several states in the US (if Germany was a state in the US, it would be the 5th largest, between Montana and New Mexico), and not THAT much bigger than many others.

It really does seem that, as much as Europeans like to accuse Americans of being clueless about geography, Europeans are very clueless about just how big of a chunk of real estate the US actually is.

Wrong. I'm actually from HK, I just supported Germany in the Fifa but thats besides the point.

Now I've seen you throw that argument around several times, and I've proved you wrong several times too.

Yes America is big, I happen to live here and I would know. HOWEVER this DOES NOT explain why signal coverage is so awfully weak in major cities. If I could get a constantly good signal, good quality calls, and no dropped calls in major cities but get it in some small suburban town I can totally understand. Sadly that isn't the case.

HK, and most of the other countries in the world, have all upgraded the towers to support the higher frequency 2100mhz bands hence it gives them more bandwidth, better quality at the cost of range. So the cell companies offset this by building more towers (like I mentioned, 1 provider in HK has over 400 towers / repeaters on HK island ALONE, I'm willing to bet thats more than all 4 cell companies have together in a part of NY the same size as HK island). America on the other hand, even in major cities, still use the god awful ancient 850mhz / 900mhz bands giving them ****ty ass bandwidth, ****ty quality, and instead gives you a greater range. What does this mean? Oh well I can build less towers. Yes some of the providers are upgrading to 1700 / 1900 mhz bands now, but its too little too late.

In a country of 300-400million people where there are only 4 carriers, each probably earning 10-100x more money than all the carriers in HK put together (higher charges, older towers that they haven't bothered updating; hell most of the 3g towers in America are just upgrades put on some ancient 2g tower), the least I would accept in major cities like New York / LA / Chicago to get good call quality, good speeds, and no dropped calls. But even that they have failed at.

So stop blaming the absolutely ****ty service American cell providers give you (while charging you more and getting rid of features constantly) on the size of the country. It's getting old now.

And while you're at it, try explaining how offering a wireless service with a theoretical 100mbps speed with a 2gb limit is a sensible idea. I'm sure it was because of the size of the country too.

I've actually worked for a cell phone company testing signal levels from towers. I can tell you with absolute certainty that they would love to have more towers, but quite often zoning and other regulations prevent them from putting up as many towers as they would like. One city near me requires all cell towers to be disguised as something else (some are made to look like trees, one of them looks like a replica of the Washington Monument), and is VERY strict about where they can be placed.

What you think HK has towers in the middle of the city? Of course not, they're usually on some hilltop or in some hidden away place. Instead what they do is build repeaters on top of buildings to extend the range of the tower.

Another thing which has nothing to do with the size of the country. AT&T since 2007 has been making record revenues, I think the last report I read (which was from last year) said they were earning almost 80% more. They also have been earning record profits (2009 was $3 billion a quarter or something)

Sounds great right? Now AT&T knows it has a problem with its network not being able to handle the increased data load brought about by the iPhone and other smartphones. So naturally one would think, well increased profits, increased revenue would mean AT&T now has the money to spend on infrastructure upgrades.

But instead, they've been spending less and less on network upgrades ever since the iPhone launch. And to make matters worse, they then go and tell people to use less data and get rid of the unlimited plans.

Toorop said,
In my opinion, I think Verizon Wireless is the best. Period.

/agree

I was a Verizon customer for years, then AT&T (iPhones), and now on T-Mobile USA. Verizon is the best, period.

zkid2010 said,
I was a Verizon customer for years, then AT&T (iPhones), and now on T-Mobile USA. Verizon is the best, period.

That really depends on where you live. In some parts of the country (the southeast in particular) AT&T has far better service and reliability. In other parts of the country, Verizon is king.

roadwarrior said,

That really depends on where you live. In some parts of the country (the southeast in particular) AT&T has far better service and reliability. In other parts of the country, Verizon is king.

+1 I used AT&T for years when I lived in the Southeast with no problems but after moving up to the Northeast my AT&T service was terrible so I made the switch to Verizon and have had no problems since

Toorop said,
In my opinion, I think Verizon Wireless is the best. Period.

While I agree that Verizon has superior coverage, I would have to say that T-Mobile is a better company. T-Mobile is the only major carrier in the US to use UMA technology, allowing you to make and receive calls over WiFi. That is a huge advantage on T-Mobile's part, as you're able to create coverage in places that otherwise have none.

roadwarrior said,

That really depends on where you live. In some parts of the country (the southeast in particular) AT&T has far better service and reliability. In other parts of the country, Verizon is king.


True, but they can't kick the can on Verizon. There would be chaos

I say for those who do not like the idea, go on twitter and let @verizon know that we want no cap on cell phones. It is bad enough they caped the data cards for laptops, but now cell phones. I can see when LTE phones are used and people are using 2 gigs in less then a week due to how fast data is downloaded then we get our bill for several hundred $$$ more.

Wow, that is one loaded title. I personally am on a 200MB AT&T plan. I just do all my heavy surfing on Wifi. Email and Google Maps are what I use while on the road anyway.

potat4o said,
Wow, that is one loaded title. I personally am on a 200MB AT&T plan. I just do all my heavy surfing on Wifi. Email and Google Maps are what I use while on the road anyway.

I have used 910 MB since the 23rd last month. Ouch!

chAos972 said,
Welcome to the real world US - **** costs money.

And we are paying money. The question is under what model we pay. Two people buying the same cable TV package pay the same amount even if one watches 2 hours a month and the other watches 40 hours. Would you suggest that timers be installed on TV's as well? (Serious question and wanting responses, not trying to be a troll if thats how it sounded)

I simply think that this is them prepping for the iPhone hitting their network. Say what you will about AT&T, but I'm not so sure any other carrier could have handled this ever increasing load.

As for blaming Apple for this? Perhaps. They changed the game with the iPhone and as a result, more of these phones were bought than ever anticipated. Should carriers be implementing caps on their networks now? No.. They should be using these record profits to upgrade their networks.

I have had my blackberry since November. I have NOT gone above 100MB in usage. However it's gotten close, too close that I might not get. $25 is cheaper then what the package is now I guess.

It be nice if they offered a cheap 500mb or even 1gig for a decent price as I need more then 200 but less than 1gig.

Dane said,
I have had my blackberry since November. I have NOT gone above 100MB in usage. However it's gotten close, too close that I might not get. $25 is cheaper then what the package is now I guess.

It be nice if they offered a cheap 500mb or even 1gig for a decent price as I need more then 200 but less than 1gig.

These caps may benefit some people, as lower tiered plans could be introduced to accommodate your relatively low data usage. For some others, like myself, they're really bad. One time, when I was out on the field at work, I put 150MB through my iPad in 1 day. And that usage was really just from email and remote access. Right after that, I called AT&T and got grandfathered in to the unlimited data plan. Otherwise, I would have ate through that 2GB cap in 2 weeks.

NeoTrunks said,

These caps may benefit some people, as lower tiered plans could be introduced to accommodate your relatively low data usage. For some others, like myself, they're really bad. One time, when I was out on the field at work, I put 150MB through my iPad in 1 day. And that usage was really just from email and remote access. Right after that, I called AT&T and got grandfathered in to the unlimited data plan. Otherwise, I would have ate through that 2GB cap in 2 weeks.


Yeah I can understand the need for unlimited for people. There is a few groups of people. People that need unlimited. People that need 1gig, people that could use a 500mb plan, and people that need a 200mb plan.

I hope they have a 500mb or 1 gig plan, however either way I may save a few dollars off my monthly bill. HOWEVER if they cost me MORE money, they better be prepared to cancel my contract because I WILL find another phone.

Oh no! Apps like Pandora will have to go... I wonder how much of an impact this has on developers. Some apps are a lot more data hungry than others, and have to be. I don't use an iPhone or AT&T, so does anyone have any answer to that? Are apps crippled, or just not available with 3G networks and only work with Wi-fi?

I think it mostly depends on the developer. I know the Google podcast app has the option to only download things over WiFi. I think Slacker introduced the option on their iphone version to cache things over wifi so you wouldn't need to listen to a live stream. I'd assume this will make them do the same on Android (if that option isn't already there).

Firethorne said,
I think it mostly depends on the developer. I know the Google podcast app has the option to only download things over WiFi. I think Slacker introduced the option on their iphone version to cache things over wifi so you wouldn't need to listen to a live stream. I'd assume this will make them do the same on Android (if that option isn't already there).

Caching is part of the Premium service for Slacker so there is a fee. I think it is a very low annual fee though.

I always wonder where is the competition in cell phone market in the US. The voice plans all cost the same (at&t, verizon and tmo) across the whole country. Is this not price collusion on their part? Now same with data as well. So much for the free market...

dhan said,
I always wonder where is the competition in cell phone market in the US. The voice plans all cost the same (at&t, verizon and tmo) across the whole country. Is this not price collusion on their part? Now same with data as well. So much for the free market...

What are you talking about?? The voice plans are a lot cheaper on Sprint and T-Mobile, vs AT&T and Verizon. There's your competition. You have the cheaper but almost as good cell phone providers, and then the premium and slightly better providers.

andrewbares said,

What are you talking about?? The voice plans are a lot cheaper on Sprint and T-Mobile, vs AT&T and Verizon. There's your competition. You have the cheaper but almost as good cell phone providers, and then the premium and slightly better providers.

Sorry, but when you even out the plans (same number of minutes, texts, etc.), most providers pretty much charge the same in the long run. Yeah, each has slight advantages in different areas, but overall, they are all nearly the same price for the same level of service. The same even applies to prepaid services.

Well let's hope they start to lose customers and the other companies step up their game and gain their customers so they can see how stupid these decisions are. If they keep squeezing people for every penny they have, they will lose in the end.

So, would people on the unlimited plan be grandfathered out (at the very least until their current contract expired)? If not, I'd imagine that would be grounds to get out without termination fees.

Firethorne said,
So, would people on the unlimited plan be grandfathered out (at the very least until their current contract expired)? If not, I'd imagine that would be grounds to get out without termination fees.

Thats what im wondering, i wonder if i could re-sign and get a new phone out of this...

Exactly my thoughts. I'd miss my Droid, but I'd much rather have a no-data phone than live with the threat of insane overage charges.

neufuse said,
verizon was never unlimited..... they had a 5GB cap for many years now....

Its a soft cap, ive gone over it before and still have my service connected.

neufuse said,
verizon was never unlimited..... they had a 5GB cap for many years now....

Inaccurate. They have a 5GB cap on tethering. Data to the phone is unlimited. Absurd, since the tethering isn't costing them any more, but thats how it works now.

Firethorne said,

Inaccurate. They have a 5GB cap on tethering. Data to the phone is unlimited. Absurd, since the tethering isn't costing them any more, but thats how it works now.

They charge more and cap it since you can eat through it at a much faster pace.

NeoandGeo said,

Smartphones are unlimited.

We have 136 smart phones on our verizon business plans and every contract we've signed with them just says "5GB Monthly usage" doesnt say teathered, just data usage.... and we have about 50 "AirCards" which have the same restrictions on the contract....

NeoandGeo said,

They charge more and cap it since you can eat through it at a much faster pace.

I can stream audio in RadioTime, download a potcast in Listen and surf the web all at the same time in my phone. The 3G going directly to the phone is the same speed as the 3G going to a computer.

It is probably true that tethered users have used and may continue to use as more than phones. But, modern cellphones capable of multitasking are capable of eating through just as much data.

It was just waiting to happen. The days of unlimited data plans is no longer viable for the companies as the surge in data traffic from the Smart phones puts a huge strain on the networks. More over these companies need to get their returns back on the investments made upgrading their networks. If AT&T and Verizon have spent literally billions of dollars on upgrades, they have to get the ROI. The only way of doing that is by charging the customer.

spenumatsa said,
It was just waiting to happen. The days of unlimited data plans is no longer viable for the companies as the surge in data traffic from the Smart phones puts a huge strain on the networks. More over these companies need to get their returns back on the investments made upgrading their networks. If AT&T and Verizon have spent literally billions of dollars on upgrades, they have to get the ROI. The only way of doing that is by charging the customer.

T-Mobile and Sprint are happily staying unlimited, and their plans are even CHEAPER than Verizon or AT&T. It's possible, it just depends on how greedy the company is.

andrewbares said,
T-Mobile and Sprint are happily staying unlimited, and their plans are even CHEAPER than Verizon or AT&T. It's possible, it just depends on how greedy the company is.

They reason they do that is because they have f-ckall customers in the first place!

This wouldnt be that bad if you could use the newer smart phones with the 9.99 data plan but no you have to pay for the 29.99 data plan to use them.So if I understand this just to pack one of these bada$ mofos around you bill goes up 29 bucks now they are basically wanting to charge a usage fee on top of that? I ve said it before and Ill say it again if people pay companies will continue the a$reaming.

120 said,
This wouldnt be that bad if you could use the newer smart phones with the 9.99 data plan but no you have to pay for the 29.99 data plan to use them.So if I understand this just to pack one of these bada$ mofos around you bill goes up 29 bucks now they are basically wanting to charge a usage fee on top of that? I ve said it before and Ill say it again if people pay companies will continue the a$reaming.

no, its just the data fee. Instead of $30/month its 15 or 25

The actual costs of bandwidth keep going down, yet the cell phone providers keep offering less and less to their customers for the same money (and sometimes more money). It really is getting to the point that the FCC needs to step in and put a stop to this BS.

roadwarrior said,
The actual costs of bandwidth keep going down, yet the cell phone providers keep offering less and less to their customers for the same money (and sometimes more money). It really is getting to the point that the FCC needs to step in and put a stop to this BS.

Its the cost of equipment that is so expensive, not the actual bandwidth.

BrewNinja said,
Its the cost of equipment that is so expensive, not the actual bandwidth.

Nice try but your argument falls flat on it's face.

For one, the cost of equipment has dropped significantly year over year, and has gotten smaller which requires less leased space to put it on.

For two, the cell providers (Sprint being the exception) have invested less and less in their networks year over year (particularly AT&T) even while raking in record profits.

vaximily said,

For two, the cell providers (Sprint being the exception) have invested less and less in their networks year over year (particularly AT&T) even while raking in record profits.

"Record profits" is a meaningless debate tactic. Companies are expected to bring in record profits *every year* -- because they're supposed to grow in-line with GDP. Otherwise, you're shrinking relative to the size of the economy.

Sprint is in terrible financial shape. They haven't made a profit in *years*. The capital structure is currently 30% equity, and 70% debt (!!!). Last year, Sprint invested $2.2 billion in capital, and depreciated $7.4 billion of plant. And on top of that, they're bleeding customers.

roadwarrior said,
The actual costs of bandwidth keep going down, yet the cell phone providers keep offering less and less to their customers for the same money (and sometimes more money). It really is getting to the point that the FCC needs to step in and put a stop to this BS.

What a load of crap - all bandwidth isn't created equally - wireless costs a lot more to operate given its limited bandwidth and difficulty to increase capacity when required. Technology is offering technology trickery to get around the limited bandwidth in a given spectrum (most carriers operating on two frequencies) - but even then it can't work around the inherent limitations of wireless technology.

vaximily said,

Nice try but your argument falls flat on it's face.

For one, the cost of equipment has dropped significantly year over year, and has gotten smaller which requires less leased space to put it on.

For two, the cell providers (Sprint being the exception) have invested less and less in their networks year over year (particularly AT&T) even while raking in record profits.


Just curious what is AT&T 2008 & 2009 WIRELESS profits? How much many did they actually invest in their wireless network? How can you back a statement up like this, without any documented proof?
Do we really need every wireless provider investing and isolating their systems to themselves. Do you realize how much wireless network gain AT&T increased by taking over Centennial Wireless?
Do you realize how much network T-Mobile is leasing from AT&T?

Consider 66% of T-Mobile customers depend on AT&T infrustructure to have service, whatever the Number, AT&T could drop T-mobile off its back and clean up alot of bandwidth issues.

Not trying to bust your chops here, but AT&T throws up towers left and Right. The problem for normal consumers like you and I, we take the back seat to corporate, government, and nonprofit groups. They get special pricing and better packages; including ( unlimited voice/data).


necrosis said,
How the hell is this Apple's fault?

Maybe Verizon is expecting a few million iPhones on their network, sucking bandwidth 24/7.

necrosis said,
How the hell is this Apple's fault?

The large volume of iPhones crippled AT&Ts network meaning they had to implement something like this now the other networks see that they can get away with it so there going for it. So yes the iPhone gets at least some of the blame.

Xenomorph said,

Maybe Verizon is expecting a few million iPhones on their network, sucking bandwidth 24/7.

or maybe they expect 10 million WP7 sucking on their network ?

ilev said,

or maybe they expect 10 million WP7 sucking on their network ?

Unlikely for lots of reasons, no forms of viewing web media in the browser yet and quite an empty app store at launch. And the phones actually have to sell themselves to.

thealexweb said,
The large volume of iPhones crippled AT&Ts network meaning they had to implement something like this now the other networks see that they can get away with it so there going for it. So yes the iPhone gets at least some of the blame.
I agree that the reason AT&T switched was to stop a large swath of iPhone users from tearing down their network, but this is not the fault of the iPhone. It's too useful of a device? That's not reason for blame. It's certainly a reason, but not reason for blame.

I think AT&T did this for a couple of reasons:

1. AT&T sucks. I have an iPhone 3GS, and I was on AT&T (Cingular) before the merger. I originally switched because of terrible customer service with Verizon.
2. AT&T cannot keep up with the bandwidth and want to cap users.
3. AT&T wants to make more from users using a lot of bandwidth.
4. AT&T wants to block people from tethering without paying hefty fees. If I want to officially tether, then I have to pay $20 per month for tethering, as well as downgrade from Unlimited data to 2 GB per month. Combined with non-tethering, ordinary surfing and downloading, and a tethered computer, I could easily see myself breaking 2 GB. Thus I believe it's another $10 or $15 for another 2 GB. Insane.
5. I wonder if this is to hit people "taking advantage" of unlimited data in family plans. One unlimited data in a family plan can cover the whole family or group. However, if it gets capped at 2 GB, then I would worry about a second person, and especially a third person.

Regardless of their reasons, it's pretty clear that a $5 cheaper option with infinitely less available bandwidth (2 GB versus unlimited) was not to help the customer. I'm pretty disappointed that I am still in contract, but it's for the best as I may just switch to a WP7 and jump to Sprint if they keep it up.

pickypg said,
5. I wonder if this is to hit people "taking advantage" of unlimited data in family plans. One unlimited data in a family plan can cover the whole family or group. However, if it gets capped at 2 GB, then I would worry about a second person, and especially a third person.

Family/Group plans do not have shared data, only minutes. Would be nice though...

thealexweb said,

Unlikely for lots of reasons, no forms of viewing web media in the browser yet and quite an empty app store at launch. And the phones actually have to sell themselves to.

Umm, YouTube, Netflix, etc? Same stuff as the iPhone you realize.

And not at all a "quite empty app store". The development tools have been downloaded over hundreds of thousands of times.

andrewbares said,

Umm, YouTube, Netflix, etc? Same stuff as the iPhone you realize.

And not at all a "quite empty app store". The development tools have been downloaded over hundreds of thousands of times.

Google hasn't made any announcements of a YouTube app for Windows Phone and neither has Neflix for their service and since there are no forms of playing media in the web browser for now at least Windows Phone has that major problem.

thealexweb said,

The large volume of iPhones crippled AT&Ts network meaning they had to implement something like this now the other networks see that they can get away with it so there going for it. So yes the iPhone gets at least some of the blame.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with their own smart phones that are sucking up a ton of data, like the Droid, x, incredible, etc... Some of which have hotspots and tethering. Let's for sure blame apple for that.

Edited by shockz, Jul 21 2010, 5:15pm :

thealexweb said,

The large volume of iPhones crippled AT&Ts network meaning they had to implement something like this now the other networks see that they can get away with it so there going for it. So yes the iPhone gets at least some of the blame.

The iPhone gets the blame because it is so good that everyone wants one. Utter fail logic. The problem AT&T's network can't handle the load is because AT&T can't handle the load*.

*in my area I have had 0 problems with AT&T service.

thealexweb said,

The large volume of iPhones crippled AT&Ts network meaning they had to implement something like this now the other networks see that they can get away with it so there going for it. So yes the iPhone gets at least some of the blame.

The iPhone gets the blame because it is so good that everyone wants one. Utter fail logic. The problem AT&T's network can't handle the load is because AT&T can't handle the load*.

*in my area I have had 0 problems with AT&T service.

Shadrack said,

The iPhone gets the blame because it is so good that everyone wants one. Utter fail logic. The problem AT&T's network can't handle the load is because AT&T can't handle the load*.

*in my area I have had 0 problems with AT&T service.

Oh come now, that's implied, "due to the popularity of the device the AT&T network can't handle the load", better? :-D

thealexweb said,

Google hasn't made any announcements of a YouTube app for Windows Phone and neither has Neflix for their service and since there are no forms of playing media in the web browser for now at least Windows Phone has that major problem.


Google hasn't previewed ANY of their apps for WP7, however. Not even Search or Maps. And Netflix was shown at MWC.

Shadrack said,

The iPhone gets the blame because it is so good that everyone wants one. Utter fail logic. The problem AT&T's network can't handle the load is because AT&T can't handle the load

+1 i agree with you

necrosis said,
How the hell is this Apple's fault?

The original person has been registered for 7 years and made a grand total of 390 posts; that alone tells you that he is a troll.

As for the issue regarding wireless; wireless technology costs more in terms of bandwidth than fixed line - that is why fixed line internet is cheaper than wireless. What are the chances that some d-ckhead at the top said, "ooh, lets have flat rate internet" with the engineers warning that it would flood the system - I'd say high likely.

Let us hope that they allow us who have contracts with the previous packages to keep them until their plan runs out (mine ends in 10/2011 so I would get to keep my Unlimited (even though its only 5Gb) for a year or so longer

littleneutrino said,
Let us hope that they allow us who have contracts with the previous packages to keep them until their plan runs out (mine ends in 10/2011 so I would get to keep my Unlimited (even though its only 5Gb) for a year or so longer

They would have to. They can't force you to accept price increases.

Frazell Thomas said,

They would have to. They can't force you to accept price increases.

Actually - The contract only protects the MSF (monthly service fee), NO extras like CID, VM, Texting, data, service fees.. Basically they can up EVERYTHING else, as long as the voice minutes and price remain the same and you can use the service they are fine.
This may vary depending on contract, I am not a verizon customer so their TOS may be different and explicitly state so.
Most providers will not up fees during a contract however... but that don't mean they can't.

Ruciz said,

Actually - The contract only protects the MSF (monthly service fee), NO extras like CID, VM, Texting, data, service fees.. Basically they can up EVERYTHING else, as long as the voice minutes and price remain the same and you can use the service they are fine.
This may vary depending on contract, I am not a verizon customer so their TOS may be different and explicitly state so.
Most providers will not up fees during a contract however... but that don't mean they can't.


If they do, you have the legal right to cancel your contract and not pay termination fees.