4 ms·
Sometimes Jeff Jarvis gets a little high and mighty. Realistically, the idea of an "unlimited data" plan that actually was capped is more evil than a completely
by randall 16y ago
Sometimes Jeff Jarvis gets a little high and mighty. Realistically, the idea of an "unlimited data" plan that actually was capped is more evil than a completely up-front "YOU HAVE 5GBs!" plan. However, that's not what's happening here.
Can you imagine if a carrier said you have unlimited calling, but that really meant 1000 minutes? People would FLIP OUT. Primarily because of decades of minute-by-minute charging from landline carriers had trained us that the way to measure value of a phone company was a per minute charge.
Internet access was never presented to us that way. Online services were (ZOMG 100 hours of AOL!?!?!?!?) but since we switched to HTTP, we're just used to unlimited internet. Wireless carriers have adapted by offering seemingly unlimited plans, but realistically, they hope you don't go over about 5gb of bandwidth.
In this specific case, I actually applaud AT&T for adopting a more consumer up-front nature, and making it clear how much overages will cost. Before, if you went over, it might have cost you dearly. I hope other so-called "unlimited plans" follow suit and explain exactly how much data you can use before hitting a cap.
Jarvis doesn't ever note that "unlimited" plans on any carrier aren't ever unlimited. Ever.
While in principle, I might agree that AT&T needs to upgrade its networks, I don't agree that this move is patently evil. I think it's basically the opposite: Refreshingly straightforward.
- runevault 16y agoComparing this to the "unlimited but not" are two different things, because at one point at&t specifically said the iPad got REAL uncapped data, not the fake 5 Gig unlimited that smart phones get. But the fact that that goes away for new customers and the like is rather lame.
- randall 16y agoI can't speak for AT&T, but this might be a situation where they realized that real "unlimited" wouldn't actually work because demand outstripped their predictions. I think the real annoying part is the tethering charge, since it doesn't actually do anything extra. I can live with charges that are up front, especially when the network is one as fraile as AT&Ts. If a competitor were to step forward with a way to use unlimited (truly) data, ie 4g or the sort, more people would go to them, and AT&T would look foolish. I think it's just the current state of wireless, and an indictment of its broken-ness. Massive infrastructure startup, anyone? :)
- runevault 16y agoSure it may be possible they were blind to the kind of usage that would be incoming, but having already gone through the massive data use that iPhone users put their network through that seems somewhat silly.
- ensignavenger 16y agoClearwire seems to be trying. But massive infrastructure costs a lot of money, and Sprint, one of their primary sources of money, doesn't have it. Their other partners are dipping their toes in. We shall see what happens.