Verizon Wireless Pushes New 300MB, $20 Data Plan

Were I a betting man, I'd say late 2011 or early 2012 once the new CEO settles in.

Start high then squeeze. Hard though with all the marketing about how robust FiOS is. I just doubt their executives will be able to avoid the temptation forever. What Cablevision does also impacts this...since their rivalry is one of the only real examples of competition this country has and is the primary reason they haven't already as they try to get TV share....

I wonder, has Verizon ever released what they claim is the "average consumption" of a FiOS user?

They have to cap wireless, spectrum is limited.

They have to cap wireless, spectrum is limited.

They have to cap wireless, spectrum is limited.

Dallas/ Fort Worth is much more spread out than say San Francisco, New York, Boston, etc. It's also easier to cover a relatively flat and square area. Also, in a lot of suburban/exurban areas, there are fewer places to put towers and thus more users on a tower. Network congestion is a real issue, as much as you might see amazing speeds when running on a network with fresh, new spectrum and few users. Also, since when do we measure files in megabits?

That's absolutely true that LTE is about 2x as efficient per mhz, but then you have to account for an increase in use over time as more applications become available, as well as the faster speeds themselves, so that efficiency may eat itself up in a way...

Throttling back to 3G won't make any sense for at least 36 months, based on what phones are out there, and how the networks are loaded. I do agree with you about giving an option to throttle, however, I think that is a much more fair way to manage the network while allowing consumers to be free from worrying about going over and getting charged more. The most fair would be an opt-in system to have the $10/GB overages, but by default throttle, and send the customer a text that they are being throttled, why, and how to switch their account to have full speed overages.

Just to be fair to people in non-4G areas, I'd say it should be uniform across technologies, although as you correctly point out, LTE is more efficient, so the limit should be higher for LTE.

I think that when throttling, it should be something reasonable, so that people can still use their smart phones as smart phones with email, social, and location, but not access multimedia sorts of stuff. Something like 256kbps down would make sense as a throttled speed.

I don't get your point about making a fair system. Giving people a choice to be throttled, and not get overages would be the most fair thing.

As far as saying people should just get unlimited bandwidth, that's totally not fair, as now there's going to be that guy who's sucking down 30 gigs a month, when the normal users are using 400MB, and he pays that same. How is that fair? It's not. As long as you tell the customer what the limit is, and how they will be throttled ahead of time, then it's fair. The consumer can choose to use the service in a way that complies with the bandwidth restrictions or not, and bear the consequences of their decisions.

Saying that everyone should get unlimited bandwidth so they can watch Youtube videos all day is ridiculous. Also, saying that some people can afford more bandwidth than others, well, welcome to America. We believe in capitalism. If you don't like it, go to a communist country where everyone is "equal". Have fun. You probably won't have any data on your cell phone though.

My opt-in to overages is the most fair way possible to manage a cellular network. At least the carriers have gotten better by defining the limits, and making reasonable overages, but they have a ways to go. They also need to finally just kill off all of the old unlimited plans, and move forward with everyone on capped plans.

Whoa...

If they throttle back to something like 256kbps instead of unlimited, that's in effect what you are calling unlimited, since you could use quite a bit more data after the first 2GB at 256kbps if you were really so inclined.

At some point people have to pay for the base network, even if it's not used that much, and that's why it's fair to have the lower data packages (200mb) be much more expensive per byte, because they still have to put network infrastructure in place in the first place, and it doesn't scale linearly with the byte.

You're splitting hairs here. If you want to watch video within your 2GB limit, then fine, but no one user has a right to consume massive quantities of network capacity for a sustained period of time. Once you limit everyone to 2GB, the average usage on the network is better controlled. Just because someone pays per month to Netflix doesn't mean that AT&T or Verizon have an obligation to allow them to use unlimited quantities of data to get to that service.

The concept of it being unfair to those with "smaller bank accounts" is the fundamental philosophy of communism, in that everyone should be equal, and everyone should have the same things. That's not how our captialist system works. There is a choice. If you want UNLIMITED, with NO restrictions, go to Sprint. I'll take almost unlimited with much better coverage and a better selection of phones, thank you very much.

If you want to call it that, then yes, a throttled plan is unlimited. Practically speaking, it depends on the application. Pandora would work just fine after the throttling, but streaming video or file downloads would be significantly degraded.

No, what I was saying with the base access fee is that you can't say "oh so and so should get a discount because they used less data" because there is a certain level of fees and investment needed just to keep the network up with no data usage. This is represented by AT&T's $15 200MB plan, which is more of a "it's just there just in case you need it" than a full data service, since even a moderate user could blow through it in a week or two.

There is no future of watching movies on tiny screens, beyond some limited streaming, and limited pre-downloading. That whole "everything everywhere" is really a myth. Who wants or needs TV 24/7? Don't you have a life to live? I can see some streaming audio while you drive/work out/ whatever, but with 2GB of data, you can stream plenty of audio without going over the cap. Also, with systems like Spotify, you can pre-cache up to 3,333 songs locally to an SD card, and be all set for a while.

What's you plan? Say that everyone should have un-throttled unlimited all the time? That's not going to work.

Your point about everyone having the same thing, because some people might not be able to afford tiers in a market system, is the basis of communism. Of course, in communism, there wouldn't be a lot of mobile data in the first place, unless you're talking about the PRC. No clue what they do over there, but the 300 million sub wireless network is pretty badass in it's own right.

You said you thought people who used 700MB should get some sort of discount, which is why I am saying that the base network needs to get paid for. I don't think they they need overages above and beyond the $25 or $30 access fees, but in terms of throttling, there is only so much network capacity, and they need to manage that effectively so that all customers get a good experience on the network.

10 years ago the fastest smartphones were a few clunky WinMo devices or PalmOS or early Blackberries. Heavy usage was that business guy who gets 100 emails a day. Those days are long gone.

If you are at your friend's house, use his/her wifi. Why do you constantly need TV all the time? With a 2GB limit, you'd still be able to watch a few shows over 3G/4G, but not constantly. Listen to an audiobook or a podcast or something.

What is your plan?

My plan is:

$25/mo for 2GB, throttled to 256kbps after 2048MB, opt-in to $10/GB overage.

Your plan is totally unreasonable, as it doesn't address any of the congestion issues, it just lets abusive customers continue to abuse the service as much as they want. It's basically unlimited. They have to clamp down at some point. The current pricing, at least on the AT&T side, makes sense, they just need to offer an option to throttle back instead of charge overages.

I want to see a 200 to 300 GB cap on Verizon wireless 3G and 4 G services.

Someone has to pay for all those new workers.

I want to know were these Verizon executives get there dope because I want to start getting my dope there.That's must be some killer stuff.

no overpriced usage plans

I've never owned a smartphone, only feature phones, simply because of the incredibly steep cost of data. The first time I considered it, I realized that I would likely become quite reliant on it and easily break that 5GB/month. Now that Verizon (my provider) have reduced the cap sizes for the same prices (if I remember correctly, like 2GB/$30, when it used to be 5GB/$30), it's unconscionable to switch to a smartphone. 300MB/$20 is ridiculous - it's near pure profit at $.15/MB. $5 or $10 a month, maybe I would give it a shot. Guess I'll be sticking with this LG enV touch...