AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context' AT&T simply wants to "educate" you AT&T executive comments yesterday that the carrier might be ditching the current "all you can eat" $30 iPhone data plan for usage-based pricing didn't go over very well with either the company's users or the press. Many felt AT&T was blaming its customers for the company's inability to adequate meet iPhone bandwidth demand. Others felt AT&T was continuing the industry trend of pretending that the flat-rate pricing model doesn't provide enough revenue for network upgrades. The coverage has had echoes of Time Warner Cable's botched attempt to hoist usage-based billing upon their customers earlier this year. As has repeatedly been the case when it comes to AT&T's 3G network this year, AT&T again found itself in the unenviable position of having to do damage control. As such, AT&T's been going around to various news outlets insisting that AT&T Wireless boss Ralph de La Vega's comments were " taken out of context." As such, they're providing a link to the one hour presentation where the comments were made. Here's the transcript of the relevant bits: I think one of the first things that we need to do is we need to educate the customers. And its something that customers today have not been used to doing, so weve got to get them to understand what represents a megabyte of data. And so what were doing now is were improving all of our systems so that we can begin to give customers real-time information about their data usage and begin to get customers educated. And I think longer-term, theres got to be some sort of a pricing scheme that addresses the usage, but thats going to be determined by industry competitive factors, regulatory factors and customer [successes]. The idea that "user education" will somehow magically compensate for the capacity and network reliability AT&T failed to provide iPhone users is the kind of disingenuous language Time Warner Cable used when they tried to impose a new pricing model that lacked consumer value. Like Time Warner Cable, AT&T investors and executives are chomping at the bit to impose an unpopular usage-based billing model on both their wireless and wireline networks -- simply because it generates more revenue than flat rate pricing. "User education" plays no part in the equation. User disinformation does, and there's been a lot of it. The argument that an already hugely profitable company wants to charge even more money for bandwidth isn't one that sits well with consumers. As such, AT&T's tried to sell the idea by arguing that usage-based billing is about being fair to grandmothers, while their lobyists have spent a lot of money arguing that unless you embrace their new pricing vision, the Internet will explode. As with Time Warner Cable, AT&T's customers see this "consumer education effort" for what it is: an effort to impose higher prices on consumers. As de la Vega himself notes, the issue will be whether regulators and consumers sign off on the idea.
|
 ShadowMastrMaster Of All Shadows join:2001-09-01 Fort Pierce, FL | It's for the kids..... It's all about the consumer education, re-education, isn't it?? It's never about how you corporate guys just want more.... and more... and more..... for less..... and less..... and less..... -- Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster | |
|  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue
»AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context'AT&T is eager to impose an unpopular usage-based billing model on both their wireless and wireline networks -- simply because it generates more revenue than flat rate pricing. Karl keeps repeating this OVER & OVER, as if saying it constantly makes it true. Well, it isn't true. Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money.
If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue Umm, YES, it IS simply about more money. You said 'there are costs involved in massive usage'. How do you offset costs? Oh, wait, you try and get MORE MONEY. The problem of course, is that the COST is a CAPITAL OUTLAY, NOT a UNIT COST. Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. The only cost involved in moving a byte of data is electricity (negligible), support (again, negligible), and CAPITAL (expensive). But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. If AT&T had gone to usage based billing BEFORE they rolled out the iphone, guess what, they wouldn't have SOLD many. So, which one do you want? Do you want them to sell a lot of phones, or do you want them to use usage billing? You seem to think that AT&T gets to keep it's cake and eat it too. But you are wrong. -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium join:2003-06-08 Fresh Meadows, NY kudos:1 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue I was going to reply but KM said it all. -- ~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ | |
|  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | said by karlmarx: Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. Repeat after me. YOU ARE WRONG. And saying your error over and over again doesn't make it correct. There is costs to moving data. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by Linklist:said by karlmarx: Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. Repeat after me. YOU ARE WRONG. And saying your error over and over again doesn't make it correct. There is costs to moving data. I dont agree with the per byte billing method, but TK is correct there is a cost somewhere, though in some cases it isnt as much as you would think.
Each tower has to have a backhual of some method, weather it be a crapton of t1's (that att pays themself for), some kind of metro-e fiber circuit (verizon uses charter in some places for exmaple) or some microwave link (captital expense). | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by cooldude9919:said by Linklist:said by karlmarx: Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. Repeat after me. YOU ARE WRONG. And saying your error over and over again doesn't make it correct. There is costs to moving data. I dont agree with the per byte billing method, but TK is correct there is a cost somewhere, though in some cases it isnt as much as you would think. Each tower has to have a backhual of some method, weather it be a crapton of t1's (that att pays themself for), some kind of metro-e fiber circuit (verizon uses charter in some places for exmaple) or some microwave link (captital expense).
Most of the costs are in capital investments which will be fixed costs (Karl has stated that variable costs are small). Since most of the costs are fixed, the total cost will remain about the same (if variable costs are indeed small as Karl stated) wither customers use the equipment or not.
So, whats really going on? Simple, the capital investment is so large that AT&T has to over subscribe their capacity and hope for the best. The problem is all these iPhone customers using their data on a system that cant handle the load. This is impacting customers experience and satisfaction. Not to mention it gives Verizon ammunition to use in ads. The quick fix is to ration the bandwidth by charging per usage. The proper fix is to invest in more equipment. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | NO, repeat after ME. Apart from electricity and support, the ONLY cost is CAPITAL. HOW do I know this? Let's see, I BUILD NETWORKS. Once we pay for the switches and routers, the only cost we have is electricity. PERIOD. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs. It cost me EXACTLY the same to move 100TB of data as it does to move 1GB of data. The DIFFERENCE, is that I had to use CAPITAL to build a network that could move 100TB of data. If I built a network to move 1GB of data, my CAPITAL cost would be a lot less, but my operational cost would be EXACTLY THE SAME. THUS, there is no COST to move data, only the capital outlay. AT&T does not want to spend the CAPITAL to provide the ability to move 100TB of data, so they try and place the blame on the cost of moving data, but they are LYING. -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by karlmarx:I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs. LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment. Please reply once you get a degree in accounting. -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by karlmarx:Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment. Please reply once you get a degree in accounting. Game, set, match. -- "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by ptrowski:said by karlmarx:Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment. Please reply once you get a degree in accounting. Game, set, match. Uh NO! »www.northwestern.edu/equipment-i···faq.html
What is Capital Equipment?
Capital equipment is tangible property having an acquistion value of $5,000 or more and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Group purchases of tangible property that individually have acquisition values of less than $5,000 are not considered capital equipment and will be expensed. Fabricated equipment, which has an aggregate cost of $5,000 or more and a useful life expectancy of at least one year, is considered capital equipment. Repairs, maintenance parts or components, warranty costs, maintenance contracts or annual software licensing fees are not considered capital equipment and will be expensed. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  2 edits | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue Wow. You posted the EXACT ANSWER IN your first line, yet you still don't GET IT.
So, our maintenance contract which COSTS $30,000.00, and is good for 5 years, has a VALUE of more than $5,000.00. That means it's $6,000.00 per year.
Now, year 1, you have a CREDIT of $30,000.00 to your bank account, so obviously you need to have a $30,000.00 DEBIT somewhere. Lets see, where can we DEBIT $30,000.00? Can we EXPENSE the $30,000.00. Sure, we could. But.. But... the contract, after year 1, is still good for 4 more years! Oh, wait, that's $24,000.00 of VALUE. So, we still have $24,000.00 of VALUE left after the first year. Hmm...
I know, what we CAN do, is we can EXPENSE the $6000.00 of VALUE that we lost in year 1, but we still have somthing worth $24,000.00 left, that we need to DEBIT somewhere. Let's see. Hmmm.
So, what DO we do? I know! We create a CAPITAL ACCOUNT to put the remaining $24,000.00 in! That way, as ALL ACCOUNTING MUST DO, we keep the numbers in BALANCE. The $24,000.00 IS A CAPITAL ACCOUNT. And each year, we can EXPENSE $6000.00, and offset the CAPITAL ACCOUNT.
What you posted is for ITEMS with a value of LESS than $5000.00. I never SAID it was CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, I said it was CAPITAL. Which it IS. You CAN CAPITALIZE maintenance contracts, it's done ALL THE TIME for multi-year contracts. IF IT WAS a 1 year maintenance contract, then YES, it would be considered an expense. But high end equipment is almost NEVER sold with just 1 year contracts. -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue Man, the caps totally help me understand. Thanks. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | No TK is right, whether you want to believe it or not, there is more than just AT&T that hosts all of the Internet sites. I am sure that AT&T has no problem giving you unlimited access to devices connected to their network. As because in this case you are marginally right, however more than electricity is required to increase capacity to the levels required to passify ton's of bonehead iPhone users. You need more pipe between towers which means either... plow more copper, lease more copper, install more wireless gear and pay for frequency licensing. And then once you do reach AT&T's core, you need to increase capacity to the other Tier 1 provider's facilities. In this capitalist corparatist economy, nothing is free and everything costs. The more gear you install, the more failures you have, the more technicians you have to hire to be able to keep the network running, the more gear you need to buy to replace the failing gear. As I have thought this out, even increasing capacity to just AT&T's core would cost way more than electricity.
The most technologically illiterate people I know are accountants, so this title means nothing towards credibility in this thread.
While I do not favor paying usage myself, I think usage rates would vastly improve the experience overall...... A music thief isn't going to connect his phone to his computer if it would be cheaper to buy the damn CD.
I am currently an Alltel user in the territories about to be taken over by AT&T, and I fear the bigger issue of no 3G available period because we don't have enough population to "Pay" for it. I may just drop my phone service all together because I hate Verizon, Sprint's coverage is worthless, and AT&T's coverage is worthless (at this time they have didly squat in rural areas) I'll go back to a CB if I have to | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue Hmm.. CB, I guess that means you must be a redneck. I am an accountant by education, but I've been a network engineer/manager/director for the last 20 years, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. Hell, I worked for a company that MADE phone switches, so I know about those too. You are correct though, the cost for the evil empire to provide DATA services is FAR HIGHER than the cost to provide voice services. A single 'data' user can suck up more bandwidth than 100 voice users. Lets see, we can charge $50.00 for 100 people to use it, or we can charge $60.00 for 1 user to use it. Do the math, it's not the CUSTOMER RAPE of pricing it used to be.
Of note though. A music thief is someone who shoplifts. A music infringer is someone who downloads. Big difference, as one denies the owner the ability to sell something, while the other is just copying bits, without ever affecting the original. -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Making cars illegal will also eliminate traffic jams, but that doesn't mean it accomplishes the goal in the best way possible.
What would really "improve the experience overall" is not caps but proper network investment. AT&T half-assing it is a terrible business plan, but unfortunately, it seems to be an integral part of their corporate culture. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | said by karlmarx:Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment. Please reply once you get a degree in accounting. I have to agree with you. What you wrote is basic financial accounting principles. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | said by Linklist:said by karlmarx:I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs. LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs. I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK. Can you backup with facts stating that it costs carriers $$$ per byte? Last time I checked a T1 is a flat rate cost of, lets argue $400/month. That means I can use 1TB or 1KB and I pay $400/month. In fact I have Comcast business and I pay a flat fee of $80/month. That means wither I move 1TB or data in a month or 1KB, MY bill doesn't go up or down.
TK, I think your missing the bigger picture - carriers don't want to charge per byte because that is what they are paying or want to shape user's usage, but they are charging per byte to milk the customers because they pay a flat fee for the bandwidth to the towers (roaming and out of country are different stories). Now, if a T1 was limited to 1TB then obviously carriers would be an good argument to charge per byte.
Now, if AT&T was really about shaping user's usage on the network, they would use QoS to throttle the user's speed. It CAN BE DONE, as T-Mobile does it (read their TOS if you don't believe me). And then with that you can create buckets of packages - So for example Tier 1 you get 1GB of unaffected data transfer then after that you will get throttled back. Then have more Tiers that cost more per month. This way the carrier gets the cash, while not milking the customer AND it solves the slow internet problem. Now, as far as calling goes - Get rid of this "minute" crap (what is this AOL?), and goto points. Give users X points and during peak hours subtract 2 points per minute, but during off hours only subtract 1 point. This way it encourages users to use the network off peak hours.
It CAN be done without milking the customers for all they are worth, carriers like AT&T just don't don't want to put the effort forward to actually make a long term profit.
Mark my words, AT&T is a sinking ship. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by Linklist:said by karlmarx:I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs. LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs. I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK. Can you backup with facts stating that it costs carriers $$$ per byte? Last time I checked a T1 is a flat rate cost of, lets argue $400/month. That means I can use 1TB or 1KB and I pay $400/month. In fact I have Comcast business and I pay a flat fee of $80/month. That means wither I move 1TB or data in a month or 1KB, MY bill doesn't go up or down. TK, I think your missing the bigger picture - carriers don't want to charge per byte because that is what they are paying or want to shape user's usage, but they are charging per byte to milk the customers because they pay a flat fee for the bandwidth to the towers (roaming and out of country are different stories). Now, if a T1 was limited to 1TB then obviously carriers would be an good argument to charge per byte. Now, if AT&T was really about shaping user's usage on the network, they would use QoS to throttle the user's speed. It CAN BE DONE, as T-Mobile does it (read their TOS if you don't believe me). And then with that you can create buckets of packages - So for example Tier 1 you get 1GB of unaffected data transfer then after that you will get throttled back. Then have more Tiers that cost more per month. This way the carrier gets the cash, while not milking the customer AND it solves the slow internet problem. Now, as far as calling goes - Get rid of this "minute" crap (what is this AOL?), and goto points. Give users X points and during peak hours subtract 2 points per minute, but during off hours only subtract 1 point. This way it encourages users to use the network off peak hours. It CAN be done without milking the customers for all they are worth, carriers like AT&T just don't don't want to put the effort forward to actually make a long term profit. Mark my words, AT&T is a sinking ship. Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it.
How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by sonicmerlin:Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it. How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state? I'm all for it, but carriers are using those billions of dollars to make sure that doesn't happen. Kind of ironic isn't it? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  AlcoholPremium join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | said by sonicmerlin:Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it. How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state? Excuse me? You have it all wrong. You're missing the the part about billions of dollars going to executive bonuses | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by Alcohol:said by sonicmerlin:Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it. How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state? Excuse me? You have it all wrong. You're missing the the part about billions of dollars going to executive bonuses Oh right, thanks for reminding us about CEOs bonuses for running companies into the ground.
To be honest, I almost wish that we didn't outlaw cruel and unusual punishment. I would force that CEO to have electric shock treatments until he had a grasp on reality again. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  | | said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK. While I also agree with Karlmarx I also have to say there are additional costs for an ISP. This mainly comes from connecting to the rest of the dark fiber out there ATT doesn't own. Every ISP either owns bandwidth and/or has access agreements with other providers to give their customers more capacity. Now if AT&T do use access from other carriers then they do pay a monthly per byte (per gb or tb or whatever) for that bandwidth. At the same time while these fees can be costly these ISPs have been paying for them since the beginning and there is no way they are losing money now by this model.
That's assuming ATT&T has any peering done in this manner. If they are running on their own bandwidth then there really is no excuse. Actually there isn't much excuse now either. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by SRFireside:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK. While I also agree with Karlmarx I also have to say there are additional costs for an ISP. This mainly comes from connecting to the rest of the dark fiber out there ATT doesn't own. Every ISP either owns bandwidth and/or has access agreements with other providers to give their customers more capacity. Now if AT&T do use access from other carriers then they do pay a monthly per byte (per gb or tb or whatever) for that bandwidth. At the same time while these fees can be costly these ISPs have been paying for them since the beginning and there is no way they are losing money now by this model. That's assuming ATT&T has any peering done in this manner. If they are running on their own bandwidth then there really is no excuse. Actually there isn't much excuse now either. To be honest I can't imagine a monthly per byte. Though like you say in parenthesis, I think it it may be more realistic that they may pay for a bucket of like 1TB or just a flat monthly access fee. Which, if we argue 1TB per tower, I can't imagine people eating through that. That would require 1024 people to download 1GB. Which, considering that most people don't stay in one spot 24/7.
But then again, we don't know *exactly* what the providers are doing so it is all speculation at this point. Hell, it could even be something like "hey, AT&T well let you use our (T-Mobile) bandwidth if we can use yours, deal?" | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 1 edit | One can tell when somebody has lost an argument when he/she resorts to personal attacks.
Since you decided to go this route, what's your education? Mind to tell us why you state OPINION as FACT? -- Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by The Limit:One can tell when somebody has lost an argument when he/she resorts to personal attacks. Since you decided to go this route, what's your education? Mind to tell us why you state OPINION as FACT? BS Finance & Economics; MBA Information Sytems; Post MBA exec training course Penn State -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by Linklist:said by The Limit:One can tell when somebody has lost an argument when he/she resorts to personal attacks. Since you decided to go this route, what's your education? Mind to tell us why you state OPINION as FACT? BS Finance & Economics; MBA Information Sytems; Post MBA exec training course Penn State BA in Economics with a specialization in Finance, MA in Economics, pursuing a MBA in Accounting for Information Systems. I have worked in IT since 1985 with a stop over in Finance. Karl is right. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium join:2004-10-03 Grove City, PA | Compare att's market cap with verizon's, then look at EPS, Now look at who has more 3G coverage. Did I blow your mind? --
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue *Mind blown* | |
|
 |  |  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | I see both sides of this. I agree that once the network is built, it doesn't make any difference how much data you move. In fact, a network that is underutilized is worse than a network that is near capacity -- assuming greater utilization is because of an ever increasing number of customers willing to pay for network access. That said, from a customer experience perspective, it's important to manage the network properly to ensure that expectations are met. If someone tries to stream audio or video on their iPhone and it's always choppy, there will be the impression that the network stinks.
If the network is overburdened, you can only do two things: increase capacity and/or lower utilization. The customer education AT&T seems to be wanting is to lower utilization by having customers use less because to use more will cost them dearly.
Depending on how they do this, perhaps this isn't so bad. I typically use just shy of 1GB/month on my iPhone (at least according to AT&T's usage tracking). If they charge, say, $10/GB/month for that data, my bill will go down. Of course they won't do that. The current $30/month I pay will become a "network access fee" and then they'll add $10/GB/month. This effectively increases my bill by 33% and will probably cause me to be careful how much Internet access I use without a WiFi connection.
I must say that this thought process is consistent in every corner of corporate America. Today my company's CEO gave a nice speech at our Christmas Party. While he spent a little time discussing increasing sales by opening more stores, he spent the bulk of his time discussing how in these trying economic times we have to cut, cut, cut operating costs. He said we need to cut costs everywhere -- even if it means looking at the HQ coffee and janitorial expenses. Of course at the end of all this cost cutting talk, he mentioned that our company is healthy and is making strong profits. This is the same CEO who several years ago claimed that we will never SAVE our way to success. We must SELL our way to success.
I'm left with the thought that executives and investors need to be educated about how honest money is made. It isn't buy for a $1 today and sell for $5 tomorrow. Perhaps a 5% or 10% investment return should be considered acceptable rather than always expecting 25, 30 or even 50%. What's really funny is these same folks whine about how the government is a massive wealth redistribution scheme. Well, based on my personal experience with 401K plans over the past 15 years, whoever created these laws has enabled Wall Street to move massive quantities of wealth from the average corporate employee into their pockets the likes of which can only be compared to Usul's worm sign on Arrakis. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by rradina:What's really funny is these same folks whine about how the government is a massive wealth redistribution scheme. Well, based on my personal experience with 401K plans over the past 15 years, whoever created these laws has enabled Wall Street to move massive quantities of wealth from the average corporate employee into their pockets the likes of which can only be compared to Usul's worm sign on Arrakis. I think this is by far the most important point you`ve made. Neocons want government intervention only when it helps them and their corporate partners make even more money. | |
|
 |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | The sad part, is that until there is a 'lower tier', there is no incentive to have users consume less.
I'd take a 500MB or 1GB or even PPU plan on an iPhone, however, AT&T offers only buffet style all you can eat, and forces a 2 year commitment on it.
I would be happy if they offered: 1. PPU or WiFi only (free?) 2. 500MB for $15/month 3. 5GB for $25/month 4. 10GB for $35/month 5. 50GB for $50/month
While I do expect at some point a consumption based billing, until they make the base amount less than the current (they WILL be offering less, after all), there's little incentive from a customer base. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  |  |  |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
 |  doc69Premium join:2004-08-01 Reviews:
·Insight Communic..
| said by Linklist:» AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context'AT&T is eager to impose an unpopular usage-based billing model on both their wireless and wireline networks -- simply because it generates more revenue than flat rate pricing. Karl keeps repeating this OVER & OVER, as if saying it constantly makes it true. Well, it isn't true. Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. Bullshit!!! It's because they want more money plain & simple!! Put a 10gig cap & leave it at that. Why would they want to go to Usage based billing??? Money Money Money Money Money!!!! Any other idea besides this is total BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep "THE CHANGE." | |
|  |  | | It is about money. Is 20 -30 cent / per text message about controlling bandwidth or about controlling revenue? It will always be about money (period)
They know perfectly well that if this darth vader plan ever goes through, nothing will change bandwidth wise. Everthing is moving to faster pipes and you will need it to get what you want.
Trust me if they were losing money, they would have sold the business a long time ago. | |
|  |  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by kingdomware:It is about money. Is 20 -30 cent / per text message about controlling bandwidth or about controlling revenue? It will always be about money (period) Actually its 40 to 60 cents/message because they like everyone else double dip on txt! -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA 1 edit | said by Linklist:Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. I agree. AT&T is largely to blame on this one (along with their agreement with Apple), that they were so eager to sell those iPhones, they even forced a 2 year data agreement (typically, other devices, you CAN switch to a plain phone and cancel data, or go to a cheaper data plan). With this push to sell phones, they were able to sell iPhones for $99, which is cheaper than probably half of the phones they're currently selling. Forcing the data plan, and then coming back later with a 'too much consumption is bad' approach is not a good approach. As you have mentioned... they should have used a model like in Canada... 5 or 6GB, especially once they offered a 3G version.
For this reason alone, I'd like to see someone like T-Mobile deploy the iPhone (most likely carrier on GSM/HSPA). Competition in this case might make AT&T reconsider. | |
|  |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium join:2004-03-20 Albany, CA | said by Linklist:Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. It's ALWAYS about money. There's no if ands or buts about it. EVERYTHING in the business world equates to money somewhere along the line. If AT&T didn't clean their employee bathrooms for a week, they'd have taken that step to save money.
If AT&T wanted to truly "educate" their customers regarding the impacts of data usage, why didn't they START with a usage based model instead of a flat rate model for the iPhone? AT&T certainly isn't a new and naive ISP. I highly doubt everyone at AT&T was SHOCKED and SURPRISED that folks would actually use data on the iPhone.
This is a bait and switch, plain and simple. AT&T THINKS they have a captive audience with the iPhone. They are wrong. When I asked iPhone users today what they'd do if AT&T adopted usage based billing, every single one said they'd drop their plan. | |
|  |  | | said by Linklist:» AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context'If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. Excuse me for using my phone with it's intended features. If im using my phone legally with legal apps on an unlimited plan, its that simple they only person in the wrong is att for not delvering.
If it wasn't for the heavy users who embrace new tech fast, ATT wouln't be making any $$ on selling 3g in the first place.
Grandma was not the reason att built out a 3g network, but if 3g is only for grandma this makes no sense. It seems were always thinking about the poor people who don't use data that pay $30 a month. Why on earth do that have a smart phone in the first place?!?! | |
|  |  Jovi join:2000-02-24 Mount Joy, PA | "Data Plan for iPhone includes unlimited data in the U.S. Access rich HTML email and desktop-level web browsing, as well as Visual Voicemail to listen to voicemail messages in any order you choose."
The above taken directly from AT&T's website. There is no heavy users on an unlimited data plan. End of story. Unlimited is just that. As it stands now, don't cry when you advertise one thing and people use it as such. -- "Some people have no respect for logic."  | |
|  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue said by Jovi:"Data Plan for iPhone includes unlimited data in the U.S. Access rich HTML email and desktop-level web browsing, as well as Visual Voicemail to listen to voicemail messages in any order you choose." The above taken directly from AT&T's website. There is no heavy users on an unlimited data plan. End of story. Unlimited is just that. As it stands now, don't cry when you advertise one thing and people use it as such. Maybe that is why they are THINKING of changing. And they must changes ads when they do. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
 |  | | TKJunkMail, what fake pro-consumer(Astro-Turf) group are you with?
If AT&T did not have flat rate pricing, then would NOT have sold so many iPhones, and made all the $$ that they have.
I have an iPhone, and if not for $30 month flat I would not have made the purchase. | |
|  |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium join:2003-06-08 Fresh Meadows, NY kudos:1 | TKJunkMail, on second thought, is absolutely right.... a usage model is definitely the way to go!!
I pay:
Voice Plan - $39.99 - 450 day time minutes - unlimited m2m - unlimited n&w
I used 552 min last month. At 5 cents a minute that would be $27.60 cents. A savings of $12 right off the back.
Of course most of that is N&W or M2M, so lets say unlimited for both is $20. That's even more savings.
Even better... I'd actually use my home phone (voip) to place the calls and pay maybe $10 in usage!
Don't get me started on data. -- ~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ | |
|  |  | | said by Linklist:Karl keeps repeating this OVER & OVER, as if saying it constantly makes it true. Well, it isn't true. Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. And what happens when you get massive bills for overages like what happened when people took their phones overseas and started getting their mail? You get bad press.
And let's say you are correct in modifying behavior. What is going to happen when Apple loses money because not enough people are downloading apps because they might go over their allotment? Less money for Apple makes Apple mad.
If you tell someone to do a bunch of things with their phones only to find out later it costs a lot more, then you have a lot of pissed off customer AFTER the 30 day cancellation period.
If ATT had gone to usage based billing before the iPhone came out, you wouldn't see the sales you do now. | |
|  |  thenderScreen tycoonPremium join:2009-01-01 Brooklyn, NY kudos:1 | Bandwidth hog on an iPhone.
LOL seems like the appropriate acronym. | |
|  |  thenderScreen tycoonPremium join:2009-01-01 Brooklyn, NY kudos:1 1 edit | I can just imagine how badly all those usenet binary groups downloads on the iPhone are killing AT&T's network.
Still ROFLing
I understand there are ways for one particular iphone user, if dedicated, to use up a lot of bandwidth. However, to charge $30-$50/mo to use an established network and not be able to handle the gross average(INCLUDING "hogs") on a cellphone, even an advanced cellphone, you are doing something gravely wrong. -- Macbook repair in NYC | |
|
 | | Let's be fair to grandmothers! Ok, to be fair, let's charge $10.00 per GB of data. That means Grandma, who only uses 500KB of data, will only pay $5.00. I mean, that's fair right? Oh wait, that's not the kind of 'fair' you are talking about. AT&T has realized, if they were FAIR, MOST people would only get $5.00 'data' bills, and the heavy users would all bail, so the net result would be their revenue would plummet. What AT&T considers 'fair' is for grandma to KEEP paying $30.00 for her 500KB of data, and joe tv, who uses 5GB, will end up paying $100.00. I mean, it costs $30.00 to send 500KB, so joe tv is obviously getting a 'REALLY GOOD DEAL'. -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  MikePremium,Mod join:2000-09-17 Pittsburgh, PA kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS Host: W.O.W. FairPoint World of Warcraft Site Tools Verizon Wireless
| Re: Let's be fair to grandmothers! I used 271 mbs of data last month. On AT&T's network, I estimate it took about 11 and a half hours to get all the data to the phone via 3G.
I think there is a soft cap in play as well... -- "If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Let's be fair to grandmothers! Yeah I paid $210 for two iPhones that collectively consumed something like 200 MB of data among two fairly heavy Internet users. I just don't know how AT&T makes ends meet. | |
|  |  |  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT kudos:4 1 edit | Re: Let's be fair to grandmothers! We pay about $175 for two iPhones with about 310 MB of data. Man, are we robbing them!  EDIT-That's also considering that I use 3G Unrestrictor. | |
|
 |  Steve BPremium join:2004-08-02 Seattle, WA | Touche! | |
|  |  | | If Grandma only uses 500 KB of data, she would pay 5 cents. That value scares the death out of AT&T. | |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium join:2003-06-08 Fresh Meadows, NY kudos:1 | Its all Apples fault! ... not really but I am curious about how much bandwidth is consumed by
- Default App usage broken down by browser, email, SMS, google maps, youtube - Downloading New Apps - Downloading Music via iTunes -- ~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ | |
|  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Re: Its all Apples fault! they could provide us data so that we can see their side. but they never will. no data to support their claims. just believe them whole wholeheartedly. | |
|
 | | I dont need no edumacation! TYVM WOW, ATT just pulled one directly our of the book from TWC. They are trying to calm the people, and get us all used to the whole idiea.
And of course it didn't go over well with the users and the press, They can see right through att's lying.
It's not our fault that you cant afford to upgrade your network after collecting Big Molla to do so over the last several years.
And no amount of education is going to change that. | |
|  |  | | Giving someone... What is the point of a phone full of apps if you're going to be charged based on usage? It would simply have a negative impact on the app dev industry, discourage interconnectivity between systems, media and people, and it would slow phone sales as well.
What these folks want is the unreasonable pricing of the 90s, when much fewer people had cell phones which "justified" higher fees to keep everything working & growing. They have enough iPhone users alone to fund the entire attm annual budget. Quit being greedy disconnected boobs!
Ya, you know i think these folks don't understand how billing affects customers, because their service is 100% unlimited and free and cannot relate at all to the rest of society
- A -- LETS GO METS! | |
|  |  RolteC0h join:2001-05-20 Fresh Meadows, NY kudos:1 | Re: Giving someone... Yes what is the point in even having smart phones, if all this is going to cause is grief and aggrivation from exec's because they use more bandwidth?
Computers use bandwidth, and eventually cell phones will be computers(as if they arent now), but will just continue to consume more bandwidth the faster they are made.
Its just life, the faster things get, the more they can take, and the more bandwidth comsuming things will become.
Just like games, they are no longer 1MB, or 400MB, but 3000MB and growing in size.
Videos will be 1080i/p instead of 320x240. And this will also demand more, so on and so forth.
Can someone answer this one question.... what the F***** is going to happen when more of these DROID/iPhones' come out into the market, whats going to happen then?
Screw these lying exec's. They make so much money they could give us the best technology out, but they chose to keep it for themselves, and as company profit so the stupid investors can stay making money/get rich. At the end everything is about two things: 1) Taking money from the middle class 2) Making more money, PERIOD. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Pricing Fail AT&T Wireless should have initially implemented a soft cap similar to how Comcast does it... a "high" cap that few people ever reach with throttling being the only consequence for hitting said cap.
But for now, perhaps their CEO should quit talking and start putting up more infrastructure. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|  | | For the sake of the children Err...SHAREOLDERS.
"And I think longer-term, theres got to be some sort of a pricing scheme that addresses the usage, but thats going to be determined by industry competitive factors, regulatory factors and customer best return for the stockholders." | |
|  nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA | If you don't like it You're supporting terrorism
...and pedophilia. | |
|  | | post removal? Why did dsl reports remove my comments on this post? | |
|  |  | | Re: post removal? NVM... the comments weren't all loading for some reason.... | |
|  |  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | Re: post removal? paranoia paranoia everybody's coming ta get ya | |
|
 | | Calling all accountants and network builders... Could someone please discuss (intelligently, and without shouting) how AT&T, which is stuck with mediocre radio technology (forget about backhaul and fiber enhancements, they don't change the size of the last mile pipe to the user), can quickly improve the "perceived quality", regardless of how much it spends (whether it's capex or opex is irrelevant, it still has to be paid for, and it shows in the EBIT).
Metaphor du Jour: AT&T's problem is that it has a network, generally made for bicycles (2G, EDGE), with parts made for motorcycles (3G, HSDPA), which could accomodate a few trucks (iPhones). Suddenly, it has lots of trucks on its network. So, traffic jams and everybody is unhappy. Since it can't improve its networks overnight (more cell sites in same frequency band only marginally improve the network capacity, AWS nearly went broke in the 90s over something similar), it does what it can ("educate the customer", ie don't use your truck, etc.), to mitigate the problem.
That's called business: I sell you something, with a right to use (on my network), and then I ask you not to use it too much, because you are crowding my resources... It's well known that operators love users who don't use their phone (in the 90s) or use it as a camera, a music player, etc. (in the 00s)... | |
|  |  | | Re: Calling all accountants and network builders... It's very simple. You have a tower. It has an antenna that can 'see' all the phones for several miles. When they built the tower, they ran a circuit (usually a T-1 or a couple of them). In the old days, before IP networks, when you picked up the phone, the tower would assign you a 'switched network' connection. That was 1/24th of a T-1. So, if you had only a single T-1 running to the tower, you could support 24 calls at once. Profits RISE!
Enter packet switched network. Packet switching basically allows you to run about 8-10 times more calls on the same network, without upgrading the circuit. That's a big capital expenditure, but, getting 10 times the calls means it was worth it. Profits RISE!
Enter.. .. DATA!!!! Suddenly, you've got this device that uses DATA. Now, DATA, unlike a voice call, uses a LOT more bandwidth than a voice call. Suddenly, that T-1, which used to be able to handle 200 voice calls, can only handle 20 voice calls if someone is downloading at 1mb/sec. Ouch. THAT'S what they are complaining about. People complain about dropped calls, etc, not because the signal is bad, but because one person is suddenly using what 100 people used to use.
The SOLUTION, is to run MORE BANDWIDTH to the towers. Again, a capital intensive solution, because they need to invest a lot of money on the backbone. AND, the amount they need to spend to service '1' more customer, will cost them 10times what it USED to cost them to service that same customer who only used voice. PROFITS FALL!
Now, they realize this. And the reason they don't want to spend MORE MONEY, is because the RETURN on their investment for a DATA user, is MUCH SMALLER than the RETURN they get from a voice user. PROFITS FALL!
It's very simple. The cost to upgrade their networks to provide an acceptable level of service for the users is not profitable enough for them to want to do it. They would much rather force everyone NOT to use DATA, so they don't need to invest any more money, and can continue to rape the customer. RAPING THE CUSTOMER= PROFITS RISE! -- Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|  |  |  jfd15 join:2008-01-07 West Sacramento, CA 1 edit | Re: Calling all accountants and network builders... said by karlmarx:It's very simple. You have a tower. It has an antenna that can 'see' all the phones for several miles. When they built the tower, they ran a circuit (usually a T-1 or a couple of them). In the old days, before IP networks, when you picked up the phone, the tower would assign you a 'switched network' connection. That was 1/24th of a T-1. So, if you had only a single T-1 running to the tower, you could support 24 calls at once. Profits RISE! Enter packet switched network. Packet switching basically allows you to run about 8-10 times more calls on the same network, without upgrading the circuit. That's a big capital expenditure, but, getting 10 times the calls means it was worth it. Profits RISE! Enter.. .. DATA!!!! Suddenly, you've got this device that uses DATA. Now, DATA, unlike a voice call, uses a LOT more bandwidth than a voice call. Suddenly, that T-1, which used to be able to handle 200 voice calls, can only handle 20 voice calls if someone is downloading at 1mb/sec. Ouch. THAT'S what they are complaining about. People complain about dropped calls, etc, not because the signal is bad, but because one person is suddenly using what 100 people used to use. The SOLUTION, is to run MORE BANDWIDTH to the towers. Again, a capital intensive solution, because they need to invest a lot of money on the backbone. AND, the amount they need to spend to service '1' more customer, will cost them 10times what it USED to cost them to service that same customer who only used voice. PROFITS FALL!
Now, they realize this. And the reason they don't want to spend MORE MONEY, is because the RETURN on their investment for a DATA user, is MUCH SMALLER than the RETURN they get from a voice user. PROFITS FALL!
It's very simple. The cost to upgrade their networks to provide an acceptable level of service for the users is not profitable enough for them to want to do it. They would much rather force everyone NOT to use DATA, so they don't need to invest any more money, and can continue to rape the customer. RAPING THE CUSTOMER= PROFITS RISE! hey KarlMarx, minus the last 2 sentences in this post you've done a nice job in this post clarifying things for me....(btw, im in the 25% you mention in your sig, )
i haven't been a fan of these companies(with their stupid "weekend minutes" "anytime minutes" bla bla bla) and i think they've been colluding to maintain high cell plan prices but if the things you say are accurate, i can't really say i'd blame the ATTs, Verizons and Sprints for not wanting to upgrade just so more and more bandwidth hogs can continue to eat up capacity...not sure if its true but another thread mentioned ATT's recent claim that 3% of customers were using 40% of the capacity... | |
|  |  |  NObamaPremium join:2005-11-09 Nashua, NH Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·magicjack.com
| Cant wait to see how long it takes AT&T to respond to Sprint/Clearwire building a microwave backbone for their WiMax network that handles between 400MB and 1GB+ per link, and T-Mobile bringing fiber to most or all of their sites (metro areas first, of course). I would love to get an iPhone, but AT&T's network is a joke so I will wait for the CDMA version. | |
|
 |  | | said by N TESLA :
C
That's called business: I sell you something, with a right to use (on my network), and then I ask you not to use it too much, because you are crowding my resources... It's well known that operators love users who don't use their phone (in the 90s) or use it as a camera, a music player, etc. (in the 00s)... No one is denying that' s not business. Business is business, but it doesn't mean consumers don't have the right to be annoyed. Price your model accordingly from the beginning. How come Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile is not have this issue? | |
|
 thenderScreen tycoonPremium join:2009-01-01 Brooklyn, NY kudos:1 | Raising prices is corporate: condescending is insulting! I understand greed, there isn't a single publicly traded company that does not do business based on it.
However, this statement is degrading. What they are doing is like me "educating" a customer as to why his machine looks worse when I install an inferior part. -- Macbook repair in NYC | |
|  | | data pricing
even when you buy a brand new car you still have to put some gas on it. that's what the cost is on keeping the network running but it doesn't mean that customer have to pay more for a so highly and incompetent plan as iphone users have, 450 minutes a month with 5,000 for nights and weekends is a blast and just like that 100 dollars a month. besides they are customers that dont even used the internet like my mother. they just want more money because at&t has now the power of having millions of customers by mostly iphone's buyers. | |
|  | | Can't have one and not the other Let me get this straight.
ATT wants the consumer to use less data?
This is the same argument as the wired ISPs.
But the trend is scaling towards more and I don't see ATTs plan as viable considering.
ATT pimps the iPhone which is appealing to most because of the Apps...And the majority of these apps work because of the data connection. Music and video streaming, searching, facebook, twitter, email etc.
Does ATT know it's going to get worse for them and no amount of "educating" is going to prevent this?
The more "stuff" that's out there and the more tech companies push the "cloud" onto consumers it's obvious at where this is going.
And I don't care how much they want to educate us....data is confusing. Yeah, we get minutes and understand if we are on a call for about 5 minutes we've used up about 5 minutes of our monthly minutes--easy. Now you launch your facebook app and spend 30 minutes goofing around how many bytes did you use? Exactly.
Metering by the byte will be a disaster. Example, on my Blackberry I download some twitter app and it bombs at 90%...what do I do, pay for more bytes to get it again or call ATT and ask them to clear those bytes from my account? Or maybe call the app developer and make them pay for my bytes? What if RIM pushes an update to my Blackberry? Who pays for that.
It will get real messy real fast considering nobody knows how to price bytes in the first place. | |
|  | | at&t has earned every ounce of scrutiny! Seems to me, rather than moan and complain about customers using the services they pay for, at&t should have anticipated the iPhone demand and began beefing up the network to handle this capacity.
If I lived in NYC, I'd be something of a P.O.'d that 1/3 of my calls get dropped... or can't even get signal. Not when I'm paying the rates Americans pay for wireless services.
Consumers in North America (specifically, the United States) pay on average 50% more for wireless service, than consumers in Europe. We're getting it up the arse from at&t, and they don't even provide a decent water-based lubricant with the plan! What a pile of male bovine excrement!
It wouldn't be too hard to show at&t how much work they have in front of them. All consumers need to do, is schedule a massive call. If 50% of at&t's customers picked up the phone at once, and attempted to make a call, the network would in fact, crumble to peices!
Consumers can hold at&t accountable you know. It is a publically traded company. Not to mention, all the customers on at&t's network, who could wreak havoc if they wanted too. Gentlemen! Start your large downloads and heavy traffic, at 10:00PM Zulu time on Monday. at&t will fall to it's knees! | |
|  | | actual bandwidth costs so they are thinking of changing usage behavior by charging more. Is this a money question or a capital upgrade question.
according to these articles, bandwidth costs less than $1 per GB. and, I have read that it costs NetFlix like $0.02 per movie to stream.
»multicodecjukebox.blogspot.com/2···lus.html »geekswithblogs.net/mikedopp/arch···net.aspx
ATT buys in bulk, so it isn't even this expensive for them. but, it is a little costlier for me. how does the math work out? | |
|  | | Corporations and the Net Well, I've read an awfull lot of posts and decided to add a few things.
1. A company exists to make money. If they can make money while providing nothing they will.
2. Since that extreme an option is rarely available, they will normally move money from an area that is doing well to an area that is poorly performing. If they have a perfect support team but are having problems with network capacity, they will cut back the support until their reputation starts to suffer in order to pay for the added network capacity.
3. A company will withold purchases until the last moment (or past the last moment) in order to maximise revenue. They will not purchase equipment until they can't do without it, and if they can get a no interest loan by cutting a payment schedule rather than paying up front they will. Money in the bank earns interest (if nothing else) while money in someone elses pocket earns the company nothing.
4. Networks charge each other for packets recieved but not sent. Thus, when you download a file from someone outside your providers network, your provider is charged for the packets you download, but not your requests and acks. In large networks (like AT&T), the two companys generally decide that they are both using a lot of traffic and just call it even. Small companies do not have this option and generally DO end up paying for the traffic your download generates.
5. If the T1 isn't yours then there is often a per byte charge over X bytes. It is only when you own both ends of the T1 that this charge doesn't happen. Many companies will lease from each others prebuilt networks rather than buy their own. Thus AT&T may be passing traffic over Comcasts T1 because leasing bandwidth from Comcast costs less than buying and maintaining their own (not to mention it's built differently.)
6. Because a companies goal is to make as much money they can for as little money as they can get away with, it behooves the client to be aware of what is being offerred and push back when it is unacceptable. They will add up how much they will make with per byte billing, figure out how many people they will loose if they do it, and if the end amount shows profit then that is what they are going to do. If they predict they will earn less money because to many people will leave, then they will not do it.
At any rate, I'm going to write to AT&T expressing my displeasure with the idea, as I do whenever they suggest it. If enough people complain, they won't do it until people don't complain. *shrug* It's the only way I see to prevent it.
Boojum | |
|  stridr69 join:2003-05-19 San Luis Obispo, CA | Dear ATT Streaming Applications |
Please see the attached photo. Note that all of these applications are legitimate from the Apple Ap Store(yes, my iPhone IS jail broken/unlocked-using Categories to store all of my streaming applications). All of these use streaming from your "stellar" 3G network. Just to help you out there ATT I have to work to use....maybe 1 gig a month. Wow...cannot believe YOU(ATT) didn't realize that iPhone users would actually USE their phones for what it was intended for. Interesting that I haven't heard anything about Droid bringing down Verizon's network-granted not as many Android phones out there yet. Fix your network, ATT. Quit whining! Once again, fix your network! Or enjoy your "Blue Christmas". Love that Verizon ad! Love my enV3 too! That phone works! Which is why it's my MAIN phone-actually need to place a phone call once in a while..ya know?! | |
|  Chaldo join:2008-03-18 West Bloomfield, MI | To anyone that thinks they can say VERIZON iPHONE!! First of all anyone remember this? »stopthecap.com/wp-content/upload···vzw1.jpg
Yea, you bet you do? Also that should be updated with "NOW WITH A $350 ETF, WHY? WE LOVE TO KEEP YOUR MONEY WARM WITH US !
I also believe the Droid has a 5GB cap? Can anyone confirm that? | |
|
 | |
|
|