Login
Editorial
For the smartphone-heavy United States, the notion of unlimited wireless data is dead, kaput, finis. It's not coming back. Many other parts of the world are in the same boat, and those that aren't will eventually get there. Usable spectrum is a precious, limited resource that can't be extended, and spectral efficiencies introduced by newer technologies like LTE and LTE-Advanced will only take us so far. Some carriers — notably AT&T — have been aggressively deploying additional capacity in urban areas to the point of maxing out. This is where capitalism comes into play: one by one, all-you-can-eat data plans have been replaced by data buckets of varying sizes. Outrageous per-kilobyte overage charges (from legacy limited plans), a vestige of slow networks and dumb phones with smalls screens and limited capabilities, have been replaced by more reasonable rates that bill by the full gigabyte. If you go over by a gig or two, you're not immediately bankrupted anymore — but you will pay more.
That said, our brave new (limited) reality has a long way to go to mature, stabilize, and find the balance between supply and demand. AT&T's plan adjustments this week and Verizon's recent double data promotion are prime evidence of that. Market forces would usually help find that stability in a reasonable amount of time, but there are some factors that complicate and obfuscate that process in wireless. For one, no two carriers have the same supply — spectrum, that is — nor do they have the ability to readily generate more supply. Secondly, those carriers often have a vested interest in obscuring just how close they are to exhausting their existing supply for a variety of competitive reasons, and it's virtually impossible to get an accurate read on it from the outside. Third, hardware exclusives and contracts are always being used as a tool to limit carriers' need to compete on plan pricing alone — if you have the better hardware and your customers know it, why bother to undercut (or even match) the competition?
This is where angry consumers come in, because I do think there's an important fight to be waged — but screaming for the return of unlimited data is a non-starter, and simply complaining that data is too expensive isn't sufficient. Carriers, and the government, need specific and actionable items in order to evolve this market in a way that's beneficial and fair to everyone. Here's what we should be asking for.
Carriers don't own spectrum, they license it from the federal government. The spectrum itself is a national resource that can't be replenished. As such, each spectrum band is licensed with particular needs and applications in mind, and there are rules that the FCC puts in place around that. Those rules vary from band to band and from auction to auction, of course — take the infamous 700MHz Block C auction that Verizon won in 2008, for instance, which has an "open access" clause requiring that any device be able to connect — but there are always rules.
The smart fight: The FCC (and, by transitivity, the American taxpayers) should be demanding more accountability from the companies that occupy this spectrum. I'm proposing that every carrier operating a cellular network in the United States should be required to submit a yearly unredacted report detailing their spectrum utilization in every CMA (Cellular Market Area) where they operate. The report should contain, for each market, the amount of spectrum they're actively utilizing with deployed network equipment versus the amount of spectrum in their control. Unutilized and underutilized spectrum should be subject to re-auction after a period of time set in place at the time of the spectrum's initial purchase. There's been a lot of discussion in recent months about AT&T's alleged "warehousing" of spectrum in an effort to drive up prices and starve competitors of the spectrum they need to operate — this would eliminate the problem entirely. If there's a problem at all, that is — as consumers, we don't presently have the hard data we need to make that call.
Carriers intentionally leave holes in their plan tiers in an effort to upsell their customers into pricier ones, because the plan they really need doesn't exist — and the fear of overage keeps them from looking at a lower option. That's not a phenomenon that's unique to data: take messaging, for instance, which Verizon only offers as a bucket of 1,000 or unlimited for $10 and $20, respectively. AT&T eliminated its 1,000 message plan altogether last year, meaning that unless you want to pay by the text, you're now stuck with the $20 unlimited package.
With its latest data plan move this week, AT&T's offerings jump all the way from 300MB to 3GB with nothing in between. I consider myself a "road warrior" who's getting a lot done from his phone (though I don't stream much video), and I very rarely break 1GB a month — 300MB, though, is comically low, which means I'm effectively locked into the 3GB plan. (In fact, at $20 for the 300MB plan and just $10 more for 3GB, the lower option really doesn't make any economic sense whatsoever.) The old $25 2GB plan, which would be a better fit for me, is going away.
AT&T claims that it's seeing data usage increase 40 percent year over year, which it's using in part as a justification for raising caps (and prices) across the board. And to AT&T's credit, the cost per byte actually goes down on these new plans — but ultimately, you're paying more per month. For many customers, they'll be paying that higher monthly fee for extra data that they're not using.
The smart fight: Customers can and should be upset about the lack of plan flexibility. It's an area where I hope we're going to see carriers continue to experiment and innovate in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. In fact, why have fixed buckets at all? If carriers simply offered data by the gigabyte at two rates — allotted and overage — customers could tailor their plans to their exact needs. Verizon seems to be on the right track: it currently offers some six different buckets for smartphones ranging from 2GB to 12GB, but there's ample room to simplify the scheme and simply bill by the gigabyte.
AT&T and Verizon don't charge a monthly fee for mobile hotspot service, per se, but they still arbitrarily differentiate between hotspot-capable plans and those that aren't: AT&T has a single hotspot plan (its most expensive, naturally), while Verizon has a completely separate set of three ranging from 4GB to 12GB. I can understand the argument that a monthly fee for tethering is justified on an unlimited data plan since you're destined to consume considerably more data while tethered, but now that these companies have gone to limited data plans, they have no business making any distinction whatsoever. From the perspective of the carrier's infrastructure, no byte is different from any other byte, and they all count equally toward your monthly allotment.
The smart fight: Customers on limited data plans should demand to be able to use tethering and mobile hotspot features on their devices at no additional cost, no matter the bucket. This one flirts with the tenets of net neutrality — a principle that the FCC has refused to fully endorse on wireless networks, unfortunately, which means there's no outright legal challenge to be waged (yet) against these differentiated hotspot-enabled plans. It's just common sense that they shouldn't exist.
Never mind software carrier locks on phones; those can be overcome, and most operators will give you the code you need to unlock your device for use on another network as long as you're a customer in good standing. The bigger concern — particularly as we enter a complex minefield of frequency bands with global LTE — is the "hardware lock" effected by a device that physically lacks the radio and antenna to operate on many (or any) other carriers.
The FCC recently missed a critical opportunity to require interoperability between LTE Bands 12 and 17, both of which lie in the 700MHz range. Many of AT&T's LTE licenses lie in Band 17. Rural carriers — many of whom purchased spectrum in Band 12 — argued that only by requiring Band 17 devices to support Band 12 would they be able to deliver competitive handsets and other hardware in a timely fashion, because they'd be able to reuse AT&T's devices and benefit from a shared economy of scale. In other words, companies like Samsung, HTC, and others aren't motivated to quickly deliver high-quality phones to carriers that can only buy a hundred thousand units or less, when AT&T (and others) regularly move hundreds of thousands or millions at a time.
AT&T and others have argued that interoperability requirements add engineering complexity to devices, impose new design limits, and increase cost. This is true, but the cost to competition is much greater — only by reducing carriers' ability to permanently lock in desirable devices can we encourage and ensure competitiveness in monthly plans. And the move to quadband GSM and pentaband UMTS over the last decade only proves that with enough creative engineering, broad frequency support is absolutely possible when it's required.
The smart fight: We should be demanding interoperable phones, at least among all American carriers on 4G networks. We've never achieved anything like this in the digital cellular age, and the time has come. Companies are absolutely entitled to post early termination fees (ETFs) for subsidized devices that are taken off-network, but their entitlement ends there. As it stands today, this hardware lock essentially serves as a secret weapon that stifles competition and tips the scale in the favor of those who can leverage the greatest economies of scale — Verizon and AT&T.
The obvious counterexample to all of this is Sprint, which has been holding firm (so far) with its commitment to unlimited data, even as its larger competitors go to caps with overage and its smaller ones — T-Mobile, namely — go to throttling. Thing is, it hasn't been: it actually went to tiers for everything but on-smartphone data late last year. In fact, Sprint's ability to offer unlimited data at all is at direct opposition to its ability to survive as an independent company. The only reason it's still holding strong is because it's sitting on a massive cache of spectrum with ClearWire — the largest among national carriers — and it's in a distant third place for subscriber count, roughly half of Verizon's. If demand picks up (and Sprint's investors naturally hope that it will), the company simply won't be able to sustain unthrottled, uncapped plans. Supply and demand.
So let's not focus on pushing a policy that's neither economically nor physically viable. Even if the spectrum exists today to support 200 million American smartphones at reasonable download speeds without any regard for capacity, it won't exist forever — and every single carrier we deal with is a for-profit corporation. Let's instead focus on honing the principles of a healthy free market: fair, level competition across the board. Let's have those discussions, let's tell carriers, let's tell the FCC. We've got a long way to go.
Comments
Do the GiffGaff dance.
Jameseh - January 20, 2012
Giffgaff is the most awesome service, at least in the tech world, in the UK today.
redbullcat - January 20, 2012
I’m currently on Three and, while the customer service isn’t that great, I’m happy to have unlimited data + tethering. Sadly tethering is against GiffGaff’s policy and you can be kicked for using it. Plus, in the recent weeks there was a nasty outage / pile of problems with GiffGaf. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/19/giffgaff_outage/
digitaldownfall - January 20, 2012
Kinda like those nasty outages of Verizon 4G where your device couldn’t even use 3G that plagued the LTE network all through 2011?
curtisas - January 20, 2012
Yeah its basically £10 a month for GiffGaff if you don’t need tethering or £15 a month for 3 if you do.
Both great services.
Jameseh - January 20, 2012
With 3 you can just pay for Internet. £5/month (and then texts/voice are PAYG).
Timmmm - January 20, 2012
Have you got a link to that offer? I’m on their SIM only page and they only have the £10 and £15 plans. I’d love a £5 plan.
Jameseh - January 20, 2012
I used to love the £5/month thing for my laptop’s SIM card but lately I can’t find it anywhere, I think they’ve discontinued it
alex.norcliffe - January 20, 2012
Tethering uncool on Giffgaff? Had pretty much decided on Three, and this seals it. I am happy to have a main phone contract with my current network, but as they have doubled their charges for going over (was 500 mb for £5, but changed to 250 mb for 5£ late last year – cue one almighty bill just in time for Xmas), it just reinforced my interest in running a second device as a wifi hotspot.
As for the disappearance of unlimited data, I have no problem with paying for what I use, as long as it’s fair. In the UK, data plans are all over the place, with some offering as little as 250mb in with their contracts. To be honest, I don’t think the ‘unlimited’ providers believe that you can really scratch the surface (heh), especially when some restrict tethering. The level of comprehension can be pretty low. I was on a SIM only tariff prior to getting a Lumia, and when I asked about the 1gb a month addons, I was told they were for iPhone and Blackberry only, and that my Android device shouldn’t need more than 500 mb a month anyway (by the way, Blackberry needed 1gb because of BBM – what?). After a year of hitting 2 gb+, I have to wonder what the networks are thinking. They have been quite forward in pushing smartphones onto the consumers, including people that have no want or need for them, and yet fail to understand the impact that this has, not on their spectrum, but on the users.
The pricing tiers need to be seriously looked into, perhaps a sliding scale rather than a cost for extra usage. As you write, Chris, 2 gb will do for you, but what would the price be for going over? Would it turn out to be cheaper, in that instance, to have had the higher plan? If so, why isn’t overusage charged in a similar manner? The official bodies should be looking closely at this, because there is a lot of money being shelled out for something that will not, and most of the time cannot be used.
atomicsolar - January 20, 2012
But Giffgaffs prices are so damn low, and they have a reliable 2G network too.
WayAway - January 20, 2012
That’s one of the trade-offs between Three and GiffGaff (O2).
Where I live, Three’s 3G coverage is way better than anyone else’s. O2’s 3G covers the western half of my town, and not much else for miles around. On Three, I can drive the twenty miles east to where my parents live, without ever losing 3G signal.
On the other hand, trying to get data down Three’s (read: Everything Everywhere’s) 2G network is like trying to fit a cow in a Mini.
Topher Allan - January 23, 2012
Haven’t Three terminated their roaming agreements in most of England now? (I agree that the rare occasion I have to roam onto GPRS it’s painful.)
urpert - January 23, 2012 via mobile
I had no issues with giffgaff.
WayAway - January 20, 2012
Same. No issues whatsoever.
redbullcat - January 20, 2012
If you’re on Android, you can use Koush’s new app for tethering, which networks and carriers can’t detect.
I’ve had no problems whatsoever with giffgaff since I joined a year ago. It runs on the O2 network, so always good signal, and it’s very cheap, and always unlimited internet. Plus just a one month contract. What more could you want?
redbullcat - January 20, 2012
Another Three user here. While I can’t really comment on their customer service (never had any problems with them), I do love the unlimited data + tethering they offer! The big question is whether they’ll keep unlimited data once they launch LTE services…
r3loaded - January 20, 2012
How is three’s network coverage thinking of switching to unlimited internet.
rtk_13 - January 20, 2012
Depends on location. Great in my part of London (Greenwich)
alex.norcliffe - January 20, 2012
It’s great in Manchester and across all suburbs, and I can easily pull 3Mbit with my Galaxy S (HSPA+ devices should be faster). Coverage is also good in London but speeds are slower, probably because of higher population density.
r3loaded - January 21, 2012
I get 4-5Mb/s on an average day on my iPhone 4. With 4-5 bars average in Birmingham.
DeanDMX - January 22, 2012
London is pretty flawless. I get between 3-7Mb as standard, with around 1Mb upload on an iPhone 4S.
Aaron Souppouris - January 22, 2012
LTE is a few years off in the UK
alex.norcliffe - January 20, 2012
I’ve always tethered on Giffgaff, oops
hatwearer2034 - January 20, 2012
3 do perform traffic shaping though, http://ow.ly/8A953, and I have been capped speed wise a few times, going from 4-5Mb/s to 0.85Mb/s but it reset the next day.
DeanDMX - January 22, 2012
Re: Throttling policy/traffic shaping at peak times, the strange thing is i’m an extremely heavy user (between 5-10GB per month), and i’ve never once been throttled. Perhaps Three’s throttling team are just very bad at their jobs..
Aaron Souppouris - January 22, 2012
I must be a super heavy user then because I go through that much in a few days!
DeanDMX - January 22, 2012
What on earth are you doing with your smartphone!?
Aaron Souppouris - January 23, 2012
I use it as my main internet connection. The speed is good enough for fast general browsing and the ping is good enough for OnLive and Xbox Live etc.
DeanDMX - January 23, 2012
I tried XBL via a GSII before, don’t have problems with your ping?
Aaron Souppouris - January 23, 2012
Another happy Three customer here. Until I have to speak to customer services, anyway.
urpert - January 23, 2012 via mobile
I’m hijacking your top comment.
This article is stupid. It fails to mention the most basic commonsense approach to data management: unlimited off-peak downloading. Those towers are going completely unused at night. Why not open up the gates to let the heavy downloaders do their dirty work at night when everyone’s asleep?
Furthermore congestion is mainly relevant during the evening peak hours. Other times of the day are much less problematic. Why throttle everyone at 256 kbps (T-Mobile’s speed) when the only real concern are peak hours?
This article covers the issue in more detail: http://dslprime.com/dslprime/42-d/4721-benoit-data-caps-not-the-right-congestion-solution
The truth is these companies don’t want to provide good service. They want to maximize the dollars they can bleed out of you.
sonicmerlin - January 21, 2012
i signed up just a few moments ago specifically to call bs on this article and the declaration that data service cannot be unlimited and unthrottled. however your post pretty much spoke for what I felt.
what’s even more asinine is the way it is authored to make it seem like capitalism is coming to save the day and the market will provide the best product for us, the consumers, when the only reason why data service went from unlimited to capped and add-on fees is because of capitalism and trying to turn a buck any way possible.
imachainsaw - January 22, 2012
So happy that I still have unlimited data…so as long as I stay on my family’s plan.
So I’m looking at a year and a half till I graduatefrom college, and then I probably will have to start concerning myself with this.
ekolibas - January 20, 2012 via mobile
Haha I graduated 3rd years ago and am still on my family plan, I just send my dad a check ever month for my portion. No sense in starting my own plan for twice as much and lose my unlimited data… That is until they throttle me into a tier
Meyerjaw - January 20, 2012 via mobile
You’ll never have to concern yourself with it as long as you and your family work out the bill. I got my own play when the iPhone 3G came out because myself and my family thought it would affect credit and such, and they don’t do anything. I haven’t been able to see any perceivable benefit of a phone being in your name.
mebizzle - January 23, 2012
The only reason I would consider switching to Sprint at this point is there unlimited data plan. Its the only ace in the hole they have against AT&T and Verizon, and I think they know it. If AT&T was doing unlimited data for everyone then I would say its in direct opposition to there survival, but unlimited data is the only thing that stops them from being perceived in the same light as T-Mobile.
rchapoteau - January 20, 2012
They have price going for them as well, since their plans are cheaper than both Verizon and AT&T. Maybe this is what you meant by “perceived in the same light as T-Mobile,” however.
citizencoyote - January 20, 2012
Pretty much exactly what I meant. They can’t compete in services (except for the unlimited Wi-Max) so they compete in price. T-Mobile doesn’t even have that going for them.
rchapoteau - January 20, 2012
Tmobile seems to have a good price. $99.98 monthly for 2 lines of unlimited minutes, test messages and data (throttled after 2GB). The catch is you don’t get a subsidized price on a phone, you provide your own. But even with contract free price of the Nokia 710 or HTC Radar ($299), its a great deal.
JonnyUtah - January 20, 2012
Looking at the two year cost, it’s easily the cheapest way to go, I’m sticking with T-Mobile.
Adolar - January 21, 2012
Their prepaid plans are a much better deal. There seems to be a huge gap between the best prepaid plans and the ‘normal’ monthly plans. I put it in quotes because the prepaid plans have monthly billing, too, now. I’m not sure why the prepaid plans aren’t more popular, considering that smartphones are useless without affordable data.
nico_mach - January 27, 2012
The T-Mobile Prepaid plans are awesome. The $30 100 min / UL text / 5GB data is an amazingly cheap plan. Their UL voice / UL text / 5GB data is just $70 a month also.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
Given that Sprint’s 3G network is laughable and 4G disconnects most of the time, I don’t see Sprint getting more subscribers anytime soon. Sadly, the only reason I’m with them is because Sprint works in my office – the one place that every other carrier doesn’t work. But when I’m out, I’m constantly angered by the slow data/reception.
gadgetluva - January 20, 2012
Sprint user here. Data speeds vary by market. Sprint’s speeds are not uniformly slow across the country. For example, 3G is perfectly fine here in Washington, DC. It’s so good that I almost never use 4G. When I travel to Chicago, however, 3G is comparably slower, but 4G (downtown and in the suburbs) is much more ubiquitous.
So, I don’t want to discount your speeds. They probably are as slow as you say they are. Just be careful making broad assertions that your experience holds true in other markets. We should be encouraging folks to join Sprint as a means to shift the market away from titans like Verizon and AT&T, not making categorical assertions (“Sprint’s 3G network is laughable”) that aren’t supported by reality.
Essex - January 20, 2012
Agreed. I have a Nexus S 4G and see drastic speed differences based on location. Here in Los Angeles the 3G is more than acceptable (although I do use WiMax whenever possible). But when I go back home to Wisconsin the 3G speeds on Sprint is almost unusable to me and no WiMax in the area. In bigger cities like Milwaukee it isn’t TOO bad, but up in Green Bay my phone was basically useless.
Randroid - January 20, 2012
Agreed. I jumped to Sprint from ATT because the service was terrible here in Chicago. I usually get great service in the Loop on my Evo and pretty fast 4G reception once you get into the suburbs. Plus again the unlimited data is great.
But when I’m visting the folks in Nothern Arkansas 4G is useless and 3G is barely usable. All depends where you live…
buffdaddy72 - January 21, 2012
I live in River North and work in the Loop in Chicago. 4G is fine in my office building, but 3G barely works. 3G has a lot of issues in the city of Chicago as I’m always out in different areas – something that I attribute to overloaded towers and such. I was thinking of getting the GNex when it comes out in the states to use with T-Mobile’s $30 unlimited data prepaid plan (through walmart) to offset Sprint’s weak coverage areas.
I completely understand that service varies by area, and I neglected to mention that I live in Chicago in my above post. Regardless, I find that service has been getting worse instead of better here, and that I find to be disappointing.
gadgetluva - January 21, 2012
I’m of the opinion that Sprint is overloaded in some areas.
I’ve seen tremendous speeds at times, exceeding what I saw on a 3 Mbps DSL line from BellSouth. Then, I’ll be in another area where I’d think service should be better because it’s closer to towers, and the speed is only somewhat better than dialup. I suppose I’ve been lucky wherever else I’ve been because, except for this area, Sprint’s speed has been consistently good across the country.
bousozoku - January 20, 2012
Totally agree, not sure the other person in DC is getting good data speeds. Sprint service is a joke in the capital city. Call gets dropped on multiple locations on the beltway. I have been experiencing these issues for the last six years. Sprint never fixes them but give you the dumb solutions like update PRL, reboot phone, check network settings or problem with the phone.. I noticed the slow data speeds and call drops on a variety of smartphones. Drive 15 miles away from the capital hill towards Maryland side , you will see the phone is struggling to hold on to a tower.
Fact is that millions left Sprint to ATT. They are surviving on the employee discount plans. Sprint never bothered to fix 3G issues. The only thing they did off late is the WiMax which will join the dinosaurs soon.
Forget the spectrum allocation, Sprint and T Mo needs to survive to give consumer a choice. If they go bankrupt, ATT and Verizon can charge the data plans at their will.
bpgd - January 22, 2012
I agree, interesting article! Lets see how long Sprint can hang on with their unlimited plans.
thejalapeno - January 20, 2012
Another great Verge article. I agree on all counts.
AbrasiveWC - January 20, 2012
For once the Canadian cell phone companies have done something good. You pay $30 and get 6gb to use as you wish
Silver Arrow - January 20, 2012
that and spectrum is headed to interoperability of carriers for the most part it seems
JimRamK - January 20, 2012
“In fact, why have fixed buckets at all?”
Because it’s a brilliant way to pigeonhole users into paying more for something they either (1) won’t use entirely, or (2) will go over and get charged overage fees. Fixed buckets are not going away anytime soon.
mafen - January 20, 2012
Hes not saying they will, he’s saying they should…
Phenoum - January 20, 2012
Chris. Great article, but how do you propose we fight back? We cant exactly fight with our wallets because we have to use one of the big carriers if we, as consumers, want usable service and good phones.
BrianTho - January 20, 2012
The only reason I have remained with Sprint this long was because of their unlimited data. Sure, the service has been great to tell you the truth, but it seems like I have to wait almost a year to get the same phone that the other carriers have been toting around for that long.
If you are right +Chris Ziegler, and Sprint will not be able to keep up with this unlimited data, then I might be a free agent coming this summer. Any suggestions on carrier?
Jabrok - January 20, 2012
Maybe a local or regional carrier? Sprint and T-Mobile will both go to AT&T and Verizon’s policy. It is only a matter of time.
Just keep the unlimited you have for as long as Sprint lets you.
fraydog - January 20, 2012
If you’re happy with Sprint, why switch carriers if they drop unlimited data? What impact would that have on you? No other carrier has unlimited (save for maybe a small regional), so you’d be trading known service for unknown service.
Now if you’re unhappy with Sprint, or their service takes a nosedive and they drop unlimited, I can certainly see switching.
citizencoyote - January 20, 2012
You are right. I didn’t mean to sound jump ship on Sprint. My purpose for asking is in the case of phone availability, and LTE availability. In Phoenix here, there is no 4g, and as far as I know it’s not even in the plans. So coming this summer, if Sprint still hates Phoenix(no 4g plans announced) then it is safe to say that I would be jumping ship then.
Jabrok - January 20, 2012
Phoenix is a pretty big city. you can bet on getting LTE
Silver Arrow - January 20, 2012
Sprint has been getting some of the best phones within a week or two of the other guys for about a year now, and those gaps has been steadily narrowing. No idea what you’re talking about.
Psycros - January 22, 2012
I’d add to your data usage demands this one thing: Family Data Plans.
There is no reason that I can have a Family Plan with group calling, group messaging, but not group data. I don’t use my full data usage and no-one in my family plan will either, but paying $30 on each phone is absurd. It’s like Comcast asking for full service agreements on every TV in your house.
I really don’t care about the rumors saying they’re coming either. They are deliberately delaying this.
uberlaff - January 20, 2012
This. Imagine going to Starbucks and ordering a Large (whatever they call it there…), but there is a stipulation on the cup that says I can only drink it out of that cup. You can’t transfer the rest to your thermos to drink in the car. People would lose their minds. It is stupid that we have put up with this for so long.
If I pay for 5GB of data monthly, I should be able to use that 5GB however I feel like using it (across multiple devices).
azb24 - January 20, 2012
AND tethering. Making users find backdoor ways of tethering is inexcusable.
Right now I have the $25/2GB plan on AT&T. Each additional gig is supposedly $10, though who knows if they throttle at that point. If they would just let me tether on this, then for months when I need tethering more than a little bit, I can just fork over an extra $10 to cover my data needs. BIG bonus would be if my HTC Titan would ever see HSPA+ speeds (so far I am seeing only HSPA cat 8 speeds, and even that is rare).
kevm14 - January 21, 2012
Not dead yet! Grandfathered plan. . . Only reason I still have an iPhone. But Chris, I have to say, the less government regs the better. They never stop with what is needed. Everything else is spot on.
69camaroSS - January 20, 2012
due to the inherent oligopolist nature of the carrier market, smart gov’t regulations will be better than none.
not to mention spectrum is a public resource… not private.
somnia - January 20, 2012
This. These companies are leasing our spectrum! Yes they are private companies, but their business models depend upon the availability of spectrum – a public resource. I think we need more accountability from all carriers regarding their spectrum usage.
Essex - January 20, 2012
They say sky is the limit, but, is there really a limit? We are hungry for data anytime anywhere, it could only be a thing of managing it in a new different way. Are we ready for that?
alexislalas - January 20, 2012
Is true that spectrum is limited but the operators can do something about it if they construct more towers and in that way they have more cells (that involves huge investments of course) they can reutilize the same frequencies all over as long as that frequencies aren t utilized in the nearer cells in order not to overlap, i don t understand why people don t talk more about this is because of that that here in europe we have 3g speeds of 10mbs per second easily or more..
zemig-l - January 20, 2012
They may not even have control over constructing more towers, as there are a lot of people who don’t want a tower in their neighbourhood. So, you have silly news items about putting the equipment in a church tower to hide it and people become upset about that, too.
bousozoku - January 20, 2012
PRECISELY. There’s a TON of wasted spectrum out there being used by ancient, inefficient standards that the electronics industry fights tooth and nail against updating. The ClearWire scandal is a great example of this. Here’s another question: why aren’t we rolling fiber to every corner of the land?? Its cheap now compared to a decade ago, and they’ve greatly extended the distance between repeaters. One fiber line to a single tower could serve hundreds (and potentially thousands) of simultaneous users if we’d just optimize our spectrum usage.
Psycros - January 22, 2012
Fundamentally, the fight here needs to be tackled the same way as the SOPA/PIPA acts (and their inevitable descendents). Government legislation needs to be wrestled from the corporations and the way to do that (right now) is to create well financed Lobbying firms that are going to fight for Internet Freedom.
We are decades away from the ‘majority’ of people being able to even understand the basics of the arguments behind technology. Simply asking everyone reading the TheVerge or any tech/news site to raise their voices won’t make a dent in a congressman’s approval. And while advertizing a cause (like the SOPA blackout) may have immediate results, it is not a long term solution because it doesn’t educate the masses on the underlying cause, only the immediate symptom. And the majority doesn’t want to HEAR the underlying cause, because it’s an insult: Not enough Americans understand how their technology works.
Individually, the best of us who understand technology may not have deep pockets, but collectively, our wallets are more valuable than our voices (right now, anyway) and our wallets need to go towards a lobbyist group that WE TRUST.
I don’t know how we start that, but it’s a solution that I’ve heard a lot around the internet in the few months and what we really need is a paragon to take up the cause and rally. Because tinkering with DNS and agressively forcing people into contracts with technology companies is just the start.
I’m already stuck on Verizon for eternity but at least I knew what I was getting into when I selected them in college. Imagine if you had to make your choice as a young child (or god-forbid your parents made that choice for you) and were forever bound (thanks to contracts, poorly written laws, and corporate manhandling) with that company?
Why even bother with a name at that point? Just call yourself VerizonCustomer-20023432.
TempestDash - January 20, 2012
The fight needs to be tackled in the same way, with lots of whining and complaining? If you really want lower data prices, then everyone needs to quit buying subsidized phones.
AndrewCamillo - January 20, 2012
Did you read what I posted or only the first line? At what point did I advocate whining and complaining?
Also, I don’t see the correlation between data prices and subsidized phones. Can you explain that one?
TempestDash - January 20, 2012
That’s the problem. Most of the US carriers don’t have cheaper plan prices for bring-your-own-phone. That’s really more of a GSM thing though there’s no technical reason this couldn’t work on CDMA, either (using CDMA phones). I’d rather have the cheapest option over a 2 year period (for example). If that means dropping $650 on a phone but getting a much cheaper plan (since the plan isn’t covering the subsidized phone), then that may be better.
I personally laugh when I read people going through a lengthy thought process, involving a decision between a $100 phone, or $150 phone, or a $200 phone. As if a one time difference of $50 or $100 has any meaning at all next to your MONTHLY payment to the carrier of $80, $100, $120 or more, over a 2 year CONTRACT period. If you can afford $100/mo, then you can save up $650.
The problem is this model is more of a European thing. In the US, the options to do this are very limited, especially considering I’m a little wary of pay as you go plans. I should probably look into it just to be educated.
kevm14 - January 21, 2012
Your argument about someone taking the time to consider between a cheaper phone and a more expensive one is slightly flawed, Just because someone can afford the high monthly bill for a data plan does not mean that they can also afford to lay out $650 at the outset. Plus we do not get a cheaper monthly rate from our carriers if we pay for the phone outright instead of it being subsidized on a 2 year contract. I actually would argue that since you aren’t going to save money by paying for the phone completely, and if you like your carrier, then go ahead and sign the 2 year contract and have the carrier pay for half the phone.
TC Infantino - January 23, 2012
Which is why I think phone manufacturers or sellers, in a system that makes unlocked phones feasible, should actually get into the credit business – put a certain amount down, and pay $20/mo for 24 months for the phone.
That way, you don’t get the sticker shock.
bhtooefr - January 23, 2012
Spectrum is limited, data is not. This game of limiting data is complete nonsense, creating artificial scarcity of an intangible. If the demand for bandwidth is exceeding the available at any given time, let QoS handle and prioritize the traffic (this is already happening). Over demand for bandwidth at 3pm has absolutely zero relevance to demand for bandwidth at 4pm.
Carriers (and just about any other service based industry) seem dead set on continually offering us less for more. This is backwards, break their strangleholds and make them get back to competing (on price, service, features).
MikeSeif - January 20, 2012
Exactly. The amount of data I download over the course of a month is only loosely coupled to the capacity of a network at any given time. We don’t know for sure if data caps are doing anything to relieve congestion.
For instance:
When I watch Netflix at a certain time of night on my cable internet, quality is often lower. Everyone else is using their internet at the same time, and Netflix streaming accounts for a lossy connection and reduces the quality. In this case the capacity of the network is being stressed.
I could watch 100GB worth of Netflix movies in a month (not sure how much data netflix actually uses, 100GB might not be realistic in a month) and the network might not be stressed at all because of me if I’m only watching at 3am. Whereas I can use a much smaller amount of data like 10 GB but if I’m always doing it at peak times, that is where the problem lies.
Clay - January 20, 2012
I’m glad somebody finally said it. I love Chris, but he couldn’t be more wrong on this. If your phone connects to the tower a d is able to sign on to the data line, it is using that slice of spectrum no mater how much data is being used THROUGH said spectrum. It is WRONG for these companies to say data is a limited resource. I’m sad that Chris has fallen for it…
bingmobo - January 20, 2012
I lost allot of respect for Verge with that line. That is the biggest load of BS floating around in tech. There is not acceptable reason to have capped data plans.
BSU2006 - January 21, 2012
When I switched from my unlimited data plan on Tmobile to tiered 4g on Verizon, I decided I had to go big. I got the 5gig for $50 plan but they doubled it to 10gig for the promo. I justified it buy figuring a 2gig plan was $30 AND I get a 22% discount because of the wifes employer. So $40 for !0 gigs isnt horrible but I have yet to break 2 gigs.
ju12zo - January 20, 2012
I hit 7gigs on my 3g plan in November, heh. Granted, I was absolutely trying to use as much data as I could. I still consistantly go to about 5 gigs with my Nexus though… (yay, grandfathered unlimited)
curtisas - January 20, 2012
A vast majority of people are under 2 Gb each month. For most people, a plan that covers that is golden.
Then there’s Sprint for those of us who use a SGS II as a tethered modem all the time and go through 100+ Gb each month.
The 97% under 2 Gb aren’t a problem for carriers unless they all decide to hit a single tower at once (a la CES, where they bring in extra repeaters)- and the really heavy unlimited data users aren’t an issue at all unless the number increases dramatically (as mentioned in the article for Sprint, where a large influx of heavy users on unlimited plans would fry their network).
What everyone is paying for is corporate greed and for the carrier to spend millions on their LTE network. . . but mostly just corporate greed.
Chikn - January 20, 2012
“Corporate greed” isn’t necessarily the problem in and of itself, unless it refers to the concept that “increased profits are at direct opposition to customer satisfaction.” But that isn’t always true. Also, they SHOULD make money and the desire to be profitable certainly isn’t “greedy.” But we need a system where their desire to make money causes a better experience for ME, the customer. With the current system, they can make more money by screwing us over. We need more competition. When they have to fight for our dollars (for profit), things will look up. You WANT a company to be hungry for your money…but under the right conditions.
kevm14 - January 21, 2012
this, all of this, a million times this!
- require all phone hardware to be interoperable, and I’d say even prohibit carrier locks
- prevent carriers from sitting on spectrum solely to deprive their competitors
- kill all this incredibly artificial pricing – data is data (tethering or not); rates instead of buckets
In the end, I want 1) my costs to track my usage; 2) carriers to be forced to compete on network capability and cost.
jrrr - January 20, 2012
You’re right about rates vs buckets. Data caps do nothing for peak time usage. But throttling would potentially create a better experience for everyone, over a 24h period. And WITHOUT data caps of any kind.
kevm14 - January 21, 2012
One way that I can think of, to solve that, is to treat it like roads.
Anyone can use the roads to patronize any company – they don’t have to drive on a Wal-Mart road to drive to Wal-Mart, and a Target road to drive to Target – they drive on their local government’s road to drive to Wal-Mart.
So, have the last mile (that means the towers) owned by the local government, and allowing any phone from any carrier to connect to those towers. Then, those towers act as a dumb pipe, carrying the traffic to the phone’s service provider.
bhtooefr - January 23, 2012
Excellent and enlightening article, also, +1 for using the phrase “by transitivity”. That is all.
::er - January 20, 2012
Maybe it’s just me, but in a country where many can’t afford health insurance and the education system is failing, the least of my concerns are fighting the man so I can read Reddit and stream Peanut Butter Jelly Time with no restraints.
bnewman - January 20, 2012 via mobile
Wrong site, homey. This is a tech blog.
Essex - January 20, 2012
So go get on welfare and leave those of us that came here for TECH NEWS alone.
BSU2006 - January 21, 2012
The only thing this article fails to address is phone subsidies: the $20/300mb seems more realistically viewed as a $10/300mb plan with a $10/month phone subsidy. As long as our phones come at subsidized prices, the price of data will be artificially high so that they can make back the money they pay the manufacturers.
Unfortunately for us, this allows the carriers to preserve an inscrutable price structure, and apple to make perhaps $500/phone, when they make iPod touches for $229. So it is in the interest of both the manufacturer and the carrier to maintain this system.
The first step towards ending this elaborate price structure lies in ending subsidies. Then the rest quickly becomes more viable.
prometheusluomenos - January 20, 2012
wow, a real solution! Thanks for bringing something real to the table, subsidized phones are the real issue here.
AndrewCamillo - January 20, 2012
+100
Unfortunately I think T-Mobile is the only carrier that currently knocks a few bucks off a plan if you provide your own device, and they’ve made it pretty clear they’re looking for a buyer…
RoldGold - January 20, 2012
Verizon, by contrast, will actually add an activation fee if you supply the phone.
Sad to see T-mobile go.
prometheusluomenos - January 20, 2012
Sprint rocks!
male - January 20, 2012
Fight a smarter fight?
Are you kidding me? It’s cell phone data, not a personal right. We take what we’re given because we don’t have another option, nor should we. If you constantly blast through 5GB of data every month, you are part of the problem. The network doesn’t exist to please only you, it’s there for everyone. People that abuse unlimited data are like the people that go to all you can eat buffets and take an entire tray. Just because it’s unlimited doesn’t mean you should abuse it.
AndrewCamillo - January 20, 2012
When they advertise the phones and data plans they say watch movies! download music,! so if I actually watch a couple of movies on my phone I’m abusing unlimited data?? I’m using it exactly the way it’s intended to yet after a couple movie people on att or verizon are over their limit. which is why i use sprint.
DeeeNYC - January 20, 2012
So, there’s wifi everywhere. Hell, there’s wifi on the greyhound bus line now. What’s everyone’s opposition to using it? You’re a savvy consumer, you know how much data you use… if you choose to go over your cap every month, then yes, you’re abusing it. Again, I’ll go back to the buffet example. If you take the whole tray, it’s the wrong thing to do no matter how you justify it.
AndrewCamillo - January 20, 2012
You missed his point. I agree with you in principle that unlimited data should not be abused. However, these carriers are marketing devices (iOS and Android) as media consumption devices. Certainly it is the consumer’s responsibility to keep tabs on data usage, but it is a bit disingenuous for carriers to sell devices that can consume large amounts of data, while limiting customers to relatively small data tiers.
Besides, not everyone who owns a smartphone is a “savvy consumer”.
Essex - January 20, 2012
Yes, wifi is pretty much everywhere- but it generally is only around buildings. Good luck getting wifi when you’re flying down the highway- and try to avoid the data cap if you Pandora and YouTube instead of radio (especially when you select high audio quality).
Chikn - January 20, 2012
No wi-fi where I live, or anywhere outside of most cities. No cable or DSL here either. And isn’t that the whole point of wireless broadband portability and less dependence upon terrestrial infrastructure??
Psycros - January 22, 2012
who’s taking a whole tray? the analogy is more like taking a few scoops and them telling you you can’t have anymore. The whole advertising campaign is use our super fast network anywhere to watch movies and shows!! But you can’t!! what about that is it you don’t get? And no wifi is not everywhere, and if you can get wifi you’re most likely stealing it from someone who isn’t savvy enough to password their router.
DeeeNYC - January 24, 2012
Wrong. It’s WHEN you use your data that is the issue, and it really has nothing to do with how much you use in a month. It’s about instantaneous, concurrent usage. That’s why throttling is a better solution than data caps, which is really no solution at all.
kevm14 - January 21, 2012
Totally correct, but I will also add this: when does anyone ever need more than 300 KB down on a mobile device?? WHY DOES ANYONE NEED DSL SPEEDS ON THEIR PHONE? Are we all gonna be sucking down torrents on the go or streaming 1080p on tiny little screens?? 4G, 5G..where does it end, and why are we even going there?! There’s currently no legit reason for needing over 300 KB down on a mobile device. The carriers are the ones creating the ‘spectrum crisis’.
Psycros - January 22, 2012
Soon phones will have 1080p screens (there are all ready 720p). So filling that space with netflix or youtube will need more than 300KB down. Also for business use if you need to download a large pdf or file for work. I can imagine hundreds of ‘legit’ reasons for a faster network.
Do you have a smartphone, tablet or data stick? Because it sounds like you don’t.
meowbox - January 22, 2012
food and bandwidth are not the same. Food is a renewable resource that has the potential to run out if abused. Bandwidth is more like the width of a road.
PB&JP - January 23, 2012
Great editorial. Reading or listening to mobile podcast where you discuss careers make me feel good bout russian operators. We don’t really have trully unlimited options.
For example, on of the carriers here in Moscow(MegaFon) has the system of basic plans for phones. But on top of that(and there are a few very good plans by itself) they offer TONS of different options. If you like texting a lot there’re sms packs that will decrease the amount of cost. For data plans they have tons of options: $5 per month with unlimited speed for first 30mb/day then throttling, $7/month and you have 1.5gb limit and speed limit of 512kb, for 10,20 and 30 bucks you get unlimited speed all time until you reach 3,4 and 8 gb respectevly.
Speaking of mobile hotspot we don’t get charged for it at all. But the main reason I guess is that smartphones are not THAT popular here vs. USA. That and the fact there’s no big pressure from smartphone users on cellcular. Instead, usb-sticks are increadibly popular and people prefer to buy on and have one for providing internet to their laptops rather than tether it to smartphone.
dmitrypechenyuk - January 20, 2012
Unlimited data is dead IN THE US.
gpmoo7 - January 20, 2012
You obviously didn’t read the first sentence…
RoldGold - January 20, 2012
I have a hard time believing that there is as much of a crunch as the carriers would have you believe. Big companies such as Verizon, and especially AT&T, have shown time and time again that they are greedy and don’t care about the customers. They will keep jacking up prices while at the same time taking away services and tell you that they have to to make it all work, but then things get out of hand, Uncle Sam has to step in and low and behold, things aren’t as bad as they would have you believe. Now I may be way out of line here and uninformed, but where Verizon and Ma Bell are involved, I just don’t buy most of what they say.
The_Vergen - January 20, 2012
Here is where being last in the nation works out in the South’s favor. CSpire still has unlimited, great coverage in its service area, unlimited roaming for calls, and the iPhone! Everyone in this area that moves from any of the big 3 would never go back.
Dirtboy - January 20, 2012
Nice job Chris! Data is Data is Data
bigmik1021 - January 20, 2012
Don’t just look at data – look at the entire plan.
http://ramblingrumbling.tumblr.com/post/16177798605/pricing-as-a-means-to-an-end-not-an-end
nry - January 20, 2012
I’m on Sprint, and I can objectively say the best thing they have going for them is unlimited data at a reasonable price. If they eliminate unlimited data without vastly improving their network what would be the draw to Sprint? They might as well raise their prices too so I can better justify a switch to Verizon. (A switch I really don’t want to make.)
$80/mo is about what I want/can afford. So I put up with a subpar network. I suppose it’s true, you get what you pay for.
cesjr02 - January 20, 2012
for those in a city sprint is great, i have no idea how it is outside the tristate area on the east coast. If you switch to verizon you’ll may get a better network but you’ll also get nothing but fuck you’s if you need any kind of support.
DeeeNYC - January 24, 2012
Nice post! Though I always wondered if advances in wireless technology will ever reach a point where ‘data plans’ become a moot point. I understand that there’s only so much spectrum to go around, but perhaps ingenuity will outpace the amount of data we can consume in a given month. Kinda like voice minutes these days – almost unlimited everywhere I look.
pjsnyc - January 20, 2012
I would be ok with just $10/GB charged to me when I use it. I pay $30 per month now for “unlimited” data on Verizon from an old plan – but I rarely break 1 GB of useage (on WiFi all day).
MrRevell - January 20, 2012
While we’re at it, I think charging separately for voice-minute buckets vs data use vs text use is quite the ripoff as well; it only really makes sense for people that talk on the phone A LOT…
Why is it so difficult for the US to get a solid dumb-pipe carrier like ‘Free’ in France?
http://gigaom.com/mobile/free-starts-a-wireless-french-revolution/
daninbusiness - January 20, 2012
Very well written article. But I fear the main populace is ignorant of this problem.
Rodimus80 - January 20, 2012
Data caps are simply a way for carriers to gouge their customers. Bits aren’t like water or raw materials. Networks don’t go down because a relatively small number of people are using them 24×7. They go down when very large numbers of people access them at exactly the same time. Networks don’t require a lot of money to maintain once the cost of builiding them has been recouped.
Virtuous - January 20, 2012
Help a noob out for a second: Is the forthcoming voice-over-LTE going to erase this distinction between voice and data? Isn’t it all just data? What will the carriers do then to price-gouge, er I mean, continue their profitable business model?
If its not Bank of America charging us a fee to spend our own money, the airlines making us buy an extra ticket for our suitcase, or Netflix arbitrarily screwing with their pricing plans, we can always count on our wireless carriers to suck the last few precious coins from our pockets.
fanchettes - January 20, 2012
“Outrageous per-kilobyte overage charges (from legacy limited plans)” tell me about it :), 4years ago I was with Vodafone (Hungary) my subscription included: 500minutes/250text/3GB data for 50$,.
I went over with my dataplan about 2-300MB, I wasn’t even notified about that(other carriers in Hungary send you a text message when you reach 90%), but I got bill of 455$.
They charged me 405$ FOR THE A EXTRA 2-300MB. The only deal I was able to made with them is that I can pay it off in 6 month.
Now they have different rates and you cannot be overbilled your speed will be slowed down to 128kbps down/64kbps up. Still Vodafone Hungary sucks….
andras.hermann - January 20, 2012
Simple fix—just figure out how to communicate via subspace channel.
cwchase - January 20, 2012
In Finland we have only unlimited, WTF?
jijesa32 - January 20, 2012
In Finland, you only have 5.4 million people and half the population density.
cwchase - January 20, 2012
Nicely written! In the UK we have different tiers of data plans and have done for some time. The unlimited plan is all but history now, but our pricing here is more acceptable. If I were charged $20 a month for the first tier data plan, I think I would give up mobile data. I appreciate I don’t know the bandwidth consumption stats in the USA compared to the UK, but the prices do sound high for a utility that we should all be able to tap into in the 21st century.
EdwardTerry - January 20, 2012
The US prices are shocking, because there’s effectively no competition between the big 4.
Any carrier that charged you the same per month with or without a subsidised phone would be dead within a week in the UK.
urpert - January 23, 2012 via mobile
Agree across the board! I was just saying the same recently in another conversation. Data is data is data, especially.
jefmes - January 20, 2012
The “data is data” is the one that blows my mind. Just like other things, this will change and looking back it will be seen as crazy.
52club - January 20, 2012
Text messaging should be free. The data used in a sending a text message is so inconsequential it’s almost criminal people are charge for it at all. That’s why I refuse to pay for a text plan. I just use Google Voice to get free texting through my data plan.
willwillywilson - January 20, 2012
Here in Portugal there’s only unlimited plans for tablets, I’m considering buying a tablet SIM for the smartphone and a dumbphone for calls and text
ReadmeHere - January 20, 2012
Software locking isn’t an issue because we can get around it?
NONSENSE.
AT&T got out of unlocking sims on iPhone by agreeing to unlock every other phone they carry. When you file a complaint with the FCC, AT&T’s response is that their iPhone is engineered differently than every other iPhone on the planet and cannot be unlocked. Which is, of course, lies.
The handset is the same handset as used by O2, Vodafone, Orange, Sprint, VZW — why are there software limitations that prevent me from going carrier to carrier with the same hardware, provided my contract has ended or an ETF has been paid?
Curse AT&T. They deny me using my property on any network other than their own, while they admit it’s my property. I either own it or I don’t – if they are able to place (and are unwilling to remove) restrictions on it, I must not really own it.
vmarks - January 20, 2012
And then you get back into the model from the days of Ma Bell, where one didn’t actually own their phone, but leased it from the phone company.
Hell, if the price was right I’m sure a fair amount of people would happily do this today – the problem being that unlike the old landline phones, there is limited to no use to the carriers or manufacturers taking returns of old phones because they’re completely outdated by the time a contract rolls.
Principia - January 20, 2012
Data is data is data. —
Voice is data. Nights and weekends becomes nonsense.
So let’s stop charging for minute plans, just let me choose a bigger bucket.
vmarks - January 20, 2012
Fantastic article. I used to work for AT&T and while they were a wonderful company to work for (and no, I’m not an Apple obsessed jerk who doesn’t care about people) I never agreed with a lot of what they do/did. This article is a well thought out contribution. Ignorant people who scream out obscenities at corporations for taking away their precious unlimited data, thus rendering their porn addiction expensive, make me sad.
33wadiculous - January 20, 2012
You were doing pretty good up until that last line. That bit of insulting FUD blows all your credibility.
Psycros - January 22, 2012
Great editorial. There were a lot of things that I agreed with but one in particular is how carriers have slim pickings for their plans forcing you to choose the more expensive one because the plan just below it makes no economical sense. A business move no less but still annoying.
DarkHorse87 - January 20, 2012
Glad I still have my T-Mobile unlimited
DorKnight - January 20, 2012
For now, I still have unlimited data on Verizon. I just upgraded and they allowed me to keep the same plan so I’m good for at least two years…hopefully.
SKiTz The Gemini - January 20, 2012
data is data! good point…so i don’t understand why companies like att and vzw seperate the data into categories ( sms/mms, internet, email, etc). When i was with Helio, i had all of those functionalites, and it was all wrapt into “data”…not broken out and billed for each at rediculous prices
KrissrocK - January 20, 2012
I have an unlimited data T-mo plan and I only pay $59…can’t beat it. And i’ve not had one dropped call, unlike my experience with vzw. T-mo ftw
KrissrocK - January 20, 2012
A lot of great points. A couple things to add. Every carrier should offer wifi calling like T-Mobiles UMA so that calls can be treated like data. Also rather than an exclusive license to a slice of spectrum it should be that any company can license spectrum on a per device sliding scale where all spectrum is shared.
But unlimited is dead so get used to it. They also need to allow free tethering as stated.
piook - January 20, 2012
Unlimited data is the only reason I switched to Sprint. If it ends, I’m headed back to Verizon.
It’s that simple.
Chikn - January 20, 2012
How about have carriers compete on service instead of phones? If every phone were sold unlocked at full price carriers would have to get their act together when it comes to actual service.
scottkellum - January 20, 2012
You mean… like the rest of the world does it? Crazy!
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
In England 3 network still do ayced plus free tethering on there one plan plus running a galaxy nexus for a lot under £40 or in USA $60 .plus handset free not bad a
Pompey7474 - January 20, 2012
Sucks to not live in Canada, I guess. While it’s possible that my unlimited data plan will go away . . . somehow, I don’t think it’ll be any time soon. No, I’m going to keep up the fight to keep unlimited data; to acquiesce to the idea that it’s a losing battle (based solely on how U.S. customers have lost it) is dangerous. So, not to say that your article isn’t a good one, Chris, but with all due respect I’m going to entirely ignore it (for now, at least; if we do lose the battle, which is by no means clear in respect to Canada at the moment, then I’ll dig it back up, but not before).
KeithZG - January 20, 2012
P.S. my plan, which includes unlimited data with admittedly a soft-cap, costs $35 in total per month. Canada isn’t that much better, but even so the difference that the slightly worse consolidation of telecoms in the U.S. makes is pretty clear, especially because all the arguments for why mobile service costs so much in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world go double for Canada (huge area, scattered population, etc).
KeithZG - January 20, 2012
I’d like to say that I agree with absolutely everything you’ve said here. How do we start the fight, though? I know I can contact the FCC but maybe a push for Verge users in the right direction is needed in this editorial. And maybe you could also contact your buddies at other well known sites and have this as a guest editorial. Just a thought. Thanks and super awesome kudos for this article.
mrsbelpit - January 20, 2012
I don’t really get how bandwidth caps really help congestion. Bandwidth doesn’t run out in the same sense that if you drink a glass of water the water is just gone. Instead the bandwidth is more like the space in the glass. When you fill the glass of water that space is occupied but as soon as you empty the water the space is there to be used again.
If there’s a problem with congestion at certain times of day a data cap doesn’t stop the actual congestion as the space will still be occupied the the people who use it. Also Once you hit your bandwidth cap you can still use more as you’re not cut off which many people do anyway so thus bandwidth caps are more like a dirty poorly applied bandage on a cut then it is a solution to what is basically a traffic problem not a shortage of supply.
PB&JP - January 20, 2012
This is key. We can have unlimited data, it’s not a scarce resource and any carrier argument to the contrary is merely an attempt to limit user options. Eventually, we will likely see a model similar to that of minute buckets where we have the pricey option for unlimited data (think $70-100); since most users won’t need nearly that much data, they’ll pay for buckets of 2, 5, 10 GBs to use anytime with unlimited data during off-peak hours. This is feasible for the carriers, but they’ll take their sweet time in implementing such a pricing scheme unless we demand that they allow us access to what is, for all intents and purposes, a public utility simply operated by private entities.
sqreone - January 20, 2012
That would be interesting, kinda like the whole “nights and weekends free” with calling. Make a certain time in your time zone data that won’t count towards your limit. :D
NotSoSiniSta - January 21, 2012
“Evenings and weekends starting from 9pm!” I say we don’t give up on “unlimited” bandwidth. I haven’t. Currently in Canada using an isp that doesn’t have a bandwidth cap for any of their plans.
PB&JP - January 23, 2012
The FCC recently missed a critical opportunity to require interoperability between LTE Bands 12 and 17, both of which lie in the 700MHz range. Many of AT&T’s LTE licenses lie in Band 17. Rural carriers — many of whom purchased spectrum in Band 12 — argued that only by requiring Band 17 devices to support Band 12 would they be able to deliver competitive handsets and other hardware in a timely fashion, because they’d be able to reuse AT&T’s devices and benefit from a shared economy of scale. In other words, companies like Samsung, HTC, and others aren’t motivated to quickly deliver high-quality phones to carriers that can only buy a hundred thousand units or less, when AT&T (and others) regularly move hundreds of thousands or millions at a time.
AT&T and others have argued that interoperability requirements add engineering complexity to devices, impose new design limits, and increase cost. This is true, but the cost to competition is much greater — only by reducing carriers’ ability to permanently lock in desirable devices can we encourage and ensure competitiveness in monthly plans. And the move to quadband GSM and pentaband UMTS over the last decade only proves that with enough creative engineering, broad frequency support is absolutely possible when it’s required.
qubius - January 20, 2012
I appreciate the US is a huge market, but in many parts of Europe carriers are moving to, or sticking with, unlimited data. GiffGaff and 3 in the UK are notable examples for me personally being from England, although this side of the world it seems the colder the country the better the data access – Sweden is the clear winner, it was the first in the world to launch LTE, for example.
alex.norcliffe - January 20, 2012
Its been said before, but smaller countries are much easier to provide coverage for. Therefore the cost of rolling out newer standards is much lower for them than for a continent-spanning nation like CA, US, AU, etc. That being said, there’s no question that the American carriers – specifically AT&T and Verizon – have far too much influence over the government. I think the recent blockage of the T-Mo takeover was the US government trying to put AT&T back in its place a bit, much like they did with Microsoft in the late 90’s. Either that or ol’ Blue Ball didn’t grease enough palms this time around. Regardless, little will improve for the American internet situation as long as the big players have congressmen and regulators in their back pockets. Those in the cities will keep having to pay more for their data and those in the rural areas will continue to be denied access to the web.
Psycros - January 22, 2012
It makes $120 a year worth of economic sense if you aren’t going to use much data. That’s quite a bit.
iRichiepoo - January 20, 2012
Off topic: Does the states have good prepaid sims with data? You can get some boss ones in Australia and the UK.
paulmichaelliam - January 20, 2012
YES!!!!! There are actually good (not UK good, but good enough) prepaid options. There are a good 10 MVNO carriers on AT&T and T-Mobile that offer plans in the $30 to $70 range, with no contract and no hassles, and anywhere from pay per minute up to unlimited everything.
People need to open their eyes and see how much money they could save with prepaid service.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
I’m with you on all points Chris, however, the government has shown it has no interest in holding wireless companies accountable. Lobbyists and the mighty dollar have basically allowed Verizon and ATT to operate as they see fit. Also, if SOPA/PIPA have shown us anything, it’s that Congress is woefully/joyfully ignorant when it comes to technology. Call me a cynic, but I don’t ever see things like outrageous texting plans or unbalanced tiered service plans going away, let alone ever seeing free tethering or phone interoperability. We live in a time where companies are people, and these people are jerks.
izzymd - January 20, 2012
Good job zig zag man.
phoneface - January 21, 2012
Do you know what I want from Verizon? A much more accurate way to track how much data I have used. The “My Verizon” thing only updates like once every 24 hours, which makes it completely useless if you trying to figure out if you should stop using the network. Android 4.0 has the whole data usage thing, but it has a big message about how Verizon might have a different amount of data recorded, so I wouldn’t trust it if I was on my last gig. What I want is my data to be completely cut off, and a TXT message or email to be sent to me that says, “You have reached your bandwidth allocation limit” Respond/txt to this message with ____ to continue to use your data, but with a $10 fee added to your account. Nice and simple. No paranoia to worry about. THAT is my wish.
NotSoSiniSta - January 21, 2012
Lots of good points, but you’re missing the forest for the trees here. The key to the issue isn’t additional restrictions on what carriers can and can’t do. The key is to introduce more competition in the market and let supply and demand even the score.
A country the size of the USA is massive, make no mistake. Yet we have only 4 national carriers: sprint, verizon, at&T, and t-mobile, and we even came ridiculously close to having only 3. Compare to Japan, with landmass roughly the size of California, having 5 national (docomo/kddi/softbank/willcom/emobile), and compare to Britain, the size of Oregon, having 5 (o2/voda/3/tmob/orange).
It’s indeed about fighting smarter rather than harder, but part of that is choosing your battles carefully.
moisiom - January 21, 2012
His point is that competition can’t happen if we still have hardware locks to specific carriers and inoperability between networks. There are lots of carriers that would love to get into the US wireless industry, but they’re stuck gunning for low-end phones on MVNO networks rather then being able to compete with AT&T and VZW.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
The revolution will not be tethered!!! (for fear of overage)
odemata - January 21, 2012
Greetings from Finland! Got my plan from a carrier called Saunalahti for 6.90€/month, unlimited data, unlimited speed, plan came with ZTE Blade -phone (included in the price, but nobody really uses that phone), not locked to phone so I got Nokia C7,
Ps. the call/txt rates aren’t too bad either 0.066e/(min or txt) :)
Pps: too bad it was too great a deal to stay, can’t have it so cheaply anymore, thank god it is 2 year contract, so over a year to go with that now.
Laiskumus - January 21, 2012
This “fight” is pointless. Most people and geeks here in the US actually love and demand carrier controlled phones. The proof is everywhere. Just look at the comments on every new phone being announced, the question people are asking is “when will (AT&T/T-Mobile/Verizon/Sprint) release the phone.” They all want the carriers to control the phone. Look at phone recommendations from tech websites/“journalists,” they all always recommend carrier-controlled phones, and won’t even mention unlocked phones (eg. Sony Xperia lineup). So what do you expect, carriers are doing what being demanded. Just read the comments on AT&T increasing the prices for data. A lot of people are actually defending AT&T, claiming that it’s a “good deal” and that they never go over the cap. Until people stop defending carriers and being corporate fanboys, nothing will change.
pika2000 - January 21, 2012
I see what you’re saying and agree that if unlocked phones received more popular press it may help with more phones being released unlocked. However, the point is that if all phones were unlocked we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I wouldn’t need to wonder when [insert carrier name here] was releasing a phone, simply when the phone was released by the manufacturer. I ask that question because I have my carrier of choice and I will not switch simply because of a phone. I’m not a blind fanboy, but rather because they have respected me alot more than any other carrier has thus far. I don’t demand that my carrier to tell me which phones are available, but it’s simply the sad reality at this point…
kingpin003 - January 21, 2012
I think you are looking at it in the wrong light. Yes we technoGeeks love alot of these new phones, And we brag on the cool phones that ‘this’ carrier has over ‘that’ carrier, and the strength of ‘this’ carriers network. BUT that is because our carriers do not discount the monthly plans if we pay for the phone outright instead of getting the contract and having the phone subsidized. If I could buy the Rezound, or the Galaxy Nexus for $600-$650 and pay half to 2/3rds of my monthly bill, then yeah I would go for, and be very happy about it. But since that is not an option, I will continue to buy the top of the line phones from whatever carrier has the best coverage in my area, and keep going with the contracts.
TC Infantino - January 23, 2012
I use a BB bold 9900 and mnth after mnth my data usage is less than 20 megs. I dont think i could use 2gigabites if i tried in ome mnth. "Like serious what the hell do these people do with these phones that suks up soo much data every mnth. If iwanna watch you tube I do it at home on my big screen .After bitchin to my carrier about the 25 dollar mnthly fee for the 1% of data that i use which I am alotted thay had agreed to drop my data charge to 50 megs a mnth for 7 dollars.
If im out of country as I am now i simply buy a prepaid unlimited BB servicefor the mnth (13 whole dollars) and im good to go.
TheCLEANSER - January 21, 2012
Well, one of the things these people (myself included) do when we are posting a comment on a forum such as this is actually add the ‘o’ in ‘month’, although this may increase our data usage for the ‘month’ we find it helpful for others to be able to easily understand what we are saying. As to what we are really doing to use so much data…streaming music, streaming movies, using our phones for GPS, and yes, you guessed it, watching youtube. Just because you prefer to only watch youtube when you are at home, many of us actually got our smartphones to be able to do all these things while we are away from home. So while you are happy with your BlackBerry, and only using 20mb of data per month, please don’t try to criticize those of use that use our phones to the full potential. At least not until you learn proper spelling.
TC Infantino - January 23, 2012
I’m sorry you have a device incapable of multimedia.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
My problem with pay-by-the-gigabye is it will make me constantly think about using my phone…. “If i wait to watch this video until later i will save money.” It will make me very conscious of my data usage. I would rather just have a cap that is far enough above my normal usage that i dont have to concern myself with going over.
CtrlAltDel121 - January 21, 2012
But you’d be overpaying. The whole idea of pay by GB is that its the same price if you actually do go up to the previous level of the cap, but saves you if you’re under. You don’t have to watch your usage if you don’t want to.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
Excellent article! I believe those ideas will help but the question that comes to mind is… Are there companies trying to get more through the same amount of bandwidth?
When we all had dial up internet I remember there lots of people researching how to get more with the same bandwidth. It doesn’t seem like that’s happening with mobile. Only answer that comes to mind is that the US carriers have such closed systems there is little incentive for companies to try. Thoughts?
mdave - January 22, 2012
There are a number of researchers and electronics companies looking at methods of “layering” data and stacking more signals on the same frequencies. From what little I’ve read, some of their work is extremely promising but they always need capitol for more testing and design. You would think the carriers would be all over this, but like the oil companies they have to be careful about efforts to increase the “supply”. If they move too fast in freeing up a lot of spectrum consumers and the government may demand to know why prices aren’t going down or data caps being abolished. See how the game is played?
Psycros - January 22, 2012
Its called Sprint.
Nathann - January 22, 2012
Chris, excellent article.
You should write another article focusing on the device. With LTE becoming the standard the role of a device becomes more important than FCC. The ability to switch carriers is hampered by the locked devices. Once the customer completes the contractual obligations the device should be unlocked to go anywhere. Can you write another article on locking of the devices? more specifically about why ? how the whole game is played to keep the customer tied to carrier ?
bpgd - January 22, 2012
+1000
Carrier locking is blatantly anti-competitive and anti-consumer. First step should be the complete ban of provider locking to get rid of the control that carriers have over the devices.
Unfortunately, most tech blogs are sponsored by carriers for review units, so they will avoid making articles about and/or recommending unlocked devices unless they really really have to.
pika2000 - January 22, 2012
Actually I do believe that we are in the first steps toward that eventuality. The main problem as I believe the article stated very well is that there first needs to be a universal standard for spectrum, the towers, signal handling equipment, and the radios in the handsets. Once that is accomplished we can make the move of having the handsets work with any provider, and require the providers to support unlocked handsets. Once we get to this point we are hopefully where the carriers are just ‘dumbpipes’ for the data to flow through. LTE becoming adopted by the major carriers is just the first step….Sadly, we have a long long way to go.
TC Infantino - January 23, 2012
The only logical solution is to for carriers to price data the same way as cable: you pay for speed rather than data limits. Consumer wireless data would run about $20/mth for a 256 KB connection, $40 for 500 KB and $60/mth for 1000 KB. Beyond that you’d have the “business” class that starts at $80 for 1200 KB and much higher costs for even faster speeds. During times of network overload, consumer class speeds could be throttled by 50% – this is a caveat most customers would be willing to accept in order to eliminate data caps and all of that. Chances are that the 500 KB and higher users wouldn’t even notice throttling most of the time, but naturally there would be detailed reports available to all customers regarding their usage. Tethering would cost nothing extra and would not be limited in any way.
Psycros - January 22, 2012
And almost everybody would be reduced to the same speeds as those days when dialup was the norm and only corporations could afford the broadband speeds we all take as the norm now.
TC Infantino - January 23, 2012
well realistically I’ve never once used more than 4 gigs on my iPhone with AT&T so these plans actually fit my usage however, i wish they were at least $10 cheaper… that would be so nice indeed.
iScuba - January 22, 2012
Yes, so your bill would be $90 instead of $100? The prices are still absurd.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
I pay like $25 for free texting and 5 gb, including 5 hours of talking
M3qx - January 23, 2012
Unlimited data doesn’t need to die – consumers just need to be better educated so they aren’t so willing to eat whatever the carriers feed them.
It seems bizarre that if I use 2GB of data in one day that it would be significantly worse for a carrier if I used 4GB over the course of a month – carriers talk about bandwidth as if it’s a precious resource they only have so much of, but in reality it should be handled with the ebb and flow of the network on a day-to-day basis. If I’m a heavy data user throttle my bandwidth at 2pm on a Saturday, but when the network is under a light load give me my full speed. It seems silly that carriers can’t handle proper network management without forcing people into somewhat draconian bandwidth bucketing.
awesomerobot - January 23, 2012
That being said, I’m on the Republic Wireless beta – and while the phone selection isn’t there yet (it is beta after all); I get unlimited talk and data for $20/mo. The future is uncertain, they’re not sure if they can keep the unlimited offering up once they’re out of beta – but hey, at least they’re trying.
awesomerobot - January 23, 2012
You’re right, there should be no discrimination between tethering and data otherwise on phones. As phones become more powerful, they will be able to stream and download more content. A friend of mine got a call from straight talk when the suspected he was tethering with their service (which he was).
But as the demand for data increases, we will see a shift from current cell phone technology. I think the next big battle for control of the air will be over satellite orbits (which speaks of more government regulation intrigue).
jemail - January 23, 2012
The guys from Onlive have already solved the problem with their D.I.D.O. technology. The only problem it’s getting it to market, which may be unsolvable.
John WM - January 24, 2012
Good article Chris, but I wish you’d spent more time on the market failures at work in the mobile communications service market and the ways in which the government is responsible for them. The government gives these corporations lots of handouts and protections.
VorJoshigan - January 25, 2012
Here in the UK we’ve got it good! I was on a O2 contract & when it was up I started looking around & found O2’s sister company GiffGaff – a pay as you go sim only service. It is amazingly cheap, I get everything I had on the contract except for the huge price tag! Being a cheap skate at the start, I bought a £5 ($8) goodybag which came with 300 texts, 60mins & a free extra minute for every time someone called me.
I am now on their £15 ($24) goodybag & I get 400 mins, unlimited texts, & unlimited data. So here in the UK unlimited is still very much alive & cheap at that. It just comes down to the MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) wholesale prices & a bit decent competition. Prices will fall as everyone tries to get their cut. If it came down to it, would you choose a PAYG network over a contract, but still retaining contract like features but keeping your old phone?
SkinnyCreative - March 2, 2012
Looks like the whole spectrum crunch just might be debunked! – http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/120803-vortex-radio-waves-could-boost-wireless-capacity-infinitely
peter.john - March 3, 2012
Just go Prepaid people. Buy an unlocked phone (even you iPhone people, Apple sells factory unlocked iPhones), a prepaid SIM, and stick it to the carrier. Don’t pay for tethering, don’t pay for overages, just get your service for what it actually is worth and stop paying so damn much. Tell the carriers that its not okay to operate this way. Not everyone is going to go write their congressperson or the FCC about net neutrality and spectrum efficiency, but anyone can switch to prepaid and show carriers that 2 year contracts and absurdly high prices are not OK.
martonikaj - March 8, 2012
@Matt. You mentioned unlimited speeds aren’t coming back. I respectully disagree. When the internet first came to normal consumers, access was billed by number of minutes, then hours, then unlimited, and then broadband. Broadband held the promise of unlimited hours, and it worked because time passes at a defined rate. I have heard of some broadband providers establishing maximum data limits, but the limits are so high, 99% of customers don’t hit them.
The reason the cellular data is an issue is because merely listening to podcasts via iTunes while driving can cause a subscriber to hit the data limit. The industry needs an innovation that will raise the supply beyond the demand for 99% of customers. I think it will happen, and unlimited data plans will reign once again. (Technically, they won’t be unlimited, but they will be sufficiently not limited that the number of Terabytes allowed will be so high that the number will be in the contract fine print and not on a bit poster at the carrier’s store).
palermo - March 31, 2012
You must log in with your Verge account to post a comment.
If you do not yet have a Verge account, please sign up for one!