Slashdot Mirror
O2 Scraps Unlimited Data Usage For Smartphones
Jagjr writes with news that O2, a major UK wireless provider, appears to be following in AT&T's footsteps by scrapping its unlimited data plan for smartphone customers. New customers, or ones who upgrade, will be capped at either 500MB or 1GB per month. Reader Barence adds this excerpt from PC Pro:
In a blog post defending the new policy, O2's CEO claimed 0.1% of the network's users were consuming almost a third of the traffic, while the average O2 user consumes only 200MB of data. By PC Pro's calculations, that means those 26,000 heavy users are consuming an average of 65GB per month over a 3G connection. O2 had 26 million customer accounts at the start of 2010, so it has 26,000 heavy data users. 26 million x 200MB = 5,200,000,000 MB total data usage across the network per month. 5,200,000,000MB ÷ 3 = 1,733,333,333MB per month used by the 26,000 heavy data users. That means the average heavy data user consumes a staggering 66,666MB (so around 65GB) per month."
I'm sorry, I'm just too used to corporations lying and making shit up. Have a third party with no conflict of interest audit their numbers and then we can talk. Until then I'll just assume this is another "fuck the customer" move by a major corporation.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
So prices will be lowered for those that barely use an "unlimited" connection? Oh wait...
While I'm not a fan of taking away things, in my mind having a fixed limit is better than having an 'Unlimited' plan, but having an unknown 'fair usage policy', for which there is no official policy.
5gb is reasonable.
At 500mb, there is no point in risking using the service.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If users can get 65 GB in a month. But the überusage seems to be the hidden marketing cost of advertising an unlimited plan.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
It's more profitable to nickel-and-dime people than to be the only provider who actually provides good service. That, and nobody wants to be the only provider actually provides said service, given the avalanche of people that go to the last unlimited-data provider.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Anytime there's a sign that says, "Free! Take one!" - that there's nothing there???
Anytime something is sold as 'unlimited', which is great with ordinary use, there's gonna be someone who ruins it for everybody by going for the infinite amount.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
GB's are a renewable resource- download away, we will make more!
"That means the average heavy data user consumes a staggering 66,666MB (so around 65GB) per month.""
A more accurate conclusion from that math may have been:
"That means that O2 is full of shit."
and i get it ?
... WHY cap it ?
why the fsck a cap ? cant i use 5 gb traffic as long as i pay for it ? isnt this the SOLE logic of the trade system that underlies the world's economy ? you want it, you pay for it, you get it
Read radical news here
ironically, all the major monopolies which control the market are going that way, so your decision means squat. there is no 'competition'. the empty premise of the 'free' market.
Read radical news here
" 0.1% of the network's users were consuming almost a third of the traffic" ... "the average heavy data user consumes a staggering 66,666MB (so around 65GB) per month."
If this were truly the case, they could cap things at 5G at no extra cost and get back 90% of that 1/3, while only effecting a little more than .1% of their customers. Instead, they are setting the cap lower such that they get back maybe another 5% of that 1/3 (that's a gain of less than 2%) and screwing people only one or two SD from the mean. That's going to be a lot of people.
Every situation a telco sees is a new opportunity to try to screw their customers or a government out of more money. Every situation, without exception.
One might argue that every business should try to make as much money as possible. But businesses who screw their customers get dumped in favor of other, more customer friendly businesses fast, and therefor most successful companies try to take care of their customers.
This dynamic is completely absent in the big telcos. It's an entire industry of terrible companies run by lying bastards.
(Small telcos try harder, and attempt to take care of their customers, but small telcos don't have cell networks or access to most people's last mile.)
I used to be an O2 customer until about 8 months ago when they silently changed my (sim only) contract that I paid an extra £7.50 per month to get unlimited data. This was on top of the £15 pound I paid for calls and text messages. They silently amended the "fair use" policy from 4Gb per month to 500Mb. They did not reduce the £7.50. I immediately jumped to a different company and told them why after having been a customer for about 5 years or so.
There network in the UK has been hopelessly overloaded since they got the exclusive deal on the iPhone. In central London you would be unable to get a line quite regularly. They are desperately trying to keep their network alive without spending any money since they know most people will now be leaving them since the iPhone is available from other networks.
I dont read
So that would mean an AVERAGE of roughly 200Kb/sec non-stop all month long? Given this is a 3G connection we are talking about, that's either not possible or means they are pretty much saturating their connections all the time. Does it seem likely that there are 26,000 users who bought phones solely to dedicate to tethering and bittorrent (I can't think of any other application that would produce those results). Or maybe 26,000 people with malware infected phones sending spam all day long? Or maybe the carrier's stats are just shit? Or maybe "3G" means something different in the UK (where I'm at it means an average of 100-200Kb/sec depending on where you happen to be standing at the time). Feel free to correct any of my assumptions or my math if necessary:)
Honestly, the future is not restricting and limiting what customers can do and what kind of new applications can be invented.
The future is improving the technology and INCREASING bandwidth and making possible all kinds of new applications that people haven't even dreamed of yet.
These carriers will either get on board and build out their networks, or they will be eclipsed by those who do.
Honestly I don't get why they can't leave things completely unlimited and simply manage the bandwidth sharing in some fair way just as an operating system process scheduler deals with many different kinds of programs running at the same time. Just give a little bit less priority to the guy doing the gigabyte download over the guy doing light web surfing. How hard is this to do?
G.
That's what it looks like. Hey, I know, let's alienate our best customers and give them an incentive to move to another provider.
I suppose it is a bad thing if the heavy eaters keep showing up to the all-you-can-eat buffet night and cost you more than you charge, but if they keep paying their money and the majority of customers are eating far less than it costs you, is that a good reason to shut down the smorgasbord entirely?
"O2's CEO claimed 0.1% of the network's users were consuming almost a third of the traffic, while the average O2 user consumes only 200MB of data."
The number looks realistic, but I'm reminded of the failures of certain companies to recognize the importance of the "long tail" of data distributions. Is that 0.1% really the portion that you want to annoy? And if it's 0.1% that are accounting for a third of traffic, then I hope O2 set their cap just shy of that level so they are only affecting 0.1% of their customers. Oh, wait, no they aren't, because the summary does the math and O2 are impacting A LOT more customers than that. It's obvious they care less about that long tail and more about gouging a significant fraction of their customers.
Given that power laws are so incredibly prevalent in distributions for natural phenomena (see Benford's law and Linked: The New Science of Networks) this does not surprise me in the least. In fact, it would surprise me if it weren't the case.
The question remains, is charging on a per-byte basis the right way to handle this? I think this is a natural phenomena that will arise in any network, and that by reducing the bandwidth usage of these small number of people you stand a chance of reducing everybody's bandwidth usage and thereby reducing the network's utility for everybody.
It seems much more sensible to me to prioritize heavy users traffic so that they are at a low priority compared to everybody else. The ideal way to run your network from a cost/benefit standpoint is at the maximum capacity at which your network is efficient (i.e. not at 100% if your network falls down at 100%). I have a guess that deprioritizing heavy users has more of a chance of getting making that happen than trying to use economic incentives for them to reduce their usage.
And on a different note, it really disturbs me that telecom companies are considering a segment of their customer base to be the enemy instead of looking at it as a phenomena to be managed.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I currently work on ~3.6Mbps (according to speedtest.net) wireless 3G, I installed this three days ago and my downloaded data shows 1.91GB.
I have not used this to anything special, meaning no P2P or such. How on earth can someone accept 1GB cap? It does not qualify normal browsing for two days.
Sure there is a lot of traffic in populous areas but that is not a reason to set a cap in areas where there is a very little traffic.
Dear non-US mobile providers,
Please do not look to US mobile providers for ideas. You will only encourage them. Thank you.
Sincerely,
A US citizen who wants his options to get better.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
I've got 200Kb/sec here in [European country on DSL].
At that rate I can upload/download about 2-3GB per day.
Which makes 60-90GB/mo, at the most (under ideal conditions). On DSL. Not fast DSL, not cable, but not O2.
Ergo...
Since broadband adoption via "unlimited service" lures was an industry success, companies have wanted this de-coupling from "unlimited" expectations for years. They only needed a strong business to take the first step before following suit.
Without any monthly fee reduction to us subscribers, ISP binary USENET was killed not long ago in a similar chain reaction. I know that a few ISP's have revealed caps and similar plans, but nobody is copying eagerly them yet. How long will it be till ISP's bring this cellphone initiative into our de-facto world of DSL and cable?
Maybe these 26.000 moved and while waiting for their DSL-Connection, used an "O2 surfstick" as advertised by the german part of the company here
A half-gig-capped connection doesn't seem to be such a good replacement for broadband, especially when you just moved to a new city and fill your caches with local pages and you visit ebay and ikea a lot.
always some mundane detail, right? pesky decimal places.
I prefer this model of billing. A set clear limit is better for the company as they can have more accurate costs for bandwidth usage and for the consumer they know exactly what they're getting and can deal with situations where they need more then they have.
65GB per month! These scandals are using just over 25 kilobytes a second for an entire month! What could these criminals possibly be doing!!! We must stop this immediately! What do you think this is a 56k modem?????? This is preposterous!!
I lost my slashdot login years ago so I hope this gets seen as an A/C.
Stumbled across giffgaff.com recently. They use O2's network and stipulate that THEIR unlimited bandwidth IS unlimited. I moved over from simplicity and have had great service.
Might be a good option for those who are as fed up of O2 as I was.
Cheers.
The PcPro number are stupid and dumb. They assume that all 26 million customers are on 3G data plans which is fucking nonsense.
The Guardian has more realistic numbers, which judging by the nerd rage in comments above, might make Slashdot explode.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/11/mobile-data-unlimited-end
Consider: This is the UK mobile network, so NO tax dollars spent on infrastructure.
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
Want to make a ton of money for your cellular provider? There's an app for that!
Next time you see that Sprint CEO say something like "not very people use their cellphones to only talk" in their TV commercials, folks may want to tell him that more and more people -- especially AT&T customers -- are doing just that. Since most corporations have never seen a bandwagon they could resist jumping onto, I predict Sprint customers will be joining them.
And people wonder why I chose a pay-as-you-go cellphone. I could see this pick pocketing coming a mile away.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Or, to put it another way, 99.9% of O2's users are staying well within reasonable usage of the network.
Fun little spin he's putting on it there.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Somehow I don't see their infrastructure costing 500 million+ a month to operate and maintain.
How do you know that the 5G level is 90%? I doubt the graph fits any standard distribution curve - the center may be close to one, but this is is an outlying point. I suspect they've got several bumps in the mix.
AT&T is pulling the same thing. I'm certain that they've decide some people are getting "too much" for their dollar (pound), and they're always getting grief over the extra fee for data. I'm sure they've looked at usage patters and chosen a new structure which will keep their income the same, make most people pay less, and get the "abusers" (those who make the rest of us complain about how slow the f'ing internet is) off the wagon.
Every wonder why data is so damned slow in some cells? Ever wonder how may people are streaming Pandora or Youtube or Hulu at the same time? This isn't an OC3 line we're sharing.
FWIW, I don't stream (much), and I've never been over 200MB in a month, even when I used tethering for some "remote" access. My typical month is 100MB, and I get three email addresses delivered to my phone, I run Evernote, my entire calendar and tasklist, and look up stuff on the web. The only difference is I don't "browse" or "stream".
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
$20/mo to enable tethering?
People who tether transfer more data per month than people who do not.
"Carrier Cost Recovery Fee"? WTF? So, you're charging us for your costs, and then your charging for your costs again, on top of that?
This is usually for unfunded mandates such as 9-1-1 emergency service, local number portability, and universal service (subsidized service for remote areas). Would you rather that the phone company not itemize these and hide what the charges are for?
That's not the government's fault, it's that the barriers to entry are extremely high.
You're right that the entry barriers aren't the government's fault. They're the fault of physics itself: spectrum is scarce.
we are indeed talking about wireless providers, not isps
Since when does "isp" imply "wired"? If a company provides Internet access, it is an ISP.
there are no handed out monopolies in this business.
Radio frequency spectrum is monopolized: only the FCC provides it.
second, tell me why the market is not free in sectors that does not have handed out licenses ? like, sports shoes ?
When did Payless stop selling sneakers?
If company A has an unlimited plan for 5GB/month, and company B has an unlimited plan with 10GB/month and both are CLEARLY stated and made well known while you are browsing the offerings; You the consumer can compare service and price and take the best one.
In the real world, if company A raises the price of text messaging, companies B, C, and D will do the same. Or if company A cuts its pseudo-unlimited plan from 5 GB to 3 GB, companies B, C, and D will do the same.
Two years ago, when I took out my contract with O2 and got my nice shiny new XDA Stellar (aka HTC Kaiser), I specifically asked whether I could tether it, since I was travelling a lot on business and it might have been handy now and then. The rep's answer was, "Yes, but I recommend you don't. It'll cost you 10 quid a meg. And they *will* know." (For comparison: Last time I was abroad, I think I paid 3 GBP per MB of data.) So at 65GB a month for one user, they should be coining it in.
I have an iPhone GS. My provider is Bell. They have 4 data plans, 500MB, 1GB, 2GB, 4GB. I have the cheapest plan, 500MB for 25$. Keep in mind that WiFi is free. I have WiFi in my house. There are plenty of open unsecured WiFi all over the place. My actual usage over the last 3 months has been 58MB, 34MB, and 126MB. I generally try to download apps and youtube and the like when I have access to WiFi, thought not always. I use my phone for everything, and don't have a land line so it goes with me everywhere.
I seriously don't know how someone could use 1GB, let alone 2 or 4GB. Unlimited beyond that is just crazy.
The ONLY way I can think of someone using that much is by tethering it to their laptop, living in an area with no WiFi and/or using it as your primary internet connection. At that point your abusing it, and should be paying more. I pay for high speed internet access as well, and so should they. I have no doubt this is a direct result of people using the "Unlimited" term, tethering it to their laptop and using it as their primary internet connection. Basically they are just putting a stop to people trying to game or cheat the system.
Want to watch a TV show or two while you're on vacation?
Use the hotel's Wi-Fi for that, not the 3G network. Treat 3G as if it were dial-up.
it only takes a one week vacation somewhere without Wi-Fi to put you into that top 0.1%.
Then vote with your dollars for a vacation place with Wi-Fi, or rip your own DVDs and load them on before you leave.
Or when your Wi-Fi connection goes down and you don't notice that it's pulling data over 3G.
Then vote with your dollars for a handset that A. makes it more obvious when the connection has failed over to 3G, and B. doesn't fail over to 3G at all if specific apps are open.
O2 offer an "Unlimited" DSL package but by unlimited they mean you should try and use less than 10GB/month and if you use more than 40GB they cut you off:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/05/26/o2-uk-clarifies-unlimited-broadband-limits-after-heavy-user-cut-off-threats.html
I'm staying well away from any O2 services.
YouTube high definition videos
A handset's 800x480 pixel display is enhanced definition, not high definition. Even a "retina display" (960x640) or an iPad display (1024x768) isn't much bigger than square-pixel PAL EDTV (1024x576). If you're watching HDTV, you're tethering.
"Unlimited" plans mean a tragedy of the commons. Everyone is encouraged to use as much as possible, because it's free for them. The effect in the end is predictable: overutilization and degraded service. Make people pay extra if they use extra, and they'll be more careful about how much they use, reducing network load greatly and improving service for the majority who only care about checking their e-mail.
Of course, while they're at it they might sneak in some ways to soak more money out of customers, but if so, they'd find some way to do that anyway. They'll charge what the market will bear, and that's not going to change whether they give unlimited or capped plans. Either way, unlimited plans are a bad idea unless you really have unlimited resources.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Or are their numbers bullshit? After all Comcast Canada complained that their system was overlaoded because of bandwidth hogs. When the court got the documents of network usage by Comcast Canada, it turned out their network was at pretty much committed rate 3% of the time.
I.e. Comcast were lying.
PS how long does a phone battery last at full speed maximum data rate? I'm pretty sure you won't get 8 hours a day off that. And you're sharing bandwidth with others.
The figures smack of the Jammie Thomas (she could have shared up to 23 million copies!!!)
Yeeeaaah right, really staggering figure. Mmm, yup!
I consume easy several Gb each and every day, and upto 30-40Gb a day. All of my servers are doing at least 150Gb a day upstream alone. Yes, i am a heavy user.
But if 65Gb is staggering, what's the equivalent term for say 1Tb a month?
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
I think most of us don't have problems with limits, but rather the lies. No, they aren't usually lying legally, but rather the spirit is that all customers are theives and should never be told the flat truth!
I hated the word unlimited* ever since it came out. It never made any sense. In our generation, marketing has spend most of its time redefining words with a star (*) rather than just say the value proposition. WHY? Cause most of the time the companies are utter crap compared to what they think they are. God forbid even the simple minded folks figure it out and point that the emperor has no clothes.
Except for T-Mobile and Nextel (Sprint sucks too), NONE of the US telecoms know what their actual cost breakdown is. You ask any of these other guys to break down the bill and do a direct profit analysis and you quickly see that they basically guess at percent allocations. None know the direct cost of each service. Some don't even know how to break down the overall service offering! And that's with not complicating it with all the stupid discounts that they can never seem to keep track of (every season a sales / marketing droid comes up with some other new name for something similar to the last)!
The worst part is that they do forecasting based on these flip of the coin allocations. The only thing that keeps these companies in business is the ignorance or acceptance of its customers, and being the only show in town. It's a sad and unfortunate reality that we must all just put up with.
65GB per month over a 3G?
What, are these people downloading movie torrents on their cell phone?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Put out cool new devices that will finally use the bandwidth we have been paying for all this time, and the phone companies freak out and limit us. A lot like the cable companies are doing too. They remind me of drug dealers.
Bastards.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
it was never unlimited – none of the operators in the UK have ever read a dictionary to understand what “without limits” meant!! I complained once to the ASA about misleading advertising but being the toothless gutless agency they are, they basically shrugged their shoulders
the worst offender is Virgin Mobile with their “unlimited monthly” subject to 1GB fair usage limit for £5, or “unlimited for a day” subject to a 25MB cap for 30p.
liars and swindlers the lot of them.
so in this case, I salute O2 for finally being honest about their data tariffs.
When the original iPhone 2G came out over here on O2, they had a capped data plan. Within a month they had removed it.
The only reason I was on a contract was the subsidised phone and data. Well I can live with my iPhone 3G a bit longer and I've swapped over to 3 (three.co.uk) on a £5 a month Internet SIM. I can still make calls or texts, but I pay for them.
Better to be paying a few quid on top of £5 for a few calls and texts than £35 a month and getting minutes I never use. I've been on O2 Simplicity since Feb which was £20 a month.
Of course, there's a cap on 3, but it's 1GB a month, which is twice what O2 give you. I also get 3G reception which I don't with O2 in many places. Why pay for 3G when you get GPRS?