🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:34:32 -0600, in <IVOUn.790$RC5.427@newsfe08.iad>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>At 24 Jun 2010 08:52:54 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> I pretty much agree -- have been saying for a long time that metered
>> service works better for everyone, with the heavy (ab)users paying their
>> fair share instead of being subsidized by the majority.  
>
>Agreed.  The real problem historically is that users really haven't
>learned to think in KBs and MBs.  We all know what a minute is, so
>counting voice usage is easy.  How much is a 10 minute web browsing
>session, or a day's email retrieval?  "Unlimited" was a way to take the
>worry from users.  Most phones have no, or woefully inadequate, data
>counters.

True, but at least carriers are now facing up to usage alerts, although
they could be much better as well.

>> The majority should care because it will result in better service and/or
>> lower rates.
>
>True, if they learn how to keep track of usage.  For example, my T-Mo
>grandfathered "T-Mobile Web" plan doesn't track usage- every month my T-
>Mo bill (and the website) tells me I've used "0 MB" of data.  Only a
>third-party app on my phone (or switching my phone to the alternate "EPC"
>T-Mo APN that does track it) tells me I use 250-300MB a month.

Yep, it's bad that actual data usage still isn't being displayed.

>> The blame actually goes to us, for falling for the seemingly attractive
>> packages instead of demanding fair and clear plans.  As Pogo famously
>> said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."  But the recent rapid growth
>> of low-cost prepaid plans suggests consumers are finally getting the
>> message.
>
>I disagree- we consumers rejected data buckets in the past out of fear,
>forcing carriers to respond with unlimited data plans, protected (they
>thought) by the law of averages.  

I think the bigger issue was the high cost of metered data.

The irony of AT&T ending unlimited data is that AT&T was the wireless
carrier that started it -- I can still remember the press release.  
I signed up immediately.

Excellent segment on this in NPR On The Media
<http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/06/11/04>.

>I still think T-Mo has the best system-
>offer unlimited data, with a bandwidth throttle at a preset softcap. 
>That way everyone still gets "unlimited data" with the disproportionate
>users dealt with effectively without incurring extra charges. 

Agreed.

>> AT&T should be able to detect such ToS violations, and can terminate
>> heavy users if it chooses in any event.

>Terminating heavy users solely on usage volume without a ToS violation
>"smoking gun" would be a PR (and potential legal) nightmare if you
>offered and sold them an "unlimited" plan, same as kicking a buffet
>patron out of your restaurant for daring grab a third plate of crab legs
>after selling him "all you can eat."

PR, yes; legal, no -- the carrier has no obligation when the contract
has run its course.

>Data will eventually become a commodity just like voice has, and the
>market is in a downward pricing spiral.  The carriers have to enjoy their
>current rate structures while they can.  The slide to becoming simple
>mobile dumb pipes is slow but inevitable.  How long before we see an
>Android device with a Google Voice/SIP client integrated into the
>cellular dialer offering full cellphone functionality on a data-only plan
>without clumsy third-party VoIP software?  12 months?  24 tops?  That
>would give unlimited voice for the price of a data-only plan (currently
>$40 on T-Mo for unlimited, $30 for 2GB on AT&T.) 

We do "live in interesting times."  ;)

-- 
Best regards,
John           <http:/navasgroup.com>

"At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive 
spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." -Maeterlinck