Why do MVNOs exist? / RE: Unlimited Data

[Peter K.]

With the big two (Verizon + at&t) doing almost everything possible to rid their customers of grandfathered unlimited cellular data plans, while claiming bandwidth considerations are the main reason for doing so, how is it possible for them (especially at&t, I guess) to make "room" enough to support MVNOs?

I realize that "providers" such as Net10 and StraightTalk might not contract out as much data per subscriber as do the big carriers, but I just don't believe their stated reasons of bandwidth limitations and cost for eliminating unlimited data plans and overcharging, IMO, for cellular data in general.

I really don't believe that the trend of rising usefulness of mobile devices can continue without a return of unlimited data plans. Things like iTunes Match, Netflix, etc. become of limited value without enough data.

 

[jav6454]

There is two things you have to consider.

One: It is one thing to have your network clogged with traffic from your side and their side, than just their side which you can make them pay higher eventually. Even if its bulk, AT&T can easily just up the charges for MVNOs.

Two: Traffic from MVNOs is always far less than traffic from the original carrier.


Final consideration, MVNOs are dirt cheap "carriers" (note the quotes since man times it is the same carrier that initiates the MVNO alternative, like Sprint and Boost) are there to attract the customer who can't really pay much and need a cheap option.

 

[Mrbobb]

I don't know why MNVO exist but am glad they do, otherwise I'd be paying the big2 for the minutes I don't call and the data I don't need. El-cheapo user here.

 

[Koodauw]

because it really has nothing to do bandwidth and everything to do with grabbing as much cash as possible. But if they say its about bandwidth some people will except that.

 

[Peter K.]

Well done!

because it really has nothing to do bandwidth and everything to do with grabbing as much cash as possible. But if they say its about bandwidth some people will except that.

I guess that's what I was trying to say. Nice job keeping it short.

P.S. - Though I am ALSO truly concerned about how useful our mobile electronic devices can, or cannot, be without unlimited data.

 

[corvus32]

Actually, it is about bandwidth. Carrier networks are not always at max capacity. There are peaks and troughs throughout the day. MVNOs exists as a way for carriers to sell the bandwidth (capacity) they couldn't sell on their own. In other words, they have more capacity than they have customers and this is the model they've come up with to fill the hole. Not everyone is going to pay an exorbitant amount of money each month for 2GB of data, and they know it.

 

[aneftp]

because it really has nothing to do bandwidth and everything to do with grabbing as much cash as possible. But if they say its about bandwidth some people will except that.

100% agree. Data is main growth for carriers now. They give voice and texts away these days.

 

[Peter K.]

Actually, it is about bandwidth. Carrier networks are not always at max capacity. There are peaks and troughs throughout the day. MVNOs exists as a way for carriers to sell the bandwidth (capacity) they couldn't sell on their own. In other words, they have more capacity than they have customers and this is the model they've come up with to fill the hole. Not everyone is going to pay an exorbitant amount of money each month for 2GB of data, and they know it.

I think that's [our] point, exactly. It is TOTAL BS when certain carriers say they NEED to charge more for data and can't offer unlimited data anymore.

 

[CEmajr]

Also most of the mvnos do not sell subsidized devices so they are just selling the extra bandwidth that the 4 big carriers have leftover that they didn't sell.

 

[Peter K.]

Also most of the mvnos do not sell subsidized devices so they are just selling the extra bandwidth that the 4 big carriers have leftover that they didn't sell.

I agree that is the truth; but they CLAIM there are no leftovers.

 

[Mrbobb]

Now u all know unlimited data is marketing. At some point after they sux u in with free joints, they gonna make u pay for now ur data appetite.

 

[Jtludwig]

Here's my opinion:

Verizon/any big carrier know that there are people who will pay top $$$ for postpaid plans with subsidized phones, etc.

They also know that there is another whole group of consumers that are looking for a lower price point...and they want that business too...so that's where the MVNOs come in.

 

[Peter K.]

Here's my opinion:

Verizon/any big carrier know that there are people who will pay top $$$ for postpaid plans with subsidized phones, etc.

They also know that there is another whole group of consumers that are looking for a lower price point...and they want that business too...so that's where the MVNOs come in.

Sounds reasonable to me; kind of like Lexus/Toyota, Infiniti/Nissan, etc.

BUT, I still believe that they still use a lot of BS to justify what amounts to a cash grab. And btw, I am not against businesses making money; I just don't appreciate being lied to in order to justify unreasonable charges and limitations on plan choices. Plus, as I said above, I think unlimited data is necessary...

 

[aristobrat]

With the big two (Verizon + at&t) doing almost everything possible to rid their customers of grandfathered unlimited cellular data plans, while claiming bandwidth considerations are the main reason for doing so, how is it possible for them (especially at&t, I guess) to make "room" enough to support MVNOs?

Seems like very few of the MVNOs use LTE.

As the carriers migrate more and more folks over to LTE, they're freeing up their 3G networks.

Sort of makes sense to let the MVNOs pay to use that network, vs just let it sit there doing little, no?

 

[Peter K.]

Seems like very few of the MVNOs use LTE.

As the carriers migrate more and more folks over to LTE, they're freeing up their 3G networks.

Sort of makes sense to let the MVNOs pay to use that network, vs just let it sit there doing little, no?

No argument here; I just think the big carriers are unnecessarily and unreasonably stifling the growth in utility of our mobile devices, for the reasons stated above.

 

[bohbot16]

Seems like very few of the MVNOs use LTE.

As the carriers migrate more and more folks over to LTE, they're freeing up their 3G networks.

Sort of makes sense to let the MVNOs pay to use that network, vs just let it sit there doing little, no?

LTE vs 3G is a big factor for MVNO growth over the next year or two. In addition, it seems like the main carrier's data gets prioritized over any MVNO data during heavy use. That's what I experienced when I had a Straight Talk AT&T SIM.

 

[Han Solo 1]

If you guys want to talk about MVNO's, why not explain (OP) what it stands for? Then maybe someone who stumbles in here will know what you're talking about.

You guys sound like you're doing JTB.

 

[bohbot16]

If you guys want to talk about MVNO's, why not explain (OP) what it stands for? Then maybe someone who stumbles in here will know what you're talking about.

You guys sound like you're doing JTB.

MVNO stands for Mobile Virtual Network Operator. They are mobile providers that don't own and operate cellular towers and instead rent capacity from traditional providers. This allows them to provide affordable service, but they are at the mercy of the provider(s) they rent from. Even more details @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNO.

 

[Han Solo 1]

MVNO stands for Mobile Virtual Network Operator. They are mobile providers that don't own and operate cellular towers and instead rent capacity from traditional providers. This allows them to provide affordable service, but they are at the mercy of the provider(s) they rent from. Even more details @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNO.

Ah, I see. Thanks!

 

[hafr]

I think that's [our] point, exactly. It is TOTAL BS when certain carriers say they NEED to charge more for data and can't offer unlimited data anymore.

Carriers continuously upgrade their hardware (towers) in order to ensure decent reception and speed for their clients, due to the ever increasing number of clients using more and more data, and also an increasing number of apps that are very poorly coded (in short, a tower can only a limited number of connections, poorly coded apps will open connections and not close them, without using them, as a sort of bastard version of push, meaning the carrier will need to increase the number of connections by spending money on hardware).

So for your claim that it's total BS to be true, the investments being made into improving their infrastructure must be less than the increase in fees from new clients. Since I trust you're not just saying things without having looked into it, I assume you can easily show us the numbers supporting your claim? I'd love to see them.

Also, please understand that when carriers say "can't", they mean "can't [without severely decreasing the quality of our services during peak hours, and we prefer being able to ensure a decent service with less data for more people than a decent service with a lot of data for less people or a bad service with a lot of data for more people]"

 

[Peter K.]

...

Since I trust you're not just saying things without having looked into it, I assume you can easily show us the numbers supporting your claim? I'd love to see them.

...

In some sense, you got me; I do not have specific numbers to refute your line of reasoning. However, in the article below, Ralph de la Vega (CEO of AT&T Mobility) said:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/technology/mobile/att-bill/index.html

"We're sitting on the greatest growth opportunity in history," said Ralph de la Vega, ...With Mobile Share, we don't care so much anymore about what you're doing on the network...but all those things like cars and home security are where the monetization opportunity is."

I contend that their (at&t's) focus has been completely unmasked, by these comments and earlier ones by Mr. de la Vega, to be almost 100% money. As I said above, I am not against companies making money; but if at&t doesn't "...care so much anymore about what [we're] doing on the network", then it sounds like bandwidth isn't really limited. It only seems like MAXIMUM "growth" and "monetization", for minimum delivery of services, are important.

So, as I said before, I don't appreciate being lied to by at&t when they give their "reasons" for why they can't offer unlimited data anymore, etc.

 

[hafr]

In some sense, you got me; I do not have specific numbers to refute your line of reasoning. However, in the article below, Ralph de la Vega (CEO of AT&T Mobility) said:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/technology/mobile/att-bill/index.html

"We're sitting on the greatest growth opportunity in history," said Ralph de la Vega, ...With Mobile Share, we don't care so much anymore about what you're doing on the network...but all those things like cars and home security are where the monetization opportunity is."

I contend that their (at&t's) focus has been completely unmasked, by these comments and earlier ones by Mr. de la Vega, to be almost 100% money. As I said above, I am not against companies making money; but if at&t doesn't "...care so much anymore about what [we're] doing on the network", then it sounds like bandwidth isn't really limited. It only seems like MAXIMUM "growth" and "monetization", for minimum delivery of services, are important.

So, as I said before, I don't appreciate being lied to by at&t when they give their "reasons" for why they can't offer unlimited data anymore, etc.

You're misinterpreting what he's saying. As I said before, it's a question of money. It keeps on costing more and more to ensure that your clients won't see a decrease in the quality of the service they're using.

Today, a client pays for one device, their cellphone, then when they go to the car they use it to stream music, then when they're on the train they stream movie clips and so on, they use that one device for everything. They even use it to share its internet connection with their laptop.

This is where his quote is relevant. With Mobile Share, they'll be able to make you pay more for using the same amount of data, because for instance your car is gonna have its own connection.

He's not saying "we don't have a problem with bandwidth", he's saying "when people pay more for the same amount of data, we care less because we have more money to upgrade our **** with".

So unless you have any actual evidence of people lying to you and talking BS, please refrain from saying they're lying to you and talking BS.

 

[takeshi74]

I really don't believe that the trend of rising usefulness of mobile devices can continue without a return of unlimited data plans. Things like iTunes Match, Netflix, etc. become of limited value without enough data.

I don't see how they're mutually inclusive. For one thing, plenty of people with limited data plans find their devices just as useful as when they had "unlimited data". If you need more data then buy more data. You're not cut off with tiered data plans.

No argument here; I just think the big carriers are unnecessarily and unreasonably stifling the growth in utility of our mobile devices, for the reasons stated above.

Citation? Can you demonstrate slowed growth as unlimited plans are phased out? I mean, yeah, we'd all prefer unlimited for $X versus Y for $X. So far that seems to be the only leg you're standing on. Where are the numbers showing that there is stifling? If it's taking place we should be able to see it.

 

[Peter K.]

Exhibit A:

Report: ESPN considering deal to pay for heavy users' data consumption

by ELECTRONISTA STAFF

According to recent reports, media companies with high-bandwidth using apps are considering deals with wireless carriers to ensure users can consume the content without being slapped with data overage fines. Reportedly, sports network ESPN has had discussions with at least one carrier to subsidize users' wireless data usage, with the company paying to offset data used by subscribers.

ESPN has been informed by a carrier that many of its heavy mobile content consumers reach and exceed monthly caps before the end of the month. The users typically then dramatically scale back consumption until the reset of the billing cycle.

The Wall Street Journal believes that no deal is imminent, and ESPN is uncertain if any arrangement would benefit the network. Any deal signed would be the first of its kind, and would likely induce telecom regulator involvement and net neutrality concerns.

Verizon Wireless Chief Executive Dan Mead has claimed that the company was pursuing deals involving advertisers and content providers paying for data instead of consumers. "We are actively exploring those opportunities and looking at every way to bring value to our customers," Mead said. Mead likens any deal as similar to Amazon's pay,net of data costs for e-book delivery for free to Kindle users.

Last year, AT&T said that the company is considering letting mobile service providers pay for data consumed, instead of the customer, calling it the data equivalent of toll-free calling.

Paul Gallant, managing director of Guggenheim Securities said that "creating a second revenue stream for mobile broadband is the holy grail for wireless operators but collecting fees from content companies would probably make the FCC take a close look into the policy implications."


By Electronista Staff

 

[osofast240sx]

No argument here; I just think the big carriers are unnecessarily and unreasonably stifling the growth in utility of our mobile devices, for the reasons stated above.

I'm an installer most of my work is for the big 4. My company builds data centers, adjust antennas ect. When I say your being spoon fed technology, it's beyond belief it make me cringe