I really wish other governments would take a leaf out of the book of the Australian government (the ACCC specifically) on this one.
Some years ago the ACCC clamped down on the use of the word "unlimited" in advertising ADSL services. They said it was misrepresentation to use the term unless you really could download all you want, there was no traffic shaping, no soft quota and no excess usage fees.
Basically, the "unlimited" moniker all but died overnight. But this is a Good Thing [tm]. It means you don't get shady practices where, for example, AT&T shapes traffic beyond 3GB/month for "unlimited" users.
Basically, in Australia you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. I think this is an infinitely better system. With current bandwidth limits and technology in the US, mass availability of cheap (truly) unlimited cellular Internet access is simply not economically viable.
Data point: the UK IIRC defines "unlimited" as anything that covers 95% of the population. This led to, for example, a friend of mine getting his parents on Tiscali ADSL, downloading a couple of Ubuntu distros, getting classified as a "downloader" by the ISP and put on their shitty network. Those already on it had figured out the only way to download through BitTorrent and the like was to use port 80/443. So the Web had become unusable at peak times. And this qualified as "unlimited".
Unlimited plans are marketing tools in the US to retain customers. Both AT&T introduced them, removed them and grandfathered existing users. The whole point is to put up a barrier to customers leaving (as they'll lose their grandfathered plans). The sooner we end the charade the better.
Oh well, sucks to be them. The only reason I'm giving Verizon any money right now is the unlimited data plan and contract. They change the rules, I get out of my contract. So long!
They aren't changing your contract; they just won't give you the same contract when your current one has expired:
LTE is our anchor point for data share. So as you come through an upgrade cycle and you upgrade in the future, you will have to go onto a data share plan. And moving away from, if you will, the unlimited world and moving everyone into a tiered structure/data share type plan. [1]
I could see this not being such a bad thing if they let us pay for bandwidth to use however we want. As it is, there are different rates and minimum fees for different types of devices and how that data is used on each device (i.e. "hotspot" feature on phones). Allow me to connect the netbook that I rarely need to use on their network and subtract from my allowance.
Sure, I have no doubt that they will take every last penny they can get. I do think it could work out well for people that aren't really heavy data users and have a lot of devices to connect.
> I do think it could work out well for people that aren't really heavy data users
Is there an option for a cheaper, low data tier? Last I checked, the cheapest option was the same price as the current unlimited data option, but with a cap.
T-Mobile is on its last legs anyways. Deutsch Telekom has made their desire known for a long time to get out of the US market. The ATT buyout falling through will keep them alive a bit longer, but honestly I'd be wary of signing up with them just because of the chance of them being bought out by a larger corp is very real.
If I'm understanding this correctly, my 3G iPhone 4 on my currently grandfathered unlimited plan is safe for now, and in February when my contract expires, I should be able to keep the same plan. If Apple comes out with an iPhone 4G and I choose to get it, then it's goodbye unlimited data.
Still, I suppose Verizon is doing things adequately. Their throttling for heavy data users applies only when the tower is at capacity, and speeds return once the congestion is gone. (Compare this to AT&T, which artificially slows data speeds, even when capacity isn't an issue.) As for the plans, any way you slice it it's a worse deal to go from $30/mo for unlimited to $30/mo for 2GB. At least overages are billed at a sane rate ($10/GB seems appropriate to me, although I've only used 0.5GB this month with 4 days left in cycle).
I've been using an LTE phone with unlimited data for over a year now.. I wonder if they will just surprise me with a new contract the next time they send me the bill..
I have one too, with unlimited data. It seems they are only killing the plans when people upgrade to new phones, which would give us some extra time before our next upgrade.
That said, I am interested in how much these shared plans will cost. I would be much more likely to buy a tablet with data capabilities if I could just include it in my regular plan (knowing verizon, probably with an extra 5-10 dollar per device fee). Otherwise, I would just get something with just wifi, which does limit the usefulness.
I know people who have signed up for these and been given heavily restricted handsets that won't allow tethering, won't allow web downloads or app store downloads over a certain size unless of wifi.
Plus they tend to be significantly slower than my 1GB/month account which costs less and I never use even 1/2 of.
That's not entirely surprising. There was a post (I think I saw it on HN but I can't find it now, dangit) that put forth the idea that unlimited data plans were bad for consumers, because then consumers' and providers' interests are unaligned. Once you pay for an "unlimited" plan, it becomes in the network's best interest for you to send as few bits as possible. Consumers should actually prefer pay-per-use plans, because it means if the network is down, the service provider doesn't get paid.
Of course, there are many other variables involved, and obviously everyone has different usage patterns.
It seems like the article may be intentionally vague on this point, but I can't tell if already-grandfathered unlimited 4G customers are going to have it yanked this summer (which I guess would let them out of their contracts on their subsidized phones scott free), or if they simply won't be able to renew the unlimited part once their contract is up.
One thing I really enjoy about traveling outside the US is cool and inexpensive telecommunications options. It feels like bronze age here in the good old United Subsidized phones of America. We've got to give up our addiction to subsidies!
Especially as we get into next gen mobile speeds, where mobile could increasingly replace broadband, I can't see this changing. (And I'm not even convinced that pricing shouldn't push heavy usage towards wired infrastructure.)
Some years ago the ACCC clamped down on the use of the word "unlimited" in advertising ADSL services. They said it was misrepresentation to use the term unless you really could download all you want, there was no traffic shaping, no soft quota and no excess usage fees.
Basically, the "unlimited" moniker all but died overnight. But this is a Good Thing [tm]. It means you don't get shady practices where, for example, AT&T shapes traffic beyond 3GB/month for "unlimited" users.
Basically, in Australia you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. I think this is an infinitely better system. With current bandwidth limits and technology in the US, mass availability of cheap (truly) unlimited cellular Internet access is simply not economically viable.
Data point: the UK IIRC defines "unlimited" as anything that covers 95% of the population. This led to, for example, a friend of mine getting his parents on Tiscali ADSL, downloading a couple of Ubuntu distros, getting classified as a "downloader" by the ISP and put on their shitty network. Those already on it had figured out the only way to download through BitTorrent and the like was to use port 80/443. So the Web had become unusable at peak times. And this qualified as "unlimited".
Unlimited plans are marketing tools in the US to retain customers. Both AT&T introduced them, removed them and grandfathered existing users. The whole point is to put up a barrier to customers leaving (as they'll lose their grandfathered plans). The sooner we end the charade the better.