Computerworld Article on Tiered versus Unlimited Data Plans--TieredMay be Coming to Verizon this Summer According to CFO

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
> now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
> mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
> that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd, would
you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or outdated,
yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?

TIA! And cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

---

› See More: Computerworld Article on Tiered versus Unlimited Data Plans--TieredMay be Coming to Verizon this Summer According to CFO

On 4/26/2011 10:27 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for? Oh,
> that's right, SPRINT! The best deals in unlimited right now come from
> Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining Taco
> Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for lunch!
> There's nowhere to go but up.

That assumes that they actually were on an unlimited data plan because
they use vast amounts of data, rather than because the unlimited plan
was the only data plan available. If they fit the profile of the
"average" user, then their data usage was such that a non-unlimited data
plan would work just as well.

The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network. MetroPCS is
increasingly attractive with their "TravelTalk®" extra-cost roaming, and
$40 for unlimited talk, text, and data, and the ability to use Verizon
phones flashed to MetroPCS. Supports 4G LTE too.

> I doubt it was panic. They took a risk, weighed the results, and changed
> strategy. Personally, I'm limited in my phone selections on T-Mobile
> because they won't allow Android phones on my grandfathered data plan, so
> I use other devices.

Perhaps "panic" was too strong of a word. They were likely "concerned"
that part of the reason they were hemorrhaging customers was their
policy regarding Android phones on SERO.

> If I liked Android enough, I'd consider changing plans or carriers, but
> frankly I don't get the attraction. (It's mediocre at everything- it's
> UI and app selection is mediocre compared to iOS, it's less configurable
> than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
> client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
> (sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
> config) and I rarely use them.

I expect that most Android users are using Android because they could
not get an iPhone on their carrier. I find the Android acceptable. The
web browser works fine and I may be one of the few users that appreciate
the MicroSD card slot for more than just additional storage capacity.
There are a few aps not available on Android yet, but as Android devices
continue to increase their market share the app difference will go away.

For an e-mail client, use MailDroid Pro (not the free version).

> I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
> now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
> mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
> that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.
> It suggested WiFi and QNC as alternatives to pricey 3G, and suggested
> several good but "obsolete" smartphones (in this case WinMo-based,) for
> salespeople who wanted more experience with smartphones but couldn't
> personally justify the monthly cost of forced dataplans.

I've been asked to give a presentation on low-cost smart phone options,
and have prepared a Powerpoint presentation. I only have 45 minutes and
have prepared 12 slides. I like your title better than my "Smart Phones
on the Cheap" title.

> That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned average
> Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
> year between now and 2015, IIRC.

And _why_ is it increasing? It's not because of bill paying or e-mail,
or even normal web browsing. It's mainly because of streaming audio and
video.

> There are those for whom streaming media is a killer app, and several
> companies base their model around it- not just small media compaies like
> Pandora, but big companies in the mobile business themselves.

Those users would obviously not be happy with a metered data plan, not
even 2GB, let alone 100MB.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:05:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
>for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
>that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network.

In other words, useful for most people?

--
Paul Miner

SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>
> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

> The bottom line is that the vast majority of 3G/4G data is used by
> subscribers that rightfully see no need to be frugal with 3G/4G data
> usage since they are paying for an unlimited data plan. All studies show
> that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users willing
> to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet access

Using the false assumption that everyone has wifi available at work

> Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
> per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number

I'm sorry, but over 200 MB of data is not a vast amount of data.

On 4/26/2011 4:01 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> Probably, but Sprint's $69 "everything plan" is both competitive and
> includes unlimted texting and data. It's not $35 (or was it $30?) SERO
> cheap, but there's no better deal for unlimited users that includes phone
> subsidies, not is there any real competiton from other "big 4" carriers
> either even with tiered data. AT&T's minimum voice plan with a texting
> add-on and only 200MB of data is barely cheaper than Sprint's unlimited
> plan.

It's a very good deal, plus there are corporate discounts of up to 25%
on top of it (I could get a 23% discount). Yet for some strange reason
there is no stream of customers heading to Sprint stores to take
advantage of this deal.

> That's pretty ironic that you slam Sprint's native coverage in one
> breath, and suggest Metro as an alternative! Sure, Metro offers extra-
> cost roaming, but you'll need it far more often than you would have if
> Sprint offered the same. Metro's native coverage is but a fraction of
> Sprint's.

Most urban areas are covered under Metro PCS. The coverage maps of Metro
PCS native coverage and Virgin (Sprint native coverage) look pretty
close, but with Metro PCS at least you have the option of coverage in
other areas at extra cost.

Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may
> not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
> extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
> MetroPCS is a bit insulting.

Read what I wrote again. I was slamming Virgin Mobile's coverage, not
Sprint's. Sprint's coverage, when you include roaming, is okay, though
you do run into the problem of Sprint phones not roaming even when the
Sprint signal is too weak to make or receive call; the workaround to
this problem used to be to force roaming, but Sprint doesn't offer this
anymore in newer phones because too many subscribers had figured out the
trick.

> I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
> mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
> policies!

Perhaps, we don't know how many people took advantage of Sprint's
desperation pricing when they offered SERO to everyone that wanted it.
But you probably are well aware that there are subscribers, on all
carriers, that search for the best prices and keep those grandfathered
plans for a very, very long time, often until they are forced off of
them in one way or another. I think both you and I fall (or fell) into
that category. I finally let my original "America's Choice 300" plan
lapse. It was $30 a month (total) after discounts, and had 8:00 p.m.
off-peak. For a while, one major advantage over America's Choice 2 was
that only the older plan allowed analog roaming, but that advantage is
largely gone (except in a very few places).

> I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to use Android regularly. Every
> time I boot into it on my HD2, I find myself running screaming back to
> WinMo. I really only use Android for a few games to entertain the kids,
> and for Google SkyMap- the best app I've seen on Android.

I don't understand why people hated WinMo so much. I liked it.

> Go ahead and borrow the title. Don't forget to include the pathetic old
> Samsung i600 (no touchscreen) and i730 (touchscreen) and their ability to
> still use free QNC. Neat WinMo trick #243: you can configure the email
> client to poll with a different data connection than other apps. This way,
> the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
> configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
> KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Most of the audience is not that sophisticated.

> Also recommend Opera Mini for any compatible phone there are versions for
> Android, Blackberry and WinMo. It uses server-side compression courtesy
> of Opera and uses "up to 90% less data" (aacording to Opera.) In my
> experience it certainly cuts data usage quite a bit (about 1/2 to 3/4 less,
> depending on what you browse, and how low-res you set the images.) The
> latest WinMo version (5.1) can be set as the device default browser, so
> links in emails will open up directly in Opera Mini rather than the
> native browser, saving bandwidth. I even use it to browse over QNC.
> It's still no picnic, but with the compression QNC's 14.4k seems more
> like 56k dialup or EDGE than sub-dialup speed.

Thanks, I'll add a slide with that.

> Sure, that's part of it, but so is feature creep- the silent updating of
> applications in the background, the large number of apps that sync data
> with _something_, (Facebook, Twitter, Kindle, Evernote, etc. etc. etc.)
> ridiculous 8-12MP phone cameras taking the same crappy, blurry pictures
> the old 1-3MP cameras did with much larger file sizes, etc.

One Android app, for rooted Droids, stops that sort of nonsense. It lets
you specify which apps are allowed data access.

> And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
> streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
> comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
> crummy compared to the desktop version.

I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality. There
are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage, and
those are the types of drives where I would most want something like
Pandora. I had a rental car with XM this past week and it was kind of
nice, but I was disappointed with the dropouts under overpasses and
trees, and the variety of content.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:01:40 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
>streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
>comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
>crummy compared to the desktop version. By sound alone, I'd estimate it
>only runs 40k or so- it works fine over EDGE, which on T-Mo tells me it's
>certainly less than 90k (the average EDGE speed I seem to get in my
>neighborhood.) BeatlesRadio.com offers a low bandwidth mono stream that
>even works over GPRS (keeps me company on overnight drives out in the
>boondocks where even EDGE is sometimes elusive.)

Good news! Forget EDGE, forget GPRS. I heard that WiFi is ubiquitous,
so all of our connectivity problems are solved. ;-)

--
Paul Miner

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:19:51 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
>use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality. There
>are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage, and
>those are the types of drives where I would most want something like
>Pandora.

Too many places with no data coverage? Well fortunately, we have
"ubiquitous WiFi" to the rescue! Right?

--
Paul Miner

On 4/26/2011 5:08 PM, Justin wrote:
> SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
>> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>>
>> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
>> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
>> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
>> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
>> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.
>
> Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
> for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

What the Cisco study probably meant to imply is that people were using
their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.

I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of
company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
was not abused.

SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:04:18 -0700]:
> On 4/26/2011 5:08 PM, Justin wrote:
>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
>>> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>>>
> What the Cisco study probably meant to imply is that people were using
> their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
> Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
> wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.
>
> I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of

SOME?!?!?!? I'd argue most.

> company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
> companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
> supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
> officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
> was not abused.


Companies can monitor anything and everything you do on company
computers. Every company I have worked for has an acceptbale us policy
that all use of company equipment will be for business purposes only.
Using a company PC to send and receive email is stupid. Let alone facebook
or anything else of the sort.

Of course companies don't want you browsing unless it's work related
and there is a LOT of browing that IS work related. The best troubleshooting
you can do it by pasting an error message into google to see what it
actually means.

A lot of companies block access to sites they don't want you to see,
and I run into a lot of issues with this due to problem solutions
for many technical issues posted on personal blogs that are blocked.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:04:18 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 4/26/2011 5:08 PM, Justin wrote:
>> SMS wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:23:39 -0700]:
>>> On 4/26/2011 4:25 AM, George wrote:
>>>
>>> A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
>>> was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
>>> 35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
>>> likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
>>> available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.
>>
>> Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
>> for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?
>
>What the Cisco study probably meant to imply

*groan* It wasn't enough that you were making up 'facts' to support
your unsupportable position? Now you have to tell us what the Cisco
study "meant to imply"? Geeze...

>is that people were using
>their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
>Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
>wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.


--
Paul Miner

On 04-26-2011 10:28, Paul Miner wrote:
> Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
> ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
> repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.

And that's five minutes without a car.

--
Wes Groleau

There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

On 04-26-2011 21:35, SMS wrote:
> got the feeling that it was a lot of work for them to unblock individual
> sites

No, it's not a lot of work. It's just more work than not doing it.
And every exception (we fear) will inspire three more requests.

(Yeah, I'm an IT guy)

--
Wes Groleau

There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

On 4/26/2011 7:54 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-26-2011 10:28, Paul Miner wrote:
>> Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
>> ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
>> repeating it.
>
> It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
> that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.
>
> With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
> six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
> private ones than I can easily count.
>
> And that's five minutes without a car.

LOL, thanks. I don't care if someone wants to be upset over the word
"ubiquitous" meaning "everywhere" when the reality is as you stated,
close enough. Also, I would include not only free, open, and unsecure
Wi-Fi spots, but also no-charge Wi-Fi spots where a pass code or account
is provided at no charge. I.e. a restaurant, college campus, hospital,
or hotel that provides its guests with Wi-Fi, but that requires a
network security key or registration in order to use it, still would
qualify to be counted as wi-fi.

Still, I will concede that technically "nearly ubiquitous" more
accurately describes the state of no-charge Wi-Fi. Some people like to
argue for the sake of arguing.

Personally I would not go out of my way by driving anywhere for free
Wi-Fi, not with gasoline at $4.13 a gallon! I simply use Wi-Fi when it's
available, and use 3G at other times, and I don't hesitate to use 3G
data when I need it.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:21 -0400, Wes Groleau
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 04-26-2011 10:28, Paul Miner wrote:
>> Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
>> ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
>> repeating it.
>
>It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
>that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

It's silly, alright, but not for that reason. It's silly because
arguing on Usenet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, well, you know...

>With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
>six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
>private ones than I can easily count.
>
>And that's five minutes without a car.

Your anecdote isn't convincing in the slightest. I can find areas with
plenty of WiFi, too, but a few very limited areas of availability do
not mean ubiquity. They illustrate just the opposite.

--
Paul Miner

Wes Groleau wrote on [Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:21 -0400]:
> On 04-26-2011 10:28, Paul Miner wrote:
>> Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
>> ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
>> repeating it.
>
> It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
> that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.
>
> With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
> six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
> private ones than I can easily count.

Plenty of unsecured private wifi will be securing up really soon if
the news about being arrested by a SWAT team due to someone leeching
gets more coverage

> And that's five minutes without a car.

That's nice for you, useless information, but great for you. Within 10
minutes of walking from my house I can get to zero free open public wifi
services.