really glad i don't have verizon anymore

[sethman88]

Just ti let everyone who doesn't already know, but that verizon as of today ( 7/7/2011) no longer has unlimited data plans for 30 dollars for smartphones. As of now they are going to start charging 30$ for 2GB of data, 5GB for 50$ and 80$ for 10Gb of data. Man I am really glad that I switched to sprint before they did this, verizon is getting way to greedy and exspensive, and one other addition to all this info, that the pricing guide for data usuage is for both individual plans and prepaid plans because I asked a sales rep about it because on the website for prepaid smartphones the just havn't changed it yet.

 

[AmneonX]

FYI this doesn't affect current Verizon subscribers. So all of us that have unlimited data will still have unlimited data next year when we renew our contracts. And when you decide that you want a phone on VZW, you will be stuck with tiered data.

 

[sethman88]

yes I know about currrent verizon users are fine, I thought I would just mention it, for possible new customers, and also just to show how greedy verizon is becoming, I mean true a lot of people probably won't even use 2GB of data but its the concept that matters, and to be honest it surprises me that verizon didn't try and put the tiered data on current customers aswell just like on the xoom they changed one thing from .13$ to .16$ without telling anyone,

 

[Medion]

I rarely advocate FOR the carriers, but it's actually not greed. It's stupidity and poor planning. Due to Shannon's Law, there should have NEVER been unlimited data plans anyway.

I'll try to explain. For land line connections (Cable, DSL, Fiber, etc), the only true limits on data today is the thickness of the pipe going to your house. If there is a high population area that is undeserved by the Telco, then higher usage by multiple users could lead to congestion, but most areas have fixed this by adding wider pipes. There is a virtually unlimited amount of data to be had here, so caps and overages are merely a play to protect the PayTV services.

For wireless, there is a finite amount of data that can be served in an area in a given time. If too many people use it, it drops for many or even most users. This causes quality of service issues. So, what is a company to do in order to protect their quality of service? You can either cap usage, or upgrade your output. However, Shannon's law prevents upgrades past a point, so capped usage has to occur.

Mobile data is still in its infancy. Similar to how minutes developed, expect to see a day where we have night/weekend data. Something like a $30 plan where you get 1GB of anytime data, and unlimited nights/weekends. My main concern isn't the data caps, it's the consolidation. Mobile use has essentially peaked. Carriers are no longer competing for first time subscribers. They're competing for each others' current subscribers. This means having to compete on price. How do we prevent that? Consolidation. T-Mobile was a HUGE threat to the other 3 nationwide carriers. By using sim cards and GSM, an AT&T user can take their existing phone to T-Mobile (although without 3G in most cases). By eliminating T-Mobile, you end up with 3 carriers with incompatible technology and/or locked ESNs, meaning that anytime you change carriers, you likely have to pay an ETF and definitely have to buy a new phone. By eliminating T-Mobile, changing carriers gets more prohibitive, and prices do not drop.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I take it you're opposed to net neutrality on wireless networks then? Or is that an inaccurate statement?

 

[Medion]

I take it you're opposed to net neutrality on wireless networks then? Or is that an inaccurate statement?

Net neutrality won't work properly on today's wireless networks if we want to advance. For instance, the plan is to move voice minutes over to VOIP entirely. Imagine your call garbling or cutting out because someone nearby is streaming a Youtube video.

So essential services should be given priority once everything becomes data. Naturally, the first response would be "then Verizon can give priority to their VOIP traffic, no big deal, right?" Well, that opens up another can of worms. Let's say that someone decides that they will get a Verizon data plan, but wants to use Vonage for VOIP so that they can link their home and multiple cell phones to the same VIOP number. Should Verizon be forced to just give priority to someone else's traffic? Of course not, someone has to pay for that priority, but who, the customer or Vonage? Of course, we both know that Verizon, if they had their way, would bill BOTH.

And I'm not advocating double billing for using their pipes. I'm talking about billing for priority access so that your calls aren't interrupted by someone else streaming goat porn off the same tower.

Bottom line is that net neutrality on today's wireless networks opens up a whole can of worms that don't apply to hardline networks. So, I'm open to net neutrality with tweaks, but not flat out neutrality as it would hinger progress. I want to see the day where all we pay for is a data plan, and that data is used for web surfing, text messaging, and VOIP. Voice and Text plans need to die, but net neutrality would only extend them.

 

[AndroidSPCS]

I agree. Carriers should NOT be allowed to use the word "Unlimited" if the traffic is capped or throttled.

T-Mobile is really irritating me with their new ad "Unlimited" talk / text / data, and then in fine print they put (up to 2GB data)... How the f... is that unlimited????

That's like going to an all you can eat buffet, and tell you that you are only allowed to go to the line twice.

 

[persim]

I realized awhile ago that "unlimited" plans would eventually end and don't really have a problems with it. Like Medion says, there is a finite availability and we just can't add to it like we can with wired.

But give some options that are fair. $10 for 75Mb is ridiculous, I get 100Mb from Pageplus and it's not even an extra data plan. Something like $10 for 350-500Mb and $20 for 800Mb-1Gb would suffice.

It's like Verizon threw out a token data plan to say "look we have a lower option" but knew absolutely no one with a smartphone could use it. And then your only real option is the $30 plan or higher.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Net neutrality won't work properly on today's wireless networks if we want to advance. For instance, the plan is to move voice minutes over to VOIP entirely. Imagine your call garbling or cutting out because someone nearby is streaming a Youtube video.

So essential services should be given priority once everything becomes data. Naturally, the first response would be "then Verizon can give priority to their VOIP traffic, no big deal, right?" Well, that opens up another can of worms. Let's say that someone decides that they will get a Verizon data plan, but wants to use Vonage for VOIP so that they can link their home and multiple cell phones to the same VIOP number. Should Verizon be forced to just give priority to someone else's traffic? Of course not, someone has to pay for that priority, but who, the customer or Vonage? Of course, we both know that Verizon, if they had their way, would bill BOTH.

And I'm not advocating double billing for using their pipes. I'm talking about billing for priority access so that your calls aren't interrupted by someone else streaming goat porn off the same tower.

Bottom line is that net neutrality on today's wireless networks opens up a whole can of worms that don't apply to hardline networks. So, I'm open to net neutrality with tweaks, but not flat out neutrality as it would hinger progress. I want to see the day where all we pay for is a data plan, and that data is used for web surfing, text messaging, and VOIP. Voice and Text plans need to die, but net neutrality would only extend them.

I'm 100% behind net neutrality on wired networks. I see no reason why we shouldn't. They can always lay more pipe.

Wireless I am seriously conflicted. I can 100% see your point about bandwidth being limited and VZW shouldn't be forced to prioritize a competitor's packets. However, I can also 100% see the argument that they're using an unfair competitive advantage if they don't. If I am Skype, for example, and I've got a partnership with VZW but Sprint and/or ATT puts a low priority on my packets but prioritizes one of my competitors, how am I supposed to compete on those platforms?

 

[Medion]

I'm 100% behind net neutrality on wired networks. I see no reason why we shouldn't. They can always lay more pipe.

Wireless I am seriously conflicted. I can 100% see your point about bandwidth being limited and VZW shouldn't be forced to prioritize a competitor's packets. However, I can also 100% see the argument that they're using an unfair competitive advantage if they don't. If I am Skype, for example, and I've got a partnership with VZW but Sprint and/or ATT puts a low priority on my packets but prioritizes one of my competitors, how am I supposed to compete on those platforms?

Then I think that you and I are in total agreement on both fronts. Too many people just take the blind view of "Network Neutrality = good for consumer, bad for business." It really has a lot of issues for and against it though.

 

[Martimus]

Net Neutrality is not nearly as easy to implement as some might think. You've got numerous networks and topologies to consider. It would be nearly impossible to enforce the same set of laws on wired networks, wireless networks, cable networks, satellite networks, and upcoming technology networks. As such one single net neutrality law would likely be replaced by several revised laws applicable to each known medium.

Secondly, there is one business currently on the Internet that is doing more damage to the net than pron and most other issues combined. That vendor... Netflix! Current Internet technology is struggling to support all of the existing Internet usage as it is. Dump on that the terabytes of data being pushed by Netflix and what you'll find is that a lot of ISP's are struggling just to maintain their network infrastructures under the load. The technology behind the Internet backbones simply isn't growing as quickly as is the utilization.

And then comes the question of who pays for newer technologies to support these increasing amounts of bandwidth needed? ISP's can go to vendors like Cisco and buy 10 gigabit interfaces for their routers but those optics are expensive. 20, 50, and 100 gigabit interfaces aren't commonly available yet and likely won't be commercially available for some time. And when they are finally available they'll initially cost more than many ISP customer's homes cost... and that's just for the interface. In many cases the router that the interface is connected to will also need to be replaced.

And then we have the cable company challenge. I work for one of the largest wire line telephone companies in the U.S. Our network is mostly tariffed. Our rates are controlled by the government. The cable companies, on the other hand, are not. They are private businesses and can charge whatever they want for service. My employers have to charge what the government tells us to charge and we have to open up our network to the cable companies if they need data access in a remote area. The cable companies can then charge whatever they want for service, under cut our rates, and make it difficult for us to compete in these remote markets.

Personally I'm all for net neutrality! The problem is that there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before it could be implemented fairly.

 

[sethman88]

I think net neutrality would also be difficult in wireless networks it presents a lot of problems, but I just think that its pretty crappy that all of a sudden they are charging for tiered data, I just think like posted above a few spaces that they should deffinatly offer a lot more options for how much data a person could use

 

[shankomatic]

I rarely advocate FOR the carriers, but it's actually not greed. It's stupidity and poor planning. Due to Shannon's Law, there should have NEVER been unlimited data plans anyway.

This theory is based maximum bandwidth of a channel. What if the carriers/towers and devices supported a wider arrange of frequencies/channels?
Wouldn't this allow greater capacity?

 

[ekyle]

This theory is based maximum bandwidth of a channel. What if the carriers/towers and devices supported a wider arrange of frequencies/channels?
Wouldn't this allow greater capacity?

That costs money, and there aren't a ton available. VZW forked out a ton of money just for the 700MHz spectrum for 4G LTE. I don't see them buying many more anytime soon.

As for Sprint. It's only a matter of time. I knew VZW would do it as soon as AT&T did. They all copy each other. It happened with unlimited voice and unlimited messaging. One started it and the others followed.

Really though, with the abundance of WiFi everywhere it shouldn't be too difficult to stay under the cap. I don't have WiFi access at work so I use 3G there. I don't stream YouTube videos because I'm working. I will check FB from time to time and browse/shop Amazon on break. I stream music to and from work and use it when I'm out and about. At B&N or a cafe, I'll connect to their WiFi (it's free after all). The most I've ever done was 3GB, which according to their paperwork is another $10 (that was without any WiFi and I flashed a ton of ROMS and ended up using the Market a lot).

A friend of mine actually uses the 250MB plan on AT&T and has yet to go over (he's been using it for over 8 months). This will just change how we use our phones.

 

[Medion]

This theory is based maximum bandwidth of a channel. What if the carriers/towers and devices supported a wider arrange of frequencies/channels?
Wouldn't this allow greater capacity?

Depends. How many radios can be fit into your phone? How long would the battery last?

 

[Yeahha]

Depends. How many radios can be fit into your phone? How long would the battery last?

Well if the TB is any indication of the battery life it wouldn't last very long. My phone can die in less than 5 hours without heavy use if I have 4G, Wifi, and GPS all active with background sync on. But with proper planning and tasker it helps with dealing with these issues.

 

[alarinn]

Keep in mind your DSL and cable modem provider will also be capping usage. AT&T and others are changing their plans in 2012 to cap online usage to 150GB/month. u-verse subs will be capped at 250 GB/month. AT&T says only 2% of their users hit the cap but as we continue to evolve our usage online, more an more people will hit this cap. If you use NetFlix to stream to your HTC/PC/Laptop, then you have reason to fear the change because it's an additional $10/month per 50 GB beyond the initial 150/250. So I'm not surprised cell carriers are changing the usage rates.