How much would you pay for 4G unlimited data on your ipad?

How much would you pay for Unlimited 4G LTE on Ipad?

  • $50-$75

    Votes: 34 48.6%
  • $75-$100

    Votes: 7 10.0%
  • $100-$125

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • $125+

    Votes: 3 4.3%
  • I wouldnt use it and am happy with current plans.

    Votes: 24 34.3%

  • Total voters
    70

BFizzzle

macrumors 68020
Original poster
May 31, 2010
2,443
0
Austin TX
Id honestly pay up to $100 a month for unlimited 4G Lte through att, and cut my time warner 50/5 broadband out ($75 a month). Anyone else agree?

I dont see how att cant find a price that is enough to sustain the unlimited "strain"

Whats your guys price you would pay? Thoughts?
 

Spectrum Abuser

macrumors 65816
Aug 27, 2011
1,377
47
I'd pay $49.95 for unlimited LTE(no BS strings attached). Or $74.95 if they offered unlimited LTE along with hotspot tethering with the no strings policy.
 

iCrosoft

macrumors regular
Jun 23, 2010
122
0
If you were really getting "unlimited" data that would be great. You're capped. I think the OP is referring to "really" unlimited data.
http://m-support.verizonwireless.com/information/data_disclosure.html

"If you have a 4G LTE device you will not be affected."

Sorry, can't say the same for AT&T.

I'd pay $49.95 for unlimited LTE(no BS strings attached). Or $74.95 if they offered unlimited LTE along with hotspot tethering with the no strings policy.
Hotspot (tiered or unlimited) is also free on the Verizon iPad 3. Pretty glad I chose VZW over AT&T.
 
Last edited:

neutrino23

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2003
1,736
229
SF Bay area
I don't want unlimited data. I would like maybe 2GB a month including tethering for maybe $10. I'll use WiFi for the heavy lifting.

It is interesting though. I'm planning to do what many others seem to be doing and that is to replace my MBP with an iMac and only carry the iPad. In that case I don't need tethering, just data. I plan to use something like Splashtop to connect to the iMac remotely in case I need a file or something like that.

I tried this the other night and it works really well on the local network. I imaging things slow down over the internet.
 

Holoshed

macrumors regular
Mar 24, 2011
126
0
North Carolina
Right now I pay mid 30s for 5gigs on AT&T and I do not find myself going near it like I thought I would but I do not DEPEND on it that often.

To keep with the topic and question, I would pay 40-50 USD. It would be able to do stuff without worrying, like when I was out or on vacation.

I used to have a Time Warner Cable mobile internet hotspot which was 3g through Sprint and 4g through Clear but I could never use it because the 3g side was such a pain in the butt and Clear wasnt in a whole lot of places.

I dont really miss unlimited as much as I thought but me being the weirdo I am, I would pay more for the chance to do unlimited. Heck its why I pay for unlimited Usenet vs block accounts, use TWC instead of AT&T (no caps) and use Sprint right now on my phone over say AT&T.

I, like most people (there was a survey done) will pay more for the CHANCE of "all you can eat" even if you eat less than the cheapest price's allotment.
 

iCrosoft

macrumors regular
Jun 23, 2010
122
0
I, like most people (there was a survey done) will pay more for the CHANCE of "all you can eat" even if you eat less than the cheapest price's allotment.
It's funny how unlimited was offered for basically the same price as their capped plans now. So consumers pay the same amount but the burden of monitoring usage is now on the consumer and overage is a penalty towards the consumer but another gain in profits for the company. Devious.
 

shinobi-81

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2012
341
1
It's funny how unlimited was offered for basically the same price as their capped plans now. So consumers pay the same amount but the burden of monitoring usage is now on the consumer and overage is a penalty towards the consumer but another gain in profits for the company. Devious.
We can thank all the 100-gig-gluttons for that. "I want the best value for my money so I will keep YouTube on 24/7, OMG this battery is short-lived!!"
 

iCrosoft

macrumors regular
Jun 23, 2010
122
0
We can thank all the 100-gig-gluttons for that. "I want the best value for my money so I will keep YouTube on 24/7, OMG this battery is short-lived!!"
Do you even have proof of that even taking place? How does one even keep YouTube on 24/7?!

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant and the same as someone leaving their cable television on. It's both streaming data and ultimately travels thru the same network, the Internet.

Unlimited data being no longer offered has absolutely NOTHING to do with the top 5% of users. It's about money, profits. AT&T and Verizon have made that clear. Google it.
 

blevins321

macrumors 68030
Dec 24, 2010
2,760
78
Winnipeg, MB
Id honestly pay up to $100 a month for unlimited 4G Lte through att, and cut my time warner 50/5 broadband out ($75 a month). Anyone else agree?

I dont see how att cant find a price that is enough to sustain the unlimited "strain"

Whats your guys price you would pay? Thoughts?
I'm in this boat. I would gladly pay $100/month if it included unthrottled tethering. Either AT&T or Verizon, doesn't matter to me. And it's for the same reason - I could drop by Roadrunner Extreme connection and end up saving a few bucks.
 

shinobi-81

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2012
341
1
Do you even have proof of that even taking place? How does one even keep YouTube on 24/7?!

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant and the same as someone leaving their cable television on. It's both streaming data and ultimately travels thru the same network, the Internet.

Unlimited data being no longer offered has absolutely NOTHING to do with the top 5% of users. It's about money, profits. AT&T and Verizon have made that clear. Google it.
It can't compare to keeping the cable TV on, since it's a different infrastructure. This is about how the cell-towers are being overloaded by some of the users, and FTR, I think cabled internet and fiber-optics should still be all-you-can-eat for a fixed monthly fee.

But by all means, keep telling yourself that using three-figured amounts of GB per month is something all the Unlimited-users should be able to to simultaneously, without straining the network and without encouraging the carriers to discontinue those plans.
 
Last edited:

mzjin

macrumors 6502
Oct 28, 2011
412
0
Id honestly pay up to $100 a month for unlimited 4G Lte through att, and cut my time warner 50/5 broadband out ($75 a month). Anyone else agree?

I dont see how att cant find a price that is enough to sustain the unlimited "strain"

Whats your guys price you would pay? Thoughts?
That makes no sense. I know I use probably 100-200GBs of downloads per month on the home connection.

You are asking Verizon or AT&T to give you a huge amount, at minimum 100GBs of unlimited for $100? That's $1/GB. Right now, they charge you like $20/GB.

If you paid $2000 per month, they may actually take you up on your offer. :confused:
 

BFizzzle

macrumors 68020
Original poster
May 31, 2010
2,443
0
Austin TX
That makes no sense. I know I use probably 100-200GBs of downloads per month on the home connection.

You are asking Verizon or AT&T to give you a huge amount, at minimum 100GBs of unlimited for $100? That's $1/GB. Right now, they charge you like $20/GB.

If you paid $2000 per month, they may actually take you up on your offer. :confused:
lol then how do companies like clear mobile exist? they offer unthrottled mobile 4g for home broadband. Designed for home internet. its wimax not LTE, but none the less they can do it.
 

OneShotos

macrumors newbie
Jun 9, 2009
24
0
:mad: Not one RED cent! Because the Providers will not keep their end of the bargain. Unlimited data = 3GB?? Seriously they said mobile users are eat up all their bandwidth.... yet they add millions on new smart users plans every month! Maybe the Providers should have a moratorium on new sell, since they don't have the bandwidth!

We have the Fast mobile system around!!!! but you can only use 15K per month
 

unlimitedx

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2010
635
0
That makes no sense. I know I use probably 100-200GBs of downloads per month on the home connection.

You are asking Verizon or AT&T to give you a huge amount, at minimum 100GBs of unlimited for $100? That's $1/GB. Right now, they charge you like $20/GB.

If you paid $2000 per month, they may actually take you up on your offer. :confused:
right now at&t and verizon are setting arbitrary limits and arbitrary overage fees. they cannot and have not proved that these tiered pricing plans have improved their network, except for getting more $$ from consumers
 

neutrino23

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2003
1,736
229
SF Bay area
We can thank all the 100-gig-gluttons for that. "I want the best value for my money so I will keep YouTube on 24/7, OMG this battery is short-lived!!"
I've heard that the high bandwidth users were setting up phones as torrent servers which meant they were running flat out most of the time.
 

noteple

macrumors 65816
Aug 30, 2011
1,407
328
If I had LTE speeds at home I would pay what I pay my cable Internet provider and drop them. $39.00.
 

TB07-NJ

macrumors 68020
Jul 7, 2008
2,310
133
FORMERLY NJ now FL
lol then how do companies like clear mobile exist? they offer unthrottled mobile 4g for home broadband. Designed for home internet. its wimax not LTE, but none the less they can do it.
Because they have so few customers because their service is so "area specific" and you rarely get the speeds they promise. Sprint is dropping their service on new phones so now they will be lucky to last a couple more years.
 

iCrosoft

macrumors regular
Jun 23, 2010
122
0
It can't compare to keeping the cable TV on, since it's a different infrastructure. This is about how the cell-towers are being overloaded by some of the users, and FTR, I think cabled internet and fiber-optics should still be all-you-can-eat for a fixed monthly fee.
It can, and what are cell towers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_frequency#Television

A cell tower would not be overloaded by SOME subscribers, it is overloaded by ALL. The capacity of a single local cell tower is shared EQUALLY by ALL local subscribers. The more subscribers using their service, the more it gets split up EQUALLY.

The ideal solution would be to add more capacity right? Meet the demands of the consumers right? Instead, AT&T is meeting the demands of their share holders.

But by all means, keep telling yourself that using three-figured amounts of GB per month is something all the Unlimited-users should be able to to simultaneously, without straining the network and without encouraging the carriers to discontinue those plans
I believe a consumer should be able to user their data as they see fit, for personal use. If you've signed up for a flat-rate/unlimited access contract, it should be so. Now if one was to use the flat-rate/unlmited access for commercial purposes, then that would be wrong.

And again, all the 100gb gluttons (I don't approve of this as it assosiates 100gb usage with a stimga), or all unlimited data users for this matter, has nothing to do with the discontinuation of the unlimited data plan; pure profits.

ULTIMATELY everyone is limited by the max download speed. Which is the same for EVERYONE on a 3G network. That's right, the unlimited data users share the same download speeds and do not strain the network anymore than the tiered user; they are just supposed to be allowed to use it as long as they want. Instead, AT&T has come up with this tactic of creating a blacksheep out of them; using them as an excuse to throttle and limit EVERYONE (especially penalizing unlimited data contract owners). Disgusting.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/fast-atts-3g-internet-31768.html

keep telling yourself that using three-figured amounts of GB per month is something all the Unlimited-users should be able to to simultaneously, without straining the network
10 million unlimited data users using their "data" simultaneously

is no different than

10 million tiered data users using their "data" simultaneously

in regards to straining the network. The only factor is the number of users on that local network/tower at a given time; regardless of data plan.

The only difference now is, AT&T throttles unlimited data users to a worthless download speed as a result of ones contractual agreement for "unlimited data"; AT&T no longer sharing the towers EQUALLY and giving priority to others. This is what ALL ISP's eventually want to do with the Internet and what consumers need to fight against.

FTR, I do agree that utilizing the 3G service 24/7 is pretty ridiculous; mathematically 320gb/mo. ridiculous

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/How_many_GB_does_1_Mbps_equal

I'm just really appalled by all of this (ISP's taking advantage of the consumers). It's one thing to profit from providing a reliable service and maintaining it but it's another to profit from intentionally overloading your network with subscribers and refusing to expand the capacity to meet demands.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.