Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| I read this last night.... .... not sure why this comes as a surprise, it costs billions of dollars to deploy a nationwide LTE network. The carriers need to recoup that money in a reasonable timeframe. The article backs up what I've been saying for awhile now, mainly that prices will come down in due course.
Something that I found interesting though, and not specifically related to data:
Voice tariffs are also benefiting from LTE. A number of operators are rolling out Voice over LTE (VoLTE). From analysis carried out by ABI Research into VoLTE services, the higher fidelity offered by VoLTE could help overcome the decline in voice-related ARPU. However, VoLTE is not being priced at a premium over existing circuit switched mobile voice services.
Point being, does anybody seriously expect voice revenues to go up if the cellular carriers manage to offer superior voice quality? How many people really care about that? Of the small minority that do, wouldn't they simply get a landline, today, rather than waiting for the higher bandwidth mobile voice systems of tomorrow? |
|
|
|
| Except then they'll want to build a 5G network, and rip us off for that. It's a neverending cycle, and without some sort of regulation, it's only going to get worse unless the insatiable greed finally places all these companies outside what the market is willing to bear. |
|
| reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:The article backs up what I've been saying for awhile now, mainly that prices will come down in due course. Because, as we all know, TelComs and CableCos are known for reducing prices.
Right. Pull the other one, its got bells on 
My wife and I recently, as a result of lengthy, thorough research and discussion, decided we're just going to skip the whole "smartphone" and data thing entirely. We're not even going to look at it again. Like subscription TV: Far too much for far too little.
Jim |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to osravens
said by osravens:Except then they'll want to build a 5G network, and rip us off for that. They'll want to? I think you have that backwards, consumers want better, faster, and more reliable data networks, otherwise there would be zero incentive for a carrier to spend billions of dollars building one.
Anyway, if you think you're being ripped off, that brings us to....
said by osravens:unless the insatiable greed finally places all these companies outside what the market is willing to bear. Oh and:
said by osravens:and without some sort of regulation What does regulation have to do with prices? The carriers charge what the market will bear. Judging by the fact that they keep adding new data consumers, I'd say they aren't ripping us off. Do tell though, what kinds of regulations do you want to see, and how do you believe they bring prices down without also discouraging investments in network expansion? |
|
| reply to jseymour
Yes, prices will come down when we let what few firms are left merge together. Economies of scale will magically lower prices! [/industryshill]
We've heard this shit before. It doesn't work. |
|
| reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:said by osravens:Except then they'll want to build a 5G network, and rip us off for that. They'll want to? I think you have that backwards, consumers want better, faster, and more reliable data networks, otherwise there would be zero incentive for a carrier to spend billions of dollars building one. Recent study concluded that the majority were, in fact, happy enough with 3G.
(No, not going to look it up. It was posted to the front-page news, here, I believe. Feel free to disbelieve it if you wish.)
said by Crookshanks:...what kinds of regulations do you want to see, and how do you believe they bring prices down without also discouraging investments in network expansion? Yeah, that was SBC's argument against giving CLECs access when they initially wanted to expand their DSL footprint.
We can see how that's worked-out, can't we? Now that they've got their footprint monopoly, they want to discard it and force consumers on to the wireless network for which they whine they need more bandwidth.
Jim |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
 ·Comcast
| reply to jseymour
Whats wrong with having a smart phone that has wifi only? Ive done that for years. This is my first month having a data plan. And that plan is only $5 because I still mostly get my data over wifi.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
|
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Crookshanks
They basically started with LTE faster than other countries because Verizon skipped the whole HSPA+ step and was still on slow EVDO, and AT&T doesn't know how to or doesn't want to put the effort in required to build a dense urban HSPA+ network like has been done in many other countries. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to osravens
said by osravens:Except then they'll want to build a 5G network, and rip us off for that. If you feel you are being ripped off then we use their services? Ok you tell us what is the appropriate pricing should be. And please tells us HOW you came to that. Hopefully you actually did some research and not just pull numbers out of your ass. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to dnoyeB
said by dnoyeB:Whats wrong with having a smart phone that has wifi only? Ive done that for years. This is my first month having a data plan. And that plan is only $5 because I still mostly get my data over wifi.
because at some point you will want to use data and you won't be near Wi-Fi. And considering these companies are $50 per GB or more on people that don't have data plans I don't think you'll like you're bill when it comes in. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by osravens:Except then they'll want to build a 5G network, and rip us off for that. If you feel you are being ripped off then [why] use their services? Precisely.
I often find myself in disagreement with BF69, but on this one I agree. Don't like what they charge? Don't buy it. I don't. My wife and I feel subscription TV is also too expensive for what you get, so we don't buy that, either.
People going out and buying stuff that's too expensive for what they get, then complaining it's too expensive and "the government ought to Do Something" annoy me. Quit your whinging and just stop buying it.
I find all kinds of things either too expensive for what they return, or just plain too expensive for our budget, so I don't buy them. There are many things I may occasionally regard wistfully and think or say "That'd be neat" or "I wish I could..." and then move on with my life. Some of it is just plain beyond our means. I'd love to have a Dodge Viper, but it's well beyond our means. I thought I wanted a smartphone, but, after doing some research and pondering it, decided having some money put aside for a rainy day is more important than expensive flash and trash.
As long as people keep paying it, sellers will keep charging it. That's called "what the market will bear." It's capitalism. Yup, I think American consumers are being ripped off by wireless, subscription TV and Internet service providers. But it's their own fault for paying too much. Nobody's holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to buy the stuff.
Just. Stop. Buying. It. It's really that simple.
Jim |
|
