AT&T Again Moves to Downplay Reports of Imminent Tiered Data Pricing for iPhone

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/22/atandt-again-moves-to-downplay-reports-of-imminent-tiered-data-pricing-for-iphone/)

In a lengthy BusinessWeek article (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091221_605613.htm), AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega again attempts to clarify the company's plans for dealing with high-usage iPhone data customers by emphasizing incentives for shifting traffic off of its network rather than implementing tiered pricing as had been suggested (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) earlier this month. The comments mark the second time (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/17/atandt-downplays-talk-of-tiered-pricing-for-iphone-data-plans/) a major media outlet has gone public with de la Vega's efforts to clarify his earlier comments.Industry analysts have been figuring that AT&T would inevitably move from its $30-a-month, unlimited data plan for iPhone users to a "tiered pricing" model that charges according to usage. De la Vega says that no such move is imminent. "There are things people say I said that I didn't say. We have not made any decision to implement tiered pricing," he says -- repeating the last part for emphasis.De la Vega's comments to BusinessWeek were made in a December 16th interview, which appears to coincide with the interview cited in the earlier Wall Street Journal report, although the latest report provides additional perspective on the misinterpretation of de la Vega's original comments that sparked the controversy.Within hours the Web was filled with articles that said Ma Bell was about to raise prices or slap consumers with restrictive monthly usage limits. "There were no follow-up questions, so I figured everyone understood what I was saying," de la Vegas said in a Dec. 16 interview. "I guess I should have been more clear."As noted in the earlier report, AT&T is looking to such solutions as free Wi-Fi hotspots and 3G MicroCell network extenders to shift data traffic to the Internet. The strategy sees Wi-Fi as a "lifeline" for overloaded cellular networks, whereas it had previously been seen as a threat to cellular companies.It's a lifeline that AT&T plans to use heavily. On Dec. 15, AT&T announced a deal with McDonalds (MCD) by which the fast-food giant will waive for two hours a $2.95 Wi-Fi charge for customers at 11,000 restaurants. "Now customers can go to McDonalds and stay online as long as they want," says de la Vega. The agreement follows earlier deals with such retailers as Starbucks (SBUX) and Barnes & Noble (BKS).AT&T has taken heat for apparent cuts in infrastructure spending, even as the iPhone has continued to drive increasing demand. Network performance monitoring companies, as well as more informal testing (http://gizmodo.com/5428343/our-2009-12+city-3g-data-mega-test-att-won), have shown, however, increased performance for AT&T's 3G network, putting it on par with or better than its competitors.

Article Link: AT&T Again Moves to Downplay Reports of Imminent Tiered Data Pricing for iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/22/atandt-again-moves-to-downplay-reports-of-imminent-tiered-data-pricing-for-iphone/)

[notjustjay]

This is not necessarily a bad thing if done right. At least you get a figurehead "unlimited" in the US, in Canada that $30/month currently gets you 500 megs or 1 gig depending on the provider. There are some people who got 6 gigs for $30 in a promotional offer, but that was a limited time offer.

Rogers repeatedly claims that the average iPhone user consumes about 400 megs in a month. I have no idea if those figures are realistic, or match the American iPhone experience as opposed to the Canadian one.

I'd be OK with, say, 2 gigs for $20. In fact I think that would be pretty fantastic.

[Rot'nApple]

What this all means is that AT&T is getting ready for Imminent Tiered Data Pricing for iPhone! :cool:

[mobi]

Will current plans be grandfathered for unlimited data?

...even though it isn't really unlimited :confused:

[knewsom]

GIVE AWAY the 3G microcells. Give them to businesses, governments, community organizations, and any home customer that's willing to allow general traffic.

Boom. Problem solved.

[Becordial]

This still makes it sounds like the network sucks, and little responsibility is being taken for it on their account. You know AT&T, history is littered with companies that failed to allocate a reasonable capital investment budget and eventually were deserted by their customers.

This week alone a certain car company found it has no value at all. Why? Because they put virtually no money into new models and let their customers down. Eventually customers stopped hoping for good things and walked away.

[RunOverProducti]

Why would I want to connect to a wifi hotspot when I'm paying for unlimited data? obviously would be to just download a music from itunes that I couldnt wait to get home to do it.

Does that mean that they would treat blackberry the same? If they go forward with this thats when I leave AT&T, when will we realize that enough is enough?

iPhone users use alot of internet, AT&T sees that and wants to capitalize on it.

At what cost is it still worth to have an iPhone?

[DipDog3]

How about just fixing the network?

There, problem solved...

[studiomusic]

"There were no follow-up questions, so I figured everyone understood what I was saying," de la Vegas said in a Dec. 16 interview. "I guess I should have been more clear."


So, is he being any clearer here?


"There are things people say I said that I didn't say. We have not made any decision to implement tiered pricing," he says -- repeating the last part for emphasis.

No. Corporate double-speak as usual.

What this all means is that AT&T is getting ready for Imminent Tiered Data Pricing for iPhone! :cool:

Looks like it.

[thederby]

Why would I want to connect to a wifi hotspot when I'm paying for unlimited data? obviously would be to just download a music from itunes that I couldnt wait to get home to do it.



performance, for one...

[4mat]

Wirelessly posted (SAMSUNG-SGH-A821/1.0 SHP/VPP/R5 NetFront/3.4 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.0 configuration/CLDC-1.1)

Try the data rates in Australia. Telstra, Optus and Vodafone charge insane data rates even for lite users. Whatever AT&T do, the US will still probably have some of the best deals. Competition in the market isn't does't always lead to better deals.

[maclancer]

Apple needs to move on with the iPhone and let others carriers sell the iphone. I would love to see better alternatives than AT&T.

[Chaos215bar2]

The strategy sees Wi-Fi as a "lifeline" for overloaded cellular networks, whereas it had previously been seen as a threat to cellular companies.

Is it bad that I read that as "The strategy sees Wi-Fi as a 'lifeline' for overpriced cellular networks, whereas it had previously been seen as a threat to cellular companies." the first time through? :D

[dagamer34]

"We haven't made any announcements" is very different from "We are not moving to tiered pricing".

The latter would be lying if they DID movie to tiered pricing, which means that they are considering it, and the public is showing it's outrage were such a thing to happen.

[mrpeepers]

AT&T sucks ass. Period.

Besides, they can't implement these changes on EXISTING contracts without first letting you OUT of your contract. So who gives a crap.

[BryanLyle]

Tired of waiting for the Microcell solution. They said before the end of the year and my calendar says that there are only 9 more days in 2009.

[Revivalution]

For me there is now only one reason I am with AT&T. It's the iPhone. I pay outrageous prices compared to my friends who are with other networks and on similar packages. Customer care is zero to none and recently dropped calls have caused me some pretty major embarrassment with my clients. The fact that AT&T was not ready when MMS messaging was made available on the iphone along with tethering just adds to my AT&T frustrations. AT&T really could have owned the cellular market with some wise decisions to go along with the one right decision they made in carrying the iPhone. Short sightedness and some really bad management kept that from happening. I predict a huge migration to the first carrier outside of AT&T offering the iPhone.

Weird that a fine company like apple has chosen one of the worst companies in AT&T to manage its iPhone sales in the US.

[Le Big Mac]

Will current plans be grandfathered for unlimited data?

...even though it isn't really unlimited :confused:

Or issue a $5-10 credit to anyone in every month that they keep data use below some threshold. No need to revise plans.

[Le Big Mac]

GIVE AWAY the 3G microcells. Give them to businesses, governments, community organizations, and any home customer that's willing to allow general traffic.

Boom. Problem solved.

Great--so my neighbor can surf porn on his iPhone and saturate my broadband connection? Um, no thanks.

[JonB3Z]

From a systems engineering standpoint, it is inane for someone to be sitting within range of a WiFi hotspot with a WiFi equipped mobile device but using the cellular network for data access. It is inefficient use of spectrum (a public resource), deleterious to users who are not in range of a hotspot, and just plain stupid. Of course, the world is filled with people who don't share nicely....

Me, I want my mobile device to automatically select the best network connection available to it, so I see this as an enhancement of the service I am paying for.

[old-wiz]

AT&T is far more interested in paying bonuses to executives than improving their cell network. After all, executives are far more important than customer satisfaction.

[sportsfan]

For me there is now only one reason I am with AT&T. It's the iPhone. I pay outrageous prices compared to my friends who are with other networks and on similar packages. Customer care is zero to none and recently dropped calls have caused me some pretty major embarrassment with my clients. The fact that AT&T was not ready when MMS messaging was made available on the iphone along with tethering just adds to my AT&T frustrations. AT&T really could have owned the cellular market with some wise decisions to go along with the one right decision they made in carrying the iPhone. Short sightedness and some really bad management kept that from happening. I predict a huge migration to the first carrier outside of AT&T offering the iPhone.

Weird that a fine company like apple has chosen one of the worst companies in AT&T to manage its iPhone sales in the US.

Apple chose AT&T because they were the only carrier that would give apple total control over the phone. Verizon were control freaks to Apple went elsewhere.

[cvaldes]

Weird that a fine company like apple has chosen one of the worst companies in AT&T to manage its iPhone sales in the US.
It's not weird.

There are plenty of reports that say that Verizon had a chance to be the inaugural iPhone carrier, but couldn't come to terms with Apple. AT&T, the nation's #2 carrier in terms of subscribers makes perfect sense.

If you look at the bigger picture, GSM dominates the worldwide cellular marketplace at over 70%. By starting off with a GSM device, Apple was able to accelerate deployment to other markets worldwide.

Also, AT&T does not manage iPhone sales. Numerous retailers including Best Buy, Radio Shack, Walmart, and Apple's own retail and online stores sell the iPhone. AT&T actually sells a fraction of U.S. iPhones.

Apple manages iPhone sales and distribution to its channel partners.

[bldmn]

Weird that a fine company like apple has chosen one of the worst companies in AT&T to manage its iPhone sales in the US.
That's the part that really gets me too. How did it happen that Apple hitched their cart to a company like AT&T? I mean, they just aren't really in the same league. Surely Apple must have done their research and realized that they were involving themselves with a service that had problems.

Wouldn't Apple have had some sort of clause that said that they could get out of the deal if AT&T wasn't up to scratch?

[cvaldes]

From a systems engineering standpoint, it is inane for someone to be sitting within range of a WiFi hotspot with a WiFi equipped mobile device but using the cellular network for data access. It is inefficient use of spectrum (a public resource), deleterious to users who are not in range of a hotspot, and just plain stupid. Of course, the world is filled with people who don't share nicely....

Me, I want my mobile device to automatically select the best network connection available to it, so I see this as an enhancement of the service I am paying for.
Slow down there, partner.

My home Internet connection is a cheapo 768Kbps DSL line ($10/mo). WiFi does not inherently guarantee faster Internet connections.

[Becordial]

For me there is now only one reason I am with AT&T. It's the iPhone. I pay outrageous prices compared to my friends who are with other networks and on similar packages. Customer care is zero to none and recently dropped calls have caused me some pretty major embarrassment with my clients. The fact that AT&T was not ready when MMS messaging was made available on the iphone along with tethering just adds to my AT&T frustrations. AT&T really could have owned the cellular market with some wise decisions to go along with the one right decision they made in carrying the iPhone. Short sightedness and some really bad management kept that from happening. I predict a huge migration to the first carrier outside of AT&T offering the iPhone.

Weird that a fine company like apple has chosen one of the worst companies in AT&T to manage its iPhone sales in the US.

Stuff like the MMS and tethering delay is just crazy, and seems unique amongst the world. Over here there is something like 4 or 5 phone companies that have stacks of the iPhone for everyone. Only one of those companies sought a slight delay with tethering - the rest offerred MMS and tethering ready to go on the day Apple rolled out the capability.

[iamkarlp]

How about just fixing the network?

There, problem solved...


Can all of the people on these forums, the person above included, please stop just parroting the line "Fix the network?"

"The Network" is already one of the bigger and better run ones in the world. Don't confuse this post as one saying ATT is perfect, they aren't, but they certainly aren't as bad as many people make them out to be, and they are certainly working hard, and spending very aggressively to continue and build out there network.

Even if they had all the money to fix every issue for every person overnight (100's of billions don't appear overnight, you know) do you have any idea on how complicated the RF engineering is and how much time it can take to plan, approve and initiate even the frequency changes, much less build new base stations outright.

But thankfully they are spending money hand over fist to upgrade there network on a constant basis and I can see the results of that every day.

I travel all over the southeast and have been having better service, more 3G, and less trouble as the months and year(s) have gone by.

The reality is that the major issues with ATT exist primarily in the heavy urban areas where the issues are heavily related to lack of cell density, or in the very sparsely populated areas where fiscal responsibility deems that you work on more heavily populated areas first.

In short, if you live in a major urban area, and want better cell coverage, lobby your local HOA's and zoning boards to approve anything reasonable the cell companies through their way.

If you live in a sparsely populated area, use whichever network works there and realize that even after the much sought after verizon to lte switch that is coming, that it will take many many years for LTE to reach even ATT's current 3g coverage area, much less there EDGE coverage.

So to all you who are constantly complaining, please stop.

Write a professional letter to ATT and see if you can lobby your local organizations to be more friendly to new cell towers.

Thanks,

A Guy Who Knows.

[matznentosh]

"We have not made any decision to implement tiered pricing"

This says no decision has been made to move ahead with tiered pricing YET.

[JonB3Z]

Slow down there, partner.

My home Internet connection is a cheapo 768Kbps DSL line ($10/mo). WiFi does not inherently guarantee faster Internet connections.

We're talking about public WiFi hotspots, not your DSL connection. Most public WiFi hotspots are likely to be running on a substantially more capable service. That has certainly been my experience.

[Bigdaddyguido]

AT&T finally brought 3g to my mountain town, and I gotta say it's pretty sweet. Reliable service and good connection speed. The coverage still isn't nearly as large as verizon's, but the speed is excellent.

All that said, they are taking way, way too long to release the microcells nationwide.

[JonB3Z]

"We have not made any decision to implement tiered pricing"

This says no decision has been made to move ahead with tiered pricing YET.

Of course. Most decisions are "yet." I've decided not to stick a needle in my eyeball... yet.

The time to begin worrying about tiered pricing is when it happens. Until then, complaints about it are just so much hot air.

[macduke]

...by which the fast-food giant will waive for two hours a $2.95 Wi-Fi charge for customers at 11,000 restaurants. "Now customers can go to McDonalds and stay online as long as they want," says de la Vega.

And he wonders why people think he is confusing??

So which is it? Two hours or as long as I want?!?

[butterfly0fdoom]

And he wonders why people think he is confusing??

So which is it? Two hours or as long as I want?!?

Who in their right mind would WANT to stay in a McDonalds longer than 2 hours?!?

[JonB3Z]

And he wonders why people think he is confusing??

So which is it? Two hours or as long as I want?!?

Maybe he's assuming nobody would want to stay in a McDonald's for more then two hours. :D

[SpinThis!]

The time to begin worrying about tiered pricing is when it happens. Until then, complaints about it are just so much hot air.

yeh exactly I don't know why people still keep reading in between the lines that aren't there and coming up with "doomsday" conclusions. The fact that Vega refuted the claim twice should be enough. How many times does at&t have to keep putting out statements for people to accept it?

Suppose the naysayers just want something to gripe about (much like I'm griping now about the gripers, fancy that).

In short, if you live in a major urban area, and want better cell coverage, lobby your local HOA's and zoning boards to approve anything reasonable the cell companies through their way.
Very wise words. People forget that coverage is partly based on zoning laws and who can schmooze the decision makers. It often takes years for local ordinances to approve new towers and equipment. The ironic part is that probably many folks complaining about coverage are also in the "not in my backyard" crowd.

[asopublic]

I think Apple should add a femtocell to the Airport Extreme. It should work for multiple carriers, and shouldn't have any additional monthly charge unless you want to buy extra minutes.

Configuration would merely be an extra tab in the Airport Utility.

[GooMan]

From a systems engineering standpoint, it is inane for someone to be sitting within range of a WiFi hotspot with a WiFi equipped mobile device but using the cellular network for data access...

Agree. I've never understood the "I pay for unlimted data so I refuse to use WiFi. Lets stick it to AT&T." crowd. You only hurt yourselves and other AT&T users.

[kdarling]

We're talking about public WiFi hotspots, not your DSL connection. Most public WiFi hotspots are likely to be running on a substantially more capable service. That has certainly been my experience.

A lot of business people, and a fair number of regular people, don't want to send their transactions or searches over a public network... ever.

Certainly not automatically. That's just begging for an evil twin attack.

Otherwise, sure. The device could CHECK the relative speeds and choose the faster network. It won't be long before public WiFi could easily be the slower option.

[HutcHJC]

...by which the fast-food giant will waive for two hours a $2.95 Wi-Fi charge for customers at 11,000 restaurants. "Now customers can go to McDonalds and stay online as long as they want," says de la Vega.

And he wonders why people think he is confusing??

So which is it? Two hours or as long as I want?!?

I was thinking the same thing. The question is where the "waive for two hours..." quote came from as it's not attributed to de la Vega. What's the original text of that News Release? Maybe it's being poorly paraphrased... Need to read the original statement to find out.

If they are only waiving a fee for the first 2 hours then it's not unlimited, obviously.

HutcH

[TMar]

Very wise words. People forget that coverage is partly based on zoning laws and who can schmooze the decision makers. It often takes years for local ordinances to approve new towers and equipment. The ironic part is that probably many folks complaining about coverage are also in the "not in my backyard" crowd.

Oh, you can guarantee that.

[powers74]

The ironic part is that probably many folks complaining about coverage are also in the "not in my backyard" crowd.

Oh, you can guarantee that.

Heh, right. Sort of like certain politicians who demand more renewable energy like wind power, but balk at the idea that they would be able to see turbines from their boat dock. Classic.

[Mad Mac]

The fact that Vega refuted the claim twice should be enough. How many times does at&t have to keep putting out statements for people to accept it?
Agreed. AT$T would never have a tiered plan. But probably due to the fact that they would have to start the pricing lower than the current $30 a month rate. I bet they would love to START the tiered rate at $30 if they could get away with it.

People forget that coverage is partly based on zoning laws and who can schmooze the decision makers. It often takes years for local ordinances to approve new towers and equipment. The ironic part is that probably many folks complaining about coverage are also in the "not in my backyard" crowd.I guess Verizon is better at schmoozing then. I can't wait until 1)an Android phone I want gets on Verizon or 2)the iPhone gets on Verizon. I'd jump ship in a flash and you guys on AT$T can worry about WIFI and cell towers amongst yourselves.

[mattster16]

I actually read an article about McDonalds doing an announcement about their new free wi-fi. I remember them saying multiple times that there is no time limit - so I think the 2 hours mentioned by AT&T is wrong. McDonalds spun it as if it was their idea to offer their customers better value and AT&T is spinning it as a way to offload their cell networks. Ah how I love corporate public relations.

[synth3tik]

The more they deny it, the more likely it really seems.

THey should stop that.

[statisticschick]

I think they need to do a better job of spreading the word to users about this issue. Be frank, tell people that if they can't be more conservative with their data usage and utilize WiFi more often, AT&T will not be able to provide unlimited data plans. I had no idea about this until I read these blogs. Now, I try to limit my data usage to when I'm within a WiFi network. Before, I never turned on my WiFi because the 3G was fast enough. Now, it's the first thing I do when I enter my house or any coffee shop. In major cities, keeping WiFi on will almost guarantee that you're always on a network (in DC and NYC there are Starbucks AT&T hotstops on almost every block).

Seriuosly, AT&T - spread the word about this issue!! Maybe offer some incentive plan for "unlimited" customers - like if customers on unlimited plans keep their data usage below a certain threshold, they will get $5 off their bill for that month.

[okiiii]

maybe apple should think about no contact more present :mad: (http://www.saleiphoneshop.com)

[ZeeGermans]

Problem: Small % of customers consume a hugely disproportionate share of product (data) from a limited pool of resources (network bandwidth). As a result, there are shortages that adversely affect a large % of customers.

Solution:
1. Keep increasing bandwidth at huge cost to handle the problem caused by a small % of customers. Increase costs for everyone, decrease profits for shareholders, and probably never keep up with demand. It's much easier to double network consumption than it is to double network supply.
--or--
2. Get rid of the small % of customers causing the problem. One method is to set a hard data cap each month. Another method is to cancel the contracts of the small % of customers causing the problem. A third method is to increase fees to the small % of customers to "encourage" those customers to stop their behavior that causes the problems.

Why is #2 bad? If AT&T does not limit consumption by the heavy users, then the AT&T Board of Directors should fire the CEO.

[DiamondMac]

Problem: Small % of customers consume a hugely disproportionate share of product (data) from a limited pool of resources (network bandwidth). As a result, there are shortages that adversely affect a large % of customers.

Solution:
1. Keep increasing bandwidth at huge cost to handle the problem caused by a small % of customers. Increase costs for everyone, decrease profits for shareholders, and probably never keep up with demand. It's much easier to double network consumption than it is to double network supply.
--or--
2. Get rid of the small % of customers causing the problem. One method is to set a hard data cap each month. Another method is to cancel the contracts of the small % of customers causing the problem. A third method is to increase fees to the small % of customers to "encourage" those customers to stop their behavior that causes the problems.

Why is #2 bad? If AT&T does not limit consumption by the heavy users, then the AT&T Board of Directors should fire the CEO.

If I actually believed that AT&T was going to put in a "tiered system" that ACTUALLY affected only a few % of people.....I would be for it. I don't really think it is the end of the world to possibly clean off the top 1%-2% who are using data non-stop, all-day, 24/7.

But I don't trust AT&T whatsoever and I could VERY easily see them implementing a system that actually effected a far larger % of users, even those not using a very high amount of data....thus getting them more money.

Anything AT&T puts into place will be sold to us as only affecting the few % of people yet will end up hurting a far larger % of users, including many who shouldn't be considered a large data user

[miker51]

Weird that a fine company like apple has chosen one of the worst companies in AT&T to manage its iPhone sales in the US.

Sprint was also contacted, but turned down Apple's offer. Very short-sighted on their part. A Senior VP paid for the mistake later.....

[trekkie604]

imo AT&T shot themselves in the foot by offering 'unlimited' data access. Here in Canada, Rogers actually did something right *gasp*... For $30/month I have a data plan which includes 6GB of data (on-device or tethering). It's a psychological barrier that I should budget data usage so I have enough to last the whole month. If people have know they have a limit on data usage, they'd allocate the resource appropriately.

[kdarling]

Sprint was also contacted, but turned down Apple's offer. Very short-sighted on their part. A Senior VP paid for the mistake later.....

Got a link for that? Thanks!

It's not really surprising that other carriers turned down Apple at the time.

1) Apple had no device to show off, just a vague plan.
2) Apple's previous "iTunes phone" was the pitiful ROKR. Even Jobs hated it.
3) Apple wanted to keep the subsidies for itself, instead of helping customers.

Not to mention all their demands, such as limited sales outlets which they later changed their tune on.

[carlgo]

yeh exactly I don't know why people still keep reading in between the lines that aren't there and coming up with "doomsday" conclusions. The fact that Vega refuted the claim twice should be enough. How many times does at&t have to keep putting out statements for people to accept it?

Suppose the naysayers just want something to gripe about (much like I'm griping now about the gripers, fancy that).


Very wise words. People forget that coverage is partly based on zoning laws and who can schmooze the decision makers. It often takes years for local ordinances to approve new towers and equipment. The ironic part is that probably many folks complaining about coverage are also in the "not in my backyard" crowd.

The fact is that it seems that every tower, everywhere, is being contested. People don't like the aesthetics, the lowering of property values and many think they will get cancer from them. It is just a fact that meaningful expansion is going to be very difficult to achieve.

Some sort of innovative technology is going to be needed, something other than simply trying to erect thousands and thousands of traditional cell towers. That simply isn't going to happen.