said by Thaler: said by armed:
A "few gigs/month" is not what this is all about and we all know it.
The plans range from $30 to what, $70 for 10 GB/month? Yeah, we are talking about a few to several GBs - at least the same order of 10.
said by armed:
Again the issue is the difference between using the devices as compared to addicted usage of the devices as if they are a life necessity...you know like water and drugs and acne cream.
Cell phone service period is not a life necessity. Should push come to shove, I don't need one to live. That being said, they need to sell it to me, the consumer, as being worth my money to shovel out for premium phones & premium plans. However, even if I pay their advertised rates for both, I'd still go over simply using the advertised cloud services/features of today's internet.
I'm sorry, but if they want to lock & cap down the mobile internet usage to a pay-thru-the-nose status, I'd just as soon go back to a flip phone. WiFi has gotten more and more plentiful, and I might as well just use a tablet for mobile data access.
Again, I understand that "if we use the service, we have to pay". Problem is, we've already been paying a premium for this. Tightening down the thumbscrews for additional funds for no additional service is a straight money grab, even if they want to sell it as "network maintenance".
Ah I give up! You want to talk about "a few gigs/month" and then say that's the same as 10 gigs a month or more in the same breath.
The company (for whatever reason) doesn't want to continue to charge lower broadband users the same as those who use much more. That's not a new costing model and in fact is very common. Its their right to decide this and other costing scenarios.
Where you and I agree is that once they make that decision we then can make whatever choice we want to make. Use it less and control the cost, use it more and pay the cost or find alternatives that let us get what we want (or close to it) for the price we want to pay.
What is so distressing is that somehow way too many people (at least on this forum) think that unlimited cell data use is a birth right and equal to importance as all other life necessities. Hell even water has a price and its not available as unlimited so why do so many think cell data ought to be.
I can understand one who says look... its not worth the price anymore or I sure don't like having to monitor my usage to control my costs. But we are way past that on this thread and similar posts on this forum. The ranting and raving about caps makes it as though they are against the natural laws of the universe. Its a right for all and the government ought to step in and make then provide unlimited services. And oh by the way make those who use less pay for those who use more. The threats and rantings about this change are way out of proportion to its impact on our society and ignores most of the concepts of free enterprise.
I say this on this thread for the last time. This is their company, we we have choices to use it or not. Cell data is not a life necessity and apparently, based on the number of people who have it, its an affordable choice even in one of the worst economic downturns in our history.
Want to use more than they allow for $30? Pay more or find another way to do it or drop it. I think you and I agree on at least that.
There is no abuse here ... its simply a costing model that some don't like. Its one of the pluses and minuses of living in this country.