It used to be an all you can eat with unlimited data, but Verizon decided "Hey! I want more money so lets sell GB packages instead!" and other companies followed. Back in the day high speed internet didn't have any type of throttling, but then torrents happened that they implemented it. It's now many years later and they use throttling so they don't have to upgrade their systems. Back in Japan (for years now) they've been getting 1Gb of data speed on basic plans with unlimited data and no throttling. America has become the corporation state. Companies do not care about making a better experience, but to milk money from as many customers they can. Gone are the days of fairness and supporting what's the right way to do business. It's a sad world we are living in and it's just getting worse....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Questions Verizon Plan to Throttle Some Unlimited Data Customers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The highest retail on an iPhone right now is $850. If they keep the pricing structure the same and simply add another tier (keeping a 16gb entry level phone $650) that number will become $950. Still a lot of money, but not $1200. I simply don't see a phone going for that kind of number and selling well. Or maybe it will. We had a housing bubble due to people buying houses they can't afford. Maybe we see the same with phones lol.
im positive the tier pricing on the 5.5 iPhone will be higher than previously. also even 950$ plus taxes is going to be around 1100. either way, STUPID expensive!!!!
Was Verizon the first one?
Are there upgrades not happening most of the time?
(If you do a comparison of other countries, then at the very least the size and population density should be accounted for, otherwise it's not even close to being any kind of apples to apples comparison.)
Really?
Seems that's exactly what they are saying. No matter where you used your data, once you reach a certain level, you will be throttled in a congested area no matter what data level you are using.
Right, but only if/when you are in such a cell and only for the duration that it might be congested. It's not throttling that's kicks in as soon as you reach some data usage and lasts for the duration of your billing cycle or something like that (which is how throttling is generally seen and how it's generally been implemented by different providers).
And others like me find out it's the best service they've ever had out of the three. AT&T and Verizon have edge coverage at my house.
That's what I said. If I use "their magic number" in a non congested area, and then go to a congested area, my data will be throttled....regardless of my usage level in the congested area.
Actually, it's your fault. If you (and your neighbors) has voted in representatives who let big corporations and even small companies tear up more of your streets for fiber and put up cell towers without any regulations, multi-year delays or environmental impact reports, etc. you would have a lot more bandwidth.
Have them call Verizon/AT&T and work out a deal. Companies are almost always willing to negotiate with people who have special needs.
----------
Have you ever compared the population density of Japan vs the United States? We have less than 1/10th the number of people per square mile. Obviously it is far more expensive to provide high-speed access to sparsely populated areas.
Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=21000
I really wish people would try to become adequately informed about why different countries have different technologies/prices, instead of just ranting about it. No offense to you personally, just reminds me of the whole high-speed rail debate.
Last edited:
Uh... Verizon doesn't have and has NEVER had ANY EDGE data on their towers. Before they deployed LTE, their network was CDMA 1xEVDO based. EDGE data is a GSM technology.
LOL. I think I do, in fact understand economics. My point was that bandwidth is not, in fact scarce. If it were, how does VZW tell you that they're worried about you using 4.7GB a month if you're unlimited, and they're not worried about me using 8GB a month, because that's what I paid for?
This is just disingenuous BS. Back before selling data became their golden goose they went on about how expensive it was to give you unlimited minutes, or unlimited texts. Now suddenly it's cheap for you to use those services without metering.
Look, I get it that the cell carriers want to maximize their profits. But this is just a crock. We will eventually get to the point where all data plans will be unlimited. In the meantime they're going to do their best to squeeze every dime from the user that they can. I'm happy that the FCC is putting the pressure on them.
Because the total amount of bandwidth used by all the people who pay for an 8GB plan is less than the total used by all those people who go over 4.7GB on an unlimited plan. It's not how much just you use. It's the totals added up of all customers usage together, how they actually behave. If you look like you run with a bad crowd, you get stereotyped.
Right. Bandwidth isn't a consumable resource. It's not like the telcos have to resupply 4GB of data to replace the 4GB you used, like gasoline or bananas.
A slightly better analogy would be to say that bandwidth is more like a stretch of interstate. During slow hours, it's wide open and nearly empty. You could download 32GB of data in a couple of hours, and it's not costing the telcos a dime. But during rush hour, you have everyone cramming together down that one stretch of road, and it's slowing the flow of traffic down as everyone's trying to get to their destination. The longer someone's on that road, i.e. downloading more data, the less room there is for other people using it. People who download more data are using the road longer during peak times, and it slows everyone else down. That's the problem.
Using bandwidth doesn't cost anyone anything. It's creating the infrastructure to supply the bandwidth and its upkeep that costs money.
edit: Look at it like this, the problem isn't how much data you use, but how often you're on the road. The infrastructure can only support so many people downloading at certain amounts of speed. Once it reaches that point of congestion, it starts slowing down, basically doling out the bandwidth in smaller amounts on a first come first serve basis. But the data itself is in unlimited quantity, and your using it doesn't put any wear and tear on the network. So the best way to look at it isn't how often you're using it, but when.
Last edited:
To be fair, pretty much all politics are broken regardless of location.
Lobbying in the US has been taken to a whole other level and it's crippled your political system. Need examples? F-35 program from Lockheed, now looking at costing $1 trillion and the single most expensive project ever. Then after all that it's still a crap aircraft.
ISP's trying to get rid of net neutrality.
Healthcare insurers opposing any attempt to reform and fix the US healthcare system.
Oil companies supporting climate change deniers in congress. Huge problems with oil spills from trains that's having nothing done about it.
Big banks like JP Morgen and Goldman Sachs lobbying to deregulate the finance industry so they can screw everyone over and rig the system.
All these industries are allowed to pour money into congress, should be down right illegal.
Good analogy. With some history. People complained about on-ramp metering on one of the local highways. People said the meters were stupid, they slow me down and make me wait for no good reason, when traffic seemed to be flowing reasonably well.
So the state ran an experiment. Turned the meters off for a week. Traffic got much worse, and the metered lanes got even longer and slower with the meters off. Freeway turned into a rush hour stop-and-go parking lot.
Then they turned the freeway meters back on. Slowing things down on the on-ramp sped up everybody.
So let me get this straight... If I and 100 friends on the same cell site pay for our data you won't throttle us, but if we all had unlimited plans you would. What's the difference? Data is data.
You just want money. Just admit it!
You just want money. Just admit it!
The difference is that someone needs to be throttled at times to ease congestion so between throttling everyone or just some group of people it seems that doing it to a group of people on outdated plans that tend to use more data than most is better than just doing it to everyone.
Population density has nothing to do with it. Internet is actually really really cheap. Providers only need to pay for upload speeds and not download speeds. That is why your download maybe fast and your upload is slow. If they wanted to give you 1Gb download they can, but they're too stingy for that and added different tiers.
Yeah it's not like the size of the country has any relationship to the size of infrastructure that needs to be built out, maintained, upgraded, and added onto.
At first glance, it'd make sense to throttle everyone between 8 and 11 PM, when internet traffic is at its most congested. In theory, cutting higher tier subscription bandwidth in half during that would allow for much smoother service from everyone overall, and wouldn't punish heavy downloaders needlessly throughout the month. Limiting everyone by a certain amount at certain times is much better than cutting off some people all the time. Some guy who downloads a bunch of gig of data at 1PM or 3AM might not be using the internet at all during peak hours. Throttling his connection won't do anything to fix the problem. Doing it to everyone for 3 hours makes a lot more sense.
...but there are a few issues with even that. First off, the higher tier people are paying more money for their connection, and are likely to be the ones using it the most. They won't be getting their moneys worth, especially if they do tend to use the internet more often than not during peak times.
Secondly, it causes some services to suffer needlessly. Something like Netflix, which I think accounts for 25% of all internet traffic during peak hours, wouldn't perform nearly as well as it otherwise would. People getting home from work wanting to watch a movie won't get the quality they otherwise would from their connection.
There really isn't an easy answer to it all.
Who said car analogies don't work here?
Oh yeah. I HAVE DONE THE IMPOSSIBLE!
Are you really that thick? If you PAY for the 8GB a month, Verizon can use that money to upgrade their network. Extrapolate that out to millions of customers and you get a very significant revenue stream. If you don't pay for it, obviously that money won't be available for cellular infrasture improvements.
I don't understand what exactly your goal is here. Do you want a world where everyone pays the same rate and receives the exact same speed and unlimited service? That's not going to happen. A long as we're not living in a country where everyone makes the same amount of money, cellular providers have to provide a greater benefit to customers who are willing to pay more. A larger bill equals more revenue for the company, which increases profits and allows for greater network investment.
It's amusing that you think that we're destined for a world with unlimited data service. You're obviously comparing it to the current state of the wired internet, that went from metered to unlimited. However, notice that nearly every wired ISP charges more money for a greater *speed* of service. Again, tiered plans. You get what you pay for. Would you prefer that Verizon have unlimited service, but charge and arm and a leg for 4G access? I certainly wouldn't.
Most of these rants against Verizon and AT&T boil down to simply a bunch of liberals that don't understand economics. No offense to liberals here that do. You rant and rage against "greed" and profits. Well buddy, news flash: investors require a return on investment in order to give capital to companies such as Verizon and AT&T. Without reasonable profits, you don't get capital investment, and you do not get much of an industry. But you say: "What about unreasonable and extreme profits that occasionally happen, such as in the case of companies X and Y?!" Those profits provide an enormous incentive for new entrants to enter the market place, and for competitors to grab market share. Barring obstacles such as misguided regulation, it'll all work out in the end.
----------
If it's so cheap, then perhaps you'd like to start your own ISP. I'm sure you'll make a fortune selling cheap service at more reasonable rates.
----------
That is how a capitalist economy functions. You're welcome to try living someplace where people don't actually want money. I hear it sucks.