Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Moves Closer To Usage-Based Fees For Data

CWmike writes "AT&T has moved closer to charging special usage fees to heavy data users, including those with iPhones and other smartphones. Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets, came close on Wednesday to warning about some kind of use-based pricing while speaking at a UBS conference. 'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data and...we're improving systems to give them real-time information about their data usage,' he said. 'Longer term, there's got to be some sort of pricing scheme that addresses the [heavy] users.' AT&T has found that only 3% of its smartphone users — primarily iPhone owners — are responsible for 40% of total data usage, largely for video and audio, de la Vega said. Educating that group about how much they are using could change that, as AT&T has found by informing wired Internet customers of such patterns. De la Vega's comments on data use were previewed in a keynote he gave in October at the CTIA, but he went beyond those comments on Wednesday: 'We are going to make sure incentives are in place to reduce or modify [data]uses so they don't crowd out others in the same cell sites.' Focus groups have been formed at AT&T to figure out how to proceed."

89 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Time Machine by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome back to 2000. Data-usage fees per MB were common place back then. Now it's all based on the actual bandwidth, 512kbit/s, 1mbit/s and so on, like it really should be. Use how you want to. In Europe that is.

    It's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure, but still your internet connections suck this much.

    1. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Comcast was yelled at for throttling access to "heavy users," but slashdot linked an article where it proved that heavy users do not actually impact performance on the network for everyone else. (Hence, the throttling was a bogus move.) My question is does this extend to cell networks?

      It sounds like De La Vega is saying it's going to improve service when they educate smartphone users, and the users curb their heavy usage. Does heavy usage of a smartphone impact service for other phone users? Or is this another bunch of bunk?

    2. Re:Time Machine by kobaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are still plenty of providers that charge by the MB. But maybe those are just US providers. For web hosting and dedicated/colocated servers, many plans will say 1500GB per month allowance and then something ridiculous like $3/GB overage fees.

      95th percentile billing is generally standard for good colocation. And probably should be the standard for all bandwidth billing (if it's not unmetered/unlimited)

      --

      The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
    3. Re:Time Machine by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suppose that would be possible if every part of the network could carry the maximum traffic of all the lines it feeds. But in practice that is not the case. For service delivery (lets say power) we pay a mixture of fixed costs for infrastructure and volume charges for the resource we use. I think that is the best way to go economically and it is fairer on all users as well.

    4. Re:Time Machine by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a technical reason, I'm not sure why charging based on the bandwidth is superior, if you know that the vast majority of customers don't max out the connection most of the time. Charging by usage seems a little closer to capturing the proportion of resources a customer uses in that case.

      There are other downsides to it, but they seem mostly like social ones, not technical ones. For example, people don't like feeling like they're being metered, and it has a chilling effect on a lot of online services if people have to worry about their bandwidth usage.

    5. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's funny to think that USA should be the best nation with technology and infrastructure, but still your internet connections suck this much.

      By any rational standard the USA is far from the best nation in terms of communications infrastructure. I'm not sure who is, but Japan comes to mind. The USA is probably in the top 10% somewhere.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    6. Re:Time Machine by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      USA should be the best nation

      It's politically incorrect for the USA to be the best nation in anything nowadays.

    7. Re:Time Machine by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another sense of Deja vu: years ago AOL started offering unlimited connection, appearntly expecting people to not actually start using much more time.

      The results of ATT's experiment duplicate the results AOL got about 10 years ago. So obviously this is taking ATT by suprise. Different company. Different product: this is phones, not dialup! And of course they can't be expected to think about wheter or not they could meet demand before offering it.

    8. Re:Time Machine by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, AT&T's network coverage sucks so bad that no one will ever be ABLE to get close to the limit.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Time Machine by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like welcome to the telecom industry of the last century; an industry whose main product was a huge accounting system that also happened to include phone functionality.

      To discern the real intentions one does not need to look further than phone calls and SMS. They're metered. They deal with 'heavy users'. Are they cheaper per amount of data you transfer?

      Personally I'd rather sponsor some heavy users with a few percent of my bill than pay the thousands of times the actual cost that we somehow seem to end up with when having metered access.

    10. Re:Time Machine by sopssa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that USA is a really big country doesn't really matter. Like USA, not all of Europe is heavy-density populated. Scandinavia for example has much smaller population density than USA, but in cities people get 100mbit/s to home, even 1gbit/s. If you're living off a city, 24mbit/s is common place. And no such bullshit than usage fees.

    11. Re:Time Machine by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 3, Informative

      I currently have a Palm Centro with AT&T and decided not to pay for the "unlimited" data plan which is about $30 per month I believe.

      However, I have on a couple occasions needed to use it to look up directions on google maps while in my parked car. A few minutes usage, and no more than about 1/2 a MB later I find a $5 charge added. Thats $10 per MB... RIP-OFF! If they did something like $10 per GB I'd be perfectly fine with that, since I wouldn't use the thing for video and music anyway, but to be able to occasionally check email or reviews on products before I purchase them that would be a reasonable amount.

    12. Re:Time Machine by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Say I build a house and rent it out. Once the house is built it doesn't really cost me anything from month to month So the rent must be almost zero right?. Of course I had to borrow to pay for the house (the infrastructure) and I need to make monthly payments on top of the small costs involved with repairs, council fees, etc.

    13. Re:Time Machine by KefabiMe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's fact that the US is falling behind techonolgy wise and infrastructure wise. We don't have the best cell phones, or good internet access, or a highway system that's in good shape. Most of our energy is from coal and oil. Compare to ther counties that have modern nuclear power plants. Hell, we quit our own particle accelerated program and now cutting edge science is done at the LHC. I don't need the US to be the best, but I don't want the country to seem run down after a couple of decades of not moving forward.

    14. Re:Time Machine by JWW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably true. Ironic that defense spending spawned the internet....

    15. Re:Time Machine by urulokion · · Score: 2, Informative

      One factor that most are missing is that most ISPs over subscriber their consumer class bandwidth.
      If every customer used all of the full bandwidth of their connection, the ISP's network would slow to a craw or worse. ISPs advertise all of these huge download speeds and how great they are. But they punish you behind the scenes if anyone dares to actually use it.

      Mobile Broadband Providers have a trickier problem in that individual cell sites/towers are the bandwidth choke points. The amount of bandwith they can process is fixed by the limits of the technology (and also the size of the landline pipes from the cell tower back to the MTSO). Mobile provider can't bump up the amount of bandwith with a huge infrastructure investment. And the bandwidth usage is dynamic because people are moving in and out of cell tower coverage areas.

    16. Re:Time Machine by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shock avoidance pricing.

      Most people, even though they don't use data much, would much prefer to pay a fixed $30/mo and have no surprises than to pay as they go and end up with $150 in data usage some month.

      By providing piecemeal pricing that's so high, almost everybody is herded into the fixed rate pricing to avoid surprises, even though if they did the math over a two year period they'd be better off with a couple of $150 "surprise" months and a few piecemeal months (say, $450) than had they paid the higher "unlimited" monthly plan ($720 for 2 years).

    17. Re:Time Machine by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Say I build a house and rent it out. Once the house is built it doesn't really cost me anything from month to month So the rent must be almost zero right?. Of course I had to borrow to pay for the house (the infrastructure) and I need to make monthly payments on top of the small costs involved with repairs, council fees, etc.

      You missed his point.

      Let's say your house costs $500/month in upkeep/taxes/overhead. and another $500 in lost investment opportunity (interest on the value of the home). A reasonable rent would be somewhere along the lines of $1100/month. At that rate, you would be making 10% profit, which is a good target to shoot for in almost any business.

      If you were to charge rates similar to what the phone companies are trying to charge for overage, then you would be charging $10,000/month.

      Of course, since we are talking about the rental market, which is competitive, there is no way that you would ever be able to charge that as people would flock to your competition. However in the data market, all the companies have somehow and independantly stumbled onto this extremely inflated cost. They get away with it for two reasons, their product isn't a major life need, and people aren't yet used to using services which make use of the connnections which these companies were selling them.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    18. Re:Time Machine by DisKurzion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This doesn't really work though. The infrastructure was built using government funds. It has already been paid for. Any usage fees are upkeep and profit. Guess which one is the reason the fees keep going up?

    19. Re:Time Machine by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I use some 300-500mb a month of 3G data on my iphone.

      The big question I have to ask if they charge per meg. can they block advertisers So I don't have to pay for things I don't want? Usage based billing will kill the web advertising business. As 30-40% of a web sites download size is images and flash related to advertising if I am paying per meg i am not dbouleing my bill just for crap I am not interested in.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    20. Re:Time Machine by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dammit! Would you mind not actually using your phone the way we show you how to use it in our commercials!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    21. Re:Time Machine by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, I'm just not getting this. You're going to have to put this in the form of a car analogy.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    22. Re:Time Machine by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      This just reinforces why Europe sucks compared to the USA. How are your cellular companies supposed to realize giant profits for shareholders if they can't charge by the megabyte, and use a low-profit flat fee model instead? Even worse, your companies don't lock customers in with long contracts the way ours do. Things like these are why your companies' CEOs get paid so much worse than ours. Go USA!!!

    23. Re:Time Machine by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is that ATT doesn't really want metered access either. Based on the statistics they are putting out, a huge majority of the iPhone users end up using very little of their data connection. If ATT moved to a metered access they would lose money because people would end up not using enough to add up to $30/month unless ATT priced the data at some astronomical rates. If they did that, they would simply be shooting themselves in the foot because people would quit using data (that's one way to fix the network problems lol).

      So, the solution is to keep everyone on 'unlimited' at $30/month and issue press releases blaming these 'heavy users' for the network problems without actually doing anything to fix the issue. It's not really ATTs fault, it's these mysterious heavy users fault. Don't blame us, blame them while we keep laughing all the way to the bank and you (att users) keep dropping calls and getting crappy service. Brilliant plan actually.

    24. Re:Time Machine by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The USA is too spread out for traditional mass-transit systems to work very well here, except in a very few exceptional places with high density, like NYC, SanFran, etc.

      The best solution to mass-transit in the USA is "PRT", personal rapid transit, like SkyTran. With modern computer technology, we don't need an obsolete mass-transit system that takes lots of people from point A to point B; we can now make a system that takes individuals anywhere they want to go in a grid.

    25. Re:Time Machine by VisceralLogic · · Score: 4, Funny

      OK, so it's like your phone company says it's going to give you a Lamborghini, but only charge you for a Kia. Then, you get the car, and discover it's actually a Kia with a Lamborghini body kit. Then you get your first bill, and discover they're still charging you for a Lamborghini... actually, for 10 Lamborghinis.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    26. Re:Time Machine by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's not a matter of political correctness, but truth. The US isn't the best at a whole lot of things, a lot of things the US has or does is now ranked 15th to 40th, depending on what it is.

      This illustrates that point:
      http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2008/10/26/were-not-number-one/

      It isn't to say that the US does everything terribly, I just don't like it when people say things on just blind faith. Often times those people hadn't even visited another developed country.

    27. Re:Time Machine by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong. While our cellphones and internet access suck compared to Finland and Japan, our highway system is probably the best in the world, even better than Germany's. (Unfortunately, our drivers are horrible and can't obey simple rules like "keep right except to pass", so Germany has a much better driving experience than ours, and gets much better usage out of their highways than we do.)

      Now, this doesn't mean that it doesn't have some problems in places, such as intra-city highways (and bridges) in some older cities that have budget problems, but overall, the U.S. Interstate Highway system really is the best. No other country has such well-built limited-access highways going across an entire continent.

      As for power, most countries get their power from coal, oil, and natural gas (in fact, the USA is a really big coal exporter). Modern nuclear plants? I can only think of one country that has done really well with nuclear power, and that's France. No, we certainly don't measure up to their success, but then again no one else does either. There are a few stand-out countries with much greener power, such as Iceland which gets their power from geothermal sources, but then again, their entire country has a population 1/16 as large as the city I live in (Phoenix), so they don't need a lot of power to begin with.

      No, the USA isn't the best in a lot of things, but don't get carried away, as we're certainly not the worst either. Check out China, which gets its power mostly from coal (or hydro, where they build giant dams that displace millions of people), and has horrible pollution. Or Japan, which has a terrible highway system because of the mountainous terrain and people frequently take helicopters from city to city.

    28. Re:Time Machine by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then you get your first bill, and discover they're still charging you for a Lamborghini... actually, for 10 Lamborghinis.

      You've pretty much described the purchase of every Apple product.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    29. Re:Time Machine by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point. If they're going to charge per megabyte, then it actually makes sense to go back to having mobile versions of websites without anything more than absolutely necessary to display the content. That's part of the reason it was like that in the first place-- it wasn't *just* that the browsers were awful.

    30. Re:Time Machine by kenshin33 · · Score: 2

      IMHO it can impact. only and only if, the pipes behind the scene are not meant to handle the kind of traffic the pipe every one is given are bringing. this begs for network infrastructure improvement that they are not willing to do. and in the mean time milk the heavy users under the banner of better service to everyone.

    31. Re:Time Machine by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure they can. Build more towers.

      The tower isn't the major limitation. The amount of frequency space that they have licensed is going to be the major limitation in many areas.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Time Machine by ChefInnocent · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here on Slashdot, we really like our car analogies; it's a long held tradition. However, for your benefit:

      Say a pizza company comes up with a plan where you pay $300 per month for as many pizzas as you'd want with unlimited toppings. The company goes and advertises young people calling everyday to order a new variant of pizza, all smiling, happy, little pizza consumers. The advertising is effective, and the plan takes off; people everywhere are signing up for the $300 pizza deal. But instead of ordering Pizza the way the company wants/expected of 1 pizza a week (usually single pepperoni topping), college students actually order a fully loaded pizza every day. So now, the company is trying to tell people this small number of people are making it hard to do business because of a fringe group. In reality, the company is probably still doing well because the $300 covers the actual costs, plus they have all the people who aren't ordering pizza every day, but the profit margin just isn't enough. So now, some spokesperson is saying that in light of this fringe group, they might have to add a per pizza fee for each order on top of the $300/month.

      I hope this helps and functions as a reasonable analogy of the problem.

    33. Re:Time Machine by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comcast was yelled at for throttling access to "heavy users," but slashdot linked an article where it proved that heavy users do not actually impact performance on the network for everyone else. (Hence, the throttling was a bogus move.) My question is does this extend to cell networks?

      It doesn't. Cell networks are an entirely different animal. Comcast can add more bandwidth by allocating more channels on the cable plant to DOCSIS service and/or splitting your neighborhood into different coax nodes so fewer homes/businesses share the same bandwidth pool.

      Wireless companies have a much harder time adding more channels. Spectrum licenses cost billions of dollars and oftentimes will come in an entirely different frequency plan that isn't compatible with existing devices (see T-Mobile's AWS purchase for a good example). Up to a certain point they can add more towers to make the footprint served by each tower smaller (analogous to Comcast splitting the node in your neighborhood) but this isn't always feasible. Community opposition and zoning requirements are often major stumbling blocks to building more cell sites. Interference from other cell sites is also a factor.

      The wireless data network was never intended to be used for large sustained transfers. It was intended to be used for remote productivity, light web browsing and other intermittent uses. Some of the engineers I've talked to at Verizon are even honest enough to admit this. This whole problem could have been avoided if the carriers had been honest in their marketing when they were rolling out data services.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    34. Re:Time Machine by negatonium · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you subscribe to cable or satellite TV then you are paying to be advertised to. Every minute there is a commercial on your screen is a minute of service you are paying for that someone else is using for his gain.

    35. Re:Time Machine by Leebert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The infrastructure was built using government funds.

      For a cellular network?

      Please enlighten me, I'm not familiar with this.

    36. Re:Time Machine by IonOtter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Community opposition and zoning requirements are often major stumbling blocks to building more cell sites.

      Actually, the BIGGEST problem is getting the backbone to the tower. You have some opposition to towers, yes, but you can build whatever you like? If you can't run a pipe to it, all you've got is a ugly looking tree and nothing else.

      That's the problem the telcos are running into right now? They're all trying to cut back on wireline services and boost their carrier network, but all of them run into a brick wall at the CO and remote terminals. You can only squeeze in so many DS3s before you have no choice but to upgrade the whole shootin match from the ground up, simply because the copper can't give anymore.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    37. Re:Time Machine by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > this begs for network infrastructure improvement that they are not willing
      > to do.

      Are you prepared to pay for it?

      > ...milk the heavy users under the banner of better service to everyone.

      I see no reason you heavy users shouldn't pay more than I do.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    38. Re:Time Machine by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Funny

      hey! My MacBook was actually 4 Enzo Ferraris! Not 10 Lamborginis!

      Are we also talking Gallardo? Murcielago? We need more clarfication here!

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    39. Re:Time Machine by kenshin33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you prepared to pay for it?

      No I'm not willing (if I owned the company, yeah probably). why? you might ask. the answer is simple, I'm not the one advertising/selling a service that I can't provide. for your info BELL Canada by the time they started throttling user's traffic they increased their end user's lines (from 5 to7 MBPS). if the network is under such heavy charges so that they "managing traffic" why did they increase speed and put the network under more stress ??? Especially in DSL, since it's not a shared pipe (every customer has his own pipe down to the ISP). The 5Mbps cap on the line should be more than enough to not bother the neighbors.

      I see no reason you heavy users shouldn't pay more than I do.

      I don;t really like the "you" above. you're implying something which you don;t really know! but let me give you one reason. it's "your choice". if you pay high speed Internet to check your emails your problem, not mine!
      Seriously, the more you look at it the more it's like a ponzy scheme.

    40. Re:Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Wireless companies have a much harder time adding more channels.

      As much as Telcos would like you to believe that (I used to work for one), spectrum costs don't quite tell the whole story. Sprint, in particular, has wireless bandwidth to burn. Ever wonder why Sprint is the only carrier with a fetish for mobile TV service that almost nobody uses or cares about? Sprint uses a HUGE chunk of its wireless bandwidth for backbone connectivity. Why? Their spectrum is bought and paid for. It's a sunk cost, and they have way more of it than they're going to need for *decades*. So, it's cheaper for them to just use THAT for tower-tower and backbone connectivity than it is to pay the local incumbent phone company for T1s or fractional DS3 service. Best of all, when customers complain, they can mutter the usual refrain about bandwidth scarcity, knowing that people who aren't in the telco industry will actually believe it.

      AT&T pulled a similar stunt in Dallas with their fixed wireless data service 10 years ago. People in North Dallas were paying ~$50/month for wireless internet service that piggybacked off their cellular network and was supposed to be at least as fast as 1.5mbit ADSL. The real-world performance was terrible... barely better than ISDN. Then some friends noticed something... they had nearly instantaneous ping times to each other, and had insanely fast peer to peer connectivity (they were both AT&T Fixed Wireless customers who lived near each other). They did some more experiments, got others involved, and a month or two later, the truth came out: AT&T was basically sharing a single T1 data connection at their NOC among all their customers in the north Dallas area. The limiting factor wasn't wireless bandwidth, it was just their convenient scapegoat that they could blame over and over, knowing most people would believe them. Don't believe me? Google +"AT&T fixed wireles" +Dallas and read all about the scandal. The worst part about the whole thing is the fact that this was *AT&T*, who even at the turn of the (21st) century had backbone connectivity to die for compared to just about everyone else (Worldcom owned more fiber, but most of it was dark or went to small towns. AT&T owned a huge chunk of America's high-value lit fiber that connected big cities). They just didn't give a shit about their customers, and weren't even willing to spend the money deploying abundant (hell, sinfully excess) resources to customers who were supposedly paying to enjoy it.

      AT&T's iPhone problem NOW isn't that they don't have enough wireless spectrum... it's that they don't have enough of their spectrum allocated to iPhone data, and they don't have enough backbone connectivity to the rest of the internet.

      Up until ~2 years ago, T-mobile DID have a legitimate excuse... in most big cities, and plenty of small ones, they really WERE hurting for bandwidth, mainly because their entire American network was mostly cobbled together by buying up small carriers with a single spectrum license for the smallest chunk of bandwidth money could literally buy in their markets. On the other hand, they now have almost as much bandwidth to burn as Sprint does did before it bought Nextel (BTW... three guesses why Sprint doesn't really care if Nextel customers leave, and why Sprint's CDMA phones don't use Nextel's old bandwidth. Here's a hint: they bought Nextel so that in the markets where they WERE feeling a bit constrained, they could use NEXTEL'S spectrum for their back-end connectivity and free up more 1900MHz bandwidth for CDMA phones).

      Verizon lies somewhere between AT&T and Sprint. They don't quite have spectrum to burn the way Sprint does, their existing spectrum isn't divided up and balkanized as badly as AT&T's, and they now have fiber backbone connectivity to die for (the entire reason why they bought MCI/Worldcom). In a way, they're kind of like AT&T was with their Dallas fixed wireless service... it's not so much scarcity of resources as resistance to maximizing the use of

    41. Re:Time Machine by rgviza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      don't know about cellular network, but in MD taxes paid for Verizon's eastern shore fiber infrastructure. Last I checked my internet costs didn't go down because my taxes were paying for the infrastructure that would be generating profit for Verizon over the next 20 years.

      IMHO taxes should never be used to buy infrastructure for private companies, ever. If they won't service a particular area, don't bribe them, tell them to serve the state or don't serve the state. If they won't, revoke their license to do business, kick them out and open the market up for someone that will.

      That kind of crap pisses me off...

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  2. Profit by Ractive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a business opportunity for other ISPs to offer unlimited access and compete with these greedy assholes.

    1. Re:Profit by sarahbau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say greedy is luring in customers by advertising unlimited access, requiring them to pay $30 every month for two years for that access whether they need unlimited or not, and then deciding that they're using too much of their "unlimited" connection. I still don't understand how it's not illegal to advertise something as unlimited, and then limit it.

    2. Re:Profit by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like you have a problem with lawyers. Maybe we need fewer lawyers in Congress... :P

  3. The classic double speak by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Claim: 3% of users consume 40% of bandwidth

    Telco solution: We must charge everyone based on usage!

    If they can identify 3% of people are using 40%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97% of normal users. Charge for extra service for the offending 3%. They just use this as an excuse to slap everyone with higher rates.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    1. Re:The classic double speak by Glendale2x · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds like they're targeting the iPhone, only from AT&T.

      Company with fanatical users (Apple) creates a product that is data-heavy. AT&T must have seriously botched their usage projections, not bothered to do any, or figured they're just foist extra fees on their customers when it started to be a problem because they know anyone wanting an iPhone can't jump ship to a competitor.

      --
      this is my sig
    2. Re:The classic double speak by prockcore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      figured they're just foist extra fees on their customers when it started to be a problem because they know anyone wanting an iPhone can't jump ship to a competitor.

      Sure we can. If they foist extra fees that are not included in the contract I signed, then the contract is void and I can leave immediately.

    3. Re:The classic double speak by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm really suprised they didn't try to blame this on jailbroken Iphones using tethering. It seems exactly like the type of thing they would scapegoat it on. They're trying to discouage both, and I could -actually- believe that's a -part- of it.

      I'm guessing they so misjudged usage that even if they stamped out tethering they still would be over, so they're trying to charge even people who aren't tethering.

    4. Re:The classic double speak by scamper_22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Metering just causes too many social problems. Many people just write off entire services if they have to keep track of how much they use.

      I've always been in favor of you get X MB uncapped per month. Once you cross X MB, then you get throttled (yes... evil throttling...) . I think lets the user get away without worrying about anything. It also allows ISPs to target that 3% of users who are streaming videos all the time.

    5. Re:The classic double speak by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they can identify 3% of people are using 40%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97% of normal users.

      Well ultimately their intent is not just to make the 3% pay more for the extra usage, but to make *everyone* pay more. It's just that they need an excuse to do it, and blaming other users for over-using the service gives them that excuse. These cell carriers want to advertise data services, they want to charge for data services, but they don't want to actually provide those services unless you pay extra.

    6. Re:The classic double speak by qazwart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AT&T must have seriously botched their usage projections, not bothered to do any

      It went like this:

      Apple: We are producing a new phone that will allow you to get million of new customers, stop hemorrhaging customers, and compete effectively against Verizon. You want it?

      AT&T: Oh, yes please!

      When the iPhone first came out, AT&T was in desperate position. It was bigger than Verizon, but its network was a mess, and it was losing customers. Verizon had the better network and even though Apple offered Verizon the iPhone first, they didn't want it if Apple was going to tell them how it should work. Verizon doesn't operate that way. They tell phone companies what phones to build and what features to offer and at what prices.

      Also, when the iPhone first came out, it didn't have all those cool apps. You could surf the Intertubes, but there weren't all those cool network hogging apps.

      It will be an interesting competition. I understand AT&T's position. They simply cannot grow their network fast enough to keep up, and the lack of bandwidth is a pain shared with all customers. The problem AT&T is having is that the iPhone isn't unique anymore. There is Droid and Palm and they'll still have unlimited data plans. Plus, if the iPhone U.S. exclusivity ends, the other carriers will quickly start offering the iPhone too.

      AT&T can't charge for data plans if no one else does.

    7. Re:The classic double speak by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since when is anyone at ATT smart enough to think of what you described?

      I got a nasty gram from them the other day. It said my bill was late and if I didn't pay the bill immediately my service would be shut off. Then there would be fees, etc... Guess how much it finally said I owed? $0...yep ZERO dollars. If they are paying postage and paper costs to send out letters like the one I received I can't imagine what other idiotic things they are doing.

    8. Re:The classic double speak by grolaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand AT&T's position. They simply cannot grow their network fast enough to keep up, and the lack of bandwidth is a pain shared with all customers. The problem AT&T is having is that the iPhone isn't unique anymore. There is Droid and Palm and they'll still have unlimited data plans. Plus, if the iPhone U.S. exclusivity ends, the other carriers will quickly start offering the iPhone too.

      AT&T can't charge for data plans if no one else does.

      You believe AT&T? Based upon what data? Their FCC reg filings show them in compliance with their cell network...

      Of course, they did screw all of us over the E-911 and have to pay a $2meg fine. See, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-227226A1.html

      So, in sum - AT&T reports to the FCC that their network is within regulatory standards and AT&T has a corporate history of lying and ripping off its customers.

      You elect to believe AT&T, eh? I have a bridge on the south-east side of Manhattan I'd like to sell you and, yes - I do take Paypal....

  4. Usage distributions are often expontential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Usage distributions are often expontential or look near to an exponential distribution (other distributions would be power-law distribution or pareto distributions).

    This means that a small proportion (20%) uses more resources than say a majority (80%). So it fits this case quite well.
    So most people use 60% of the ``bandwidth'' or less and 3% use 40% of the bandwidth.

    The problem here is that these distributions are scale free. This means there will always be a heavy usage proportion which uses way more than other users. But that's actually quite natural. It is too be expected. So when Rogers and AT&T and Bell make up these stats, they are most likely true, but they are being dishonest. They don't expect users to understand statistics enough to accept that this will almost always happen. This is expected, and for AT&T they know it is expected. You can't tell me that everyone working for AT&T lacks the stats knowledge to know this. So they are basically arguing dishonestly that power users ruin it for everyone. Well get rid of the power users.. Now there's a different distribution, are you going to rid yourself of the power users again? How long before you have no users?

    This is an expected usage distribution, it is nothing to be concerned about but it is always going to be used as a club against people who actually make use of a service.

  5. What a joke by yabos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They won't want any less money than the get now so people with data plans who use 100MB or something small like that will still pay the bend-over-and-take-it price they do now. Then people who use the 5GB that is allowed on the data plans will have to pay even more. Somehow I doubt AT&T is losing money charging the average iPhone user $100 USD per month.

  6. Corporations are people too by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Corporate America: our mistakes are our customers' fault and they need to pay through the nose or else they'll never learn.

    Maybe with all the extra money they'll be getting with this, they'll upgrade their network so they can actually give people what they said they would give them at the price they said they would!

  7. Wrong story label by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This story should have been declared "AT&T Declares war on customers". For reasons unknown, AT&T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network. So they provide shoddy service and blame their users instead. They do everything except take care of their network and their customers. Why do they insist on infrastructure upgrades as a last result? How can they grow when they can't handle what they have now?

    They recently ranked dead last on a major US survey of cell phone providers for every single category. In all seriousness, what are they going to do when they are no longer the exclusive Jesus phone provider? People put up with for lack of an alternative network for their Jesus phone, without that exclusive they would start hemorrhaging customers.

    1. Re:Wrong story label by onyxruby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Consumer Reports supplied the research, Google is your friend: Apple Insider

    2. Re:Wrong story label by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jesus phone? God only thinks he's Steve Jobs.

      Seriously, this is not the sort of thing Apple can ignore. Metering by the megabyte makes the iPhone less fun. It cuts into the experience. This is a serious threat to the iPhone and Apple's profit margin, and I really don't think Steve is going to take this lying down. No matter how many livers he has to go through.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Wrong story label by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This story should have been declared "AT&T Declares war on customers". For reasons unknown, AT&T just doesn't grasp the idea of upgrading their network.

      There is so little competition out there in the wireless world, the reasons are pretty clear.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Dear AT&T by prockcore · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dear AT&T,

    The only way to fix your problems is to upgrade your network. Stop trying to punish users. Stop neglecting your network. Stop paying Luke Wilson to beat up strawmen on TV.

    If you don't get your shit together, I will be switching over to Verizon's Droid when my iPhone's contract is up.

  9. They already differentiate by r_jensen11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I had a Blackberry or an iPhone, they would charge me $30-40/mo just for data for said phone. Same deal for any smartphones that AT&T sells themselves.

    Fortunately for me, I purchased a smartphone that AT&T doesn't sell (got it from Nokia's website) and can get away with paying $10-15/mo for "Unlimited" (i.e. 3GB/mo) data.

    That said, I don't think I've ever used more than 400MB/mo, probably averaging less than 200MB/mo. Now if they would provide a 200 min/mo voice plan, I would be much happier. I've somehow managed to wrack up over 1,500 Rollover minutes in the past 5 months with a 450min plan....

  10. What about lower fees for low bandwidth users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I would like (no chance) is if they charged /less/ if you were a low bandwidth user. Instead, it's one price no matter how little data you use. Then they complain if you use too much data.

  11. well by nomadic · · Score: 3, Funny

    As an iphone user, I say good. If the extra fees force those 3% to cut down a little, maybe my connection won't be so slow all the time.

    1. Re:well by deprecated · · Score: 2

      Your childlike naiveté wrt how ATT thinks is actually heartwarming. You will of course end up paying more and getting less, but chin up! Someday ATT will see how badly they've used you and feel just awful about it. Except that will never, never happen.

  12. AT&T Then and Now by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then : Use AT&T and download video and songs faster!

    Now: Too many people are downloading video and songs!

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  13. Keep blaming the consumer by TehCable · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am so tired of ISP's blaming their customers for the shortcomings of their network. The problem is with the way AT&T designed their network, not with the way customers are using it. Their network was not designed to handle TCP. They break TCP congestion control by not allowing packet loss. As soon a high traffic condition is reached, every affect TCP connection retransmits even more, and the situation quickly spirals out of control to where nobody can get a packet through.

    Verizon has the same kinds of customers as AT&T and they manage to handle high traffic conditions without grinding to a halt. I can't wait for my AT&T contract to expire. The breaking point for me was at a football game when my phone failed to complete a call or send a text message for hours. The guy standing next to me had Verizon and it worked fine. He let me use his phone to call a friend. I got that friend's voice mail because he is also on AT&T.

  14. False Advertising by Azureflare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this mean I can get out of my 2 year contract then? This is blatant false advertising and breach of contract. I did not get an iPhone to have stone-age metered internet access.

    1. Re:False Advertising by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Relax. They haven't done anything yet, they're just talking.

  15. What's this line on my iPhone bill? by llamalad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear AT&T,

    I could've sworn I remembered seeing something on my monthly iPhone bill... Ah, there it is.

    " DATA PLAN IPHONE 12/02-01/01 30.00 30.00
        Data Unlimited 12/02-01/01 0.00 0.00
            Includes:
            DATA ACCESS "

    See, AT&T? It's right where you printed it. Unlimited data for a predetermined cost.

    Now, AT&T, if you would please GTFO of here with this talk about billing me based on usage or prepare for me to take advantage of change in ToS so I can get out of my contract without penalty.

    Best regards,
    A guy who's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.

    1. Re:What's this line on my iPhone bill? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>A guy who's looking forward to his contract ending so he can get an Android on a network that hopefully sucks less.

      I've been enjoying the droid on Verizon. The 3G is decently fast, and has pretty good coverage (I've yet to be in an urban area that wasn't covered, and I've been all over the country in the last couple weeks). And you can always enable wifi if you want better bandwidth, less latency, or are worried about being tagged a data hog.

      I think the iPhone is still the better experience, but I've been wanting to buy a (somewhat) open source phone for a while now, and this was my first opportunity to do so on Verizon. I haven't regretted it yet.

  16. DRM doesn't enter into it by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    2. Tie in I-tunes, drm, and a lot of other nasty crap so that once the user starts using it, he loses everything he's purchased (music, apps, etc) if he stops.

    Except for some time now, music you buy from iTunes has been DRM free. It's in AAC, true, but that's an open format - you can play it on a Zune or a 360!!

    As for the apps, that's a platform thing and not a DRM thing. The apps themselves do not have DRM (they are signed but that's kind of the opposite thing).

    It's true video sold through iTunes does have DRM, but honestly how many people buy video there they plan to keep? I use iTunes for some video but I always think of it as extended rental rather than purchase, and there's very little video I really want to watch again (and that I buy).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:DRM doesn't enter into it by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Informative

      music you buy from iTunes has been DRM free.

      And yet, they want me to pay $100 to "upgrade" my iTunes store-bought music (the worst mistake in my online purchasing history...) to the DRM free version. Sounds like it was just another way for Apple to make more money. ;)

  17. Sigh by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I keep predicting some sort of per-byte fees are inevitable, and people keep arguing with me. "It's not the tragedy of the commons because they can always build more bandwidth." No, wireless bandwidth is regulated by the FCC and finite. Why some people are so violently opposed to using simple economics to keep a few users from adversely affecting everyone else's user experience is beyond me. Sure, AT&T could build a better 3G network, but if you expect that grandma (that only uses a data connection to check her email once a day) should be subsidizing your addiction to streaming porn videos, you are one selfish son of a bitch.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 3G (third generation) network is currently being replaced by the 4g (fourth generation) network. The infrastructure is already going up, the FCC has already cleared its usage, and it's going to provide data transfer rates of 3-6Mbit. Your argument that "no, they can't build more bandwidth" is invalid. You might be a very intelligent and capable person but you haven't bothered to do your homework and that suggests that you're intelligent but /lazy/. You really need to look at what other countries have accomplished in terms of network infrastructure. Start with Japan and Sweden. There are some countries in the far east that have imposed monthly _terabyte_ usage caps. Say it with me, "terabyte". Meanwhile, non-corporate users here in the states couldn't download that much data in a month if they maxed out their connection every second of every day. The notion that the largest phone company in the world can't accomplish what everyone else has already set out to do makes me laugh a cynical laugh.

      I'll stand for AT&T metering my bandwidth when they enter into a binding contract with me to lay a 100Mbit line to my house in the next 5 years. They've got plenty of revenue coming in, they're just being greedy.

      Here's what I'm saying. Right now, AT&T is crying poverty because, "waaaaaagh, too many people are using the bandwidth we promised to them". Wireless cell speeds are rapidly catching up to DSL speeds. Give the 4g network a couple of years to mature after it's been installed. Once they have some more competition, they'll magically discover fat reserves of cash and *poof* their network is going to get a grade-a facelift over night.

      Also, they'll discover that those "heavy users" really aren't such a burden that they need to switch to metered usage when all their competitors are charging flat-rate. That's when I want you to never flap your jaw ever again about economics driving what's going on here. This is usury and greed, pure and simple

  18. Please buy our stuff! by tthomas48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Our new device is really cool! You can watch video, listen to mp3s, and surf the web. But please don't do any of those things. Our network isn't designed for it. If our device changes your life like we advertise we'll need to charge you a lot of money to keep using our network. Because people who use our network as advertised our bandwidth hogs. Ok? Sound good? Great!

  19. Re:Support Publicly Owned Providers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's socialist. We aren't socialists in America. It is AT&T's God given right to make what they can make.

  20. Prediction by Necron69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether it is AT&T (my carrier) or not, the first wireless company to do this with will drive away smartphone users by the millions. Once that first usage-based bill hits, the cancellations will come rolling in.

    I am willing to pay $30/month for mobile Internet. I am NOT willing to pay $100/month in the future for the same usage. I'll either switch phone companies, or failing that, I'll just switch back to a phone without the data plan and do without mobile internet access.

    Necron69

  21. Why is this a problem? by TRRosen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Data has shown that iPhone users average 400MB/month. This is far and away the most by any group. AT&T charges $30/month for the iPhone data plan. That equates to over $60/GB but AT&T and just about every other carrier charge that amount for 5GB/month data plans. Doesn't make sense does it. Carriers are claiming they can't make money at $60/GB data while they charge only $12/GB on data only plans.

    I think we would all be giddy as school girls if they just charged everyone $12/GB for data making the average cost for data for iPhone user drop from $30 to $6. But for some reason I doubt that will happen.

  22. Get less data greedy browser by Krokz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well I tested Opera mini against symbian browser in my Nokia, but still:

    BBC main mobile page:
    Operi Mini: 7kB (!); 3 good q thumbnails
    Symbina in build browser: 26kB; one thumbnail more - commercial

    CNN main mobile page:
    Opera mini: 13kB
    Symbian in build browser: 68kB; one thumbnail more - local weather

    Engadget main page, tested several times, couldn't bealive the results:
    Opera Mini: 177kB
    Symbian in build browser: 2.50MB (!)


    Ofc, App store would never allow Opera ;)
    Even dough Opera uses their proxy servers, for compressing the data and sending it to clients, the loading of pages is still faster because of the good compression and add-blocking.

  23. here's why at&t can't keep it up by aminorex · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  24. Funny, I read this... by Talonius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and all I see are the same types of statistics that are strolled out by the ISPs when network usage and congestion become a problem. "Blame the top 3%!" "Bandwidth hogs!" "Piracy accounts for 75% of lost revenue!" Whoops, that last one slipped in but I think you get the point.

    There are always going to be maximum and minimum users - the whole idea is that, on average, you can handle the load. If you can't handle the load the problem is not the end user - it's you.

    AT&T has received plenty of money with which it could expand it's infrastructure. It could relieve the bandwidth bottleneck by releasing the iPhone exclusivity. It could have realized that unlimited users are going to consume as much as they can. Now they're on the hook and they want to blame the user? No, that doesn't float.

    (And if I see one more "unlimited*" notation I'm going to scream. When did unlimited get redefined as "limited to ..."? Why is that not false advertising?)

    --
    My reality check bounced.
  25. 3% use 40% ? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "AT&T has found that only 3% of its smartphone users -- primarily iPhone owners -- are responsible for 40% of total data usage"

    Or, put another way: AT&T has found that 97% of its smartphone users are not using anywhere close to the amount of bandwidth they are paying for.

    As a result, they should have plenty of extra capacity and plenty of extra cash for network upgrades, right?

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  26. Pot calling the kettle black, non? by otter42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The first thing we need to do is educate customers about what represents a megabyte of data...

    Excuse me, but aren't you the people who charge me for 1MB if I download 1byte?

    --
    www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
  27. Looking at it wrong by SolusSD · · Score: 4, Informative

    It would be just as correct to say that they found that 97% of their users are not properly taking advantage of their *unlimited* data plans. I've heard their argument with regard to home cable internet service. "1% of users are responsible for 90% of bandwidth usage". Well, when 99% of your users don't really need 6Mbps, but are paying for it anyway, they're being oversold. Those that take advantage of what they pay for are making good use of it. We need to turn this problem on it's head. Maybe automatic tiered pricing up to the unlimited plan. That would be more fair to light users. Of course, in that case, it is in AT&T's best interest to do nothing.

  28. Yeah it figures... by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, that's the way to do it. Before the industry even comes close to reasonable wireless throughput, they're going to take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot. With wifi becoming more and more ubiquitous, and providing a user experience an order of magnitude better than 3G, and more and more devices coming out with wifi standard, what the hell do we even need data service for? It's expensive (a wireless data plan costs as much or more as a DSL line) butt slow, quirky, has huge latency, and now, it's going to be even more expensive. Way to kill an industry.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  29. AT&T needs to learn how society needs them by Whuffo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Rather than try to find ways to charge users more for increased data transfers, AT&T needs to improve their infrastructure to support these needs. Those heavy users that they want to penalize are the vanguard of the future - everyone will be using more bandwidth as web pages get more complex and video / audio streaming becomes even more common.

    Increasing fees per MB now will provide a short-term increase in revenue - but it'll also open a window of opportunity for their competitors. Does AT&T want to be part of the future or would they prefer to be a "has been" on the sidelines as progress marches on?

  30. The beauty of percentages by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've said this before in other forums. The beauty of this idea is that there will ALWAYS be a top 3% list of of abusers. This is just a scam by AT&T to get more money. If/When Verizon get's the iPhone, people will bail on AT&T in droves. This will have the effect of reducing AT&T's overloaded network, but it will still leave the users with the bill...