An "Untethered" Case Against Data Caps

[Small White Car]

So your basic point is that spectrum is a fixed resource and even with new tech like the 700mhz spectrum, there is too much demand today to allow unlimited plans.

What is this based on?

The fact that most people don't even have smartphones let alone 3G laptops, iPads, in-car-entertainment systms...etc. Cellular internet will be put into more and more devices and more an more people will own them.

The numbers are SO small now compared to the potential uses out there. They're even talking about enabeling internet access in things like cereal boxes in 5-10 years. When you read about all this stuff it becomes clear that people are going to HAVE to move some of their internet lives over to Wifi if they want cellular systems to continue to exist.

And that will be the actual solution...more people will have Wifi at home than do now. More stores will have Wifi. Places that doen't currently have Wifi, like public parks, will get Wifi. That's how we'll meet wireless demands of the future, but it won't work unless people choose to USE those wifi networks. So that's why we'll continue to have capped celular plans. To make sure people keep jumping over to Wifi whenever they get the chance.

Of courses some new technolgoy could come in and change everything and I'd be wrong. I have no idea. My points have all been based on technology marching forward in the direction it's currently going. If AT&T decides to jump sidewise...ok, who knows, then? Anything could happen.

Your 5 pies to 10 people analogy hinges on the supply vs demand. Oxygen is a finite resource, but there's enough to go around to where I shouldn't have to breathe less.

Yeah, you've got it. I AM basing everything on needing to reduce consompution because that's the way I see it.

Of course I could be wrong.

But I've got to make my guesses based on what I believe to be true, don't I? I'm not a zealot. I'll admit it if I'm eventually wrong. But I'll have to see it happen for myself. Right now I don't believe there will be enough bandwidth going forward.

In terms of google and the FCC inquiry, please clarify how google lied to the FCC. As far as I can tell, they only responded based on what they were told by apple about the review process.

No, my point was that Google didn't lie to the FCC. You said AT&T was responsible. Google said Apple was responsible. I said that IF you were right, then Google lied.

I don't think they lied, but if you want to defend the idea that AT&T was behind it that means you're got to explain why Google is saying otherwise.

Not trying to be a jerk here

Me either. Nice to clarify. Sometimes it's hard to tell around here.

 

[gloss]

The primary fault with this line of reasoning is that you are assuming that these plans are long-term and will not be adjusted to more 'reasonable' levels as the technology progresses.

And Small White Car is right, spectrum and bandwidth ARE limited. This is, in part, an attempt by the carrier to limit and control consumption in order to draw user attention to the issue. Compare it with the common American mentality toward oil/gasoline (a finite resource) - people are accustomed to being able to use as much as they want to as often as they want to, but as the number of users (and uses) for the spectrum grow, it's going to become increasingly crowded and the quality/cost of service is going to tank for everyone.

 

[Apollo 13]

some ppl just love taking it up the ass. Everyone will use more data when multitasking. You'll want to watch more Youtube videos on that new high res screen.

 

[cjthebest]

Welcome to the new internet. A world where you receive an e-mail link to a video of your baby nephew’s first steps and you get to check how many megabytes you have left for the month before you decide whether or not to click on the link and pay overage fees or wait until the first of the month. A world where you receive a video chat request from your grandmother but you have to decline because you just watched last night’s office episode on hulu and you’re out of megabytes for the month.

I couldn't have said it better! If you remember, the iPhone was won of the first phones to require an unlimited plan. This set the standard. Along the way, it allowed developers to design apps that used a lot of data (if accepted into the App Store) knowing that every user had endless data. I can all ready picture apps having data counters for people who pick the 200MB plan or light versions or apps.

 

[tuna]

Just because you don’t consume more than 200MB of data wirelessly today, doesn’t mean you won’t want substantially more data next year. Or the year after. Or the year after. Step away from this specific issue for a minute and consider how your "wired" data usage varied 5 years ago prior to the introduction of services like Youtube or Pandora. 500MB a month might have been more than you could handle and based on the responses I’ve seen in the last 24 hours, many would have welcomed a 500MB/month data cap if it saved them $5-$15 off of their internet bill.

Yes, people will start to use more data, but in the same vein that you are thinking, its unrealistic to think that prices won't change. When Verizon comes out with their own capped-only data options (and its only a matter of when), if their prices are $15 for 250MB, $25 for 3GB, and $45 for 5GB plus tethering/mobile hotspot, you can bet that AT&T is going to have to roughly match their prices.

The reason why I think that the new plans are fair (besides tethering) is that AT&T has a fair reason to want to discourage streaming video and mass data transfers from their cell network. A lot of people come on this forum and post that "AT&T should improve their shoddy network rather than minimize its shoddyness by capping users", but thats unrealistic. You can't infinitely improve a network but just adding more towers. There is a limited amount of electromagnetic spectrum that they are allowed to use and a limited amount of data that they can carry through each 5mhz of spectrum. At a certain point, they can only improve throughput by either getting more spectrum or installing more a more advanced wireless standard to increase the amount of data that they can carry in the same bands. Which is exactly what AT&T is doing by upgrading its entire network to HSPA+ this year, which about doubles spectral efficiency, and then they are moving to LTE soon after.

You should also write your congressman about FCC bandwidth allocation. Part of moving to digital broadcast TV was that we were supposed to be able to reallocate a huge amount of spectrum analog broadcast to wireless data. But the broadcasters are fighting hard to hold on to their status quo.

 

[llarson]

But what is the tethering charge for?

If you are capped at 2 gigs and go over you are charged so why charge extra for tethering?

If I use my 2+gigs on my iPhone or my tethered iPad what's the difference?

The tethering seemes to be a STICK to keep people from tethering?

 

[tuna]

If you are capped at 2 gigs and go over you are charged so why charge extra for tethering?

If I use my 2+gigs on my iPhone or my tethered iPad what's the difference?

The tethering seemes to be a STICK to keep people from tethering?

The idea is that most people on the 2GB plan who are not tethering are going to be using much less than 2GB, so tetherers on average will be using more data.

 

[Small White Car]

The tethering seemes to be a STICK to keep people from tethering?

The tethering charge is just pure BS.

I defended tethering charges in the past when plans were unlimited.
I'm currently defending the capped and tiered data plans themselves.
I defend a LOT of things that aren't popular.

And even I'm willing to say that this new tethering charge on top of a capped plan is stupid stupid stupid.

The idea is that most people on the 2GB plan who are not tethering are going to be using much less than 2GB, so tetherers on average will be using more data.

The "using more data" argument goes along with unlimited plans. Once AT&T dropped that plan they dropped the right to complain about people using data.

If using 2 GB while tethering is too much then they should have capped it at 1 GB instead.

 

[VenusianSky]

The data plans have changed with the times. I remember when an internet data plan was about $10/month for 1 MB.

 

[joekun]

While I definitely agree with the OP's points, I do think that there will be competition. For example Google's business model relies on people having access to the internet and the ads that they sell. They even flirted with the idea of purchasing the 700Mhz spectrum when it was up for auction supposedly to offer ubiquitous wifi service. I believe that a time will come when free internet service will be everywhere and it will be paid for by ad revenue, but who knows when that will be.

 

[tuna]

If using 2 GB while tethering is too much then they should have capped it at 1 GB instead.

That would have helped some people, but it would have hurt people who aren't tethering...

Someone in another thread brought up the possibility that you will now be able to use AT&T's existing 5GB Data Connect plan with the iPhone, which comes with tethering and 5GB/month for $60/month. You've never been able to use it before, but there never used to be tethering...

 

[danielsmu]

The numbers are SO small now compared to the potential uses out there...When you read about all this stuff it becomes clear that people are going to HAVE to move some of their internet lives over to Wifi if they want cellular systems to continue to exist.

I agree based on the current infastructure; however, I would still like to see some evidence (usage vs capacity) proving that spectrum is so scarce that caps are needed today, not just in the future. Otherwise, it comes down to trusting AT&T which I don't.

Of courses some new technolgoy could come in and change everything and I'd be wrong. I have no idea. My points have all been based on technology marching forward in the direction it's currently going. If AT&T decides to jump sidewise...ok, who knows, then? Anything could happen.

I agree; my point here is that there are enough promising technologies on the horizon today that data caps aren't mandated due to a capacity shortage. AT&T seems to want us to behave like we're all getting "busy signals" with our data today because they think that's what will happen in the future if nothing else changes.

But I've got to make my guesses based on what I believe to be true, don't I? I'm not a zealot. I'll admit it if I'm eventually wrong. But I'll have to see it happen for myself. Right now I don't believe there will be enough bandwidth going forward.

That's totally fair. I'm not questioning what you're basing this on because i know i'm right about the future either. I'm skeptical towards AT&T's motives with this change but if there are other sources/reasons i haven't considered, i'd honestly enjoy reading them.

No, my point was that Google didn't lie to the FCC. You said AT&T was responsible. Google said Apple was responsible. I said that IF you were right, then Google lied.

I don't think they lied, but if you want to defend the idea that AT&T was behind it that means you're got to explain why Google is saying otherwise.

My point is Google wouldn't know what AT&T did or didnt do here. Google only corresponded with Apple during the approval process. Apple and Google said conflicting statements to the FCC about whether or not the google voice app was ever formally rejected so somebody lied.

Me either. Nice to clarify. Sometimes it's hard to tell around here.

For what it's worth, there's no ill will here and i've enjoyed the discussion and appreciate the thought put into your responses. It's a nice break from people asking when the 4G iphone will be released

 

[Plutonius]

It was just a matter of time (AT+T happened to be the first). All cell providers will have a tiered pricing structure.

Also, as the OP has stated, all ISPs will no longer be unlimited in the future (they will probably have a similar tiered pricing scheme).

Likewise, many of the free internet services will no longer be free.

While I definitely agree with the OP's points, I do think that there will be competition. For example Google's business model relies on people having access to the internet and the ads that they sell. They even flirted with the idea of purchasing the 700Mhz spectrum when it was up for auction supposedly to offer ubiquitous wifi service. I believe that a time will come when free internet service will be everywhere and it will be paid for by ad revenue, but who knows when that will be.

I believe the opposite. Anything that people consider a necessity, eventually ends up costing money.

I think google will eventually create a premium pay service and, over time, many of the Google free apps that we depend on will migrate to this premium service.

I look at television which was free (funded by advertising and broadcast over the air) and how most people now can not even receive television now without paying a lot for it (along with the advertisements).

It is not a question of funding everything with advertisements (they probably could) but the fact that they can make much more money by charging a fee along with advertisements.

 

[Geckotek]

I look at television which was free (funded by advertising and broadcast over the air) and how most people now can not even receive television now without paying a lot for it (along with the advertisements).

Sure you can. Just stick an antenna in the air and voila! TV. HD EVEN!

 

[chakraj]

We all need to start looking at this whole data thing differently. Today a phone is not a phone. They should charge you for your device. So You want an iphone with, tv, and music ,and streaming.... well thats $100. a month Period. You can use or not use as you like. If you dont want an iphone and just want a dumb phone they should charge yo $60.00 and thats it. Use or dont its up to you.

 

[Deeya]

Is there any data on what it actually costs AT&T to transmit 3g data over their network?

To me, this seems to be nothing more than a way for AT&T to make more money. They don't care about quality or dropped calls. They have so many customers, they don't need your business. You need them because the iPhone is only available on their network, officially anyway. They know this, and will do whatever they can to continue to make more money off the same or less service.

This is what happens when a company has this many customers, individual customers become irrelevant. If AT&T lost every single forum member from this site, they probably wouldn't even notice.

 

[xanatos]

Does any of this unlimited tier capped whatever matters anyway. I still cant get quality data service anywhere I go anymore
Its always flucterating to 2 bars and from 3g to edge all the time.and I'm in socal where quality should be good.
I never had a complaint about the date but in the last year service is crap.Why tout 3g speeds unlimited data if no one can get it

 

[Plutonius]

Sure you can. Just stick an antenna in the air and voila! TV. HD EVEN!

Not for many people. Digital over the air TV has a much much shorter range then the old analog and if you are in a rural area you are now SOL.

 

[Tilpots]

You should also write your congressman about FCC bandwidth allocation. Part of moving to digital broadcast TV was that we were supposed to be able to reallocate a huge amount of spectrum analog broadcast to wireless data. But the broadcasters are fighting hard to hold on to their status quo.

Not really, the analog was freed up and auctioned off/given back to the government. Typically, the broadcasters don't hold any more licenses to the analog frequency. The White Space, as the call the old analog frequencies, is now in testing and its possibilities look fantastic. The new fight between broadcasters and the FCC is over the digital spectrum. That's where it's going to get vicious.

Not for many people. Digital over the air TV has a much much shorter range then the old analog and if you are in a rural area you are now SOL.

Many people? Nah. A few, sure, but they're really out there. The vast majority are doing just fine with OTA digital reception.

 

[Geckotek]

Not for many people. Digital over the air TV has a much much shorter range then the old analog and if you are in a rural area you are now SOL.

You need to check out antennaweb.org

 

[gloss]

You need to check out antennaweb.org

I'm in the middle of a huge suburb of DC and we can't get a reliable OTA HD feed without a roof-mounted antenna.

 

[lasuther]

1. There is no cap, you pay for the data you use. This is a great system that puts the power with the user. 98% of us will see a price drop and that’s why the new data plans will be very popular.

2. Assuming the price and MB/GB points will stay the same is foolish. Assuming you’ll be on a 3G plan in a few years is foolish. Expect to see data plan changes. We’ve already seen a couple.

 

[alent1234]

I’ll start by saying I’m truly surprised by the seemingly positive reaction on these forums to AT&T’s announcement of tiered data plans. From what I’ve read, most users who are in favor of the data caps are either a) Looking forward to saving $5-$15 a month because their usage falls well below the current cap limits, or b) Enjoying the idea of frivolous users consuming upwards of 10GB a month due to tethering, streaming, etc. finally being brought back to earth and thereby improving network performance for everyone else.

I would submit that both of these points pale in comparison to what the introduction of data caps represent to our current internet existence as we know it.

Just because you don’t consume more than 200MB of data wirelessly today, doesn’t mean you won’t want substantially more data next year. Or the year after. Or the year after. Step away from this specific issue for a minute and consider how your "wired" data usage varied 5 years ago prior to the introduction of services like Youtube or Pandora. 500MB a month might have been more than you could handle and based on the responses I’ve seen in the last 24 hours, many would have welcomed a 500MB/month data cap if it saved them $5-$15 off of their internet bill.

I realize I’m using desktop/wired internet services to make my point about a different arena, but please realize that the world of wireless high-speed data services is basically still in its infancy (not to mention new technologies that are in the works like location-based apps, VOIP, etc.) While 200MB of data a month might be more than enough for you right now, it’s short-sighted to expect the average user’s data consumption to remain at current levels based on growth in recent years.

What this most likely means for you is that as your bandwidth needs increase, average users will likely start meeting and exceeding the 200MB or 2GB caps and will be subject to some kind of overage charges. Based on current overage charges for voice and text messages, these overages will likely be enough of a financial deterrent to cause the average customer to have to monitor their usage to keep from paying relatively high penalty fees for exceeding their plan amounts.

Welcome to the new internet. A world where you receive an e-mail link to a video of your baby nephew’s first steps and you get to check how many megabytes you have left for the month before you decide whether or not to click on the link and pay overage fees or wait until the first of the month. A world where you receive a video chat request from your grandmother but you have to decline because you just watched last night’s office episode on hulu and you’re out of megabytes for the month.

The counter arguments I expect to receive to this are that a) the services I’m referencing aren’t widely used on mobile devices and/or b) desktop or wired internet (for most of us) doesn’t use data caps.

To the first objection (a), check back with me in 5 years and let me know if you still think 200MB or even 2GB a month for your mobile data is sufficient. Then, if you think AT&T is going to drastically increase these caps at the same price out of the goodness of their hearts, please allow me to remind you that they are a company, not a charity, and they love upselling customers to a higher tier/cost plan almost as much as they love charging overage fees.

To the second objection (b), if you think AT&T U-Verse, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. haven’t already been testing the data cap waters for wired/desktop internet plans, you haven’t been reading the (tech) news. Make no mistake, if AT&T proves that wireless customers are willing to accept data caps without much fuss for a nominal discount, expect similar announcements in the next year from Verizon, Sprint, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. Data caps are about making money for these companies and moving the internet into their outdated tiered business model, not saving the average customer money.

The unlimited internet as we know it is a good thing for everyone in the long run and it’s worth more than the $5-$15 a month scrap AT&T is offering you to give it up.

i've been computing since the 1990's and have seen a few trends

wireless is different from wired. with wired once you lay the wire it runs into a few switches on the backend and unless someone is p2p constantly you can have an unlimited number of people on one switch or router. with wireless you need to have antennas everywhere along with all the other equipment it takes to run them and sucking up electricity 24x7. and each antenna can only handle 50 or so people at a time so if you have heavy users you need to build more antennas and then recalibrate your existing ones so the signals don't step over each other.

3 years ago when the original iphone came out with a nice browser it was a big deal. now people expect constant streaming over their cell networks. it takes a lot longer to build out cell networks. there is a lot of equipment on the back end, it all has to be tested to work together, etc.

i've been hearing about these complaints for a decade. 10 years ago it was college kids complaining that the internet was slow because everyone was downloading music and the school should just double or triple the bandwidth without passing on the costs. now it's people complaining that unlimited didn't mean unlimited suddenly complain about caps. if you use more bandwidth than 98% of all users then pay for it. my wife is happy at 100MB per month. i rarely go over 1GB. free wifi is everywhere, set up profiles on your iphone and use it. there is no law that says you have to use 3G all the time.

make use of your local storage. Slacker now lets you cache to the iphone. use video download helper and download stuff from youtube to store locally. download news on wifi and then read it.

i can't wait to save $20 on my cell phone bill. if you have to pay more, i don't really care.

 

[Tilpots]

I'm in the middle of a huge suburb of DC and we can't get a reliable OTA HD feed without a roof-mounted antenna.

But it's still available...

 

[danielsmu]

i can't wait to save $20 on my cell phone bill. if you have to pay more, i don't really care.

You quoted my entire post, but I think my points were missed so please forgive me if I sound redundant. Nowhere in my post did I complain about personally paying more each month. Since you felt the need to clarify that you don’t care if I have to pay more each month, I just wanted to set your mind at ease that I’ll be keeping my $30 unlimited plan as long as it’s continued to be offered so my bill will be just fine until AT&T decides to phase out my plan. Thanks for the consideration though.

Also, lest you jump to the conclusion that I’m an evil 2 percenter that is twisting my mustache at home tethering 24 hours a day so I can cause your calls to be dropped, I average about 1.7 gigs a month based on AT&T’s chart data, but usually stay lower than that. I’ve also never used a jailbreak or tethered my phone. This isn’t about wanting to use 10GB/month today, it’s about what this pricing model means for the future.

3 years ago when the original iphone came out with a nice browser it was a big deal. now people expect constant streaming over their cell networks. it takes a lot longer to build out cell networks. there is a lot of equipment on the back end, it all has to be tested to work together, etc.

Can you also confirm if these data tiers are being added because AT&T is already hitting up against their capacity limits or because AT&T decided this week that they weren’t making enough money already off of iPhone users? If there’s been any capacity/usage data posted to justify this change, I’d be very interested to read it. Otherwise, AT&T simply saying “just trust us” doesn’t fly with me.

...i've been hearing about these complaints for a decade. 10 years ago it was college kids complaining that the internet was slow because everyone was downloading music and the school should just double or triple the bandwidth without passing on the costs. now it's people complaining that unlimited didn't mean unlimited suddenly complain about caps. if you use more bandwidth than 98% of all users then pay for it. my wife is happy at 100MB per month. i rarely go over 1GB. free wifi is everywhere, set up profiles on your iphone and use it. there is no law that says you have to use 3G all the time.

Just because your wife is happy with 100MB now, doesn’t mean that will continue to be the case in the future. I’m not naive enough to think AT&T will keep the tiers set at 200MB/2GB forever; however, if this were really about conserving data and not about overage fees, why didn’t AT&T simply offer a flat rate price per MB fee? The first time your wife uses 201 MB, you’ll be paying for 2GB regardless of how much data is left unused at the end of the month. You can disguise this in terminology all you like but this is basically a penalty/overage fee which will change the way we all use wireless data in the long run.

We broke free from the AOL business model of XX hours a month over a decade ago and I for one am not eager to see us take a step backwards into that limited online environment. I know you’re excited to save $20 a month, but my point is your immediate savings don’t account for the real price we’ll all pay for this change in the long run.