how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
819 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Some point-counterpoint "average smartphone use of 298 MB/month": when the curve is that skewed, using the average/mean is misleading, because those 1% of users on the high end raise the average a lot. It's more meaningful to look at the percentile breakdowns, as the graph does:
70% use less than 200MB/month (AT&T's first tier)
99% use less than 2GB/month (AT&T's second tier)
"Nielsen concludes that AT&T pricing is somehow "more fair," though they fail to say why": I don't know how they could say why more clearly-- "the vast majority of customers (more than 99%) are better off". And this is correct: Customers who are not in the top 1% of consumption will pay less money per month by switching.
"the average user already consumes 298MB of data -- while AT&T's base cap is 200 MB. That cap's set just low enough to push today's average user to the higher, $25 a month tier"
Again, this is perpetuating the misuse of the "average" statistic. When people read "today's average user" they think "the guy in the middle of the pack". This is quite untrue, because the distribution is so skewed. In effect there are very few "average users". The right way to say this is: 70% of today's users are below the first tier of the 200MB plan, and 99% are below the first tier of the 2GB plan.
Also, the use of the word "cap" is misleading. "Cap" has the connotation of "you can't go over it or there are big consequences". In fact, AT&T's new plans are tiered pricing. The increments are priced and are affordable.
"they're not looking at tomorrow's big picture": Well no, but so what? Tomorrow is tomorrow, today is today, and this is today's plan, not tomorrow's. No one has said this plan is fixed in perpetuity.
Also, assumptions are being made about "tomorrow", that most users will go towards heavy streaming of video and other heavy data use applications over 3G. Well, if it costs money to leave your smartphone streaming video over 3G all day, people will change their behavior, using WiFi for streaming or seeking alternatives to getting their content. Tomorrow will be shaped by the change in 3G data plans to tiered pricing.
Another point is that we have not seen a large shift from traditional TV service to Internet-delivered service even in the home, where caps are high or nonexistent and bandwidth is plentiful. Why do we think we'll see a large shift in content delivery to a slow 3G network where it's moving to tiered pricing? People like their TVs.
"carriers and investors see the death of SMS and voice minutes heading their direction -- and are changing pricing models to compensate and cash in on an explosion in wireless video (or streaming wireless audio) use. But the suggestion that this shift is driven by altruism is bizarre and disingenuous."
One can argue about their motives, I think the more important motive for AT&T was just to slow down the growth in data usage on their 3G network among the 1% of top tier users as the iPhone/iPad phenomenon explodes, in order to keep some semblance of service for the other 99%. Also there's the fact that AT&T characterized the data plan changes as "revenue neutral" to the investment community -- why would they do that if they thought they were going to make tons of money off of it? However, I see nothing in the Nielsen report attributing it to "altruism". | |
| 
Data June |
| |
| Looks like you are in the top 1/2 percent of usage, or so. You should either stay on the unlimited plan, or change your usage. | | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas: It's more meaningful to look at the percentile breakdowns, as the graph does: 70% use less than 200MB/month (AT&T's first tier) 99% use less than 2GB/month (AT&T's second tier) Yes but compare to 2009 to 2010
70% used less than 90 MB vs 200 MB for 2010
99% used less than 900 MB vs 1800 MB for 2010
if you assume the same growth rate for 2010-2011 then by this time next year you can expect
70th percentile 440 MB
by 2012
70th percentile 985 MB
by 2013
70th percentile 2200 MB
within 4 years you can expect the 50th percentile to use 2 GB a month and you can expect 1/4 to be using 6 GB a month. Obviously at&t's pricing plans are not very forward thinking. | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Im not changing a thing. But thats not the point.
Their percentage is all wrong, and they expect users to not use 3G, and change to WiFi whenever possible. That may work for a lot of customers, but not for everyone.
It's not the coincidence that they announced metered service just before the iPhone 4 came out. The updated hardware gave me close to 2mbps upload speed and 5mbps down. It's SO MUCH EASIER to go over 2GB data for iPhone 4 users. | |
| I change to Wifi because it's faster and it helps me save money, while I can see that not everyone has wifi, if you have it I can't see why you wouldn't use it. It switches automatically | |
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:Yes but compare to 2009 to 2010 Good take. We'll have to see how the trends progress, whether it's a linear growth for the masses or whether it flattens out. It'll also be interesting to see how the top 1% react. Certainly those who are getting new iPhones/iPads are not grandfathered in and must accept the new tiered plans. | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Some, like myself, straddle the line. Last month, 210MB. I could probably bring that down to ~150, but, it's more hassle than its really worth.
And they know it. They want to push moderate users onto the higher tiers.
This is part of the problem with tiered pricing with something as nebulous as data. Ask 100 random users what their average data consumption is. A handful will even know what you're talking about. AT&T loves this ignorance, it lets them upsell users to tiers that they don't need.
Hell, a lot of users don't even need data plans, but, they require it. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to BF69
The thing is that a "data *plan*" doesn't have to be "forward thinking... data plans are just that and can be adjusted at anytime. This isn't an issue of technology where they have to think years in advance in order to adjust for the future.
HOWEVER... and there is a HUGE however in this... this is EXACTLY what people wanted out of Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Verizon.. et all a long time ago.. they want things to be "defined"... in a way, AT&T is doing just that, they're defining NOW in the midst of an impending shift in usage among users.
Personally, I'd find it less stinging, especially with the numbers posted above, to see this change NOW rather than later when it would automatically place a high amount of people past the 2GB.
Forward thinking, as is being implied, is basically saying "give me unlimited.. don't take it away"... isn't that right? If what you're saying is correct, these plans survive a 3 year period for most users, correct? .. becuase that's what your numbers that you posted are saying. (A lot changes in 3 years as we know).. If in fact 70th percentile are at 440MB, then the majority of people fall WELL below the 2GB threshold now, do they not? ..985MB is still well below 2GB.. it's 2013 where things the majority of users, in your words, are above that 2gb threshold, right?
AT&T isn't under obligation to continue an unlimited plan. As a matter of fact, they're not even taking that plan away from current plan holders either, correct? They ARE, however, stating that "new users from this point on.." will be the ones who come in under new rate plans.
I think WAY too much is being made over these changes. As I just said, at&t is under no obligation to operate under an all-you-can-eat data plan.. correct me if I'm wrong. This sounds more like a want of the consumer, than a requirement by the provider. And, as said before, if the minutes of voice are basically "outdated" (which they aren't) and people are moving towards a data need only, well, then data becomes the more valued product and the price WILL go up.
In 4 years, the landscape of wireless will be completely different. There can be new players in the scheme, there may be a new set of rates rolled out, T-Mo and Sprint may do an incredible shake-up in the industry, more people may chose to move towards pre-paid service plans.. who knows where we will be in 4 years..
So in short, though, how is AT&T not being forward thinking with their plans.. if that kind of impact is coming to their network, then I think from a business stand point, that's a significant impact to the network and they have to adjust for that. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Necronomikro
.. and legally, ignorance is no excuse.
Consumers have had many years to educate themselves or seek the answers that are in front of them and many make the choice to keep their head sin the clouds and move around ignorant.
Ask 100 random people who the vice president of the United States is, and they can't tell you. (Proven fact)..
And quite honestly, I agree with the carriers on this issue as well regarding data plans. Those lot of users that don't even need data plans don't need the phones that use data plans then do they? Why does someone need a blackberry if they don't use data? ..for the keypad to text easier with? .. there are texting phones with full keypads for that user. Why do people really need iPhones that are data heavy and not want a data plan? Get an iTouch and a flip phone. The iPhone really isn't an iPhone unless the data is active on it. Why have an android based phone and no data? .. the list goes on.
Same can be said about the forced text plans on texting phones. If you're not going to text, then WHY have a text-designed phone in the first place? .. in this example, you don't even NEED the keypad.. just the 10 digital number pad to place a call.
In THIS issue, I don't disagree with the carriers.. these enhanced phones cost more, and they want people to use them how they are intended as they are the ones subsidizing them.
The one thing I will agree with you is on the tiers.. 250mb to 2Gb is a HUGE jump.. the 250MB plan is almost worthless to most users.. they should sell them, in my opinion, more at 1GB per tier with an overage per KB... wait, that reminds me of something... CELLULAR VOICE PLANS...  .. if data is the new voice, then maybe that's what they need to model data after.. the one thing I also don't like is that when you go over 2GB on that plan, you're charged for a WHOLE 1 more GB of data.. it should be by the KB at that point. | |
| Never heard of WiFi? What if they don't want to lug around two devices? What if they just want the rich media without actual data plans? (eg. better screen for viewing photos, videos, a phone with a fully functional media player, etc.) | |
| reply to BF69
What would really be a fair price for unlimited data? Let's assume a similar growth rate in data usage, between 2010 and 2011.
That would mean that, roughly:
97% use less than 2GB/mo
50% use less than 200MB/mo
AT&T has roughly 30 million subscribers with integrated devices, the majority of who actually save money with the new plans. Under the single $30/mo unlimited plan, 99% of customers have been subsidizing the bills of the 1% of heaviest data users.
Under the new plans:
50% of customers save $225,000,000/mo. (15mil x $15/mo)
47% of customers save $70,500,000/mo. (14.1mil x $5/mo)
If we balance-out that loss of revenue, by offering the 3% of heavy users an unlimited data plan, it would be roughly $360/mo for an unlimited data plan, in lieu of overage charges. When you look at it this way, paying overage charges on the 2GB/mo plan doesn't look so bad.
I don't see how Karl can argue that this is a pure money grab, and not, in part, to alleviate network congestion. Overage charges will not be enough to offset the loss of revenue from decreasing the bills of over 97% of AT&T's customers.
Also, as Fiberguy pointed-out, you can't assume the same pricing scheme too far into the future, since plans can, and do, change. | |
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| Also, as I pointed out in the OP, AT&T has characterized this to investors as a revenue-neutral change for them. You'd think that if they thought they'd be making tons of new revenue on the plan change from unlimited to tiered, they would have touted it to investors as such. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Necronomikro
Re: Some point-counterpoint said by Necronomikro:Never heard of WiFi? What if they don't want to lug around two devices? What if they just want the rich media without actual data plans? (eg. better screen for viewing photos, videos, a phone with a fully functional media player, etc.) Ohhhh I KNEW someone was going to play the "carrying two devices around..." card.. ALL too predictable.
You have no inherit right to have everything in one device. When did it becomes the cellular companies responsibility to place everything into one device. That's a conveneince to you, is it not? ..and there are many instances where people pay premiums or "more" for conveniences and luxuries..
There's only way way to really counter your point in my view and that is "entitled"...
As it stands, Wifi is not everywhere.. it's available in many places, but the entire notion of the "cellular mobile device" is that it's sold to work in coverage areas.. they are selling THEIR services first, not services for something else. And since you're talking about the WiFi part of the phone, the fact remains, they're subsidizing you on a piece of hardware becuase you're subscribing to use their services.
But still, you're making two separate arguments in your post... having rich media is available on devices like the Zune and the iPhone and other media players.. making calls has never been mandated by any government agency as a must on that very device. In this case, I believe that the choice is still that of the carrier, as much as I really don't like being forced into these plans either.
The ONLY way you'd convince me otherwise is if you purchase the hardware yourself with out any help from the phone company and don't take advantage of any free perks such as no activation fee.. likewise, you'd be under no contract. That is the one point that I still disagree with the cellular providers on as they do base their plans and requirements on the fact that it's subsidized hardware. | |
| The only true fair way to do it is pay per use in MB's. No caps, no plans, just a penny a MB. That is what they are charging for the overage charge. If you use 298 mbs you pay $2.98. If you use a 100gb's you pay a $100. Fair, can't no one say it's not.
What they have is not fair. The people who use less are still the one's paying more. They have the 200mb plan for $15.00. Or you can get 1848 more mb's for $10.00 more. Does that math work out right? Is that fair? Okay, now if you go over the 2gb's it's $10.00 a gb overage charge. So if you go over 2gb's it's $20.00. That's 5 dollars less than the 2gb plan. You pay less for using more. Is that fair?
I think it would be cool if they did switch to voip only, then I could knock all the money I pay for the "phone" service off my bill and just pay for mobile internet right? Will they still want you to pay when your on WIFI, though? Bet they will. | |
|
