dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1385
share rss forum feed

old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

Preview of things to come..

With AT&T taking over T-Mobile, there will be only 2 real players, so there's very very little incentive for Verizon to keep prices for data down. AT&T will probably raise their rates as well.

Next on the line for Verizon will be usage based internet for home users with DSL or FIOS. What they really hate is people who stream videos from legal places like Netflix, since that means people aren't paying Verizon for TV service.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

If Verizon goes with the AT&T model, they won't have a problem with you using Netflix.

Netflix = $$$$$$$$$$ out of your pockets and into theirs.

They'll light up with glee at people who use streaming video, and they'll make sure that it's cheaper to go with their TV than play with these new-fangled technologies.

Party like it's 1999, Verizon!


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

3 recommendations

reply to old_wiz_60
It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.
The sad part is these monopolies and duopolies do not give customers a choice.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US

2 recommendations

We're in the era where unchecked corporate greed is a virtue.

Brace yourselves people, it's only going to get worse.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to r81984
People continue to mistakenly suggest that these new pricing structures have anything to do with the cost of bandwidth. They don't The caps and meters are about increasing revenue while controlling growth, and by extension, CAPEX.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

I think many people have lost their critical thinking skills, if they ever had them to begin with. They fail to realize that these companies' goal is to give customers the absolute least for the greatest amount of money.

Oh, and I'll take a little jab at the folks who insist that businesses shouldn't be regulated in any way because consumer-oriented regulations will only drive prices up. I guess they haven't been paying attention to what's going on with wired and wireless Internet services lately. Funny how the rest of the developed world seems to have faster and cheaper Internet than we do, not to mention more competitive wireless markets. Yeah, the massive deregulation we've instituted here has really worked out great, hasn't it? But I'm sure their reply will be that the problem is that we haven't deregulated enough. OK, guys, before we follow you down the primrose path, please give us an example of a country that's gone this route and is experiencing the utopia of low prices and wonderful service we all want.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to old_wiz_60
Collusion agreements. Nice.

US Government, hello ??? Anyone there ?


heat84
Bit Torrent Apologist

join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to Os
said by Os:

We're in the era where unchecked corporate greed is a virtue.

Brace yourselves people, it's only going to get worse.

Unless we band together and fight them ourselves instead of relying on the government to do it. But that'll never happen.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to ISurfTooMuch
Yep. As if they were regualted at&t and Verizon would just give up and stop being in the mobile market.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to openbox9
Maybe you should take his entire statement for what it is.

He clearly says it is non-competitive environment (so dominated by so few players) and as result we pay more than we should.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.
The sad part is these monopolies and duopolies do not give customers a choice.

How much would 2GB of mobile data cost you 10 years ago? I'm pretty sure it would've been a hell of a lot more than $30, and much slower to boot.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

People continue to mistakenly suggest that these new pricing structures have anything to do with the cost of bandwidth. They don't The caps and meters are about increasing revenue while controlling growth, and by extension, CAPEX.

Capital expenditures to handle ever increasing bandwidth demands has quite a lot to do with the cost of bandwidth.

Sure, if the infrastructure remains well below capacity, the actual cost to provide 1 gig per month is little different than providing 6 gig a month. Once capacity is reached though, the heavy users effectively become much more expensive to serve as they're the ones driving the need for upgrades.

And yes, I'm well familiar with the BBR refrain- "well they should just spend more money so I can use as much bandwidth as I want without paying more for it".

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

The caps and meters are about increasing revenue while controlling growth, and by extension, CAPEX.

Get out of here trolling, propaganda-spewing ATT/Verizon exec!

There is no such thing as "controlling growth." We will see in 10 years when they have not raised their caps 1MB. Why? "We are using average use to determine what our caps will be." There will be no increase when people are trying not to get overcharged. Its ridiculous circular logic just to nickle and dime.
They are stifling innovation, not controlling growth.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:

said by r81984:

It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.
The sad part is these monopolies and duopolies do not give customers a choice.

How much would 2GB of mobile data cost you 10 years ago? I'm pretty sure it would've been a hell of a lot more than $30, and much slower to boot.

If I recall correctly unlimited ATT data was about $20 to $30 a month 10 years ago. So 10 years ago 2 GB cost you technically less than $20.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to 88615298
Of course they wouldn't exit the market. They make far too much money to do that. And, if they did, so what? Someone else would come along and fill that space.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

said by dynodb:

said by r81984:

It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.
The sad part is these monopolies and duopolies do not give customers a choice.

How much would 2GB of mobile data cost you 10 years ago? I'm pretty sure it would've been a hell of a lot more than $30, and much slower to boot.

If I recall correctly unlimited ATT data was about $20 to $30 a month 10 years ago. So 10 years ago 2 GB cost you technically less than $20.

Uhh.. no. I'm pretty sure I still have the bills in my basement somewhere to indicate otherwise.

Also, 10 years ago we were still in the 1st generation of data services, so with AT&T it was still CDPD in most places under the PocketNet brand. With Sprint they had CDMAOne data services under their "Wireless Web" feature, which basically gave you a bucket of minutes to use for data, and if you wanted to connect to the Internet you had to use a serial cable to perform modem emulation so that you could make a call to a dial-up ISP to get connected to the Internet. At time time they had partnerships with Juno and AOL.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to jimbo2150
I wish I were an AT&T or Verizon exec. I could use a raise.

So you disagree with my "controlled growth" comment, then go on to argue that these caps will constrain consumption through overage avoidance. Seems like you just went in a circle.

apollo80

join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA

1 recommendation

reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:

Collusion agreements. Nice.

US Government, hello ??? Anyone there ?

Nah, they're too busy shoving bills like Obamacare down our throats and catering to those that donate to them.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

Uhh.. no. I'm pretty sure I still have the bills in my basement somewhere to indicate otherwise.

Also, 10 years ago we were still in the 1st generation of data services, so with AT&T it was still CDPD in most places under the PocketNet brand. With Sprint they had CDMAOne data services under their "Wireless Web" feature, which basically gave you a bucket of minutes to use for data, and if you wanted to connect to the Internet you had to use a serial cable to perform modem emulation so that you could make a call to a dial-up ISP to get connected to the Internet. At time time they had partnerships with Juno and AOL.

Um. Yes
From some old posts I can find Sprint had an unlimited 3G data plan in 2002 for $10 a month.
I pretty sure ATT had unlimited medianet for $20 at that time also, but I can't find a post about it.
While the speeds were around 100 Kbps, tethering was not blocked or did not cost extra.

I can say that ATT offered unlimited DSL back in the year 2000 and now 11 years later they started a cap, but yet their dsl speeds are not any faster.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Click for full size
Wireless Web on Sprint bill in 2002
said by r81984:

said by espaeth:

Uhh.. no. I'm pretty sure I still have the bills in my basement somewhere to indicate otherwise.

Also, 10 years ago we were still in the 1st generation of data services, so with AT&T it was still CDPD in most places under the PocketNet brand. With Sprint they had CDMAOne data services under their "Wireless Web" feature, which basically gave you a bucket of minutes to use for data, and if you wanted to connect to the Internet you had to use a serial cable to perform modem emulation so that you could make a call to a dial-up ISP to get connected to the Internet. At time time they had partnerships with Juno and AOL.

Um. Yes
From some old posts I can find Sprint had an unlimited 3G data plan in 2002 for $10 a month.

PCS Vision started to launch around Q3 of 2002, which is 9 years ago. 10 years ago would be 2001.

I don't have to look up old posts, I actually had the service. Wireless Web started out as a per-minute usage that came out of your standard plan minutes, which is why on this bill you can see I'm being charged extra for usage because I had already used the bulk of my minutes for voice calls so the WW usage caused me to go over.

The PCS Vision service they launched later that year was unlimited for whatever data you could use on a 2002 vintage phone, which was only 100kbps in the marketing slides. In reality, the service was never that fast.

said by r81984:

I can say that ATT offered unlimited DSL back in the year 2000 and now 11 years later they started a cap, but yet their dsl speeds are not any faster.

Data consumption has grown dramatically since 2000 worldwide. If usage had remained completely flat, that would be more of a valid point.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
The whole point is these companies are not charging by the byte due to any kind of network limitations.
They are doing this to nickel and dime customers.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


CaptainRR
Premium
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH
reply to espaeth
I used to tether Verizon phones on nights and weekends minutes for internet a few years ago with 1xRTT digital for hours on end because my at&t dialup was to horrible. As soon as the EVDO dumb phones came around that stopped. I miss those days because at 140k wireless was way better than 19k dialup. I miss doing that, no meters and nights and weekends was not big deal and some months I would show as much as 2-3 thousand minutes without ever getting extra charges!

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.

Except that its not.

Ten years ago, wireless bandwidth options were 1xRTT, CDPD, IDEN, and GPRS, and most residential bandwidth was marketed at 384K for more than double what we pay today for 10M.

Wireless bandwidth spectrum is quite finite. The caps and tiers put in place today are not designed to create profit centers, but to condition subscribers that wireless HD video streaming ain't gonna be the norm.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to openbox9
You're really ganna go with the "I know you are but what am I" reply? This site is going to crap. No wonder this is my first post in months.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
Just observing that you reinforced my point. What else did I need to state?


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to elray
said by elray:

said by r81984:

It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.

Except that its not.

Ten years ago, wireless bandwidth options were 1xRTT, CDPD, IDEN, and GPRS, and most residential bandwidth was marketed at 384K for more than double what we pay today for 10M.

Wireless bandwidth spectrum is quite finite. The caps and tiers put in place today are not designed to create profit centers, but to condition subscribers that wireless HD video streaming ain't gonna be the norm.

You forgot one thing, caps do not stop the congestion at peak times.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by r81984:

said by elray:

said by r81984:

It is funny how bandwidth is now magically exponentially more expensive than 10 years ago.

Except that its not.

Wireless bandwidth spectrum is quite finite. The caps and tiers put in place today are not designed to create profit centers, but to condition subscribers that wireless HD video streaming ain't gonna be the norm.

You forgot one thing, caps do not stop the congestion at peak times.

Of course they do. Anyone "watching the meter" will be prone to reduce their consumption at all times of day.

Sure, caps aren't as effective as time-of-day-metering would be, but these are very blunt tools, designed to be understood by 3rd graders, and their parents who pay the bills.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
said by elray:

Of course they do. Anyone "watching the meter" will be prone to reduce their consumption at all times of day.

Sure, caps aren't as effective as time-of-day-metering would be, but these are very blunt tools, designed to be understood by 3rd graders, and their parents who pay the bills.

LOL
You are right a 3rd grader can understand that caps do not prevent congestion and bandwidth is so cheap it makes no sense to charge by the byte.

If a company actually charged based on usage or by the byte they would not make enough money to cover all their fixed costs. It only makes sense to charge for the fixed costs because bandwidth usage is very insignificant to the costs. A fixed rate is what you need to ensure you can pay for your network and profit.

Companies are still using a fixed rate to cover all their costs and to proft. The caps and per byte billing is a way to get extra money for no reason from customers.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.