So, Verizon has finally admitted they're going to tiered data plans.

[Clak]

Verizon CFO: We will move to tiered data pricing mid-summer - FierceWireless

So, we knew it was coming, there is confirmation.

 

[jtalker1965]

You are grand fathered on this current phone and sooner or later it was going to happen. With all of the data hops coming on line to the market.

 

[Yourdogsdead]

Might make it cheaper for me. I don't use that much data anyway.

 

[emdaht]

as long as im good under this whole grandaddy clause.....i could care less....

 

[Chris3D]

Might make it cheaper for me. I don't use that much data anyway.

Me too, I've already dropped down to the $15 a month 150 or 200 meg plan after several months of using 75 to 100 megs per month. I'm rarely away from a WiFi connection and when I am, the most I typically do is check my e-mail from time to time.

As was said, tiered plans were inevitable. And really, why shouldn't the data hogs bear a greater cost of supporting the network? Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue how someone can use upwards of 6 to 8 gigs a month. If you're streaming Pandora 24/7, that's what *radio* is for...

 

[tw105188]

I have been on a TON this past month, reading the forums and what not..used 500k KB. I don't see how I could possibly use more than that. Lol

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[worwig]

One month I used 1.5GB. Not sure how. I seldom watch videos or stream audio. Most of it was using Google maps while in the car. But generally, I'm around 300MB.

 

[Clak]

The grandfathering probably only covers your current phone I'm betting, meaning that the next phone I get will require me to change data plans.

What pisses me off is that they denied it and denied it for months, it's not like they just decided this over night. They've known and just didn't want to say anyhting about it.

 

[gadgetpimpin]

Well some of us may not use much data now, but going to lte is headed in the direction of more data usage. Video calling is going to bethe new wave, then eventually we are going to do away with minutes and all calls will be voip, or cell phone's equivalent of it. Truth is the more per kb of data they charge you, the worse it is for everyone, except the cell phone companies. Check out prices that came doing an online search.... 50 bucks for 5gs of data.... we pay 30 for unlimited now. Read this article. Verizon ready to roll out 4G service | timesfreepress.com

 

[joebob2000]

They just can't keep pace with the uptake of 3g devices. 3 years ago when i had my trusty old BB storm I could score faster downloads (web page rendering was a different story) than I can today... More users on the same towers/backhauls means less speed for everyone, especially when they are all in the "well i pay for unlimited" mindset. I'm in central Ohio and I for one can't wait for the day when 4g and/or tiered data makes people stop doing stupid stuff on the 3g band like watching NFL games or running bittorrent. I am lucky to get 500kbit/s even if I am right next to a tower. Thank god for wifi!

 

[Chris3D]

More users on the same towers/backhauls means less speed for everyone, especially when they are all in the "well i pay for unlimited" mindset.

Yea, as much as I dislike Verizon, I honestly can't criticize them or the other carriers for moving to tiered data plans. This isn't a situation where ample capacity exists and you can give people more without worrying about it impacting the service overall.

The capacity is still being built, and we're in a bit of a transition time where services like streaming video/audio work, yet the bandwidth isn't there to handle everyone doing it simultaneously. And with the general American trait of gluttonous consumption, the carriers just can't continue to offer anything "unlimited".

It'll eventually go back to "unlimited" once bandwidth isn't an issue, but I'm sure it'll take many years for that to happen.

 

[Matt F.]

The problem I have with the tiered plans is as of right now their overages are criminal. Let's say you are on the 2GB plan and run over by a little bit, say you use 2.25 GB. Anybody know how much that 0.25 GB is going to cost you? At their current overage charges it would cost you $509.44, now who thinks that is remotely fair? I am one of those pigs who use a lot of data, somewhere between 2-3 GB per month, I live in a rural area with no wifi and the only internet access is dial up, if I want highspeed internet its either cellphone or mounting a satellite dish to my roof. If I have to choose a tiered data plan with those criminal overages I will go elsewhere.

 

[Clak]

What happens when netflix starts rolling out on some android phones/tablets? Now sure, using wifi would be the smart thing to do, but with 4g it should be able to handle it on the data connection. The problem will come when you're trying to do this over a limited data plan.

See all of the carriers keep rolling out these new features, but they haven't invested enough on the back end to support it all. Instead of doing that they're just going to limit how much data we can use, which kind of makes all those flashy new features seem a little less flashy.

 

[Jgonzo1299]

damn, i used 1.8 GB of data this month. and it aint even done yet.

wifi is counted as data or just 3g use?

 

[Johnly]

I use a ton of data, main reason I have a smart phone. I am in no hurry to count data.

 

[Heath276]

Same with me i have a phone that can do all kind of things so you know what i do them i always have pandora playing or talk radio streming wile im online. Yea at home i have wifi but at work i dont so im 3g all the way and in my car going to work i drive an hour each way so thats 2 hours in the car and well pandora plays the music i like so i use it.

 

[Chris3D]

See all of the carriers keep rolling out these new features, but they haven't invested enough on the back end to support it all. Instead of doing that they're just going to limit how much data we can use, which kind of makes all those flashy new features seem a little less flashy.

To be fair, the carriers aren't the ones rolling out new features, the handset manufacturers and Google are and the carriers are just trying to keep up. It's a lot easier and cheaper for Google and/or app developers to write a single streaming audio/video app than it is for Verizon and the other carriers to physically upgrade hardware on the entire country's cellular network of upwards of 250,000 towers.

Perhaps an alternative to hard limits on data use would be to have tiered bandwidth. If you want to use things like streaming audio/video, you'd pay for a connection fast enough to support it, while the person who only wants to browse the web and check e-mail can get away with a slower connection speed. Pretty similiar to what people are already used to with home internet connections - DSL, Cable, FiOS.

 

[Clak]

To be fair, the carriers aren't the ones rolling out new features, the handset manufacturers and Google are and the carriers are just trying to keep up. It's a lot easier and cheaper for Google and/or app developers to write a single streaming audio/video app than it is for Verizon and the other carriers to physically upgrade hardware on the entire country's cellular network of upwards of 250,000 towers.

Perhaps an alternative to hard limits on data use would be to have tiered bandwidth. If you want to use things like streaming audio/video, you'd pay for a connection fast enough to support it, while the person who only wants to browse the web and check e-mail can get away with a slower connection speed. Pretty similiar to what people are already used to with home internet connections - DSL, Cable, FiOS.

But the manufacturers are only going to produce phones which the carriers will carry. Meaning that if they aren't willing to spend the money to improve their network, they shouldn't carry phones which are going to stress their network. This is true of all carriers though, not just verizon. If the phones are outpacing their willingness to really expand their networks, then they all need to pull back and stop carrying all these new phones until they can afford to beef up their network capability. It's just ridiculous to advertise all these cool new features and then do something to hinder the customer's ability to use them.

 

[Chris3D]

But the manufacturers are only going to produce phones which the carriers will carry.

We're not really talking about physical features here. Sure, being able to handle streaming media might inherently require a more powerful CPU, but the real issue is software capabilities. The handset manufacturers aren't going to limit CPU power simply because a fast processor might allow people to run 3rd party streaming media apps that might stress the carrier's network. At the same time, Google isn't going to hold off implementing certain base functionality in Android that could facilitate applications that could stress the network either because those same features could be used over WiFi without causing problems for anyone.

As I said, we're just in a transition period where hardware and software capabilities are independently outpacing the ability of the network to support everyone using all these new features simultaneously.

Meaning that if they aren't willing to spend the money to improve their network, they shouldn't carry phones which are going to stress their network.

I agree with you there, in part. On the one hand, I disagree that the carriers aren't willing to spend the money to improve their network. Over just the past 3 years, we've gone from 2G to 3G and we're now on the cusp of 4G networks. The carriers are spending money improving their network, I just think it's a very big task, and the pace at which demand is changing renders cutting edge technology of just last year obsolete this year. Would anyone have suspected two years ago that a 3G data connection would barely be adequate today?

On the other hand, I totally agree that the carriers shouldn't allow services that will stress their network (services, not so much hardware since, as I mentioned earlier, high-end features can be used over WiFi without detriment). But the fact that the carriers allow certain things like video streaming of sporting events over 3G is absurd. I'd even go so far as saying allowing streaming audio like Pandora over 3G is absurd. Radio is a perfectly acceptable and established way to listen to audio wirelessly. To allow audio streaming over a wireless data connection when it will negatively impact the network's ability to handle more fundamental traffic like web browsing and e-mail, which have no alternatives like radio, is wrong.

It's just ridiculous to advertise all these cool new features and then do something to hinder the customer's ability to use them.

Agreed, but we have to accept part of the blame ourselves. Offer a service and Americans will consume with total abandon until the service is stressed to the point of failure. Even when the carriers limit certain heavy traffic applications to a network that can handle it (WiFi), what do we do? We modify the apps to allow them to opperate over the cellular connection - and then we use them 24/7 until the carrier has to take measures to stop it (take the tether monitoring of the EB01 kernel). And what do we do then? We crack that to again allow us to abuse the network.

A phone data connection was never meant to be used as a person's sole home internet connection, yet that's exactly what some are doing based on the reasoning that "they said it was unlimited, so I'm going to use an unlimited amount". At some point, we need to step back and consider the impact of our actions.

 

[Clak]

Eh, hardware is a part of it though, Think about the wireless tethering. I know that has to be adding to the congestion on their network. It's something that the manufacturers don't have to implement in the phones, but the carriers want a cool new feature to advertise.

Also,while I agree they've spent money upgrading their network speed, they haven't improved capacity much. That's the catch, what good is 4G if you have to limit it's use because you can't handle much traffic?