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."

Comments

Why do I not trust their numbers?

[jollyreaper]

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.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[MyLongNickName]

Who cares if you trust their numbers? They don't need to justify the breakdown to you or me or anyone. They only need to explain their pricing structure, then you and I can decide if we want the service.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[Threni]

They can start by not calling 3gb, 1gb, 500mb (or even less in some cases) `unlimited`. It's not unlimited if there's a limit. And they should also stop calling them `fair use policies` - they should call them `download limitation policies` or something, given that charging you for an unlimited policy, then charging you again if you download too much can hardly be described as fair.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[Monkeedude1212]

I just don't get it.

What percentage of their customers are paying for an unlimitted plan. And they say the average user only uses 200MB? So you've effectively managed to overcharge MORE of your users!

Lets see, 65G a month is 1/3rd of the traffic. So 2/3rds (or 130g) are used by all your other customers, averaging to around 200MB (or 0.2G) a month. So, 26 Million users means 26 thousand are using the unlimitted plan to its potential (65G) and the other 25974000 users are... What? Lets say a conservative 1% are paying for an unlimitted plan but not using it. Thats 259740 users you are overcharging.

By Golly, why'd you have to go and change the plan (thus voiding any contracts) when you are sitting on a gold mine.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[Tuzanor]

If carriers can't charge more to people who use more, how are they supposed to get the revenue to expand the network? If a regulator caps prices, you get shortages like anything else.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[nolife]

When the real caps are listed, you are still free to complain but at least you can comparison shop. 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. With "unlimited" being undefined, hidden, tucked away in some web portal under account options--> service -> data -> limits -> your limit -> "amount used" or the last page of your agreement in a size 3 gray font, you can not compare service. These companies go out of their way to call the service unlimited and also go equally out of there way to hide the fact that is it not unlimited.

It is NOT everyone wanting something for nothing, it is about having all of the factors in front of you to choose the lesser of the evils.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[geekoid]

Thats about 1 iTunes episode of lost, per day.

Suddenly it's not so much, is it?

This is all about getting the consumers in position to be dinged even more when there usage naturally climbs as the adapt to new ways to use their devices,. It is not a coincidence this is happening just as device designed to stream content from 3G/4G networks. Such as the iPad.

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[eth1]

Actually, IMO, most of the caps ARE carefully calculated to be unfair. Look at the plans for data and txt usage. They almost ALWAYS break down to these options:
1. cheap plan with a limit lower than what 95% of people need, with insane overage charges
2. expensive plan with a limit way higher than what 95% of people need, with insane overage charges
3. "unlimited" plan for a few $ more than #2

Basically #1 doesn't work for anyone, so they're forced to spend way more than they need on #2, because there are no other options. (and most probably just go with #3, because it's only a few $ more, and they don't have to worry about the insane scary per txt/MB charges)

Re:Why do I not trust their numbers?

[sxeraverx]

Except what it ends up being is not 10 cents per gigabyte, but 10, or even 100 dollars.

People are (or at least I am) fed up with the exorbitant prices for what should by now be basic services ($99 a month for unlimited voice? it doesn't cost you nearly that much to carry it; not to mention the cost of text messages), arbitrary limitations (no tethering allowed? but i can visit the exact same webpage on my phone, and it'll cost you more bandwidth because I don't have the ability to block ads; only 2Gb/mo? why?) and arbitrary extra fees ($20/mo to enable tethering? "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?).

Ugh.

Better than just saying 'unlimited'

[ttlgDaveh]

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.

yea you decide.

[unity100]

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.

Telco says: "Monetize it!"

[wonkavader]

" 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.)

Re:Spectrum is scarce

[steelfood]

Maybe the FCC should handle the towers then (contract out the construction and maintenance, etc. to various subcontractors as needed), and charge for the usage of those towers. Or, the FCC should regulate the telecos in the same manner that other utility companies are regulated.

I mean, I'm paying all this tax money, I want to see it put to good use, not just to build bridges to nowhere.

As for all the anti-big government people, I'm not a fan of large governments either. But as there's a scarcity on this resource, the government is going to regulate anyway, so why not regulate properly.