|reply to MovieLover76 |
Wireless is just about the only business where you get grandfathered plans. Do you get the same cable plan you got 10 years ago? The same electric rate?
The fact of the matter is that they are obligated to give you what you signed up for through the end of your contract, and no longer. They should definitely require everything on the account to be up to date when upgrading a device. It's only fair that everyone pays their fair share, and people on old plans don't get a free ride.
Verizon of all carriers has the power and clout to eliminate grandfathered plans. Basically, after 24 months of that plan being eliminated, there would be no one left on it.
Maybe a better strategy looking for the next few years would be move move everyone onto a plan that reflects the greater spectral efficiency of 4G LTE and make it, say, 5GB of LTE and 2GB of EVDO or something to encourage people who are extreme data users to move to LTE. I wish they would use pricing to encourage more reasonable usage. A $20 1GB plan would be great, and 99% of users don't want or need more than that, and most of the users who currently use more would rather save the $10 and lower their usage.
You have some real people skills problems. Verizon makes one pro consumer action and you lamblast them for it? A lot of us live where we can't get landline based internet such as comcast like your spoiled rear does. For us, unlimited wireless is a godsend.
I don't think that unlimited is pro-consumer as it encourages network congestion.
I think that for areas that they can serve wirelessly that don't have DSL or the ability to build out the cable plant, they should make specific plans for, that offer 50-100GB/mo for a reasonable price, but locked down to a few specific rural towers, so that those plans and devices can't find their way into Manhattan or something where congestion is a big issue.
It's a tough issue for people who have lived there a long time. If you moved there recently, then it would be your fault for not picking somewhere with land-based connectivity.
That, and I don't think my rear is too spoiled, having an old Comcast system that gets upgraded 5 years behind most of the rest of the company, and no valid option for DSL (they can only provision us at 1500kbps because we're at 11 kilofeet).
Guess what? People move where there are jobs and believe it or not there are jobs outside the big cities. And also believe it or not, you don't have to live in a city of 3 people to live in a city without landline broadband. Even newer middle class subdivisions in average sized towns get stuck without landline broadband. Congestion is easily satisfied by building more capacity. Verizon and AT&T aren't hurting for profits.
There is only so much spectrum. Then those residents need to get together and do something about it, whether building a WiSP, or going to the local government to get cable through franchising agreements, etc.
The local governments need to be smart, when granting the franchises. Heck, there are two islands in New Hampshire that are inhabited for a few months a year that are getting a cable system, complete with submarine fiber to feed it, because the towns were smart and said that if 10 customers per cable mile want any cable service for a year, the cable provider is required to build or they can kiss their lucrative franchise bye bye. Result: one island got cable, complete with a fiber crossing that was surveyed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and several miles of cable. The other one will soon if there are 10 customers to sign up. In CT, AFAIK, if a cable provider wants a franchise agreement, they either get 100% of a town or 0% of a town, there is no half-assing it and not building out to everyone. I'm pretty sure we have 100% cable availability across the state.