All-you-can-eat 3G may not last

Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
Sprint, and Verizon, see:

"http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"

Enjoyed the article - sort of - don't like the implications.

A coworker of mine got cut off from Verizon's EV-DO service for
overuse. Read downloading movies. This guy is a video nut. A couple
of months ago he went to the store and bought over $700 in DVD's. He
buys all the latest releases whether he thinks he will like them or
not. I think the reason is, if a friend comes over, he can offer to
show him/her any of the latest movies at his home. Still, he's nuts in
my opinion.

The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will have to
stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to go up to
support the supposed higher network demand in the future.

My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but the
rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if everybody
wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the Internet
globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and eventually support
lots of users on relatively low cost high speed access. Lower than the
$59/mo today.

Especially with all the FREE Internet stuff popping up all over. It will
become harder and harder to pay for away-from-home Internet when it is
available free in so many places with more popping up every day.

Hey, we all can have an opinion. I like mine

-Frank

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44901e14$0$96920$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
> Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>
> "http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"

Frankster wrote:
> The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will have to
> stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to go up to
> support the supposed higher network demand in the future.
>
> My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but the
> rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if everybody
> wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the Internet
> globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and eventually support
> lots of users on relatively low cost high speed access. Lower than the
> $59/mo today.

Yes, if they want widespread acceptance, prices will have to come down.
You'll probably end up with a tiered pricing structure, with a lower
cost plan that allows relatively unlimited nights and weekends (a limit
that no one would reach unless they were doing something that violated
the terms of service for unlimited), but limited use during normal
business hours.

SMS wrote:
> Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
> Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>
> "http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"

Sprint seems to be OK with it for now:
=========================
Sprint Nextel Corp. gives subscribers a wide berth, even selling routers
that let users share a connection to the company's Sprint PCS Vision
service. Sprint believes it can expand network capacity fast enough to
keep up with a growing subscriber base, said Barry Tishgart, director of
marketing.

"We're going to keep our policies simple and straightforward and
encourage people to go out there and find new uses for broadband,"
Tishgart said. For example, the company's terms of service don't forbid
subscribers from making large file transfers to their PCs. If
subscribers have to think about how much data they're using, many will
be scared off by 3G, he said.
=========================

I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception
of value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think
about posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on
their phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).

Should the carriers take action on the bandwidth hogs they risk bad
publicity by not honoring "unlimited." OTOH, if they change the plans so
that "unlimited" is prohibitively expensive, with several other less
expensive limited plans offered, it could be potentially worse
(particularly if it's just too confusing for Joe Anybody).

I think they should just stick with unlimited plans, priced
attractively, and deal with the bandwidth hogs via TOS, particularly
those who use it to tether a laptop. They'll get some bad press, no
doubt. But if they are able to communicate why this is needed, and what
the alternatives are, I think they'll be OK. We shall see...


--
Mike

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:32:57 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <44901e14$0$96920$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
>Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>
>"http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"

The service providers are shooting themselves in the foot by being so
generous in order to pull in users, according to Gartner Inc. analyst
Michael King. Going from all-you-can-eat plans to per-bit charges
effectively would represent a price increase, he said.

"Never in the history of wireless and mobile communications has a
carrier succeeded in bringing prices back up," King said.

And though the technology is there to detect and stop
terms-of-service violations, doing so could tarnish the image of 3G
and lead to a backlash, said In-Stat analyst Allen Nogee.

It may make sense to lock in an unlimited data package (as I have),
since carriers have historically grandfathered in old packages
indefinitely.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:50:30 -0700, "Tinman"
<mlynch@REMOVEMEcitlink.net> wrote in <4fb0i4F1ht5glU1@individual.net>:

>I think they should just stick with unlimited plans, priced
>attractively, and deal with the bandwidth hogs via TOS, particularly
>those who use it to tether a laptop. They'll get some bad press, no
>doubt. But if they are able to communicate why this is needed, and what
>the alternatives are, I think they'll be OK. We shall see...

Can you say, "fair use" policy? As with satellite Internet. The
carrier throttles heavy users based on how much data they transfer.
I'd say that's quite likely on cellular as well, although only time will
tell.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

> I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception of
> value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think about
> posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on their
> phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).

It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
computer.

-Frank

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:09 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote in <B9udnYQc1InH_w3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>> I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception of
>> value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think about
>> posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on their
>> phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
>
>It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
>computer.

Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
use and tethered (computer) use.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:hlo092160fb8bs0nq5r4ba8val8ippikj0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:09 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
> wrote in <B9udnYQc1InH_w3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>> I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception
>>> of
>>> value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think about
>>> posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on their
>>> phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
>>
>>It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
>>computer.
>
> Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
> use and tethered (computer) use.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Not all computer data access is tethered. In fact, a wireless card is
preferable. Tethered might be okay, that's how I do it now.

-Frank

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:04:59 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote in <4bqdnY7ZN5xy9g3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:hlo092160fb8bs0nq5r4ba8val8ippikj0@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:24:09 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
>> wrote in <B9udnYQc1InH_w3ZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>>> I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception
>>>> of
>>>> value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think about
>>>> posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on their
>>>> phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
>>>
>>>It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
>>>computer.
>>
>> Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
>> use and tethered (computer) use.

>Not all computer data access is tethered. In fact, a wireless card is
>preferable. ...

That's still considered "tethered," since the PC Card is the mobile
device.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Frankster wrote:
>> I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the perception of
>> value isn't there. I know many people--none who would even think about
>> posting here--who don't see the value in having data-access on their
>> phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
>
> It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
> computer.

With so much free wireless available, it'll really limit the number of
non-power users that are willing to pay $60, or even $30, for more
ubiquitous coverage. I.e., I was sitting drinking coffee at a coffee
house near my house, and I was picking up five free wireless networks,
one from the coffee house, one from a Chinese fast food restaurant
across the street, MetroFi-Free, MetroFi-Public, and a network provided
by the city that was from a plaza near the coffee house.

I realize that Silicon Valley is not the rest of the country, but it
isn't terribly far ahead of the rest of the country in many ways, i.e.
much of San Jose is still only analog cable TV.

I might be willing to pay an extra $10 per month for limited usage of
EV-DO or HSDPA, just to check e-mail occasionally, but I don't need to
do big downloads or stream video.

Frankster wrote:
>> I don't see 3G succeeding much, at least in the U.S., if the
>> perception of value isn't there. I know many people--none who would
>> even think about posting here--who don't see the value in having
>> data-access on their phones at all (even at $10-$15 per month).
>
> It's more than data access on the phone. It's also data access on the
> computer.

I covered that already, and data access on a PC is now being tracked by
most carriers differently than handset usage. There's a reason for that.

The people I referred to above have zero interest in tethering a
laptop--and certainly not to their desktop computer. And we are far from
the point where there is enough bandwidth for 3G to be used as a sole
"broadband" connection to the Internet--at least not for the masses.

Moreover, the carriers have been promoting handsets for data usage which
gives them a much greater pool of prospects to sell to. Whether it is
music, video, streaming radio or whatnot, today's 3G handsets are
perfectly capable of sucking down large amounts of data. It might not be
stored on the handset, but the network doesn't care about that.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

> Moreover, the carriers have been promoting handsets for data usage which
> gives them a much greater pool of prospects to sell to. Whether it is
> music, video, streaming radio or whatnot, today's 3G handsets are
> perfectly capable of sucking down large amounts of data. It might not be
> stored on the handset, but the network doesn't care about that.

They've been promoting it, but the adoption rates have been dismal. Do
they really expect a huge market for watching videos on a 2" screen? As
to audio, we all saw the huge flop of the Motorola/Apple handset.

Occasional web browsing and e-mail are what the masses will end up using
their fancy handsets for.

Tinman wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Good article about unlimited data plans, and statements from Cingular,
>> Sprint, and Verizon, see:
>>
>> "http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=3549"
>
> Sprint seems to be OK with it for now:
> =========================
> Sprint Nextel Corp. gives subscribers a wide berth, even selling routers
> that let users share a connection to the company's Sprint PCS Vision
> service. Sprint believes it can expand network capacity fast enough to
> keep up with a growing subscriber base, said Barry Tishgart, director of
> marketing.
>
> "We're going to keep our policies simple and straightforward and
> encourage people to go out there and find new uses for broadband,"
> Tishgart said. For example, the company's terms of service don't forbid
> subscribers from making large file transfers to their PCs. If
> subscribers have to think about how much data they're using, many will
> be scared off by 3G, he said.

Sprint seems to have had an attitude adjustment recently. From promoting
plans with unlimited roaming, not gouging for overages, changing the
off-peak start time, and not going non-linear when early adopters use
too much bandwidth, they seem to really be trying to not be jerks like
Cingular and Verizon often are. They are very concerned about bringing
down their high churn.

Unfortunately, I can't move to Sprint, as their coverage in my area is
not great.