dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
322
share rss forum feed
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

So long as the market isn't mature and the carriers are still investing billions of dollars in network expansion/upgrades I think it's somewhat naive to expect them to roll out plans that would reduce their ARPU/APRA. There will be more room for them to compete on pricing while still delivering a satisfactory ROI when they aren't investing as much money in plant and equipment but that's many years into the future.

Kudos to AT&T for not screwing over grandfathered customers, though I think Verizon's unlimited plan is worth more given the difference in their traffic management practices. Personally I have a 3G-only phone, regularly use >5GB of data and I've yet to see any noticeable impact from Verizon's traffic management. Occasionally I'll see speed drops into the 40kbit/s to 80kbit/s range but they last less than a minute and then I'm back up to 600kbit/s or more.

I can only surmise that the occasional slowdowns are caused by other users downloading files and congesting the tower I'm on for short periods of time.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

One point against AT&T here: their LTE coverage is poor compared to VZW.

Another point against AT&T: on the high end their GB plans are consistently more expensive than Verizon's, by up to $50 per month (VZW 10GB plan + 5x2GB vs. AT&T 20GB plan). Less expensive smartphone access fees end up balancing this out somewhat, but if you're getting a whopping 20GB of data you'd have to have 6+ lines in order to get a better deal on AT&T than Verizon.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

I'm still not sure why anybody would need 20GB of data, even with multiple devices? Perhaps I'm not as tethered to technology as some people but I don't see the appeal of watching video on a tiny cell phone screen, or even a tablet for that matter. I could see it coming in handy on vacation but even at that I try my hardest not to use my cell phone for anything other than directions/things to do while on vacation.

To each their own I suppose. The only reason I use as much data as I do is because I spend a lot of time in the car and stream Pandora. Take that out of the equation and my usage would be well under 300mb/mo. I could drop it further if I made an effort to do app updates/downloads on wi-fi rather than celluar. My SO and I could easily get away with the 1GB share plan if we wanted to.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

My usage very much depends on the month...I hit around 4GB, between tethering and on-device usage, with my iPad in May-June (was on the road for 2.5 weeks at that point, and still needed to work while away from "home"). If I'm primarily at home, my usage will tend to be south of 1GB across all of my mobile devices, since most of my usage at that point would be on WiFi. However once I'm out of my WiFi bubble, all bets are off, subject to how much I want to pay my cellular provider for 'net access.

That said, I'm a bit of an outlier...my phone's screen is large enough to comfortably watch long-form video on, and I may simultaneously hold a Skype conversation on my tablet while I look things up, etc. for work. Or maybe I'm using my tablet to help family or friends navigate somewhere, rather than confining nav to a small cell phone screen. But then again I'm a power user...the other two smartphone users in my family don't break 300MB per month apiece, last I checked.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by Crookshanks:

I'm still not sure why anybody would need 20GB of data, even with multiple devices? Perhaps I'm not as tethered to technology as some people but I don't see the appeal of watching video on a tiny cell phone screen, or even a tablet for that matter. I could see it coming in handy on vacation but even at that I try my hardest not to use my cell phone for anything other than directions/things to do while on vacation.

Some phones you can connect to a TV and see the screen on the TV. Also for some people this is the only internet they can get besides dial-up or satellite. Also you're assume ONE person per account. 5 people would be 4 GB each which isn't much. Some people stream music like Pandora. Even at it's lowest bitrate of 128 kbps just 3 hours a day is 5 GB a month.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

said by 88615298:

Also for some people this is the only internet they can get besides dial-up or satellite.

Sucks to be them. Move to civilization or pony up the extra money that it costs to live in the middle of nowhere. I'm far enough out in the country that I have to maintain a septic tank and well. I don't expect city dwellers to help me pay for it. Why should they subsidize rural data?

said by 88615298:

Even at it's lowest bitrate of 128 kbps just 3 hours a day is 5 GB a month.

Pandora's mobile app on Android streams at 64kbit/s for normal quality and around 80kbit/s for high quality.

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

Re: did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

said by Crookshanks:

said by 88615298:

Also for some people this is the only internet they can get besides dial-up or satellite.

Sucks to be them. Move to civilization or pony up the extra money that it costs to live in the middle of nowhere. I'm far enough out in the country that I have to maintain a septic tank and well. I don't expect city dwellers to help me pay for it. Why should they subsidize rural data?

said by 88615298:

Even at it's lowest bitrate of 128 kbps just 3 hours a day is 5 GB a month.

Pandora's mobile app on Android streams at 64kbit/s for normal quality and around 80kbit/s for high quality.

It certainly doesn't take up anywhere near 5GB a month. I typically stream Pandora for several hours a day(with high quality) and have never been anywhere near 5GB for the month.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
said by 88615298:

Some phones you can connect to a TV and see the screen on the TV. Also for some people this is the only internet they can get besides dial-up or satellite. Also you're assume ONE person per account. 5 people would be 4 GB each which isn't much. Some people stream music like Pandora. Even at it's lowest bitrate of 128 kbps just 3 hours a day is 5 GB a month.

This is easy. If you live out somewhere where you can't get wired broadband, don't stream or download more than the occasional movies or shows over the cell network. Get a satellite dish is the best solution if you want live TV, premium channels, etc.. Or, get a Netflix subscription and watch DVDs.

Streaming Pandora should be fine if you don't run it all day every day. Even if it were 128k bits/sec (which it's not), 1 GB is 17 hours of radio. It's really more like 1/2 that rate so it's really like 34 hours.

Again there's an easy solution. Subscribe to satellite radio, it's cheap and unlimited.

We are not yet in the era where it's practical to get large doses of audio/video entertainment over the cell network. It's barely practical over wired broadband -- still not nearly as good quality as purpose-engineered broadcast solutions.

Mojo 77

@apexcovantage.com

So long as the market isn't mature and the carriers are still investing billions of dollars in network expansion/upgrades I think it's somewhat naive to expect them to roll out plans that would reduce their ARPU/APRA.

Curious how you omit the fact that they can avoid competing on price because of their control over federal and state lawmakers and their relentless assault on competition...

"Immature market," is why they dramatically raise prices in unison. Yeah, that's the ticket!

jimi419
Dadof4

join:2002-03-14
Round Lake, IL
they were making money and posting record profits every quarter yet not investing into network/infrastructure. this is nothing but a pure money grab.
Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: did anybody actually expect them to willingly lose revenue?

said by jimi419:

they were making money and posting record profits every quarter yet not investing into network/infrastructure.

That LTE network just deploys itself and requires no capital investment what so ever....