AT&T Downplays Talk of Tiered Pricing for iPhone Data Plans

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/atandt-downplays-talk-of-tiered-pricing-for-iphone-data-plans/)

AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega, who received significant attention (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) for his comments last week suggesting that the company is looking at tiered pricing for data plans to rein in high-use customers, appears to now be downplaying that suggestion, according to a Wall Street Journal report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574600381410694794.html) (subscription required).A senior AT&T Inc. executive dismissed speculation that the telecommunications carrier is planning to change the way it prices data plans for its wireless customers, but said it will give customers incentives to limit their use of its wireless network for surfing the Internet or downloading mobile applications.

"We have not made any decision to implement tiered pricing," AT&T Mobility Chief Executive Ralph de la Vega said Wednesday, referring to plans that would charge based on how much data a customer uses rather than the unlimited plans that are popular today.While de la Vega's statement certainly doesn't appear to take tiered pricing options off the table for the long-term, as the earlier report suggested such a move would be anyway, it does emphasize AT&T's current strategy of using "incentives" and other strategies for shifting traffic off of its network instead of changing the pricing structure of its wireless plans.

In particular, de la Vega reportedly cited the possibility of increasing free access to Wi-Fi hotspots for AT&T customers, helping to shift traffic off of the cellular network while also providing users with faster connections. He also pointed to AT&T's 3G MicroCell (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/21/atandt-3g-microcell-site-goes-live-monthly-fees-to-be-up-to-19-99/) program, which customers can connect to their home networks to seamlessly shift wireless calls to the Internet. The 3G MicroCell is designed to provide greater signal strength indoors and offers users the choice of using their own cellular minutes for calls or purchasing an unlimited calling plan for wireless calls routed through the device.

Article Link: AT&T Downplays Talk of Tiered Pricing for iPhone Data Plans (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/atandt-downplays-talk-of-tiered-pricing-for-iphone-data-plans/)

[notoriousceo]

IF AND WHEN they do that, I'm G O N E !

I'm not even getting 3.6 for speed! The phone is capable to 7.2!

[JPark]

I seem to be in the minority, but I have no problem with a fair tiered data plan. We've been using tiered voice plans since the beginning and I don't see why data should be any different. Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used, take off any restrictions about what they use that data for (VOIP, text messages, streaming tv, whatever), and allow them to choose a plan that works for them.

[Doctor Q]

The growing coverage provided by Wi-Fi hotspots will take care of some of the demand for bandwidth, but growth in demand seems likely to outpace it for some time to come.

[alphaod]

I wouldn't mind the Microcell at all, but it needs to be cheaper, if not free.

[countrydweller]

I seem to be in the minority, but I have no problem with a fair tiered data plan. We've been using tiered voice plans since the beginning and I don't see why data should be any different. Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used, take off any restrictions about what they use that data for (VOIP, text messages, streaming tv, whatever), and allow them to choose a plan that works for them.

I agree, this would pass the cost of the data usage to the ones actually using it. To increase the cost of all data plans let's the data hogs pass their costs on to the us, the average data user.

[Kar98]

http://i47.tinypic.com/2czzel0.jpg

[macphisto]

If they reduced or gave us the option to eliminate the data (like they did for the original iPhone) for those of use who don't use much data anyway, I would be more in favor of the tiered model.

[topmounter]

With the 10MB download cap I barely use 5GB per YEAR on my iPhone 3G. Please give me a way to pay something commensurate with the amount of data I actually use. The term "unlimited" needs to be stricken from every piece of wired and wireless ISP literature now and forever.

[guitarman777]

The growing coverage provided by Wi-Fi hotspots will take care of some of the demand for bandwidth, but growth in demand seems likely to outpace it for some time to come.

I rarely come across any of their hot spots, and I'm in a pretty high-populated area. I'd rather they spend their time improving the network in order to support that kind of demand, but that's just me.

[ferrous]

If they want to charge extra for using the network more, are they planning to credit customers for having poor or available network? On my way home on the train, half of my trip my iPhone doesn't have service, I propose AT&T should then credit me for the time I spend without the service.

[Andronicus]

I'm just going to restate what i said when I posted this thread prior to the bot putting it on the front page...

I think a lot of people may take this the wrong way (maybe I'm one of those people), but it seems trying to bribe your customers to use less of your service is not a good buisness scheme. Especially since all the heat AT&T has been taking lately concerning their network & of course they defend the hell out of it "fastest 3g network" now it sounds like "fastest 3g network....but please don't use it!!"

[JPark]

If they want to charge extra for using the network more, are they planning to credit customers for having poor or available network? On my way home on the train, half of my trip my iPhone doesn't have service, I propose AT&T should then credit me for the time I spend without the service.

I propose you check the service map and terms of agreement before signing a two year contract.

[DipDog3]

Please release the iPhone for Verizon!

AT&T is trying its best to screw us all over again!

[JPark]

I'm just going to restate what i said when I posted this thread prior to the bot putting it on the front page...

I think a lot of people may take this the wrong way (maybe I'm one of those people), but it seems trying to bribe your customers to use less of your service is not a good buisness scheme. Especially since all the heat AT&T has been taking lately concerning their network & of course they defend the hell out of it "fastest 3g network" now it sounds like "fastest 3g network....but please don't use it!!"

I don't think the policy is a bad one, but I think their PR skills could use a lot of work. It's too easy these days to take everything AT&T does and put a negative spin on it. They need to be more proactive in marketing the benefits of a tiered data plan or just keep their mouths shut completely until they have something definite to announce.

[LagunaSol]

All carriers suck so bad. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint...they all display a complete and utter disregard for their customers. Depressing and infuriating.

I wish there was a chance of a new player (or players) entering the market.

[countrydweller]

If they want to charge extra for using the network more, are they planning to credit customers for having poor or available network? On my way home on the train, half of my trip my iPhone doesn't have service, I propose AT&T should then credit me for the time I spend without the service.

If you download 10 gigs a month when the signal is good, 10 people download a gig a month, should the cost be shared equally or should you pay more for the service?

[dagamer34]

With the 10MB download cap I barely use 5GB per YEAR on my iPhone 3G. Please give me a way to pay something commensurate with the amount of data I actually use. The term "unlimited" needs to be stricken from every piece of wired and wireless ISP literature now and forever.

Just to be factually clear, the 10MB limit only applies when trying to download something from the iTunes Store on the iPhone. However, any other downloads are easily permitted. In fact, you can stream podcasts that are over 10MB in size by pressing the preview button (but not download and save them for later, which is dumb!)

[switched on]

I don't think that it's appropriate for him to cite a test program that currently does not have a rollout plan. He may as well have used 4G as a proposed solution, life on Mars or telepathic abilities.

That said, I'm a fan of a tiered program, however it would have to start by taking a 'lower-cost' stance, allowing people to lower their bills to cap their usage (wasting time because it's there) if it fits their needs, rather than just putting the screws to the people who are actively using the network. That small percentage of people, would decrease in size, just because people who wanted to save money would be forced to regulate themselves. It's at least a move toward the model that some suggest, without pissing off the user base. That's why it will never happen.

[lazyrighteye]

I wondered how quickly Ralph would back track from those ill-advised statements last week. Seriously, does he really think AT&T can change customers' data plan rates mid-stream and 1) not have a PR nightmare on his hands and 2) retain customers?

And the micro cell option: last I heard/read, AT&T was talking some pretty hefty fees for owning & operating their micro cell offering. Which seems weird for the customer to foot the bill of improving AT&T's network - at least, so blatantly.

MNVO please!

[smeagol]

How about just fixing the damn network instead of the constant whining. AT&T is reaping the benefits of adding lucrative smartphone contracts, but is spending less on upgrading and maintaining their crappy network. They could start by adding more cell sites to distribute network load particularly in NYC, San Francisco and Chicago. Why advertise unlimited plans and not expect people to use it, why advertise network superiority then encourage people not to connect to it. They better get their asses in gear cause the cellular landscape is changing. The future of cellular belongs to connected devices like the iPhone, Androids, Pres, Tablets, Netbooks, Pixis and eBooks so AT&T needs to shape up or shrivel into insignificance.

[JPark]

I wondered how quickly Ralph would back track from those ill-advised statements last week. Seriously, does he really think AT&T can change customers' data plan rates mid-stream...


Maybe you read what he said last week from a different source, but I didn't read anything that indicated they were planning to do anything like that.

[jvanber]

but said it will give customers incentives to limit their use of its wireless network for surfing the Internet or downloading mobile applications.

I'm sure an example of this "incentive" will be something like NOT charging you a penalty of $50/month. Give your kids incentive to clean their rooms: threaten spanking them.

Obviously they saw the backlash his original comments caused, so they're just going to do the same thing with a different spin this time around.

I don't think it will stick. Cell-phone minutes started out tiered. While technically they are still "tiered", the complex plans of rollover-minutes, friends and family, mobile-to-mobile, nights & weekends, bla-bla-bla have virtually made most cell-plans unlimited.

It's definitely a far cry from my 200-minute plan I had back in 1997. Why don't they package plans like this anymore? Because the overages and roaming would KILL you, and it happened all the time. Being a technician, it wouldn't be uncommon for a normally $180/month cell phone bill to be $350.00 if the right calls and the wrong roaming/overages came into play. Thank goodness it was a business phone, and I could justify the overages.

I think trying to keep track of your data is even less realistic. Sure, some apps and phones keep track, but what if you update your phone and it resets the counters? Do you just guess for a while? I think that Verizon now considers any data transmission to be a minimum of a megabyte, so if you download a 1K file, you get charged with 1 MB worth of usage. Nice.

I've been with AT&T Wireless since 1999, back when it was a much different network and much different company. If they go to a tiered plan, I'll just look at different carriers, plain and simple. Maybe they're doing me a favor.

[SnapMac]

I don't use my "portion" of the network frivolously, so no amount of incentive will matter to me. I am going to use what I use because I need to use it...PERIOD! So a tiered price for data use would be fine, but how is going to help. Just because it costs me more doesn't mean that I am going to use it less. I assume this would be the case with most other "smart phone" users. Therefore, all we will be doing is paying more and getting the same service (or loss of service).

The simple fact of the matter is ALL carriers, not just AT&T need to spend some money on infrastructure. We are becoming a data needy planet. Carriers need to step it up or, as someone previously mentioned, a new-comer will come in and change the game for them!

[mikes63737]

How about just fixing the damn network instead of the constant whining. AT&T is reaping the benefits of adding lucrative smartphone contracts, but is spending less on upgrading and maintaining their crappy network. They could start by adding more cell sites to distribute network load particularly in NYC, San Francisco and Chicago. Why advertise unlimited plans and not expect people to use it, why advertise network superiority then encourage people not to connect to it. They better get their asses in gear cause the cellular landscape is changing. The future of cellular belongs to connected devices like the iPhone, Androids, Pres, Tablets, Netbooks, Pixis and eBooks so AT&T needs to shape up or shrivel into insignificance.

You have it exactly right. AT&T needs to fix this, not its users.

[OldTimey]

Please! Tiered pricing is a must! Charge iphoners depending on how they tax the network.

It might not help at all, as an iphoner that is constantly downloading garbage might just sign up for the higher plans and pay whatever it takes to satisfy their appetite for updating their facebook status whathaveyou, but it might work. Worth a try.

[JPark]

I don't use my "portion" of the network frivolously, so no amount of incentive will matter to me. I am going to use what I use because I need to use it...PERIOD! So a tiered price for data use would be fine, but how is going to help. Just because it costs me more doesn't mean that I am going to use it less. I assume this would be the case with most other "smart phone" users. Therefore, all we will be doing is paying more and getting the same service (or loss of service).


If you're not using the network "frivolously" I doubt you're part of the 3% he's talking about. I use it pretty frivolously and still don't use more than about 500MB per month.

[NoExpectations]

IF AND WHEN they do that, I'm G O N E !

I'm not even getting 3.6 for speed! The phone is capable to 7.2!

Hate to say this....no one offers 7.2Mb yet....although AT&T will in 25 of the top 30 markets within a few months. Verizon (CDMA 1.4Mb) can't even support 3.6Mb.

[NoExpectations]

All Wireless Carriers will HAVE TO charge per data usage soon. There is simply not enough bandwidth for everyone to have unlimited access. All the major Wireless Carriers are all looking at each other....waiting for someone to go first before they all follow. 18 months ago, the App Store did not even exist. The world has changed very fast.

Interesting statistic in today's Chicago Tribune: Bandwidth Usage

1 Tethered PC = 15 Smart Phones = 450 Standard Cell Phones

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi091217data-usage_gfx,0,7814988.graphic

[pkr]

As usual this is a case where the BIG PRINT (FREE, FASTEST, BIGGEST) is used - and very effectively - to seduce a customer into overlooking the itty-bitty, teeny-weeny print. But AT&T is now stuck with a wildly popular 3G phone ... AND .... the need to build a very expensive totally new (4G) network. They've now found that they don't have the resources to properly support both tasks. So, what are they doing? Dancing, that's what .... while talking out of both sides of their mouth. They will NOT acknowledge that they can't handle it so get used to the double-talk and rumors. Meanwhile of course, VZW is busily building their 4G network - without the need to build up their 3G network for an iPhone. And my guess is that when a 4G compatible iPhone shows up from Apple, it'll be branded VZW.

[huntercr]

I wouldn't mind the Microcell at all, but it needs to be cheaper, if not free.

No kidding. At work I am stuck with a Blackberry with Sprint ( though I'm not complaining too much... free > good for me in most cases )
Anyway... my house is in a deadzone for Sprint coverage. The sprint fempto/micro/whatever cell box is only $5/month and it doesn't eat minutes, and it doesn't charge against data use. They also gave me the device for free ( but I'm guessing that's because they were marketing it to the business )

Why on earth cell companies think they should charge people for using one's own bandwidth is delusional.

[jglavin]

[...]Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used[...]http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/at-t-mywireless-mobile/id309172177?mt=8

(http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/at-t-mywireless-mobile/id309172177?mt=8)
The sprint fempto/micro/whatever cell box is only $5/month and it doesn't eat minutes, and it doesn't charge against data use.While that is fairly cheap, I still prefer AT&T's model which gives the option of no additional monthly fees, and just the initial $150 (?) purchase price. Now if only they would release it in my area...

[ivladster]

All carriers suck so bad. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint...they all display a complete and utter disregard for their customers. Depressing and infuriating.

I wish there was a chance of a new player (or players) entering the market.

Hmmm who might be coming out with revolutionary way to fix that...Hmmm i wonder.

Google it!

[carmenodie]

I don't care how much you talk about Android, the pre etc, the iphone is the game changer. And it doesn't matter if the iphone went to Verizon. The traffic from iphone users would still wreak havoc on their network. Att doesn't want to spend the money like they should to allow larger than normal data traffic in their system. Darn it! Aren't they also a research company? Don't they do research?!
Why is this a problem? Rather than trying to gauge more money from the consumer they should invest invest invest in better tech to handle the data traffic. For the love of god man!
If they start asking for more money, I'm breaking my contract, heading back to Verizon and getting the LG env (whatever number). I love my iphone to death but if I'm going to get screwed then the hell with it. I'm already playing their little game by getting these little freaking gadgets to help make them billions. I will cancel my contract and go to Verizon. I swear!
To hell with all the fancy bells and whistles.

[NoExpectations]

As usual this is a case where the BIG PRINT (FREE, FASTEST, BIGGEST) is used - and very effectively - to seduce a customer into overlooking the itty-bitty, teeny-weeny print. But AT&T is now stuck with a wildly popular 3G phone ... AND .... the need to build a very expensive totally new (4G) network. They've now found that they don't have the resources to properly support both tasks. So, what are they doing? Dancing, that's what .... while talking out of both sides of their mouth. They will NOT acknowledge that they can't handle it so get used to the double-talk and rumors. Meanwhile of course, VZW is busily building their 4G network - without the need to build up their 3G network for an iPhone. And my guess is that when a 4G compatible iPhone shows up from Apple, it'll be branded VZW.

Everyone is building out their 4G networks now....don't be fooled by marketing campaigns. Sprint is saying that they were the first, but their 4G is quite different than what everyone else is planning to install. Plus, they have no 4G phones yet. So, what good was it to be first?

[louden]

Please! Tiered pricing is a must! Charge iphoners depending on how they tax the network.

It might not help at all, as an iphoner that is constantly downloading garbage might just sign up for the higher plans and pay whatever it takes to satisfy their appetite for updating their facebook status whathaveyou, but it might work. Worth a try.

... and where do you stand on net neutrality?

See - to me the problem is AT&T thinking of the problem in the wrong way. They're taking the old school approach - "We need to figure out a way to variably charge people who use more bandwidth because Person A is using 5 x more than Person B..."

While they should be thinking - "How can we increase our capacity in such away that we can offer "unlimited" access and not have it be an empty promise."

In five years our data consumption over mobile devices is going to exponentially increase. You'd think AT&T would want to plan and be a part of that AND keep it affordable. I'm sure there will be plenty of comfortable profits in that space. If they don't, I'm sure some other viable alternatives will show up. Computers will get better, faster, lighter, long-lasting on a battery charge. We should demand increases in performance from a data provider.

I guarantee in 10 years time we'll look back on this and say "I can't believe I paid $30 a month for that trickle of data bandwidth"

[NoExpectations]

In five years our data consumption over mobile devices is going to exponentially increase. You'd think AT&T would want to plan and be a part of that AND keep it affordable.

And therein lies the problem, how can a carrier support year over year exponential growth in data AND keep prices low? The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

[butterfly0fdoom]

Guys... Data used to be tiered. This is hardly anything new. It's just going retro!

[goobot]

And therein lies the problem, how can a carrier support year over year exponential growth in data AND keep prices low? The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

they need to make a lower plan 5$ for 1000mb 10$ 1gig $20 5 gigs and 30 unlimited as an example. i would like aleast the one im currently paying to be a least a big one since im use a lot of data.

[ShiftyPig]

Apple should just build its own network. Surely it could find a better way to do it than AT&T and Verizon combined.

[Andronicus]

I like what someone on engadget posted, "Offer to let customers leave without having to pay an ETF ...that will probably free up lots of data, quick."

[goobot]

Everyone is building out their 4G networks now....don't be fooled by marketing campaigns. Sprint is saying that they were the first, but their 4G is quite different than what everyone else is planning to install. Plus, they have no 4G phones yet. So, what good was it to be first?

they have 4g in like three cities that is spoty with no phones.

its just for sprint to show off

[inkswamp]

I seem to be in the minority, but I have no problem with a fair tiered data plan. We've been using tiered voice plans since the beginning and I don't see why data should be any different. Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used, take off any restrictions about what they use that data for (VOIP, text messages, streaming tv, whatever), and allow them to choose a plan that works for them.

You're being idealistic. That's never how this works. Yes, it seems reasonable that they would offer lower-cost options but that would potentially undermine their revenue that no company is going to do that.

What they're most likely thinking is leaving the pricing structure exactly as-is and rebranding what they offer now as a "standard" data plan with maybe some limits put in place, and then introducing a "premium" plan that gives you back all the privileges you enjoy now. In other words, the tiers will expand upward, not downward.

[louden]

And therein lies the problem, how can a carrier support year over year exponential growth in data AND keep prices low? The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

As with any complex production problem, there are fixed costs and variable costs. Any data provider needs to amortize those fixed costs over the useful life of those assets and build in a profit. Is this any harder or easier for a chip maker whose product is quickly obsoleted? Or say an LED screen manufacturer? It's the same problem. Fortunately, there's completion (well, I'm not sure about Intel with the fed suit and all) to make sure. And it works.

If these execs want the big bucks, without these screaming customers, they should learn to forecast better. Sure the US has it's cellular complexities, but if AT&T lost their exclusivity, I'm sure they'd have a much bigger incentive to come up with a solution.

[kingtj]

If AT&T wants to give people "incentive" to use their cellular bandwidth less, they need to make the alternatives completely painless to use. That means giving away Microcell units FREE to anyone interested, for starters. (Why not? The cost of one should be recouped easily by AT&T over the life of an iPhone's 2 year contract, if it keeps all the data used in someone's home off their network completely. And even *if* they don't see it that way? Who cares? It makes their customers feel like they're getting something extra with the service, and that has a lot of value in the way of customer retention!)

I give them some credit for offering the wi-fi hotspots they've put together. It really is nice to be able to go to a place like McDonalds, fire up the iPhone, and have it auto-establish a wi-fi connection without some manual login required first. That's the type of thing they need to work on getting out there even more, as well. As far as I'm concerned, I'd MUCH rather use data on my cellphone over a wi-fi broadband connection than over 3G. Saves battery life, better speed and reliability (assuming the hotspot is set up properly), and I'm not hogging up limited bandwidth on the tower that another subscriber might really need, due to their location.


I wouldn't mind the Microcell at all, but it needs to be cheaper, if not free.

[pavelbure]

I rarely come across any of their hot spots, and I'm in a pretty high-populated area. I'd rather they spend their time improving the network in order to support that kind of demand, but that's just me.

agreed.

Alot of people say "well wifi is in alot of places so that will help"

This is a big load of crap. Not everyone lives in a big city. Even when i do go into the city and find wifi it is either:

a: locked down

or

b: so freakin slow it is easier to just use 3g.

[Wild-Bill]

AT&T has consistently spent less on network infrastructure improvements since iPhone's lanuch, despite their claims to the contrary. And their profits have steadily risen since iPhone's launch. AT&T chooses corporate greed over network improvements.

Gizmodo has the story along with the numbers from AT&T's own financial reports. Link (http://gizmodo.com/5428717/att-has-spent-less-on-network-construction-every-quarter-since-the-iphones-launch)

Once another network gets the iPhone and can do simultaneous voice and data, I am kicking AT&T to the curb. I can't remember the last time I carried on a phone conversation that didn't end in a dropped call.

AT&T SUCKS. And I can't wait to jump ship.

[kingtj]

Actually, from what I read about the origins of the iPhone, Apple DID want to essentially build their own cellular network. The problem is, they would have run afoul of government regulations, because they don't currently allow a phone manufacturer to ALSO be a phone carrier. (You don't see "Nokia cellular" or "Motorola cellular" service, right?)

I believe their next thought was to possibly negotiate to become a "middle man", reselling cellular service to iPhone users. (That way, you'd pay Apple for your cellphone usage each month, but they, in turn, would pay the existing carriers.) This could have had an interesting outcome if they negotiated terms to use several of the major networks. (Your iPhone could determine which carrier had the best prices in a given situation, and place or take each call using the best one, instead of being tied to a specific company. Or alternately, you could force it NOT to use certain ones if you consistently had spotty service with them.)

But I think ultimately, this proved to be too much of an obstacle to overcome for Apple. (The iPhone would probably STILL not be out yet if they had to solve all of that first.) So it may turn out to be an idea they revisit later on, now that they proved their hardware has earned respect.


Apple should just build its own network. Surely it could find a better way to do it than AT&T and Verizon combined.

[hwhalers]

The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

Carriers won't make enough just by gouging people who use their service for what it was designed and advertised for. If the carriers start building more towers, you'll end up paying more too. Are you going to complain when your service fees go up? I won't, assuming I get an option for an actual unlimited plan that's not unreasonably expensive.

The simple fact is that the customer data infrastructure in the US sucks completely, no matter who the operator is, and all of them are going to have to invest tens upon tens of billions in the next few years to make it suck only slightly less. We are massively behind nearly everyone else. And if it doesn't improve, our networks will be so hilariously pathetic that we can't possibly compete with the rest of the world. The solution is to actually build more capacity. If paying more means they actually do it, then it's positive overall. Capping and doing nothing is the worst possible outcome, even for luddites.

[palmfox]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/atandt-downplays-talk-of-tiered-pricing-for-iphone-data-plans/)

AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega, who received significant attention (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) for his comments last week suggesting that the company is looking at tiered pricing for data plans to rein in high-use customers, appears to now be downplaying that suggestion, according to a Wall Street Journal report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574600381410694794.html) (subscription required).While de la Vega's statement certainly doesn't appear to take tiered pricing options off the table for the long-term, as the earlier report suggested such a move would be anyway, it does emphasize AT&T's current strategy of using "incentives" and other strategies for shifting traffic off of its network instead of changing the pricing structure of its wireless plans.

In particular, de la Vega reportedly cited the possibility of increasing free access to Wi-Fi hotspots for AT&T customers, helping to shift traffic off of the cellular network while also providing users with faster connections. He also pointed to AT&T's 3G MicroCell (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/21/atandt-3g-microcell-site-goes-live-monthly-fees-to-be-up-to-19-99/) program, which customers can connect to their home networks to seamlessly shift wireless calls to the Internet. The 3G MicroCell is designed to provide greater signal strength indoors and offers users the choice of using their own cellular minutes for calls or purchasing an unlimited calling plan for wireless calls routed through the device.

Article Link: AT&T Downplays Talk of Tiered Pricing for iPhone Data Plans (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/atandt-downplays-talk-of-tiered-pricing-for-iphone-data-plans/)

I'd like to remind everyone of a previous lie told by AT&T back in March / April regarding the streaming video.. This was after a change in the terms of service came out which outlawed streaming using Slingbox and other place- shifting devices. After the uproar on the internet, AT&T came out and said the following:

"AT&T retracts new terms of service, apologizes
By Nilay Patel posted Apr 3rd 2009 7:08PM
Breaking News
Looks like the uproar over AT&T's recently-tweaked wireless terms of service banning video streaming and p2p activity caused some hasty rethinking in Dallas -- the company just sent us this statement:

The language added on March 30 to AT&T's wireless data service Terms and Conditions was done in error. It was brought to our attention and we have since removed it. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused."

What happened.. Slingbox for Iphone was released.. and we found out that the change in the TOS was NOT done in error.. it went right back to banning place-shifting.

"Fool me once AT&T.. shame on you.. Fool me twice AT&T shame on me." Excuse me if I don't believe you AT&T. You can expect me to break my contract without paying an Early Termination Fee....:(

[jdechko]

If AT&T want's to "incentivize" its smartphone users to use less, then I propose a few things.

1) Create a 250MB plan for $10-15/mo. for light users. Right now, I rarely ever use more than this anyway, and I'm sure a lot of folks are the same as I am with this. When skype 3G goes live, I'll probably start using it even more, though.

2) Leave the 5GB plan for $30/mo. for heavy users. Or charge $40-45 for 5GB of "dumb pipe data" and allow tethering + smartphone data with a cap of 5GB total.

3) Add a combined 10GB tethering + smartphone package for $60/mo.

4) Unlimited data for $90/mo.

Finally, FTFN!

Unfortunately, I don't see them adding a lower tier option because, as de la Vega said earlier, there's only ~3-5% of the people that actually have a problem with the cap. I'd say that easily ~85% of the people use less than 1GB of data per month, and probably over half use less than 250MB. Which means that a lot of people would just subscribe to the lowest tiered plan, leaving AT&T with less money than it originally had.

[Fastshutter]

I'm all for tiered pricing. I have 3 iphones on my plan, and one of the users doesn't use data much, if at all. In fact, last month she used the most amount of data in a year's worth of use, and it was only 8mb. The iPhone requires a data plan, but she isn't interseted in it.

My average monthly data usage looks like this:

Phone 1: 250MB (Me)
Phone 2: 50MB
Phone 3: 200KB (I'm not kidding).

I would love it if AT&T went to tiered pricing, but they would most likely increase my rate and keep the other two phones the same price, essentially charging me more in order to provide less.

This is a little off topic, but I usually prefer to use 3G instead of wifi when I'm out and about. I can't stand having to register or accept terms of use to access someone elses public wifi. If At&T offered a lower tier, I'd be more willing to go through the hassle in order to save a buck or twenty.

[notoriousceo]

How about just fixing the damn network instead of the constant whining. AT&T is reaping the benefits of adding lucrative smartphone contracts, but is spending less on upgrading and maintaining their crappy network. They could start by adding more cell sites to distribute network load particularly in NYC, San Francisco and Chicago. Why advertise unlimited plans and not expect people to use it, why advertise network superiority then encourage people not to connect to it. They better get their asses in gear cause the cellular landscape is changing. The future of cellular belongs to connected devices like the iPhone, Androids, Pres, Tablets, Netbooks, Pixis and eBooks so AT&T needs to shape up or shrivel into insignificance.

If they spent a lot of their money fixing the network, where will the funds for their executive compensation come from?

[Fastshutter]

If AT&T want's to "incentivize" its smartphone users to use less, then I propose a few things.

1) Create a 250MB plan for $10-15/mo. for light users. Right now, I rarely ever use more than this anyway, and I'm sure a lot of folks are the same as I am with this. When skype 3G goes live, I'll probably start using it even more, though.



Has AT&T ever said what they consider a heavy user? I only ask becuase I use 250MB on my iPhone, and I thought that was a lot for a smart phone. Based on your post, 250MB is light use. What has AT&T said?

[fox10078]

You people sensationalize things more than Fox news.

[davidee]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=790416



careful though it will bring out the Corporate Shills

-ee

[libertyforall]

The Microcell has VERY limited availability it seems and is not available in my area at all. My Dad really needs it with the terrible AT&T signal he gets at his place, but he cannot get it in his area either! I don't think the Microcell can also handle EDGE or GPRS, which is unfortunate!

[aokiqiao]

I propose you check the service map and terms of agreement before signing a two year contract.
LOLOL You believe those maps? hahaha

[CaryMacGuy]

This is just another way that AT&T is not being a responsible corporate citizen. They need to take ownership of the issue. People say that it isn't AT&T's fault. However, when you look at the 3G Map, there is no excuse for it. Verizon managed to get 3G in some really unlikely places and I don't understand why AT&T is having trouble with that.

When it comes to network reliability, all I can say is I live in San Antonio city limits in a quite populated area in Northwest. I tend to see a lot of Edge. That, to me, is unacceptable (especially since I have purchased an iPhone 3G).

[Shonuff]

I seem to be in the minority, but I have no problem with a fair tiered data plan. We've been using tiered voice plans since the beginning and I don't see why data should be any different. Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used, take off any restrictions about what they use that data for (VOIP, text messages, streaming tv, whatever), and allow them to choose a plan that works for them.

The problem is that they will structure it in a way that will cost the average user more money than it does today, not only the high data users. For example, they won't leave the top end at $30 and work down from there, they will structure it so that it is nearly impossible to stay under a certain level and then charge more for the "unlimited" package. Make no mistake, this isn't a way for them to restrict people because of network congestion (although it is a good excuse), it is just an excuse to get more money out of iPhone users to add revenue to their bottom line. It isn't like we will get faster 3G rollout with the extra money or faster speeds.

[fox10078]

This is just another way that AT&T is not being a responsible corporate citizen. They need to take ownership of the issue. People say that it isn't AT&T's fault. However, when you look at the 3G Map, there is no excuse for it. Verizon managed to get 3G in some really unlikely places and I don't understand why AT&T is having trouble with that.

When it comes to network reliability, all I can say is I live in San Antonio city limits in a quite populated area in Northwest. I tend to see a lot of Edge. That, to me, is unacceptable (especially since I have purchased an iPhone 3G).

Verizon's network was built in 2001. Since then they have had a lot of time to put 3G everywhere since it doesn't require a major overhaul for the tech they are using, which is currently why they are capped out. ATT's network is fairly new which is why they are going to be able to expand up to 7.2 and onwards, but also why we see the less coverage.

[Cougarcat]

If AT&T want's to "incentivize" its smartphone users to use less, then I propose a few things.

1) Create a 250MB plan for $10-15/mo. for light users. Right now, I rarely ever use more than this anyway, and I'm sure a lot of folks are the same as I am with this. When skype 3G goes live, I'll probably start using it even more, though.



If they did this I would be so over the iPhone. I have wireless at my house and at school, so I can't justify spending $30 a month on a data plan. Unfortunately I think a lot of people would jump at this as well. The surge in iPhone users would offset the data cap, so I don't think this would improve the network much.

[nsayer]

He also pointed to AT&T's 3G MicroCell (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/21/atandt-3g-microcell-site-goes-live-monthly-fees-to-be-up-to-19-99/) program,

which currently remains unavailable to the vast majority of AT&T wireless' customer base.

[NeuralControl]

If AT&T was to initiate a tiered pricing system, I wonder how Apple would respond and if it would make them less inclined to renew the exclusivity contract.

[SleepyHead157]

I don't care how much you talk about Android, the pre etc, the iphone is the game changer. And it doesn't matter if the iphone went to Verizon. The traffic from iphone users would still wreak havoc on their network. Att doesn't want to spend the money like they should to allow larger than normal data traffic in their system. Darn it! Aren't they also a research company? Don't they do research?!
Why is this a problem? Rather than trying to gauge more money from the consumer they should invest invest invest in better tech to handle the data traffic. For the love of god man!
If they start asking for more money, I'm breaking my contract, heading back to Verizon and getting the LG env (whatever number). I love my iphone to death but if I'm going to get screwed then the hell with it. I'm already playing their little game by getting these little freaking gadgets to help make them billions. I will cancel my contract and go to Verizon. I swear!
To hell with all the fancy bells and whistles.

I recently did this. I've been with AT&T for years but after I got the iPhone, service wasn't as good but i loved the iPhone and stuck with it until the past 2 months. There were tons of degraded towers or down, yet AT&T reps keep saying I have service. I do have service for about 2-3 minutes. When I'm on the phone for anything longer than that, it drops the call. So after two months, I finally made the move 2 days ago, went with Sprint and the HTC Hero. Sprint has cheaper family plans through the referral program and while the Hero is no iPhone, i can get passed that to leave AT&T.

[Doctor Q]

Raise your hand if you want AT&T to define the standard tier to include the amount of data YOU transfer, and have the high-end tier start a little higher than that. After all, you NEED that much bandwidth and shouldn't have to pay extra for it. It's THOSE OTHER PEOPLE who use more than you and are bogarting the capacity.

:raises hand:

[Rodimus Prime]

This is just another way that AT&T is not being a responsible corporate citizen. They need to take ownership of the issue. People say that it isn't AT&T's fault. However, when you look at the 3G Map, there is no excuse for it. Verizon managed to get 3G in some really unlikely places and I don't understand why AT&T is having trouble with that.

When it comes to network reliability, all I can say is I live in San Antonio city limits in a quite populated area in Northwest. I tend to see a lot of Edge. That, to me, is unacceptable (especially since I have purchased an iPhone 3G).


You need to learn the difference between VZW tech and AT&T. VZW CDMA tech when it was built was able to switch over to 3G with mostly a software update. ATT 3G tech required completely different hardware and it is not something the hardware for Edge can even do since it is a very different beast in it self. This is way Sprint and VZW were able to roll out 3G quicker and faster compared to the T-Mobile and ATT.

Sprint and VZW already had the hardware in place for it. ATT and T-Mobile had to go in and add a lot of new hardware for it.

Long run CMDA carriers made a much better choice in hardware to go with because it lasted a hell of a lot longer than what GSM used. Now with 4G everyone is having to replace their hardware. So yet again VZW and Sprint made the better choice as it CDMA tech had a much much longer lifespan.

[PeterQVenkman]

To quote small pieces of the fake steve jobs' interview with Randall Stephenson of AT&T:


By April, twelve weeks after that album came out, the Beatles had the top five spots on the Billboard chart. Now there was a lot of demand for that record — so much that the plant that printed the records could not keep up. Now here’s the lesson. Do you think the guys who were running Capitol Records said, Gee whiz, the kids are buying up this record at such a crazy pace that our printing plant can’t keep up — we’d better find a way to slow things down. Maybe we can create an incentive that would discourage people from buying the record. Do you think they said that? No, they did not. What they did was, they went out and found another printing plant. And another one and another one, until they could make as many records as people wanted.

So let’s talk traffic. We’ve got people who love this godd@mn phone so much that they’re living on it. Yes, that’s crushing your network. Yes, 3% of your users are taking up 40% of your bandwidth. You see this as a bad thing. It’s not. It’s a good thing. It’s a blessing. It’s an indication that people love what we’re doing, which means you now have a reason to go out and double or triple or quadruple your d@mn network capacity. Jesus! I can’t believe I’m explaining this to you. You’re in the business of selling bandwidth. That pipe is what you sell. Right now what the market is telling you is that you can sell even more! Lots more! Good Lord. The world is changing, and you’re right in the sweet spot.

I mean if you did understand how to do things, your guys wouldn’t be standing up at Wall Street conferences and complaining about how much traffic you’re getting. Instead, you would be running around like a ******** maniac trying to build out your ******** network and make it the best network in the world — and the only reason you would ever need to talk to me would be to thank me for creating a phone that’s so amazing that it draws people to your $h!+ network in the first place.

And now here we are. Right here in your own backyard, an American company creates a brilliant phone, and that company hands it to you, and gives you an exclusive deal to carry it — and all you guys can do is complain about how much people want to use it. You, Randall Stephenson, and your lazy stupid company — you are the problem. You are what’s wrong with this country.



Read the whole thing. So Awesome

http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/12/a-not-so-brief-chat-with-randall-stephenson-of-att.html

[Rodimus Prime]

FSJ knows nothing about it other than he whins and does not understand it.

Traffic growth bandwith wise for the phone is a lot like highway traffic. It is a lot harder to expanded the roads than it is to add printing presses. You have all the red tape that goes with it.

This incentive part on ATT part only does one thing and it is to buy them time to expand the network to handle the demand. All the wireless carriers are struggling to keep up as they expand and really are only buy time to get there.

The mobile web take off it a lot like the internet take off many years ago. It overloaded the landlines networks as they were never designed to have so many people on the phone at the same time. It took a long time for them to get models working that can be used to predict the growth and then how to expanded to match. Hell it took an entire new system for them to really be able to keep pace and even not everyone is struggling to keep up with computer brand band. Wireless is the same way. There is just not enough data to make accurate long term models on were they will need to add more bandwith and right now all the telecoms are just trying to keep up much less try to get a head.

[-hh]

I seem to be in the minority, but I have no problem with a fair tiered data plan. We've been using tiered voice plans since the beginning and I don't see why data should be any different. Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used, take off any restrictions about what they use that data for (VOIP, text messages, streaming tv, whatever), and allow them to choose a plan that works for them.


I agree with you in principle .. but my perspective is slightly different: the providers have essentially NEVER offered the "fair" tiered plan that I want, because what I essentially want is a minimized monthly rate for very low utilization rates, and the providers conciously choose to not offer for sale any such "lower" tier product.

As such, on average over 90% of my "allotment" goes unused every month...they're making a nice profit off of me.

Of course, the irony is that in some ways, this appears to parallel Apple's choice to not compete in the bottom of the PC hardware market. But the reality is that it is different, because I'm buying a renewing service, not a hardware widget.

And to answer the obvious question: I have a work phone too. That's why I don't need gobs of minutes on my personal phone: it barely gets used, just on weekends.


-hh

[Michael CM1]

Everyone is building out their 4G networks now....don't be fooled by marketing campaigns. Sprint is saying that they were the first, but their 4G is quite different than what everyone else is planning to install. Plus, they have no 4G phones yet. So, what good was it to be first?

They're first so THEY'RE FIRST! Sprint/Clear has been bragging about this around Atlanta. You can pop down about $60+ a month to get wireless Internet EVERYWHERE -- well, everywhere that you can get a signal. You're then bumped down to the 3G network. Honestly, I don't get the appeal of that much money for what may or may not be fast speeds. People with 3G dongles or cards have been able to get 3G speeds, which are on par with most landlocked broadband, for a few years. Most people who need mobile Internet need it for business, not watching Scooby Doo.

As far as tiered pricing, it needs to come for both landlocked broadband and mobile. It's already tiered by speed. If you're a major bandwidth sucker, you should be charged more as long as it's told to you upfront. This has been done based on voice usage, so why has it taken so long on data? Methinks the iPhone surprised AT&T and the geniuses in suits have been slow to adapt a smart policy that would share the financial burden. A tiered program will only work if it starts cheaper for very low usage, but then there should be a barn-burner plan for people who must watch Scooby Doo on an iPhone.

[PeterQVenkman]

FSJ knows nothing about it other than he whins and does not understand it.

Traffic growth bandwith wise for the phone is a lot like highway traffic. It is a lot harder to expanded the roads than it is to add printing presses. You have all the red tape that goes with it.

I don't think anyone cares how hard it is or how much red tape there is. They just want their product to work as well as the smarmy commercials say they do.


This incentive part on ATT part only does one thing and it is to buy them time to expand the network to handle the demand. All the wireless carriers are struggling to keep up as they expand and really are only buy time to get there.

The mobile web take off it a lot like the internet take off many years ago. It overloaded the landlines networks as they were never designed to have so many people on the phone at the same time. It took a long time for them to get models working that can be used to predict the growth and then how to expanded to match. Hell it took an entire new system for them to really be able to keep pace and even not everyone is struggling to keep up with computer brand band. Wireless is the same way. There is just not enough data to make accurate long term models on were they will need to add more bandwith and right now all the telecoms are just trying to keep up much less try to get a head.

I think you are absolutely right. In time, hopefully this won't be an issue as the tech/networks evolve and grow. Apple's iPhone is just really bringing this to the forefront.

[MacFly123]

Ya you BETTER NOT touch my plan Ralph! :rolleyes:

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't think anyone cares how hard it is or how much red tape there is. They just want their product to work as well as the smarmy commercials say they do.

I think you are absolutely right. In time, hopefully this won't be an issue as the tech/networks evolve and grow. Apple's iPhone is just really bringing this to the forefront.

While true people do not care, that is part of hte issue. The masses are to stupid to bother trying to understand the problem and compare it to something that makes sense to them.
FSJ is a great example. He to clueless to compare it to something else correct. He compared it to manufacturing which is not a way to compare it. Comparing it to highway traffic is by far a better way to do it. Since you can never build up a supply of that to sell later. It is either you have it or you dont.
Also comparing it to highway shows how hard it is to increase how much there is. Everyone knows highway and road construction takes a long time to add and complete. Most it it years in the making to figure out what is needed 10-20 years down the road. Bridges are designed to last a 100 years for a reason.

If people understood why there are problems they would be a lot more understanding but they do not want to take the time to understand the underlining problems. No one could of predicted how fast the bandwidth demand increase would of been and how fast it has been. The existing models they had to work with was mostly based on increase demand in voice services which are very predictable. Data on the other hand is growing at an insane pace and no one has a good idea on what the future holds. It is all guess work right now and I expect for a while to come.

[fox10078]

While true people do not care, that is part of hte issue. The masses are to stupid to bother trying to understand the problem and compare it to something that makes sense to them.
FSJ is a great example. He to clueless to compare it to something else correct. He compared it to manufacturing which is not a way to compare it. Comparing it to highway traffic is by far a better way to do it. Since you can never build up a supply of that to sell later. It is either you have it or you dont.
Also comparing it to highway shows how hard it is to increase how much there is. Everyone knows highway and road construction takes a long time to add and complete. Most it it years in the making to figure out what is needed 10-20 years down the road. Bridges are designed to last a 100 years for a reason.

If people understood why there are problems they would be a lot more understanding but they do not want to take the time to understand the underlining problems. No one could of predicted how fast the bandwidth demand increase would of been and how fast it has been. The existing models they had to work with was mostly based on increase demand in voice services which are very predictable. Data on the other hand is growing at an insane pace and no one has a good idea on what the future holds. It is all guess work right now and I expect for a while to come.

you are exactly right, the only reason people understand freeway traffic is cause they get a good visual sitting in the middle of it.

[Rodimus Prime]

you are exactly right, the only reason people understand freeway traffic is cause they get a good visual sitting in the middle of it.

Yep. Most people need something they can related to on it. They can understand highway construction as most people have had to deal with it and know it takes a long time to finish.

[w00master]

While true people do not care, that is part of hte issue. The masses are to stupid to bother trying to understand the problem and compare it to something that makes sense to them.
FSJ is a great example. He to clueless to compare it to something else correct. He compared it to manufacturing which is not a way to compare it. Comparing it to highway traffic is by far a better way to do it. Since you can never build up a supply of that to sell later. It is either you have it or you dont.
Also comparing it to highway shows how hard it is to increase how much there is. Everyone knows highway and road construction takes a long time to add and complete. Most it it years in the making to figure out what is needed 10-20 years down the road. Bridges are designed to last a 100 years for a reason.

If people understood why there are problems they would be a lot more understanding but they do not want to take the time to understand the underlining problems. No one could of predicted how fast the bandwidth demand increase would of been and how fast it has been. The existing models they had to work with was mostly based on increase demand in voice services which are very predictable. Data on the other hand is growing at an insane pace and no one has a good idea on what the future holds. It is all guess work right now and I expect for a while to come.

So... quick question, if you read AT&T's financial reports, it seems to indicate that AT&T's spending on improving the network, adding more cell towers, etc. has ACTUALLY DECREASED ever since the iPhone launch. Yet, their revenues (wireless) have increased. Why is that hmmm?


w00master

[morphineseason]

I just want a plan for unlimited EDGE data. Surely it would cost less than the "one size fits all" plan they have now. I never use 3G because it isn't available anywhere near me.

[Rodimus Prime]

So... quick question, if you read AT&T's financial reports, it seems to indicate that AT&T's spending on improving the network, adding more cell towers, etc. has ACTUALLY DECREASED ever since the iPhone launch. Yet, their revenues (wireless) have increased. Why is that hmmm?


w00master

Does that matter. What other stuff have they been investing the money in. It could be on backbone of the network or on R&D. They know 3G is a only a stop gap and will be over run. They have still spent billions on it. Do not forget the red tap.

Other thing you have to think about is just putting up towers to put up towers is a waste of money. I willing to bet in some markets they have reach the saturation point of towers and can not add any more. Most of the Major cities are either at that point or are getting close to that point.

[w00master]

Does that matter. What other stuff have they been investing the money in. It could be on backbone of the network or on R&D. They know 3G is a only a stop gap and will be over run. They have still spent billions on it. Do not forget the red tap.

Other thing you have to think about is just putting up towers to put up towers is a waste of money. I willing to bet in some markets they have reach the saturation point of towers and can not add any more. Most of the Major cities are either at that point or are getting close to that point.

It does matter, because they've been telling consumers that they've been "improving the network." Yet, there's little to show for this.

Why did they REDUCE spending on this then? Their REVENUES ARE UP? Don't they want to hear less complaints? Perhaps they don't.

w00master

[Rodimus Prime]

It does matter, because they've been telling consumers that they've been "improving the network." Yet, there's little to show for this.

Why did they REDUCE spending on this then? Their REVENUES ARE UP? Don't they want to hear less complaints? Perhaps they don't.

w00master

Revenues are up. what about profits.
There are other things they could be dumping the money in other than just building towers. There is a lot more to the cell system than that. Pulling money out of towers to improve the backbone is still improving the system. Just not put on the tower side or things. That or they needed more server to handle increase SMS/MMS, data demands and so on. None of which would be bill under tower construction.

[w00master]

Revenues are up. what about profits.
There are other things they could be dumping the money in other than just building towers. There is a lot more to the cell system than that.

Ever since the iPhone, 80% increases overall for AT&T.

Yet, they cannot help out with cell traffic? Quit being an apologist and step away from the kool-aid... Seriously dude.

The iPhone is AT&T's number 1 wireless product. Yet, their coverage in many key areas: NY, SF have NOT IMPROVED since the launch. Don't you think they would want to at least TRY AND HELP out here? Give me a freaking break.

w00master

[SurfSpirit]

http://www.dearstevejobs.com/

[fox10078]

You can't just throw towers down too, you have to think if they will interfere with each other.

[muskratboy]

offers users the choice of using their own cellular minutes for calls or purchasing an unlimited calling plan for wireless calls routed through the device.

wow, how nice... i can use my minutes for the call going through MY OWN INTERNET...

or i can choose to pay ATT for unlimited use OF MY OWN INTERNET.

how the hell is this justified? they charge me for using someone else's bandwidth? how does that make sense?

or they charge me for minutes that i'm not using. awesome. :rolleyes:

[tys]

The growing coverage provided by Wi-Fi hotspots will take care of some of the demand for bandwidth, but growth in demand seems likely to outpace it for some time to come.

I've noticed a marked decrease in wifi hotspots over the last few years, particularly free ones. 5 years ago I could find free wifi all over the place, but now it's pretty rare. Is it just a Colorado and New Mexico thing or have others noticed this as well?

[spillproof]

In my opinion, I think $30 per month for data in addition to $60 per month for the line (and then $30 for unlimited texts) is excessive for how I normally use my iPhone. Because of that, I feel zero remorse for tethering my connection to my laptop (although I know I should). So, a tiered system may be good if the pricing was more reasonable as I would not be such a high bandwidth user any longer.

[Doctor Q]

I've noticed a marked decrease in wifi hotspots over the last few years, particularly free ones. 5 years ago I could find free wifi all over the place, but now it's pretty rare. Is it just a Colorado and New Mexico thing or have others noticed this as well?
Here in Los Angeles it seems that more and more retailers are using wifi as an incentive for people to stop in, accepting the risk that you'll hang out there without buying anything. But that's just my impression. I have seen no statistics about whether free wifi coverage is growing, stable, or even shrinking.

[mac1984user]

I don't know... A solution to this problem of AT&T not having the service capacity seems like it could be solved by, oh... bringing the iPhone to other service providers (thereby spreading the 'burden' of the iPhone). And I'm not some butt-hurt T-Mobile user. I don't even live in the States...I have O2 for goodness sakes (which, incidentally, has rights to the iPhone - oh, wait, Tesco now does too). =P

[xizar]

Aren't they [AT&T] also a research company? Don't they do research?!

No.
Bell Labs was spun off from AT&T in the previous millennium.

As I recall, they (Lucent) didn't do so well.

[TheMadCow]

I propose you check the service map and terms of agreement before signing a two year contract.

Is it only me or this chucklehead a shill for AT&T. His posts are all rah rah rah for them and not the consumer.

What gives, Chucky?

[skate71290]

if this happens in the UK i'm going to slap Steve Jobs, paying for cellular data, whaaaaat :mad: then again we have 4 companies offering the iPhone... only 1 in the US, Apple need to buck their ideas up, they are making a mess of a good product :mad:

[albusseverus]

How about $10/month and apologies for all the dropped calls and data connections? When the service improves, then we'll talk about price.

I don't doubt iPhone tests the network. iPhone actually uses the network. I can't imagine why everyone's looking forward to tethering, when the network can't even pull down a few maps or surf a few web pages for a phone. Do you imagine tethering will work any better with the demands of a full computer trying to squeeze through the phone?

[Maserati7200]

This is basically AT&T indirectly saying their network sucks and that they'd rather you not use the data you paid for. I never rate articles negative or positive on here, but I'm changing that today, rated this negative, and proud. AT&T should be embarrassed.

[MacBOS]

how can people complain about other users usage of the net? have they forgotten how much we pay for our iPhones, its INSANE!!!!, you can literally go out there and compare prices with other companies and we are the top 3 suckers that pay allot just to use the phone, and you complain that others are hoging the network wen years before we talked about watching TV on your phone, but now that the technology is there o its the other users fault that i don't get service and my calls drop :s

they knew that the time was coming were networks are going to be used in ani way shape or form, they were just not prepared (or didn't want to spend the cash and got greedy with the iphone profit) and now they want to say, "well lets just make a plan for the low consumers and the hi consumers will charge more" WELL NO !!! they shod just give us beter service to begin with, its not my fault that there network was beat to death instead of evolving after all the cash they charge a month. And the fact that i haf to be considerate with mi fellow iPhone users so that they can get good service to, this feels like i am in the cheapest company that only wants money and not give what they are suposed to.

if the iphone were cheaper than yes it be great but lets be serious this is not cheap. Multiply the number of growing iPhone users in the net by what they get charged a month and go tell ATT to fix there issues with that and stop fu*@ me around.

[alent1234]

IF AND WHEN they do that, I'm G O N E !

I'm not even getting 3.6 for speed! The phone is capable to 7.2!

that has been covered on numerous technical blogs that the 7.2 is an ideal max bandwidth that will never be seen in the real world. it's only achievable in a lab setting

[Doctor Q]

This is basically AT&T indirectly saying their network sucks and that they'd rather you not use the data you paid for.
Here's an analogy that I hope makes sense: Consider a buffet restaurant. They advertise "all you can eat" and base their food supply and equipment purchases (dishes, refrigerators, etc.) on an expected number of customers and an expected average meal size. If they run low on food as customers show up, their meal size prediction might have been low and/or their business might be doing better than expected. Either way, they need to adapt, e.g., buy more refrigerators. If they don't, they're hurting both their customers and their business.

If some customers are eating way more than others, they could try to stop them on the spot, and probably get a lot of bad publicity. They could raise prices to cover the true average. Or they could consider switching to tiered pricing. If they choose tier levels based on the weight of food in a meal, they are bound to get complaints, but it's not unfair. If they noticed that most men ate more than most women, they might think it was fair to charge men and women different prices, but they'd get in legal trouble. A more acceptable approach to tiers might be to raise the basic price for most people while giving discounts to kids and seniors (who are unlikely to be overeaters). That's fair too.

The equivalent to your statement would be that the restaurant says that their food supply sucks and that they'd rather you not eat the (potentially infinite) amount of food you paid for. The first statement could very well be true, and I'd expect them to work on improving it. The second statement is no doubt true but shouldn't be surprising. Covering their costs, with or without tiers, and having a fair system is better than throwing overeaters out of the restaurant without warning!

Back to AT&T. If they introduce some way to charge high-bandwidth users more than low-bandwidth users it might complicate our lives but it won't surprise me any more than Apple finally accepting tiered pricing in the iTunes Store, and I won't consider it bad business practice.

[conradwt]

Please release the iPhone for Verizon!

AT&T is trying its best to screw us all over again!

This is one of the better articles which points out some of the reasons why iPhone isn't available for Verizon:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/08/01/iphone-wars-att-verizon-and-the-evil-of-two-lessors

[alent1234]

It does matter, because they've been telling consumers that they've been "improving the network." Yet, there's little to show for this.

Why did they REDUCE spending on this then? Their REVENUES ARE UP? Don't they want to hear less complaints? Perhaps they don't.

w00master


they are sending more cash to cupertino to pay all the iphone subsidies

[MacBOS]

they are sending more cash to cupertino to pay all the iphone subsidies

Yea thats a lame excuse that ATT can use. Make not of this one att

O an by the way ATT... se if you can make a little vid explaining this one to.

[OneMike]

Would need realistic plans if they were to do that.

Not $10 100 mb or something crazy like some of the data plans out.

My biggest month was just about 3GB. That was streaming radio on my commute to and from work for about the whole month. Being charged $30 for data to me it wouldn't make sense to not use it as much as possible. Same in house. Unless I'm doing something that requires m wifi I use 3G.

One month I had like 250MB of usage still charged $30.

I don't pay much more for my home internet and 3GB can get transferred daily many days through the month.

Next problem is it's kind of hard to really say how much data you'd use unless you have something like unrestrictor installed cause apps like youtube look horrible over 3G and many other apps are crippled.

[conradwt]

All carriers suck so bad. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint...they all display a complete and utter disregard for their customers. Depressing and infuriating.

I wish there was a chance of a new player (or players) entering the market.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Google and/or Japanese firm become a carrier. Then you'll see a very different level of customer service and pricing from the ATT, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, and others for their customers. In short, we need a jump start the technology here in the US because it's simply overpriced and lacking in technology advancements.

For example, during my trip to Japan last year (i.e. 2008), the broadband for home use in Japan was the fastest at 1 Giga bit per second (Gbps) and the cheapest at $38.00 per/mouth. The fastest that I could find here in the US was at 50 Mbps with an average price over $115.00 per/mouth.

Like the iPhone open a lot of peoples eyes to what a phone should be capable of doing, I think there needs to be an equivalent subscriber to
open the eyes of people to what a carrier should be because we are charging more for way less here in the US. In short, competition will
be good for the carrier sector.

[tys]

Interesting statistic in today's Chicago Tribune: Bandwidth Usage

1 Tethered PC = 15 Smart Phones = 450 Standard Cell Phones


Is this true?
I tether my computer to my iPhone often for the convenience of the bigger screen and keyboard.
Admitting my ignorance here, but......Does visiting a web page on a tethered computer use more bandwidth than visiting the same page straight from the iPhone?

tys

[iphones4evry1]

Didn't they make a statement last week that 3% of iPhone users consume 40% of the network bandwidth? Why don't they figure out who those 3% are, send them a letter in the mail saying "you are one of the 3% of people that use 40% of the bandwidth. If you do not reduce your usage below XYZ, we will be forced to cancel your contract and disconnect your phone from the network." ?

Problem solved.

[lilo777]

Is this true?
I tether my computer to my iPhone often for the convenience of the bigger screen and keyboard.
Admitting my ignorance here, but......Does visiting a web page on a tethered computer use more bandwidth than visiting the same page straight from the iPhone?

tys

It does not, but viewing the same web site through a keyhole of the iPhone (or other similarly sized screen) takes a lot longer than using normal computer screen. So people scroll longer, switch pages less frequently then get tired and go to bed :-) As a result, they do not consume as much bandwidth. Also - no Flash on iPhone

[procksa49er]

Seems like the Micro Cell Hardware and the tiered pricing are all excuses not to improve the Cell tower infrastructure which would then improve network coverage and reliability with all the phones using apps and browsing over the 3g signals.....At&t you better hope Verizon never gets the iPhone... Cuz alot of people will jump ship and be willing to pay the early contract cancellation fees i know i will

[phinsup]

I bought my first iphone outright, didnt put a data plan on it and used wifi, i was fine with that. ATT sent me a text saying they would start charging a data plan..... so I started using it, now their upset because I use it (although no where near even 1 gig per month.)

[heisetax]

Sounds like higher prices for fewer services.

[aucl]

With the 10MB download cap I barely use 5GB per YEAR on my iPhone 3G. Please give me a way to pay something commensurate with the amount of data I actually use. The term "unlimited" needs to be stricken from every piece of wired and wireless ISP literature now and forever.

+1 here

making "unlimited" is not very responsible, especially since they have only limited capacity.
if they make cheaper deals and include like 500mb/month on the cheaper contracts, and maybe 1-2gb on the more expensive ones it should be quite ok for normal use.
after reaching the limit they could either turn off data, or downgrade it to edge/gprs only for these accounts, until the billing period is over.
or, alternatively charge the extra $ for traffic.

Cause after all, once such restrictions are in place, telcos like ATT have no reason and no argument to limit tethering/streaming apps etc.
The 90% user would clearly benefit from that.

[aucl]

Seems like the Micro Cell Hardware and the tiered pricing are all excuses not to improve the Cell tower infrastructure which would then improve network coverage and reliability with all the phones using apps and browsing over the 3g signals.....At&t you better hope Verizon never gets the iPhone... Cuz alot of people will jump ship and be willing to pay the early contract cancellation fees i know i will

-1

Microcells are great, they can help doing wonders
ever thought about how they should provide good indoor/underground coverage?
I see such things as a matter of personal comfort and would buy one immediately if they would be available from my provider here.

Would be just too great:
Time Capsule/Airport BaseStation with integrated Microcell. :rolleyes:

[aucl]

Is this true?
I tether my computer to my iPhone often for the convenience of the bigger screen and keyboard.
Admitting my ignorance here, but......Does visiting a web page on a tethered computer use more bandwidth than visiting the same page straight from the iPhone?

tys

yea, think about all the crap a modern PC always tries to do:

syncronizing time
maping network neighborhood
check for system/antivirus updates
checking mails
instent messenger connections
...
oh, and all the malware which phones home :D

[aucl]

how can people complain about other users usage of the net? have they forgotten how much we pay for our iPhones, its INSANE!!!!,

Your logic sucks! it is like saying:
Oh, i bought a Ferrari, why do i still stand in traffic jam, and still need to stop at the red light; didn't i pay good enough for the car?

[aucl]

In my opinion, I think $30 per month for data in addition to $60 per month for the line (and then $30 for unlimited texts) is excessive for how I normally use my iPhone. Because of that, I feel zero remorse for tethering my connection to my laptop (although I know I should). So, a tiered system may be good if the pricing was more reasonable as I would not be such a high bandwidth user any longer.

why do you pay for unlimited texts if you do not consume them? if it is too expensive choose a cheaper plan which matches your usage better?!

[iphones4evry1]

The term "unlimited" needs to be stricken from every piece of wired and wireless ISP literature now and forever.

NOT SO FAST !!!!

This could come back to bite us in the future, when we have smartphones with the capabilities of a full computer! ..and YOU want to tell them now to strike the word "unlimited" ??? Five years from now, when your smartphone literally has the computing capability of your current desktop/laptop PC, you will be begging them to reverse that decision.

:apple:

[aucl]

NOT SO FAST !!!!

This could come back to bite us in the future, when we have smartphones with the capabilities of a full computer! ..and YOU want to tell them now to strike the word "unlimited" ??? Five years from now, when your smartphone literally has the computing capability of your current desktop/laptop PC, you will be begging them to reverse that decision.

:apple:

may it then be 20GB limits, be honest, how much data you wanna consume all the time? having 1080p HD streams with 5channel audio for a phone and stereo sound?

would you prefer to have flat and prized like now, or a plan like:

20$
100 SMS
100 minutes
1000MB
everything above for a few cents, ...

[MacBOS]

Your logic sucks! it is like saying:
Oh, i bought a Ferrari, why do i still stand in traffic jam, and still need to stop at the red light; didn't i pay good enough for the car?

wtf? are you listening to your self

what are you talking about? wen you buy a Ferrari you buying the car not the road, trafic lights nor the jams, you pay the government for the experience in the road and trafic jams well its the transit authorities job to look for improvements on it

wen you buy the iPhone apple garanties the device not the network, Att is in charge of giving you what it sels you "the fastes 3G network" and if you pay for service you shoed get service not excuses especially wen you pay more phone service than anyone else. what is the escuse if you pay your money for it. wait do we have to understand them now, wen have they ever understood you in your moment of ned?

yea thats wat i thought

looks like you need to put your logic strait

[inkswamp]

Your logic sucks! it is like saying:
Oh, i bought a Ferrari, why do i still stand in traffic jam, and still need to stop at the red light; didn't i pay good enough for the car?

And your analogy sucks because the cost of producing and maintaining cars and roads are not incestuously intertwined in the way cell phones and cellular networks are. You could make a very good argument here that the capitalist ideal of competing companies producing better services has failed miserably.

Seriously, what would the car/road analogy be if we really went all the way with it?

It would be as if the government had long ago farmed out creation of the roads to several companies and to drive on a given company's roads, you have to buy a certain type of expensive car, and amazingly enough, they haven't created wide enough roads that can properly accommodate the capabilities of your car.

Oh, and add in that you were promised you wouldn't be stuck in traffic jams.

[aucl]

And your analogy sucks because the cost of producing and maintaining cars and roads are not incestuously intertwined in the way cell phones and cellular networks are. You could make a very good argument here that the capitalist ideal of competing companies producing better services has failed miserably.

Seriously, what would the car/road analogy be if we really went all the way with it?

It would be as if the government had long ago farmed out creation of the roads to several companies and to drive on a given company's roads, you have to buy a certain type of expensive car, and amazingly enough, they haven't created wide enough roads that can properly accommodate the capabilities of your car.

Oh, and add in that you were promised you wouldn't be stuck in traffic jams.

I admit that that analogy was not well chosen, ...

but i am sure they do not say that each individual will have perfect highest speed connectivity, maybe they even have the fastest network, just it is getting ****** up by some irresponsible consume addicted users.

my opinion is that there is no place for "unlimited", guess it is hard to accept that the american dream of unlimited resources works fine for the 3%, and the others have suffer from that. ...oh wait, dropped calls, expensive contracts, bad customer service, ... looks like not even the 3% are totally satisfied.

Ask for all-you-can-eat and you will get junk-food

ps:
oh, on german highways you can drive as fast as your car allows (if there is no local limitation) but that does not mean that it is really possible, especially when too many wanna try that at the same time :D

[MacBOS]

in my earlier post all i was trying to say was what we as iPhone users are entitled to, A service that was designed for the iPhone that simply works without excuses. they charge us whatever they wish and blindfolded we pay them regardless of the fact that other companies are selling this service for half the price and why do we do this? cause we just want it to work.

Everybody know Att's bad rep already with service, to me it is not justifiable that a big company like Att wood hav to com up with a plan b to solve this problem after they already suck us dry.

i think that wen ATT got in to the iPhone they shod have strategically planed to grow there network because it was not a mystery that verizon hade a big lead in the 3G buisnes and that in order to compete with them that shooed have ben there top priority instead of thinking that with the iPhone alone they wood gain the customers trust (sel the iPhone now fix the network later) so that it wood then explode on there face

in other words Att bit on more than they coud chu

pardon the bad speling my English is a work in progress:o

[SeaFox]

... (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/atandt-downplays-talk-of-tiered-pricing-for-iphone-data-plans/)it does emphasize AT&T's current strategy of using "incentives" and other strategies for shifting traffic off of its network instead of changing the pricing structure of its wireless plans.
Oho! I forsee a insurance-company-style "incentive" being enacted.

(Translation: they'll offer people a discount off you bill for data usage below a certain threshold, then raise everyone's bill by the same amount. The effect will be only the high data users pay more in the end)

[Livestfastest]

Everyone is building out their 4G networks now....don't be fooled by marketing campaigns. Sprint is saying that they were the first, but their 4G is quite different than what everyone else is planning to install. Plus, they have no 4G phones yet. So, what good was it to be first?

Yes, this is true. My hometown, Baltimore is the very 1st 4G city in the U.S. & a Sprint test market and they are advertising it.
But like you said, what are they testing it with & what good is it at this point?
There are no 4G phones available that I'm aware of.
And having been a previous Sprint customer, their coverage of the Baltimore area has always sucked. I actually got fired from a job once because my boss was convinced I'd turned the company Sprint cell phone off and was avoiding his calls! I realize everyone hates their cell phone carrier, but AT&T is by far better than Sprint in my opinion, but I wouldn't mind seeing Apple add Verizon or another carrier.

[satcomer]

MicroCell? The mythological device that was tested last year in very limited locations and then dropped ofter the radar? Then the CEOs comment lambasting the iPhone?

How much do want to bet as soon as this contact for exclusivity for the iPhone will end when Apple's contract with AT&T? Then only real question know is either it will be on T-Mobile or Verizon or both.

[HyperX]

Those all sound like AMAZING ideas. I mean just spot on what AT&T needs to do. I mean of course they could invest in infrastructure, building more sites and upgrading existing ones for more capacity. INSTEAD though it is much more sensible to try to get everyone off the network they are paying for. This is why AT&T is the #1 in customer support, quality, and coverage!

The best thing about this is when you get EVERYONE off the network, you can then blame people's wifi setups for all their troubles. TAKE THAT consumer reports!

[mobi]

AT&T has consistently spent less on network infrastructure improvements since iPhone's lanuch, despite their claims to the contrary. And their profits have steadily risen since iPhone's launch. AT&T chooses corporate greed over network improvements.

Gizmodo has the story along with the numbers from AT&T's own financial reports. Link (http://gizmodo.com/5428717/att-has-spent-less-on-network-construction-every-quarter-since-the-iphones-launch)

Once another network gets the iPhone and can do simultaneous voice and data, I am kicking AT&T to the curb. I can't remember the last time I carried on a phone conversation that didn't end in a dropped call.

AT&T SUCKS. And I can't wait to jump ship.


I agree with you, especially the GREED part.

[SAIRUS]

I think we need a new amendment that allows us to throw pies at CEOs and other executives of industries we don't think they are doing their job. It would stimulate the economy!

[carlgo]

Apple is like Mrs. Soprano, enjoying the good life and not wanting to know how Tony gets his money. Apple needs to be criticized as well because they are pimping AT&T for lots of money.

The system now just plain sucks and doesn't "Just work".

There are only a few consumer-friendly alternatives:

Get away from cell tower technology altogether. WiFi from blimps, whatever. It doesn't seem that towers can possibly be the long-term answer.

A nice tiered system with realistic rates for lower-use customers.

Multiple iPhone carriers so the load can be spread out.

Some way to share towers, a regulatory issue.

The government stepping in and demanding that carriers either step up or lose their license. They are given all this virtual money-printing exclusivity and they should be required to serve the public.

[hugodrax]

Buy AT&T stock and use the dividend (and/or covered call) income to offset increases in fees.

[Gasu E.]

IF AND WHEN they do that, I'm G O N E !


Then the policy would be effective. You are obviously a data hog, since no one else would be bothered by this policy, and removing the greatest data hogs would solve the problem at the least cost.

[spillproof]

why do you pay for unlimited texts if you do not consume them? if it is too expensive choose a cheaper plan which matches your usage better?!

I use up about 2200 messages a month, and unfortunately the next lowest plan is 1500 messages. :(

[torbjoern]

The so-called incentives for going easy on the data usage, does not necessarily entail additional charges in $$$. How about capping a user's bandwidth after a certain monthly quota has been reached?

Example
Tier 1: 0-800 MB per month at 3G speed
Tier 2: 801-2000 MB per month at EDGE speed
Tier 3: 2000 -> infinite MB per month at GPRS speed

[sanford]

Irrelevant if you're in a contract. And as AT&T's current policy is to extend contract terms presiding at end of your contract indefinitely w/o a contract so long as you don't change your plan -- not add-ons like text-messaging bundles, but changing the base plan, like from Family 1500 to Solo 800, or whatever -- this actually would only affect new iPhone customers. So why would anyone who IS an iPhone customer say, This happens and I'm gone. You should have no reason to leave. Only reason to leave is if you have to change your plan, or enter a new contract to get a new plan, then you make that decision.

One great way to reduce traffic is give the 3G Microcells away for free to people in AT&T contracts, of if you'll sign a contract. Offer use of your wireless minutes for free under same terms you actually use your minutes now -- rollover/free nights and weekends/free mob2mob all apply -- or pay $US20 a month for unlimited Microcell minutes with same free calling range as your cell plan. That's essentially a cell and a home phone -- or on a family rate, many cells and many home phones -- for the price of cell plus $US20. That beats any other VOIP provider's deal.

If the Microcell is completely free and AT&T heavily pushes it, that will take a lot of office and almost all home cell traffic off the network. Should make a big difference if they make a real effort at getting lots of those boxes out there.

[MorphingDragon]

Apple is like Mrs. Soprano, enjoying the good life and not wanting to know how Tony gets his money. Apple needs to be criticized as well because they are pimping AT&T for lots of money.

The system now just plain sucks and doesn't "Just work".

There are only a few consumer-friendly alternatives:

Get away from cell tower technology altogether. WiFi from blimps, whatever. It doesn't seem that towers can possibly be the long-term answer.

A nice tiered system with realistic rates for lower-use customers.

Multiple iPhone carriers so the load can be spread out.

Some way to share towers, a regulatory issue.

The government stepping in and demanding that carriers either step up or lose their license. They are given all this virtual money-printing exclusivity and they should be required to serve the public.

How about just getting a fresh legally unlocked iPhone fresh from the down under.

[XxEjGxX]

good job i live in the UK, o2 aren't especially annoying with us

[happydude]

I rarely come across any of their hot spots, and I'm in a pretty high-populated area. I'd rather they spend their time improving the network in order to support that kind of demand, but that's just me.

no, but don't you see, it's all us, the users fault, their network is so crappy.

common, verizon. get the iphone and give us a choice in carriers!! my bet is though, that when the exodus to verizon happens from at&t, suddenly at&t, due to less network usage will suddenly start claiming how fast their network is.

[ArrowSmith]

Apple can do no wrong, Steve Jobs is a prophet and there is nothing wrong with AT&T's network. HATERS!!!!

[MacBOS]

Apple can do no wrong, Steve Jobs is a prophet and there is nothing wrong with AT&T's network. HATERS!!!!

what city do you live in?