Verizon may be taking away unlimited data?

[ControlD]

The average user that has no idea of a smart phone but now has to have one because that's how all phones are going , will not use any of that 2gb of data. So yea for them it's great but for people that actually use it, you can go through 2gb in less than an hour.

A couple of years ago I would agree with that, but not now. I see a lot of people using things like Netflix, Google Music, etc. when they are out and about. In times past, those services were pretty much unusable on public wifi which almost always sucks. Now we have nice and fast LTE networks and those services are really usable on the go. Just looking at my usage as an example. I do a fair amount of running throughout the week. I have gone from downloading music onto my phone to simply streaming GMusic. I have to keep a very close eye on my usage to make sure I don't bump over the 2Gb limit. My wife likes to watch TV shows via Netflix or HuLu over 4G as well (although she is so afraid of the data cap she often doesn't do it) and she fits the "average user" almost perfectly.

 

[sze5003]

A couple of years ago I would agree with that, but not now. I see a lot of people using things like Netflix, Google Music, etc. when they are out and about. In times past, those services were pretty much unusable on public wifi which almost always sucks. Now we have nice and fast LTE networks and those services are really usable on the go. Just looking at my usage as an example. I do a fair amount of running throughout the week. I have gone from downloading music onto my phone to simply streaming GMusic. I have to keep a very close eye on my usage to make sure I don't bump over the 2Gb limit. My wife likes to watch TV shows via Netflix or HuLu over 4G as well (although she is so afraid of the data cap she often doesn't do it) and she fits the "average user" almost perfectly.

I understand what you mean. I stream Pandora to and from work every day. At the end of the month I'm well over 2gb. I don't connect to work WiFi as they monitor everything we do. So if I want music I need to stream it.

They keep coming out with these nice new phones and fast speeds but you are limited in what you can do.

 

[ControlD]

I understand what you mean. I stream Pandora to and from work every day. At the end of the month I'm well over 2gb. I don't connect to work WiFi as they monitor everything we do. So if I want music I need to stream it.

They keep coming out with these nice new phones and fast speeds but you are limited in what you can do.

That's EXACTLY it!

That 2GB of data (if you are lucky, newer plans have you sharing even that tiny amount of data with your family) is just what I would call "gateway bandwidth". Give the user enough data to show them all of the really cool stuff that can be done with it, but make that amount small enough to make that same user want more. Just visit your local bandwidth dealer and pony up some cash for a little more.

It's a good business plan, it just sucks for the users.

 

[sze5003]

Yes and its because of the smartphones that they were no longer making money off minutes and overages. Remember If you wanted to up your minutes it brought you up by 20-30 bucks or more for a plan?

No wonder they now have unlimited voice and text because data is what everyone is using now. They weren't making money once 4g lte first came out having people just paying $30 for unlimited..no one used minutes anymore. I remember you could use Google voice and other apps to call over data.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

See, they went from metered to unlimited. :thumbsup:

Verizon's issue in NYC had to do with both crowded subscribers and building penetration. T-Mobile HSPA was glorious compared to Verizon's LTE even though Verizon had more bandwidth. It's all about infrastructure implementation.

I agree with VoLTE. I don't know why we are still forced to waste spectrum on CDMA. Heck I don't even know why my phone switches from LTE to 3G even though I have plenty of signal.....

Anyway, my beef with Verizon is how they spend their revenue/profit. I don't mind paying for their infrastructure, advertising and CS, but I hate to see carriers waste money at retail stores paying people to stand around. Some people are happy with 2GB/month at Verizon's premium pricing, but not me. Unlimited data or I am going prepaid.

1) Comparing to T-Mobile is unfair. It's a smaller userbase and different market. The phones are different too.

2) Verizon has been pushing LTE phones since early 2011. While the 4S threw a wrench into the LTE lineup, every major phone release since then has included LTE. Verizon's entire network has moved to LTE practically.

3) Verizon using band 13? (or was it 14?) has 10+10 MHz LTE capabilities across the nation. That's not going to be sufficient in an area like NYC. They're adding 10+10 on AWS-1 now that the switch has been flipped on, but is carrier aggregation even supported yet? I don't think so. It's not going to be the same as a 20+20 MHz LTE network deployed by T-Mobile.

4) Furthermore, Verizon's 3G is slow as hell to fall back on. So even if you look at AT&T and if LTE gets congested and you fall back on HSPA, that's fine. Fall back on Verizon 3G? Good luck doing anything more than iMessage.

I'm not trying to defend the carriers here. I hate the carriers here as much as anyone else does, particularly Verizon, but the argument that T-Mobile is OK, therefore Verizon must be OK also is bullshit.

LOL. Now we unlimited holdouts are becoming the scapegoats for the rest of you. Rage, peasants, rage.

Let me explain this to you: it's bullshit. Verizon, T-Mo, and even Sprint aren't any more capacity-taxed than AT&T, which has had hard caps on everyone for years. The real issue is *everyone* using more data. Furthermore, there's no spectrum issue. LTE is much-more spectrum-efficient than its predecessors... which is why the next move already on the board for the big two is refarming 850/1900.

It's dependent on market where different operators have spectrum issues. I can tell you AT&T in LA and Chicago suck given their limited 5+5 MHz LTE networks. AWS isn't going to save you without carrier aggregation.

You're right that everyone is using more data, but how can you be so sure there is no spectrum issue? The fact that Verizon's been able to mitigate some complaints in NYC by turning on its AWS towers and AT&T's been able to mitigate concerns in Chicago and LA by turning on its AWS towers as well shows you that spectrum IS an issue. We all know that LTE is more spectrum efficient, but this doesn't mean that crowded areas like sports stadiums still challenge the best cell phone networks.

In the end I agree that carriers need to be spending more on their network and not wasting money on branded phones, exclusivities, and subsidies. Maybe their financial model is screwed up now and as a result the network infrastructure is behind the times, but whatever the cause of that is, just acting like there are no network challenges is pretty dense.

 

[cronos]

In the end I agree that carriers need to be spending more on their network and not wasting money on branded phones, exclusivities, and subsidies. Maybe their financial model is screwed up now and as a result the network infrastructure is behind the times, but whatever the cause of that is, just acting like there are no network challenges is pretty dense.

This x 100.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I think perhaps the larger point is being missed here. If there are so many users in an area that the tower cannot handle the amount of demanded traffic, then the provider should upgrade their infrastructure to meet that demand.

Instead what we are seeing from providers is an entirely different approach. Rather than upgrade the infrastructure, simply cap the allowed usage and charge incredibly high rates for violating that cap. Also, train your sales force to use any means necessary to get people off their unlimited plans. It's a win-win from the big providers. Save on expensive system upgrades while giving your customers less service for more cost.

It's hard to find many other industries that can operate in such a way and stay in business. I guess big cable providers and utility companies might be somewhat similar.

The current cell tower architecture is limiting in the ability to add more towers so in heavy use areas, while they might like to increase the number of towers they are already saturated so that won't work. I believe they will eventually implement a micro cellular system that's very much like wifi and they will place them inside building, perhaps one on every other floor.

I can also see them making deals with companies to utilize existing wifi bandwidth so that if a company was located in a building and they had a wifi network the carriers could arrange to credit the companies users based on the amount of data offloaded to their wifi network.

There's not much I see in the immediate future that's going to increase the bandwidth available to the cellular spectrum so we are going to be constrained for the time being. I can see a similar micro cellular approach used along major highways/freeways that have micro towers placed every mile or so using the same concept I mentioned in buildings.

If we applied this concept to our own wifi networks we could offload network utilization to our own wifi systems at home -- we just need to have the appropriate HW/SW in the phones and routers and to have the carriers buy into permitting this passthru...

But, in summary, if many networks are crawling with average users eating much less than 1GB/month how well do you think the network would run if average users were eating, or trying to eat, 25GB/month -- or 250GB/month?


Brian

 

[cmdrdredd]

AT&T certainly isn't a step up but I'd switch for several reasons. One for GSM and getting away from locked up Verizon phones. Simultaneous voice and data is a big one. Another is principle. My area coverage is about the same and I really don't think I'll notice the difference between 10mpbs and 30mbps on my phone.

I'm actually looking seriously at giving republic wireless a try. $190/month for three phones is getting to be ridiculous. Republic would be $75 plus taxes. My big hiccup is giving up my iPhone.

I'd move to get working Google Wallet as well. AT&T is actually quite good here after researching. I'm up for a renewal from Verizon in July. I'm gonna see whether they can be competitive for me against AT&T but I doubt it. In my area it appears that they are about equal but I can maybe save a little bit by bringing my two numbers to AT&T and just sharing 6GB. I have unlimited on Verizon and keep it out of principal, but never use more than 4GB myself. My other line barely sees over 500MB used, but since it's a smartphone it has to also have a data plan attached. I don't think my better half would be ok losing the apps and little games.

 

[openwheel]

The current cell tower architecture is limiting in the ability to add more towers so in heavy use areas, while they might like to increase the number of towers they are already saturated so that won't work. I believe they will eventually implement a micro cellular system that's very much like wifi and they will place them inside building, perhaps one on every other floor.

I can also see them making deals with companies to utilize existing wifi bandwidth so that if a company was located in a building and they had a wifi network the carriers could arrange to credit the companies users based on the amount of data offloaded to their wifi network.

There's not much I see in the immediate future that's going to increase the bandwidth available to the cellular spectrum so we are going to be constrained for the time being. I can see a similar micro cellular approach used along major highways/freeways that have micro towers placed every mile or so using the same concept I mentioned in buildings.

If we applied this concept to our own wifi networks we could offload network utilization to our own wifi systems at home -- we just need to have the appropriate HW/SW in the phones and routers and to have the carriers buy into permitting this passthru...

But, in summary, if many networks are crawling with average users eating much less than 1GB/month how well do you think the network would run if average users were eating, or trying to eat, 25GB/month -- or 250GB/month?


Brian

Sounds like your "proposed solution" is to "improve infrastructure". Same argument most here are trying to convey. Welcome aboard.

Who here is still proposing to kill off unlimited data? Or even lower data cap?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Sounds like your "proposed solution" is to "improve infrastructure". Same argument most here are trying to convey. Welcome aboard.

Who here is still proposing to kill off unlimited data? Or even lower data cap?

Both solutions will address congestion. I have no problem with people using unlimited data and going to like 5gb but when people are using 50gb+ a month just to download torrents, that's a bit ridiculous don't you think?

 

[sze5003]

Both solutions will address congestion. I have no problem with people using unlimited data and going to like 5gb but when people are using 50gb+ a month just to download torrents, that's a bit ridiculous don't you think?

I've known people to use up to 60gb of data or more because they live in an area where they can't get decent internet service. It is ridiculous but it's expected to happen. I stream Pandora every day to and from long rides for work, stream it at work while coding, and use tapa to post to forums. So far this month I'm up to 7gb of data.

 

[openwheel]

Both solutions will address congestion. I have no problem with people using unlimited data and going to like 5gb but when people are using 50gb+ a month just to download torrents, that's a bit ridiculous don't you think?

I think you may be jealous and wish you had unlimited un-throttled LTE

Seriously, if people are legally paying for a service mutually agreed between carrier and subscriber, then why would you have beef with them? Especially, if the unlimited data user lives/works somewhere without network congestion which is true for majority of Verizon customers.

 

[sze5003]

I think you may be jealous and wish you had unlimited un-throttled LTE

Seriously, if people are legally paying for a service mutually agreed between carrier and subscriber, then why would you have beef with them? Especially, if the unlimited data user lives/works somewhere without network congestion which is true for majority of Verizon customers.

I feel some people are upset they upgraded without knowing or lost unlimited so now they pay more for less. Eventually it will happen, to all of us, I don't think they can do much of it now but they will take it away. That's when business will pickup for prepaid.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The current cell tower architecture is limiting in the ability to add more towers so in heavy use areas, while they might like to increase the number of towers they are already saturated so that won't work. I believe they will eventually implement a micro cellular system that's very much like wifi and they will place them inside building, perhaps one on every other floor.

We have this in all of our buildings at work already - I can absolutely see it being done on a bigger scale.

Verizon's LTE in Seattle is a complete joke with 56k speeds in Freemont. The Starbucks wifi was WELL past capacity, and then Verizon was themselves overloaded so while I had my phone for tethering...it wasn't very useful.

 

[rh71]

As I advised in another thread, if you really want a subsidized phone again and don't mind a new 2yr contract (yes this was me), unlimited users can drop to a "Verizon Max 6GB" plan for $30/mo. (reduced from $80/mo. so there are no further discounts like corporate discounts allowed). They also have 8GB for $50/mo.

I've been using 4G away from home normally (not trying to conserve and even use GPS) but never stream movies or anything crazy and I have used all of 0.150GB in half a month. In short, especially coming from an old phone like the slow-ass, battery-sucking GNex, it was very worth it for me to pay only $199 for a new Note 3.

 

[sze5003]

As I advised in another thread, if you really want a subsidized phone again and don't mind a new 2yr contract (yes this was me), unlimited users can drop to a "Verizon Max 6GB" plan for $30/mo. (reduced from $80/mo. so there are no further discounts like corporate discounts allowed). They also have 8GB for $50/mo.

I've been using 4G away from home normally but never stream movies or anything crazy and I haven't even used 1GB in half a month.

If it wasn't for my corporate discount I would probably be on a prepaid service right now. I get 19% off my bill and I think 10-15% off accessories if I go and order stuff through the corporate Verizon website, but for myself not a company phone because only business people get company phones where I work.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If it wasn't for my corporate discount I would probably be on a prepaid service right now. I get 19% off my bill and I think 10-15% off accessories if I go and order stuff through the corporate Verizon website, but for myself not a company phone because only business people get company phones where I work.

Similar situation for me - I can still get a new unlimited plan through my corporate discount. If it stays that way, good. If not...well, I'll shop around when it's time to buy a new phone in October.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Sounds like your "proposed solution" is to "improve infrastructure". Same argument most here are trying to convey. Welcome aboard.

Who here is still proposing to kill off unlimited data? Or even lower data cap?

Not exactly...

The current cell architecture isn't going to be able to increase bandwidth much beyond what we have now. There may be some additional spectrum opened up that could increase bandwidth a little, but that won't get use very far.

To increase bandwidth much beyond what we have now they will need to increase the number of cells by an enormous amount and they will need to be micro cellular, low power, and short range -- it will be VERY expensive to add this infrastructure!

I'll give you one guess as to who will wind up paying for it.

We have limited competition with only a handful of carriers and only two making any real money. ATT and Verizon are making money but it's not like Wall Street bank money. There's no way they build out such a micro cellular system on current income, they'd go bankrupt.


Brian

 

[jersiq]

I always find the posts that say "just upgrade the infrastructure" humorous. The notion that it's just the flick of the switch to light up new spectrum is far from the truth. On top of the eNodeB manufacturers supporting the newer spectrum, you also have to get that other part of the RF equation: antennas.

You see anytime a company wants to hang a new antenna, the landlord generally tries to escalate the rent from anywhere between 50% to 300%. On top of that, if the structure (monopole, lattice, guylined tower) cannot handle the increased load with the antennas you are going to hang, the carrier proposing the lease amendment gets to pay all the structural costs so the tower /edifice can meet specs.
Now, the larger two carriers have ~40,000 to 50,000k cellsites. Imagine the rent escalation alone (recurring monthly cost) over a span of 10 years. Mind you, this even before the costs of adding any actual call processing equipment in the shelter itself. In some cases, there just isn't enough room inside the shelter, and it has to be augmented, further increasing your construction costs. Even the microcell solutions have their space/leasing costs, and Ethernet backhaul considerations.

You also just can't land sites wily-nily and expect them to work. SNR is critical for good throughput performance. One mention above was system of small cells along a highway. That will never be a reality due to the small RF footprint given by small cells. You'd spend more time handing over between small cells at any decent amount of speed that you'd be consuming data.

In building systems generally aren't worth the cost expense to do on a large scale, as it's such a small amount of users. To design a decent in building system (SISO only) for a 9 story building you will probably look in the ballpark of 1 million. Easily double that if you want a MIMO system.

 

[KentState]

If it wasn't for my corporate discount I would probably be on a prepaid service right now. I get 19% off my bill and I think 10-15% off accessories if I go and order stuff through the corporate Verizon website, but for myself not a company phone because only business people get company phones where I work.

The ELEU discount is a big benefit for us also. We get roughly 20% off our service and 25% off accessories. My work is also providing phones (iPhone 5s or Samsung S5), but I don't want to be stuck with a shared plan if I ever leave so I have two VZW phones.

 

[sze5003]

The ELEU discount is a big benefit for us also. We get roughly 20% off our service and 25% off accessories. My work is also providing phones (iPhone 5s or Samsung S5), but I don't want to be stuck with a shared plan if I ever leave so I have two VZW phones.

Which is why I chose Verizon because Sprint discount was basically non existent and they didn't give you as much for ATT. At the time they had unlimited data when I switched over and could not wait until my contract was up so I've been buying my phones outright through swappa.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I think you may be jealous and wish you had unlimited un-throttled LTE

Seriously, if people are legally paying for a service mutually agreed between carrier and subscriber, then why would you have beef with them? Especially, if the unlimited data user lives/works somewhere without network congestion which is true for majority of Verizon customers.

I don't have unlimited data, but work will pay if I go over, so I use my iPhone liberally. I have no problem going over if I want, and I don't care if I go over. My issue isn't so much that I can't do it, it's the fact that Verizon 4G LTE downgrades to 3G quite frequently making it useless. I'd also like to note that I did give up AT&T unlimited data too at one point. Even if I were on their unlimited data plan I would be ok with the caps. They make sense. Now if 10 years later we're still at 3gb caps I'd be outraged, but for now the caps make sense given that you can't guarantee data speeds at every location at every point in time.

The SF Bay Area is decent for Verizon, but my experiences in NYC last year and in Seattle were horrendous. I see other people complaining about Seattle here.

I feel like the issue you have is that you just want to flex your unlimited bandwidth muscle. The only reason I'm against it is because networks are overly crowded now. That's like saying just build more highways and eliminate bottlenecks to fight traffic congestion. You deal with a multipronged approach. You build up public transportation infrastructure like subway systems and bus rapid transit, and possibly light rail, but at the same time you work at eliminating bottlenecks when you can. However, asking the I-405 to get expanded from 6 lanes both ways to 10 lanes both ways isn't really cost effective nor realistic.

I don't think capping everyone to 2gb alone will solve congestion issues, but having data caps in addition to expanding infrastructure makes sense. If everyone's tethering their home networks to their Verizon LTE phones and streaming Netflix, then you can bet even a 20+20 MHz LTE network on AWS with additional 10+10 MHz in the 700 MHz band won't save Verizon.

Just because your contract did state unlimited data back in the day doesn't mean you have a right to screw other users over by overloading the network. If this world was all about what you feel like you have the right to do, then we'd be living in a pretty chaotic every man for himself battlefield.

I've known people to use up to 60gb of data or more because they live in an area where they can't get decent internet service. It is ridiculous but it's expected to happen. I stream Pandora every day to and from long rides for work, stream it at work while coding, and use tapa to post to forums. So far this month I'm up to 7gb of data.

Then maybe the solution is to crack down on the ISPs like Comcast who promised to bring internet to low income families. 3 years later they've enrolled less than 10% of what they promised. Wasn't there a promise to bring broadband to every home to the US also? People who exceed the data caps a bit because they stream Pandora aren't the issue. The people who gobble up 8mbps constantly with Netflix are the ones that really slow down the network for everyone.

 

[s44]

The people who gobble up 8mbps constantly with Netflix are the ones that really slow down the network for everyone.

No, not really. Congestion is during the day when everyone is trying to connect at the same time and is away from wifi. Movie-watching is basically an off-peak activity that doesn't particularly tax the system.

 

[openwheel]

Just because your contract did state unlimited data back in the day doesn't mean you have a right to screw other users over by overloading the network. If this world was all about what you feel like you have the right to do, then we'd be living in a pretty chaotic every man for himself battlefield.

Nice points but I disagree with this one.

My contract still states unlimited data. It is not ancient history like you described. I do have the right to use unlimited data. It is black and white. Very simple.

I don't "screw other users" because my home/work are not congested at all. Even if I do come to San Francisco to "screw other users", I still have the right to do so if I wanted to stream Netflix in a Waldorf Astoria because I didn't feel like paying $19.99 for a movie. Again, very sorry it IS my right to download as much data as I want through my wireless plan. Verizon offered it to me and I happily signed it and never missed a payment. Now tell me you don't want to join the unlimited bandwagon, but prefer capped data instead....

 

[sze5003]

I don't have unlimited data, but work will pay if I go over, so I use my iPhone liberally. I have no problem going over if I want, and I don't care if I go over. My issue isn't so much that I can't do it, it's the fact that Verizon 4G LTE downgrades to 3G quite frequently making it useless. I'd also like to note that I did give up AT&T unlimited data too at one point. Even if I were on their unlimited data plan I would be ok with the caps. They make sense. Now if 10 years later we're still at 3gb caps I'd be outraged, but for now the caps make sense given that you can't guarantee data speeds at every location at every point in time.

The SF Bay Area is decent for Verizon, but my experiences in NYC last year and in Seattle were horrendous. I see other people complaining about Seattle here.

I feel like the issue you have is that you just want to flex your unlimited bandwidth muscle. The only reason I'm against it is because networks are overly crowded now. That's like saying just build more highways and eliminate bottlenecks to fight traffic congestion. You deal with a multipronged approach. You build up public transportation infrastructure like subway systems and bus rapid transit, and possibly light rail, but at the same time you work at eliminating bottlenecks when you can. However, asking the I-405 to get expanded from 6 lanes both ways to 10 lanes both ways isn't really cost effective nor realistic.

I don't think capping everyone to 2gb alone will solve congestion issues, but having data caps in addition to expanding infrastructure makes sense. If everyone's tethering their home networks to their Verizon LTE phones and streaming Netflix, then you can bet even a 20+20 MHz LTE network on AWS with additional 10+10 MHz in the 700 MHz band won't save Verizon.

Just because your contract did state unlimited data back in the day doesn't mean you have a right to screw other users over by overloading the network. If this world was all about what you feel like you have the right to do, then we'd be living in a pretty chaotic every man for himself battlefield.



Then maybe the solution is to crack down on the ISPs like Comcast who promised to bring internet to low income families. 3 years later they've enrolled less than 10% of what they promised. Wasn't there a promise to bring broadband to every home to the US also? People who exceed the data caps a bit because they stream Pandora aren't the issue. The people who gobble up 8mbps constantly with Netflix are the ones that really slow down the network for everyone.

I've seen mention about internet to low income families. Their economy package is sometimes slower than dsl...it's what my mother uses. For the most part Comcast has taken over the east coast. They are the primary cable and internet provider where I live.