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.
Skype for iPhone Sparks Battle Between Consumers and Carriers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True. But consider this: I have a paygo iPhone and I do not feel like paying for international calls to call my friends and family in Europe. I can call them now for 2 cents/minute.
Just remember that a lot of the cell infrastructure is paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, through government money.
i figured years ago this kind of problem will eventually come out
if skype can be used over 3G, why we would need the voice service for. with LTE rolling out in the coming years, i'm pretty sure the quality of skype call will getting very close to the regular voice call.
if skype can be used over 3G, why we would need the voice service for. with LTE rolling out in the coming years, i'm pretty sure the quality of skype call will getting very close to the regular voice call.
Agreed and you have a valid point: they are running a business and have to pay for their CODB, infrastructure, and make a profit, that is fine and good.
However, if we approach cell phone plans and data as total bits and bytes, and not as minutes, texts, images, websites, movies, we can then see the industry and its pricing structure in an entirely different light.
They are telling us that texts cost X, data costs Y, and calls cost Z, when it is patently not true. AT&T has a set cost per unit of data. Say, for the price of their infrastructure, payroll, advertising, and profit margins, it costs $1 per megabyte of data. This megabyte is then packaged into the arbitrary categories of "voice", "text", and "data plan". say a text uses 1kb of data and you get 200 texts a month at $x. And say you download 200mb of youtube videos on your iphone as part of a $30 data plan... and use 450 minutes of cell phone call time for $39. Well, if you accept the premise that each uses the exact same thing--data ie 1's and 0's--then each thing has a completely arbitrary value that is not based on actual cost to the company, but on a marketing strategy with no basis in reality.
We should have a pricing structure that does not exploit the ignorance of the consumer, or lie to us and tell us that this is the way it has to be. I have no problem paying for data or the money spent on infrastructure, I have a problem with paying for cell phone texts when it costs the company nothing to transmit them, or a company telling me that I can use the data I paid for for X but not Y and Z because they have set up a completely arbitrary distinction on what ways an identical commodity, data, can be used.
Again, I am not talking about getting something for nothing, I am talking about getting a fair price for a service. They are increasing their profit margins by taking advantage of the ignorance of the consumer. The more people know this, the more leverage we as consumers have to get things at a fair value.
However, if we approach cell phone plans and data as total bits and bytes, and not as minutes, texts, images, websites, movies, we can then see the industry and its pricing structure in an entirely different light.
They are telling us that texts cost X, data costs Y, and calls cost Z, when it is patently not true. AT&T has a set cost per unit of data. Say, for the price of their infrastructure, payroll, advertising, and profit margins, it costs $1 per megabyte of data. This megabyte is then packaged into the arbitrary categories of "voice", "text", and "data plan". say a text uses 1kb of data and you get 200 texts a month at $x. And say you download 200mb of youtube videos on your iphone as part of a $30 data plan... and use 450 minutes of cell phone call time for $39. Well, if you accept the premise that each uses the exact same thing--data ie 1's and 0's--then each thing has a completely arbitrary value that is not based on actual cost to the company, but on a marketing strategy with no basis in reality.
We should have a pricing structure that does not exploit the ignorance of the consumer, or lie to us and tell us that this is the way it has to be. I have no problem paying for data or the money spent on infrastructure, I have a problem with paying for cell phone texts when it costs the company nothing to transmit them, or a company telling me that I can use the data I paid for for X but not Y and Z because they have set up a completely arbitrary distinction on what ways an identical commodity, data, can be used.
Again, I am not talking about getting something for nothing, I am talking about getting a fair price for a service. They are increasing their profit margins by taking advantage of the ignorance of the consumer. The more people know this, the more leverage we as consumers have to get things at a fair value.
The big surprise for everyone in 2010/2011 is that, in response to the growing demand for a less mysterious mobile service, that is reasonably priced, the LTE/ WiMax networks will be data-only and replace the need for cellular technology.... And it will still cost everyone $100/mon.
Start cutting in on their profit margin and you won't be seeing things like an IPhone for $199 either. They are counting on a certain amount of business to subsidize the phones, the infrastructure, the ads, and their employees paychecks.
Somebody has to make some money to pay some taxes to pay for the bailouts!
It's not about cutting into their profit margin, it's about pricing things fairly and not accepting manipulation on the part of the carrier. I refuse to admit that the only way you can have a subsidised $199 iphone is by accepting completely illogical and exploitative pricing structures.
Huzzah! This is great news to hear that people are questioning the legality of limiting functionality over wireless networks. Keep fighting the good fight!
I've said it before, but the carrier that adopts this model first will be the big winner:
* You pay the carrier $x for unlimited data each month.
* You then pay a $y phone bill to have a phone number. You can pay your carrier for this or someone like Skype. It's up to you.
There. Done. That's it.
With "x" priced properly, the carrier will continue to make a profit. The price of "x" will be competitive between all the carriers as they'll mostly be competing with each other on price, speed, and network area.
The price of "y" will be low because a dozen companies will start doing it. Skype, AT&T, Verizon, Apple...they'll all have their own version of "y" that they offer to anyone.
You pick your iPhone's ISP (x) and your iPhone's phone service (y) from different companies, just like how you pick your home ISP and your home e-mail from different companies. (Remember when 'AOL' meant ISP and e-mail? Hardly anyone gets both things from the same source anymore. It will change the same way on the call phone side.)
This is how everything will be in 5-6 years. The carriers should stop fighting it and jump in. It will be better for them in the long run.
* You pay the carrier $x for unlimited data each month.
* You then pay a $y phone bill to have a phone number. You can pay your carrier for this or someone like Skype. It's up to you.
There. Done. That's it.
With "x" priced properly, the carrier will continue to make a profit. The price of "x" will be competitive between all the carriers as they'll mostly be competing with each other on price, speed, and network area.
The price of "y" will be low because a dozen companies will start doing it. Skype, AT&T, Verizon, Apple...they'll all have their own version of "y" that they offer to anyone.
You pick your iPhone's ISP (x) and your iPhone's phone service (y) from different companies, just like how you pick your home ISP and your home e-mail from different companies. (Remember when 'AOL' meant ISP and e-mail? Hardly anyone gets both things from the same source anymore. It will change the same way on the call phone side.)
This is how everything will be in 5-6 years. The carriers should stop fighting it and jump in. It will be better for them in the long run.
@smartaleck
Your argument would make sense if AT&T was in the business of providing a public service. For example, I would gladly embrace your opinions if you were talking about, say, education, health care or even the post office.
I do expect a fair pricing for all these "goods" because they are (or at least, should be) performed in the name of the public good. No one company should make a financial profit from these.
But as far as telcos go, their business is in making money. Period. Of course there are limits as to how one should be able to make money.
As far as I know, AT&T and others deliver the service they advertise at the price they advertise. They don't lie, they don't steal.
Of course, since this is America, you are free to take your business to the competition.
Your argument would make sense if AT&T was in the business of providing a public service. For example, I would gladly embrace your opinions if you were talking about, say, education, health care or even the post office.
I do expect a fair pricing for all these "goods" because they are (or at least, should be) performed in the name of the public good. No one company should make a financial profit from these.
But as far as telcos go, their business is in making money. Period. Of course there are limits as to how one should be able to make money.
As far as I know, AT&T and others deliver the service they advertise at the price they advertise. They don't lie, they don't steal.
Of course, since this is America, you are free to take your business to the competition.
I completely agree... And also, the carriers make a good amount of their profits from customers who exceed their minutes and have to pay for extra minutes... Allowing skype over 3g would pretty much completely eliminate those profits and they're just going to jack up the price elsewhere to recover those losses... its sad but true... they're a company and they're going to do everything they can to keep their profit margins as high as possible.
And we as Americans have a right to educate ourselves and not be taken advantage of. They do advertise the service they provide (well, even though 3g doesn't work nearly as fast as they say, nor is the area they say it covers really accurate) for a price they clearly state, but if consumers knew the truth they wouldn't stand for it.
I personally think data should and probably will be a utility, just like water or electricity. But that aside, we should not feel that we are getting a square deal. All telcos do the same thing so there IS no competition in terms of fair market value for data.
We consumers must insist this is not the case.
I personally think data should and probably will be a utility, just like water or electricity. But that aside, we should not feel that we are getting a square deal. All telcos do the same thing so there IS no competition in terms of fair market value for data.
We consumers must insist this is not the case.
Yes, but McDonalds does not allow Burger King to sell hamburgers inside a McDonalds building.
Today's mobile telcos are simply tomorrow's mobile ISPs. Pure data plans are coming. These companies better be ready.
While I agree, there does seem to be certain groups who think they should get something for nothing, Many people, myself included like to be treated open and honestly by our service providers. I see the role of my cell phone carrier as providing a reliable, low latency, high bandwidth and mobile internet connection, I'm quite happy to pay for different bandwidths, latency and even reliabilities to a certain degree. But I object to being told how to use that service.
In the context of my relationship with my landlord, I am very happy to pay him what we mutally agree on, for the use of the appartment, the roof, walls and windows e.t.c. But I would have strong objections to my Landlord dictating that I could not have pizza delivered, on the grounds that the landlord operates a pizza reasturant on the ground floor of the building, and I should eat there instead.
In the context of my relationship with my landlord, I am very happy to pay him what we mutally agree on, for the use of the appartment, the roof, walls and windows e.t.c. But I would have strong objections to my Landlord dictating that I could not have pizza delivered, on the grounds that the landlord operates a pizza reasturant on the ground floor of the building, and I should eat there instead.