AT&T's Grandfathered Unlimited Data Plan Customers Get 5GB on LTE Before Being Throttled

[repoman27]

AFAIK the issue is that most "unlimited" customers don't use gratuitous bandwidth, and most don't use more than 5GB/mo; problem is there are still some out there blowing thru dozens of GB per week, chewing up considerable limited resources.

I run about 3GB/mo. Having "unlimited" is great not so much for having endless capacity at maximum rate, as not having to worry about running out. I can deal with slowing the stream beyond an unusual amount of usage; I can't deal with a complete shutoff with a "$25 to turn it back on again" message.

The limited resource in cellular communications is actual bandwidth (measured in Hz), not anything that can be measured in GB.

I'm going to risk an automotive analogy here. Imagine if there were fuel plans for cars, where you paid a fixed monthly amount to drive up to a certain number of miles. At that point you could choose between an "unlimited" plan, where you could keep driving for the rest of the month but not exceed 10 mph, or alternately pay fixed surcharges for additional allotments of miles. The limited resource for the service provider in this case is fuel. There are people on the plan that drive Hummers and those that drive Prius's, yet despite the wide gap in their relative efficiency, the owners pay the same amount for miles. Some people pay for 1000 miles each month and never drive more than 100, other people drive 1000 in a week and face paying for more miles in a billing cycle or having to drive so slowly that their car is practically useless.

Now say I have a car that gets 15 MPG, and I trade it in for one that gets 70. My fuel service provider says, "That's great, I'll let you transfer your old mileage plan to your new car, and even raise your monthly mileage limit from 1000 to 1667 miles for no additional cost." Am I really getting a good deal here? I was paying x amount of dollars and using as much as 66.7 gallons each month, now I can go further for the same x dollars, but I'm only burning through a maximum of 23.8 gallons...

More subscribers use more spectrum. More spectrally efficient phones do not. AT&T is reducing the amount of spectrum you're getting for your dollar, Hz per Hz, when you carry over your unlimited plan to the iPhone 5 (even accounting for the wider bands used by LTE.) People need to pay attention to what they're really paying for, and in this case, it's ultimately spectrum availability, not GB. AT&T doesn't generate nearly any of the bits that they meter out every billing cycle. They license any available spectrum they can get their hands on, and then rent you very small time slices of it.

People need to be disabused of this notion that certain users who have large aggregate monthly downloads as measured in GB are somehow ruining it for everybody. The endgame here for AT&T is to increase profits for the sake of the shareholders. To grow revenues in this business you can either add more subscribers, or increase the amount the existing subscribers pay each month. If you can't easily build out your network to accommodate additional subscribers due to a lack of available spectrum in key markets, you turn to option #2. Having subscribers under contracts that cannot potentially balloon up with surcharges makes them unavailable to tap for generating increased revenue. This is the "unlimited" problem, and why these types of contracts are a headache for every carrier that isn't fighting to win new subscribers.

Rest assured, the carriers have done the math—capped plans with a lower face value at signing generate more revenue on average during the course of a 2 year term than "more expensive" unlimited plans.

 

[schmitt]

People hate AT&T over this, but I don't see screams over Verizon forcing people to give up unlimited.

Verizon isn't forcing anyone to give up unlimited.

 

[wkadamsjr]

Verizon isn't forcing anyone to give up unlimited.

Neither is AT&T. Is anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to choose a Mobile Share plan?

If anything, Verizon is worse. You can't even choose an individual line anymore. And current iPhone users have to pay full price for the iPhone 5 to get unlimited LTE.

 

[repoman27]

Neither is AT&T. Is anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to choose a Mobile Share plan?

If anything, Verizon is worse. You can't even choose an individual line anymore. And current iPhone users have to pay full price for the iPhone 5 to get unlimited LTE.

OK, I'm not screaming, but I have been ranting pretty hard about this. Verizon's solution actually makes more sense to me, but it's still fairly disingenuous.

When you buy a subsidized iPhone, you're essentially paying x down and agreeing to finance the remaining $450 of the retail price of the phone over a 24 month period. The carrier craftily buries that finance charge in the bill for the monthly service you also agreed to pay for during that term. That works out to $18.75 / month, or more if you include a finance charge, so let's just call it $20 / month.

Not too many people would argue that they don't find themselves transferring more data via mobile devices on cellular networks nowadays than they did a couple years ago. Even setting aside the increases in spectral efficiency that come along with newer generations of devices, I can buy that the cost to the carriers of providing unlimited plans has gone up since 2008 when I bought my first iPhone. What bothers me is that there are no carriers saying, "Hey this is costing us more now than it used to, so we're going to have to charge a bit more for it."

Why is Verizon not just saying, "Sure, you can sign a new 2-year contract and keep unlimited data, but we're going to have to charge you $20 more a month because you're going to use a heck of a lot more data with this new phone."? Because on average they will make more than $20 more per month if they can switch everyone to tiered usage plans with strategically placed caps.

You might be one of the lucky winners and end up paying less for your 2-year contract with tiered data, but the odds are very much in favor of the house.

 

[wkadamsjr]

OK, I'm not screaming, but I have been ranting pretty hard about this. Verizon's solution actually makes more sense to me, but it's still fairly disingenuous.

When you buy a subsidized iPhone, you're essentially paying x down and agreeing to finance the remaining $450 of the retail price of the phone over a 24 month period. The carrier craftily buries that finance charge in the bill for the monthly service you also agreed to pay for during that term. That works out to $18.75 / month, or more if you include a finance charge, so let's just call it $20 / month.

Not too many people would argue that they don't find themselves transferring more data via mobile devices on cellular networks nowadays than they did a couple years ago. Even setting aside the increases in spectral efficiency that come along with newer generations of devices, I can buy that the cost to the carriers of providing unlimited plans has gone up since 2008 when I bought my first iPhone. What bothers me is that there are no carriers saying, "Hey this is costing us more now than it used to, so we're going to have to charge a bit more for it."

Why is Verizon not just saying, "Sure, you can sign a new 2-year contract and keep unlimited data, but we're going to have to charge you $20 more a month because you're going to use a heck of a lot more data with this new phone."? Because on average they will make more than $20 more per month if they can switch everyone to tiered usage plans with strategically placed caps.

You might be one of the lucky winners and end up paying less for your 2-year contract with tiered data, but the odds are very much in favor of the house.

What I find ridiculous is that these carriers charge a subsidy on iPhones even if your subsidy is paid off (AT&T I know for sure, not positive about Sprint or Verizon). Defeats the purpose of paying for an unsubsidized iPhone.

 

[repoman27]

What I find ridiculous is that these carriers charge a subsidy on iPhones even if your subsidy is paid off (AT&T I know for sure, not positive about Sprint or Verizon). Defeats the purpose of paying for an unsubsidized iPhone.

Well, you do end up paying the same amount per month, I suppose. But you aren't obligated to do so for 24 consecutive months. When you bail out of a contract early, you end up having to pay the remainder of that subsidy you took in the form of the dreaded early termination fee.

And the phone isn't carrier locked, so you can use a foreign network SIM instead of paying for international roaming while abroad.

 

[geekypastor]

Keeping the unlimited

Can I order from apple.com, then call AT&T when I receive the phone to activate it and they will continue my Grandfathered in Unlimited plan, or do I have to order from AT&T to ensure I don't lose my Unlimited? I just called my local at&t store and they said I would lose it if I ordered the new iPhone 5 from Apple, but I read online somewhere that I would just have to call in to AT&T when I go to activate.

Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered.

Thanks!

 

[BiteMyApple]

It's incredible that plans in the USA are around $100/month.

Here in france, we have unlimited plans (talk/txt/data) for €20/month. That's UNLIMITED on 3G and now LTE all over the country, great coverage, etc... From ALL carriers!!!

Something's wrong in the US!

I'm a French now living in the US.

Where in the world have you seen such unlimited plans at such a low price in France? All carriers? I beg to differ, I've never paid less than 60 Euros/month in France for an unlimited iPhone plan with Orange.

Here in New York, I pay $70/month for the old unlimited AT&T plan that I subscribed to 3 years ago. You say the difference goes from 20 to 100, my experience says it's more like 60 to 70.

Many things are wrong with the US, but I wouldn't point at cellular data plans

 

[tigress666]

I think Verizon still allows for unlimited data...you just have to buy the phone at the unsubsidized price.

At that point you're better off going with a pay as you go plan that will be far cheaper than what any of the three big four will offer you.

I just had a guy tell me he gets 100 minutes, unlimited data for 30 bux a month just for going with some small no name with no contract and he can switch if he finds a better deal at any time.

So why would you go with Verizon at all if they aren't going to subsidize your phone?

 

[tigress666]

so, ATT still KEEPS unlimited data and allows LTE...Verizon Does Not and people are still pissed at ATT?
.

Yeah, I know, AT&T just can't win here. Which pisses me off cause honestly, if AT&T can't win, what incentive do they have to keep a plan they actively admitted they want to get rid of. They might as well discontinue it cause apparently it isn't making people happy anyways (note, AT&T, I am very happy you are grandfathering unlimited because I know you have absolutely no obligation to and really no incentive as where else would I go for unlimited... and don't say Sprint cause they are one carrier I ruled out long ago due to really crappy connections).

Honestly, AT&T is being nice in my opinion for doing this cause really, even if you argue keeping your current customers, it's not like there are much better options out there so they could just say, "Well, where else are you going to go?". VErizon has made themselves much more expensive than AT&T with their shared plans (even their tiered plans if you weren't going for the expensive high data ones are more expensive) and Sprint just plain sux.

 

[PPFee]

does noone process things logically?

Heres my deal, and havent heard anyone even bring it up. On 3g unlimited Data plan holding customers, after reaching the 2gb and then 3gb cap, they throttled you back to the previous generation edge speeds (anyone catching on yet) So now that we are on LTE, if we go over the limit and they throttle us, will they throttle us down to measly 3G last gen speeds, as logic dictates would happen, or are they going to Double Down on throttling and kick us back two generations of wireless tech and keep us at Edge speeds. I know the answer is surely we'll get Edge speeds, but why and how no one is infuriated over this i dont get. Surely some of the folks who love to play devils advocate or simply hate people with unlimted data or certain carriers will say that the point of throttling is to punish and that if you are going to "abuse" the system you paid for then after a certain point you wont be able to do it at the fastest available speeds. Okay fine, again, HSPA+ is where i want to be throttled down to now.

 

[ruckleapple]

Just reading over the Softbank iPhone 5 prices in Japan. They too are now introducing caps for 4g LTE. Though the limit is 7gb, if reached speeds will be reduced to 128kbs for the remainder of the month.

 

[b_scott]

I made my peace with losing unlimited moving from AT&T to VZW. It won't affect me since I use Wifi most of the time. I also understand where the companies are coming from, even though I don't think they should be given a pass not to improve speed and coverage. But really the people who are abusing Unlimited are screwing up coverage and speed for the rest of us. And it's not a huge amount of people who are doing it, so it's not going to affect that many people. I think the new pricing is pretty fair, and allowing you to pay a little if you go over instead of shutting down your web usage or throttling is a lot better way to go.

 

[DaveN]

You know what this means? Buy unlocked iPhone 5 handsets and bring them to T-Mobile for $20 unlimited, unthrottled data enjoy faster HSPA+ than any other carrier in refarmed markets, and rest assured that your phone will switch over to LTE in 2013!

That is what I wanted to do but Apple isn't selling unlocked iPhone 5s.

 

[mono1980]

Of course, this is right after they screwed me out of my grandfathered plan just because I changed some billing information on my account. I think they are aggressively trying to get people out of their grandfathered plans. They didn't tell me it would happen until after they did it. I was furious.

 

[nws0291]

I'm in the dreaded state "we received your order" on two orders with Apple at around 4:45am EST.

I can't cancel and order from ATT. I tried earlier to order from ATT after the apple 2 week notice but ATT kept giving me premeir errors. About an hour later it would have let me buy on but obviously full price as I can't cancel with Apple.

Bummed as I slept through my alarm and traveling the following week of the luanch day and would have been nice to have it.

I really hope they start processing the orders and bump up the ship times.

 

[nws0291]

I'm in the dreaded state "we received your order" on two orders with Apple at around 4:45am EST.

I can't cancel and order from ATT. I tried earlier to order from ATT after the apple 2 week notice but ATT kept giving me premeir errors. About an hour later it would have let me buy on but obviously full price as I can't cancel with Apple.

Bummed as I slept through my alarm and traveling the following week of the luanch day and would have been nice to have it.

I really hope they start processing the orders and bump up the ship times.

I canceled my orders with Apple as delivery was Oct 5th for both orders. I went and pre-ordered at Radioshack as there was basically no one on the list and hopefully I can get it on launch day or within the first week.

 

[Liquorpuki]

I made my peace with losing unlimited moving from AT&T to VZW. .

Same here... but mostly because I'm in Downtown LA and after lunch, my data speeds on AT&T are pretty much 0 no matter how many bars my phone shows. And it's been like this for the past 3 years

Unlimited Data on a crappy network = useless

 

[bobright]

Stoked 4s owners on the old 3G grandfathered plan never got LTE speed at least I didn't. I had the stupid 4G icon but never had fast speeds or 4G at least never felt like it. We now have free LTE 4G the same unlimited plan, same price...why are people complaining?

This makes upgrading to the new phone worth it alone.

 

[JuBe]

What does it say about people who want all the bandwidth they can use and not pay for it?
They (as well as Sprint, tMobile and Verizon) are a for profit business. Putting up towers, investing in the backhaul costs MONEY. If you want the speed and data, you have to pay money for it.

----------



But it's AT&T who are the greedy ones.

Err... giving me a piece of paper that says I have speed and data does nothing for me if I can't use it. Instead of explaining my point again, I'll just leave you with what I sent AT&T after they reached out to me because I complained to the FCC:


I emailed you yesterday, did it not go through? Regardless, I'm trying to figure out how this does not break with the principles of net neutrality? From everything I have gathered thus far, your plan is to block my access to and usage of specific data that is both legal and reasonable--unless I choose to pay more for less data on a different plan. I do not pay AT&T for specific content, I pay for access to that content. As a wireless provider, your responsibility is to provide access to data in exchange for a fee; by forcing me into a plan with less data for a higher price, is inherently forcing me to pay more for a service that sends and receives data packets just as Skype, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook and other apps do. A bit is a bit is a bit. To differentiate between them and charge more (inherent in the forced plan migration) for one set of 1's and 0's as opposed to any other set of 1's and 0's is a breach of net neutrality. I pay for the 1's and 0's, not what they translate to. But lets take a step back for a moment and look at your actions in a different industry:

Say my car is in the shop, and my only option is to use a taxi service. On Monday, I call them up ask them to take me to the grocery store, so they come and pick me up in a Toyota Prius. That's cool, I don't mind being seen in one--they save the environment and what not. Tuesday comes around, and I call the taxi service, here's the conversation I have:
Me: Hey, I'm the guy you took to the grocery store yesterday, could you pick me up? I need a ride today.
Taxi service: Oh, well great to hear from you! Sure we'd love to do that--we'll send one of our taxis right on over! Where are you going to?
Me: To the airport.
Taxi service: You're aware that will cost more money, right?
Me: That makes sense--I figured having the taxi take me farther would cost me a little bit more.
Taxi service: No sir, apparently you don't understand. It will cost more because you have to take a different vehicle to go to the airport.
Me: Why?
Taxi service: Oh, well typically, people going to the airport don't go by themselves, so typically you need the extra seating room, and typically people going to the airport need more room for their luggage, and the Lincoln TownCar has a bigger trunk than the Prius.
Me: Oh, that's not necessary, I'm going by myself and only taking a small carry-on.
Taxi service: You don't understand, if you're going to the airport, you have to take the Lincoln TownCar.
Me: But I don't need it, the Prius will do just fine. Is it really necessary for me to take the TownCar?
Taxi service: Yes.
Me: But I don't need it, and since this is a technicality on your part, can you just charge me the regular Prius rate?
Taxi service: I'm sorry I can't provide you the Prius service rate if you are going to use the TownCar.
Me: But I don't need the TownCar...?
Taxi service: Oh, so you're not going to the airport, then?
Me: No, I'm still going to the airport, I just don't need the TownCar.
Taxi service: Well, if you're going to the airport, then you need the TownCar.

You see, I understand that I have to pay to use services, and if I use more of them, I should have to pay more. What doesn't make sense is why I should have to pay an additional fee for something simply because of the way I'm using it. If I don't need all the seating and trunk space to go to the airport, I shouldn't have to pay more for it when their is a simpler, more affordable alternative available to me. But say I need to go with a friend to the home improvement store, and I need a saw horse; I call up the taxi service and pay for the TownCar (you won't believe how big the trunks are). I needed the space, and operating a TownCar is more expensive than a Prius so it will most likely cost more to use. It would be silly for a taxi to charge me more based solely on where I was going to and not on how long it took me to get to my destination.


Back to the real world. You are implementing a policy of data discrimination and taking an emphatic position against the principles of net neutrality. Using "legalese" to wiggle your way out of a situation to justify forcing customers to purchase an inferior product at a higher price is inexcusable. Justifying the decision by saying that you are forcing people to use the Mobile Share Plan in order to "[monitor] the impact the upgrade to this popular preloaded app has on our mobile broadband network, and customers, too, will be in a learning mode as to exactly how much data FaceTime consumes on those usage-based plans," is a cop-out. Limiting this feature to this group of customers for monitoring implies that it will be a small user-base. We both know that it will be a small user-base because people don't want the plan, because they don't want to pay for features they don't need, in order to to get less data.

Your slogan is "Rethink possible," and your policies lead me to believe that less is possible.


~JuBe

P.S. Here's a deleted scene:

Me: I don't understand why I need to pay for the TownCar to go to the airport.
Taxi service: Sir, if I can be honest with you--and this stays between you and me, but if we don't require you to use the Lincoln TownCar to get to the airport, then people would never use the TownCar service.
Me: So by cutting options, you can force people into plans that make you more money?
Taxi service: Bingo! Oh--the higher-ups are coming! (in a scripted voice) Oh, no sir! The Lincoln TownCar really will serve your needs better!

 

[b_scott]

Same here... but mostly because I'm in Downtown LA and after lunch, my data speeds on AT&T are pretty much 0 no matter how many bars my phone shows. And it's been like this for the past 3 years

Unlimited Data on a crappy network = useless

AGREED. Especially in Chicago where everyone bought iPhones on AT&T originally and never switched, so it's just crap.

----------

P.S. Here's a deleted scene:

Me: I don't understand why I need to pay for the TownCar to go to the airport.
Taxi service: Sir, if I can be honest with you--and this stays between you and me, but if we don't require you to use the Lincoln TownCar to get to the airport, then people would never use the TownCar service.
Me: So by cutting options, you can force people into plans that make you more money?
Taxi service: Bingo! Oh--the higher-ups are coming! (in a scripted voice) Oh, no sir! The Lincoln TownCar really will serve your needs better!

LOL awesome

 

[Fiestaman]

any currently grandfathered in AT&T customers (like myself) should refer to this link, http://www.att.com/esupport/datausage.jsp?source=IZDUel1160000000U
I found this very helpful and should clear up any of your remaining questions.

Anyone else notice that the chart on the third page doesn't make sense? They say streaming HD movies takes 306MB per hour, but then on the other side they say that you can get 160 minutes of movie streaming with 5GB.

 

[Fiestaman]

Stoked 4s owners on the old 3G grandfathered plan never got LTE speed at least I didn't. I had the stupid 4G icon but never had fast speeds or 4G at least never felt like it. We now have free LTE 4G the same unlimited plan, same price...why are people complaining?

This makes upgrading to the new phone worth it alone.

Errrr...why would you think you would get LTE speeds on a phone that doesn't have LTE capabilities? I'm lost...

 

[jdtoomey]

I have the unlimited data plan for my iPhone 4s. Do i get the 5GB before throttling? when does this start? is it only with iPhone 5 upgrade? Please help me out thanks!!! FREAK! WALLY![/QUOT

4S is not an LTE device so you will be throttled at 3 gb.

----------

Errrr...why would you think you would get LTE speeds on a phone that doesn't have LTE capabilities? I'm lost...

There is a big difference between 4g {hspa+} and 4g LTE. IPhone 4s is a 4g device not an LTE device. And the 3g data plan is not compatible with the 4s

----------

Of course, this is right after they screwed me out of my grandfathered plan just because I changed some billing information on my account. I think they are aggressively trying to get people out of their grandfathered plans. They didn't tell me it would happen until after they did it. I was furious.

The only things that would prompt att to remove your unlimited data plan would be a transfer of billing responsibility or a change from a smartphone to a nonsmartphone.

----------

Can I order from apple.com, then call AT&T when I receive the phone to activate it and they will continue my Grandfathered in Unlimited plan, or do I have to order from AT&T to ensure I don't lose my Unlimited? I just called my local at&t store and they said I would lose it if I ordered the new iPhone 5 from Apple, but I read online somewhere that I would just have to call in to AT&T when I go to activate.

Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered.

Thanks!

You can order from apple and aactivate with AT&T. The only thing that would prompt a change with your unlimited data plan would be if you switched to a non smartphone.

 

[highertechnology]

This has nothing to do with the iPhone 5. This was already the case on all LTE devices.