5 ms·

One small step for man... The next would be to somehow abolish the per-device data fee structure. We have seven iOS devices. Only three are actively online.

One small step for man... The next would be to somehow abolish the per-device data fee structure. We have seven iOS devices. Only three are actively online. Even at that, when at home, office or near wifi cellular data does not get used much if a all. Still, we have to pay 3x the cellular data monthly fee, which is insanity. I do understand the technical and business issues here, but this cuts both ways: I know that we are not using these connections anywhere near capacity. And, I also know that ATT is double charging us because our DSL services (office and home) are with them...yet we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use the network for data as opposed to cellular. In other words, they get to charge us for something that we don't use or, seen another way, we pay twice for the same data capacity. Not sure what the solution might look like, but today's plans are starting to smell bad.

wmf 14y ago
In theory they now have pooled data plans, but in reality they're not cheaper so you probably don't care. Also, I've heard that a 3G PDP context costs money, so seven devices using 5GB total does cost more than one device using 5GB, although probably not as much as they charge. we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use [Wi-Fi] for data as opposed to cellular Sure you do; that data doesn't eat into your cellular cap. Effectively cellular is ~$6/GB and DSL is <$1/GB.
maxerickson 14y ago
I guess bundling would be nice, but I don't really see the logic to placing requirements on how the providers structure device plans. I think the furthest I would go in that direction would be to require companies that control a large percentage of nationwide spectrum to sell access to their towers at regulated rates.
vacri 14y ago
Do you also complain that your cable TV isn't used to capacity because you're not watching all channels 24 hours a day? It seems so peculiar that people complain that they're not using their internet account to saturation when they don't make the same complaint about other things.
- brk 14y ago
  I don't think this argument is analogous. With a CATV subscription, you can hook up an essentially unlimited number of TVs. You could in theory watch every channel 24/7 for the same basic rate. The basic costs associated with cable are related to the infrastructure to bring the signal to your house, plus whatever licensing fees for content that are essentially passed through. With Internet plans, we are charged repetitively for multiple devices, and in essence you are basically discouraged (throttling, excess usage fees) from actually using the service to 100% of the contracted rates over the billing period. For example, I have on my account 2 iPhones with data plans (mine, wife's), 1 with tethering (mine), and 1 4G USB dongle. I went over the 5G limit on the dongle, but both of the basic data plans on the iPhones were under budget for the month, and I hardly used the tethering. Do you think I'll get a break from Verizon, or any kind of 'net usage' billing for the overage on the 4G dongle? As others have pointed out in other threads, the mobile Internet space is ripe for disruption. It's not going to come from 2 college drop-outs on a $15,000 Y Combinator budget, but it's going to happen as soon as the economy lights up a little bit and we get some real infrastructure investment rolling.
- robomartin 14y ago
  I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a service to saturation. Not that the cable TV analogy holds up. If you are using an iOS device to download a 100MB game app over WiFi via AT&T DSL --that you pay for-- while, at the same time paying for a cellular data plan, AT&T is making making more money on you because their cellular data bandwidth is not being utilized by they still charge you. I would venture to say that most iOS devices spend the bulk of their time within WiFi zones (AT&T or not). This means that a portion of what AT&T charges for cellular data is never actually used and that is pure profit for them. As I said in my post: I don't know what the right solution is, but the current setup is starting to smell pretty bad. If the above example doesn't do it for you, think about this. Twenty people working at a company. The company pays (maybe through AT&T) for Internet access and provides WiFi to all employees. Every single one of them has a personal iPhone. Every single one of them pays for a cellular data plan. And, while at work, every single one of them is using the WiFi access point for the bulk of the data traffic on their devices. AT&T is making a nice profit on data bandwidth they never have to deliver over the cellular network. Later on, those same people go home and are likely to transfer data over their own (paid) DSL connection rather than use cellular data. Again, double charging by the telcos, if you will. Once you do the math past a single iPhone the effect starts to become obvious very quickly. Maybe what I am saying is that if I am paying AT&T for cellular data as well as DSL I should receive a credit on my cellular data plan for the data moved over DSL as opposed to the cell network. Again, I don't know the first thing about their business equation, so I'll be the first one to admit that this proposal could be beyond ridiculous for a hundred and one reasons.

wmf 14y ago

In theory they now have pooled data plans, but in reality they're not cheaper so you probably don't care. Also, I've heard that a 3G PDP context costs money, so seven devices using 5GB total does cost more than one device using 5GB, although probably not as much as they charge. we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use [Wi-Fi] for data as opposed to cellular Sure you do; that data doesn't eat into your cellular cap. Effectively cellular is ~$6/GB and DSL is <$1/GB.

maxerickson 14y ago

I guess bundling would be nice, but I don't really see the logic to placing requirements on how the providers structure device plans. I think the furthest I would go in that direction would be to require companies that control a large percentage of nationwide spectrum to sell access to their towers at regulated rates.

vacri 14y ago

Do you also complain that your cable TV isn't used to capacity because you're not watching all channels 24 hours a day? It seems so peculiar that people complain that they're not using their internet account to saturation when they don't make the same complaint about other things.

brk 14y ago
I don't think this argument is analogous. With a CATV subscription, you can hook up an essentially unlimited number of TVs. You could in theory watch every channel 24/7 for the same basic rate. The basic costs associated with cable are related to the infrastructure to bring the signal to your house, plus whatever licensing fees for content that are essentially passed through. With Internet plans, we are charged repetitively for multiple devices, and in essence you are basically discouraged (throttling, excess usage fees) from actually using the service to 100% of the contracted rates over the billing period. For example, I have on my account 2 iPhones with data plans (mine, wife's), 1 with tethering (mine), and 1 4G USB dongle. I went over the 5G limit on the dongle, but both of the basic data plans on the iPhones were under budget for the month, and I hardly used the tethering. Do you think I'll get a break from Verizon, or any kind of 'net usage' billing for the overage on the 4G dongle? As others have pointed out in other threads, the mobile Internet space is ripe for disruption. It's not going to come from 2 college drop-outs on a $15,000 Y Combinator budget, but it's going to happen as soon as the economy lights up a little bit and we get some real infrastructure investment rolling.
robomartin 14y ago
I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a service to saturation. Not that the cable TV analogy holds up. If you are using an iOS device to download a 100MB game app over WiFi via AT&T DSL --that you pay for-- while, at the same time paying for a cellular data plan, AT&T is making making more money on you because their cellular data bandwidth is not being utilized by they still charge you. I would venture to say that most iOS devices spend the bulk of their time within WiFi zones (AT&T or not). This means that a portion of what AT&T charges for cellular data is never actually used and that is pure profit for them. As I said in my post: I don't know what the right solution is, but the current setup is starting to smell pretty bad. If the above example doesn't do it for you, think about this. Twenty people working at a company. The company pays (maybe through AT&T) for Internet access and provides WiFi to all employees. Every single one of them has a personal iPhone. Every single one of them pays for a cellular data plan. And, while at work, every single one of them is using the WiFi access point for the bulk of the data traffic on their devices. AT&T is making a nice profit on data bandwidth they never have to deliver over the cellular network. Later on, those same people go home and are likely to transfer data over their own (paid) DSL connection rather than use cellular data. Again, double charging by the telcos, if you will. Once you do the math past a single iPhone the effect starts to become obvious very quickly. Maybe what I am saying is that if I am paying AT&T for cellular data as well as DSL I should receive a credit on my cellular data plan for the data moved over DSL as opposed to the cell network. Again, I don't know the first thing about their business equation, so I'll be the first one to admit that this proposal could be beyond ridiculous for a hundred and one reasons.